Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stupid question?

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Evidence
Posts: 846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:14:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened. :

"Look, it HAPPENED OK! It is stupid IMHO to ask what is beyond (where, when, why) the universe. The universe is it!" - Lawrence Krauss

Next question from the audience? Oh, and can someone throw this guy out of here, .. don't we have security in here? - ASU Auditorium Tempe AZ.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:16:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:14:16 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened. :

"Look, it HAPPENED OK! It is stupid IMHO to ask what is beyond (where, when, why) the universe. The universe is it!" - Lawrence Krauss

Next question from the audience? Oh, and can someone throw this guy out of here, .. don't we have security in here? - ASU Auditorium Tempe AZ.

Sounds like someone throwing a tantrum because he really doesn't have any answers.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:19:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:16:20 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:14:16 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened. :

"Look, it HAPPENED OK! It is stupid IMHO to ask what is beyond (where, when, why) the universe. The universe is it!" - Lawrence Krauss

Next question from the audience? Oh, and can someone throw this guy out of here, .. don't we have security in here? - ASU Auditorium Tempe AZ.

Sounds like someone throwing a tantrum because he really doesn't have any answers.

Besides. The universe can't be "it". That would make it infinite. And as we all know, infinity does not exist in nature.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 8:52:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened.

Well where is the whole universe, when is :"at an early moment in the universe when time greater than 0, why: no it doesn't.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:14:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 8:52:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened.

Well where is the whole universe, when is :"at an early moment in the universe when time greater than 0, why: no it doesn't.

It sounds like you're saying that time was created at the same time the universe was, or slightly before. Is this correct? If so, it makes no sense at all, since time is part of the very fabric of the space time continuum. How can something create something that it owes its very existence too?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant? Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:26:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant?
I am questioning if you want to embrace ignorance. Would your God want you to embrace ignorance?

Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

All good. There is no one who asks for more. If you are honest in your pursuit, no mockery. I think, from what I have seen of your posts, you are dismissive of very valid science, and it reads as a defense mechanism for religion. I don't think that is necessary or good.

Somewhere, this thread perhaps, you asked if God could have made the BB happen? Perhaps. The only way you might know is to follow the best method ever device to separate fact from fiction.


What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

No. I read your post, again, this thread or another, where you claim that science "changes" and what was right is now wrong. There are few if any cases where this is really true. Science gets BETTER over time. What was wrong is replaced with what has better data at this moment. That we know of today will be "fixed" with what we know tomorrow. The foundation blocks are not "wrong" only incomplete.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:01:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:26:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant?
I am questioning if you want to embrace ignorance. Would your God want you to embrace ignorance?

Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

All good. There is no one who asks for more. If you are honest in your pursuit, no mockery. I think, from what I have seen of your posts, you are dismissive of very valid science, and it reads as a defense mechanism for religion. I don't think that is necessary or good.

Somewhere, this thread perhaps, you asked if God could have made the BB happen? Perhaps. The only way you might know is to follow the best method ever device to separate fact from fiction.


What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

No. I read your post, again, this thread or another, where you claim that science "changes" and what was right is now wrong. There are few if any cases where this is really true. Science gets BETTER over time. What was wrong is replaced with what has better data at this moment. That we know of today will be "fixed" with what we know tomorrow. The foundation blocks are not "wrong" only incomplete.

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. I don't question real science, btw. I simply don't consider a naturalistic origin of the universe to be valid. It is not hard science. It's speculation. It happened in the distant past, if at all. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. It cannot be falsified either. How convenient is that? The fact is that there is not one solid piece of real scientific evidence to show that it happened, or that it is even possible. It is all speculation...assumptions. Nothing more. The universe is orderly. It obeys the laws, defined by the physical constants. Now, I WILL bring up religion. The Bible tells us that we have a soul. What is that, if not our very own conscious mind? How do you explain evil? How do you explain how lifeless chemicals, of which we are composed, can even discuss this? How can chemicals love, hate, cry, have a sense of humor? How can they have a sense of self? These are questions that I believe science will never be able to answer. They tell us it is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. If that was true, what is directing those reactions? What I mean by that, is that mere chemicals do not decide to steal, rape or murder. They do not decide to love. They do not decide to hate. Someone is in the drivers seat, otherwise, we would be mindless animals. I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to tell the truth as I see it. You can disagree with me, though it breaks my heart, knowing what I know about your probable fate in the afterlife. And if I get snarky sometimes, it's because I get frustrated that people can be so blind to Gods truth. Well, I've rambled enough, I guess. Just think about what I said.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:03:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

When: 13.8bn years ago.

