(September 11, 2014 at 3:22 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No, it's not a commonly held opinion, it's your fantasy of what science says. Stop. Creating. Strawmen. It's possibly the most annoying thing you can do on a forum like this. We have smart people here, ask us what we believe, don't tell us.
Ok, if you think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. What do you believe is the currently held opinion in science with regard to the origins of the universe?
Why do you approach this in such an authoritarian manner? Why begin by deciding what the experts think? Couldn't we just discuss the way things stand directly without the expert middlemen? It makes you come off as putting on airs in ways you probably do not intend.
I find the choice of 'nothing' or 'no nothing' to be as unhelpful as that between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Both nothing and supernatural are categories devoid of certain members. What good does it do to start that way?
Intuitively, I assume that before any event you can name there would've been the necessary prior conditions. If you believe in God then you think that catalyst was already there. I don't assume the local big bang is and will be the only one. With most models of multi-verses there is no predicted effects which we should be able to test from within the local big bang. That doesn't mean the big bang is unique. It just means we're in no position to know in either event. Where knowledge isn't possible, I prefer to admit I just don't know.
