Because it is better than saying: "Fire on Vulcano! Big fire on vulcano! Must whorship fire vulcano god!"

It is better to state when one doesnt know something than insisting theres magic behind it.
At least I can still through rational inquiry and observations determain the things I dont know, which is an option religion doesnt offer.

Truth doesnt seem to matter to Truth Matters.

(November 7, 2012 at 11:42 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(November 7, 2012 at 11:37 pm)jonb Wrote: Oh, is it?

Who told you that?

If they are christain and speak about creation, they are stupid and ignorant. It's simple as that.

That IS the Big Bang Theory - fully confirmed.
Who told you otherwise?
Why don't you know this?

(November 8, 2012 at 8:33 pm)Truth Matters Wrote:

(July 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Which is still a better answer than "jesus."

Why is embracing a Materialist belief (a belief that cannot possibly explain the absolute physical beginning) better than a fully sufficient and rationally plausible explanation?

Because the "fully sufficient and rationally plausible explanation" you would be proposing explains nothing. The Big Bang model explains, with observational evidentiary support, how the Universe expanded from the Planck Era to what we see today. That it doesn't touch upon the initial "absolute physical beginning" is unsurprising; it's akin to Evolutionary Theory having nothing to do with the origin of life.

The goddidit model, on the other hand, tells us nothing useful, such as how the god did it, nor does it have any evidence whatsoever to support it. On the contrary, all the physical evidence actually reveals the exact opposite.

Bottom line is we can trace the expansion of the Universe right back as far as we are able with current techniques, which are improving by the way. So far, we have seen that the Universe operates according to physical laws behaving in predictable, understandable ways. Even if we haven't (yet) captured the precise moment of its birth, what reason is there, other than to prop up an increasingly-obsolete fairy tale, to suppose that there's anything fundamentally different about that moment?

The person proposing the entity extra to the known system, which operates perfectly well without the addition, is the one who carries the burden of proving its existence.

As someone whos mothertounge isnt english, when I dont understand things I usualy take into consideration that there might be missunderstandings.

But I am pritty shure that I am not the only one to which this lalalalalalaland babble in the above post by "Truth Matters" makes no sence.

(November 8, 2012 at 8:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 8, 2012 at 8:33 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Why is embracing a Materialist belief (a belief that cannot possibly explain the absolute physical beginning) better than a fully sufficient and rationally plausible explanation?

Because the "fully sufficient and rationally plausible explanation" you would be proposing explains nothing. The Big Bang model explains, with observational evidentiary support, how the Universe expanded from the Planck Era to what we see today. That it doesn't touch upon the initial "absolute physical beginning" is unsurprising; it's akin to Evolutionary Theory having nothing to do with the origin of life.

The goddidit model, on the other hand, tells us nothing useful, such as how the god did it, nor does it have any evidence whatsoever to support it. On the contrary, all the physical evidence actually reveals the exact opposite.

Bottom line is we can trace the expansion of the Universe right back as far as we are able with current techniques, which are improving by the way. So far, we have seen that the Universe operates according to physical laws behaving in predictable, understandable ways. Even if we haven't (yet) captured the precise moment of its birth, for what reason is there, other than to prop up an increasingly-obsolete fairy tale, to suppose that there's anything fundamentally different about that moment?

I've met my burden. Now justify your belief?

The person proposing the entity extra to the known system, which operates perfectly well without the addition, is the one who carries the burden of proving its existence.

Big Bang explains nothing about the causally antecedent conditions prior to Big Bang. Science stops cold at the singularity boundary, but reason does not.

Material, time and space began to exist
Material, time and space cannot be it's own cause.
The fact that it BEGAN means it cannot self-exist (self-existence is rationally necessary)
Where is that causal agency?
Any sufficient causal agency must have the necessary attributes of being Timeless, spaceless and immaterial - and capacity to create a contingent Universe. God fits the criteria perfectly. Materialism precludes that which is necessary for any sufficient causal agency.

Truth Matters ignores the responses of those whos respones he has no response to other than resignation for lack of argument.


Somehow not suprised about this common theme amongst the people of lalaland.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:03 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Truth Matters ignores the responses of those whos respones he has no response to other than resignation for lack of argument.


Somehow not suprised about this common theme amongst the people of lalaland.

Where is this response that I have ignored?

Where is your argument?

Lol, God.


We are not satisfied with that. We actually want to observe and discover the truth.


Also, the laws of physics as we know them didn't exist until after the "Big Bang" (does anyone else thing that "Rapid Expansion" might be a better descriptive term?), so your reasoning isn't valid.


I'm sick of people claiming God did something when there is no reason to suspect as such. This tired rhetoric wasn't correct before and it isn't now.

(November 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: As someone whos mothertounge isnt english, when I dont understand things I usualy take into consideration that there might be missunderstandings.

But I am pritty shure that I am not the only one to which this lalalalalalaland babble in the above post by "Truth Matters" makes no sence.

You need an argument boy. Demonstrate where the logic breaks down. You can't.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Where is this response that I have ignored?

Where is your argument?

your question:

(November 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Why is embracing a Materialist belief (a belief that cannot possibly explain the absolute physical beginning) better than a fully sufficient and rationally plausible explanation?

my answere:

(November 8, 2012 at 9:03 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Because it is better than saying: "Fire on Vulcano! Big fire on vulcano! Must whorship fire vulcano god!"

It is better to state when one doesnt know something than insisting theres magic behind it.
At least I can still through rational inquiry and observations determain the things I dont know, which is an option religion doesnt offer.

Truth doesnt seem to matter to Truth Matters.

lol being called "boy" by someone who has a cock as avatar