Debunking the Big Bang theory

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1854

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by blackg » 4 months ago

nameless wrote:
4 months ago
I was pulling his leg. I really don't care if he preaches here or not.

That aside, did you even get a small chuckle from the part about how we won't bother to retrieve his body if the Sentinelese take him out?
That was funny, namejob.
I laughed.

I'm not religious but I believe there is an almighty invisible force that protects me sometimes.
Especially when I'm drinking.
She packed my bags last night

nameless
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: 9 months ago
Reputation: 131
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by nameless » 4 months ago

blackg wrote:
4 months ago
That was funny, namejob.
I laughed.

I'm not religious but I believe there is an almighty invisible force that protects me sometimes.
Especially when I'm drinking.
I was laughing when I typed it. It sounds so far out. I also chuckled when I typed about his "irrelevant corpse"

Added in 3 hours 49 minutes 31 seconds:
An interesting piece of news that came out today Xexos.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... ailsignout

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1221
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by JLBB » 4 months ago

That Guy wrote:
4 months ago
I know that we're going full-boomer here, but honestly:

The correct response here is to just let Xexos believe whatever he wants about the creation of the universe.

I'd prefer that more people believed it was the result of some divine hand because it creates fewer "Everything including child trannies is subjective maaaan" lines of thinking plaguing the masses today, which are directly responsible for the moral degeneration of society today.

There's also the fact that it just doesn't fucking matter.

What changes, right now, about anything, if he's right or wrong?
Exactly, it's why I'm happy to believe the scientific theory while having absolutely no interest in understanding it or knowing the details. I'm sure there are tangents of scientific relevance that can be used to benefit society through understanding this but to individuals it's mental masturbation.

Toms
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 4 months ago
Reputation: 6
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Absolutely nothing.

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Toms » 4 months ago

As a newcomer of this forum I'll just drop my two cents here.

I believe in the pulsating universe theory, which states that the universe goes through cycles of expanding and contracting. Once a specific size (singularity) is reached while contracting, "explosions" happen which is what we call the Big Bang. This still doesn't answer the question where this expanding and contracting universe came from though.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 500
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1449

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by pjhair » 4 months ago

Toms wrote:
4 months ago
As a newcomer of this forum I'll just drop my two cents here.

I believe in the pulsating universe theory, which states that the universe goes through cycles of expanding and contracting. Once a specific size (singularity) is reached while contracting, "explosions" happen which is what we call the Big Bang. This still doesn't answer the question where this expanding and contracting universe came from though.
We are entering the speculation territory here but the question of where does the expanding and contracting universe come from can be resolved if we consider it to be without a beginning, just like theists consider God to be without a beginning. That is, the cycle of expansion and contraction is beginning less, it was always there and will always be there. Some may argue that how can I consider universe to be without a beginning when everything in it such as galaxies, planets, stars, etc have a definite beginning and end. It's not a valid argument for the following reasons:

(1) This argument is an example of a logical fallacy called fallacy of composition.We can't ascribe properties exhibited by parts of a whole to the entire whole unless we have evidence that establishes that. For example, it will be wrong to claim that just because parts of an airplane can't fly, airplane itself can't fly. Similarly, just because parts of the universe have certain property, it doesn't mean the entire has the same property.

(2) One can argue that looking at formation and end of galaxies, stars, planets, etc as discrete, independent events is not correct. For example, formation of galaxies should be seen as a continuous process of formation of stars from some basic "things" and then accumulation of stars. In that sense, there really isn't a discrete beginning or end of even parts of the universe. There is simply transformation of things from one form to another.

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 582
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 608
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Xexos » 4 months ago

pjhair wrote:
4 months ago
We are entering the speculation territory here but the question of where does the expanding and contracting universe come from can be resolved if we consider it to be without a beginning, just like theists consider God to be without a beginning. That is, the cycle of expansion and contraction is beginning less, it was always there and will always be there. Some may argue that how can I consider universe to be without a beginning when everything in it such as galaxies, planets, stars, etc have a definite beginning and end. It's not a valid argument for the following reasons:

(1) This argument is an example of a logical fallacy called fallacy of composition.We can't ascribe properties exhibited by parts of a whole to the entire whole unless we have evidence that establishes that. For example, it will be wrong to claim that just because parts of an airplane can't fly, airplane itself can't fly. Similarly, just because parts of the universe have certain property, it doesn't mean the entire has the same property.

