There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!!

[nsimmons]

I believe there might have been a phenomena like the bigbang as was created by God. something that big couldn't have created itself

Why?

Because you can't think of something isn't an answer.

[CaptainHerpDerp]

Fuck God

[iglasses]

Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS.

There is no evidence that a divine creator exists.
There is a ton of evidence that no divine creator exists.
Most things human beings believed about the world around us 1,000 years ago have been proven to be false.  Beliefs were developed and held because we were simply too ignorant to know the difference so we 'blamed' things that lacked scientific explanation on a divine being so powerful our puny little minds couldn't comprehend them.

We still have puny, uninformed minds compared to everything going on in the Universe but we are in way better shape than our ancestors were.  We now know for example, that eclipses are not the hand of god, they are a predictable, natural phenomenon.

I don't get why some people (okay LOTS of people) have not naturally come to realize that god was a superstition (sorry There Will be Blood) invented BY man to explain that which defied explanation.

The idea of god did not exists before man, and would no longer exist were man removed from existence.

You think the dinosaurs sat around wondering if the day they spent eating the uncooked entrails of some random creature while it was still alive pleased god?
Ohh....that's right I forgot, the dinosaurs weren't real!

[BADecker]

Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS.

There is no evidence that a divine creator exists.
There is a ton of evidence that no divine creator exists.
Most things human beings believed about the world around us 1,000 years ago have been proven to be false.  Beliefs were developed and held because we were simply too ignorant to know the difference so we 'blamed' things that lacked scientific explanation on a divine being so powerful our puny little minds couldn't comprehend them.

We still have puny, uninformed minds compared to everything going on in the Universe but we are in way better shape than our ancestors were.  We now know for example, that eclipses are not the hand of god, they are a predictable, natural phenomenon.

I don't get why some people (okay LOTS of people) have not naturally come to realize that god was a superstition (sorry There Will be Blood) invented BY man to explain that which defied explanation.

The idea of god did not exists before man, and would no longer exist were man removed from existence.

You think the dinosaurs sat around wondering if the day they spent eating the uncooked entrails of some random creature while it was still alive pleased god?
Ohh....that's right I forgot, the dinosaurs weren't real!

"Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is quite accurate... just like "Science unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos does = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is accurate as well.

For proof that God exists see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.



EDIT: Since dinosaurs are/were part of God's creation, they definitely are evidence for His existence.

[the joint]

Stephen Hawking: 'There are No Black Holes'

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/172180-2015-03-11-stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.htm

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2015/03/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

This is the paper by Hawking that those two 'news' pieces are based on: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

It's called "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes".

When you look at the weather forecast, especially the 10-day forecast, it changes about 4 times a day, except for areas that everybody knows what is going to happen anyway, because it is so regular.

That's approximately the same kind of predicting we can get for black holes.

So, you're saying it's a pretty good approximation, then?  I'm guessing you don't wear shorts when the forecast says it will be below freezing.

It's nice to see you acknowledging (albeit indirectly) that your interpretation of what Hawking said was dubious.  It's about as close as I've ever seen you acknowledge your misunderstandings.  Before, you were just going to go with "there are no black holes," and here you are confirming that you believe they exist.

Any weather prediction is good, if some kind of weather happens. This is because nobody knows anything about the future, even 1 second into the future.

Correct, we aren't wizards.  It seems we agree on something.

So, since you just said you can't know anything for certain even one second into the future, then you must also believe that you aren't certain about who God will send to Heaven or Hell, or that anything in Revelations, such as Armageddon, is certain to happen, right?

[the joint]

Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS.

There is no evidence that a divine creator exists.
There is a ton of evidence that no divine creator exists.
Most things human beings believed about the world around us 1,000 years ago have been proven to be false.  Beliefs were developed and held because we were simply too ignorant to know the difference so we 'blamed' things that lacked scientific explanation on a divine being so powerful our puny little minds couldn't comprehend them.

We still have puny, uninformed minds compared to everything going on in the Universe but we are in way better shape than our ancestors were.  We now know for example, that eclipses are not the hand of god, they are a predictable, natural phenomenon.

I don't get why some people (okay LOTS of people) have not naturally come to realize that god was a superstition (sorry There Will be Blood) invented BY man to explain that which defied explanation.

