Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[sealybobo]

Is this a fact? "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

It's a famous quote from Einstein. I am simply repeating what a brilliant scientist once said. It IS a fact that electrons disappear, reappear and can exist in two places at the same time. Odd characteristics for something of the physical universe, but it's the truth.

And I don't think this is a fact: "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this? Who's we? Does science know this?

Yes, we know this. Science knows this. There is nothing supernatural about human spirituality and you've never offered anything to prove that case. You may say spirituality involves the metaphysical, but metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural. So each and every time you make this statement it is erroneous and without support. It defies what we already know.

So this isn't a fact yet you said it was.

"the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion

And don't change number two either. You said ""There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

First of all, you can't do that in a debate. You can't lie right off the bat. What you did was right off the bat assumed and said "there is one God....and then said at the end it was a fucking fact.

Please let me know what you think are facts so I can either agree or challenge. Now you are saying
the "fact" is there is nothing supernatural about spirituality"? Did I ever say there was? And besides, if there is or isn't, does that prove a god exists?

Metaphysical, spirituality, supernatural??? Are you alright?

 

[sealybobo]

Is this a fact? "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

It's a famous quote from Einstein. I am simply repeating what a brilliant scientist once said. It IS a fact that electrons disappear, reappear and can exist in two places at the same time. Odd characteristics for something of the physical universe, but it's the truth.

And I don't think this is a fact: "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this? Who's we? Does science know this?

Yes, we know this. Science knows this. There is nothing supernatural about human spirituality and you've never offered anything to prove that case. You may say spirituality involves the metaphysical, but metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural. So each and every time you make this statement it is erroneous and without support. It defies what we already know.

I was watching Shindlers List last night and when I saw a scene I thought about you and your miracles. There was this one scene where the guy was going to shoot the Jew and his gun wouldn't fire and then he grabbed his back up gun and it wouldn't fire.

Was that a miracle? Did god save that one guy and let thousands or millions die? I bet he told the stories and they all thought it was a miracle.

That movie was frightening. Amazing what jealous ignorant greedy theists will do to each other. And you ask us why we don't like god or religion. It's not a good concept. Just ask ISIS oh yea they agree with you. They love god. And their god hates you. Actually rewards them for cutting your head off or being a suicide bomber.

Think about it boss. God may be harmless in your little mind but god is a lie and a lie is never good. Wake up boy.

 

[Boss]

Is this a fact? "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

It's a famous quote from Einstein. I am simply repeating what a brilliant scientist once said. It IS a fact that electrons disappear, reappear and can exist in two places at the same time. Odd characteristics for something of the physical universe, but it's the truth.

And I don't think this is a fact: "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this? Who's we? Does science know this?

Yes, we know this. Science knows this. There is nothing supernatural about human spirituality and you've never offered anything to prove that case. You may say spirituality involves the metaphysical, but metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural. So each and every time you make this statement it is erroneous and without support. It defies what we already know.

So this isn't a fact yet you said it was.

"the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion

And don't change number two either. You said ""There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

First of all, you can't do that in a debate. You can't lie right off the bat. What you did was right off the bat assumed and said "there is one God....and then said at the end it was a fucking fact.

Please let me know what you think are facts so I can either agree or challenge. Now you are saying
the "fact" is there is nothing supernatural about spirituality"? Did I ever say there was? And besides, if there is or isn't, does that prove a god exists?

Metaphysical, spirituality, supernatural??? Are you alright?

You see... these things we call "sentences" are used for a reason. It is so that people reading them can correlate the corresponding thought in proper context. You are taking a statement I made three sentences later and applying it to a former statement that it wasn't intended to apply to. "There is one God, one true spiritual nature." That is a stand alone sentence and represents my personal viewpoint. I did not state "Science has proven and we know there is one God." Now... look closely at the sentence structure of that paragraph, you will notice that my statement about what we know, what science knows, is intended to go with the statement that humans are spiritual. Human spirituality is not supernatural, it is natural. We know this. It is a fact.

And YES... you repeatedly call God and belief in God "the supernatural" without any qualification or evidence. Why do you continue demanding to see where I have proven God exists? We both agree this can't be proven with physical science, it's outside the ability of science to examine at this time. The ONLY way you can evaluate the question is through spiritual evidence, which you aren't willing to accept. I can never prove something to someone not willing to accept evidence.