What was before that point? Not sure; it isn't clear that the question makes any more sense than what's north of the north pole.

Where did it happen? Everywhere.

The universe expanded from a single point; the space itself expanded, rather than expanding into something. This means, for example, if you placed two markers that never moved in space next to each other at the moment of the big bang, they could be the other side of the universe from each other now; because the space between them has changed.

Another example, lets say you have a balloon that inflates. When the balloon is completely deflated, you can draw two dots on it that are practically touching, but as the balloon expands, those points get further and further and further apart.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:22:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:01:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:26:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant?
I am questioning if you want to embrace ignorance. Would your God want you to embrace ignorance?

Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

All good. There is no one who asks for more. If you are honest in your pursuit, no mockery. I think, from what I have seen of your posts, you are dismissive of very valid science, and it reads as a defense mechanism for religion. I don't think that is necessary or good.

Somewhere, this thread perhaps, you asked if God could have made the BB happen? Perhaps. The only way you might know is to follow the best method ever device to separate fact from fiction.


What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

No. I read your post, again, this thread or another, where you claim that science "changes" and what was right is now wrong. There are few if any cases where this is really true. Science gets BETTER over time. What was wrong is replaced with what has better data at this moment. That we know of today will be "fixed" with what we know tomorrow. The foundation blocks are not "wrong" only incomplete.

Well, we'll just have to disagree then.

OK. Not going to hurt either of us to admit this.

I don't question real science, btw.

Not in an argumentative way, but I am not sure about this. From what I have read, you DO have a chip on your shoulder about science.

I simply don't consider a naturalistic origin of the universe to be valid. It is not hard science. It's speculation.

Not entirely. Lets take some simple things, like cosmic background radiation. Are we disagreeing that this exists? Are you disagreeing that this is a part of "data" supporting at least some of the BBT?

This is hard science. You can disagree agree about what it means, but do you disagree with all of it?

It happened in the distant past, if at all.

Agree.

There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it.

Well... This is. We can do plenty of experiment, it is just unlikely we can reproduce a universe being created. Unlikely, not impossible.

It cannot be falsified either. How convenient is that?

Simply NOT true. Every thing that is part of the actual science of the BB has the ability to be proven wrong.

The fact is that there is not one solid piece of real scientific evidence to show that it happened, or that it is even possible.

Except for the... you know.... universe we live in.

It is all speculation...assumptions. Nothing more. The universe is orderly. It obeys the laws, defined by the physical constants.

Now, I WILL bring up religion. The Bible tells us that we have a soul. What is that, if not our very own conscious mind?

You tell me. I would think you have a better grip on this subject than me. I don't think I have a soul, but if you loosely define it as a "conscious mind" I might buy that.

How do you explain evil?

I think we could discuss this, but outside scope.

How do you explain how lifeless chemicals, of which we are composed, can even discuss this?

You know this answer. This is, like I said before, simply ignoring what I am sure you already know. I don't play this game with religion, please don't play it with me.

How can chemicals love, hate, cry, have a sense of humor? How can they have a sense of self? These are questions that I believe science will never be able to answer.

Little doubt that science will not answer these questions. They are not very good questions to use science to discuss. Now, we can know the chemical, the neurological, but the philosophy questions should stick where they are. Science is just not the right tool for them.

They tell us it is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. If that was true, what is directing those reactions? What I mean by that, is that mere chemicals do not decide to steal, rape or murder. They do not decide to love. They do not decide to hate. Someone is in the drivers seat, otherwise, we would be mindless animals.

We are just another animal. We are bright ones, but not that much brighter.

I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to tell the truth as I see it. You can disagree with me, though it breaks my heart, knowing what I know about your probable fate in the afterlife. And if I get snarky sometimes, it's because I get frustrated that people can be so blind to Gods truth. Well, I've rambled enough, I guess. Just think about what I said.

