Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,453 Year: 3,710/9,624 Month: 581/974 Week: 194/276 Day: 34/34 Hour: 0/14


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5930 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 93 of 389 (430369)
10-24-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by TyberiusMax
10-24-2007 4:56 PM


Shaving with Occam
TyberiusMAx
Just as you can't yet explain how the universe simply exists, you cannot prove there is no God because you cannot yet prove there is a God.
Actually there are models using known physics that can explain the existence of the universe however the problem lies in that the last step of scientific investigation is quite presently beyond us.
This is however a difference of many magnitudes of reasoning beyond the assertion of a God for whom you have neither evidence nor a coherent explanation for first prior to using this model to then explain the universe.
Occams razor is not in your corner it would seem.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

God does not exist until there is proof he does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-24-2007 4:56 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5930 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 125 of 389 (430549)
10-26-2007 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Once more...
TyberiusMax
In the same manner you cannot deny the hypothesis of a God who is independent of existence because he can niether be proven nor disproven because there is no evidence for either.
Why would you postulate a hypothesis of a God independent of existence since this, by default, excludes him from any interaction with the universe itself? That God can neither be proven nor disproven only means that the hypothesis has no grounds in the first place since this would allow for any possibilty { teacups in orbit,invisible,immaterial dragons in the garage, etc} whatever and thus also leaves the realm of reasonable discussion.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 6:10 PM TyberiusMax has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:12 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5930 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 136 of 389 (430863)
10-27-2007 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Once more...
Elhardt
This may be a big shocker to some people, but there have been many who have seen him and interacted with him after dying.
That would be a definite shocker given the tendency of the dead to refuse to speak.
There are a whole series of phenomena that prove the existance of God.
I have heard that line before. The difficulty is the lack of presentable evidence though.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 10:12 PM Elhardt has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024