Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[5]

Originally posted by Somali09:

quote:Originally posted by genius pauper.:

 

how do you ascertain at first something which doesnt exist?..dont contradict your self.

Tell you what, for once on this thread, why dont you and others provide the evidence to prove God's existance?

 

I cant wait for it.

My reasoning is presented in the THIRD post in this thread.

 

What's your reason for believing He doesn't exist? You were molested as a child and hence there can't be a creator? Or perhaps you have some "conclusive", "irrefutable" evidence?

 

Also, I am waiting for Ramsaade to respond to my post and the specific questions I asked him.

[genius pauper.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raamsade:

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

if we, humans of today evolved from ape, where did that ape came from?

We didn't come from apes. Us and apes came from a common ancestor.

raamsade, be a man enough to wishtand reality., my question is,,,, who is that common ancestor? and where did he/she came from?.

my question is the litmus test for the whole arguement,

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

is it a continuous process which still is unfolding??

[/qb]

Yes; it's unfolding as I type this reply.[/qb]

come forward with concrete evidence to show this.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

and if it is continuing who is co-ordinating its operation?

No body that's why it's called

Natural

Selection.[/qb]

hhmm...does calling it natural selection make it needless for a co-ordinator??? if you still think so, i ask why?

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

what really necessitated the process to occur?

You're begging the question (i.e. committing a logical fallacy). Before you ask the question "what necessitated the process" you must first show the process needs "someone" to necessitate it. Then and only then is your question legitimate one.[/qb]

read properly. what, does not neccessarily mean someone,, it can mean a cause,a condition,...

it just shows how far your limited. if you want questions to be asked as you wish and only the way 'you' think is right, then u better stay 'home'. i dont pitty, your inclined to 'legitimacy'(of the athiest laws?????? ...may be of your own thoughts.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

wont anyone not think that it is an injust process by the fact that only the fittest survive and those unable to adapt to the prevailing conditions perish?

The survival of the fittest doesn't mean the strongest and most physically fit survive. Instead, it means those with better reproductive success leave more of their offspring behind (and hence, their genes survive into future generations).[/qb]

your down here. it means survival for the fittest(as is taught and known to all},,,and i ask, why only the fittest??( the cause of the fitness is not a point..as your saying 'better reproductive." why???)

quote:

---

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

a principle of the sciences of theology and jurisprudence is this: that a probability not originating from any indication or sign has no importance;it cannot induce doubt in a matter that is definite. it cannot shake the certainty that is based on sound judgement^^^^^^^^

Nonsense. Nothing in faith is based on sound judgment. You're only a muslim because of where you were born. Had you been born in Haiti you would believe in Voodooism.[/qb]

why do u think so? i aint a muslim for the reason your giving,,,i wonder,were you me sometimes back, to talk on my behalf.??( this shows how bias your assumptions are and how they are blind folding you from the reality)

 

Besides absolute certainty in anything is never good. You should always have doubts and ask question. It's people full of certainty that are often responsible for the most horrendous crimes in human history. [/QB]

do you doubt atheism???????????

p.s; ramsaade, else where on this forum you said" you were created by your parents"? i ask hav you forgotten that????????

just remember your parents were too created.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed:

just come across this interesting argument called "the kalaam" arguement by Ibn Arabi, a sufi filasuuf

 

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

 

and that cause is God?

 

johnny , whats your take on this?

Hi NN,

 

Theists had always maintained that since the universe needed an explanation and science can't provide an absolute one; their god is necessary.

 

The cosmological argument is older than 'kalaam''s version of it, and a better and vigorous recast of it was presented by Dr Craig.

 

The argument was debunked on many levels.

As causal explanations are functions of natural laws which in turn are products of the universe as we know it,imagining and assuming the existence of a state of affairs ( a vacuum if you like )where there was no time, no universe,no nothing but a single Agent(God) <> is not proof, Therefore the usage of casual explanations can't be of help in the explanations of beyond the universe.