 

[edthecynic]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

I've seen this theory presented repeatedly, although I've never seen evidence to support the theory. In any event, even the most enthusiastic supporter of the theory must contemplate, what made this happen? I assume you understand Newton's Laws of Motion... so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.

Gravity draws the "stuff"/mass together which generates heat. As the heat increases with mass eventually a certain critical temperature is reached that causes an explosion. It's really quite elementary.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Demonstrably false.

Then let's weigh it in the balance. When we considered ourselves a Christian nation, we were the greatest Nation on earth, in almost every regard.
Now that we are a secular nation, the turn around is stunning.

And then there is prophecy. Only one has proven He can see the end from the beginning.
God told Hagar that her descendants would be wild asses with their hands against every man. He made that prediction while the only Muslim on earth was in her womb. We watch the fruition of that prophesy on the evening news, daily.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.

Gravity draws the "stuff"/mass together which generates heat. As the heat increases with mass eventually a certain critical temperature is reached that causes an explosion. It's really quite elementary.

The same person that gave us the understanding of gravity gave us the reason it exists. A higher power. Newton was smarter than we are today.........

 

[BillyP]

God is a theory not backed up by anything at all.

 

[G.T.]

Demonstrably false.

Then let's weigh it in the balance. When we considered ourselves a Christian nation, we were the greatest Nation on earth, in almost every regard.
Now that we are a secular nation, the turn around is stunning.

And then there is prophecy. Only one has proven He can see the end from the beginning.
God told Hagar that her descendants would be wild asses with their hands against every man. He made that prediction while the only Muslim on earth was in her womb. We watch the fruition of that prophesy on the evening news, daily.

I don't consider hatred and ownership of human beings, women's lack of rights, censorship of speech on radio and television to be virtues of a nation. Sorry.

Today is great.

 

[sealybobo]

Is this a fact? "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

It's a famous quote from Einstein. I am simply repeating what a brilliant scientist once said. It IS a fact that electrons disappear, reappear and can exist in two places at the same time. Odd characteristics for something of the physical universe, but it's the truth.

And I don't think this is a fact: "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this? Who's we? Does science know this?

Yes, we know this. Science knows this. There is nothing supernatural about human spirituality and you've never offered anything to prove that case. You may say spirituality involves the metaphysical, but metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural. So each and every time you make this statement it is erroneous and without support. It defies what we already know.

So this isn't a fact yet you said it was.

"the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion

And don't change number two either. You said ""There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

First of all, you can't do that in a debate. You can't lie right off the bat. What you did was right off the bat assumed and said "there is one God....and then said at the end it was a fucking fact.

Please let me know what you think are facts so I can either agree or challenge. Now you are saying
the "fact" is there is nothing supernatural about spirituality"? Did I ever say there was? And besides, if there is or isn't, does that prove a god exists?

Metaphysical, spirituality, supernatural??? Are you alright?

You see... these things we call "sentences" are used for a reason. It is so that people reading them can correlate the corresponding thought in proper context. You are taking a statement I made three sentences later and applying it to a former statement that it wasn't intended to apply to. "There is one God, one true spiritual nature." That is a stand alone sentence and represents my personal viewpoint. I did not state "Science has proven and we know there is one God." Now... look closely at the sentence structure of that paragraph, you will notice that my statement about what we know, what science knows, is intended to go with the statement that humans are spiritual. Human spirituality is not supernatural, it is natural. We know this. It is a fact.

And YES... you repeatedly call God and belief in God "the supernatural" without any qualification or evidence. Why do you continue demanding to see where I have proven God exists? We both agree this can't be proven with physical science, it's outside the ability of science to examine at this time. The ONLY way you can evaluate the question is through spiritual evidence, which you aren't willing to accept. I can never prove something to someone not willing to accept evidence.

I don't have a lot of time so in the future, lets look into this "spiritual evidence" you talk about Saturday. I'm off tomorrow and don't give you or this issue one thought on my days off.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.

