Four Big Bangs Equal Four Huge Problems For Materialists/Atheists

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is science but a better explanation of magic?

What is it? The elimination of magic. It's a better explanation of phenomena that doesn't include magic at all. Nice try.

I see something else flew over your head. How thick.

I see you can't explain yourself. I also see you arent equipped to deal with a direct answer to your own question. Thanks for your opinion, though.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What is science but a better explanation of magic?

What is it? The elimination of magic. It's a better explanation of phenomena that doesn't include magic at all. Nice try.

I see something else flew over your head. How thick.

I see you can't explain yourself. I also see you arent equipped to deal with a direct answer to your own question. Thanks for your opinion, though.

I see your inability to make simple connections is increasing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is science but a better explanation of magic?

What is it? The elimination of magic. It's a better explanation of phenomena that doesn't include magic at all. Nice try.

I see something else flew over your head. How thick.

I see you can't explain yourself. I also see you arent equipped to deal with a direct answer to your own question. Thanks for your opinion, though.

I see your inability to make simple connections is increasing.

You asked a question. I directly answered it. And your response has been to throw a little BilkyKinetta...err, i mean, infantile tantrum.

If you are so terrified of addressing answers to your questions, why did you ask it? Were you dancing and prancing around in victory, convinced that nobody could answer it? I think you probably were. But I did answer it, and now you're all weepy.

 

[edthecynic]

“But this ‘singularity’ was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?”

The something this singularity was IS energy, and it has been proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Establishing that something cannot arise from nothing is reason enough to speculate upon what would cause existence to come into existence without the existence of the raw materials of existence. It would seem a certain intelligent intent would be required.

If there was such a thing as nothing, but there is no such thing as nothing. Even a vacuum contains something.

 

[edthecynic]

And where did god come from?

Nothing!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What is science but a better explanation of magic?

What is it? The elimination of magic. It's a better explanation of phenomena that doesn't include magic at all. Nice try.

I see something else flew over your head. How thick.

I see you can't explain yourself. I also see you arent equipped to deal with a direct answer to your own question. Thanks for your opinion, though.

I see your inability to make simple connections is increasing.

You asked a question. I directly answered it. And your response has been to throw a little BilkyKinetta...err, i mean, infantile tantrum.

If you are so terrified of addressing answers to your questions, why did you ask it? Were you dancing and prancing around in victory, convinced that nobody could answer it? I think you probably were. But I did answer it, and now you're all weepy.

If you actually look at post #98, and include the portion you left out, you can see that I discarded magic altogether.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Establishing that something cannot arise from nothing is reason enough to speculate upon what would cause existence to come into existence without the existence of the raw materials of existence. It would seem a certain intelligent intent would be required.

If there was such a thing as nothing, but there is no such thing as nothing. Even a vacuum contains something.

What does a vacuum contain?

 

[edthecynic]

Who said that the universe arose from nothing? We don't know where it came from, for example, it could be the universe itself that expands and contracts and this it simply it expanding again. Or it could be a super massive black hole that blows up in another universe that is perhaps dying. So no, it doesn't automatically point to an invisible being that cares if we follow a book or not. That's absurd.

There must first be a universe to expand or contract. Since something cannot come from nothing, why does the universe exist at all?

For the same reason, where did the black hole come from?

And where did god come from?

See #5.

"rules of existence"?

All things have an origin.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So what is the origin of something that cannot be created?

 

[Taz]

So god as well?

No. By logical argument, that is not logical.

And how do you know that there is only one god? There might be a whole posse of gods.

Since the rule of existence does not apply, perhaps our numerical divisions also do not apply. One and many may be the same.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

And please, stay away from the words "logic" and "logical", otherwise Miriam Webster might have to come and give you a whoopin'.

Hmmm. Dimensional concepts are too much for you, eh?

Try reading "Flatland". It's a real simple read, presented in elementary fashion.

Another book of fiction that you get your "science" from?

Most literate people know "Flatland".

Flatland - Wikipedia

I was right, a book of fiction. Got any real proof?

 

[edthecynic]

Establishing that something cannot arise from nothing is reason enough to speculate upon what would cause existence to come into existence without the existence of the raw materials of existence. It would seem a certain intelligent intent would be required.

If there was such a thing as nothing, but there is no such thing as nothing. Even a vacuum contains something.

What does a vacuum contain?