(2) One can argue that looking at formation and end of galaxies, stars, planets, etc as discrete, independent events is not correct. For example, formation of galaxies should be seen as a continuous process of formation of stars from some basic "things" and then accumulation of stars. In that sense, there really isn't a discrete beginning or end of even parts of the universe. There is simply transformation of things from one form to another.
The difference between God and the universe, is that God doesn't have to follow our laws or logic. He exists outside of time and space and he was the one to create our laws and logic. The universe in the other hand, is within time and space and laws and logic have to apply to it, or else it wouldn't even be science at this point and we wouldn't be able to study it, it would be supernatural.

Everything that has a beginning in time has an end in time. As long as anything is within our time, it has a beginning and an end, it's just inevitable. Just imagine everything we're inside is a realm and even the universe exists within this realm. God is outside that realm because he created it in the first place. Our realm has space, time and laws that must be obeyed strictly or it just wouldn't be possible because not even the universe itself has the power to disobey them.

You might be asking, who then created God ? But that question is a paradox that cannot be answered. If i say "something created God and then something created something that created God" and so on and on until infinity. There has to be a stop point, something that is the ultimate creator and never been created, something that is way beyond our time, space and laws. The creator of everything including the universe. The universe isn't a creator and it's not indestructible or infinite, it's not omnipotent, thus it can't be given the credit as the creator that has always existed and created everything.

Our minds just can't comprehend God, but we can be sure of his existence because of the universe he created. It's like when you're walking in a desert and find footsteps or building and conclude that someone had to be there at some point. We look at the universe and we conclude that a God must have created it, and that's why we believe in a God.

That's why it's false to think that we could ever have a "scientific proof" of God's existence. That statement is stupid and impossible to happen. Science doesn't deal with supernatural stuff, science deals with systemic, natural stuff that obeys our laws and exists within our time and space. And God is way beyond that.

In conclusion, it's impossible for an infinite, omnipotent God not to exist or the universe and everything else wouldn't be able to exist.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1733
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3778
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Admin » 4 months ago

Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
The difference between God and the universe, is that God doesn't have to follow our laws or logic. He exists outside of time and space and he was the one to create our laws and logic. The universe in the other hand, is within time and space and laws and logic have to apply to it, or else it wouldn't even be science at this point and we wouldn't be able to study it, it would be supernatural.

Everything that has a beginning in time has an end in time. As long as anything is within our time, it has a beginning and an end, it's just inevitable. Just imagine everything we're inside is a realm and even the universe exists within this realm. God is outside that realm because he created it in the first place. Our realm has space, time and laws that must be obeyed strictly or it just wouldn't be possible because not even the universe itself has the power to disobey them.

You might be asking, who then created God ? But that question is a paradox that cannot be answered. If i say "something created God and then something created something that created God" and so on and on until infinity. There has to be a stop point, something that is the ultimate creator and never been created, something that is way beyond our time, space and laws. The creator of everything including the universe. The universe isn't a creator and it's not indestructible or infinite, it's not omnipotent, thus it can't be given the credit as the creator that has always existed and created everything.

Our minds just can't comprehend God, but we can be sure of his existence because of the universe he created. It's like when you're walking in a desert and find footsteps or building and conclude that someone had to be there at some point. We look at the universe and we conclude that a God must have created it, and that's why we believe in a God.

That's why it's false to think that we could ever have a "scientific proof" of God's existence. That statement is stupid and impossible to happen. Science doesn't deal with supernatural stuff, science deals with systemic, natural stuff that obeys our laws and exists within our time and space. And God is way beyond that.

In conclusion, it's impossible for an infinite, omnipotent God not to exist or the universe and everything else wouldn't be able to exist.
Just to add my Christiancel toughts here, that's the Muslim version of God you're talking about here: an omnipotent, unrestrained tyrant who's not kept in check by anyone else.

That's not the God us Christians and Jews believe in. We have an alliance with God and we negociate with one another, we co-create the world.

This is pervasive in the biblical stories and culminates with God entering his own creation as Jesus Christ.

Now to each their own beliefs, if what you believe works for you then more power to you.

And about the topic at hand, I'm sure atheists like @pjhair are mostly right, it's just that I fail to see the benefits of a materialistic account of the origin of the universe.

