Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[tor]

At least I'm not old.

but YOU WILL BE


That's the funny part!

By the time I will be old you will be...

[KichigaiNeko]

but YOU WILL BE


That's the funny part!

You will be 100 steps forward at all times

And then I will be free of fools and self important microbes.

Lucky me

[archangle]

Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

The current “theory” is that the universe came into being from some explosion called the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang theory does not match smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. So the theory of Inflation was added to the standard Big Bang. That is the latest conjecture of modern science.

Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science. It violates conservation of mass-energy. The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe. It violates cause and effect. Nothing never just explodes and becomes something. It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something. It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all. If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago. But that is not the case. Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

why aren't you ok with "we don't know yet"

are you ok with people saying we have never seem a body rise. And your 2 or 3 witness is not enough to counter billions of witness?

Science only takes data that we can. Then we as humans try to interpreted that data. It is ok for scientist to say 'we don't know, but it may be XXXX."

Why must it be "only your god." when it does not match observations? I would say the observations that science measures is from god (or no god if you so choose to say).

[Whateverist]

At least I'm not old.

but YOU WILL BE


That's the funny part!

Well .. he will be if he's as fortunate as ourselves.

[KichigaiNeko]

but YOU WILL BE


That's the funny part!

Well .. he will be if he's as fortunate as ourselves.

All too true whateverist!


IF he makes it this far without being a wimp and opting out.

[Tonus]

the scientific method has it's limitations. for instance, nothing can be found out about eschatology which is future oriented: death, afterlife, how the universe ends, the eternal state. and how does one determine that it's true? by hearing or reading it.

Yes, science is limited to the things we can detect in some form or another. Anything outside of that can be made up, since there is no way to verify it. Which is why humans have worshiped thousands (probably millions) of gods throughout our existence.

And no, we do not determine that the unknowable is true by "hearing or reading it." That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Chas]

No, but your acceptance of what we learn through the application of the scientific method is dependent on whether or not it conflicts with what we thought we knew through the application of the "god told the high priest in a dream" method. You accept science because you rely on it every day in ways that are tangible, and you reject it wherever it conflicts with your interpretation of an ancient book written at a time when "technology" meant rubbing camel shit on a wound to "treat" it.

the scientific method has it's limitations. for instance, nothing can be found out about eschatology which is future oriented: death, afterlife, how the universe ends, the eternal state. and how does one determine that it's true? by hearing or reading it.

Actually, through science, we do know how the universe ends.

[The Valkyrie]

You will be 100 steps forward at all times

And then I will be free of fools and self important microbes.

Lucky me

I love the way you put things . . .

[snowtracks]

the scientific method has it's limitations. for instance, nothing can be found out about eschatology which is future oriented: death, afterlife, how the universe ends, the eternal state. and how does one determine that it's true? by hearing or reading it.

Yes, science is limited to the things we can detect in some form or another. Anything outside of that can be made up, since there is no way to verify it. Which is why humans have worshiped thousands (probably millions) of gods throughout our existence.

And no, we do not determine that the unknowable is true by "hearing or reading it." That doesn't make any sense at all.

wouldn't and doesn't make sense using the scientific method. if one were to do a thought experience employing the 5 senses to determine God's existence, they would concluded it couldn't be done (for instance a visual manifestation); hence, God uses scripture to convey to a person's spirit and conscious that what they are hearing or reading is truth. so for finding eschatological answers, the research tactics are changed.

---

the scientific method has it's limitations. for instance, nothing can be found out about eschatology which is future oriented: death, afterlife, how the universe ends, the eternal state. and how does one determine that it's true? by hearing or reading it.

Actually, through science, we do know how the universe ends.

touché

[Esquilax]

wouldn't and doesn't make sense using the scientific method. if one were to do a thought experience employing the 5 senses to determine God's existence, they would concluded it couldn't be done (for instance a visual manifestation); hence, God uses scripture to convey to a person's spirit and conscious that what they are hearing or reading is truth. so for finding eschatological answers, the research tactics are changed.

If you can't detect god through your senses, and the only thing you have to determine anything about him is a book someone claims is inspired by him, then you have no evidence, are unjustified in your claims, and are doing what we call "believing something outlandish written in a book." Despite how you privilege this, it's no different from believing Harry Potter is using text to convey shit to a person's spirit.

The fact that you believe what's in a book isn't compelling evidence of the existence of a thing. I know your gullibility is impressive to you, but not to the rest of us.