RE: Conversational Challenges
November 12, 2015 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: November 12, 2015 at 5:19 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
"How do you explain how you come from a rock?"
I don't. Isn't it lucky for me that no one - and I mean NO one - has ever made that claim?
"What came before the big bang?"
Fun answer: Foreplay.
Serious answer: 'Before the big bang' is a not a coherent question. Time instantiated with the expansion event commonly called 'The Big Bang'. Asking what happened before there was such a thing as time is like asking, 'What does yellow smell like?'.
"You can't proof the big bang occured!"
True, but misguided. Theories are never 'proved'. But an expansion event that created all of what we now know as 'spacetime' is the best explanation for the Universe we see around us. This isn't to say that a better explanation won't come about - it very well may. If it does, and explains the Universe better than current models, then those models will be abandoned. Science is about best explanations ('God did it' is NOT an explanation, it is a plaintive howl of ignorance).
"How do you proof god did not exist?"
I don't need to do so, since I'm not making the claim 'God does not exist'. Atheism, in its most basic form, makes the claim, 'I do not believe that gods exist', which isn't the same thing at all.
Furthermore, it is up to believers to demonstrate the existence of their particular god(s) either empirically or with coherent, convincing arguments.
Boru
I don't. Isn't it lucky for me that no one - and I mean NO one - has ever made that claim?
"What came before the big bang?"
Fun answer: Foreplay.
Serious answer: 'Before the big bang' is a not a coherent question. Time instantiated with the expansion event commonly called 'The Big Bang'. Asking what happened before there was such a thing as time is like asking, 'What does yellow smell like?'.
"You can't proof the big bang occured!"
True, but misguided. Theories are never 'proved'. But an expansion event that created all of what we now know as 'spacetime' is the best explanation for the Universe we see around us. This isn't to say that a better explanation won't come about - it very well may. If it does, and explains the Universe better than current models, then those models will be abandoned. Science is about best explanations ('God did it' is NOT an explanation, it is a plaintive howl of ignorance).
"How do you proof god did not exist?"
I don't need to do so, since I'm not making the claim 'God does not exist'. Atheism, in its most basic form, makes the claim, 'I do not believe that gods exist', which isn't the same thing at all.
Furthermore, it is up to believers to demonstrate the existence of their particular god(s) either empirically or with coherent, convincing arguments.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
