So what exactly do you think my view is?
And I have said several times that your posts are full of excreted remains of fecal material and that you have no evidence for such inane assertions. You profess to know things you can not possibly know. You have nothing but superfluous hyperbolic bovine excrement behind any of your assertions. Your obfuscations and fallacious equivocations are so blatantly obvious as to be callowly-naive, and exactly what we expect from the irrational adherent of a faith-based conviction being touted as knowledge.
By ‘your view’ I mean the one you mistakenly accept as the ‘prevailing view’.
The prevailing view in science is as I described, the big bang is an event in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state.
Can you at least quote me? what is this “view” you are referring to?
Yes, did I say something different? I might have and I’m happy to review it and either admit error or defend what I said. This is from NASA:
Now, contrast that with what you said to me a few minutes ago:
Already have before, and above you admitted as such.
Go and find a scientist that backs your claim and not a snippet that is explaining in lay terms for those not understanding.
Do you want a childs guide to the universe next to cherry pick another quote.
Anyone with any scientific knowledge knows you cannot say or prove the universe begun at the big bang, unless you have a nobel prize we dont know of.
1 Like
That a deity created the universe, I asked you a few questions as that claim is so facile it actually explains nothing. Here are the questions and your asnwers:
Impressive stuff…
I’m with NASA on this, I rest my case.
I love the “outside of the universe” horse shit, as if the universe is compfotably placed within a tupaware box.
Can science see the exact point the universe started or a part of time just after an event which led to rapid expansion?
This isnt rocket science.
1 Like
beginning
noun
- the point in time or space at which something begins.
Hmm, I’m not a physicist of course, or even a scientist, but how can something “begin” when space and time don’t exist? It is almost as if that site is dumbing it down to make it simple for people by using words they’ll understand, but that are clearly insufficiently accurate for any through scientific explanation.
A more accurate term might be that the universe we currently observe had a point of origin that is explained by the scientific theory the big bang, but hell what do I know, uneducated and with a middling intellect. maybe I should just soak up facile explanations Googled from the internet and misrepresented to support unscientific claims, or then again, maybe I shouldn’t…
Does NASA mention inexplicable supernatural magic from a deity? Hmmm…
Yep, he’s spouting bollocks… what he (someone that apparently more scientically literate then the rest of us) is doing is literally finding a quote for what is essentially an ‘idiots guide’.
Its impossible to pin point a beginning because you’d need a fully working theory of quantum gravity to get to timescales shorter then Planc time.
Again, unless Sherlock has some nobel prize and hasnt’t told us, im happy to retract, otherwise its utter bollocks once again.
He does seem reticent to talk about his scientific qualifications in detail… 
Pithy one liners are great of course, but the idea that is how scientific explanations work seems dubious even to a lay person, let alone at the cutting edge of theoretical physics.
However we could just ask if any scientific ideas support the belief a deity created the universe, why is atheism much higher among scientists, and religiosity tapers off to a tiny minority among elite scientists who best understand such evidence…
It’s a puzzler alright… 
I’d say yes to that. Science tells us that the universe is rationally intelligible and embodies laws. These are axiomatic in the natural sciences, we all accept this I think, no major disagreements here.
We also know that all scientific explanations refer to laws and material quantities, we wouldn’t have much of a theory if an explanation did not refer to these - again I regard this as not controversial, we all accept this.
Now an explanation for the presence of the universe must explain the presence of laws and material quantities. I think its pretty obvious that we can’t claim to have explained laws and material if that explanation regards the presence of these as axiomatic. Any argument that uses its axioms to claim it can prove those axioms is fallacious.
So we can see that a scientific explanation must be ruled out, without laws being axiomatic we cannot invoke them and if we cannot invoke laws we can’t have a scientific explanation.
So we have a choice now, 1) We stop and say that’s it there is no more to say, the universe exists and just is, perhaps it always has just been around.
Or 2) We posit an explanation that is not scientific, that is an explanation in which it is not laws that are axiomatic but something else, I refer to it as “will” and “intent” quite unlike deterministic laws.
So there we are, by reasoning about science and the general nature of scientific theories and their axioms we can rationally infer the possibility of a non-material explanation.
This is not a proof nor did I ever say it was, it is a reasonable and rational line of reasoning and is no longer the domain of science, it is philosophical, metaphysics.
That might be because most scientists aren’t encouraged to examine philosophy and have been misled by the erroneous view that atheism is somehow a scientific position when it isn’t it is a philosophical one, not the domain of the natural sciences.
Or more likely, there is no evidence or good reason to believe in a god hypothesis.
Get back to me on the working theory of quantum gravity and measures smaller then planc time, ill give you time to find another William Lane Craig video on youtube.
But it’s perfectly sound for a deity? That didn’t take long.
Like your claim that a deity has always existed and always will.
False dichotomy fallacy, we are not limited to science or god, and you would need to demonstrate a deity is even possible then establish it exists before asserting it created anything.
Nope, in order for it to be rational it cannot contain known logical fallacies, and “there we are” that gets you no closer to the Christian deity, than it does posting an enormously powerful and transcendent Leprechaun.
That isn’t a very plausible explanation, as those scientists would understand the scientific evidence best, evidence you claim supports an extant deity. The emboldened part is simply risible sorry. Do you really imagine most scientists don’t know what a scientific position is?
Indeed, and this is not only supported by the facts, scientists being best placed to understand that evidence, we don’t need to violate Occam’s razor with risible conspiracy theories that posit most scientists somehow being hoodwinked into non-belief in any deity is a more scientific position, they’d surely know what the evidence does and does not support,
Why? what has physics (laws and matter and fields) go to say about the origin of physics (laws and matter and fields)?
I don’t need time, you do.
This is poor debating, clutching at juvenile strawmen all the time. Do you or do you not agree with what I said:
If your too scared to agree or disagree then you have no place in a debate.
- Reworded: we shrug our shoulders and walk away
- Reworded: we make shit up.
- We say we don’t know if the known universe began or always existed.
- We say we don’t yet know if the known universe began or always existed.
- We continue using the tools we’ve created to arrive at testable, repeatable results about the environment in which we exist.
I’m sure there are more choices. You provided only two that are, well I think, quite silly. I wonder if that was by design. If not, then that would be sad.
1 Like
That’s not a choice you have if you accept the premises I listed because it leads to a contradiction.
I do not accept all the premises you’ve listed.
1 Like