Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't need to. Because we don't claim that HAS to be the explanation. If you claim that it HAS to have been created by a god, the burden of proof is on you.
Which 'side' proposed the "something out nothing" theory?
Which 'side' proposed the "something out nothing" theory?
I'm pretty sure that was one of the two possible alternatives of the cosmologists and physicists of the last century - the steady -state theory vs, something from nothing. 'Goddunit' simply wasn't considered a viable option. Indeed, I consider it far less plausible that either steady -state or Something from nothing.
In fact, Gaylen knows, when you get down to the very basic basics of a proto -stuff, which is nothing giving an imitation of being something, steady - state and 'out of nothing' become pretty much the same theory. And a more probable one than either a steady - state god or one that popped out of nowhere for no reason.
I'm pretty sure that was one of the two possible alternatives of the cosmologists and physicists of the last century - the steady -state theory vs, something from nothing. 'Goddunit' simply wasn't considered a viable option. Indeed, I consider it far less plausible that either steady -state or Something from nothing.
In fact, Gaylen knows, when you get down to the very basic basics of a proto -stuff, which is nothing giving an imitation of being something, steady - state and 'out of nothing' become pretty much the same theory. And a more probable one than either a steady - state god or one that popped out of nowhere for no reason.
God or no, it seems there is no such thing as nothing; just as there no such thing as true sterility as evidenced by the water-bear.
This is an unconscious bias incorporated into their misguided belief about objectivity. They come from a position that believes there is NO purpose or design to our reality. That automatically precludes looking for any and ignoring any conceivable implications that there might be. They actually think that is objective and unbiased.
God or no, it seems there is no such thing as nothing; just as there no such thing as true sterility as evidenced by the water-bear.
That's the problem There has to be Something to get it all started (1) The choice is between a fully formed divinity that had no origin, or something as near nothing as you'd need to suppose it didn't need creating but which has the potential to start the simulation of relative position that we call 'matter'. Even if one doesn't look like a more feasible option than the other, they are both hypotheses and so neither one is the 'Only' possibility.
(1) stop press! leading Atheist Spokesbod admits that Somebody needed to start the universe off. Lawrence Krauss dumbfounded! Make a video!
You haven't provided evidence that the universe just popped out of nowhere for no reason.
I also did not list my favorite desserts. We were not discussing the origins of the universe, were we? We were discussing your petulance over atheists not warming up to at least a little religious belief.
Does it not occur to you that when you substitute a direct response with a change of subject, your audience will assume it is because you lack a valid response?
And not only that, but the Illuminati, Jews or Alien greys are themselves secretly controlled by an even more clandestine shadow government.
I have absolute proof in the form of a PDF which I will attach to this post and......wait, someone is at the door, I'll be right b...............
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Sorry, I was seeing to disposal of Grandstander's body...who were you talking about? Jeff I suppose - he never proves anything but just produces pretexts for not accepting the more probable belief.
I hope you were especially thorough. Since the development of Ground Penetrating Radar, they are able to discover many things that would have remained hidden before.
We were discussing your petulance over atheists not warming up to at least a little religious belief.
That's not what I was talking about. I have absolute respect for atheists. But I think they don't realize that they look irrational in some of their arguments, to those who are on the opposite extreme. I actually think the guy in the video had a valid point, although it's pretty clear that there are no atheists who see it that way.
Ozzy chum, that sounded like you are saying that because ordinary bods accept the verified and validated results of science, it's only fair that science accept the unverified faith -claims of religion.
Do me a favour.
Talking of 'atheist scientist' as a pretty palpable accusation of Bias, is just another way of refusing to accept that there really are no good reasons for believing any part of religion, other than an instinctive tendency to the delusion.
A warning light for you should be Mystic eagerly backing you up "By Jove yes, atheist professors - they are all biased!"
I didn't feel comfortable using that term either but for some reason it seemed like a good idea at the time. You can disregard it. I don't remember what I was even trying to say now.
To me, people on both extreme sides of the issue are making absolute statements, neither of which can be verified.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has to be Something to get it all started (1) The choice is between a fully formed divinity that had no origin, or something as near nothing as you'd need to suppose it didn't need creating but which has the potential to start the simulation of relative position that we call 'matter'. Even if one doesn't look like a more feasible option than the other, they are both hypotheses and so neither one is the 'Only' possibility.
Ozzy chum, that sounded like you are saying that because ordinary bods accept the verified and validated results of science, it's only fair that science accept the unverified faith -claims of religion.