Thanks. Sincerely. I can, and do get pissy in religious discussions, however, I don't doubt that some religious people are operating out of genuine concern. Please accept that the same is true of atheists. Not trying to shatter your world, only trying to discuss open and honestly the most rational conclusions. For me, that answer is when I am dead I am dead. The fate you see for me does not concern me, not because I am dismissive of your real concern, my lack of concern is because I just don't believe it for a second.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:25:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:03:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

When: 13.8bn years ago.

What was before that point? Not sure; it isn't clear that the question makes any more sense than what's north of the north pole.

Where did it happen? Everywhere.

The universe expanded from a single point; the space itself expanded, rather than expanding into something. This means, for example, if you placed two markers that never moved in space next to each other at the moment of the big bang, they could be the other side of the universe from each other now; because the space between them has changed.

Another example, lets say you have a balloon that inflates. When the balloon is completely deflated, you can draw two dots on it that are practically touching, but as the balloon expands, those points get further and further and further apart.

Interesting. But don't scientists believe that the universe is actually flat? Here is the first in a series of articles that show just how strange our universe is. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:40:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:25:28 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:03:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

When: 13.8bn years ago.

What was before that point? Not sure; it isn't clear that the question makes any more sense than what's north of the north pole.

Where did it happen? Everywhere.

The universe expanded from a single point; the space itself expanded, rather than expanding into something. This means, for example, if you placed two markers that never moved in space next to each other at the moment of the big bang, they could be the other side of the universe from each other now; because the space between them has changed.

Another example, lets say you have a balloon that inflates. When the balloon is completely deflated, you can draw two dots on it that are practically touching, but as the balloon expands, those points get further and further and further apart.

Interesting. But don't scientists believe that the universe is actually flat? Here is the first in a series of articles that show just how strange our universe is. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

And? Do you know what that means?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 12:13:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:40:39 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:25:28 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:03:05 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

When: 13.8bn years ago.

What was before that point? Not sure; it isn't clear that the question makes any more sense than what's north of the north pole.

Where did it happen? Everywhere.

The universe expanded from a single point; the space itself expanded, rather than expanding into something. This means, for example, if you placed two markers that never moved in space next to each other at the moment of the big bang, they could be the other side of the universe from each other now; because the space between them has changed.

Another example, lets say you have a balloon that inflates. When the balloon is completely deflated, you can draw two dots on it that are practically touching, but as the balloon expands, those points get further and further and further apart.

Interesting. But don't scientists believe that the universe is actually flat? Here is the first in a series of articles that show just how strange our universe is. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

And? Do you know what that means?

I went round on this one with a guy in real life. Trying to talk about the curvature of space gets lost very quickly with many. I admit, I was lacking in the resources to explain, but it was clear that he was thinking along the lines of "flat earth".

Almost impossible to cross that bridge.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 1:55:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:01:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:26:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant?
I am questioning if you want to embrace ignorance. Would your God want you to embrace ignorance?

Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

All good. There is no one who asks for more. If you are honest in your pursuit, no mockery. I think, from what I have seen of your posts, you are dismissive of very valid science, and it reads as a defense mechanism for religion. I don't think that is necessary or good.

Somewhere, this thread perhaps, you asked if God could have made the BB happen? Perhaps. The only way you might know is to follow the best method ever device to separate fact from fiction.


What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

No. I read your post, again, this thread or another, where you claim that science "changes" and what was right is now wrong. There are few if any cases where this is really true. Science gets BETTER over time. What was wrong is replaced with what has better data at this moment. That we know of today will be "fixed" with what we know tomorrow. The foundation blocks are not "wrong" only incomplete.

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. I don't question real science, btw. I simply don't consider a naturalistic origin of the universe to be valid. It is not hard science. It's speculation. It happened in the distant past, if at all. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. It cannot be falsified either. How convenient is that? The fact is that there is not one solid piece of real scientific evidence to show that it happened, or that it is even possible. It is all speculation...assumptions. Nothing more. The universe is orderly. It obeys the laws, defined by the physical constants. Now, I WILL bring up religion. The Bible tells us that we have a soul. What is that, if not our very own conscious mind? How do you explain evil? How do you explain how lifeless chemicals, of which we are composed, can even discuss this? How can chemicals love, hate, cry, have a sense of humor? How can they have a sense of self? These are questions that I believe science will never be able to answer. They tell us it is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. If that was true, what is directing those reactions? What I mean by that, is that mere chemicals do not decide to steal, rape or murder. They do not decide to love. They do not decide to hate. Someone is in the drivers seat, otherwise, we would be mindless animals. I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to tell the truth as I see it. You can disagree with me, though it breaks my heart, knowing what I know about your probable fate in the afterlife. And if I get snarky sometimes, it's because I get frustrated that people can be so blind to Gods truth. Well, I've rambled enough, I guess. Just think about what I said.

