Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[We Never Know]

Yet again, there is no possible answer to this question because it doesn't mean anything. Whatever you put as an answer is wrong. Starting your answer with "No time" immediately renders the question meaningless. You've cut the feet off your own argument and disappeared into a heap of self-contradiction.

I dunno, I tried, but if you don't actually want to learn and understand (or can't), then there's very little more to be said.

If you say so.... I'm the one stuck in a box

 

[shunyadragon]

Burden of proof is a rule not about proof as such, but to back up a claim and not just state it.

Appalling ignorance there isno Proof in science. You need to become knowledgeable in scienceyoutself and what we have evidence for in terms of the origins of our universe and present science as science, and stop stonewalling with vague not relevant skepticism(?).

One significant point is whether there are alternate potential explanations based on what we have at present. For example there is not any evidence, hypothesis, theories nor math models that remotely justify believing in 'absolute nothing.'

Math models are grounds for predictive hypothesis and theories that may be tested over time. Your stonewalling with vague skepticism and 'arguing from ignorance' reflects your negative history concerning science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Appalling ignorance there isno Proof in science.

Why are you simply ignoring it when people explain that it isn't about literal proof? You are showing an appalling ignorance of logical argument.

You need to become knowledgeable in scienceyoutself and what we have evidence for in terms of the origins of our universe and present science as science...

Indeed you do. I'm still waiting for your reference to current science and evidence for your claims about time and space being quantised.

 

[Jimmy]

That's not the way it work, YoursTrue.

Every galaxies and stars, including our star system, with Earth, including life on earth, only exist in this universe.

That's where all the evidence lies.

There are no evidence that any can exist outside of the universe, not even space and time. And we have only technology to observe the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE.

Anything existing "outside of the universe" is pure conjectures, and most likely something you can never test & verify, and therefore can never "know".

Anyone can make up all sort if claims, and lot of these claims cannot be verified, and "knowing" & "knowledge", requires evidence.

Believing isn't the same as knowing. Knowing requires verification, believing don't.

If you believe in concept that there are something beyond this universe, that "existence" can exist "outside of the universe", then by all mean, show evidence to support your claim/belief, because the burden of proof would be upon you.

Knowing doesn’t require verification. At least not for me.

 

[ratiocinator]

Knowing doesn’t require verification. At least not for me.

Funny. Isn't it strange that people who claim knowledge without evidence tend to contradict each other. Wonder why that would be.

Knowledge is classically defined as "justified true belief". The "justified" is there for a reason.

 

[Jimmy]

Funny. Isn't it strange that people who claim knowledge without evidence tend to contradict each other. Wonder why that would be.

Knowledge is classically defined as "justified true belief". The "justified" is there for a reason.

It sure is!

 

[ratiocinator]

It sure is!

Okay, so how do you justify belief without evidence?

 

[Jimmy]

Okay, so how do you justify belief without evidence?

My beliefs are reasonable, therefore JUSTIFIED.

 

[ratiocinator]

My beliefs are reasonable...

Good. So what is reasoning that manages to justify them without evidence?

 

[Jimmy]

Good. So what is reasoning that manages to justify them without evidence?

The reasoning is they are reasonable

 

[gnostic]

But math is proof and evidence in one, right?

Proof is maths, and it is also abstract logical construct...and logic is manmade reasoning. Proof or maths, like the explanations & predictions, it is added to the model. The maths (eg equations) are part of the explanations, so it is neither “true” by-default, nor “false” by-default.

So the maths can be wrong, if the evidence don’t support the model.

Evidence isn’t abstract: it is physical. And as physical, evidence is something to be observed, measured and tested.

Proof & evidence are not the same thing.

 

[gnostic]

The reasoning is they are reasonable

And if the evidence don’t support your “reasoning”? Would that mean your “reasoning” are unreasonable?

 

[Jimmy]

And if the evidence don’t support your “reasoning”? Would that mean your “reasoning” are unreasonable?

Haha don’t need “EVIDENCE”

 

[gnostic]

Haha don’t need “EVIDENCE”

Well, I have read some of your posts, I don’t find your reasoning, encouraging.

 

[Jimmy]

Well, I have read some of your posts, I don’t find your reasoning, encouraging.

That’s ok. I’m not here to sway you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Proof is maths, and it is also abstract logical construct...and logic is manmade reasoning. Proof or maths, like the explanations & predictions, it is added to the model. The maths (eg equations) are part of the explanations, so it is neither “true” by-default, nor “false” by-default.

So the maths can be wrong, if the evidence don’t support the model.

Evidence isn’t abstract: it is physical. And as physical, evidence is something to be observed, measured and tested.

Proof & evidence are not the same thing.

Yeah, I know. The claim I answered was the math showed what the universe is.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're pleading the fallacy of 'arguing form ignorance' on the basis of ancient tribal scripture 'What the Bible says' and not even the scant understanding of science. The problem here is your history of 'What the Bible says,' is all you have to offer, and dialogue always ends with you when we hit this wall. You have always rejected what can be tested in science accept what you believe, which cannot be tested. You have repeatedly 'hand waved' science on every issue discussed in this forum, therefore dialogue with you is rather fruitless.

Yes out present knowledge is limited concerning the origins of our universe, but there is absolutely no remote evidence os any sort of existence of 'absolute nothing.' The Hawking Theorem math based on Quantum Physics and Einstein's Relativity demonstrates the origin's of the universe from a singularity. Of course there are many unknowns in science, and this is the driving force of future research and discoveries.

Nah I'm not pleading anything. I'm telling you that there is no absolute evidence of the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not responding in and shifting the burden of the science. Your ignorance is appalling. There is NO proof in science.

So how come there are said to be so many tests that um...claim to show (not prove, of course) that the theory of evolution is true?

 

[ratiocinator]

The reasoning is they are reasonable

Is that a joke? Well, actually it is, even if you didn't intend it to be....

 

[YoursTrue]

Your stuck in Newtonian science hundreds of years old.

There is a history here of pleading the fallacy of 'arguing form ignorance,' based on an archaic agenda.

The only reason for arguing for the 'absolute nothing' is an argument for Creation by God from the ancient tribal Biblical belief.

That post reminds me that people that make those kinds of assertions do not know what they're talking about, unless of course you can prove/demonstrate/verify with evidence about absolute nothing is t-r-u-e. Take out prove, just demonstrate or verify your idea that something was always there. Before something else. Understand? What was that something by the way?