Here you go you dumbs$%&#@

[AnthonyS]

This is not the case. In the current model of the big bang theory, that singularity is everything, not the beginning of it. Under the currently accepted model, we're not even sure that "preceded" is even a valid concept because there is no current scientific theory(there are hypothesis') that states where the singularity comes from.

Again, there is no need to believe the singularity came from nowhere because there isn't any evidence that points to that conclusion.



The big bang never posits an explosion. The big bang theory only posits an expansion. A slow one that took a massive amount of time. So, your analogy is flawed.

However, the idea of the singularity(as far as the big bang theory is concerned) is that everything is compressed into a single point. The very laws of our universe, as we understand them, would ultimately force the particles apart (from a compressed, ordered state to a more chaotic one) just like anything else you compress. So, if the the big bang theory is true, our universe would be the result of entropy acting on the singularity.

That's not even taking into consideration that this is all assuming that you're using the layman's definition of entropy and not the scientific definition. By the physic's definition, there is no problem at all because all energy, matter, etc would have been present in the singularity. As energy cannot be create or destroyed, as we understand it, all of that energy would have been present at the point that the expansion started providing it all the energy available to power is actions. So, entropy couldn't be a problem by that definition either.

The expansion vs. the gravitational pull of the combined mass of the universe requires an input force! Entropy tells you that a force can't come from nothing. There are no perpetual motion machines. Try again..... and fail again. Energy would indeed have to be created by some means in order to cause the expansion against the force of gravity (which we can measure so it too is real). Entropy can be measured so it is also real. The Big Bang is just a "theory" and it can easily be disproven by real tangible scientific measurements.

[The King]

I've always been amazed at the exercise of 2 groups, so entrenched in their individual beliefs trying to convince the other side that they are wrong and should join the "our-side". There is no winner.

You have to stay out of the fray, since after all you've been threatened with a fatwa by muhammed himself!

[Sean88gt]

Y'all let me know when you sort this out.

I've always been amazed at the exercise of 2 groups, so entrenched in their individual beliefs trying to convince the other side that they are wrong and should join the "our-side". There is no winner.

[The King]

As it stands, the scientific community disagrees with you and if new evidence comes to light, that can and will change.

However, I'm not arguing that you should accept the big bang theory. I'm stating that accepting the big bang theory does not require the belief that the singularity comes from "nowhere" because the big bang theory does not address where the singularity comes from.

Of course the big bang theory does not require the belief (emphasis: belief) that the sigularity came from "nowhere", or for that matter the belief that there is any singularity at all. It simplifies acceptance of the theory for those so inclined by now ignoring that tough question it raises and instead simply assuming that the universe "is" and always "has been". Magical almost.

This is about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat." Sure, it's true that I could be. Though, until the evidence changes and supports that possibility being a valid concern, there's no reason to believe that's the case. Especially when the evidence generally supports the opposite conclusion.

I remember a Star Trek episode where Spocks brain was in a globe. That's about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat."

[Gasser64]

This is about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat." Sure, it's true that I could be. Though, until the evidence changes and supports that possibility being a valid concern, there's no reason to believe that's the case. Especially when the evidence generally supports the opposite conclusion.

And that's about as good as it gets for now. But because of the time we live in, of course there is a problem, even with that. One could simply ask "why"? Why is all this here? To what end? For what purpose? And come to the conclusion that it is possible, that there is some real reason for it being here. Possibly to house and provide for us, and other life that may exist throughout the universe. A logical chain of thought such as that, is as good as any big bang theory even if that theory doesn't address such questions.

I like the fact that the bbt is being challenged by a lot of scientists these days, cause imo it was getting old and stale and kind of boring. I'm ready to hear some new stuff.

[Maddhattter]

Equally, there is no need to believe the singularity is everything, since it is merely a construct conceived by mankind to support a theory conceived by mankind.

As it stands, the scientific community disagrees with you and if new evidence comes to light, that can and will change.

However, I'm not arguing that you should accept the big bang theory. I'm stating that accepting the big bang theory does not require the belief that the singularity comes from "nowhere" because the big bang theory does not address where the singularity comes from.

Experts can always use the words uttered by Bill Clinton as a starting point in support of hypotheses regarding where the singularity came from, to wit:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

This is about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat." Sure, it's true that I could be. Though, until the evidence changes and supports that possibility being a valid concern, there's no reason to believe that's the case. Especially when the evidence generally supports the opposite conclusion.

[slow99]

Y'all let me know when you sort this out.

[The King]

The basic topic that this thread morphed into has been hashed over many times before, both here and in canada. No positions likely have changed or should change based solely on internet forum posts or Google searches.

[Gasser64]

We'll do this your way. Please provide evidence as to why you are an atheist. Please disprove the existence of God.

I can't. Nobody can do that, or there wouldn't be Islam or christianity, or this thread.

[The King]

This is not the case. In the current model of the big bang theory, that singularity is everything, not the beginning of it. Under the currently accepted model, we're not even sure that "preceded" is even a valid concept because there is no current scientific theory (there are hypothesis') that states where the singularity comes from.

