DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[Esquilax]

Is it really that difficult? There is no evidence for or against. Yes there is no evidence that aliens created the circle, but there is also no evidence that aliens didn't create the circle. Therefore you can't be absolutely certain that aliens weren't involved.

Yes, and "you can't prove it didn't happen!" isn't a very good argument that it did, is it?

In fact, given what you just said it's equally true that you didn't have any evidence when you suggested that aliens were involved, and hence your claim is entirely irrational and unjustified. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

That's why I said you were enamored with having ignorant answers over honest ignorance, a statement you've just confirmed by attempting to make your ignorant statement seem just as valid as a real claim.

[Huggy Bear]

offer the best scientific evidence of how something can be created out of pure nothingness.

"And if you can't, then god!"

Sorry Huggy, but poking holes in the knowledge base of science isn't positive evidence for your claim. Someone else not having an answer doesn't make you right. That's kindergartener logic.

You're coming in on the tail end of the argument.

Chas posted this earlier

And your descriptions of what your god can do are indistinguishable from magic.

mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

My point was, as it relates to the creation of the universe your going to have to acknowledge that a supernatural (unexplained scientifically) event took place. If you can in fact explain it scientifically, i'm all ears.

[max-greece]

MAN, HUGGY... I was going to watch that video you just posted because it said "The universe from nothing" and I'm pretty sure the person saying everything on it was an atheist... I think that video was "An atheist explaining why Christians that keep saying that evolution says the universe comes from nothing and why this argument is STUPID"

Turns out this video is like an hour long...

So now I'm not watching it... I gave you a Kudos for it, though!

OK - despite the fact it was my video please - when your hormones settle down - get a cup of coffee and watch that video.

Would it help if I said its so good it actually gets me hot?

Then again - I am weird too - in my own way.

[SteelCurtain]

su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

Are you able to scientifically explain what caused the "big bang"? The best theory I've gotten so far is:

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something.
Lawrence Krauss[

If you are intent on being willfully dismissive of anything anyone says, redirect, and not address anything given to you, how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?

Just because something hasn't been explained, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I literally listed evidence for the Big Bang. I gave you a link for evidence that non-matter can in fact be imbued with mass. The question of "Why" is another non sequitur. Something clearly happened. "How" is the question being looked into. To assume the de facto explanation is something supernatural for anything currently without an answer is a cut and paste right out of the 15th century. So congratulations on living up to that standard.

The question was what caused the "big bang"? Also I'm not redefining God the bible always has described God as light.

Acts 26:13
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Revelation 21:23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

You are taking these quotes as not metaphor? Okay. Your religious text boils an unproven concept down to photons. Now prove your god exists.

Makes perfect sense, assuming the only evidence is the circle, how can you evaluate evidence for or against, when it doesn't exist? So if I state aliens created the circle what would you base your rebuttal on?

I would not claim to know anything until I EVALUATED THE FUCKING EVIDENCE. While it seems you are okay to look at something and claim to know everything about it, I would go and investigate and challenge my preconceptions. I would look at the patterns, look for a natural explanation to the observed phenomena. What if I go out there and find a piece of plywood with rope attached to it? Could I then surmise that maybe people did it? How would I know anything until I evaluated the evidence?

[max-greece]

Huggy,

As Steel said you're changing the definition of supernatural to suit your own agenda. Truly supernatural things can never be logically explained. Unknown and supernatural are not synonymous.

[Esquilax]

My point was, as it relates to the creation of the universe your going to have to acknowledge that a supernatural (unexplained scientifically) event took place. If you can in fact explain it scientifically, i'm all ears.

Well, hold on now: a supernatural event would generally entail an actual claim as to what happened, no? Science stops at the edge of its knowledge and just states that we don't know yet, whereas religious folk are claiming an actual supernatural event happened.

If you want to use a definition of supernatural that is just "unexplained scientifically," then fine, but we're certainly not obligated to grant any of your corollaries about atheists believing in the supernatural the same as religious folks do, or anything like that, because now all you've done is widened the scope of the definition to include rationally justified supernatural events, and irrational ones that are generally held by the religious.

It's an equivocation, what you're trying to do here, and what you'll find is that a lot of us aren't just going to let you expand what a word means without equally expanding the connotations of the word to fit.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

For the record: I don't know how the universe began. Or if it even had a beginning. I do know that the rational course of action from there is to investigate and ask questions rather than just make up an answer and call it good.

That's the dilemma isn't it? Any explanation of the origin of the universe will not be rational, you're just going to have to accept that a supernatural event took place at some point. I find it curious however that you state how you don't know how the universe was created, but somehow are quite certain that it wasn't God.

How can you begin to dispute something if you have no basis on which to form your argument? If you have no peticular belief or theory on the creation of the universe then you'd have to take a neutral stance because you "don't know".

No, you're wrong. We say 'I/we don't know' because that's genuinely the only honest answer.

People can think they know, but unless they have something other than 'I believe' to back it up we can chalk it up to being bullshit.

Simples.

[Gooders1002]

Is everybody forgetting about the creation museum Ark, I would love to see that float (or at least attempt to)

[Rampant.A.I.]

Which part of "I don't know" do you not understand?
It's really simple - I don't know what preceded the Big Bang. I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang.

Then you should restrict your answer to just" I don't know". But instead you continue to offer theories e.g.

"I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang."

However, believing in an eternal being is not rational because there is not only no evidence of such, it leads to more questions than it answers.

Any explanation of the creation of the universe will lead to more questions than answers. Believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing the universe created itself.

Do you ever stop to examine your logic, or is the answer sufficient to you if it ends in "therefore: God"?

Because it's been drilled in to you from early on, you don't seem to realize that belief in God requires the following beliefs to be held without evidence, and with significant evidence against them:

Belief that the supernatural exists
Belief that a supernatural being existed eternally, without a cause
Belief that supernatural being is your specific God deity
Belief that your religion was influenced by that God
Belief that deity not only created the universe, but fathered a son with a virgin and sacrificed his son who was also himself to himself because of a talking snake.

"I don't know" is volumes more rational than everything above, plus more dogma.

[Chas]

My point was, as it relates to the creation of the universe your going to have to acknowledge that a supernatural (unexplained scientifically) event took place. If you can in fact explain it scientifically, i'm all ears.

Nope - I do not have to accept magic as the answer.

If all of the mass-energy of the universe is added up, the total is 0. That's right - zip, nada, zilch. That is because the gravitational energy is negative and balances the positive energy of matter and radiation.

If that is the case, then not one thing was 'created out of nothing' in the way that you mean. As has been pointed out, particle pairs pop in and out of existence all the time. That is not creating anything because they precisely offset each other. And there is no net loss when they annihilate.

As Krauss and others point out, 'nothing' is unstable.