Who here is an atheist?

[ding]

Breaking News: Czernobog refutes scientists at Cern.

Background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity all wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does anyone notice the common characteristics of atheists?

They are all assholes!

Then what is your excuse, jackass?

 

[Czernobog]

So, what, because we don't know we're supposed to invent a sky fairy as the explanation?

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

So that isn't one of the steps in a scientific investigation? Isn't that the whole point of studying and researching it? To presume an explanation that makes sense?

No, it';s not. One of the steps of scientific investigation is to presume an explanation that can be tested. See, Intelligence created the universe, relies on another presupmtion that must first be proven: that the "intelligence" exists. Now, should you find a way to observe, measure, and verify the existence of that intelligence, by all means you should inform the scientific community, as you will instantly become the most celebrated cosmologist in existence.

Scientific methods can only be used within the universe. This discussion we are having is a philosophical discussion. There is no evidence for what happened prior to the big bang. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

But we can use science to study what was created and how it evolved to gain insight in the philosophical discussion.

That is what I do.

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

The scientific method is a systematic process that involves:

• Making an observation.
• Stating a question.
• Formulating a hypothesis.
• Conducting an experiment.
• Analyzing the data and drawing conclusions.

For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. Can your "intelligence" be supported, or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation, or observation? No? Then it is not a valid hypothesis.

 

[ding]

You do realize that all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of one billionth of one trillionth of an atom, right?

While that may be true, it actually is not necessarily true. The universe did not have to be that small for the expansion to have occurred, and for "time" (as we observe it) to have begun.

That is as far back as the solutions can take it.

And yes, the universe started from an extremely tiny size. That's exactly what all the data shows. No one refutes this. Every cosmological model in existence starts with an extremely hot dense universe and then it begins to expand and cool.

My point was for you to wrap your mind around what that actually looks like. It is mind boggling. I don't see how anyone can deny the universe having a beginning.

You guys are so uncomfortable with the universe having a beginning that you are literally shitting all over science.

 

[Czernobog]

Since I don't know how the universe came to be I don't consider myself an atheist, however, when it comes to the God of the Bible, I have zero faith in it so in that sense I am an atheist. There may be a god out there but I don't think anyone has any more of a clue than I do.

It seems to me that before one can answer who God is they have to first answer the question is there a Creator. Then from there they can figure out who He is. The answers to both questions can be found by studying what was created.

No, it can't. You have tried this argument repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way your argument works is to presume the universe was created. Try presuming that the universe was not created, and then proceed with your argument from there, and see if it still works.

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Science doesn't tell us that. Why are you lying about what science says? Some scientists a universe with a defined beginning. Some do not. So, at best you could say that some scientists tell us the universe had a beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

No one believes that stuff.

Try again.

You are literally shitting all over science.

Well, apparently physicists at the University of Lethbridge. They believe it enough to have published a peer reviewed article about it. Why do you shit on science that disagrees with you?

 

[Votto]

Georges Lemaître anyone?

You know George, the Belgium priest who came up with the Big Bang theory.

Of course, he was one of those wacko religious types that actually believed that the universe had a beginning, yes, that the Bible was right about that.

Unfortunately, he was largely ignored by men such as Einstein. For you see, the general scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal and static.......that is, until the evidence continued to pile up showing him to be 100% correct.

Carry on everyone.

 

[ding]

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

So that isn't one of the steps in a scientific investigation? Isn't that the whole point of studying and researching it? To presume an explanation that makes sense?

No, it';s not. One of the steps of scientific investigation is to presume an explanation that can be tested. See, Intelligence created the universe, relies on another presupmtion that must first be proven: that the "intelligence" exists. Now, should you find a way to observe, measure, and verify the existence of that intelligence, by all means you should inform the scientific community, as you will instantly become the most celebrated cosmologist in existence.

Scientific methods can only be used within the universe. This discussion we are having is a philosophical discussion. There is no evidence for what happened prior to the big bang. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

But we can use science to study what was created and how it evolved to gain insight in the philosophical discussion.

That is what I do.

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

The scientific method is a systematic process that involves:

• Making an observation.
• Stating a question.
• Formulating a hypothesis.
• Conducting an experiment.
• Analyzing the data and drawing conclusions.

For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. Can your "intelligence" be supported, or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation, or observation? No? Then it is not a valid hypothesis.

Dude, you won't even let me get started on it.