 

More importantly,the argument makes little or no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature to manifest the existence of a particular God.

It just attempts a casual explanation on and beyond the universe, and infers God as an agent.

Its like finding a quarter on your way to school and thanking the one who lost it for purposefully placing it there.

 

NN, would you like to answer this question?

 

"You were molested as a child and hence there can't be a creator? "

[5]

^ You're such a coward, Johnny B.

[genius pauper.]

jb,

if atheism is not a religion on its own, what is it??

and if you believe not in GOD, what do u believe in????????

i guess u wont say..,nothing.

[Johnny B]

Genius pauper,

Arguing Atheism is a Religion is like arguing having no clothes on is modelling.

The only way to identify if someone is an atheist or not, is if they lack belief in gods.

There is absolutely no particular dogmas coupled with atheism, There're no sets of rules that one has to follow, that doesn't mean one goes on a killing spree just because there is no god who'll punish him/her in a afterlife, just be yourself all you can be and if possible help and contribute to mankind's well-being.

 

Your second question assumes that since i do lack belief in Gods i 've other god-like figure or power who puts on and off the world events, that i believe in , but that is neither the case nor do i necessarily need to believe in something instead of God.

 

True that I do believe in many things, but my Belief is not a matter of will or based on cost-benefit analysis, but based on evidence ( as i understand it ) with some amount of intuition

 

So I'm pretty much ignorant about the secrets of the universe to tell you about them and lack Belief in superstitious Gods.

 

Do you believe in the real existence of a god ?

If so, Can you present that god according to your understanding of it(him) ?

[genius pauper.]

JB..,

on reality you didnt answer any question of mine,.

but never the less,,i shall tell you this..

that, the cornerstone of the whole issue is determined by what you really mean by evidence.

 

what do you mean by evidence and what kind of evidence do you want?

does it mean to you, seeing inorder to believe,?

does it mean to you, touching or the presence of a physical body????????

does it mean to you, feeling inorder the existance of something????????

 

jb,,,least you forget,,in evolution theory, you would never hear about the SOUL.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by G G:

This doesn't make sense. We know dinosaurs were alive because we have the fossil evidence.

Wow! GG finally accepts the fossil record can actually tell us something. Lets see how far she's willing to go before she rejects all reason and empirical facts to embrace mysticism and magical thinking.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Beyond that ---> a lot of speculation and suggestions but no real hard evidence.

Now, GG, you dashed my hopes. I was hoping that you'll finally see light and come to your senses but I guess I overestimated you.

 

We'll now look at what you consider "real hard evidence."

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Fact? You have not been able to provide

any

fact for your claim. It would be different if a lion was to evolve into a different lion tomorrow. We could perform genetic tests, we could take the new lion and existing lions and compare and contrast. Maybe if it was born in captivity you'd have have the whole thing on tape. You are there to witness new lions emerging from old lions and it's all scientific. But for hominid species that died out hundreds and thousands of years ago, how can we possibly be so scientific? The DNA has degraded and without eye witness, controlled testing, the hypothesis cannot be verified. It's basic science 101.

This is a such a warped (and erroneous) understanding of science that it is no wonder that you reject it. I'll ignore the factual errors for now and focus on your garbled conception of science.

 

First, the evolution of humans from an ape-like ancestor is contingent historical event. Meaning it is a process that occurred at specific time given specific prevailing initial conditions that can not be reproduced in a lab.

 

If the whole process of evolution was rolled back to its initial state -- that is when there were only 1 or few living organisms -- and allowed to play out again, you would get a different result. Maybe there would no humans, maybe not. For instance, what would have happened if dinosaurs were not wiped out 65 million years ago? Prior to their extinction, dinosaurs were undoubtedly at the top of most food chains; they were the ultimate kings of the earth. Some dinosaurs where showing signs of bigger brains and smaller forelimbs. But their extinction has allowed millions of species an opportunity to expand into new niches that they would never have otherwise.