Judge William Overton used falsifiability in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools

 

[The Irish Ram]

GT, we have debt we will never overcome. No jobs. Food stamps, cause of no money, cause of no jobs. Rampant crime, teen pregnancies, lazy entitled basement dwelling in debt children, a constitution our own Presidents refuse to follow, extreme flooding, extreme drought. Year round fires. No respect for us as parents, teachers, or as a Nation. Medicine we can't afford, treatment in the hands of Walmart instead of our physicians, no money for retirement, no money for our children's education. No money. Playgrounds and front yards that are no longer safe for our children to play in. Latch key kids. Enough pedophiles to have to register and monitor them. Heroine to replace fruit roll ups. Data mining children with games like Angry Birds, and data mining their parents every move. Cameras citing our every move. Hitler's SS in the form of the IRS and the EPA.

If you think today is great, you would have been bat shit crazy in love with yesterday's U.S.A.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Judge William Overton used falsifiability in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools

Where did the Judge prove that we came from monkeys? Didn't seem worried about the falsifiability of monkey people in Arkansas schools. Are they still teaching the Neanderthal to Modern man premise they tried to teach us? lol

 

[Boss]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

I've seen this theory presented repeatedly, although I've never seen evidence to support the theory. In any event, even the most enthusiastic supporter of the theory must contemplate, what made this happen? I assume you understand Newton's Laws of Motion... so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.

Gravity draws the "stuff"/mass together which generates heat. As the heat increases with mass eventually a certain critical temperature is reached that causes an explosion. It's really quite elementary.

Gravity doesn't act of it's own volition. All this "stuff" floating around in the universe would have had the same gravitational properties, so what made gravity suddenly decide to pick a universal spot in the cosmos to draw everything else (also with gravity) to one place? Heat, by itself, does not cause an explosion. Something can react with heat to do this, but you've not defined that. Also, when things explode, the velocity is greatest at the point of explosion and because of friction, the velocity decreases over time... the universe is accelerating in expansion.

What is elementary is, none of your argument comports with known science and physics.

 

[edthecynic]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

I've seen this theory presented repeatedly, although I've never seen evidence to support the theory. In any event, even the most enthusiastic supporter of the theory must contemplate, what made this happen? I assume you understand Newton's Laws of Motion... so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

Gravity and heat. Have you ever heard of them? Obviously not.

Gravity draws the "stuff"/mass together which generates heat. As the heat increases with mass eventually a certain critical temperature is reached that causes an explosion. It's really quite elementary.

Gravity doesn't act of it's own volition. All this "stuff" floating around in the universe would have had the same gravitational properties, so what made gravity suddenly decide to pick a universal spot in the cosmos to draw everything else (also with gravity) to one place? Heat, by itself, does not cause an explosion. Something can react with heat to do this, but you've not defined that. Also, when things explode, the velocity is greatest at the point of explosion and because of friction, the velocity decreases over time... the universe is accelerating in expansion.

What is elementary is, none of your argument comports with known science and physics.

Gravity is not dormant until someone suddenly turns it on, that bis just plain stupid. The gravitational force of attraction is constantly active drawing any mass that enters its proximity. Again you show as much ignorance about heat as you do gravity. As mass is drawn into a Black Hole by gravity its heat increases. That heat must build to what is called a "CRITICAL TEMPERATURE" before there is an explosion.

Again, as was explained to you many times, the distant universe is accelerating because it is being pulled by the gravitational force of a universal black hole.

 

[Boss]

Gravity is not dormant until someone suddenly turns it on, that bis just plain stupid. The gravitational force of attraction is constantly active drawing any mass that enters its proximity. Again you show as much ignorance about heat as you do gravity. As mass is drawn into a Black Hole by gravity its heat increases. That heat must build to what is called a "CRITICAL TEMPERATURE" before there is an explosion.

Again, as was explained to you many times, the distant universe is accelerating because it is being pulled by the gravitational force of a universal black hole.