That's how afraid you are of what you might discover.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one refutes this.

Not true at all. While yes, it was small, people do refute that it was a singularity.

You guys are so uncomfortable with the universe having a

Then you arent paying attention. I absolutely believe our observable universe (subverse) had a beginning, and I said so directly to you. But "all there is" may or may not have had a beginning. People are rightfully objecting to your authoritative declaration that it did have a beginning. Your doing so is not scientific, so you are incorrect to say that anyone is disputing anything scientific to refute your authoritative declaration.

 

[ding]

It seems to me that before one can answer who God is they have to first answer the question is there a Creator. Then from there they can figure out who He is. The answers to both questions can be found by studying what was created.

No, it can't. You have tried this argument repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way your argument works is to presume the universe was created. Try presuming that the universe was not created, and then proceed with your argument from there, and see if it still works.

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Science doesn't tell us that. Why are you lying about what science says? Some scientists a universe with a defined beginning. Some do not. So, at best you could say that some scientists tell us the universe had a beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

No one believes that stuff.

Try again.

You are literally shitting all over science.

Well, apparently physicists at the University of Lethbridge. They believe it enough to have published a peer reviewed article about it. Why do you shit on science that disagrees with you?

red shift
background radiation
solutions to Einsteins equations
every cosmological model starts with a hot dense universe occupying the space of a fraction of an atom.

 

[Votto]

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

So that isn't one of the steps in a scientific investigation? Isn't that the whole point of studying and researching it? To presume an explanation that makes sense?

No, it';s not. One of the steps of scientific investigation is to presume an explanation that can be tested. See, Intelligence created the universe, relies on another presupmtion that must first be proven: that the "intelligence" exists. Now, should you find a way to observe, measure, and verify the existence of that intelligence, by all means you should inform the scientific community, as you will instantly become the most celebrated cosmologist in existence.

Scientific methods can only be used within the universe. This discussion we are having is a philosophical discussion. There is no evidence for what happened prior to the big bang. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

But we can use science to study what was created and how it evolved to gain insight in the philosophical discussion.

That is what I do.

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

The scientific method is a systematic process that involves:

• Making an observation.
• Stating a question.
• Formulating a hypothesis.
• Conducting an experiment.
• Analyzing the data and drawing conclusions.

For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. Can your "intelligence" be supported, or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation, or observation? No? Then it is not a valid hypothesis.

Dude, you won't even let me get started on it.

That's how afraid you are of what you might discover.

Afraid?

Yes, it appears scientists like Einstein were afraid of the concept of a universe with a beginning. The implications were too unsettling, so much so, he added a constant to his theory of relativity equation to try and make it all go away. He later said it was the biggest mistake of his career.

The notion of a beginning to everything is very unsettling. Beginning? From what? From where? From...............WHOM!?

And yes, the Bible also says the universe has an end, something science also now agrees with.

 

[Czernobog]

Breaking News: Czernobog refutes scientists at Cern.

Background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity all wrong.

Breaking News: Other physicists disagree with Cern, as the article demonstrates. But, hey, why not just compound all of your logical fallacies with, yet, another: Appeal to Authority.

 

[ding]

No one refutes this.

Not true at all. While yes, it was small, people do refute that it was a singularity.

You guys are so uncomfortable with the universe having a

Then you arent oayong attention. I absolutely believe our observable universe had a beginning. But "all there is" may or may not have had a beginning. People are rightfully objecting to your authoritative declaration that it did have a beginning. You're doing so is not scientific, so you are incorrect to say that anyone is disputing anything scientific to refute your authoritative declaration.

You must not be reading all the posts then.

The best scientific explanation we have today is the universe had a beginning.

Which leads us to the philosophical discussion of what started it.

Which leads us to the first cause conundrum.

Which is what we are discussing. Except some people don't want to have that discussion so they shit all over science.

 

[Czernobog]

No, it can't. You have tried this argument repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way your argument works is to presume the universe was created. Try presuming that the universe was not created, and then proceed with your argument from there, and see if it still works.

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Science doesn't tell us that. Why are you lying about what science says? Some scientists a universe with a defined beginning. Some do not. So, at best you could say that some scientists tell us the universe had a beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

No one believes that stuff.

Try again.

You are literally shitting all over science.

