What evidence for God

[PolyHedral]

Whatever, the only difference is it wasn't caused by a nuclear or chemical reaction. If you were standing next to it (for some reason in emptiness) when it happened it would kill you and it went boom, stop splitting hairs.

You can't stand next to it, just like you can't stand north of the North Pole.

 

[Mellonhead]

You can't stand next to it, just like you can't stand north of the North Pole.

*Facepalms*

Have you ever heard of being hypothetical?

I know that the big bang caused all of the matter in known existence to rush forward in a large expulsion of massive energy so great that it created a shock wave that is still barreling forward, creating the space of are universe.

However there is no conclusive proof that the universe even has an outer edge, so all of the matter could have just been clumped together. But withholding to the theory I know you could not be outside of nothing, so stop busting my balls over bad metaphoric phrasing.

 

[outhouse]

so stop busting my balls over bad metaphoric phrasing

then get with the program

and it went boom

really I think you might have a problem with that hypothesis

 

[Mellonhead]

then get with the program



really I think you might have a problem with that hypothesis

Really? Do explain the problem. In great detail. But really, please do go on, i want to hear how stupid you think I am. And while you are at it explain this program I need to get with.

 

[outhouse]

Really? Do explain the problem. In great detail. But really, please do go on, i want to hear how stupid you think I am. And while you are at it explain this program I need to get with.

no one implied you were stupid

you did make assertions that you dont sound like you want to back

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This expansion caused the universe to cool and resulted in the present diluted state that continues to expand today

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.

so with so little being known about the singularity, I wonder how you can make statements like explosion and shock wave and "it went boom" with any certainty

 

[Mellonhead]

no one implied you were stupid

you did make assertions that you dont sound like you want to back

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This expansion caused the universe to cool and resulted in the present diluted state that continues to expand today

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.

so with so little being known about the singularity, I wonder how you can make statements like explosion and shock wave and "it went boom" with any certainty

Not everyone on this site knows anything about quantum physics, I was simply trying to put forward the topic of the big bang to discuss without dragging it on, like you are doing right now.

If you want to overly complicate things, then send me a private message, I will be happy to debate science with you there.

 

[PolyHedral]

*Facepalms*

Have you ever heard of being hypothetical?

I have, but I'm pointing out that your hypothetical as nonsensical as a hypothetical about standing north of the North pole. It is impossible to stand outside the Big Bang, because it would mean standing outside of space. There isn't an emptiness to stand in, just like there isn't anywhere to stand north of the North pole. The Big Bang is everything there is at that moment.

To be even more confusing, the visible universe does have an observable "edge" about 93 billion lightyears away. That boundary denotes the point where space become transparent, about 13 billion years ago. If you could somehow see beyond that, you'd find that space abruptly stops a few million more lightyears out... at the Big Bang.

Though you're right that not everyone understand quantum physics, it's misconceptions and misunderstandings like that that lead to people asking questions like "What came before the big bang?" On the face of it, that question deserves an answer, but the actual mathematics show that it's equivalent to asking "What's north of the North pole?"

 

[Mellonhead]

I have, but I'm pointing out that your hypothetical as nonsensical as a hypothetical about standing north of the North pole. It is impossible to stand outside the Big Bang, because it would mean standing outside of space. There isn't an emptiness to stand in, just like there isn't anywhere to stand north of the North pole. The Big Bang is everything there is at that moment.

To be even more confusing, the visible universe does have an observable "edge" about 93 billion lightyears away. That boundary denotes the point where space become transparent, about 13 billion years ago. If you could somehow see beyond that, you'd find that space abruptly stops a few million more lightyears out... at the Big Bang.

It was a silly statement not to be taken seriously, I know you guys are all hard core serious, but i think you can take a joke.

 

[Orias]

wrong, it was not a explosion.

it was a expansion, big difference

That is still expanding if I might add.

I think it could be plausible for a "God" to be and the Big Bang to still have happened.

 

[Mellonhead]

That is still expanding if I might add.

I think it could be plausible for a "God" to be and the Big Bang to still have happened.

Oh the two don't contradict at all, but there's no evidence to support a god, and that was the original topic which we seem to have veered off long ago.

 

[Wombat]

Can we say Forer Effect?

Sure...you can say anything you like.

But I doubt you can rationaly explain how an uneducated individual from that period in the Arabian peninsular knew-"the heavens and the earth were joined together" before being "clove asunder"...that "every living thing (is) from water"....
that "the Firmament (space) is "expanding".

Or how such glaring accuracies are not accompanied by an equal or greater number of glaring inaccuracies.

 

[Wombat]

Oh the two don't contradict at all, but there's no evidence to support a god, and that was the original topic which we seem to have veered off long ago.

Once more and yet again the ongoing confusion between "evidence" and 'proof'.

While it is true to say there is no 'proof' of God...it is not true to say "there's no evidence to support a god".

You might as well say- "There's no evidence to support a charge or conviction of Ojay S"...just because there is no smoking gun 'proof'.

 

[Mellonhead]

Sure...you can say anything you like.

But I doubt you can rationaly explain how an uneducated individual from that period in the Arabian peninsular knew-"the heavens and the earth were joined together" before being "clove asunder"...that "every living thing (is) from water"....
that "the Firmament (space) is "expanding".

Or how such glaring accuracies are not accompanied by an equal or greater number of glaring inaccuracies.

I highly doubt when he said space that he meant what you are thinking, there are numerous other things it could have been talking about.

 

[PolyHedral]

Once more and yet again the ongoing confusion between "evidence" and 'proof'.

While it is true to say there is no 'proof' of God...it is not true to say "there's no evidence to support a god".

You might as well say- "There's no evidence to support a charge or conviction of Ojay S"...just because there is no smoking gun 'proof'.

There is no evidence to support a God, either, because all such evidence is also evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A theory can only be right if it can be differentiated from similar theories.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any evidence of god is nothing more than evidence of people imagining god. If imagination counts as evidence, then there's as much evidence that a boy named Harry Potter exists, who attends a school of witchcraft and wizardry, as there is that god exists.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Any evidence of god is nothing more than evidence of people imagining god. If imagination counts as evidence, then there's as much evidence that a boy named Harry Potter exists, who attends a school of witchcraft and wizardry, as there is that god exists.

Ahhh the Harry Potter defense slays them every single time.

 

[Orias]

Any evidence of god is nothing more than evidence of people imagining god. If imagination counts as evidence, then there's as much evidence that a boy named Harry Potter exists, who attends a school of witchcraft and wizardry, as there is that god exists.

I would agree that it is as imaginative as an in-born drive. The highest law of Life is self preservation, by means a comforting figure is brought into existence. Now, whether or not such a being "truly" exists or not is irrelevant, since the partaker is the one who has fathomed and brought such concepts into existence.

But then again, this is to say that such a figure is of the utmost human desire to be, which complicates the idea that, Man tends to take on the role of "actor" in which scenarios bring Him to play "God".

 

[Thief]

Has anyone offered.... 'what' ....they might accept AS evidence?

A photo?....a fingerprint?...a signature?...

 

[PolyHedral]

Messages written across Mount Everest in 100ft tall letters of flame would have me convinced.

 

[Thief]

Messages written across Mount Everest in 100ft tall letters of flame would have me convinced.

Anything else?