 

 

Past evolutionary events are necessarily contingent. Actually, same is true for all history. Past events can not be reproduced in a lab. Why, then, would expect to do so?

 

Second, we can not, and this is corollary to what I've said above, observe past historical events but we can infer from available evidence what has happened in the past. We know humans evolved from ape-like ancestors because we have the empirical evidence for it -- from fossils, population genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, biostratigraphy etc -- and know the mechanism such evolution came about.

 

In labs we've observed evolution -- under controlled conditions (therefore, reproducible!) -- taking place with yeasts, bacteria and drosophila flies. In fact, scientists have repeated tested the core postulates of Evolution Theory in labs. In nature, we've observed evolution taking place with peppered English moth and other species.

 

If we know how evolution works, seen it take place in nature and have a massive body of empirical evidence, we can confidently say x species evolved from this or that species. The history of living organisms on our planets shows that at one point there were no life on earth and then there few that ultimately led to millions of species. The question then becomes were all these species "specially created" or did they descent from original one or few living organisms over billions of years? The available evidence supports descent from common ancestor. The Theory of Special Creation, which you believe, has absolutely no evidence validating it.

 

 

Moreover, the Theory of Evolution makes testable (falsifiable) predictions. People have been trying to find any evidence that falsifies the theory with no success. This tells us that the mechanisms and hypothesis offered by the Evolution theory do a good job of explaining the facts.

 

Let me further expound on this point and show that historically your position is untenable one to hold. Prior to the 1960s when one of the Apollo missions took that now-famous picture of round, blue planet earth, people didn't have "real hard evidence" for round earth that rotated about its axis. It couldn't be reproduced in a lab. They had to rely on inference from available evidence (such as solar eclipses, among others). Similarly, today we accept the Heliocentric theory -- that the earth orbits the sun -- even though no body has ever seen the earth go around the sun. How do we know then? Inference via inductive reasoning! Do you reject the Heliocentric theory of our solar system because it can't be reproduced in a lab or no body has seen the earth go around the sun?

 

Inductive reasoning is the bread and butter of science. Inductive reasoning holds that a proposition is valid if the facts of its premises are factually true. In other words, so long as premises are true, the inferences are logically sound, we can accept the conclusions. But if the evidence for our premises is false, we must reject our conclusion no matter how logically sound. This is why ALL scientific theories are tentative and subject to revision.

 

The philosopher David Hume had pointed out that much of day-to-day living would be impossible without the application of inductive reasoning. We all rely on it (much like science) albeit -- at least to some of us -- unwittingly. Suppose, for instance, you come home from work one day to find another car parked in the driveway. You know that you're driving the only car of your household. It is safe to infer that the car parked in your drive belongs to a visitor and that if you went inside the house you'd find that visitor in it. You don't actually have to see that visitor for you to make the inference that you have a visitor before you even enter your house.

 

Just because you can not reproduce a particular facet of a scientific theory in a lab doesn't mean it is not scientific. Science is about making testable (falsifiable) predictions. The theory of Evolution makes testable predictions that have been tested in labs (reproduced), observed in nature and consistently verified. Don't expect that just because you can't add 1 and 1 to get 2 and need a perfect 2 that others can't.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

There are 2 types of evolutionary scientists. Those who believe birds evolved from dinosaurs, and those who don't. Do you agree or disagree with this claim?

Rubbish. The consensus in the scientific community regarding birds is that they evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Scientists use their imagination but they use it for good cause. I thought this was conceited and flawed,

How is it flawed and conceited? Some people use their imagination for how to fly planes into buildings while others use it to cure diseases or increase crop yield. Different people use their imagination for different reasons. It's simple statement of reality.

 

Originally posted by G G:

Evolutionary Theory postulates that all currently living organisms evolved from one or

few original living organisms

.

 

Your source, please (the text in italic)

On the Origin of Species and Darwin further expounded on the point in Common Descent. You'll also find it in every decent first year Biology text book.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

According to 'What Evolution Is', evolution is about the individual, population and species; that it isn't 'change in gene frequency'. The two most important units are the individual which is the actual target of natural selection, and population.

