RE: Big Bang Theory
November 8, 2012 at 8:45 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2012 at 8:56 pm by Cyberman.)
(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.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
