RayFan wrote:
Seriously? What have I done this time? You've proven me wrong on a few occasions, but this is just ridiculous.
To be fair, most of the errors were made by Evil.
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:If you think about it this way, science says that the world was created by the Big Bang, the Big Bang was created by particles colliding BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! Also it is stated that this all happened because the Universe which was once in a "extremely hot state" expanded... The only problem with this is that scientists have not and cannot go further back, what caused the universe to come into existence? If they find an answer for that then what caused that to come into existence? If scientists go all the way back which they are most likely not able to, they would realise everything came into state by one thing and that one thing is god!
This is a variation of the Cosmological Argument for god's existance; an argument which, although logically sound, is based on faulty assumptions and is therefore worthless. Your argument relies on two assumptions: Firstly, that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and secondly that at some point the Universe began to exist. The only logical conclusion is therefore that something must have caused the Universe to begin to exist. You then state that this something is god, which implies an all powerful, intelligent being, and that conclusion is a leap of faith no matter how you look at it. Anyway, I will now demonstrate that you are working under faulty assumptions, rendering your argument useless.
Your argument gets off to a bad start when you reveal that you have a poor understanding of what the Big Bang was. You claim that science says the world (by which I presume you mean the Universe) was created by the Big Bang. This is wrong. The Big Bang theory explains how the Universe came to be in the state it is in now, but it says nothing about the origin of the Universe. This is analogous to how the theory of Evolution explains how life evolves and diversifies, but it doesn't explain how life originated. And if you think that what "created the Big Bang" was colliding particles, you are miles off. The current understanding is that approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state, compacted into a singularity (a location with zero volume and infinite density). Then, for reasons unknown (if any), the Universe began expanding rapidly, and it has been expanding ever since.
You say that scientists can't find out what happened before the Big Bang, which is in some sense true. But here is an important point: There was no "before" the Big Bang, because in the hot, dense state proposed by the Big Bang theory, both time and space were compacted into a singularity, and thus there was no motion in time until the Universe started expanding, like Hunch said. Another valid point is that since there was no time, and the fundamental forces were unified, we have no idea how the singularity behaved. We therefore cannot say whether causality applied to it. In other words, there is no way of knowing if the Big Bang had a cause. It's a bit hard to wrap your brain around, but that doesn't make it any less true. The fact to the matter is that the Big Bang might have been a truly random and causeless event.
Like I said, science hasn't shown that the Universe began to exist. We've only been able to go back as far the Big Bang, and that theory only describes what happened to a singularity, not how or why that singularity existed. In fact, we haven't observed anything that has ever begun to exist. Everything we have observed throughout history, including the Big Bang, has simply been a reconfiguration of matter and energy. So since we haven't been able to demonstrate anything that has ever begun to exist out of nothing, we cannot say that things that begin to exist must have a cause. And since we haven't been able to show that the Universe ever began to exist either, your argument fails.
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:no matter how far the theory gets they have still not proven it to be correct, they just assume it is!
That's not how science works. Scientists don't assume that the Big Bang theory is correct any more than they assume that germ theory or gravity is. All these theories have proven their ability to explain how the world works through thousands of rigorous experiments and predictions made by the theories that have been shown to be correct. That the Big Bang theory is correct is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to when one considers all the evidence.
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:The thing is science keeps on changing theories and each one has not been proven. We believe in god, has anyone proved there is no god, they tried that with the Big Bang what happened...failure!
Of course scientifict theories change! They change according to all the evidence that's continuously coming in. The goal of all scientific work is falsification, and the goal of all scientific experiments should be to disprove a hypothesis. If a hypothesis or a theory aren't supported by new evidence it must be dismissed. Why do you think the fact that scientific theories change according to evidence is somehow a bad thing?
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:Yes you are right many people have tried to persuade god exists but the second part is wrong! If they were not succesful then how can you explain that majority of the world is religious, Christianity has a percentage of 33.2% whilst a 2007 estimate showed that only 11.77% of the world is non-religous and a even smaller 2.32% of them are Athiests!
Uhm.. I presume that non-religious people don't believe in god? That would make them Atheists by definition. The fact that most of the world's population is religious says nothing about the veracity of religious beliefs. The truth is not relative, it exists independently of people's beliefs. Until the Heliocentric revolution, most people believe that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Does that mean that until then, the Earth really
was the center of the Universe? Of course not! The Earth has been orbiting the Sun ever since its formation, even though the vast majority believed otherwise for thousands of years.
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:
And also tobbe even though you say my logic is flawed so is science! They say that the world was created by a sequence of events (fair do) but they still have not come up with a reason how the actual Universe itself has come into existence we have the reason is God!
No. The fact that science hasn't been able to render an explanation for absolutely
everything doesn't make science flawed. It just means that there are still things we don't know. Those of us who favour reason and evidence over bronze age superstition are honest enough to admit that we don't know anything about the origin of the Universe, and that's fine. The mere fact that religion
claims to know how the Universe originated doesn't make it right, especially since all the fanciful stories of creation religion offers have been shown to completely wrong. If you're desperate for a clear answer then religion is the only thing that can give it to you. But the explanation religion offers is a poor one. I find it puzzling that a large portion of the population will readily accept increbidly bad explanations for the origion of the Universe rather than to accept that we don't know.
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:Yet science is still unable to prove every event! They still have come up with no answer for how the Universe itself was created until then i shall continue believing in my Religion.
Why? Because you must have an answer to everything? You'd rather believe in a hypothesis that has absolutely no evidence supporting it than admit that you don't know?
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:
And i am pointing out that until science can't find a answer for how the universe is created then science is talking nonsense. (You get what i mean)
No, I don't get what you mean. The admission "We don't know yet" is nonsense? Wtf?
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:yes my logic is extremely flawed
Then why do you attempt to use it to justify your beliefs?
Evil-Thingamajig wrote:I hereby retire from these arguments knowing that my reasoning is flawed. However in my heart my faith cannot be altered. Though many will say such a thing is stupid and childish much like superstition my life is built around my religion and my faith will never alter no matter the reasoning.
Finally, the admission that your belief in god is entirely faith based. As long as you aknowledge this (and you don't argue against well established scientific theories) I really can't argue with you. I will however say that your lack of willingness to question your own beliefs is really fucking stupid, and so incredibly intellectually dishonest that if unintelligence was a crime you would be imprisoned for life. But hey, it's your life. Whatever makes you happy.
) to Evil-Thingamajig using the archetype of sophisms to justify his own views (
As long as you're in full understanding then I have no problem with it.