Stump the Christian?

[Ravenshire]

No, it's not. Anything that acts in this world will leave measurable traces in this world whether the actor is immaterial or not. Science can (and would if any of you christers could provide any) test and verify/refute these traces. Problem (for you guys) is that no trace has ever been found.

So, it is not possible for a being that is pure spirit to exist or interact with the universe, and and you know this with 100% certainty because you cannot verify the existence or presence of such a being with your scientific instruments.

Got it.

Nothing circular about that. No, siree.

Twist other's words much you dishonest little fuck? Any lie or cheat to win a point for jeebus. Right, Randy?

[Anima]

What existed just prior to the Big Bang?

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

So something that is not constricted by space or time?

[Randy Carson]

So, it is not possible for a being that is pure spirit to exist or interact with the universe, and and you know this with 100% certainty because you cannot verify the existence or presence of such a being with your scientific instruments.

Got it.

Nothing circular about that. No, siree.

If you are able to present a being of pure spirit, I might reconsider my opinion of the above being a steaming pile of shit.

I cannot. They present themselves.

---

So, it is not possible for a being that is pure spirit to exist or interact with the universe, and and you know this with 100% certainty because you cannot verify the existence or presence of such a being with your scientific instruments.

Got it.

Nothing circular about that. No, siree.

Twist other's words much you dishonest little fuck? Any lie or cheat to win a point for jeebus. Right, Randy?

How will you measure the existence of an immaterial being with instruments that can only measure material?

---

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

So something that is not constricted by space or time?

[Ravenshire]

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

If absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, why did it happen and where did all this "stuff" come from?

Again with the word twisting. Who said "nothing?" I said your question is nonsensical. Your dishonesty is on full display yet again.

[Randy Carson]

So, it is not possible for a being that is pure spirit to exist or interact with the universe, and and you know this with 100% certainty because you cannot verify the existence or presence of such a being with your scientific instruments.

Got it.

Nothing circular about that. No, siree.

Twist other's words much you dishonest little fuck? Any lie or cheat to win a point for jeebus. Right, Randy?

And btw, when you start that nonsense, I know you have nothing.

---

If absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, why did it happen and where did all this "stuff" come from?

Again with the word twisting. Who said "nothing?" I said your question is nonsensical. Your dishonesty is on full display yet again.

What existed prior to the Big Bang, SOW?

[Ravenshire]

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

So something that is not constricted by space or time?

One speculation is as good as any other.

[abaris]

...and does not have the same framework AT ALL in examining evidence. 

You fucking ignorant idiot. You know nothing about history either. Look up the scientific framework of how to deal with historical sources. There's a reason why you spend four years at university to get a degree. History has the same framework of tests and peer reviews all the other sciences have. Otherwise it's just charlatanery, and that's exactly what you're presenting, starting with your first post.

[Esquilax]

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

If absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, why did it happen and where did all this "stuff" come from?

He didn't say nothing existed prior to the big bang. He implied, I think, that space and time as we understand it began at the big bang; asking what happened before that point is attempting to extend our current causal framework back before it existed, which is a nonsensical idea. The short version is that we don't know what came before, or even if "before" is a concept that means anything; we are discussing a form of reality that is like nothing we have ever experienced, that literally lies outside of anything we have ever known, that requires a completely different language to discuss the concepts we might find there, as our language is necessarily temporal in its construction. You're probably not even asking the right question; there's a very real possibility that it's impossible for you to ask the right question in a currently extant form of language.

Now, I do have a question: you asked this question about what lies before the big bang in response to a post that asserted that saying evolution concerns life coming from nothing is a misrepresentation. I think I know what ridiculous point you're getting at there, but I figured I'd ask first: why did you do that?

[Ravenshire]

And btw, when you start that nonsense, I know you have nothing.

When you have to twist the words of others to make you're point, everyone knows you have nothing.

What existed prior to the Big Bang, SOW?

No one knows, including you. That's why your question is nonsensical.

[Randy Carson]

If absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, why did it happen and where did all this "stuff" come from?

He didn't say nothing existed prior to the big bang. He implied, I think, that space and time as we understand it began at the big bang; asking what happened before that point is attempting to extend our current causal framework back before it existed, which is a nonsensical idea. The short version is that we don't know what came before, or even if "before" is a concept that means anything; we are discussing a form of reality that is like nothing we have ever experienced, that literally lies outside of anything we have ever known, that requires a completely different language to discuss the concepts we might find there, as our language is necessarily temporal in its construction. You're probably not even asking the right question; there's a very real possibility that it's impossible for you to ask the right question in a currently extant form of language.

Now, I do have a question: you asked this question about what lies before the big bang in response to a post that asserted that saying evolution concerns life coming from nothing is a misrepresentation. I think I know what ridiculous point you're getting at there, but I figured I'd ask first: why did you do that?

I'm personally okay with evolution. I think God used it to get us to where we are today.

I'm just wondering why anything at all exists if there was a "time" in which nothing at all existed except a "singularity" (whatever that is).

Why did the singularity change from being a singularity to being the universe?

When an object moves, we assume a cause of the motion, don't we?

Everything that begins has a cause. The universe obviously began. So, the universe has a cause.

What was it?