User avatar
Exodus
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 324
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 473
Norwood: NW6
Regimen: nothing

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Exodus » 4 months ago

Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
The difference between God and the universe, is that God doesn't have to follow our laws or logic. He exists outside of time and space and he was the one to create our laws and logic. The universe in the other hand, is within time and space and laws and logic have to apply to it, or else it wouldn't even be science at this point and we wouldn't be able to study it, it would be supernatural.
so you're claiming the existence of something that is "beyond" existence and logic? you could posit the existence of anything and use that as a fallacious way to prove it. you're basically saying you believe in it because there doesn't need to be evidence for it. this is totally speculative.
Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
You might be asking, who then created God ? But that question is a paradox that cannot be answered. If i say "something created God and then something created something that created God" and so on and on until infinity. There has to be a stop point, something that is the ultimate creator and never been created, something that is way beyond our time, space and laws. The creator of everything including the universe. The universe isn't a creator and it's not indestructible or infinite, it's not omnipotent, thus it can't be given the credit as the creator that has always existed and created everything.

Our minds just can't comprehend God, but we can be sure of his existence because of the universe he created. It's like when you're walking in a desert and find footsteps or building and conclude that someone had to be there at some point. We look at the universe and we conclude that a God must have created it, and that's why we believe in a God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

you're referring to these two here. the cosmological argument i dont find convincing because the infinite causes also applies to God, not just the idea of a finite universe. why cant we just say the universe was here forever? and if it wasnt, then God presents the same paradox of infinite causes as a finite universe does.

the teleological argument can be argued against with something called the "anthropic principle" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle. it basically says "the extremely low probability that life arose isn't special, because if it had never happened then we wouldn't be here asking this question". it often assumes a multiverse as well to account for the super low chances that life can form. i'm iffy about this one, it feels wrong yet right at the same time. like its obviously logical but at the same time just feels unsatisfactory as a counter argument

a good analogy is a guy surviving being shot at. he wonders "how did i survive? the chances of none of the bullets hitting me was so low?". but the thing is he wouldn't be asking that question in the first place if he hadn't survived.
Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
That's why it's false to think that we could ever have a "scientific proof" of God's existence. That statement is stupid and impossible to happen. Science doesn't deal with supernatural stuff, science deals with systemic, natural stuff that obeys our laws and exists within our time and space. And God is way beyond that.
science never proves anything. it finds patterns in observable or measurable events and teases out systems of rules and ideas (theories) that explain those patterns. but there can always be new events that don't follow those patterns, thus requiring a new theory. a good example is newton's laws of motion , until we developed microscopes and the ability to observe the quantum world we thought they were universal (hence the term "law"). once we saw that quantum particles dont follow the laws of motion we had to make a new system of rules that explain how quantum particles behave (quantum theory)
Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
In conclusion, it's impossible for an infinite, omnipotent God not to exist or the universe and everything else wouldn't be able to exist.
no. the universe obviously exists because we are perceiving it (assuming our senses are generally accurate) but you havent presented any evidence for god. and even if there was "evidence" for god how would that work out?

say there was some 2001 type monolith we found of incomprehensible power or properties somewhere, would that be a god really? it could just as easily be some super advanced type being. thats what i think there might be , some sort of advanced civilization that seeded us like in promehteus or 2001.

omnipotence is a paradox, but crazy advanced nanotech might make it possible to do practically omnipotent things like telekinesis and creation of new material. or new forms of energy with insane amounts of power like dyson spheres allowing planet destroying death star type lasers or huge planet sized robots or computers like fuckin unicron.

"god" is a vague term.

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 582
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 608
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Xexos » 4 months ago

Admin wrote:
4 months ago
Just to add my Christiancel toughts here, that's the Muslim version of God you're talking about here: an omnipotent, unrestrained tyrant who's not kept in check by anyone else.

That's not the God us Christians and Jews believe in. We have an alliance with God and we negociate with one another, we co-create the world.

This is pervasive in the biblical stories and culminates with God entering his own creation as Jesus Christ.

Now to each their own beliefs, if what you believe works for you then more power to you.