This is so characteristic of you. You miscontrue what others say and you contradict yourself. First, please provide the actual quotation from Mayr, not your paraphrasing.

 

Second, it is population that evolve not individuals.

 

Here is what the National Academy of Science has to say about subject:

 

"Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple

generations."

 

"It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms"

 

Source: Science, evolution and creationism (2008)

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Now. Should I believe your explanation of evolutionary theory, or Ernst Mayr's?

Both since we agree on what evolution says.

 

Originally posted by G G:

I'll give you another chance. Explain_to_me_what_e volutionary_theory_i

I did but you rejected it. I'll try it again but this time I'll quote from National Academy of Sciences (from the link above): "Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of organisms over multiple generations." The report goes on to say "Until the development of the science of genetics at the beginning of the 20th century, biologists did not understand the mechanisms responsible for the inheritance of traits from parents to offspring. The study of genetics showed that heritable traits originate from the DNA that is passed from one generation to the next.They are passed on to future generations.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

What is nonesense? The Mutation theory? You see the point isn't that it was discredited. The point is that when I brought it up, you bashed me whilst being very unaware of the fact that this is what early evolutionary scientists believed in. Even T H Huxley, who fiercely defended Darwinism, believed in saltation (to bridge the gaps between a newly arisen taxon and its nearest ancestor). But you didn't realize I was talking about saltation, because I didn't mention it by name. So you couldn't google it. And depend on threads like FINALLY TANGIBLE PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION.

That you quoted mutation theory shows you ARE perusing creationists websites because mutation theory is NOT the generally accepted by scientists today. The contemporary evolution paradigm is the Synthetic Theory of Evolution which combines genetics and evolution as postulated by Darwin. Second, I know more about evolution than you do. This much is self-evident to everyone.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

And this is why I don't call myself a creationist.

You don't believe that Allah created every living thing? If you do, then you're creationists. Just old-earth creationists variety but creationist nonetheless.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Your list was from a thread titled "Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION". If you don't understand why "giving a list" from a thread called that is wrong, then I possibly can't do anything for you.

What a lame excuse to run away from the evidence. FYI, I DID NOT copy the fossils I presented from a site called "Finally tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION." Secondly, the fossil record doesn't come from a site in virtual reality but from the real world. Your lame quibble is akin to rejecting chemical properties of a substance someone provides because it came from site x or y. That's not acceptable objection. It's pretty clear to everyone that you're terrified, much like your co-creationist Norsky, of the evidence for evolution.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

"Expect to be taken seriously" by whom? Who are you referring to? The readers?

Yes; I don't write only for you but all the silent readers who stand to benefit from this debate.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Who preceded Australopithecus?

Probably Ardi; see the link in my response to Norfsky.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

I asked you for conclusive and irrefutable evidence (originally your words, not mine) for the claim that Australopithecus is human's ancestor. You replied by telling me that it's brain was about the same size as chimpanzee, its teeth looked more human than apes and the date of the fossils predated fossils for modern humans. This to you is "conclusive" and "irrefutable" evidence, apparently. The fact that something

looks

more human than chimp and came earlier.

The evidence is what the evidence is. You either accept it or you don't. You have provided no good reasons for why you reject the fossil evidence for human evolution. If you don't wanna accept Australopeithecus as intermediate species between humans and their ancestor, it's up to you. But as far as scientists are concerned it is irrefutable and conclusive evidence for human evolution.

 

Until you give reasons for rejecting Australopethicus AND Homo habilis AND Homo erectus AND Homo sapiens AND Homo sapien neanderthalis... your objections will be without any substance.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

But never-mind that. I asked you a specific question to make a point: which came earlier; the floresiensis or the neanderthal and which resembles more the modern human? Which had bigger head?

I'm at a loss as to the purpose of these questions? How do they further your argument?