I understand gravity is not dormant until someone turns it on, that's why I am asking you to explain this incredible phenomenon to me, where gravity suddenly decides to pull all mass in the universe into one place. Black holes? We've discovered hundreds of them all over the universe... so which one decides to draw all the mass into one spot? Do the Black Holes hold a conference? do some Black Holes give up on the gravity thing and let a stronger Black Hole be the leader? And how can this be rectified with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

On heat, you might need to study the Laws of Thermodynamics. Heat doesn't build to a critical temperature then cause an explosion. There can be a reaction to heat which can cause an explosion, and this was instrumental in the theory of a Big Bang. But even in that theory, they never knew what reacted to heat to cause the explosion, it just obviously did. However, in the past 25-30 years, we've discovered the velocity of the universe expansion is not behaving in accordance with a Big Bang event, which prompts physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question whether we EVER had a Big Bang event.

As I said before, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.

 

[edthecynic]

Gravity is not dormant until someone suddenly turns it on, that bis just plain stupid. The gravitational force of attraction is constantly active drawing any mass that enters its proximity. Again you show as much ignorance about heat as you do gravity. As mass is drawn into a Black Hole by gravity its heat increases. That heat must build to what is called a "CRITICAL TEMPERATURE" before there is an explosion.

Again, as was explained to you many times, the distant universe is accelerating because it is being pulled by the gravitational force of a universal black hole.

I understand gravity is not dormant until someone turns it on, that's why I am asking you to explain this incredible phenomenon to me, where gravity suddenly decides to pull all mass in the universe into one place. Black holes? We've discovered hundreds of them all over the universe... so which one decides to draw all the mass into one spot? Do the Black Holes hold a conference? do some Black Holes give up on the gravity thing and let a stronger Black Hole be the leader? And how can this be rectified with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

On heat, you might need to study the Laws of Thermodynamics. Heat doesn't build to a critical temperature then cause an explosion. There can be a reaction to heat which can cause an explosion, and this was instrumental in the theory of a Big Bang. But even in that theory, they never knew what reacted to heat to cause the explosion, it just obviously did. However, in the past 25-30 years, we've discovered the velocity of the universe expansion is not behaving in accordance with a Big Bang event, which prompts physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question whether we EVER had a Big Bang event.

As I said before, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.

Eventually, all the black holes coalesce into one supermassive universal black hole whose gravity draws all the mass of the universe into a single point.

The more we learn, the more YOU don't know.

 

[Boss]

Eventually, all the black holes coalesce into one supermassive universal black hole whose gravity draws all the mass of the universe into a single point.

The more we learn, the more YOU don't know.

LMAO... Intriguing! So all these hundreds of black holes scattered across the universe will tug and pull on each other until one eventually swallows up all the rest, (how do holes swallow holes?) then it will suck in the entire universe? Are you sticking with that? Is that your final answer? Okay... so what about the Uncertainty Principle? This is where Werner Heisenberg discovered it was mathematically impossible to account for all particles in the universe. Even IF your theory were valid, it is uncertain that it would even be possible for all mass of the universe to coalesce into a singularity.

Also, the universe seems to be accelerating in places far removed from any black hole... what is causing that?

And let's not forget, we have no idea what happens inside a black hole. We've never seen two black holes converge. There is no evidence that gravitational forces of any black hole has an effect on other bodies in the universe which are not in direct proximity. We don't really even know what a black hole IS.

The more we learn, the more we discover you are an idiot clinging to 1980s speculations about the universe. The theory of the expanding and contracting universe has pretty much been dismissed by people like Stephen Hawking. Currently, physicists are working on quantum theory and studying quantum mechanics. This is replacing your outdated theory as we speak. String theory posits that we are but one of many universes and our four dimensions are only four of eleven (or possibly more). Things like discovery of Higgs boson have helped to confirm these theories, but the jury is still out, we simply don't have the answers and we may never find them.

What you have done is adopted a FAITH-BASED belief in one theory. You present it as if it were some sort of proven fact that can't be disputed. Intelligent science-minded people don't do that.... EVER!

 

[edthecynic]

Eventually, all the black holes coalesce into one supermassive universal black hole whose gravity draws all the mass of the universe into a single point.

The more we learn, the more YOU don't know.

LMAO... Intriguing! So all these hundreds of black holes scattered across the universe will tug and pull on each other until one eventually swallows up all the rest, (how do holes swallow holes?) then it will suck in the entire universe? Are you sticking with that? Is that your final answer? Okay... so what about the Uncertainty Principle? This is where Werner Heisenberg discovered it was mathematically impossible to account for all particles in the universe. Even IF your theory were valid, it is uncertain that it would even be possible for all mass of the universe to coalesce into a singularity.