The idea of god did not exists before man, and would no longer exist were man removed from existence.

You think the dinosaurs sat around wondering if the day they spent eating the uncooked entrails of some random creature while it was still alive pleased god?
Ohh....that's right I forgot, the dinosaurs weren't real!

"Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is quite accurate... just like "Science unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos does = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is accurate as well.

For proof that God exists see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.



EDIT: Since dinosaurs are/were part of God's creation, they definitely are evidence for His existence.

Nice backwards logic.  Way to prove dinosaurs are part of God's creation before proving God exists or created anything.

[picolo]

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

Meaning GOD does exist

FYI space time dont exist, since space never had a beginning nor end.

The Big Bang doesn't explain everything anyway.

[iglasses]

"Science unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos does = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is accurate as well.

^ This is like the opposite of the word accurate.

[BADecker]

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

Meaning GOD does exist

FYI space time dont exist, since space never had a beginning nor end.

The Big Bang doesn't explain everything anyway.

This is true. And one of the biggest things it doesn't explain is, all the possible variables over time that could prove that the Big Bang did not happened.

Since we have a Big Bang Theory that has a lot of holes in the idea, since nobody can show for a fact that it could have even happened (yet), and since even if they did, then they would have the much larger problem of showing that it actually DID happen because of the potential variables of the past that might prove it didn't, Big Bang believers have turned the Theory into a religion, simply by believing it is fact when it hasn't been proven to be fact.

[the joint]

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

Meaning GOD does exist

FYI space time dont exist, since space never had a beginning nor end.

The Big Bang doesn't explain everything anyway.

...Big Bang believers have turned the Theory into a religion, simply by believing it is fact when it hasn't been proven to be fact.

Oh, now this is interesting.

So, by your own words, religion = believing in a theory as fact when it has not proven to be fact.

And, by your own words in previous posts, you are a Christian, and of course Christianity is a religion.

So, you are saying that you believe in Christianity, a religion that has not been proven to be fact.

[thirdprize]

EDIT: Since dinosaurs are/were part of God's creation, they definitely are evidence for His existence.

Yeah, because dinosaurs feature quite heavily in the Bible.  Or am I getting it mixed up with Jurassic Park?  Dickie Attenborough as god?  They both have white beards.

[ndnh]

Of course, the existance of Big Bang is only a speculation. It is beleived to exist no proof to the contrary has been established yet. Wait a few more years, and you can see another, more probable theory coming up..

[the joint]

Of course, the existance of Big Bang is only a speculation. It is beleived to exist no proof to the contrary has been established yet. Wait a few more years, and you can see another, more probable theory coming up..

That depends.  From a classical perspective, evidence suggests the Big Bang happened.  But there are problems with this.

The Big Bang is a logical conclusion when we control for observation.  Controlling for observation essentially means that we assume our relative perspective (from which we gather data) is instead an objective one.  This allows us to infer the Big Bang occurred at given time and place.  If, however, we don't control for observation, the Big Bang seems to fall apart.  Consequently, questions like "when or where did the Big Bang occur?" become objectively meaningless. 

[BADecker]

If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING. Big Bang and any of the popular garbage that goes along with it - a 13 or 14 billion year universe, life from evolution, dark matter and dark energy, the sun and stars being powered by nuclear reactions, molten core of the earth, and multitudes of other fantastic things that it can't begin to prove by any stretch of the imagination - is all science fiction, dreamed up by sci-fi writers pawning themselves off as scientists, just so that they can get their funding.

[Buffer Overflow]

If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

So lets get this straight, your logic says:

1. Medical science hasn't found a way for us humans to live to 500 years old.
2. Therefore the big bang didn't happen.

I just genuinely LOL'd very hard indeed.

Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING.

The church requires funding too you know. 

[BADecker]

If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

So lets get this straight, your logic says:

1. Medical science hasn't found a way for us humans to live to 500 years old.
2. Therefore the big bang didn't happen.

I just genuinely LOL'd very hard indeed.

Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING.

The church requires funding too you know. 