 

The neanderthal came first. I would say Homo floresiensis resembled modern humans more but neanderthals had bigger brains. In fact neanderthals had bigger brains (as measured by average brain sizes) than us.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

And how reliable is radiometric dating? For example, could one misestimate by hundreds of thousands of years, even over a million years? Is it possible?

Very reliable and consistent with other methods of dating. We have no good reasons to doubt the accuracy of of radiometric dating.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

I take it you are the layman. The cell's machinery detects the errors and fixes them. Some errors slip through

No body said that DNA repair mechanisms don't fix mutations but that is beside the point. As you finally admit "some errors slip through" and it is those that count. Not only are mutations real and occur all the time but we have mutation rates for many organisms including. Each human has about 100-200 new mutations that he/she didn't inherit from parents. It is these mutations that forms the diversity within population that evolution ultimately acts upon. Without genetic diversity, evolution would be almost impossible.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Some errors slip through and that's how many cancers begin.

Only in somatic cells, not germ-line (reproductive) cells.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

The only mutations that matter for evolution are the ones that occur in the DNA of gametes as the DNA in these cells will be passed on to the next generation.

Thanks for repeating what I've been saying. I'm flattered.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Mutations do occur but the cells machinery fixes them, as I explained earlier, therefore we don't really have mutations.

You're really confused, aren't you? This is what you said earlier "Some errors slip through and that's how many cancers begin."

 

Make up your mind.

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

As a general rule of thumb, if a mutation is passed on to offspring, they will suffer accordingly.

For the umpteenth time, mutations don't necessarily have to be deleterious. Some are lethal (very few), some are beneficial (very few) and some are entirely neutral -- neither beneficial nor deleterious. But in reality MOST mutations are neutral and are called point mutations. The reason for this is due to the redundant nature of the genetic code. There are 64 codons but only 20 amino acids; so you can have the same amino acid being coded by different codons. Clearly this isn't an evidence that life was "created" by a competent "creator."

 

 

Originally posted by G G:

Read my question again, this time with thought. You said there are single celled organisms today, I asked you where they came from/whether they were the origin of life. Now read your response. How does it make sense?

You're changing the subject and conflating different theories/disciplines. Evolution Theory describes the descent of all living things from a common ancestor. Thus it assumes the existence of at least one or few living things. Origin of life is not within the purview of Evolution Theory. It's like asking a physicist to explain the origin of math.

 

If you wanna know about the origin of life, read on Abiogenesis.

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

raamsade, be a man enough to wishtand reality., my question is,,,, who is that common ancestor?

You mean of Primates? Probably an intermediate species that resembled modern prosimians (lemurs) like the Adapidae.

 

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

and where did he/she came from?.

Evolved from other less prosimian like species.

 

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

come forward with concrete evidence to show this.

To show what? That evolution is occurring?

 

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

hhmm...does calling it natural selection make it needless for a co-ordinator??? if you still think so, i ask why?

Yes; it's a natural phenomenon requiring natural explanations. That "coordinator" is NOT a natural explanation.

 

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

what, does not neccessarily mean someone,, it can mean a cause,a condition,...

No creator, no "cause or condition." Only Natural Selection.

 

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

it means survival for the fittest(as is taught and known to all},,,and i ask, why only the fittest??( the cause of the fitness is not a point..as your saying 'better reproductive." why???)

Then let me give an example of what survival of the fittest in evolutionary context means. Before the industrial revolution the English peppered moth was of light color. This allowed it to blend into its environment and thereby avoid prey. But after the industrial revolution, the pollution had darkened the moth's environment. Now, the lightly colored moths were easily vulnerable to prey. Some moths, however, had as result of genetic mutations (before the pollution) slightly darker hue. Because these darker moths, which were the minority before, could avoid prey and hence live on to adulthood and reproduce, they had better reproductive success. Over many generations, they were able to pass on the gene for dark color to future generations.

 

As you can see, survival of the fittest as has nothing to do with what you think.

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

do you doubt atheism???????????

