Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

A god did it.
The BB did it.

Everything breaks down at a point. There is no before a god and no before the BB.

A god is uncaused and the BB is uncaused.

What's the difference besides the belief.

We have significant scientific evidence for the Big Bang. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a God. In other words one is a reasonable evidence based belief and the other is just a superstitious belief.

 

[We Never Know]

We have significant scientific evidence for the Big Bang. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a God. In other words one is a reasonable evidence based belief and the other is just a superstitious belief.

Cool..... I like questions... But not a much as answers.

Between earth and the moon, which way is south? Or north?

Does north, south, east, west exist in space?

Was there a north, south, east or west a zeptosecond after the point of when the big bang happened?

 

[We Never Know]

We have significant scientific evidence for the Big Bang. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a God. In other words one is a reasonable evidence based belief and the other is just a superstitious belief.

What started the BB? At the exact start?

 

[gnostic]

Unless I can present tablets? parchments or papyri, etc.? It's obvious to me at least that when they were compiled in their more or less present form they were taken from many centuries of copying.

No, you have only evidence of copying centuries after the Babylonian Exile, NOT BEFORE THEN.

We do have Babylonians copying the Epic of Gilgamesh (which included the flood myth of Utnapishtim) and the Epic of Atrahasis (another name for Utnapishtim) for centuries and for over 1400 years prior to the Exile. The Babylonians got their writings about Utnapishtim and Atrashasis from the older legend of Sumerian flood hero, Ziusudra (eg Eridu Genesis, as well as allusions in the Death of Bilgames and one of the Sumerian King Lists).

In 3rd millennium BCE Sumer (Early Bronze Age) and in 2nd millennium BCE (Middle & Late Bronze Ages) Babylonia, there were a number of scribe schools throughout Mesopotamia, where pupils learn writing by copying the Epic of Gilgamesh (or Bilgames), so just about every literate Sumerians and Babylonians knew well of Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim.

And during the Iron Age, Babylonians and Assyrians continued to copy many of the old myths (not just about Gilgamesh).

During the late 7th century BCE, the Neo-Assyrians even built a library at Nineveh, where the most famous tablets on the Epic of Gilgamesh were discovered by 19th century Assyriologists. These tablets may not be the oldest, but they contained the most complete version of the Flood story.

Ancient Mesopotamia have a very long history of literacy that spanned millennia, YoursTrue.

The Old Testament only dated to the Exile to -

• the Greek Septuagint,
• the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran caves,
• and the post-Temple (after 70 CE) Masoretic Text

...are the only main sources to the modern Bible translations.

 

[exchemist]

There is no purpose in debating whether existence can come from no-existence, it can't. If it could, you would say so and provide me proof.

…..[repeat and fade]……..

 

[Subduction Zone]

What started the BB? At the exact start?

I definitely do not know. Nor do I think does anyone else. But this is just as "So what?" question. The evidence that there was a Big Bang is clear. Why is still being worked on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool..... I like questions... But not a much as answers.

Between earth and the moon, which way is south? Or north?

Does north, south, east, west exist in space?

Was there a north, south, east or west a zeptosecond after the point of when the big bang happened?

Oh come on. You can do better than that.

If you do not understand how analogies work just admit it. It is time to put down the shovel.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

…..[repeat and fade]……..

So where do you think existence came from?

 

[We Never Know]

I definitely do not know. Nor do I think does anyone else. But this is just as "So what?" question. The evidence that there was a Big Bang is clear. Why is still being worked on.

"I definitely do not know"

But you claim a god didn't start it. How can you seriously make that claim if you definitely do not know?

 

[We Never Know]

Oh come on. You can do better than that.

If you do not understand how analogies work just admit it. It is time to put down the shovel.

If you cant answer just admit it?
Don't ask someone to ask questions that you can't answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

…..[repeat and fade]……..

The problem with these debates in general and not just the one about the BB, is that some people on both sides of religion or not, try to do philosophical rationalism. In psychology terms they take their thinking for granted and treat a cognitive(rational) result in their thinking as an empirical result about the world as independent of their thinking.
That one can be found both in some religious people and some non-religious people. And in short it works like this: It makes sense in my thinking, therefore it is so of the world as such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I definitely do not know. Nor do I think does anyone else. But this is just as "So what?" question. The evidence that there was a Big Bang is clear. Why is still being worked on.

The theory of the BB in toto is a theoretical theory within theoretical physics. It is not a theory like the theory of biological evolution.

"Theoretical physics is the development of mathematical formalisms and computational protocols for describing all aspects of objects found in the world around us and their interaction."
"Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena."
From googling theoretical physics.

 

[gnostic]

Here's an analogy for ya...

Most all birds fly because of feathers. If humans had feathers they could fly like a bird.

But could they really?

That's not analogy, We Never Know.

An analogy is where one thing with something else that are very different, with only superficial resemblance.

Some Intelligent Design creationists use the car-maker as analogy of the Designer and life.

Yes, car manufacturers can make cars, but a car is not a living organism, which cannot reproduce baby car.

So you can watch car manufacturer build a new car, but you cannot observe any Designer creating life, so there are limits and flaws in such analogy.

Using analogy often use similes, by comparing two unlike things, and using the words "like" or "as" for comparison.

An example of simile would be like -

Usain Bolt moves quick like the wind.​

or

Usain Bolt runs like the cheetah.​

Bolt is clearly not wind, nor a cheetah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I definitely do not know"

But you claim a god didn't start it. How can you seriously make that claim if you definitely do not know?

Where did I claim that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you cant answer just admit it?
Don't ask someone to ask questions that you can't answer.

I answered. You did not like the answer. You do not know what an analogy is. All you can do is to ask pointless questions that tell us that analogies are beyond your ability to comprehend.

If you would ignore your false preconceptions for a while you might learn something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where did I claim that?

If you know as know how what the universe is, you are a gnostic and thus you can answer if a creator god exists or not. So if you know what the universe is, then you have answered if there is a creator god or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you know as know how what the universe is, you are a gnostic and thus you can answer if a creator god exists or not. So if you know what the universe is, then you have answered if there is a creator god or not.

No.

 

[exchemist]

So where do you think existence came from?

We don't know, obviously.

In my opinion it is a mark of stupidity to try to force a dogmatic answer to a question about which we don't have enough information.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

That is a free floating answer. You have to give evidence for that. That means in practice that you have to use more words than just "No.". To show evidence is more than what you did. Use your words and make a case for it. That is how evidence works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don't know, obviously.

In my opinion it is a mark of stupidity to try to force a dogmatic answer to a question for which we we don't have enough information.

To some people "I don't know" is not a correct answer, because they in effect only accept positive answers for the relevant question.
Here is a lot of words about that:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

And here is the short version: What is the objective ontological status of the universe? Well, we don't know!
The same goes for the truth as a singular universal categorical concept: Well, we don't know!

So for someone who claim to know those 2, I just state that I do that differently. I don't know!.