Seems that way doesn’t it. I do not understand how one can ignore evidence so much, just for their belief.
@Nogba is on a week break.
He/she can think of something to “say” from their own thoughts and accompany that with scripture or pictures.
This was the poster’s third reminder.
There you go making claims again.
Scientists and others tend to think the Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the beginning of everything. I have not seen a claim of truth.
By presenting the Big Bang as a truth claim, it is you who have the burden of proof. It is not up to believers or anyone else to disprove your claim
Yes and there’s little to no evidence to prove a god.
So burden of proof also lies with Theists who have not posted anything for their claims either.
You’ve missed the point, again:
You made a claim by inference. IE that the Big Bank Theory is true. This has not been established. All that science says is that the Big bang theory is the best explanation we have so far about the beginning of everything.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It is not up to others to disprove a claim, no matter who makes it.
Well if a theist can show me evidence outside the Big Bang, which I believe 100% then I would like to see that.
Is it possible, even with insane probability, that you/we are a computer program? The thing is, one can not prove we are not. Therefore, despite the probability, we may be a computer program and this is a legitimate explanation for the “big bang”. And if just one possible alternate explanation also exists, then the certainty of the big bang being 100% is not true.
I have high confidence that what my senses accurately reflect reality. But if I am honest with reality, I can not state with 100% certainty I know anything.
The one and only thing I will state is that “of all the entire cosmos (all of everything), there is something”.
Serious question ; I’ve been thinking about Fievel and his apparent inability to understand most things which have been explained ad nauseum to him.
Too much weed? I know it’s possible, I’ve seen it.
Could it be a problem with reading comprehension?
Not very bright?
Or, my favourite , an inability to grasp general ideas in the abstract? Being only able to understand ideas in the concrete specific?
I suspect he lives in a world of absolutes. Despite gentle prodding and even tough love, everything seems to be 100% of this or 100% of that.
Science never makes claims of the absolute, any respectable scientist will indicate a high probability, but never 100%. That is because they understand that what may appear to be a firm footing today can become quicksand tomorrow, with new discoveries and data.
But then again, anyone extracting themselves from religion may take years to drop certain positions and some “truths” the bible claims.
Yes I live in absolutes and like solid evidence for everything. I believe in science and believe they got it right with a real explanation as to how this universe started. I don’t believe it was some superior being as there’s little to no evidence one exists.
Not that any of this matters too much, the one it was directed at withdrew his last comment. Or someone else deleted it.
I suggest you rethink your position. I definitely rely on evidence, and I have a LOT of confidence in science. Notice I was not absolute on science because the history of man’s exploration and learning is that at times, we get things wrong.
Just twenty years ago 99.9% of all physicists believed (based on the evidence) that this universe was not accelerating in it’s expansion. But some did some experimentation, collected data, and now the general consensus is that this universe is accelerating in it’s expansion.
If you could somehow go back in time 20 years, would you bet your very life that the universe was not accelerating in it’s expansion? Everyone had high confidence that it was not the matter AT THAT TIME.
Do you understand that one should not make everything binary and absolutes?
Perhaps not to you, but it matters a lot to me.
Among other things, I’m a skeptic. That means I question everything and do my best to avoid absolutes/dogma/certitude. Imo there are few absolutes in life, except that ends.
For me to claim certainty about anything is to infer whatever the question, it has been answered in full and is now closed. That means it would be difficult, if not impossible to change my mind about anything. That is the general feeling I get from your posts.
Imo, to close my mind is to limit what I can learn, about anything. Over the last 50 odd years it has been my position that a day in which I have learned something is never wasted. IMO to have a closed mind that life itself is restricted.
But hey, the above is only my opinion. As you say, not that any of this matters.[ in the scheme of things].
I try my best to rely on science because it is open for correction. This allows for the improvement of the knowledge acquired through science which constantly makes it increasingly accurate.
The alternative to science does not allow for correction. It is a either accept it or leave it.
Some accept it but try to interpret their scripture in such a way as to not clash with their conscience.
I could not lie to myself anymore.
What you’ve done there is describe yourself as closed minded.
All scientific facts must remain tentative, and open to revision in the light of new evidence.
Leave certainties and absolute truths to theists, who don’t understand what objective facts are, or how to set an unbiased and objective criteria for belief or disbelief.
I think I got it.
Keep an open mind to any possibility as the Big Bang is the best explanation we currently have.
But then observation showed us that it really was expanding, and actually accelerating in speed as well.
Hope that is better, I am trying to learn anyways.
Yeah @Sheldon i am sorry.
But in any-case I doubt a god will be proved in this.
Keep at it good buddy, you are trying.
Yes little by little.
I am a slow learner at times, but usually once I do learn it sticks.
It took me close to 47 years before I realized my god is probably not real. It’ll probably take awhile for me to grasp just what I should and should not listen to. At least I learned about 9/11 conspiracy theories. That took a warning to a punch in the head.
Ah petty ad hominem, hard to argue with those kind of smarts. That’s a helluva first post, sockpuppet?
Fuck you fuckwit…
Well what do you know, it’s not hard at all.
Lol. Brilliant mastery of the English language. First indication of your grasp on reality. Actually, second - you are a theist.