Before Big Bang

[madhatter85]

Holy crap i think my mind just exploded.... let me gather my thoughts and write them down and i will share them in a second. please mind the mess.

 

[Magic Man]

then he should not use the term infinite. if it is not truly infinite, math can be used to explain.
there is no in-between. It is either finite, or infinite. If it's finite.

Who shouldn't? Whether or not you think it's a good practice, it works. It gives the correct impression, and if you want to dig deeper to find out what it means exactly, you can do that, too. It's like when someone says his name is Bob. Is that really his name? No, his real name is Robert Andrew Smith, but for most purposes, it's easier to just say Bob.

A lot of what Hawking has to say is conjecture because he simply doesn't know.

So? Is that supposed to mean something? Of course it's conjecture, conjecture based on a lot of observable facts. My saying it's light outside right now is conjecture, too since I can't actually see outside.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball, its not a matter of confusion about the theory, it is just that IMHO it is just plain wrong. It should be clear to you in my post concerning an eternal infinite cosmos and my understanding of the concept of time, the concept of the cosmology that meets with my present understanding is different to the one proponents of the Big Bang Theory believe in.

And it so happens that the weakness IMO of the Big Bang theory centers on the particular conceptual model of time employed in the theory. As explained before, the conceptual model of time that meets with my understanding is that "time" has no intrinsic reality except as mental conceptual construct of the mind.

I see. So, what you're saying is you're smarter than Stephen Hawking and all other professional physicists because you've found a flaw in their theory that somehow they've just happened to miss or didn't understand. That's quite a bold claim.

 

[madhatter85]

Who shouldn't? Whether or not you think it's a good practice, it works. It gives the correct impression, and if you want to dig deeper to find out what it means exactly, you can do that, too. It's like when someone says his name is Bob. Is that really his name? No, his real name is Robert Andrew Smith, but for most purposes, it's easier to just say Bob.

This doesn't even relate to what i am talking about. I am talking about polar opposites, not in name only.

The implications of Infinite is without end. finite having an end.

It doesn't matter what Bob's real name is... In relation to what i said, it's whether or not Bob is a Girl or a Boy that matters.

So? Is that supposed to mean something? Of course it's conjecture, conjecture based on a lot of observable facts. My saying it's light outside right now is conjecture, too since I can't actually see outside.

Non-theists claim conjecture and dismiss what theists say (especially when plausible and threatens their ego), but when it's conjecture on the side of science it's not dismissed and accepted as fact....

 

[Magic Man]

This doesn't even relate to what i am talking about. I am talking about polar opposites, not in name only.

The implications of Infinite is without end. finite having an end.

It doesn't matter what Bob's real name is... In relation to what i said, it's whether or not Bob is a Girl or a Boy that matters.

And yet, "infinite" gives the right impression until you get into the nitty-gritty. So, for most people, it does the job. It gives you the right sense of the idea you're dealing with. Kind of like Bob suffices unless you really want to get to know the guy.

Non-theists claim conjecture and dismiss what theists say (especially when plausible and threatens their ego), but when it's conjecture on the side of science it's not dismissed and accepted as fact....

You seem to misunderstand. It's not accepted as fact. It's accepted as the best possible conjecture based on the current observations and data. Kind of like the idea of God not existing. It's not a fact that God doesn't exist. However, it's the best possible conjecture based on our current observations and data.

Also, nice jab with the whole "especially when it's plausible and threatens their ego" thing. Way to throw in a stereotypically pompous and ignorant insult. Why don't you just come out with "Atheists don't believe in God because they want to live immoral lives"?

 

[Autodidact]

Non-theists claim conjecture and dismiss what theists say (especially when plausible and threatens their ego), but when it's conjecture on the side of science it's not dismissed and accepted as fact....

No, when it's conjecture, or we don't know, non-theists are careful to clarify that (as I have done in this thread over and over) and to distinguish it from scientific fact. Theists sometimes try to lump them all in together, but atheists rarely do so.

 

[madhatter85]

And yet, "infinite" gives the right impression until you get into the nitty-gritty. So, for most people, it does the job. It gives you the right sense of the idea you're dealing with. Kind of like Bob suffices unless you really want to get to know the guy.

no, It's not acceptable to present your idea as one thing, and then mean another.

Infinite and Finite are two totally separate values with completely different outcomes when placed in an equation.

"Atheists don't believe in God because they want to live immoral lives"?

Actually, that is exactly my thoughts on the subject.

 

[madhatter85]

you know what is funny, is since people KNOW the big bang theory is conjecture, they are actually putting their faith in something they don't know anything about. hmmm, sounds all too familiar.

