I take everything to heart, but I've already danced that dance. Thank you for the invitation though, truly.
Well, it always does take two. [video=youtube;FG1NrQYXjLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1NrQYXjLU[/video]
You must be referring to the law of Conservation of Energy. But science could easily find an exception to this for the Big Bang. For example, I posit that at that moment, the lower 3 dimensions streamed out of the higher dimensions. You should take Physics 101 at a community college. Then you could debate this issue much better.
That was a terribly facetious remark for which I apologize. On a much more serious/sensitive note, in saying what you've said here, do you feel that God let you down at some point in time? I ask that because you followed that remark with,"it always does take two". Thanks
Easily? Please show me something observed that would support this claim? Something theoretical will not work. Because if you allow theoretical, then I can say "easy, the Easter bunny shits out mass from non mass all day long", as long as I can make it sound all smart like and logical! Your slight of hand is no good here.
Ironically, conservation of energy is itself theoretical, and never intended to be applied the way you are attempting.
So you're saying conservation of energy has not been observed? We see it every day. Here is a easy observation of conservation of energy. http://t.answers.com/answers/#!/entry/what-are-practical-examples-of-conservation-of-energy,4fbe55474b672622b801c058/2 Hitting a nail on its head. The amount of energy used to hit the hammer is equally returned. As I asked jlpk, I want to see an observed example of mass not requiring mass to create mass? Don't use what you used the other day either, because energy is mass!
Oh so you are admitting that science doesn't know much about cosmology then? When was the last time we jumped into black hole? In the end, the only thing that is not theoretical is what we can physically observe. And that can only be applied with certainty. Just because a bunch of scientists tell us so, doesn't make it fact. It's all theoretical, just as much as one saying a supernatural being created the universe.
Dude. Admitting? I've been trying to convince you that we cannot directly apply the laws of physics to a unique event like the big bang for ages. Are you finally going to stop trying? Can I refer you to this post if you ever try to invoke conservation of energy again?
You're right! Because you cannot explain the supernatural with natural laws. And thanks for pointing that out. In the beginning, man cannot observe things that are beyond our natural law. Which is why a theoretical argument that singularity was without mass. We can only be more probable when we have enough empirical evidence to support that probability. And since we have never observed mass being created without mass, then that's as probable as the Easter bunny taking a shit on this planet and giving us life.
The difference, as dozens of posters have tried to show you, is that one method leaves the unknowns blank until further observation clarifies matters, while the other presupposes the answers to the unknowns based on an ancient text.
I already responded to this above, but I'll say it again for emphasis: science doesn't claim to know what it doesn't. That's the difference between science and religion.
No there are some people that being there is a god, but don't believe in the God I believe in. This is why there are so many that take the agnostic stance. They understand there is no true observation that supports total natural occurrence. Some believe there is a designer, or maybe even some conscience energy that created this universe. I choose what I believe because its right for me. You keep referring to ancient text, but that isn't a way of discrediting a theist beginning. Who knows, maybe there isn't a religion that is accurate? But it still doesn't mean there isn't a God.
I'll just leave this here: ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II) (1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang. (2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. (3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. (4) You win! (5) Therefore, God exists.
Actually, that's exactly what the atheist does to theists. Odd that you would post that, since its been the lifelong argument of all atheists. They demand proof that God exists, therefor God doesn't exists! Lmao!!! And I was waiting for one of you guys to post that, because I've been itching to say that! It's stupid huh?!
You may not fill in unknowns with answers from an ancient text, but your religion itself certainly does. Different religions do too (obviously with different texts). What's your point? The honest atheist wouldn't say that some sort of "mystical" origin of the universe is impossible -- they just wouldn't insert answers that were based entirely on the spiritual beliefs of dudes who lived thousands of years ago.
