What is "FAITH"

[Consilius]

@Consilius: universe started with the big bang, as far as we know.

For the rest of the things you said after:
I have explained to you why a logical answer that fits into "your logic" doesn't necessarily make it the right answer. Logic isn't the only thing in play when you're talking about cosmology you have to address the laws of physics. Which i'm not qualified to comment too much on, so i won't pretend like i can discuss the merits of different theories.

And no, nobody has to disprove a theory to disregard it. If your theory has no observational or testable hypothesis, it's a sucky theory. It means it can never be proven or disproven. Furthermore, there are multiple theories going on right now about the universe. Because they haven't been disproven yet. They haven't had enough supporting evidence either. so that's what they are, possibilities.

You seem unable to understand the meaning of possibilities. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it has to be correct. Multiple things can be possible at the same time. There are even gradations of possibilities, there's a great possibility that a human is typing this, but there's also a very small possibility that a monkey is typing this. Even if we grant that your theory is possible, if it cannot be proven, what good is it?

A good theory assumes little and explains a lot. You assume waaaaayyy too much. Assuming is every time you state something you do not have evidence for. A way to test this is if you try to convince someone of this, you seem to have to make more assumptions, instead of just presenting evidence.

Before the beginning of the universe there was no time. Cause and effect would be more than a little messed up, i would think.

And i do have a question for you, consilius. If you think the beginning and the end of the universe is something you can solve by sitting in a chair, with no math or physics whatsoever, why do you think there are so many scientists building equipments and telescopes and particle accelerators to figure it out? This is a genuine question, i'm not attempting to insult you, i am genuinely curious.

If A=B, must I prove by any physical means that B=A? A conclusion that is truly logical doesn't need a math equation or a photograph or a diagram. Human reason can tell anyone if something is true or not. We are human because we do not need trial and error to know whether something is true, rather, we use logic. If nobody has to disprove a theory to disregard it, then why should someone have to prove a theory to accept it?
Theories on the origin of the universe other than the existence of an uncaused cause, I argue, don't make sense. Both theists and atheists exist, and each side believes the other to be wrong, while only one can be right. Arguments will fly between both sides until one belief is disproved. I am not the scientific community, but I have a belief on the origin of the universe and believe that one only should be acknowledged.
I think my theory is possible and should be acknowledged as such. You believe another one is, while I think it isn't. I will plainly argue that no other theory is possible. And if only one thing is possible, by reason, only it can be accepted to be true. If I kill the President of Zimbabwe, we can expect I will be subject to whatever their constitution says concerning such killing, even if those laws have never been executed before in the history of their nation. We can accept that is true not because we've seen it before, but because we have reason to believe so.
My theory about the origin of the universe says that an infinite, immaterial being is responsible for it. What use would a telescope or a particle accelerator be but to prove others wrong in believing that the universe does not owe its origin to a concrete thing?

---

A being? A cause? If you like, keep it a cause.
Something that existed before time did is impossible to comprehend on the human plane.

I addressed the value of a claim like this in my previous post, please read that.

We can think about it, but never fully comprehend it.

I guess we won't be expecting any discoveries from you.

Why do we have emotion in the first place? Other creatures seem to do fine without it. Was the mind of Homo sapiens an a planned development or an incident of nature? Will these minds become more complex?

Animals have emotions. They're valuable things that keep us alive. We're going into evolutionary theories here. The mind? This is, again, to do with evolution. There are predictions on the future of the mind, just like there are predictions about everything else in life.

When i say evolution i don't mean to dodge the question, i'd just very much rather you read up on that, because information is readily available. just google.

[/quote]
Love, despair, hope, fear, keep us alive? No other animal has such, nor does any animal need it, because instinct does much of that work for them. Emotion came with our complex brains. Are these brains simply another evolutionary stage, or do they hold greater significance?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

If A=B, must I prove by any physical means that B=A? A conclusion that is truly logical doesn't need a math equation or a photograph or a diagram. Human reason can tell anyone if something is true or not. We are human because we do not need trial and error to know whether something is true, rather, we use logic.