And about the topic at hand, I'm sure atheists like pjhair are mostly right, it's just that I fail to see the benefits of a materialistic account of the origin of the universe.
And that's why Jesus simply isn't God and Islam has the best version of God. God HAS to be omnipotent, perfect, all knowing, all seeing, all hearing, completely controlling our laws, space and time, immortal, etc. Or else he wouldn't be a God or be able to even create the universe or take care of it.

A God that was in a woman's womb, breastfed, ate, slept, peed and pooped and then harmed and killed is simply not a perfect God and is deeply flawed like other humans, so there's no need to consider him God. Jesus even never claimed to be a God in the bible and he always gave credit and talked about the other God who sent him. His miracles were amazing, but other prophets also had supernatural and amazing miracles. There's no need on earth to consider even Jesus a God in the first place, sorry if that offends you, but it's just the truth. The Jewish God is mysterious and they have many deities, so i also don't consider him or them to be the true Gods, never even mind that the Torah and Talmud are twisted beyond imagination and that religion is completely racist.

Islam has the perfect God out of all religions, the God that makes the most sense. A completely perfect, one God that has created everything and has the ability to do anything he wants.

Added in 15 minutes 36 seconds:
Exodus wrote:
4 months ago
so you're claiming the existence of something that is "beyond" existence and logic? you could posit the existence of anything and use that as a fallacious way to prove it. you're basically saying you believe in it because there doesn't need to be evidence for it. this is totally speculative.
Yeah, because that's simply what has to happen in order for everything to exist. The universe CAN'T create itself no matter how much you put it, or else the scientists would have discovered already how it came to existence. As i said, the evidence of God is the universe itself like how you find some building or a car in the middle of nowhere and conclude that someone HAD to be there and they just didn't pop out of nothing. You expect me to believe the complex universe came out of nothing ?

Exodus wrote:
4 months ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

you're referring to these two here. the cosmological argument i dont find convincing because the infinite causes also applies to God, not just the idea of a finite universe. why cant we just say the universe was here forever? and if it wasnt, then God presents the same paradox of infinite causes as a finite universe does.

the teleological argument can be argued against with something called the "anthropic principle" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle. it basically says "the extremely low probability that life arose isn't special, because if it had never happened then we wouldn't be here asking this question". it often assumes a multiverse as well to account for the super low chances that life can form. i'm iffy about this one, it feels wrong yet right at the same time. like its obviously logical but at the same time just feels unsatisfactory as a counter argument

a good analogy is a guy surviving being shot at. he wonders "how did i survive? the chances of none of the bullets hitting me was so low?". but the thing is he wouldn't be asking that question in the first place if he hadn't survived.
The chance is not so low, it's mathematically impossible. I know you didn't read my thread like almost all the people here, but i talked about it in my thread how the probability of the universe arousing by a coincidence or chance is objectively 0%.

I'll put the quote here for you to understand more.
We have two hundred dices, the same amount as the universe constants. Every dice represents a constant in our universe. Every dice has six numbers, which one of them is extremely necessary for the universe to exist, and five other false numbers. And we have to throw all the two hundred dices for them to drop on the exact number like the universe constant and calculate the chance of it happening. And keep in mind that I’m assuming there’s only six possibilities, where in the universe the possibilities would be much more than that.

So the chance of me getting the right numbers on those two hundred dices from the first try is that from every (1*10^155), I’d only succeed in ONE try. It’s an enormous number that if we put a zero on every particle in the universe it wouldn’t end and we wouldn’t done writing them even if we lived billions and billions and billions of years. The scientists estimated the mathematical impossible to be (1*10^150).
Exodus wrote:
4 months ago
science never proves anything. it finds patterns in observable or measurable events and teases out systems of rules and ideas (theories) that explain those patterns. but there can always be new events that don't follow those patterns, thus requiring a new theory. a good example is newton's laws of motion , until we developed microscopes and the ability to observe the quantum world we thought they were universal (hence the term "law"). once we saw that quantum particles dont follow the laws of motion we had to make a new system of rules that explain how quantum particles behave (quantum theory)
The whole God thing and why atheists exist in the first place is because "there's no scientific proof for God", i've merely explained how that statement is just stupid and horseshit as that's what's supposed to happen in the first place. And all the things you talked about are still within our time, space and laws, that's why it's possible to study them in a way or another, which is simply what i said in my post.

About quantum mechanics though, it's all just bullshit assumptions that don't hold any real meaning anyways as there's not one evidence to support 90% of it's theories. It's just a way for the "intellectuals" to sound smart and for the desperate scientist to find a way to fill the obvious hole in their theories that discusses the origin of the universe.