Also, the universe seems to be accelerating in places far removed from any black hole... what is causing that?

And let's not forget, we have no idea what happens inside a black hole. We've never seen two black holes converge. There is no evidence that gravitational forces of any black hole has an effect on other bodies in the universe which are not in direct proximity. We don't really even know what a black hole IS.

The more we learn, the more we discover you are an idiot clinging to 1980s speculations about the universe. The theory of the expanding and contracting universe has pretty much been dismissed by people like Stephen Hawking. Currently, physicists are working on quantum theory and studying quantum mechanics. This is replacing your outdated theory as we speak. String theory posits that we are but one of many universes and our four dimensions are only four of eleven (or possibly more). Things like discovery of Higgs boson have helped to confirm these theories, but the jury is still out, we simply don't have the answers and we may never find them.

What you have done is adopted a FAITH-BASED belief in one theory. You present it as if it were some sort of proven fact that can't be disputed. Intelligent science-minded people don't do that.... EVER!

The Cavalier Daily Study finds converging black holes

A study released yesterday, done by astronomers at the University, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and Bonn University, with University Astronomy Prof. Craig Sarazin as a co-author, found that two "super-massive" black holes in the universe are spiraling towards a merger, the outcome of which will be the creation of a single super-massive black hole with the capability to engulf the mass equivalent of billions of stars.

Black holes are among the oldest parts of the universe, and many scientists believe their study could hold insight into the formation of the early universe.

Sarazin described the structure of the super-massive black holes.

"At the center of every galaxy is a super-massive black hole, [which can] contain between a million and 10 billion stars' worth of material," Sarazin explained. "Looking at the distant universe, there are many black holes, and they started early in the formation of the universe," he added.

Super-massive black holes contain the mass equivalent of billions of stars and continually take in additional stars, building a remarkable gravitational pull, Astronomy Prof. Bob Rood said.

 

[Boss]

Again... We have NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort!

So every galaxy in the universe has at least one massive black hole sucking everything in... yet somehow, some way, the various and sundry holes will one day converge with each other and consume the entire universe, at which time, heat... all by itself, will defy thermodynamic principles and create an explosion and a new universe, again full of black holes.

And somehow, belief in this crock of shit is considered more valid that an intelligent designer?

 

[edthecynic]

Again... We have NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort!

So every galaxy in the universe has at least one massive black hole sucking everything in... yet somehow, some way, the various and sundry holes will one day converge with each other and consume the entire universe, at which time, heat... all by itself, will defy thermodynamic principles and create an explosion and a new universe, again full of black holes.

And somehow, belief in this crock of shit is considered more valid that an intelligent designer?

Well, YOU obviously believe it more credible or you would not have created a Straw Man to attack.
Thank you!

 

[Boss]

Again... We have NEVER OBSERVED CONVERGING BLACK HOLES! Now confirmed by your very own source. Thanks for helping refute your own argument! I commend you for the effort!

So every galaxy in the universe has at least one massive black hole sucking everything in... yet somehow, some way, the various and sundry holes will one day converge with each other and consume the entire universe, at which time, heat... all by itself, will defy thermodynamic principles and create an explosion and a new universe, again full of black holes.

And somehow, belief in this crock of shit is considered more valid that an intelligent designer?

Well, YOU obviously believe it more credible or you would not have created a Straw Man to attack.
Thank you!

Ed, for someone with an observatory as an avatar, you seem to be very dumb when it comes to science. I didn't create any straw man but I do think it's more incredible than the theory of an intelligent designer. Why are you having trouble understanding this? Your outdated theory of an expanding and contracting universe is being rethought. This is not new in science, happens all the time. Old theories are replaced by new ones and life goes on, bud.

There have always been problems with the Big Bang theory. As I've pointed out before, even the term "Big Bang" began as a pejorative from those who thought it was a ridiculous theory. The whole "cyclical universe" idea has also been shaky at best, and with the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe, is all but dead. Stephen Hawking has written books about this, maybe you should spend more time reading them than arguing 1980s theories on a message board?