I have doubts about everything I believe. That's why I'm ready to accept any idea so long as it supported by facts. You on other hand will believe regardless of facts.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

JB..,

on reality you didnt answer any question of mine,

really?

if atheism is not a religion on its own, what is it??

wasn't that your question? and my answer was; Atheism is not a religion, it has no dogma no set of rules to follow, and the only way to tell if someone is an Atheist is if they lack belief in Gods.

 

and if you believe not in GOD, what do u believe in???????? i guess u wont say..,nothing.

wasn't that your second question ? and my answer was; True that I do believe in many things, but my Belief is not a matter of will or based on cost-benefit analysis, but based on evidence ( as i understand it ) with some amount of intuition.

 

genius pauper,

Lest this is a one-way communication, I asked you a question, and I expect an answer, will you answer?

[genius pauper.]

JB.

Before i say anything, its just too vital we agree on what you really want., because;you said

" but based on evidence ( as i understand it ) with some amount of intuition.".....which means irrespective of what your given as evidence, what matters to you is how you understand it.

so, i feel, its nice you tell me what you take as evidence and what not.

 

but mark you, as raamsade said "i.e. committing a logical fallacy" reasoning is not perfect,it can commit an error.

 

by the way, do you concur with ramsade, that atheist doubt atheism???

 

NO CAUSE CAN CREATE ITS EFFECTS.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

JB.

Before i say anything, its just too vital we agree on what you really want., because;you said

" but based on evidence ( as i understand it ) with some amount of intuition.".....

which means irrespective of what your given as evidence, what matters to you is how you understand it

.

Not exactly, One's personal understanding of a given evidence is one thing, that evidence's validity,factuality,permissibility etc etc is another.

 

If One's ability to understand, comprehend and grasp the evidence you present fails one, all you've to do is point at one's inability while displaying the simplicity of your evidence.

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

so, i feel, its nice you tell me what you take as evidence and what not.

I take anything you present that lends itself to testability and evaluation.

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

but mark you, as raamsade said "i.e. committing a logical fallacy" reasoning is not perfect,it can commit an error.

Only if you equivocate on perfection and think not-reasoning is the the perfect way to go on about reaching not-erroneous conclusions.

 

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

by the way, do you concur with ramsade, that atheist doubt atheism???

NO CAUSE CAN CREATE ITS EFFECTS.

I don't know what Ramsade or you know about Atheists, I can only speak for myself.

But yes, i think many Atheists would question their stances in the light of indisputable evidence of the contrary.

[Haatu]

For all of you who claim to be atheists, just one simple question. I had an intellectual debate with a professor in this field the other day on the tube and I asked him "how does evolution happen"? He simply replied guessing I already had some background information "it is due to natural selection". I then asked him "how does natural selection occur?" He replied "when the genes are copying themselves to create a new whatever, sometimes they don't copy themselves accurately leading to mutations or variations which them lead to evolution." I then replied "but what tells those genes to copy themselves". He said the chemicals did. I then asked him what controls those chemicals. Ne just laughed and said "ah, thats where the argument that God exists comes in."

 

So if a professor in this field does not know the answer, do you. I'll give it to you in case your're too lazy to read my post:

What controls the chemicals in the genes?

[Johnny B]

^It's normal that the professor replied the way he did, i too would have replied the same, the reason is simple, it is pretty obvious in your search of a moment to wheel out your God out of the blue to break an infinite regress of who controls who, the professor cut short:

 

Q::What controls the chemicals in the genes?

A: B does.

Q: what controls B?

A: C does .

Q: What controls C?

etc etc ,The question of control continues till God is wheeled out from nowhere to terminate the regress,without bothering why God is magically able to terminate regresses, needing no explanation whatsoever himself.

 

What's sad is you diden't understand your own regress.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Johnny, if you take God as another word for creator and the argument of these philosophers is that nothing that begins is without a creator and sense the universe has a beginning, it has a creator and what ever your understanding, regardless of number, there is a creator, is that not a sound argument. is the contention here if the universe has a beginning?