EXACTLY what dingbat says: "The existence of the Universe manifestly is the empirical evidence for God's existence." Now beat it before I report you.

Report what? I'm the only one on this board who has put the matter in those very words . . . dozens of times going back years. You could say that it's my signature: The existence of the Universe manifestly is the empirical evidence for God's existence.
No it's not. We don't know why we're here and by what process. For you to assign that to an invisible superbeing automatically without actually knowing is quite simply wrong. Did you read that in a book? With a fantastical story about a 40 day worldwide flood?
 
It's not a coincidence that a universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popped into existence being created from nothing.
As has been shown to you over and over in many other threads, there is no such thing as "nothing." Yet you still mindlessly parrot that same LIE!
And yet the leading cosmological model is the universe began being created from nothing despite your objections.


Because one guy says so? Um... no. Real scientists say that we have no data from the first moments, so can only guess.
 
Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof for or against the existence of an invisible superbeing that rules the universe. Making Agnosticism the thinking person's choice.
How is saying you don't know thinking?
I see no empirical proof.
But How is saying you don't know thinking?
Why? You know everything? :no_text11:
I don't know your answer to the question I asked.

And apparently you must not either.
There's no empirical data from the beginning of the BB. I bet you want to cry. :10:
I've gone over this a thousand times with you, Taz. CMB, red shift, super collider results, Einstein's field equations, inflation theory, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, and the expansion of the universe are all empirical evidence that the universe was created at the big bang.
None of that is data from the first moments of the BB. Please try again.
The CMB certainly is.
No it's not, that's from something like 400,000 years after it.
Not exactly. Matter / anti matter annihilation began at the big bang. It took ~380,000 years for the "soup" to cool but the root cause was instantaneous. You lose again.

What was your degree in again?
 
The thinking man would know that if God did create existence then everything in existence would be empirical evidence of God's existence.
I bet that doesn't even make sense to you or your sock. :biggrin:
If you had truth on your side you would argue facts, if you had reason on your side you would argue logic. but since you have neither, this is what you do.
Fact: we have no data from the first moments of the BB.

Logic: we can only guess at what's there. Inferring is still a guess.
 
It's not a coincidence that a universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popped into existence being created from nothing.
As has been shown to you over and over in many other threads, there is no such thing as "nothing." Yet you still mindlessly parrot that same LIE!
And yet the leading cosmological model is the universe began being created from nothing despite your objections.


Because one guy says so? Um... no. Real scientists say that we have no data from the first moments, so can only guess.


:lol:
 
Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof for or against the existence of an invisible superbeing that rules the universe. Making Agnosticism the thinking person's choice.
How is saying you don't know thinking?
I see no empirical proof.
But How is saying you don't know thinking?
Why? You know everything? :no_text11:
I don't know your answer to the question I asked.

And apparently you must not either.
There's no empirical data from the beginning of the BB. I bet you want to cry. :10:
I've gone over this a thousand times with you, Taz. CMB, red shift, super collider results, Einstein's field equations, inflation theory, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, and the expansion of the universe are all empirical evidence that the universe was created at the big bang.
None of that is data from the first moments of the BB. Please try again.
The CMB certainly is.
No it's not, that's from something like 400,000 years after it.
Not exactly. Matter / anti matter annihilation began at the big bang. It took ~380,000 years for the "soup" to cool but the root cause was instantaneous. You lose again.

What was your degree in again?
So the background is the remnant of something, not the start. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
The thinking man would know that if God did create existence then everything in existence would be empirical evidence of God's existence.
I bet that doesn't even make sense to you or your sock. :biggrin:
If you had truth on your side you would argue facts, if you had reason on your side you would argue logic. but since you have neither, this is what you do.
Fact: we have no data from the first moments of the BB.

Logic: we can only guess at what's there. Inferring is still a guess.

:lol:
 
It's not a coincidence that a universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popped into existence being created from nothing.
As has been shown to you over and over in many other threads, there is no such thing as "nothing." Yet you still mindlessly parrot that same LIE!
And yet the leading cosmological model is the universe began being created from nothing despite your objections.


Because one guy says so? Um... no. Real scientists say that we have no data from the first moments, so can only guess.


:lol:

Google


:lol:
 
Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof for or against the existence of an invisible superbeing that rules the universe. Making Agnosticism the thinking person's choice.
How is saying you don't know thinking?
I see no empirical proof.
But How is saying you don't know thinking?
Why? You know everything? :no_text11:
I don't know your answer to the question I asked.

And apparently you must not either.
There's no empirical data from the beginning of the BB. I bet you want to cry. :10:
I've gone over this a thousand times with you, Taz. CMB, red shift, super collider results, Einstein's field equations, inflation theory, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, and the expansion of the universe are all empirical evidence that the universe was created at the big bang.
None of that is data from the first moments of the BB. Please try again.
The CMB certainly is.
No it's not, that's from something like 400,000 years after it.
Not exactly. Matter / anti matter annihilation began at the big bang. It took ~380,000 years for the "soup" to cool but the root cause was instantaneous. You lose again.

What was your degree in again?
So the background is the remnant of something, not the start. Thanks for clearing that up.
CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler.