Oh, Fluffer. It doesn't work like that. You're awareness that humans don't live to 500 years old, doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a Big Bang. You really need to go back to school - or maybe just graduate - so that you understand that nobody knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Just 'cause most of the real-life evidence is against it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Don't you just wish that all the advertising about the Big Bang said it straight out, like, "We really don't have a clue if it happened or not."

[Buffer Overflow]

If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

So lets get this straight, your logic says:

1. Medical science hasn't found a way for us humans to live to 500 years old.
2. Therefore the big bang didn't happen.

I just genuinely LOL'd very hard indeed.

Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING.

The church requires funding too you know.  

Oh, Fluffer. It doesn't work like that. You're awareness that humans don't live to 500 years old, doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a Big Bang.

Hey, nice backpedel. So realising your folly about the 500 year thing, your now saying it has no connection with the big bang (which it doesn't).
I'm glad you've admitted (not directly though) your wrong.
Perhaps *think* next time before you come out with silly arguments.

You really need to go back to school - or maybe just graduate - so that you understand that nobody knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Just 'cause most of the real-life evidence is against it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Don't you just wish that all the advertising about the Big Bang said it straight out, like, "We really don't have a clue if it happened or not."

Of course we don't know, and probably never will. That's why it's called a theory. Nobody is pretending it isn't, apart from you.

Maybe in 10 years time a different theory will appear that gains consensus. No doubt some hardcore believers will then keep trying to promote the old theory. Very similar to how the young 6000 year old earth theory lost consensus and was dropped.
We laugh now, but hard as it is to believe, people did actually believe this was once true. I know, I know, your rolling your eyes in disbelief, but yes seriously, people did really believe the earth was only 6000 years old, once upon a time.

[MegaFall]

something that big couldn't have created itself

Look up multi-verse and M-Theory. A proposed theory is that there are many universes created by "branes" colliding with one another to create new universes. The universes are essentially like bubbles floating around, and when they smack into one another they create another bubble. This is where the big bang originated from. Two branes colliding and forming a new universe.

They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

They have... look up the SIR2 gene research. This couldn't have been unlocked until DNA research was made readily available.

[the joint]

something that big couldn't have created itself

Look up multi-verse and M-Theory. A proposed theory is that there are many universes created by "branes" colliding with one another to create new universes. The universes are essentially like bubbles floating around, and when they smack into one another they create another bubble. This is where the big bang originated from. Two branes colliding and forming a new universe.

They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

They have... look up the SIR2 gene research. This couldn't have been unlocked until DNA research was made readily available.

Whether there are multiple universes or only one is pretty irrelevant.

If, on one hand, there are multiple universes that we can confirm to exist, then an explanation is required for the cause of these other universes.  Simply knowing how our universe was created is nice, but not very helpful if we know there are others (i.e. What caused them all?).

On the other hand, if only our universe exists, then we're stuck with essentially the same question: What caused this Universe to exist?

Both scenarios can be approached equally.  Let's simply reduce Universe(s) to "Reality" in a set-theoretic way.  This simplifies our approach:

1) If there are multiple universes constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

2) If there is only one universe constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

[BADecker]

something that big couldn't have created itself

Look up multi-verse and M-Theory. A proposed theory is that there are many universes created by "branes" colliding with one another to create new universes. The universes are essentially like bubbles floating around, and when they smack into one another they create another bubble. This is where the big bang originated from. Two branes colliding and forming a new universe.

They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

They have... look up the SIR2 gene research. This couldn't have been unlocked until DNA research was made readily available.

Whether there are multiple universes or only one is pretty irrelevant.

If, on one hand, there are multiple universes that we can confirm to exist, then an explanation is required for the cause of these other universes.  Simply knowing how our universe was created is nice, but not very helpful if we know there are others (i.e. What caused them all?).

On the other hand, if only our universe exists, then we're stuck with essentially the same question: What caused this Universe to exist?

Both scenarios can be approached equally.  Let's simply reduce Universe(s) to "Reality" in a set-theoretic way.  This simplifies our approach:

1) If there are multiple universes constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

2) If there is only one universe constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

Even though I use the term parallel universes at times, the idea of "universe" implies everything. A person who wants to think about something that is NOT part of everything, just might have to twist his brain all out of shape to do it. It might not be possible to do.

Extra universal would indicate that logic does not fit, except, possible, completely by accident.