No Big Bang Does what to Atheism?

What is all what about? Three images? Well, gee, two seem to be books and one seems to be a chart.

 

Are you then suggesting that you (we --whoever "we" is) don't know how the singularity came about? Yet you think you can calculate when that singularity arrived or presented itself in a fashion that allows its effect to be detected 'billions" of years later?

Well, in one sense of the word, a singularity also defines the presence of God.
[h=2]singularity[/h] (ˌsɪŋɡjʊˈlærɪt&#618 n, pl -ties1. the state, fact, or quality of being singular
2. something distinguishing a person or thing from others

3. something remarkable or unusual

4. (Mathematics) maths a. a point at which a function is not differentiable although it is differentiable in a neighbourhood of that point. See also pole[SUP]2[/SUP][SUP]4[/SUP]
b. another word for discontinuity

5. (Astronomy) astronomy a hypothetical point in space-time at which matter is infinitely compressed to infinitesimal volume"



All of the Omni attributes of God distinguishes God from all others. God is also remarkable and unusual IMHO.

 

Nope. We have a scientific theory supported by mathematical and observational evidence describing the event which by definition means its a natural event.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't, unless you are a theist.

But since you asked an environment without time, matter or space fits the very definition of supernatural. Beyond nature and beyond our comprehension.

 

Please explain HOW that "event" came about. Please give the full scientific and mathematical description of HOW that event came about. Please be as accurate as humanly possible, but please don't add any conjecture.

 

Actually many Gods existed before atheists.

- - - Updated - - -

Poor Incorporeal, you keep demanding detailed proofs because you can never provide any.

 

I agree that infinities are beyond human comprehension, and that one could therefore rightly consider a singularity a "supernatural" phenomenon. I tend to think of the word "supernatural" as describing something imaginary that is beyond nature, rather than something that is merely unknown.

 

Science and math can't tell one anything without evidence. For that sort of speculation, one requires religious faith. Science can tell us that our Universe expanded from an infinitely small point in space, but we can't see, hear or measure anything beyond that moment in time. Nobody knows what happened before. Anyone who tells you that they do know is lying to you. I promise.

 

BS!

The big bang theory was created by whom? Google the Catholic clergyman, Georges Lemaître. And then eat my rooster.

The big bang theory is notihng but ridiculous religious crap. It has absolutely nothing to do with science in any way shape or form.

 

Who is "we"? Provide this evidence, which is not a supposition, conjecture or opinion.

All matter from nothing is a supernatural event.

 

Supernatural:
adjective1.of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

 

There is a member on this forum who has claimed that man is born as an Atheist and that only through indoctrination does one ever become knowledgeable of religion or place any belief in a God or the existence of a God or "many gods".

So where is your proof concerning the event that you have spoken about? No PROOF? uh oh.

 

What sort of speculation? Are you suggesting that you would have to speculate and that math and science cannot tell you what you need to know about the big bang? For everything that happens there has to be a cause. Can a firecracker go bang without there being a cause for the bang?

Well, considering that one cannot tell what happened prior to that starting point you have described, and you have indicated a system called "measure"... so what was the actual size of that "infinitely small point in space."? What was the "space" made of? Scientists now believe that there is no such entity as "nothing", so "space" could not have been 'nothing'.

How good are your promises? Have you ever broken a promise?

 

And as I've told you, the Big Bang Theory doesnt say that the Universe came from nothing or that it has already existed. It is neutral to rose two claims. I know you're not just going to ignore my posts and pretend like this hasn't been told to you, right? Now you were asking me about those pictures..

 

The Big Bang Theory does not have a voice, so it can not tell anyone anything.

What you conveniently ignoring are all the scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory who claim that nothing (or a spot no larger than the period at the end of this sentence) exploded into all the matter and energy in the universe. This is the current fairy tale taught in public schools today, which I am sure you will plainly see would be a supernatural event.

 

So looking through this thread, The Big Bang Theory is a catholic conspiracy that is true in spite of its inconsistencies. Kind of disappointed that was the best that the atheists could offer.

 

Yes, everybody knows this. When somebody exclaims that a book says something, do you automatically chime in with "books don't talk!", or do you understand that books don't talk and that the book merely has writing in it which says something?

Those are INCREDIBLY different claims. There is a stark difference between saying that the matter already existed in a singularity and that the matter came from nothing. You're trying to roll up the two to make your argument seem like it has merit.

 

Inconsistencies with what?

- - - Updated - - -

Yup. That's correct.

 

Then show irrefutable PROOF regarding the billions of years.

 

Nah. You can go look up the evidence yourself. I don't see why I should cater to your unobtainable demands.

 

Wait a minute.. you advise me to go look them up for myself, and then you declare that they are unobtainable. I suppose that your stating that they are 'unobtainable' is due to the fact that I requested 'irrefutable' PROOF. Well how about I lessen the level of PROOF and just request PROOF? Will that help you any at all?

 

Not really. Even if provided the evidence, there's no guarantee that it'll be "proof" for you. And then you'll have no reason to give for why it isn't beyond "Uh, it didn't convince me." I have no time for childish games.

 

So, the object of debate being to convince the opponent in the debate is now a 'childish game'. Got it. LOL.

 

Not really. The object of you demanding "proof" and then dismissing it for no clear given reason (beyond, again, "it doesn't convince me!") is what's childish.

 

Then your failed attempts to convince me are equally childish. If those attempts of yours were proceeding from a more mature or adult frame of mind, they might have had a better chance of convincing me. Had those attempts of yours been capable of compelling my mind, I have no reason to deny their viability, however, when they lack the compelling nature of swaying my mind, then they are too weak to consider as viable.

 

Do YOU understand that a book was written by a person with an opinion and worldview. You are shifting the discussion away from your failed position to this is a red herring.

The point is that the facts, discoveries, research, observations, laws of nature all betray the position you hold of all space, time and matter originating at a single point in space, "..no larger than the period at the end of this sentence." or "..from nothing, nothing at all.", and especially the newest escape mechanism that the universe is eternal.

- - - Updated - - -

So your tactic in this debate is when you are loosing to insult. Reported.