Photons and other high energy particles.

 

[Weatherman2020]

As a former agnostic I was open to ideas, you are not.

I'm open, but this OP doesn't present any real scientific proof of what it claims to. I'm not just going to accept any random made up theory and then say "yep, I just proved why we're here". It's absurd.

I nor the OP claimed proof of 100%. It offers proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ok, so you don't claim it to be the actual truth. Like I said, a theory and that's cool. I like to check out different ideas.

No, you won’t. God terrifies you.

Why would that be? He a judgemental prick or something?

You tell me. The fact you immediately jumped to being held to a standard in your life pretty much answers it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Establishing that something cannot arise from nothing is reason enough to speculate upon what would cause existence to come into existence without the existence of the raw materials of existence. It would seem a certain intelligent intent would be required.

If there was such a thing as nothing, but there is no such thing as nothing. Even a vacuum contains something.

What does a vacuum contain?

Photons and other high energy particles.

Wrong. A perfect vacuum contains nothing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There must first be a universe to expand or contract. Since something cannot come from nothing, why does the universe exist at all?

For the same reason, where did the black hole come from?

And where did god come from?

See #5.

"rules of existence"?

All things have an origin.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So current science indicates.

Of course, your science once said that the earth was flat and rode upon the backs of elephants supported by a giant turtle.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is where the theory of God falls apart, "where did God come from".

Intelligence. Abraham started off as an atheist, smashing statues of gods, and dismissing ignorant superstitions.

It wasn't until he began to reason intelligently about what the nature of God as a living being must be that the living God appeared to him through dreams and visions...

So based on that one can surmise that God came from an incorporeal realm of conscious life somehow connected to the only thing incorporeal in human beings, the conscious mind.

Maybe he saw the idea on the skins of another tribe in the area.

Either that or he reported the truth, he made contact with superior intelligences from another sphere of intelligent life..

Or maybe he was insane?

Or on drugs.

 

[edthecynic]

And where did god come from?

See #5.

"rules of existence"?

All things have an origin.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So current science indicates.

Of course, your science once said that the earth was flat and rode upon the backs of elephants supported by a giant turtle.

Science never said that, but religion DID!

 

[Taz]

I'm open, but this OP doesn't present any real scientific proof of what it claims to. I'm not just going to accept any random made up theory and then say "yep, I just proved why we're here". It's absurd.

I nor the OP claimed proof of 100%. It offers proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ok, so you don't claim it to be the actual truth. Like I said, a theory and that's cool. I like to check out different ideas.

No, you won’t. God terrifies you.

Why would that be? He a judgemental prick or something?

You tell me. The fact you immediately jumped to being held to a standard in your life pretty much answers it.

You're the one who made the claim, you tell me. And where did you get you second sentence? When did I say what?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No. By logical argument, that is not logical.

Since the rule of existence does not apply, perhaps our numerical divisions also do not apply. One and many may be the same.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

And please, stay away from the words "logic" and "logical", otherwise Miriam Webster might have to come and give you a whoopin'.

Hmmm. Dimensional concepts are too much for you, eh?

Try reading "Flatland". It's a real simple read, presented in elementary fashion.

Another book of fiction that you get your "science" from?

Most literate people know "Flatland".

Flatland - Wikipedia

I was right, a book of fiction. Got any real proof?

A book of fiction that explains multiple dimensions in laymen's terms. The same way Nineteen Eighty-Four explained an unbridled socialist state.

 

[Taz]

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

And please, stay away from the words "logic" and "logical", otherwise Miriam Webster might have to come and give you a whoopin'.

Hmmm. Dimensional concepts are too much for you, eh?

Try reading "Flatland". It's a real simple read, presented in elementary fashion.

Another book of fiction that you get your "science" from?

Most literate people know "Flatland".

Flatland - Wikipedia

I was right, a book of fiction. Got any real proof?

A book of fiction that explains multiple dimensions in laymen's terms. The same way Nineteen Eighty-Four explained an unbridled socialist state.

Well, there's never been a state like the one described in 1984. So I get your point, you have nothing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

See #5.

"rules of existence"?

All things have an origin.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So current science indicates.

Of course, your science once said that the earth was flat and rode upon the backs of elephants supported by a giant turtle.

Science never said that, but religion DID!

Study the ancient worlds. Religion in most respects was the science of its time.