You are really just espousing the God of the Gaps argument--science can't explain it, therefore attribute it to God. If you take that view, then your evidence for God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance, to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson. Be prepared to have things you currently think can only be explained by God explained by science in the future.

It is alright to simply say we don't know the answers yet. Why the universe happened is one of the greatest mysteries we know. So is the nature of consciousness. There is no shame in admitting we do not know all the answers, and may never know all the answers. The shame would be thinking that invoking God provides such a sufficient explanation that we therefore ought to stop asking questions.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:33:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:55:43 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:01:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:26:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant?
I am questioning if you want to embrace ignorance. Would your God want you to embrace ignorance?

Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

All good. There is no one who asks for more. If you are honest in your pursuit, no mockery. I think, from what I have seen of your posts, you are dismissive of very valid science, and it reads as a defense mechanism for religion. I don't think that is necessary or good.

Somewhere, this thread perhaps, you asked if God could have made the BB happen? Perhaps. The only way you might know is to follow the best method ever device to separate fact from fiction.


What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

No. I read your post, again, this thread or another, where you claim that science "changes" and what was right is now wrong. There are few if any cases where this is really true. Science gets BETTER over time. What was wrong is replaced with what has better data at this moment. That we know of today will be "fixed" with what we know tomorrow. The foundation blocks are not "wrong" only incomplete.

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. I don't question real science, btw. I simply don't consider a naturalistic origin of the universe to be valid. It is not hard science. It's speculation. It happened in the distant past, if at all. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. It cannot be falsified either. How convenient is that? The fact is that there is not one solid piece of real scientific evidence to show that it happened, or that it is even possible. It is all speculation...assumptions. Nothing more. The universe is orderly. It obeys the laws, defined by the physical constants. Now, I WILL bring up religion. The Bible tells us that we have a soul. What is that, if not our very own conscious mind? How do you explain evil? How do you explain how lifeless chemicals, of which we are composed, can even discuss this? How can chemicals love, hate, cry, have a sense of humor? How can they have a sense of self? These are questions that I believe science will never be able to answer. They tell us it is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. If that was true, what is directing those reactions? What I mean by that, is that mere chemicals do not decide to steal, rape or murder. They do not decide to love. They do not decide to hate. Someone is in the drivers seat, otherwise, we would be mindless animals. I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to tell the truth as I see it. You can disagree with me, though it breaks my heart, knowing what I know about your probable fate in the afterlife. And if I get snarky sometimes, it's because I get frustrated that people can be so blind to Gods truth. Well, I've rambled enough, I guess. Just think about what I said.

You are really just espousing the God of the Gaps argument--science can't explain it, therefore attribute it to God. If you take that view, then your evidence for God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance, to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson. Be prepared to have things you currently think can only be explained by God explained by science in the future.

It is alright to simply say we don't know the answers yet. Why the universe happened is one of the greatest mysteries we know. So is the nature of consciousness. There is no shame in admitting we do not know all the answers, and may never know all the answers. The shame would be thinking that invoking God provides such a sufficient explanation that we therefore ought to stop asking questions.

Not the argument from ignorance quote again! I do not argue from ignorance. You call it the god the gaps. I could just as easily call it the science of the gaps. So many people put their faith in science. They believe that we live in a purely materialistic universe, without a Creator. Here's something I want you to take a gander at. It's not too long. Take you about 10-15 minutes to read. It's from a guy with a Ph.D. in information technology. Articles like this are why I believe in a Creator. Read it, then let me know what you think. BTW. He doesn't use the Bible to make his argument. He uses science. I think you'll enjoy it, even if you don't agree with it. Pretty fascinating stuff. Take your time.

http://creation.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:58:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

ME: I am not into science very much, but I do watch the science news on TV. It was there that I came upon the most exciting, for the ones presenting the matter, of Gravity waves.

