• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
No one "knows" why or how the big bang happened.
-It could have been a fairy waving her wand
-It could have been a unicorn farting
-It could be a natural event(maybe even reoccurring)
-It could have been a god

Do you have objective evidence for a god or even that a god created the big bang?
Click to expand...
According to my understanding of the reality represented by the name 'god', and if there was a BB type event, that is a yes.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ben Dhyan said:
That is all smoke and mirrors to avoid admitting that there is no objective evidence as to show how the BB began. By objective, I mean energy and mass from nothing evidence, not mathematical predictions.
Click to expand...
No, you keep disqualifying yourself from being a judge. You are in no position to even ask for evidence, much less demand any.


You need to learn the basics of not just science, but of debate as well.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ben Dhyan said:
You are avoiding answering the question.
Click to expand...
No, I am not. I told you a while ago that it works both ways. I have asked you questions many times that show that you are wrong and you refuse to answer them. When you do not answer questions you make it so that others do not have to answer yours.

When you answer the questions that you have dodged forever then you can ask questions.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, I am not. I told you a while ago that it works both ways. I have asked you questions many times that show that you are wrong and you refuse to answer them. When you do not answer questions you make it so that others do not have to answer yours.

When you answer the questions that you have dodged forever then you can ask questions.
Click to expand...
Your rants are an obvious smoke screen to avoid having to say that you don't have a clue, it fools no one.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ben Dhyan said:
Your rants are an obvious smoke screen to avoid having to say that you don't have a clue, it fools no one.
Click to expand...
LOL, better watch the personal attacks. Everyone can see that you ran away from reasonable questions. I even offered to do your homework for you if you admitted that you do not have a clue.

If anyone is fooled by your trying to blame others for your failures, then they are simply not worth listening to.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
Fact is we don't know
-why
-how
-if there was a "pre"

IMO.. When one claims we do know, its no different than when one claims they know a god exists.
Click to expand...
The only one pretending to know is the least qualified here. He thinks that his refuted beliefs are right because others do not have all of the answers. He does not seem to understand that we do not need to know everything to understand that some ideas are wrong. He is rather similar to Flat Earthers in that regard. People will probably never have all of the answers. But it is ridiculous to claim that a Flat Earth is reasonable because one's opponent does not know what day of the week that the Big Band happened on.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
LOL, better watch the personal attacks. Everyone can see that you ran away from reasonable questions. I even offered to do your homework for you if you admitted that you do not have a clue.

If anyone is fooled by your trying to blame others for your failures, then they are simply not worth listening to.
Click to expand...
Stop blaming others for your inability to understand anything of an esoteric nature, Please stop with the inane smoke screen.
 
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Nope, you can do better. The offer is still out there. Admit that you are the one with no clue and I will do your homework for you.
Click to expand...
More smoke screen, instead of endless repetitively boring inane smoke screen, just answer the question, why and how did the BB happen?
 
Last edited:
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ben Dhyan said:
A prediction from mathematical theory is not objective evidence.
Click to expand...
But a mathematical theory based on a theory that has been verified by observation is. General relativity has been extensively tested. The BB is what you get when you apply GR to the universe as a whole.
Ben Dhyan said:
Even if universal expansion is correct, not knowing the why and how of the BB leaves the theory questionable.
Click to expand...
Why? It is a theory about how the universe is *after* the beginning.

You don't need a theory of planet formation to be able to describe the orbits of the planets.
Ben Dhyan said:
For example, the universe may in fact be a multiverse and an essence already existed that became this expanding universe. This would make more scientific sense than a one off universe from essentially nothing without a clue as to why or how theory.
Click to expand...
And that would have no effect on the BB description. If you understood what the BB model *actually* says, then you would know that.
Ben Dhyan said:
That is all smoke and mirrors to avoid admitting that there is no objective evidence as to show how the BB began. By objective, I mean energy and mass from nothing evidence, not mathematical predictions.
Click to expand...
Actually, we *do* have this, but within the universe. Quantum fluctuations do exactly this. And, in some models (extensions of the BB model), the BB is produced by exactly such quantum fluctuations.

But, I would point out, once again, that you are *assuming* that there was a 'before the BB'. And you do this without any good reason for that assumption.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ben Dhyan said:
More smoke screen, instead of endless repetitively boring inane smoke screen, just answer the question, why and how did the BB happen?
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to realize your question has assumptions that are wrong?

So the appropriate answer is: mu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top