"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[bobhikes]

You made statements on a public forum, are you saying that the public should not respond unless it's with answers you agree with?

Keep up the mental cogitation, when you come up with something profound contact the perimeter institute, they are always interested in new theories on quantum gravity, strong gravity, cosmology and related fields.

Not at all I love public response and the response helped me. I was just explaining the disconnect we have had and have tired of the god no god thing.

The creation of the universe can not be factually proven. In fact the universe could have always existed in some form and just changed to the current form we have. I only challenge people with God created the universe because I searched for an answer and know there is no factual answer, my answer is philosophical. The challenge to me should not be that God could not create the universe or give me facts to support it but Define your God as it is clearly not the God of the bible.

 

[ChristineM]

Not at all I love public response and the response helped me. I was just explaining the disconnect we have had and have tired of the god no god thing.

The creation of the universe can not be factually proven. In fact the universe could have always existed in some form and just changed to the current form we have. I only challenge people with God created the universe because I searched for an answer and know there is no factual answer, my answer is philosophical. The challenge to me should not be that God could not create the universe or give me facts to support it but Define your God as it is clearly not the God of the bible.

Hubble, the CMB, red shift all indicate this universe had a beginning. The fact is the universe is expanding, therefore it was smaller in the past. The red shift of distant objects is consistent with it being much smaller. All data on from Hubble's original sketched diagram through the progression of entropy and down to the quantum level indicate a bb. None of which is actual hard evidence but it is considerably more than the nothing that people produce in favour of god magic

When someone can come up with evidence for the existence of god or gods, and when it can be shown that god or gods could have the capability to make the universe then i will listen to the evidence.

 

[bobhikes]

Hubble, the CMB, red shift all indicate this universe had a beginning. The fact is the universe is expanding, therefore it was smaller in the past. The red shift of distant objects is consistent with it being much smaller. All data on from Hubble's original sketched diagram through the progression of entropy and down to the quantum level indicate a bb. None of which is actual hard evidence but it is considerably more than the nothing that people produce in favour of god magic

When someone can come up with evidence for the existence of god or gods, and when it can be shown that god or gods could have the capability to make the universe then i will listen to the evidence.

They all stop at the Big Bang. The big bang does not have to be the beginning of this universe, it is just the point we can trace back to. Almost all scientists believe there was something before the big bang.

 

[ChristineM]

They all stop at the Big Bang. The big bang does not have to be the beginning of this universe, it is just the point we can trace back to. Almost all scientists believe there was something before the big bang.

Its just guesswork and wishful thinking. What was before the bb is unknown.

Wrong, most cosmologists believe there was a before the bb, what? They don't know and can only speculate based on events after the bb and mathematics. Some believe the universe arose from nothing, a theory that is just as valid as any.

Most scientist don't work in the field of cosmology and have no opinion on the matter. So your statement "Almost all scientists believe there was something before the big bang." Is a total fabrication.

 

[bobhikes]

Its just guesswork and wishful thinking. What was before the bb is unknown.

Wrong, most cosmologists believe there was a before the bb, what? They don't know and can only speculate based on events after the bb and mathematics. Some believe the universe arose from nothing, a theory that is just as valid as any.

Most scientist don't work in the field of cosmology and have no opinion on the matter. So your statement "Almost all scientists believe there was something before the big bang." Is a total fabrication.

Why don't you produce a poll of scientists and give me actual data against. I believe you should be able to find a few that exist and typically they range in the 90% window.

 

[ChristineM]

Why don't you produce a poll of scientists and give me actual data against. I believe you should be able to find a few that exist and typically they range in the 90% window.

Because you are the one making the claim "Almost all scientists believe there was something before the big bang."

I am simply noting that perhaps a geologist or food scientist, or geneticist or anthropologist or many of the thousands of other disciplines have no interest in pre bb theory.

Yet you claim otherwise.

 

[bobhikes]

Because you are the one making the claim "Almost all scientists believe there was something before the big bang."

I am simply noting that perhaps a geologist or food scientist, or geneticist or anthropologist or many of the thousands of other disciplines have no interest in pre bb theory.

Yet you claim otherwise.

According to polls some of the same ones that show 90% of all scientists believe in evolution and yet all scientists aren't biologists and should have no interest in evolution, yet according to polls quoted on the RF they do.

 

[ChristineM]

According to polls some of the same ones that show 90% of all scientists believe in evolution and yet all scientists aren't biologists and should have no interest in evolution, yet according to polls quoted on the RF they do.

Evolution is somewhat different than pre bb. For one, evolution is proven to be valid in several different ways. No one (that's NO ONE) knows what happen prior to 10e-43 of a second after the bb. No evidence, no data, no anything.

 

[LuisDantas]

According to polls some of the same ones that show 90% of all scientists believe in evolution and yet all scientists aren't biologists and should have no interest in evolution, yet according to polls quoted on the RF they do.

It does not take being a biologist to have a basic understanding of evolution.

"Belief" is not even the proper word. "Awareness" is far better suited.

 

[Shadow Link]

Find what?

Pressure.

By "pressure" I'm thinking you're talking about conversion being done by fear mongering.

 

[Shadow Link]

This is nothing more than wishful thinking used to generate happy feelings concerning the severe lack of evidence for every single god exists claim.

How so? What is your evidence that what I have said indicate or match the intent in which you claim?

 

[Altfish]

If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?

You are straying into 'God of the gaps' territory.
Proving that something can't be accounted for is impossible; it is like proving God doesn't exist. It can't be done.
Scientists won't accept 'can't be done' they go on searching.

 

[Nous]

You are straying into 'God of the gaps' territory.

No, the argument I described is not an argument from ignorance. It's premised on the proof that a phenomena cannot theoretically be an effect of a cause within the universe.

 

[Altfish]

No, the argument I described is not an argument from ignorance. It's premised on the proof that a phenomena cannot theoretically be an effect of a cause within the universe.

I never said it was an argument from ignorance

 

[Nous]

I never said it was an argument from ignorance

To the best of my knowledge, argumentum ad ignorantiam is what the phrase "God of the gaps" generally refers to.

I asked in #32: "If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?" How do you answer my question?

 

[Altfish]

To the best of my knowledge, argumentum ad ignorantiam is what the phrase "God of the gaps" generally refers to.

I asked in #32: "If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?" How do you answer my question?

I've tried to answer it and you've said they aren't valid.

 

[Nous]

I've tried to answer it and you've said they aren't valid.

Don't know what you mean by that. I will repeat: An argument premised on the established fact that a phenomenon or fact cannot even theoretically be accounted for as an effect of a cause within the universe is not an argument from ignorance.

 

[McBell]

Don't know what you mean by that. I will repeat: An argument premised on the established fact that a phenomenon or fact cannot even theoretically be accounted for as an effect of a cause within the universe is not an argument from ignorance.

Correct.

And the person you claimed claimed it was flat out told you didn't.
Yet here you are STILL beating up on that strawman.

God of the Gaps is anytime god is used to fill in the gap.
Your proposed "argument" is nothing more than creating a gap specifically to stick god into.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?

Gods not in the universe? I feel a song coming on: Who let the gods out?

 

[Nous]

Correct.

And the person you claimed claimed it was flat out told you didn't.
Yet here you are STILL beating up on that strawman.

God of the Gaps is anytime god is used to fill in the gap.
Your proposed "argument" is nothing more than creating a gap specifically to stick god into.

What the hell are you babbling about here? What "strawman" are you referring to? Evidently you don't what either a straw man argument or a God-of-the-gaps argument is. Thanks for demonstrating that.