Ok here's an absurd example of not changing. let's say somehow someone found proof that Jesus was a woman, and there was a miss communication along the way. Would religious scholars change the Bible, or would they deny Jesus was a woman?
Wait a minute?!?! These electrons have only been recently observed. Making an assumptious claim like that is irresponsible!
Crow, I guess I'm a bit confused by your position. You've stated elsewhere that you can only accept as real that which can be proved, and yet you are willing to go to great lengths of conjecture about possible explanation of "infinite god-free universe" and "possible workarounds to the apparent necessity of an absolute beginning" to avoid having to acknowledge an external causative factor for the origin of our universe. To put it another way, suppose that there is actually a god that created this universe and, because he is outside of our universe his existence cannot be proven in any scientific way. Your philosophy would seem to require you deny the real answer to creation and go off in search of any other notion that the human mind can conjure up to potentially explain the origin of the universe absent a god, even if those notions cannot themselves be proven or tested. I constantly hear atheists refusing to believe in a "god of the gaps". I have an equally hard time with a "science of the gaps" approach.
I started to check out the vid you posted but right off the bat it made claims about what atheists believe that is untrue. It said "Whatever begins has a cause" This is only known to be true under our laws of nature which break down at the edges and we have no idea about outside of our universe. A quick thought on this, time is part of our universe but outside of here where there is no time, there may be nothing preceding or subsequent. If everything is in all moments then nothing has a cause. Basically, we just don't know. Second point it made was "The Universe began to exist" Once again, time in our lens but may not have anything to do with the realm outside of here, so "began" doesn't play a role, but most importantly, we just don't know. The last of the three points put the first two points together, If "whatever begins has a cause" and The universe began to exist" the "The Universe has a cause" But without 1 and 2, there is no 3 and I already disputed 1 and 2. Then the vid tried to bolster it's argument by mentioning the second law of thermodynamics, but as has been said, those are our laws of nature, as in while in this universe. And not always, during the first milliseconds of the universe those laws didn't even exist here yet. Basically, we just don't know. At that point I stopped watching the vid. Basically, the video and you are claiming atheists have all sorts of beliefs we just don't have. It's simple, we have a lot of data about our universe from a few milliseconds on till now, but we know nothing before that. There is not an assumption because there is not even enough data to make an informed hypothesis. Dig?
If a being created our universe, but lived outside of our universe, it would imply that being crossed the "outsideness." Therefore we too could somehow cross this "outsideness." So we could scientifically prove/find that being if it still existed.
I've never been a scotch or whiskey drinker. once I bought some 30 year McCallen (sp?) for a client in asia and drank it. It was really smooth. Other whiskeys and scotches hurt to drink!
This discussion has given me a great idea for a Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel. Hmm, I might actually take a shot at writing it. And no, it's not a fucking Harry Potter rip off either.
Thanks, I just love knowing that there is this being that made me important. That life isn't just this random act of destruction and rebirth. There is purpose and I am part of this purpose.
Because that being crossed the boundary. If one being can do it, the laws of physics say it can be done again, unless it was some kind of time dependent thing.
