Big Bang Theory

[Jackalope]

Still waiting on evidence that ties your god to the big bang.

Don't hold your breath, pop.

[Annik]

Then you are merely Agnostic? You have no position on whether or not God exists?

You are not entitled to call yourself an Atheist, then hide behind agnosticism to avoid any intellectual burden to justify your Atheist belief. That's just intellectual laziness and sophistry. You need a justification. Otherwise, your position is slop.

Of course, that's your actual problem. Your belief position is unjustified slop that you fail to defend in arguments evidence or reason.

I'm glad I can justify Thiesm in arguments, evidence and reason. I don't need sophistry to avoid accountability like you Atheists.

BTW I don't claim Science is wrong. I'm claiming science is correct. I'm claiming Atheism is wrong. Oh, the irony.

Show me your evidence for a god and then show my evidence that the god is actually the one you worship. You've got a belief in god, I don't. It's that simple. 1 to the 0. On to the off. Positive to the neutral. Instead of putting words in my mouth with the finesse of a drunk teenager, break out some real evidence, if you even can.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-Bang.html

A renowned scientist says he has spotted evidence that a universe existed before the Big Bang.
Professor Roger Penrose from Oxford University says concentric circles discovered in the background microwaves of the universe provides evidence of events that took place before the universe came into being.
The cosmic microwave offers us a ghostly look at the the universe just 300,000 years after the Big Ban' - a microscopic amount of time compared to the universe's estimated age of 13.7billion years.
The research by Penrose, who was awarded the 1988 Wolf Prize along with Stephen Hawkings for adding to our cosmic knowledge, adds evidence to the theory that the universe has expanded ('the Big Bang') and contracted ('the Big Crunch') many times.

[Truth Matters]

Still waiting on evidence that ties your god to the big bang.

You don't think the rational necessity of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agency with the capacity to bring about a contingent Universe is evidence for God?

Atheists ignoring evidence is not a lack of evidence.

[jonb]

You have demonstrated nothing about my argument that is inconsistent or woolly. You merely claim it with empty assertions.

I have presented just one of the many potent evidences for God (touching on two with Fine Tuning). You IGNORE the evidence, but have not defeated anything in the slightest - nor have you demonstrated any plausible alternatives to the evidence. Now you claim that no evidence exists?

Sorry, but your faith that Materialism can account for the absolute beginning of Physics is sub-rational. I have a fully rational, sufficient and coherent causal agency. You have nothing but hollow protests that have no merit.

The irony is that you call me 'deluded' as a pejorative, yet your Atheism reduces mind to nothing but chemically induced delusion. You have no other logical possibilities available to explain mind.

Logic matters

To combine two separate things you have to show how they are connected. Just to say they are connected is woolly.

I have no interest in defeating or winning, my attitude to religion does not rest in science, as such a conversation about science is not going to affect it in one way or another, and I do not think if you found a fact that did not work with your belief in god, it would affect your belief either.
No my interest is not to do with winning or loosing, I have an interest in the curious beliefs some people hold, your position interests me, because you seem to be saying science proves the existence of god, and that appeals to my absurdist nature, and I would like to get to the bottom of your strange thinking.

I have no particular affinity with materialism. I think you should find out about a thing before you say what it is.

I will ignore your bit of name calling, but you see I want to see your rational, You have yet to show it, and I am sure it would amuse me if you did flop it out on the table.

[downbeatplumb]

Still waiting on evidence that ties your god to the big bang.

You don't think the rational necessity of an immaterial, spaceless, timeless causal agency with the capacity to bring about a contingent Universe is evidence for God?

Did you not see my post above yours. the big bang may not have been the beginning.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

Atheists ignoring evidence is not a lack of evidence.

You have to first produce evidence in order for us to ignore it.

[Cyberman]

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2157548/Is-secret-previous-universe-hidden-microwaves-Scientist-spots-ghost-Big-Bang.html

A renowned scientist says he has spotted evidence that a universe existed before the Big Bang.
Professor Roger Penrose from Oxford University says concentric circles discovered in the background microwaves of the universe provides evidence of events that took place before the universe came into being.
The cosmic microwave offers us a ghostly look at the the universe just 300,000 years after the Big Ban' - a microscopic amount of time compared to the universe's estimated age of 13.7billion years.
The research by Penrose, who was awarded the 1988 Wolf Prize along with Stephen Hawkings for adding to our cosmic knowledge, adds evidence to the theory that the universe has expanded ('the Big Bang') and contracted ('the Big Crunch') many times.

---

That's a fascinating bit of news of which I was unaware. Very exciting if it's verified, and the proponent's reputation carries a metric shit-ton of credibility. Just the idea of some previous Universe, possibly with beings who themselves pondered about their reality and ultimate fate, which was sacrificed on the altar of physics to give rise to us and our own reality is intriguing enough. That we may have some snapshot of all this is mindboggling. Who knows, we may leave similar evidence for our future replacements to find.

[Darth]

We can leave some evidence? A message? Let's moon em (a bit of astronomy humour for everyone)

I'm here all week*, you've been warned.

*time is relative.

[downbeatplumb]

Groan.

No one wants to say uranus.

[Truth Matters]

Show me your evidence for a god and then show my evidence that the god is actually the one you worship. You've got a belief in god, I don't. It's that simple. 1 to the 0. On to the off. Positive to the neutral. Instead of putting words in my mouth with the finesse of a drunk teenager, break out some real evidence, if you even can.

I've delivered evidence.
You delivered a phony definition of Atheism, excuses for why you have no evidence or arguments and refused to answer my question when I proved you wrong.

All your protests are fully defeated. None of my evidence has been dented.

---

You have demonstrated nothing about my argument that is inconsistent or woolly. You merely claim it with empty assertions.

I have presented just one of the many potent evidences for God (touching on two with Fine Tuning). You IGNORE the evidence, but have not defeated anything in the slightest - nor have you demonstrated any plausible alternatives to the evidence. Now you claim that no evidence exists?

Sorry, but your faith that Materialism can account for the absolute beginning of Physics is sub-rational. I have a fully rational, sufficient and coherent causal agency. You have nothing but hollow protests that have no merit.

The irony is that you call me 'deluded' as a pejorative, yet your Atheism reduces mind to nothing but chemically induced delusion. You have no other logical possibilities available to explain mind.

Logic matters

To combine two separate things you have to show how they are connected. Just to say they are connected is woolly.

I have no interest in defeating or winning, my attitude to religion does not rest in science, as such a conversation about science is not going to affect it in one way or another, and I do not think if you found a fact that did not work with your belief in god, it would affect your belief either.
No my interest is not to do with winning or loosing, I have an interest in the curious beliefs some people hold, your position interests me, because you seem to be saying science proves the existence of god, and that appeals to my absurdist nature, and I would like to get to the bottom of your strange thinking.

I have no particular affinity with materialism. I think you should find out about a thing before you say what it is.

I will ignore your bit of name calling, but you see I want to see your rational, You have yet to show it, and I am sure it would amuse me if you did flop it out on the table.

That's cute. I'm glad you are amused. I'de be more impressed if you had the courage to defend your position - whatever it is. Of course, drifting aimelessly is not a position.