Free will, freedom from what?

[Atla]

Please go on. I'm intrigued. How does this solve the origin problem?

What origin problem?

The very simple question of how this universe began. Please...

It didn't.

[Immanuel Can]

What origin problem?

The very simple question of how this universe began. Please...

It didn't.

But we know it did.

[Atla]

The very simple question of how this universe began. Please...

It didn't.

But we know it did.

You mean 'you' know it, because 1. the Bible says so and 2. you have actual scientific evidence of it which won you the biggest Nobel in the history of physics Nobels.

[Immanuel Can]

It didn't.

But we know it did.

You mean 'you' know it...

No, that everybody does. Everybody who can do even basic maths and logic, that would be.

And if it's a matter of trusting expert opinion, how about we hear from a theoretical physicist with over 260 peer-reviewed publications, and one of the three contributors to the famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theory?

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Is Vilenkin wrong? I welcome your correction of him.

[Atla]

But we know it did.

You mean 'you' know it...

No, that everybody does. Everybody who can do even basic maths and logic, that would be.

And if it's a matter of trusting expert opinion, how about we hear from a theoretical physicist with over 260 peer-reviewed publications, and one of the three contributors to the famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theory?

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Is Vilenkin wrong? I welcome your correction of him.

Of course he's wrong, he's just bullshitting. Cosmologists have no choice but to extrapolate from the observable universe, but that may have little to no relevance to the universe.

[Immanuel Can]

You mean 'you' know it...

No, that everybody does. Everybody who can do even basic maths and logic, that would be.

And if it's a matter of trusting expert opinion, how about we hear from a theoretical physicist with over 260 peer-reviewed publications, and one of the three contributors to the famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theory?

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Is Vilenkin wrong? I welcome your correction of him.

Of course he's wrong, he's just bullshitting. Cosmologists have no choice but to extrapolate from the observable universe, but that may have little to no relevance to the universe.

Ah. So when you're denying their theories, they are just "bullshitters"?

Do you believe expert physicists, or not? I think you tried to wave Einstein at me, a few messages ago...did you know he was a physicist?

[Atla]

No, that everybody does. Everybody who can do even basic maths and logic, that would be.

And if it's a matter of trusting expert opinion, how about we hear from a theoretical physicist with over 260 peer-reviewed publications, and one of the three contributors to the famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theory?

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

Is Vilenkin wrong? I welcome your correction of him.

Of course he's wrong, he's just bullshitting. Cosmologists have no choice but to extrapolate from the observable universe, but that may have little to no relevance to the universe.

Ah. So when you're denying their theories, they are just "bullshitters"?

Do you believe expert physicists, or not? I think you tried to wave Einstein at me, a few messages ago...did you know he was a physicist?

You are unusually bad at comprehending your own quotes. That was not a theory, the guy said "there is no escape" which is claiming a fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course he's wrong, he's just bullshitting. Cosmologists have no choice but to extrapolate from the observable universe, but that may have little to no relevance to the universe.

Ah. So when you're denying their theories, they are just "bullshitters"?

Do you believe expert physicists, or not? I think you tried to wave Einstein at me, a few messages ago...did you know he was a physicist?

That was not a theory, the guy said "there is no escape" which is claiming a fact.

Which only makes it worse for your wish that the universe had been eternal. It's a fact which you would wish to "escape," and he says there's no chance. And that not only a "reasonable man," but even an "unreasonable man," or presumably "woman," would have to concede the problem.

[Atla]

Ah. So when you're denying their theories, they are just "bullshitters"?

Do you believe expert physicists, or not? I think you tried to wave Einstein at me, a few messages ago...did you know he was a physicist?

That was not a theory, the guy said "there is no escape" which is claiming a fact.

Which only makes it worse for your wish that the universe had been eternal. It's a fact which you would wish to "escape," and he says there's no chance. And that not only a "reasonable man," but even an "unreasonable man," or presumably "woman," would have to concede the problem.

And he's lying, the proof he refers to doesn't exist. Any good physicist knows that. So what?

[Immanuel Can]

That was not a theory, the guy said "there is no escape" which is claiming a fact.

Which only makes it worse for your wish that the universe had been eternal. It's a fact which you would wish to "escape," and he says there's no chance. And that not only a "reasonable man," but even an "unreasonable man," or presumably "woman," would have to concede the problem.

And he's lying...

Vilenkin's lying? He's not telling you what he, as an expert physicist, knows? Horrors. We've been betrayed!

Do tell. What dark machinations lurk in the hearts of expert physicists these days, particularly secular ones? How did they come to be so evil? Was Einstein like that, too?

[Atla]

Which only makes it worse for your wish that the universe had been eternal. It's a fact which you would wish to "escape," and he says there's no chance. And that not only a "reasonable man," but even an "unreasonable man," or presumably "woman," would have to concede the problem.

And he's lying...

Vilenkin's lying? He's not telling you what he, as an expert physicist, knows? Horrors. We've been betrayed!

Do tell. What dark machinations lurk in the hearts of expert physicists these days, particularly secular ones? How did they come to be so evil? Was Einstein like that, too?

Yes he's lying. Also, Vilenkin is one physicist, not 'expert physicists' in general.

You may not be able to differentiate one from many, but here's your golden opportunity to present said proof.

[Immanuel Can]

And he's lying...

Vilenkin's lying? He's not telling you what he, as an expert physicist, knows? Horrors. We've been betrayed!

Do tell. What dark machinations lurk in the hearts of expert physicists these days, particularly secular ones? How did they come to be so evil? Was Einstein like that, too?

Yes he's lying.

What's your evidence he's not saying what he actually believes to be true?

And should I ask -- how did you become qualified to know Vilenkin is wrong...or lying...whichever it is you're accusing him of being...grossly incompetent or mendacious?

[Atla]

Vilenkin's lying? He's not telling you what he, as an expert physicist, knows? Horrors. We've been betrayed!

Do tell. What dark machinations lurk in the hearts of expert physicists these days, particularly secular ones? How did they come to be so evil? Was Einstein like that, too?

Yes he's lying.

What's your evidence he's not saying what he actually believes to be true?

And should I ask -- how did you become qualified to know Vilenkin is wrong...or lying...whichever it is you're accusing him of being...grossly incompetent or mendacious?

here's your golden opportunity to present said proof.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes he's lying.

What's your evidence he's not saying what he actually believes to be true?

And should I ask -- how did you become qualified to know Vilenkin is wrong...or lying...whichever it is you're accusing him of being...grossly incompetent or mendacious?

here's your golden opportunity to present said proof.

We're not done. We're still figuring out how you managed to take one of the world's most prominent physicists, and show he's lying.

I'm really starting to worry about Einstein now.

In all seriousness: you were bluffing. You are caught. You'll never admit it, but you know it, and I know it. So nobody who matters in this particular conversation doesn't know it.

On we go.

[Atla]

What's your evidence he's not saying what he actually believes to be true?

And should I ask -- how did you become qualified to know Vilenkin is wrong...or lying...whichever it is you're accusing him of being...grossly incompetent or mendacious?

here's your golden opportunity to present said proof.

We're not done. We're still figuring out how you managed to take one of the world's most prominent physicists, and show he's lying.

I'm really starting to worry about Einstein now.

In all seriousness: you were bluffing. You are caught. You'll never admit it, but you know it, and I know it. So nobody who matters in this particular conversation doesn't know it.

On we go.

Then present the proof, that will show that he wasn't lying.