Apparently, Einstein developed the maths for Gravity Waves and how they happened, which (Again apparently) were caused by two black holes converging and causing the big bang that caused the big bang.

Now aren't you pleased you waited for that wonderful scientific "fact".?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:51:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 9:14:25 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 8:52:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 7:27:55 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:58:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to where the math still works. technically you can say the Big Bang theory states that at an early moment in the universe, where time is greater than 0, a universal and exponential inflation of space occurred.

That still doesn't tell me where, when, or even why it happened.

Well where is the whole universe, when is :"at an early moment in the universe when time greater than 0, why: no it doesn't.

It sounds like you're saying that time was created at the same time the universe was, or slightly before. Is this correct? If so, it makes no sense at all, since time is part of the very fabric of the space time continuum. How can something create something that it owes its very existence too?

No I'm saying the Big bang theory doesn't answer about the creation of time or space.

Second time and space are of the same medium spacetime. It is a reasonable question to ask if spacetime have been created.

But in basic physics space-time is only a domain in which other things happen in, they are not anything of themselves. In that respect they were created when matter and energy began to move in an area.

The second way to treat space-time is that it is a medium upon which interactions take place in. In this regard it is a question of where did this medium come from.

If I say the ruler begins at 0 and goes to 12 inches, are you going to use the same semantic sophistry to claim the ruler doesn't exist because it can't begin at 0? probably not because the spatial is more a brute fact than the temporal. But I hope the analogy educates you.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:39:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:33:15 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. I don't question real science, btw. I simply don't consider a naturalistic origin of the universe to be valid. It is not hard science. It's speculation. It happened in the distant past, if at all. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. It cannot be falsified either. How convenient is that? The fact is that there is not one solid piece of real scientific evidence to show that it happened, or that it is even possible. It is all speculation...assumptions. Nothing more. The universe is orderly. It obeys the laws, defined by the physical constants. Now, I WILL bring up religion. The Bible tells us that we have a soul. What is that, if not our very own conscious mind? How do you explain evil? How do you explain how lifeless chemicals, of which we are composed, can even discuss this? How can chemicals love, hate, cry, have a sense of humor? How can they have a sense of self? These are questions that I believe science will never be able to answer. They tell us it is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. If that was true, what is directing those reactions? What I mean by that, is that mere chemicals do not decide to steal, rape or murder. They do not decide to love. They do not decide to hate. Someone is in the drivers seat, otherwise, we would be mindless animals. I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to tell the truth as I see it. You can disagree with me, though it breaks my heart, knowing what I know about your probable fate in the afterlife. And if I get snarky sometimes, it's because I get frustrated that people can be so blind to Gods truth. Well, I've rambled enough, I guess. Just think about what I said.

You are really just espousing the God of the Gaps argument--science can't explain it, therefore attribute it to God. If you take that view, then your evidence for God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance, to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson. Be prepared to have things you currently think can only be explained by God explained by science in the future.

It is alright to simply say we don't know the answers yet. Why the universe happened is one of the greatest mysteries we know. So is the nature of consciousness. There is no shame in admitting we do not know all the answers, and may never know all the answers. The shame would be thinking that invoking God provides such a sufficient explanation that we therefore ought to stop asking questions.

Not the argument from ignorance quote again! I do not argue from ignorance. You call it the god the gaps. I could just as easily call it the science of the gaps. So many people put their faith in science. They believe that we live in a purely materialistic universe, without a Creator.

Argument from ignorance is different than God of the Gaps. The former is the fallacy that something is true because it has not been disproven (or false because it has not yet been proven). The latter is the assertion that anything beyond our understanding must be due to God.

Here's something I want you to take a gander at. It's not too long. Take you about 10-15 minutes to read. It's from a guy with a Ph.D. in information technology. Articles like this are why I believe in a Creator. Read it, then let me know what you think. BTW. He doesn't use the Bible to make his argument. He uses science. I think you'll enjoy it, even if you don't agree with it. Pretty fascinating stuff. Take your time.

http://creation.com...

I took a gander. You say the author uses science to argue, yet the very first sentence begins, "The grand theory of atheistic evolution..." But evolution is not intrinsically an atheist theory. So we know at the outset that his motive is religious. And indeed, he is a young Earth creationist.

