I don't really get Big Bang

[mrk]

I am not saying God exists, I am saying, believing something that can't be proven and breaks our laws of physics is believing the existence of something else, which if you think about it...breaking the laws of physics, the foundation of science, it is akin to believing in god.

Capiche?

The difference though between god vs science is that all aspects of science can be calculated one way or other. If it cannot be observed directly, then it can be observed indirectly. Example? Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We know they exist because of the affect they have on everything in the universe and all the empty space occupied. If indirectly then formulas and equations in maths theorise their existence and up until recently, gravity waves were an example of this which scientists have now proven with observations and advances in astronomy tech.

The problem with aligning existence of god when comparing with a "scientific theory" is that it is an incompatible comparison. One relies on faith, the other does not for the very reasons mentioned above. The fact is that scientific theories will always be proven or disproven. There is no faith, no inbetween. If disproven then previous theoretical models will be revised and looked at again with new information as technology improves every few years.

To summarise, god is illogical, no offence to anyone inc myself.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The difference though between god vs science is that all aspects of science can be calculated one way or other. If it cannot be observed directly, then it can be observed indirectly. Example? Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We know they exist because of the affect they have on everything in the universe and all the empty space occupied. If indirectly hen formulas and equations in maths theorise their existence and up until recently, gravity waves were an example of this which scientists have now proven with observations and advances in astronomy tech.

The problem with aligning existence of god when comparing with a "scientific theory" is that it is an incompatible comparison. One relies on faith, the other does not for the very reasons mentioned above. The fact is that scientific theories will always be proven or disproven. There is no faith, no inbetween. If disproven then previous theoretical models will be revised and looked at again with new information as technology improves every few years.

It's not god vs science.

I can call it science, call it witchcraft, call it Feek's fart after a Sunday Lunch. It doesn't matter what I call it, it's something that breaks your fundamentals of understanding. That is the point, the point that to accept Big Bang as a legit concept, you have to change the (existing) laws of what you believe in as a physicist?

You are essentially arguing over a label.

Capiche?

 

[i-bert]

So what is before Big Bang?

What was before god?

It's a strange jump from not knowing something to immediately sayings it has to be this, based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

[mrk]

You are picking on a label.

It really isn't... It's very simple really but is only easy to understand if you keep an open and logical mind to how science approaches all things that you call unknowns.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It really isn't... It's very simple really but is only easy to understand if you keep an open and logical mind to how science approaches all things that you call unknowns.

It is. It's something we don't understand. We agree there is something, does it matter what you label it?

It does to you, it doesn't to me.

Let's call it "something", that's okay, call it god....god forbid!

I don't even believe in god, for god's sake. It merely is a placeholder name until someone figures it out and we name it after him/her probably.

 

[mrk]

God has a specific definition in the context you've been talking about earlier. though, there has never been any evidence of any god of any kind in all of recorded history. You could call it god before the big bang, but you would logically be wrong to do so because you would be making the claim on supposed faith alone whereas scientific theories are at least based on some form of logical calculation.or model (such as multiverse theory).

You've been trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill for some reason though when it really is just a scientific unknown for now. One day an intelligent species out there in one universe or other will be advanced enough to be able to observe what happens at the start and/or end of a universe.

 

[SpeedFreak]

It is. It's something we don't understand. We agree there is something, does it matter what you label it?

It does to you, it doesn't to me.

Let's call it "something", that's okay, call it god....god forbid!

I don't even believe in god, for god's sake. It merely is a placeholder name until someone figures it out and we name it after him/her probably.

By extension using this approach gravity was God until Newton came along. I get the point, in lieu of proof people will default to attributing cause and therefore effect to a deity. It doesn't mean there is a God, it's just convenient until a big enough brain comes along.

 

[Raymond Lin]

By extension using this approach gravity was God until Newton came along. I get the point, in lieu of proof people will default to attributing cause and therefore effect to a deity. It doesn't mean there is a God, it's just convenient until a big enough brain comes along.

Somebody gets it.

