(March 28, 2014 at 8:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote:(March 28, 2014 at 8:10 am)Chas Wrote: Which part of "I don't know" do you not understand?
It's really simple - I don't know what preceded the Big Bang. I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang.
Then you should restrict your answer to just" I don't know". But instead you continue to offer theories e.g.
"I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang."
(March 28, 2014 at 8:10 am)Chas Wrote: However, believing in an eternal being is not rational because there is not only no evidence of such, it leads to more questions than it answers.Any explanation of the creation of the universe will lead to more questions than answers. Believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing the universe created itself.
I did not offer a theory, I pointed to evidence.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.