God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[Cyberman]

I'm a little limited being on my mobile, but someone ought to post the link to the NAS definitions of scientific terms and the scientific method.

[Chas]

Ok, I'm reading the posts this guy is making. He strikes me as a moron who knows how to use a few latin words thinks that makes him an expert on all things scientific. Truth be told, throwing a few buzzwords out there doesn't make you a scientist anymore than reading a comic book makes me Wonder Woman.

Was that an argument? Do you disagree with something I wrote?

I do. Your misunderstanding that "from nothing, the Big Bang created everything" is the problem.
It is not known how the Big Bang came about - there is no consensus on that, or even on the definition of 'nothing'.


N.B. It should be "Is either correct?"

[JesusHChrist]

Love, perhaps here is an opportunity to correct your course.

You say you welcome criticism. Here's the chance to respond.

You are clearly off base on your understanding of the big bang, our understanding (or lack thereof) of how it came about and from "what". I think there are some members here who are quite well-versed on this topic and would no doubt welcome the opportunity to illuminate your understanding.

Do you acknowledge your understanding is incorrect?

[Chas]

It was a stat example that discussed how in order to claim causation, you have to be really sure you've controlled for all the possible variables.

Yes you have to be sure. Do you know when statiticians claim to be sure, at 95% confidence. Scientist make claims of discovery at 95% confidence.

Um, no. Medical trials are gauged at a 95% confidence level. Science is measured much more strictly.

[Alex K]

Yes you have to be sure. Do you know when statiticians claim to be sure, at 95% confidence. Scientist make claims of discovery at 95% confidence.

Um, no. Medical trials are gauged at a 95% confidence level. Science is measured much more strictly.

In my field of high energy physics, exlusions of hypothetical models are usually announced at 95%, and discoveries at 99.99994%. Of course those are just conventions of language and mostly born from experience, there is nothing magical about these thresholds. Also, the naive statistical interpretation of these is usually wrong because systematic uncertainties mess everything up.

[Surgenator]

Yes you have to be sure. Do you know when statiticians claim to be sure, at 95% confidence. Scientist make claims of discovery at 95% confidence.

Um, no. Medical trials are gauged at a 95% confidence level. Science is measured much more strictly.

Exclusion plots are measured at 95% confidence. Discovery are higher, I believe its 3 standard deviations for the status quo. That would make it roughly 99%.

[pocaracas]

I seem to remember the Higgs boson was announced with a 5 sigma confidence level.

[Surgenator]

I seem to remember the Higgs boson was announced with a 5 sigma confidence level.

If I'm remember correctly, that was the second annoucement after they got even more data. The first annoucement was "Higg-like" discovery since they didn't confirm the spin of the discovered particle.

[Zidneya]

Just about everything... Who are you, and what are you doing here?
Yeah.
Because I can get that you are an agnostic and you are full of skepticism however shouldn't you I dunno study a little more before making claims?

If you're interested, you should read my Intro post. It is where you would expect it to be.

And you assume that I've haven't read that thread because?......

[sswhateverlove]

Ok friends

It's been fun, but I have other things to do. Maybe I'll be back after the weekend is over (if you're lucky). I know I've probably been quite entertaining- boredom sucks. Don't miss me too much...

---

Love, perhaps here is an opportunity to correct your course.

You say you welcome criticism. Here's the chance to respond.

You are clearly off base on your understanding of the big bang, our understanding (or lack thereof) of how it came about and from "what". I think there are some members here who are quite well-versed on this topic and would no doubt welcome the opportunity to illuminate your understanding.

Do you acknowledge your understanding is incorrect?

Yes please. And thank you. I've already had a lot of very thoughtful responses from others on this forum that have expanded my knowledge quite a bit. I do appreciate it. Please don't think I don't.

I probably will not be able to respond until later though.