Evidence means nothing with certain things

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you are the one making the positive claim (that you stand 7 feet tall) I am the one disagreeing.

Well, I don't play that the world is just objective, so you win for that one and then I keep do it differently for the non-objective parts.
I already told you that an universal standard is only possible for the objective parts of the everyday world.

 

[Kfox]

Well, I don't play that the world is just objective,

If you and I agree to the same standard, that is equal to objectivity as far as you and I are concerned

so you win for that one and then I keep do it differently for the non-objective parts.

What non-objective parts are there if we both agree on the same standard?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you and I agree to the same standard, that is equal to objectivity as far as you and I are concerned

What non-objective parts are there if we both agree on the same standard?

It could be inter-subjective. In effect we think/feel the same, but it is not objective.

 

[Kfox]

It could be inter-subjective. In effect we think/feel the same, but it is not objective.

It doesn't need to be objective.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What’s wrong with the Big Bang?

It’s evidence for the universe having a beginning, which is evidence for a Creator.
That’s why atheists usually don’t like discussing it.

The Big Bang evidence led Robert Jastrow, a famous astronomer and planetary physicist, to accept that there might be an intelligence behind the order of things.

 

[Kfox]

What’s wrong with the Big Bang?

It’s evidence for the universe having a beginning,

No; the Big Bang theory does not address a beginning/origin of the Universe. The theory begins with a singularity already existing and does not explain how the singularity came to be

Big Bang - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

which is evidence for a Creator.

Only those unfamiliar with the theory makes this claim

That’s why atheists usually don’t like discussing it.

Atheists discuss it all the time to people who don't understand the theory.

The Big Bang evidence led Robert Jastrow, a famous astronomer and planetary physicist, to accept that there might be an intelligence behind the order of things.

Yeah; even Robert Jastrow can be wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No; the Big Bang theory does not address a beginning/origin of the Universe.

Yes it does…​

​

From Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology ….Oxford​

“Abstract​

Contemporary science presents us with the remarkable theory that the universe began to exist about fifteen billion years ago with a cataclysmic explosion called ‘the Big Bang.’ ”

The theory begins with a singularity already existing and does not explain how the singularity came to be

The singularity is energy, which has always been here.

Which, btw, also explains how God could be eternal.

You gotta love science when it’s unaffected by bias.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Atheists discuss it all the time to people who don't understand the theory.

I’ve found just the opposite. Along with avoiding the evidence, ie., the facts, that have been discovered in the Cambrian Explosion, they prefer to avoid discussing the origin of the energy needed for the BB.

“We don’t know.” Oh yeah, that’s right. That, in fact, is the only honest answer for atheists. Etiology, practically in any field, does not support atheism.

 

[Kfox]

Yes it does…​

​

From Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology ….Oxford​

“Abstract​

Contemporary science presents us with the remarkable theory that the universe began to exist about fifteen billion years ago with a cataclysmic explosion called ‘the Big Bang.’ ”

Contemporary science does not claim the Big Bang was an actual explosion, it claims it to be an expansion. If it were an explosion, they would be able to locate the site of the explosion because the explosion point would have nothing that exists. So from the beginning your site gets the scientific claims wrong. There is no scientific theory that claims a time in history where nothing exists.

The singularity is energy, which has always been here.

Yes! And as we know; energy converts to matter, and matter converts to energy. IOW Science does not claim a point in history when matter and energy did not exist.

Which, btw, also explains how God could be eternal.

It all depends on your idea of God. Lots of people worship nature as God.

 

[Kfox]

I’ve found just the opposite. Along with avoiding the evidence, ie., the facts, that have been discovered in the Cambrian Explosion, they prefer to avoid discussing the origin of the energy needed for the BB.

“We don’t know.” Oh yeah, that’s right. That, in fact, is the only honest answer for atheists. Etiology, practically in any field, does not support atheism.

What's wrong with admitting when you don't have an answer? Would you rather they lie and make one up? That's what theists do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve found just the opposite. Along with avoiding the evidence, ie., the facts, that have been discovered in the Cambrian Explosion, they prefer to avoid discussing the origin of the energy needed for the BB.

“We don’t know.” Oh yeah, that’s right. That, in fact, is the only honest answer for atheists. Etiology, practically in any field, does not support atheism.

I need to ask you if you if you know what the total energy of the universe is?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I need to ask you if you if you know what the total energy of the universe is?

Why do you “need” to ask me?

It is zero. Perfectly balanced zero.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What's wrong with admitting when you don't have an answer? Would you rather they lie and make one up? That's what theists do.

No; just admit to where the evidence logically leads.

“Ex nihilo nihil fit”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you “need” to ask me?

It is zero. Perfectly balanced zero.

Okay, so that means that the energy at the start of the universe would likely have been zero as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No; just admit to where the evidence logically leads.

“Ex nihilo nihil fit”

The "from nothing" would also be supported by science without a God.

Science does not deal with God. it does not try to prove or disprove one. Now certain versions can be refuted by the sciences, but that was not done on purpose. No one tried to refute the Noah's Ark myth or the Adam and Eve myth. Those facts just became obvious as science developed more and more.

I have never claimed that all versions of God have been refuted. Only some of them have been.

 

[Kfox]

No; just admit to where the evidence logically leads.

Where evidence logically leads is based on personal opinion; science is not in the business of giving personal opinions. I personally believe evidence logically leads to the idea that energy and material has always existed. But to suggest that eternally existing material and energy is somehow sentient, intelligent, and has abilities and desires is an absurd leap of logic IMO. Where do you think evidence logically leads, and why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where evidence logically leads is based on personal opinion; science is not in the business of giving personal opinions. I personally believe evidence logically leads to the idea that energy and material has always existed. But to suggest that eternally existing material and energy is somehow sentient, intelligent, and has abilities and desires is an absurd leap of logic IMO. Where do you think evidence logically leads, and why?

Well, be skeptical of and using logic on what we can know leads to the problem of the thing in itself. So in a sense, it leads to that evidence is a belief system.

 

[Kfox]

Well, be skeptical of and using logic on what we can know leads to the problem of the thing in itself.

What thing are you talking about?

So in a sense, it leads to that evidence is a belief system.

A belief system is not an opinion concerning 1 issue, it is opinions concerning multiple issues.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What thing are you talking about?

Whether the awareness of something is the same as that something in itself independent of the awareness?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You’re entitled to put all your knowledge in science. I just think that’s a limiting viewpoint. You don’t. it’s all good

What do you find limiting about the evidence-based systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the natural world via observation, experimentation and the testing of theories?