General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God? [View all]LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)The big bang theory is a theory, it has been tested and retested multiple times. The zero-sum universe hypothesis is a hypothesis. Its is an explanation that has been formulated based on the evidence we have gathered but has yet to be tested or reproduced.
That said I have no interest in deconverting you at all. All I wanted from this discussion I have accomplished:
1) Showed the flaws with the "all things must have a beginning" argument
2) Clear us some statements I felt were made based on unsupported assumptions
3) Show that there is a difference between faith that is supported by evidence and blind faith
Magicians are highly secretive about how they do things. If you ask them how they did something they will USUALLY keep it a secret. Scientists are the opposite. They not only tell you, they will provide details so that others are able to reproduce their work. They provide evidence and review. Magicians only care to entertain.
If I saw a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat, I would want to see his hat, tools, stage, etc and I would probably figure out that he did not materialize the rabbit out of nothing when I find the latch that lets he top of the hat open and that his table had a hole in it to where the rabbit was kept.
This is the difference between evidence based faith, and blind faith. One takes whatever is shown to them without question, the other approaches the subject skeptically and examines all the evidence.
I am not being purposefully dumb, its just that the explanation that scientist have come up with to support their theory relies on something they cannot re-create to prove to us believers that they are right.
Actually, I am going to counter by pointing out the double standard you are giving your higher being hypothesis compared to the zero-sum hypothesis. Neither is tested and proven. Both ultimately end in the same conclusions only one requiring a god and one not.
If you add the god, then where did god come from? You say something can not come from nothing then where did god come forth? Did he just appear out of the nothingness meaning your initial premise is wrong. If he can do that, why can't the universe itself?
Or has he always been here, is he eternal? Then why can't the universe itself be eternal? After all, energy can not be created or destroyed. Why add the middle man? What proof do we have for a middle man? What proof other than a book that when read literally makes numerous statements we know are not true, that are historically incorrect, or that are simply impossible?
No matter how you look at it, throwing a god into the mix does not make you objections go away, it just adds yet another layer of complexity to the issue. This is not to say there could not be a god, just that there is no objective evidence for it.
I don't know if the universe was created by an eternal supernatural being, or if the universe itself is eternal and has always been here, or if it or whatever brought it about spontaneously appeared out of nothing.
IMHO, without any proof one way or the other the logical conclusion would be to with-hold forming any conclusions till you have more evidence. This is why I am an implicit atheist (what commonly and incorrectly referred to as agnosticism). I don't see what is wrong with saying "I don't know."
Nor do I see any reason one has to do the logical thing. If believing makes you feel better then believe. Again, I just ask that you acknowledge the problems in saying something can not come from nothing, and that there is a difference between fact-based faith in science, and religious faith.
I am not accusing you of being dumb. I am not even trying to argue there is no god (I myself take no position). I am just trying to point out that the flaws in your arguments. Also, if we had the particles needed to make water we can and do easily combine them to make water, and there is both ice and water on mars already.