You fail here. Big time, i won't even bother responding to the rest of this section.

Love, despair, hope, fear, keep us alive? No other animal has such, nor does any animal need it, because instinct does much of that work for them. Emotion came with our complex brains. Are these brains simply another evolutionary stage, or do they hold greater significance?

like i said earlier:

When i say evolution i don't mean to dodge the question, i'd just very much rather you read up on that, because information is readily available. just google.

Will it really kill you to google? Because that would explain a lot.

[Rahul]

If you put in biased words in a google search it will return biased results. You have to be conscious of not putting in certain words that will bias the return results.

There needs to be a class on how to put in an unbiased internet search on any search engine.

[Consilius]

If A=B, must I prove by any physical means that B=A? A conclusion that is truly logical doesn't need a math equation or a photograph or a diagram. Human reason can tell anyone if something is true or not. We are human because we do not need trial and error to know whether something is true, rather, we use logic.

You fail here. Big time, i won't even bother responding to the rest of this section.

Love, despair, hope, fear, keep us alive? No other animal has such, nor does any animal need it, because instinct does much of that work for them. Emotion came with our complex brains. Are these brains simply another evolutionary stage, or do they hold greater significance?

like i said earlier:

When i say evolution i don't mean to dodge the question, i'd just very much rather you read up on that, because information is readily available. just google.

Will it really kill you to google? Because that would explain a lot.

A dog carrying a stick walked into a room and walked out. The door was locked after that and nobody else entered the room. There was no stick in that room before, but there is a stick in it now. Prove that the dog dropped the stick in there.
Trial-and-error is for lower animals. Higher animals, like greater apes and humans, don't need to prove something to be true before they know it is.
Logic and reason exist, independent of whether or not there are humans to say so because they saw a math equation or a diagram.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

lol. for reals?

a) the dog dropped the stick
b) someone in the room took the stick from it
c) the dog swallowed half the stick, and left the other half in there
d) another dog in the room took the stick from this dog
e) a lion took the stick from the dog

really i can just keep going.

[Consilius]

Did you get yourself a dog, a stick and an empty room before you made these logical assertions?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Did you get yourself a dog, a stick and an empty room before you made these logical assertions?

I followed your scenario. You didn't say it was empty.

no, why would i get myself a dog, a stick and an empty room to figure this out? obviously the dog wouldn't recreate what another dog did.

You're also not understanding the difference between guesses and assertions (sounds familiar? because i said this just two posts ago, and you did not, apparently, read it), i did not say all of these scenarios are true, i said they're all possible. You do not need experimentation to come up with testable hypothesis, but you do not get to say it's true until you've test it. this is a testable hypothesis though, if the room has a camera we'd know exactly what happened through the magical powers of observation.

[Consilius]

Say our video camera had been pointing in the wrong direction, and we could not see our dog putting the stick down? Say we had no access to proof that the stick had come from anywhere but the one dog who walked into the room? For all intents and purposes, our best guess would be that the stick in the room had come from the dog who walked one in.
Detectives gather information and take hints from crime scenes. The information he gets rarely ever spells out every detail of the crime, it any detail at all. Detectives have to use the information and try to put two and two together, reasoning to the best of his ability. He may never be 100% accurate, and there are limitless possibilities, but he must arrive at conclusions, and they stand until conflicting evidence forms a contradictory logical argument to put them down.

But you want evidence, and I'll give it. Can you invent the lightbulb?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

you're backpaddling to oh nothing can be 100% accurate? before you were all, we can tell if something is true just by logic. now you're saying in the absence of other options we must resort to armchair investigation. earlier you were saying that no experimentation is needed at all. Whatever.

keep repeating that a hypothesis must stand until disproven isn't going to make your assumptions about the beginning of the universe true. this is the last time i'll respond to that statement because i've already done so three times now.

just give your evidence.

[Consilius]

Can you invent the lightbulb?