Francisco Pope Of The Poor??? Aparecida Brazil

[internationalguy]

Theists, unfortunately, start from an unsupportable assumption. Agnosticism is an easy way out, suggesting that something for which there is no evidence may actually exist.

Please Mr. evidence for one time in your life answer my direct question. How do you explain laws of physics being broken before and during Big Bang. Only a creating force could override those laws. Show me YOUR evidence.

 

[camberiu]

Please Mr. evidence for one time in your life answer my direct question. How do you explain laws of physics being broken before and during Big Bang. Only a creating force could override those laws. Show me YOUR evidence.

Although I am an atheist, I have no desire to try to convince you to change your beliefs. That being said, on this particular case, just because our existing models can't explain something, does not automatically mean that it must then be because of a "Divine action". But at any rate, there is a Mexican scientist called Miguel Alcubierre, who came up with some pretty good hypothesis about how the universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light, right after the big bang. And it did not involve any type of supreme being.

 

[Jaredberryman]

Theists, unfortunately, start from an unsupportable assumption. Agnosticism is an easy way out, suggesting that something for which there is no evidence may actually exist.

Not to be rude, but that is called a circular argument. You can't say that the conclusion that someone reaches is based on an unsupportable assumption, when the conclusion is based on a series of arguments that reached the conclusion. That doesn't make any sense. Theists don't argue that God exists because we assume God exists, we argue that because the evidence leads us there. Or at least I do anyways.

 

[Jaredberryman]

Although I am an atheist, I have no desire to try to convince you to change your beliefs. That being said, on this particular case, just because our existing models can't explain something, does not automatically mean that it must then be because of a "Divine action". But at any rate, there is a Mexican scientist called Miguel Alcubierre, who came up with some pretty good hypothesis about how the universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light, right after the big bang. And it did not involve any type of supreme being.

You are correct in your second sentence. But just because a theory exists that explains the expansion of the universe in the big bang, does not explain how the universe came from a state of non-being (nothing, nothing nothing). The last I checked, there aren't any theories about the expansion of the universe that bring God in to explain it, even by theist cosmologists/scientists. The question is how the universe moved from non-being into a ball of mass, and what caused it to explode. Anyways, others like Stephen Hawking in his recent book tried to theorize how the big bang happened without God involved (using the weird "multi-verse" theory), but of course never even posits a theory as to how material went from non-being into existence by breaking all known laws of physics. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Hawkins book. Maybe because the philosophy section in it was terrible?

 

[ajoknoblauch]

In in the interests of fairness, I do not wish to have a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

[internationalguy]

I do not wish to have a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Because you can't answer a simple question. Maybe you don't wish to have a duel but I doubt you have the arguments and the resources to do so anyway.

 

[ghost]

Any and all group discussions on this topic seem to end the same way.
Say goodnight.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Because you can't answer a simple question. Maybe you don't wish to have a duel but I doubt you have the arguments and the resources to do so anyway.

Or perhaps, I should say, an opponent armed only with 18th-century "insights."

 

[internationalguy]

You're so full of it. Enjoy your flight back from SFO.