 

[Raymond Lin]

God has a specific definition in the context you've been talking about earlier. though, there has never been any evidence of any god of any kind in all of recorded history. You could call it god before the big bang, but you would logically be wrong to do so because you would be making the claim on supposed faith alone whereas scientific theories are at least based on some form of logical calculation.or model (such as multiverse theory).

You've been trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill for some reason though when it really is just a scientific unknown for now. One day an intelligent species out there in one universe or other will be advanced enough to be able to observe what happens at the start and/or end of a universe.

Call it whatever you want, I don't care. You seem do care when i call it god.

Who is making the mountain?

Are you offended because i call it god, do you believe in god? Is that why you are offended? Because you sound like you are...I am sorry.

 

[Jokester]

Somebody gets it.

Yeah, but that’s not how science works.

There’s always been times when known physics couldn’t explain things. It didn’t mean scientists threw up their hands and said that’s god and left it at that!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yeah, but that’s not how science works.

There’s always been times when known physics couldn’t explain things. It didn’t mean scientists threw up their hands and said that’s god and left it at that!

I didn't say god did it, I said "it's akin to believing in god", because you are believing in something else that you spent your entire career in, i.e. physics and the Laws of Physics, now it's out the window.

There is a difference.

Even if i say God is the reason as a name placeholder...do you care? why do you care what I label it? Do you really care for the label? Really? it's just a name.

If you don't care what i label it, then what has been the last few posts about?

 

[james.miller]

Believing in unexplainable things is not comparable to believing in a deity at all. There is no sense in that comparison. Just because the birth of the universe is currently unexplainable, doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it. This is what people are saying when they deduce that 'well, it must be God then.' and that is what atheists take issue with.

unexplainable = God? It just...no. No.

 

[R.P.L]

Believing in unexplainable things is not comparable to believing in a deity at all. There is no sense in that comparison. Just because the birth of the universe is currently unexplainable, doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it. This is what people are saying when they deduce that 'well, it must be God then.' and that is what atheists take issue with.

unexplainable = God? It just...no. No.

Atheists often take issue with saying that it might be god as well as if they know otherwise, and that's what I take issue with.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Believing in unexplainable things is not comparable to believing in a deity at all. There is no sense in that comparison. Just because the birth of the universe is currently unexplainable, doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it. This is what people are saying when they deduce that 'well, it must be God then.' and that is what atheists take issue with.

unexplainable = God? It just...no. No.

Well, seeing we can't prove what is before Big Bang and we can't prove god...it's on the same level of unknown IMO. It might be a race out there capable of our imagination of God level of power. Or can we disprove that possiblity too?

It's a label.

Something happened, nobody would argue that.
God happened, people get their knickers in a twist.

Bearing in mind i don't even believe in god.

 

[james.miller]

Atheists often take issue with saying that it might be god as well as if they know otherwise, and that's what I take issue with.

Lol! "It might be an intelligent devine entity you happen to believe doesn't exist. But it might be...because you can't prove it".

And you take issue with the people you say that to? Please.

it's on the same level of unknown IMO.

Not at all.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Lol! "It might be an intelligent devine entity you happen to believe doesn't exist. But it might be...because you can't prove it".

And you take issue with the people you say that to? Please.


Not at all.

There may be a race out there with technology so advance that goes between dimension to create universes and they speaks all the languages...and when we meet them, they call themselves the race of god.

Then your mind will be blown huh? lol

 

[R.P.L]

Lol! "It might be an intelligent devine entity you happen to believe doesn't exist. But it might be...because you can't prove it".

And you take issue with the people you say that to? Please.


Not at all.

Yes, it might be. I don't know. You don't know. No one knows! I take issue with anyone who tries to pass their beliefs off as incontrovertible fact. Sorry about that

 

[watercooledman]

We don't know and probably never will know either.
Maybe that's just the way it's meant to be.

 

[dlockers]

Threads like this is why any more intelligent life force has decided to leave us be.

 

[i-bert]

Threads like this is why any more intelligent life force has decided to leave us be.

Hope they don't go in SC then. They'll be nuking from orbit, only way to be sure.