I read through the paper. While it contains a few interesting notions, it is lacking in any kind of mathematical rigor. Furthermore, it is clear that the author's entire purpose is an attempt to define "information" in such a way that both 1) information can only be the product of intelligence and 2) DNA is information. To make the case, he does a lot of hand-waving, assertions and appeals to common sense. In the end though, his argument is circular.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 5:02:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:33:15 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/14/2016 1:55:43 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:01:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:26:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:59:28 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:53:39 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/13/2016 9:36:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/13/2016 6:42:38 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
OK. Here's a question. I'm guessing no one can answer this, but I'll ask anyway. If the big bang theory is true, it presents a problem in logic. If it did happen, where and when did it happen. Unless I'm mistaken, time and space did not exist before the universe. So it would have no when or where for it to happen. Would it?

Look. It is not going to satisfy you in any real way, but...

Where? Everywhere.

When? About 13.5bya

Asking what happened before is logical, and obviously difficult. It is possible we will never have a good answer for this, but being dismissive of what we DO know is just being silly and argumentative. I can debate with religion, but I don't pretend to have no idea what they are talking about.

Look. In order for something to happen, it requires a place and a time to do so. This is what we observe. There are no exceptions. So it is natural to be curious about where the universe, which is finite, exists; and where and when it came into existence. And I don't know why you mentioned religion. I asked a straightforward question. Nothing more.

It IS natural to be curious about that. I agree that it is a fascinating question. What I find so odd is that anyone with real curiosity would be happy with "God" as the answer. That is capitulation to ignorance. Don't you think a god would want you to openly and honestly pursue the question? Go where the clues lead?

So now I'm ignorant?
I am questioning if you want to embrace ignorance. Would your God want you to embrace ignorance?

Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

All good. There is no one who asks for more. If you are honest in your pursuit, no mockery. I think, from what I have seen of your posts, you are dismissive of very valid science, and it reads as a defense mechanism for religion. I don't think that is necessary or good.

Somewhere, this thread perhaps, you asked if God could have made the BB happen? Perhaps. The only way you might know is to follow the best method ever device to separate fact from fiction.


What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

No. I read your post, again, this thread or another, where you claim that science "changes" and what was right is now wrong. There are few if any cases where this is really true. Science gets BETTER over time. What was wrong is replaced with what has better data at this moment. That we know of today will be "fixed" with what we know tomorrow. The foundation blocks are not "wrong" only incomplete.

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. I don't question real science, btw. I simply don't consider a naturalistic origin of the universe to be valid. It is not hard science. It's speculation. It happened in the distant past, if at all. There are no scientific experiments that can be conducted on it. It cannot be falsified either. How convenient is that? The fact is that there is not one solid piece of real scientific evidence to show that it happened, or that it is even possible. It is all speculation...assumptions. Nothing more. The universe is orderly. It obeys the laws, defined by the physical constants. Now, I WILL bring up religion. The Bible tells us that we have a soul. What is that, if not our very own conscious mind? How do you explain evil? How do you explain how lifeless chemicals, of which we are composed, can even discuss this? How can chemicals love, hate, cry, have a sense of humor? How can they have a sense of self? These are questions that I believe science will never be able to answer. They tell us it is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. If that was true, what is directing those reactions? What I mean by that, is that mere chemicals do not decide to steal, rape or murder. They do not decide to love. They do not decide to hate. Someone is in the drivers seat, otherwise, we would be mindless animals. I'm not here to win arguments. I'm here to tell the truth as I see it. You can disagree with me, though it breaks my heart, knowing what I know about your probable fate in the afterlife. And if I get snarky sometimes, it's because I get frustrated that people can be so blind to Gods truth. Well, I've rambled enough, I guess. Just think about what I said.

You are really just espousing the God of the Gaps argument--science can't explain it, therefore attribute it to God. If you take that view, then your evidence for God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance, to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson. Be prepared to have things you currently think can only be explained by God explained by science in the future.

It is alright to simply say we don't know the answers yet. Why the universe happened is one of the greatest mysteries we know. So is the nature of consciousness. There is no shame in admitting we do not know all the answers, and may never know all the answers. The shame would be thinking that invoking God provides such a sufficient explanation that we therefore ought to stop asking questions.

