Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

How old do you think the universe is?

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:08pm

blk2860

blk2860

3,686 posts

Blatant admission for double standards much...

On what grounds does that only go for scientific theories?

Scientific Theories are based on proven facts. Beliefs are based on inferences and things you basically believe.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:10pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

When I was using it to describe what I was talking about I said it means that things are True until proven False.

Except you've already admitted through agreeing with the logic of "innocent until proven guilty" that claims need to be backed up by proof.

I can still believe what I think is true though. And I do.

Yes, you can and no one can stop you.

But you're being so contradictory to yourself it's unbelievable.

You say that without proof something is invalid, but that doesn't apply to God. You say that a claim needs to be backed up, but God doesn't.

Why is God exempt from needing evidence to show he exists?
Why do our claims need to be proven, but yours don't?

This is just a simple double standard, one where your belief always wins because you don't need to prove it and we can't prove ours enough.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:13pm

blk2860

blk2860

3,686 posts

Except you've already admitted through agreeing with the logic of "innocent until proven guilty" that claims need to be backed up by proof.

My belief is only invalid on the grounds of being a scientific theory.

Why is God exempt from needing evidence to show he exists?
Why do our claims need to be proven, but yours don't?

Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:18pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

My belief is only invalid on the grounds of being a scientific theory.

Your belief is invalid of the grounds of you having absolutely no reason to believe it, as admitted by yourself multiple times in different ways.

Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.

1) Logical fallacy, Argument from Popularity. 4000 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Was it? No.
2) There are thousands of different versions of Christianity which believe various things. Your argument that they all believe in the same thing is wrong.
3) There are nearly 2 billion believers in Islam, why aren't they right? I wasn't aware that truth was a democracy.
4) No matter how many people believe something, that has no bearing on whether it is actually true. Evidence and the ability to replicate results and predict future results is the most accurate way we have of determining fact.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:19pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Oh, forgot to repeat this, since you dodged it.

Why is God exempt from needing evidence to show he exists?
Why do our claims need to be proven, but yours don't?

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:38pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,094 posts

things are True until proven False.

so any, just any, statement i make is true until proven false?
hahahaha. sorry but that is just silly.

if i accuse someone of murder then he is a murderer until he can proven he isn't.
this is "guilty until proven not guilty"

you say you understand common sense.
but do you also know how to apply it. (or logic thinking)

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 2:38pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,997 posts

Knight

Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.

Over 50% of the population of Iceland believe in trolls. The fact that ALL of them believe in trolls should be proof enough.

Now can we go back to discussing the AGE of the universe, and not whatever may have been the cause of it?

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 4:10pm

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

Magic: Magic Words said, Life happens
God: God says words, Breathes Life into clay figures

Even if I were to accept your completely unfalsified explanation, we're still no closer to demonstrating that your version of your god created the world.

Well because nothing can't have created it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

The Universe simply could have existed eternally. Alternatively, the universe could have been brought into existence by outside forces that were neither sentient nor capable of independent action. You haven’t even demonstrated that your god is either.

Also if God didn't do it, who did?

All sorts of answers to that one. A mindless cosmic entity could have done it (Azathoth), a different god that yours could have (Marduk), an alien scientist in a different multiverse could have, the universe we know could have arose from natural processes, etc.

Okay if God didn't do it, WHAT Did.

Natural forces acting upon already existing matter in a way that we do not completely understand.

Yes. The Universe. As I stated earlier The universe created God to create the Universe to create God to Create The Universe... It's a Paradox. Simple as that.

So the universe is both capable of creating god and capable of independent action? Which of them existed first to start this cycle of creation?

I don't have any. But Since you don't have undeniable proof to prove God DOESN'T exist. You can't prove that he doesn't exist.

You don’t have undeniable proof that god isn’t Marduk/El/Yam/Talthamaat/Ishtar/etc. You can’t prove that any of the following aren’t supreme beings.

The fact that something needs to be created to exist. And something needs to create it.

No- something can exist eternally, removing the need for a creator and the problem of who created the creator.

I have none. But That won't keep me from believing that's what happened.

So there is as much evidence for your god as there is for any other?

I don't need to because you Can't prove he doesn't.

Bill Clinton is an Irish fairy with pink butterfly wings. You can’t prove he isn’t.

When I was using it to describe what I was talking about I said it means that things are True until proven False.

So the earth was flat until people learned that it was round? Fire was caused by Philogiston until people learned that it was the result of chemical reactions? Bill Clinton is an Irish fairy with pink butterfly wings until you prove that he isn’t.

Scientific Theories are based on proven facts. Beliefs are based on inferences and things you basically believe.

Once again, in science, you don’t “prove” anything besides mathematical equations. You demonstrate a theory by conducting research that falsifies the theory.

Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.

So, back in the Roman days, Jupiter and his crew were the actual gods? And before that, Ishtar, Marduk, and their gang?

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 5:18pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,673 posts

Knight

If we go from the assumption that the big bang which was the "start" point for our universe was the first. Can't say whether there haven't been multiple crunches or what not.

We can say it's rather likely that we haven't gone through crunches given the shape of the universe.

Magic: Magic Words said, Life happens
God: God says words, Breathes Life into clay figures

What do you know they're different.

I'm not seeing how they are different.

Yes that's Innocent until proven Guilty. They're Legally Innocent until there is sufficient evidence to prove they're guilty.

Then why are you using guilty until proven innocent for your argument?

Well when he said the words. A Big Explosion Appeared that you call the Big Bang. It was actually how the universe was created but God had to be there to cause it.

Wasn't really an explosion as it was an expansion of the universe from a singularity.

Well because nothing can't have created it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Also if God didn't do it, who did?

There was no who that did it.

As for nothing,
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/animation_lava.gif

That is what nothing looks like. Nothing on a quantum scale is something. It's thought these virtual particles are what kick started the Big Bang.
From what we see here it's likely the reason we have something instead of nothing is that it's because true nothing can't exist.

The fact that something needs to be created to exist. And something needs to create it.

Creation in the sense that we know it is only the reordering of matter/energy. It's not actually creating new matter/energy.

Yes. The Universe. As I stated earlier The universe created God to create the Universe to create God to Create The Universe... It's a Paradox. Simple as that.

That doesn't make things simple, that makes things complicated and sounds like another one of your dodges.

You don't understand. Someone Accuses you. You're brought to court. You're innocent until the person provides sufficient evidence to prove you Guilty. Innocent until proven Guilty.

You accused the creation of the universe being God. God didn't do it until you prove with sufficient evidence that God did. Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't have any. But Since you don't have undeniable proof to prove God DOESN'T exist. You can't prove that he doesn't exist.

It's no our place to prove a negative. You are making a positive claim, so it's up to yo to prove.

It's like with the claim that Bill Clinton has fairy wings. It' not up to you to disprove, but up to the person claiming he has them to prove.

Also this dodgy behavior is very irritating.

Because I believe he did.

What you believe in regards to what is true means two things, jack and squat.

Scientific Theories are based on proven facts. Beliefs are based on inferences and things you basically believe.

Then it would seem we should rely on science instead of belief for determining what is true or not.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 5:53pm

MrMrE

MrMrE

3 posts

I said it means that things are True until proven False.

You're brought to court. You're innocent until the person provides sufficient evidence to prove you Guilty. Innocent until proven Guilty.

I just thought you would like to know... it makes you look very bad when you contradict yourself like this. And as for the "innocent until proven guilty," just because it applies in court does not necessarily mean it applies to all situations.

 
Reply to How old do you think the universe is?

You must be logged in to post a reply!