Well, apparently physicists at the University of Lethbridge. They believe it enough to have published a peer reviewed article about it. Why do you shit on science that disagrees with you?

red shift
background radiation
solutions to Einsteins equations
every cosmological model starts with a hot dense universe occupying the space of a fraction of an atom.

What, in your own words, is red shift, and how does it apply to the age, and origin of the universe?

 

[ding]

Breaking News: Czernobog refutes scientists at Cern.

Background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity all wrong.

Breaking News: Other physicists disagree with Cern, as the article demonstrates. But, hey, why not just compound all of your logical fallacies with, yet, another: Appeal to Authority.

Show me one that said the universe did not start in a hot dense state.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Georges Lemaître anyone?

You know George, the Belgium priest who came up with the Big Bang theory.

Of course, he was one of those wacko religious types that actually believed that the universe had a beginning, yes, that the Bible was right about that.

Unfortunately, he was largely ignored by men such as Einstein. For you see, the general scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal and static.......that is, until the evidence continued to pile up showing him to be 100% correct.

Carry on everyone.

Yes, thank you for an excellent example of what separates evidence-based thinkers from magical, authoritative dogmatists.

 

[ding]

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

Science doesn't tell us that. Why are you lying about what science says? Some scientists a universe with a defined beginning. Some do not. So, at best you could say that some scientists tell us the universe had a beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

No one believes that stuff.

Try again.

You are literally shitting all over science.

Well, apparently physicists at the University of Lethbridge. They believe it enough to have published a peer reviewed article about it. Why do you shit on science that disagrees with you?

red shift
background radiation
solutions to Einsteins equations
every cosmological model starts with a hot dense universe occupying the space of a fraction of an atom.

What, in your own words, is red shift, and how does it apply to the age, and origin of the universe?

Google it. I've lost interest.

 

[Votto]

Georges Lemaître anyone?

You know George, the Belgium priest who came up with the Big Bang theory.

Of course, he was one of those wacko religious types that actually believed that the universe had a beginning, yes, that the Bible was right about that.

Unfortunately, he was largely ignored by men such as Einstein. For you see, the general scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal and static.......that is, until the evidence continued to pile up showing him to be 100% correct.

Carry on everyone.

Yes, thank you for an excellent example of what separates evidence-based thinkers from magical, authoritative dogmatists.

He was by no means a magical thinker. He was a mathematician and scientist as well as priest.

Einstein made the comment, "Your math is correct, but your physics is abysmal!"

Why did Einstein turn a blind eye to his math?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He later said it was the biggest mistake of his career

Ironic, that. As it turns out, he was probably correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Georges Lemaître anyone?

You know George, the Belgium priest who came up with the Big Bang theory.

Of course, he was one of those wacko religious types that actually believed that the universe had a beginning, yes, that the Bible was right about that.

Unfortunately, he was largely ignored by men such as Einstein. For you see, the general scientific consensus was that the universe was eternal and static.......that is, until the evidence continued to pile up showing him to be 100% correct.

Carry on everyone.

Yes, thank you for an excellent example of what separates evidence-based thinkers from magical, authoritative dogmatists.

He was by no means a magical thinker. He was a mathematician and scientist as well as priest.

Einstein made the comment, "Your math is correct, but your physics is abysmal!"

Why did Einstein turn a blind eye to his math?

You completely missed my point. My point is that evidence-based thinkers change their minds, as new evidence comes to light which compels them to do so.

 

[Czernobog]

No one refutes this.

Not true at all. While yes, it was small, people do refute that it was a singularity.

You guys are so uncomfortable with the universe having a

Then you arent oayong attention. I absolutely believe our observable universe had a beginning. But "all there is" may or may not have had a beginning. People are rightfully objecting to your authoritative declaration that it did have a beginning. You're doing so is not scientific, so you are incorrect to say that anyone is disputing anything scientific to refute your authoritative declaration.

You must not be reading all the posts then.

The best scientific explanation we have today is the universe had a beginning.

Which leads us to the philosophical discussion of what started it.

Which leads us to the first cause conundrum.

Which is what we are discussing. Except some people don't want to have that discussion so they shit all over science.

No. It's. Not! One theory about the origin of the universe says this. There are other theories that do not. The only thing we can say about the formation of the universe, and what did, or did not, come before is We. Don't. Know. Why does the phrase, "We don't know" bother you so much?!?! Why is it so anathema to you to simply admit that there are things about our universe that we just don't know, yet?