little bang

[standing_alone]

Bonky, if you persist in your position that believing in God is similar to believing in “cosmic elves”, or whatever, then there’s nothing I can tell you that would make sense to you. Sorry. And make sure you inform yourself what being an atheist actually means, because you’re not making sense even by atheistic standards.

 

As for accessing the data, that’s sad. So you, just like so many, really believe that you have access to the secrets of the universe, do you? That’s also ironic: because even if it would be so, even entirely so, that wouldn’t give you the smallest escape from God, would it? In other words, in this case the real data is there. So why don’t you access it?

 

Sorry, Bonky. And keep in mind this: no one can save your soul if you don’t want it. It must be your decision.

 

Farewell, people. See you all at the feet of the actual Truth. When flowers are separated from weeds, forever.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch, actually “re-ligare” doesn’t say to whom the initiative to reconcile belongs. But of course that doesn’t mean that we should mistake religion with what people, including many Christians, make of it. If by religious people, or supporters of religion, we understand people like the Pharisees, then I agree with you that they are wrong. If instead we understand by religion God’s attempt to reconcile man with Himself, then the term was properly used.

 

No, I can’t “ CITE a source supporting what "You Think" “. But the fact that you ask me for one is very disappointing. I mean, if I would think what others tell me to think, then I wouldn’t actually think, would I? And if you look for others to tell you what to think, why exactly aren’t you an evolutionist?

 

As for faith in case of big bang supporters, I stand corrected. Indeed, in their case is blind faith. A Christian should indeed be more careful when using the term ‘faith’.

 

As for:

“ My arguments are based on the Exact Opposite of Arguments from Ignorance; they are based on Experimentally Validated Scientific Laws. ”,

well, you certainly extend them beyond validation by experiment. In other words, you still have to prove that what we see on Earth is valid everywhere in the universe. Good luck.

 

And no, it’s no “Argument from Ignorance”, as you continuously claim. It’s instead your blind faith that it is so. Just as in the case of the atheists, by the way.

 

I haven’t checked any of your links from your quantum trip, nor will I. I’m pretty sure whatever they say it’s been said before, as well as the arguments against them. I can’t tell, though, if you’re serious or not when you claim that “A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist”. If you’re serious, then you splendidly refuted yourself (your expectation for universal laws).

 

Coming yet again (why?) to alternative explanations, not only I gave yesterday one clear example, but I gave today yet another one. It seems that a dialogue with you is very tiring.

 

As for the Laws not being “Codified” before “……”, you still miss my point that the former laws are not the current laws. If they are (universal) laws, in the first place.

 

I find this dialogue very strange, and pointless since you too seem a YEC, and hence there is nothing fundamental separating us. Other than, again, your illusion that you know the universe. So, on my side, I’m stopping this here. Good luck in your future dialogues (not with me).

 

 

==============================================================================================================================

 

 

No, I can’t “ CITE a source supporting what "You Think" “. But the fact that you ask me for one is very disappointing. 

 

 

I didn't ask you for SUPPORT of what "I think"....I asked you to support "your" Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).

 

 

I mean, if I would think what others tell me to think, then I wouldn’t actually think, would I?  And if you look for others to tell you what to think, why exactly aren’t you an evolutionist?

 

 

CITING Support for your position "doesn't = " allowing others to tell you what to think.  Remove the Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) and the Strawman (Fallacy) is exposed.

 

 

In other words, you still have to prove that what we see on Earth is valid everywhere in the universe.

 

 

You got a serious Kung Fu death grip on this Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy)

 

 

And no, it’s no “Argument from Ignorance”

 

 

ahhh, yea, it is.  It's Textbook, as I have documented and illustrated.

 

 

I haven’t checked any of your links from your quantum trip, nor will I.

 

 

I'm shocked.

 

 

I’m pretty sure whatever they say it’s been said before, as well as the arguments against them.

 

 

Your attention to detail and "leave no stone unturned" to uncover TRUTH, is Otherworldly.  

 

 

I can’t tell, though, if you’re serious or not when you claim that “A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist”.

 

 

Pretty Serious.  And it's not a "Claim", it's VALIDATED through Repeated Experiment; Ergo....Empirical Evidence.

 

 

If you’re serious, then you splendidly refuted yourself (your expectation for universal laws).