Again, there is no need to believe the singularity came from nowhere because there isn't any evidence that points to that conclusion.

Equally, there is no need to believe the singularity is everything, since it is merely a construct conceived by mankind to support a theory conceived by mankind.

Experts can always use the words uttered by Bill Clinton as a starting point in support of hypotheses regarding where the singulaity came from, to wit:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

[YALE]

Eh, he's got a point. You ask him for proof of his claims, but he can just as easily ask you for proof of yours. Its pretty much a stalemate for the next 100-200 years until something is finally proven for certain. You'd ask him to prove his God exists, he'd ask you to prove it doesn't. Neither one of you can prove anything. So we'd just as well forgo that entire debate.

We'll do this your way. Please provide evidence as to why you are an atheist. Please disprove the existence of God.

[Gasser64]

Oh no, now they're saying there never was a big bang, things have always been here. Kind of like what we say about God but you know...it sounds better when science claims it.

lol, I saw that on "Through the wormhole". Apparently some of them (the science guyz) are proposing an alternate theory. That its just always been there. Heard about it on the radio too I think...can't remember. Kind of funny, but I'd call it as good an explanation as anything I've heard yet.

I don't have to go to science to get proof. I'm not making a claim. I'm saying I don't believe yours. I haven't claimed to have any answers. I have stated that no evidence has been presented by you to back up your claim. Keep trying.

Eh, he's got a point. You ask him for proof of his claims, but he can just as easily ask you for proof of yours. Its pretty much a stalemate for the next 100-200 years until something is finally proven for certain. You'd ask him to prove his God exists, he'd ask you to prove it doesn't. Neither one of you can prove anything. So we'd just as well forgo that entire debate.

Religion or not, there actually does seem to be some evidence for an afterlife. NDE's and some other weird creepy shit that has gone on and been documented well. However from the stuff I've watched, what's been reported by experiencers doesn't jive one little bit with what the religions say. At least no religion I've ever heard of.

[bluecollar]

I don't say science has disproved the existence of God. I say that your claim that a diety exists in the first place requires evidence. Try again.

This is becoming an entertaining thread.

I will say that the bold section seems to be the biggest issue in any discussion involving religion. Faith is just that, faith. One's "evidence" may not be material or scientific data. I have spoken with multiple people that have had moments of clarity, visions, heard voices, had an undeniable feeling "wash" over them. That is their proof, their evidence. It justifies the belief and is all that someone may need in order to accept that there is a God.

Others, like you, want physical 'hold it in your hand' evidence. If we follow the word, then your next chance at that type of evidence might be the end of days. Might be a bit late at that point to sit back and re prioritize. Just sayin'

Both sides have valid arguments with a whole pile of bullshit sprinkled in for good measure. No one KNOWS. The only people that know if there is an afterlife, a God, an eternity are dead. So I doubt they'll give us a heads up either way. We all have our beliefs. The belief that there is, and the belief that there isn't.

This is coming from an agnostic. I honestly do not know what I believe, yet. I have heard good arguments from both sides, and poor arguments. I just try to be a decent human being.

Ok, continue...

[Maddhattter]

Yes, they do.

To accept the big bang theory one must accept a sigularity as its origin. Accept it blindly, one might say, and accept that its existence preceded time, space, and matter.

This is not the case. In the current model of the big bang theory, that singularity is everything, not the beginning of it. Under the currently accepted model, we're not even sure that "preceded" is even a valid concept because there is no current scientific theory(there are hypothesis') that states where the singularity comes from.

Again, there is no need to believe the singularity came from nowhere because there isn't any evidence that points to that conclusion.

There is a huge scientific problem with the Big Bang theory. Entropy which is real disproves the theory. Shit can't just blow up. A blasting cap shoved in a pile of plastic explosive won't just blow up on its own.

The big bang never posits an explosion. The big bang theory only posits an expansion. A slow one that took a massive amount of time. So, your analogy is flawed.

However, the idea of the singularity(as far as the big bang theory is concerned) is that everything is compressed into a single point. The very laws of our universe, as we understand them, would ultimately force the particles apart (from a compressed, ordered state to a more chaotic one) just like anything else you compress. So, if the the big bang theory is true, our universe would be the result of entropy acting on the singularity.

That's not even taking into consideration that this is all assuming that you're using the layman's definition of entropy and not the scientific definition. By the physic's definition, there is no problem at all because all energy, matter, etc would have been present in the singularity. As energy cannot be create or destroyed, as we understand it, all of that energy would have been present at the point that the expansion started providing it all the energy available to power is actions. So, entropy couldn't be a problem by that definition either.

[racrguy]

There is a huge scientific problem with the Big Bang theory. Entropy which is real disproves the theory. Shit can't just blow up. A blasting cap shoved in a pile of plastic explosive won't just blow up on its own.

lol entropy. You couldn't even begin to have an educated conversation on the topic.