The Big Bang Theory as the conjecture of a few, versus the witness and testimonies of millions.....:faint:

Either way you cut the mustard.....

 

[YmirGF]

The Big Bang Theory as the conjecture of a few, versus the witness and testimonies of millions.....:faint:

With reasoning like this there is little point in continuing this charade of a thread.

 

[Amill]

The Big Bang Theory as the conjecture of a few, versus the witness and testimonies of millions.....:faint:

Are you trying to imply that millions of these testimonies count as evidence that whatever holy book must be 100% true, including the creation explanation? If not, what the hell do these testimonies have to do with how the Universe came to be? Are these testimonies revelations from god on how he created the earth or something? What about testimonies from people of other faiths? The Big Bang Theory wasn't made to be an explanation so that one doesn't need to include god. It's an explanation made off observation and evidence, and many people who subscribe to that idea also believe in god so I don't really see your point.

 

[Autodidact]

you know what is funny, is since people KNOW the big bang theory is conjecture, they are actually putting their faith in something they don't know anything about. hmmm, sounds all too familiar.

No, it's not conjecture. "Before" is conjecture. Big Bang is the best explanation we have so far.

The Big Bang Theory as the conjecture of a few, versus the witness and testimonies of millions.....:faint:

Millions of people have witnessed and testified to the same God with the same qualities?!?! Tell me more! Why was I not informed? Where can I find these consistent testimonies?

 

[Gunfingers]

The big bang is conjecture and theory in the same way that gravity is. It's true that no one is sure, but there is a lot of supporting evidence.

Here's some of it.

 

[madhatter85]

The big bang is conjecture and theory in the same way that gravity is. It's true that no one is sure, but there is a lot of supporting evidence.

Here's some of it.

The same faith it takes to believe in the Conjecture of scientists, is what it takes to believe in God.

 

[Kerr]

The same faith it takes to believe in the Conjecture of scientists, is what it takes to believe in God.

Except the one by scientists has more empirical backing.

 

[madhatter85]

Except the one by scientists has more empirical backing.

no, they don't.

The Holy Ghost testifies of truth.

The fruits of the spirits are as follows:
Galatians 5:

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,


23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

All things denote there is a God.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all thingsdenote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

There is more than enough empirical evidence that there is a God.

 

[Magic Man]

no, It's not acceptable to present your idea as one thing, and then mean another.

Yes, it is, when the one thing explains the idea in terms most people can understand.

Infinite and Finite are two totally separate values with completely different outcomes when placed in an equation.

Sure, and yet calling the gravity and density of a singularity "infinite" works pretty well as a layman's description.

Actually, that is exactly my thoughts on the subject.

I know. That was made abundantly clear in your little dig at us. That's why I said "Why don't you just come out and say that". It's for another thread, but that's simply a stupid, ridiculous, idiotic idea.

 

[Magic Man]

you know what is funny, is since people KNOW the big bang theory is conjecture, they are actually putting their faith in something they don't know anything about. hmmm, sounds all too familiar.

The Big Bang Theory as the conjecture of a few, versus the witness and testimonies of millions.....:faint:

Let's look at this the right way:

The big bang theory is a scientific theory based on many verified observations and a lot of data. It's not simply conjecture, like someone saying "Oh, well, it must have been some kind of god, because I can't imagine any other way". Nice try at discrediting it with your dishonesty, though.

 

[Magic Man]

The same faith it takes to believe in the Conjecture of scientists, is what it takes to believe in God.

Ummm...no. This is simply and completely incorrect.

no, they don't.

Yes, they do. Saying they don't is just denying reality. That's fine, if that's what you want to do, just remember that you're refusing to acknowledge the truth and reality.

There is more than enough empirical evidence that there is a God.

Only if you mean "empirical" as in "derived from or guided by experience". However, that's not what was meant. Basically, the evidence for your god is some people's words. The evidence for the big bang theory is verifiable by anyone. That's the point. Other scientists always check and recheck the info. There's no way to check the Bible's info.

 

[Kerr]

no, they don't.

Why not? We look at the universe, we observe, we draw conclutions, and so far it points to the Big Bang. That is empirical evidence.

There is more than enough empirical evidence that there is a God.

One, you are talking to an atheist, you should be aware that I do not count religious books or scriptures as empirical evidence. Two, where does it say there is a contradiction between the Big Bang and the existence of a creator?

 

[linwood]

The big bang is conjecture and theory in the same way that gravity is. It's true that no one is sure, but there is a lot of supporting evidence.

Here's some of it.

Here`s some that disputes that evidence.

Faint Quasars Give Conclusive Evidence for Non-Velocity Redshifts - Halton Arp's official website

What`s a guy to do?