 

 

Huh?  How so?

 

The Natural Laws are Immaterial Descriptions/Constructs of what we "OBSERVE".   Can you put the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum in a Jar and paint it Red?

 

 

Coming yet again (why?) to alternative explanations, not only I gave yesterday one clear example, but I gave today yet another one. It seems that a dialogue with you is very tiring.

 

 

Try SUPPORTING what you say instead of playing games...I guarantee it will be much, much less tiring.

 

 

As for the Laws not being “Codified” before “……”, you still miss my point that the former laws are not the current laws. If they are (universal) laws, in the first place.

 

 

Got a question:  If I lift a Book above my head did I just render null and void/falsify the Law of Gravity?

 

 

I find this dialogue very strange

 

 

Try cogently Supporting what you say....it will be much, much less strange.

 

 

Other than, again, your illusion that you know the universe

 

 

Your Entire Position rests on what you admittedly "Don't Know" and could never possibly "OBSERVE" (Textbook, Argument From Ignorance); yet, you characterize my position as an "Illusion" 

[Bonky]

Bonky, if you persist in your position that believing in God is similar to believing in “cosmic elves”, or whatever, then there’s nothing I can tell you that would make sense to you. Sorry. And make sure you inform yourself what being an atheist actually means, because you’re not making sense even by atheistic standards.

The only qualification for being an atheist is one's position on a God claim. Other than that, there aren't any standards. I used the cosmic elves scenario to show you that anyone can conjure up a being to explain the existence of something; it's another thing to provide good reasons to believe it's true.

As for accessing the data, that’s sad. So you, just like so many, really believe that you have access to the secrets of the universe, do you? That’s also ironic: because even if it would be so, even entirely so, that wouldn’t give you the smallest escape from God, would it? In other words, in this case the real data is there. So why don’t you access it?

 

Sorry, Bonky. And keep in mind this: no one can save your soul if you don’t want it. It must be your decision.

 

Farewell, people. See you all at the feet of the actual Truth. When flowers are separated from weeds, forever.

There's that wonderful humility I'm so familiar with, referring to people as "weeds" because they simply hold a different stance on the God claim. If heaven is filled with "flowers" as you put it, I'll be happy to be a weed.

[enoob57]

 

Bonky, if you persist in your position that believing in God is similar to believing in “cosmic elves”, or whatever, then there’s nothing I can tell you that would make sense to you. Sorry. And make sure you inform yourself what being an atheist actually means, because you’re not making sense even by atheistic standards.

The only qualification for being an atheist is one's position on a God claim. Other than that, there aren't any standards. I used the cosmic elves scenario to show you that anyone can conjure up a being to explain the existence of something; it's another thing to provide good reasons to believe it's true.

As for accessing the data, that’s sad. So you, just like so many, really believe that you have access to the secrets of the universe, do you? That’s also ironic: because even if it would be so, even entirely so, that wouldn’t give you the smallest escape from God, would it? In other words, in this case the real data is there. So why don’t you access it?

 

Sorry, Bonky. And keep in mind this: no one can save your soul if you don’t want it. It must be your decision.

 

Farewell, people. See you all at the feet of the actual Truth. When flowers are separated from weeds, forever.

There's that wonderful humility I'm so familiar with, referring to people as "weeds" because they simply hold a different stance on the God claim. If heaven is filled with "flowers" as you put it, I'll be happy to be a weed.

 

Your spirit is not unfamiliar to us bonky... but your logic is bonkers! You rest in a hopeless

ideal, yet feeling self satisfied in your own standards formed by your own specific faith that leads

no where and to nothing.

     The infinite is pointed to in all of existence both science and math yet the finite propaganda

you snivel out as fact does not match the reality in the very simple common sense seen in the

light of day! Your elevation of that which has no meaning is a badge that only a fool would find

credulous ... all have faith by the very element of 'IS'  which lies in hope and the greatest

accomplishment of your 'IS'  being one of no hope at all! You bring nothing to the table for

anyone to even desire moreover listen to... Love, Steven

[1to3]

I can't really debate this topic myself but

 

Can anyone comment on this?

 

Was there no Big Bang?

 

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang .

[Guest]

I can't really debate this topic myself but

 

Can anyone comment on this?

 

Was there no Big Bang?

 

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang .

