Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd see it as coalescing out of a field of matter. It would compress until there was all the power but small amount of matter. That is all the 'cause' you needed for the 'bang'. That is a more plausible scenario than God waving a magic wand. Give it up, mate, even if we had no alternative scenarios (not that God saying Be is an scenario) 'Don't know' would be the logical answer, not "God".
Of course I can see 'Prove it!' coming. We don't need to. An alternative hypothesis is all we need to make Goddunnit no more probable than the altyernatives.
Unfortunately there was no fields before the big bang. There were no fluctuations, there was exactly nothing.
I'd see it as coalescing out of a field of matter. It would compress until there was all the power but small amount of matter. That is all the 'cause' you needed for the 'bang'. That is a more plausible scenario than God waving a magic wand. Give it up, mate, even if we had no alternative scenarios (not that God saying Be is an scenario) 'Don't know' would be the logical answer, not "God".
Of course I can see 'Prove it!' coming. We don't need to. An alternative hypothesis is all we need to make Goddunnit no more probable than the altyernatives.
I don't say prove it. I say give us an alternative conclusion for what we see going on around us. If before the universe doesn't work, which it doesn't, keep it in the universe. pick a time frame, 5 billion years ago to now.
you get to deny everything, out of hand, and never offer something else. You never lose because you don't play the game. You stance is like telling ball players they stink all the time but never telling them what they could be doing different to help them change.
using a sports analogy, Your denomination of atheism claims "undefeated". Lmao, that's true, but you neglect to say "we are undefeated because we never played the game."
Unfortunately there was no fields before the big bang. There were no fluctuations, there was exactly nothing.
this is a guess. There are two schools of thought. One is "from nothing" and the other is 'from something". Krauss is actually from something summing up to zero, which is something. "from nothing" is buzz kill too. The party talk stops and we all sit there when there is "nothing" to talk about.
A good guess is the universe was born. Or came about from a confluence of events. I mean everything we see fits those descriptors so using them is more valid than something we know nothing about, lmao, nothing, get it.
so when you say 'nothing" its a guess. It as good a guess as me saying "I think from something".
"Who created God " is the college kid question.
Atheist philosophers themselves have rejected that silly question.
Its an embarrassment to atheism that people like Dawkins keep ressurecting it in sloppy pop science paperbacks.
We have embarrassing denominations of atheism. They turn out to be trying to "save us" every bit as freedom restriction, bias based justice, and personal emotional based beliefs as any theist fundy I know.
this is a guess. There are two schools of thought. One is "from nothing" and the other is 'from something". Krauss is actually from something summing up to zero, which is something. "from nothing" is buzz kill too. The party talk stops and we all sit there when there is "nothing" to talk about.
A good guess is the universe was born. Or came about from a confluence of events. I mean everything we see fits those descriptors so using them is more valid than something we know nothing about, lmao, nothing, get it.
so when you say 'nothing" its a guess. It as good a guess as me saying "I think from something".
I'm going by what atheists have been saying for a long time. Until it turned around and bit them.
It all sounded very clever until the cosmological constant was discovered to be so astoundingly improbable that it gave strong evidence of design.
We have embarrassing denominations of atheism. They turn out to be trying to "save us" every bit as freedom restriction, bias based justice, and personal emotional based beliefs as any theist fundy I know.
I don't see much difference listening to fundies from opposite ends of the spectrum.
They are both Pride.
Its intellectual Pride vs spiritual Pride.
Some days I'm both, its the human condition.
We know. Mensa was just forestalling that gambit. So, just what it is that schools are teching that isn't true. Marks will be deducted for evasion. Write in ink on only one side of the paper.
As to your exchange with the Reverent Obvious whose trademark is uttering deepities, I would suggest you consider (for your information, not our good) that regarding Your rejection of both atheism and some kind of religion that you consider to the extreme side and that fence -sitting is the evidentially correct position, taking up a compromise on what it either true or not is usually going to be wrong and less rational than either of them.
It might have to poor case that it is less strident, aggressive, arrogant, and intolerant than either religion or atheism, but in fact it is as bad as anything I see coming out of the Creationist camp.
Also I note that you pin your hopes on the Constant. It is quite a nice argument; a lot of people think so. But in fact it is little more than 'God is the only possible answer', We don't know why there is a constant and there may be a natural reason why it is there as much as God saying 'What measure shall I base this universe on? Yes...that looks about the right size.
No, there is a reason for constants, and when we find what the reason is, yet another gap for God closes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
Unfortunately there was no fields before the big bang. There were no fluctuations, there was exactly nothing.
Mate, you have a Nobel Prize coming, but how do you know this? Were You There?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
"Who created God " is the college kid question.
Atheist philosophers themselves have rejected that silly question.
Its an embarrassment to atheism that people like Dawkins keep ressurecting it in sloppy pop science paperbacks.
Who created God is no sillier than God has always existed, in far it is far less silly.
So far as I know it is a valid rejoinder to the 'who made everything?' argument, which Is indeed a silly one.
Oh, and leave to atheists to decide what embarrasses them, and don't presume, as someone who apparently does not comprehend atheism nor embarrassment.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-15-2018 at 07:40 AM..
04-15-2018, 09:17 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
"Who created God " is the college kid question.
Atheist philosophers themselves have rejected that silly question.
Its an embarrassment to atheism that people like Dawkins keep ressurecting it in sloppy pop science paperbacks.
Wow, what is astounding about you is that you can't even get what Shirina was saying. Talk about embarrassment. Most atheists, seeing that they don't believe in god/s existing, only ask the question as a means to point out the double standard in theists thinking about origins. They use fallacious thinking and apply a double standard to the issues. Jeez!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