And i also talked about this in my OP, which no one read.

Exodus wrote:
4 months ago
no. the universe obviously exists because we are perceiving it (assuming our senses are generally accurate) but you havent presented any evidence for god. and even if there was "evidence" for god how would that work out?

say there was some 2001 type monolith we found of incomprehensible power or properties somewhere, would that be a god really? it could just as easily be some super advanced type being. thats what i think there might be , some sort of advanced civilization that seeded us like in promehteus or 2001.

omnipotence is a paradox, but crazy advanced nanotech might make it possible to do practically omnipotent things like telekinesis and creation of new material. or new forms of energy with insane amounts of power like dyson spheres allowing planet destroying death star type lasers or huge planet sized robots or computers like fuckin unicron.

"god" is a vague term.
The universe exists of course, but it had a beginning and will have an end, It's INEVITABLE. As long as there's time, there's a beginning and an end no matter how much you want to put it, unless you completely want to break the laws of physics and time. God is the only explaination that makes sense, because the universe was created 100% and couldn't have created itself because it can't and it has limits and our laws wouldn't allow it.

And that "advanced" type being is simply God, but the difference is that it has to be perfect if it wants to create and take care of the universe, so it wouldn't be a being anymore, it would be a perfect, all powerful deity which is what we call God.

About the other thing you said, telekinesis isn't omnipotent even if we assume that it could even exist, no matter what that is, as long is something within our universe, it just has limits, unless you like anime like One Punch Man where the MC "broke" his limiter and is able to defeat everyone with one punch.

nameless
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: 9 months ago
Reputation: 131
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by nameless » 4 months ago

Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
The difference between God and the universe, is that God doesn't have to follow our laws or logic. He exists outside of time and space and he was the one to create our laws and logic.
We look at the universe and we conclude that a God must have created it, and that's why we believe in a God.

That's why it's false to think that we could ever have a "scientific proof" of God's existence. That statement is stupid and impossible to happen. Science doesn't deal with supernatural stuff, science deals with systemic, natural stuff that obeys our laws and exists within our time and space. And God is way beyond that.

In conclusion, it's impossible for an infinite, omnipotent God not to exist or the universe and everything else wouldn't be able to exist.
What a bunch of double-talk and craaaaaaaaaaaaaaap.

1. "The difference between God and the universe, is that God doesn't have to follow our laws or logic. He exists outside of time and space and he was the one to create our laws and logic."

Which of course means God can't be disproved because as soon as someone says that your conjecture is impossible due to the laws of physics then you fall back on the old crap about God being magic. What a bunch of shit.

2. "We look at the universe and we conclude that a God must have created it, and that's why we believe in a God."

Who's we?

3. "That's why it's false to think that we could ever have a "scientific proof" of God's existence."

Translated into normal speak you're saying you don't have to prove your god exists because you can just fall back on your "It's magic" bullshit. And atheists can't disprove the existence of god because even if they establish that the laws of the universe make the existence of god impossible then you'll just blab on with your "god's magic" bullshit. There's no point in having a conversation with you about this because You don't care about physical laws and facts. All you care about is you "god is magic" bullshit and double-talk.

4. "In conclusion, it's impossible for an infinite, omnipotent God not to exist or the universe and everything else wouldn't be able to exist."

False! Your double-talk is nothing but a bunch of bullshit. The universe, including life, exists because BIG BANG to the DUST CLOUD HYPOTHESIS to SPONTANEOUS GENERATION to MODERN UNIFORMITARIANISM. It's pretty simple for intelligent people who want to know the truth.

It's widely known that it's less intelligent people who fall for all the god crap. Here check this out:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 42766.html

I don''t respect your intelligence because you prove that you're dumb with all this god shit of yours.
Last edited by nameless 4 months ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1733
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3778
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Admin » 4 months ago

@Xexos

Sometime in Middle-Ages:

- Christians have decided we could comprehend God, the laws of the universe, nature and catch bits of His beauty and His greatness.

- Muslims have decided the opposite, like you still avocate now.

Fast-forward centuries later, here's where the Western Judeo-Christian world is at, and here's where the Muslim world is at.

