Big Bang Debunked?

[dogpet]

She is one mental cow What these idiots can't get their head around is that only liars say there are no gods. Same as liars say there are.

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

If you are going to refute an argument, especially a deductive argument like Kalam, you must show that one of the premises is false or that both are.

I didn't say anything about abracadabra or whatever it's called. I noticed that you made a statement about the big bang theory that was incorrect and I pointed that out. The premise you refer to would be explained by the theory I mentioned that doesn't exist, hence I am not saying anything about it, other than to point out that quantum physics is home to some extremely strange things that are hard to make sense of and are practically meaningless when phrased in everyday language.
I

Choobus wrote

I didn't say anything about abracadabra or whatever it's called. I noticed that you made a statement about the big bang theory that was incorrect and I pointed that out. The premise you refer to would be explained by the theory I mentioned that doesn't exist, hence I am not saying anything about it, other than to point out that quantum physics is home to some extremely strange things that are hard to make sense of and are practically meaningless when phrased in everyday language.
I

So, who won the argument?

[Choobus]

Well, I guess I did since you now have to add one more time when you were wrong.....

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

All theories for the beginning of the universe based on quantum mechanics assume some sort of quantum field in a void of some kind to start with, or else a pre-existing multiverse, don’t they? But that’s something, that’s not nothing.

There aren't any theories for the beginning of the universe based on quantum mechanics because at that point gravity was the overwhelming force, spacetime was as twisted as fred phelps (QM is written in a flat featureless spacetime, which is why it doesn't get along with gravity) and the only way to properly describe such a situation requires a theory of quantum gravity which, as I mentioned, we don't have. Of course, many attempts are made to make approximations, but it's a bit like approximating a steak with a piece of cardboard: quite unsatisfying and not particularly beneficial.

[ghoulslime]

Mentally-impaired Ethiopian ass muffin peddler wrote

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

What is it about a catchy jingle that makes the misfit toys want to hang their stockings out for old Kris Kringle, in hopes that the jolly elf will give the special girls and boys their fill of good will and maybe some tinker toys?

Confuseous say: Little thinkers who tinker with clinkers are undoubtedly stinkers.

Form your sugar cookies in some other shape, my fruity banana nut cake baking friends! Your pink elephants are unpalatable regardless of the thick spread of frosting. The non compos mentis filling squishes out the sides with the first nibble.



1) We know that god moves in mysterious ways.
2) What is more mysterious than the ways of gays?
3) We are inclined to worship a super Jew.
4) Allen Ginsberg is the god for me and you!



I saw the dimmest minds of my generation destroyed by
madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the Jesus streets at dawn
looking for a fearful fix.

Do you not tire of eating feces in your temples of stupidity,
peeing yourself in fear as you drink the turpentine salvation
of superstitious paradise, scourging your penis Christ
night after night?

Howl, you crazed sniffers of zombie meat!
Form your boogers in animal shapes!
Your delusions are salty cocks of wishful thinking,
fucking your brains into sultry delusion!



Accept Allen as your redeemer now!

Suck the salvation from his salty seed!



Howl! Howla! Howla! Loola!

Choobus wrote

There aren't any theories for the beginning of the universe based on quantum mechanics because at that point gravity was the overwhelming force, spacetime was as twisted as fred phelps (QM is written in a flat featureless spacetime, which is why it doesn't get along with gravity) and the only way to properly describe such a situation requires a theory of quantum gravity which, as I mentioned, we don't have. Of course, many attempts are made to make approximations, but it's a bit like approximating a steak with a piece of cardboard: quite unsatisfying and not particularly beneficial.

In other words, so far it's looking pretty good for my side!

Choobus wrote

Well, I guess I did since you now have to add one more time when you were wrong.....

Sure, I got Big Bang wrong (Maybe. Assuming you aren't jerking me around knowing that I can't really fight back from a position of utter ignorarnce.).

But you didn't refute Kalam!

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

Assuming you aren't jerking me around knowing that I can't really fight back from a position of utter ignorarnce.

must......resist....obvious....response

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

In other words, so far it's looking pretty good for my side!



Sure, I got Big Bang wrong (Maybe. Assuming you aren't jerking me around knowing that I can't really fight back from a position of utter ignorarnce.).

But you didn't refute Kalam!

I don't know shit about quantum mechanics, but I don't see how you could be right based on a mere assumption. You are assuming the universe had a beginning.

Based on what little science is able to explain about the alleged origins of the universe, I have to admit that yours is, for the time being, a safe assumption.

I mean, if you are not satisfied with not really knowing and being uncertain, then there is nothing to stop you or anyone else from assuming. But you still don't know that what you are assuming is true, which makes your self-declared "win" kind of hollow.

[Tenspace]

Lily wrote

Are you saying that quantum theory nullifies the principle of causation? If so, I think you are going to run into several problems. Certainly you will have trouble explaining how science can actually work, since science itself is based on the principle of causation. You can take the position that causation fails at the subatomic level but this still doesn’t explain how something can begin to exist uncaused out of nothing.

If causation is the cock poking through the glory hole, then the gnarly old man on the other side is Probability. He is bounded by the stall, also known as the Arrow of Time.

Think of the multiverse as the other stalls in God's cruisy rest stop.

[lostsheep]

Doesn't all this rigamarole come down to the god of the gaps argument? I.e., if science can't explain it, then goddidit? I've never understood why theists are proud to use this argument: doesn't this in essence give tremendous credence to science, which since its inception has continued to provide answers to questions that were previously regarded as unknowable god territory?

[Tenspace]

Because God did everything, and it's up to Science to explain it to mortals. We just haven't learned enough to explain his magnificence.

[Choobus]

The gaps are the proof. Similarly, the fact that there are (currently) no supermodels harassing me for sex proves that supermodels are all lezzers.

[psychodiva]

ghoulslime wrote

did they somehow think the pink flower would make them look better?

Irreligious wrote

I don't know shit about quantum mechanics, but I don't see how you could be right based on a mere assumption. You are assuming the universe had a beginning.

Based on what little science is able to explain about the alleged origins of the universe, I have to admit that yours is, for the time being, a safe assumption.

I mean, if you are not satisfied with not really knowing and being uncertain, then there is nothing to stop you or anyone else from assuming. But you still don't know that what you are assuming is true, which makes your self-declared "win" kind of hollow.

You aren't following the argument at all, as usual. It is hard for me to even untangle this. The question on the table is whether or not something can come from nothing. You are so afraid; you are so hell-bent on not believing in God that you are making the leap from an uncaused Cause to the God of the Bible. That is a different matter and not the subject under discussion here.

It has nothing to do with being satisfied with not knowing; it has nothing to do with assuming anything. Big Bang was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest-- who was merely one of a long line of Catholic theologians who were and are first-rate scientists. The two go together real well, despite the silliness that passes for thought here. My "self-declared" win was a bit of light-hearted silliness, too. But it, at least, was on topic.