(January 16, 2017 at 7:28 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(January 16, 2017 at 7:26 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Nice hypothetical. No. Wrong. You're equating not knowing the specific answer with a position of total ignorance. Saying "I don't know" isn't asserting complete ignorance. If there's a jar filled with gumballs, and someone asks me how many gumballs are in the jar, I can rightly say, "I don't know," without implying that I don't know the answer isn't 0 or 1. You're simply wrong. Not knowing doesn't imply total ignorance and a concomitant agnosticism towards all solutions.
Except you are in total ignorance about the state the universe was in before it began...
In your scenario, a jar filled with gumballs existing would be factual, but if you couldn't see the jar then you COULDN'T say what the number is or isn't.
Please tell me one fact about how the universe started, as far as I know no one was here to observe what took place.
You're assuming the universe started. And this wasn't the only question asked. But this is all besides the point. We start with putting the burden of proof for proposed God explanations firmly where it belongs. When the answer "I don't know," arises, it's usually as a tu quoque by the theist claiming that if we find his God claims implausible, that we are in a worse position for not having an answer. That's why we start with claiming that your answers are fairy tales, because when you present them, the onus is on you to make them plausible. Don't pretend your questions arise in a vacuum. They do not. You blame us for concentrating on the unbelievability of your fairy tales. Then present something more compelling than fairy tales.