• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pre-Big Bang

digitusmedius said:
Yeah, it's only the very thing I've said now in maybe two dozen posts. Man, you're desperation is growing exponentially.




So right way contradict which you said above that it was all about belief and not reason.
Click to expand...

I don't see a contradiction, each of us ultimately hold unprovable beliefs as truths and have our reasons for doing so.

digitusmedius said:
I'm sure the scientific community will be relieved to hear that.
Click to expand...

The question is do you agree with me or not?

digitusmedius said:
Do you think there is one? If so, define each of those terms according to your view.
Click to expand...

Fine, so you use the terms interchangeably, that's all I was trying to ascertain.


Fine, so for example Jesus could have turned water into wine and the only trace we have of this is the written account? we can't say this claim is not true just because we can't reproduce it, scientifically explain it, would you agree?
 
NWO_Spook said:
And even then, the hypothesis requires some credible evidence to support the proposition. With regard to the existence of gods, we don't even have that much.
Click to expand...

But if you insist that all evidence can always only ever be evidence of some material process, how could you recognize evidence that was evidence of God?

How can you distinguish between genuine evidence of God or evidence of something natural that we simply haven't scientifically explained yet?

Because if you cannot do that then you will never recognize evidence for God even if it bites you in the a$$ so why do you bother asking for it?

If all you're capable of seeing are squares why would you ask someone to show you circles?
 
Last edited:

What else can evidence of the existence of something be? Imaginary things have no evidence of their existence. If you claim there is evidence of something which cannot be observed in any way, you are claiming the impossible. If I claim that invisible, undetectable sprites exist, what could I possibly submit as evidence? Where could I point anyone to to find e evidence themselves? They would simply have to take my word for it that I "experienced" them. That claim of experience is not evidence in any verifiable way. Without the ability to verify, there is no valid evidence. That is how we distinguish the real from the imaginary.
 

This diatribe is typical David, no attempt to answer straightforward questions just a ranting attack about imaginary undetectable sprites, and you wonder why I compare you to Donald Trump.

Here, lets see if you are intellectually capable of answering just one of the questions that you chose to pretend I didn't ask:

How can you distinguish between genuine evidence of God or evidence of something natural that we simply haven't scientifically explained yet?
 
Last edited:
Questerr said:
So I assume you believe in invisible pink unicorns, yes? There’s no evidence they don’t exist after all.
Click to expand...

I assume you believe that Jesus had a pet dinosaur, yes? After all, belief doesn't require any observable evidence...but science does. And currently science has enough evidence to logically determine that there was a pre-big bang existence. What that existence was, they don't know...but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist, it just means they haven't found the observable evidence yet.
 

I don’t believe Jesus, at least the Jesus as described in the Bible, was even a real person.

Science can logically conclude that there was something pre-Big Bang, but there is literally zero evidence of what that thing may have been.

Which btw, is what I’ve been saying since I started involvement in this thread.
 

Indeed, for anything goes if we do not apply certain standards of evidence, and then the fruitcakes rule.
 



It's not a belief...it's a theory based on evidence that can only be disproven with new evidence.

So what do you think caused the big bang?
 
I'm still pondering how there can be anything pre-singularity that could give birth to all. I could imagine billions of wave like phenomena existing in an infinitesimally small space and somehow organizing itself outside of our physical matter based reality over eons, but even then-- why? The more I think about it, the more I can accept the supernatural entity explanation -- maybe not one god, maybe a trillion, who knows. But again, drop any and all attributes, like benevolence or spite. Could even be an intelligent, aggregate god comprised of trillions of dumb agents.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
It's not a belief...it's a theory based on evidence that can only be disproven with new evidence.

So what do you think caused the big bang?
Click to expand...

Any speculation about what existed prior to the Big Bang is neither a theory nor based on evidence.

What caused the Big Bang? I. DON’T. KNOW. Which is incidentally the only honest answer there is.
 
Questerr said:
Any speculation about what existed prior to the Big Bang is neither a theory nor based on evidence.

What caused the Big Bang? I. DON’T. KNOW. Which is incidentally the only honest answer there is.
Click to expand...

No one knows...but not knowing doesn't mean that it isn't knowable. It just means they haven't found the observable evidence yet...and that's because our technology is limited, not because it doesn't exist.
 
Moot said:
No one knows...but not knowing doesn't mean that it isn't knowable. It just means they haven't found the observable evidence yet...and that's because our technology is limited, not because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Although I'm unqualified in the area is not determining the origin of matter one of the aims of the CERN experiments?
 


See post #151.
 



Psychological projection.
 

Please tell us how “ much of atheist’s knowledge if predicated on assumptions much in the same way that certain theists make assumptions”. That is a pretty broad statement and needs som3 explanation before it is considered as true.
And it is Sherlock who has been consistently making variations of the statement in the last sentence above. He simply seems unable to make even a single post without lots of false ad hom towards atheists.
 


All this statement proves is that you have not the slightest iota os self-awareness.
 
Triton said:
You do obviously make an assumption that god does not exist.
Click to expand...


Call it an assumption is you wish, but it is a totally logical one if there is no evidence presented for such an entity.
 
watsup said:
Psychological projection.
Click to expand...

If we can't tell him what constitutes evidence, then he can show us what evidence convinced him, therefore dispensing with page after page of vapid noise. The classical philosophical arguments have been shown to be questionable, so what is left?
 
Last edited:


Ummm....because if it’s not a scientific explanation, then anybody can simply make up absolutely anything.
Like you are doing.
 


Of course we can say it’s not true. It is simply impossible to turn water into wine instantaneously. It’s clearly a myth.
 
Last edited:


Because it’s simply a nonsense statement of the “anything is possible” type. That sort of statement has no meaning at all ina logic-based argument.
 


There may be “zero evidence” at this point, but scientists keep seeking. That’s what science is all about. They don’t simply throw up their hands and say”it must have been God” as Sherlockand others are doing. That’s the difference between science and “belief”.
 
Moot said:
No one knows...but not knowing doesn't mean that it isn't knowable. It just means they haven't found the observable evidence yet...and that's because our technology is limited, not because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it isn’t knowable. But it is 100% accurate to state that no evidence currently exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…