They made a mistake, and they won't collectively come out of their own Dark Ages until they realize so and the interpretation of Islam is reformed. There's not much hope to be had for that though.

Muslims seem to be following the same pattern than the Egyptians in the Exodus story: they (and God) will harden their heart until they eventually drown by their own making, like it has already happened to them many times around the world.

Like you, I wish they would have lived out that story amongst themselves instead of importing it with them in the West. Both civilizations are at very different stages in their spiritual journey, with Christians having their own problems at the moment: hedonism, materialism, nihilism, etc.

Also, about God not having been human and suffered like the rest of us, more than any of us, that God who hasn't been in my shoes has nothing to tell me. He's a tyrant who wants me to submit to his Will while he answers to no one.

Anyway, I use reality to justify why the Christian conception of God leads us closer and closer to Heaven (also here on earth) and why the Muslim conception brings about Hell on earth, as a rule with rare exceptions.

Yes man is imperfect and if only they could follow their religion perfectly. You see that's key: follow Christianity very badly, even unconsciously like many atheists out there, and somehow society still improves. Somehow Christian teachings don't lead to the systematic killings of infidels by small groups of radicals.

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 500
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1449

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by pjhair » 4 months ago

Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
Everything that has a beginning in time has an end in time. As long as anything is within our time, it has a beginning and an end, it's just inevitable.
There is no reason to believe that the above statement is true. Our universe may very well be beginning-less and still have time dimension. In fact, as I pointed out in one of my post on this thread, physicsts have come up with models of universe that are without beginning. In fact, those models are far better than God hypothesis as they are entirely consistent with logic known laws of physics. In your response to Exodus you commented:

"Yeah, because that's simply what has to happen in order for everything to exist. The universe CAN'T create itself no matter how much you put it, or else the scientists would have discovered already how it came to existence. "


A beginning-less universe doesn't need to be created. Hence there is absolutely no need for a creator. So the question remains, is the universe really beginning less? No one really knows. Like I said, prominent physicists have come up with models of eternal universes but they haven't been verified yet.

You also stated that God is beyond all logic. There are several problems with this statement. I want to write an exhaustive response to all your comments as I really like this topic. However, I will come back to it later as I am really short on time this week due to finals.

Added in 7 minutes 55 seconds:
Xexos wrote:
4 months ago
We have two hundred dices, the same amount as the universe constants. Every dice represents a constant in our universe. Every dice has six numbers, which one of them is extremely necessary for the universe to exist, and five other false numbers. And we have to throw all the two hundred dices for them to drop on the exact number like the universe constant and calculate the chance of it happening. And keep in mind that I’m assuming there’s only six possibilities, where in the universe the possibilities would be much more than that.

So the chance of me getting the right numbers on those two hundred dices from the first try is that from every (1*10^155), I’d only succeed in ONE try. It’s an enormous number that if we put a zero on every particle in the universe it wouldn’t end and we wouldn’t done writing them even if we lived billions and billions and billions of years. The scientists estimated the mathematical impossible to be (1*10^150).

So the idea that the universe came from nothing by a coincidence is impossible scientifically, mathematically and logically. This theory is pseudoscience or pop-science at best and could only be used as a propaganda, nothing more.

This is not accurate. In a multiverse the 1 chance in of 1*10^155 will happen with the probability of 1, that is with 100% certainty. Not only that, it will happen infinite times. So even with such a low probability, there will be infinite numbers of life permitting universe. Infinity beats all odds greater than 0, however infinitesimally small.

nameless
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 475
Joined: 9 months ago
Reputation: 131
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: None at this time.

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by nameless » 4 months ago

Hey tell me something - why is your god hiding from us all?

Why doesn't he just show himself?

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1347
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1854

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by blackg » 4 months ago

nameless wrote:
4 months ago
Hey tell me something - why is your god hiding from us all?

Why doesn't he just show himself?
Good question, nameless.
She packed my bags last night

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1733
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3778
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: - 5% Minoxidil once a day and Head & Shoulders caffeine shampoo
- Discontinued due to lack of results: Stemoxydine and dermarolling
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Contact:

Re: Debunking the Big Bang theory

Post by Admin » 4 months ago

nameless wrote:
4 months ago
Hey tell me something - why is your god hiding from us all?

Why doesn't he just show himself?
He does show Himself, to those who want to see.

...

:pepe-rage:

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest