General > Politics

The Idea of Existence

<< < (5/21) > >>

ArtDrake:
False, Game Crazy Kid. I showed the logical process that arrives at the conclusion of the Big Bang. This is a very plausible theory. However, science is unable to extrapolate further theory from the data we have in a plausible way. But just about any of that would be more realistic than posing the existence of an omnipotent being from outer space suddenly zapping life into everything. The Big Bang, in fact, is 100% believable to most non-Christians. It would explain a lot, in a way that conforms with observed qualities of the universe, and in a way that

theistic religion does not.

Oh, and would you please punctuate properly, so I don't think as little of you as I might were you to continue?

bugfartboy:
You didn't answer my question, Ducky.

ArtDrake:
Sorry -- I didn't see it.

The universe grew very quickly. It probably would have destroyed anything within 50 miles in mere nanoseconds; mostly, that was a joke. I don't actually think that it's likely that God caused the Big Bang.

Deagonx:

--- Quote from: Duckling' on July 01, 2011, 10:30:11 PM ---False, Game Crazy Kid. I showed the logical process that arrives at the conclusion of the Big Bang. This is a very plausible theory. However, science is unable to extrapolate further theory from the data we have in a plausible way. But just about any of that would be more realistic than posing the existence of an omnipotent being from outer space suddenly zapping life into everything. The Big Bang, in fact, is 100% believable to most non-Christians. It would explain a lot, in a way that conforms with observed qualities of the universe, and in a way that

theistic religion does not.

Oh, and would you please punctuate properly, so I don't think as little of you as I might were you to continue?

--- End quote ---

Every theory on the beginning of the universe ranges from speculation to just plain silly. I don't find your explanation logical at all, not to mention most of them break the law of conversation of matter.

ArtDrake:
"Every theory on the beginning of the universe ranges from speculation to just plain silly."

That's absurd. Each individual theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe is either speculation, silly, or some of both; they do not range. Collectively, they range.

Granted; I didn't pose an explanation. I simply explained an existing theory that pertains to the beginning of the universe.

Next, I'd like to say that you really shouldn't use an object pronoun that doesn't refer to the last object used in a sentence. Finally, I'd like to add, speculatively, that perhaps the conservation of matter doesn't apply when universes begin. My point is that we know very little on the matter. What we do know, however, we can use as premises to form conclusions about the beginning. I'm not quite sure that you understand this, but when I refer to the Big Bang theory, I'm referring to its most basic form:

"At the beginning of the universe, all matter existed as a singularity, or a point mass. Then, the matter expanded in all directions, forming the galaxies and deep space astronomic formations we see today.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version