.

:lol:
 
The thinking man would know that if God did create existence then everything in existence would be empirical evidence of God's existence.
I bet that doesn't even make sense to you or your sock. :biggrin:
If you had truth on your side you would argue facts, if you had reason on your side you would argue logic. but since you have neither, this is what you do.
Fact: we have no data from the first moments of the BB.

Logic: we can only guess at what's there. Inferring is still a guess.

:lol:
From your link "What is the Big Bang theory?" Do you know what a theory is?
 
It's not a coincidence that a universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popped into existence being created from nothing.
As has been shown to you over and over in many other threads, there is no such thing as "nothing." Yet you still mindlessly parrot that same LIE!
And yet the leading cosmological model is the universe began being created from nothing despite your objections.


Because one guy says so? Um... no. Real scientists say that we have no data from the first moments, so can only guess.


:lol:

Google


:lol:


:lol:
 
Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof for or against the existence of an invisible superbeing that rules the universe. Making Agnosticism the thinking person's choice.
How is saying you don't know thinking?
I see no empirical proof.
But How is saying you don't know thinking?
Why? You know everything? :no_text11:
I don't know your answer to the question I asked.

And apparently you must not either.
There's no empirical data from the beginning of the BB. I bet you want to cry. :10:
I've gone over this a thousand times with you, Taz. CMB, red shift, super collider results, Einstein's field equations, inflation theory, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, and the expansion of the universe are all empirical evidence that the universe was created at the big bang.
None of that is data from the first moments of the BB. Please try again.
The CMB certainly is.
No it's not, that's from something like 400,000 years after it.
Not exactly. Matter / anti matter annihilation began at the big bang. It took ~380,000 years for the "soup" to cool but the root cause was instantaneous. You lose again.

What was your degree in again?
So the background is the remnant of something, not the start. Thanks for clearing that up.
CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler.

.

:lol:
It's not data from the first moments of the BB, I'm talking about say, the first 5 seconds. The CMB is a remnant of that but does not describe it.. Gawd, you're stoopid.
 
The thinking man would know that if God did create existence then everything in existence would be empirical evidence of God's existence.
I bet that doesn't even make sense to you or your sock. :biggrin:
If you had truth on your side you would argue facts, if you had reason on your side you would argue logic. but since you have neither, this is what you do.
Fact: we have no data from the first moments of the BB.

Logic: we can only guess at what's there. Inferring is still a guess.

:lol:
From your link "What is the Big Bang theory?" Do you know what a theory is?

:lol:
 
The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false.
Speaking only for myself, I see science and religion, not so much as mutually exclusive, but just concerned with different issues. Are music and history mutually exclusive or just different?

Science is solely concerned with the natural world and the laws that govern it. Although starting in the natural world, religion is really concerned with the supernatural: God, miracles, judgement of heaven and hell, etc.
 
It's not a coincidence that a universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popped into existence being created from nothing.
As has been shown to you over and over in many other threads, there is no such thing as "nothing." Yet you still mindlessly parrot that same LIE!
And yet the leading cosmological model is the universe began being created from nothing despite your objections.


Because one guy says so? Um... no. Real scientists say that we have no data from the first moments, so can only guess.


:lol:

Google


:lol:


:lol:

Quote the part that describes the first 5 seconds of the BB. You can't. So you lose. Asswipe.
 
Atheists are just as deluded as theists, as there's no proof for or against the existence of an invisible superbeing that rules the universe. Making Agnosticism the thinking person's choice.
How is saying you don't know thinking?
I see no empirical proof.
But How is saying you don't know thinking?
Why? You know everything? :no_text11:
I don't know your answer to the question I asked.

And apparently you must not either.
There's no empirical data from the beginning of the BB. I bet you want to cry. :10:
I've gone over this a thousand times with you, Taz. CMB, red shift, super collider results, Einstein's field equations, inflation theory, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, and the expansion of the universe are all empirical evidence that the universe was created at the big bang.
None of that is data from the first moments of the BB. Please try again.
The CMB certainly is.
No it's not, that's from something like 400,000 years after it.
Not exactly. Matter / anti matter annihilation began at the big bang. It took ~380,000 years for the "soup" to cool but the root cause was instantaneous. You lose again.

What was your degree in again?
So the background is the remnant of something, not the start. Thanks for clearing that up.
CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler.

.

:lol:
It's not data from the first moments of the BB, I'm talking about say, the first 5 seconds. The CMB is a remnant of that but does not describe it.. Gawd, you're stoopid.

:lol:
 
It's not a coincidence that a universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popped into existence being created from nothing.
As has been shown to you over and over in many other threads, there is no such thing as "nothing." Yet you still mindlessly parrot that same LIE!
And yet the leading cosmological model is the universe began being created from nothing despite your objections.


Because one guy says so? Um... no. Real scientists say that we have no data from the first moments, so can only guess.


:lol:

Google


:lol:


:lol:

Quote the part that describes the first 5 seconds of the BB. You can't. So you lose. Asswipe.


:lol:
 
There are only 41,500,000 results for the query evidence for the big bang. :lol:
 
 

Forum List

Back
Top