 

 

A Short Note

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart,

 

so that no man can find out the work that God maketh

 

from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

From Our 

 

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

 

wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day,

 

and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11

 

Sponsor 

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

 

which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,

 

who created all things

 

by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

May

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,

 

the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

Help

 

So then faith cometh by hearing,

 

and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

[Tristen]

I can't really debate this topic myself but

 

Can anyone comment on this?

 

Was there no Big Bang?

 

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang .

 

 

Hi 1to3

 

All models of cosmological history stem from theoretical concepts being mathematically manipulated to suite the available evidence. The most popular secular model is called Standard Cosmology. Standard Cosmology is the model that incorporates the Big Bang theory. But Standard Cosmology this is not the only available model.

 

Consider that we cannot go back in time to make the observations necessary for scientific confidence for any historical claim. All models rely upon unverifiable assumptions. All models have strengths and weaknesses.

 

This article suggests that certain mathematic constructs better support a different model of the universe (i.e. one with no Big Bang). In this proposed model, the origin of the singularity (the proposed source of the Big Bang) is no longer an issue – because under this new model, there is no singularity (and therefore no Big Bang).

[Enoch2021]

 

I can't really debate this topic myself but

 

Can anyone comment on this?

 

Was there no Big Bang?

 

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang .

 

 

Hi 1to3

 

All models of cosmological history stem from theoretical concepts being mathematically manipulated to suite the available evidence. The most popular secular model is called Standard Cosmology. Standard Cosmology is the model that incorporates the Big Bang theory. But Standard Cosmology this is not the only available model.

 

Consider that we cannot go back in time to make the observations necessary for scientific confidence for any historical claim. All models rely upon unverifiable assumptions. All models have strengths and weaknesses.

 

This article suggests that certain mathematic constructs better support a different model of the universe (i.e. one with no Big Bang). In this proposed model, the origin of the singularity (the proposed source of the Big Bang) is no longer an issue – because under this new model, there is no singularity (and therefore no Big Bang).

 

 

 

====================================================================================================================================

 

I didn't read the article concerning the big bang story because it's not "Science".  Allow me to explain....

 

To be Science...."Scientific", it has to follow the Scientific Method:  

 

The Scientific Method: 

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

So Hypothesis-----> Hypothesis TESTING (Experiment)------> Validation ------>  Scientific Theory.   Invalidated ------->  Back to Step 3.

 

A Hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1775842/scientific-hypothesis

 

"You make a set of observations, then Hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."

http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

 

And it's not just "OBSERVE" as in Observe a "Noun" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action.  And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off" event so as to be able to TEST your Hypothesis.

 

If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of Nouns, this is what you're reduced to (an example)...

 

If it was just "Make an Observation" then let's do it:

 

I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis.......? .....

 

How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)

What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)

The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And lol, you have a Invalid "Theory" in the Hypothesis.

 

OK what's the TEST? Set up the Experiments, then please Elucidate...

What are the Dependent/Independent//Control Variables of the TESTS?

 

Again from above...

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations." 

 

OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:

 

Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation")... You're Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...

 

[in the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which then the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.

 

Viola, A Tree!  

 

It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"---of Nouns!

 

 

 

Science is in the business of Observing Phenomenon in the Natural World and Ascertaining CAUSATION through rigorous Hypothesis Testing.

 

Since Nobody OBSERVED the big bang there is no possible way to TEST IT; Ergo....it is an INVALID Hypothesis.  It's a Story!

 

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

 

So you can make a list of what's NOT SCIENCE: evolution, big bangs, dark matter, black holes, dark energy, multiverses, phlogiston, 13th century alchemy, Billion of Years, radiometric dating, fossils, geologic column, trees of life, .....ad nauseam.

 

 

 

ps. Equations or Mathematics is not a Hypothesis either....they are Equations and Mathematics.

 

 

Hope it helps

[1to3]

 Thank you Fresno Joe, Tristen, Enoch 2021  for all your answers, much appreciated.

[udx]

Probably there is a Big bang at one point, as in the universe started very small and expanded rapidly in a short period, since there are 17 verses in the Bible that says God stretched out the heavens.

This is probably a one time event and the universe may not be currently expanding.

 

[it is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

 

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isaiah 42:5

 

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Jeremiah 10:12

 

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 9:8

 

Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalms 104:2