Not the argument from ignorance quote again! I do not argue from ignorance. You call it the god the gaps. I could just as easily call it the science of the gaps. So many people put their faith in science. They believe that we live in a purely materialistic universe, without a Creator. Here's something I want you to take a gander at. It's not too long. Take you about 10-15 minutes to read. It's from a guy with a Ph.D. in information technology. Articles like this are why I believe in a Creator. Read it, then let me know what you think. BTW. He doesn't use the Bible to make his argument. He uses science. I think you'll enjoy it, even if you don't agree with it. Pretty fascinating stuff. Take your time.

http://creation.com...

You know... I am reading the article, but it starts "The grand theory of atheistic evolution posits..." Not a great start.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:30:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's not logical to ask what came before the Big Bang because time, and everything else, came into existence from the Big Bang. So, asking that question - you do so from the point of view of some imagined no-space, outside of time. It's like being in a box falling from a great height - thinking you can step off just as it hits the floor. You can't, because your whole conceptual apparatus is conceived of within the universe, in which cause precedes effect precedes cause... So either accept that it doesn't make sense in terms of your logic, or don't bother asking. There was no before - at least, not in any terms we can understand it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 4:16:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:19:07 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:

So now I'm ignorant? Look. I'm no scientist, but I am well read, and my curiosity is insatiable. I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm simply questioning the scientific establishment, based on my own understanding. This understanding comes from the Bible, as well as from articles written by other scientists who disagree with a naturalistic origin of the universe. Real scientists, with PhD.'s in genetics, micro-biology, geology and other scientific areas of study.

And yet, your sources are of that of biased religious websites that know as much about science as you do, which is very little. And, whether they are "real" scientists or not, if they are promoting a religious agenda, they won't be explaining it using science, they'll be appealing to beliefs. So yet, you are arguing from ignorance just like they are.

What I find odd is that atheists are so quick to dismiss anything that disagrees with them, even though it is written by another scientists. Just stop and think about how many times science got it wrong. A majority does not make right. Question everything.

Sorry, but no one is dismissing something because it isn't agreed upon, it is being dismissed because it isn't science.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:44:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:30:27 PM, autocorrect wrote:
It's not logical to ask what came before the Big Bang because time, and everything else, came into existence from the Big Bang. So, asking that question - you do so from the point of view of some imagined no-space, outside of time. It's like being in a box falling from a great height - thinking you can step off just as it hits the floor. You can't, because your whole conceptual apparatus is conceived of within the universe, in which cause precedes effect precedes cause... So either accept that it doesn't make sense in terms of your logic, or don't bother asking. There was no before - at least, not in any terms we can understand it.

Even multiverse advocates can postulate that there could be time and space IN WHICH this time and space emerge.

I bet you get easily confused by time travel movies like "back to the future".

The only thing logical is that the cause of the universe, the sufficient change that produced the finite universe, THAT force could not SOLELY exist inside the spacetime it creates.

Your arguments are the semantic dribble weak minds rely on to dismiss investigating any further.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 3:22:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:44:39 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/14/2016 3:30:27 PM, autocorrect wrote:
It's not logical to ask what came before the Big Bang because time, and everything else, came into existence from the Big Bang. So, asking that question - you do so from the point of view of some imagined no-space, outside of time. It's like being in a box falling from a great height - thinking you can step off just as it hits the floor. You can't, because your whole conceptual apparatus is conceived of within the universe, in which cause precedes effect precedes cause... So either accept that it doesn't make sense in terms of your logic, or don't bother asking. There was no before - at least, not in any terms we can understand it.

Even multiverse advocates can postulate that there could be time and space IN WHICH this time and space emerge.

I bet you get easily confused by time travel movies like "back to the future".

The only thing logical is that the cause of the universe, the sufficient change that produced the finite universe, THAT force could not SOLELY exist inside the spacetime it creates.

Your arguments are the semantic dribble weak minds rely on to dismiss investigating any further.

For whatever its worth, I think it is better to say "this is a question that can not be addressed with current scientific concepts". The questions are fine, but they truly exist outside anything that can be described using the tool at hand.

On days I am feeling generous, I am fine with religious people describing this X as God. Problems is that we are still not sharing the same concept when that word is used.