Forums → WEPR → How old do you think the universe is?
| 219 | 78523 |
I don't personally believe in billions an millions of years, but I want to know what people think.
- 219 Replies
The universe as in the way we see it today, with stars; huge spiraling galaxies and the like? Not to long, maybe a few million at most. Before that, I do not think the universe had a specific "beginning" or anything like that, so, endless.
What do you mean?
Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, etc.
Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid.
What you're calling proof is what we're calling evidence in this case.
I asked a counter-question though. Which you didn't answer.
In other words, you dodged the question and tried to change the subject. I answered you though in a previous post.
God said "Let there be Universe" or something. The Universe Appeared. Simple. It could happen again if he stated that phrase again.
Again. Evidence/proof? You don't seem to realize that saying this is making a -huge- claim. On the order of how huge a claim this is, let me substitute the nouns to demonstrate.
The purple giraffe said, "Let there be the universe" or something.
My statement that it was a purple giraffe, and not God, is just as valid as your statement that it was God. Ridiculous? Yes. So is your argument, as it's just as backed as the giraffe claim.
So I'd say "If you don't know and I don't know then my statement is True until proven False. Like the justice system innocent until proven guilty." I'd say.
Except that's not how this works. We don't immediately assume the most complex answer when we don't know the answer. Occam's razor.
I don't know what Bible you read but NEVER anywhere in the Bible does it say anything but God.
It doesn't in the KJV I don't think, but it does in others.
You can not SEE that the Big Bang happened so it needs proof.
This is so contradictory in many ways to the idea of faith and religion that it just makes me laugh. Proof for God please.
Also, we have evidence, similar to how we can reconstruct how an accident happened by looking at the wreckage. Based on the shape of the universe, the red shift effect and other such things we can determine that the universe must have expanded from a single point. Whether something came before that is moot to that part, as well as the how it got to that. We can only say at this point that it did.
It's not common knowledge to know where to get stuff to make a universe from an EMPTY void.
And there's multiple theories about that, regarding whether it was truly empty to quantum spontaneous appearance from nothing and etc. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the evidence we have that points to space expanding from a single point.
Not Catholic or Mormon, Not sure what a protestant is. I'm a Christian.
Catholics and Mormons are also Christians...
Examples of Protestants are Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.
So let's get this clear while we're at it. What's your denomination?
But then where did the stuff that formed the Big Bang come from. We basically have no idea.
Correct. We don't know currently where it came from. There are several popular explanations but there's not enough evidence right now to determine anything.
With Time Travel we'll be able to see what happened. Sadly there's no Time Travel Yet.
Time travel may not be possible, or it may only be possible into the future. Even still, witnessing an event like the Big Bang would be like an ant getting front row seats to a hydrogen bomb test.
No what I meant was you can't ask me about it in my theory if you don't even know it yourself in yours.
For the 4th or 5th time, the Big Bang theory does -not- include where and how the preliminary conditions came to be met. It details the event itself.
Another example is how evolution covers the change in organisms over time, but does not include how life came to be in the first place.
What do you mean?
Which of the many versions of Christianity?
You sir are an idiot. This is what I said. Retard.
What a brilliant refutation of my argument. I am in awe of your rhetorical skills.
"I was saying "How should I know how he created it? All I know is he created it" Not "How should I know anything about him creating it I wasn't there. I know how he created it though"
"Well if you have no idea where it came from your theory is invalid." Okay so which scribes penned the Bible? If you donât know exactly which ones did, according to that logic, than any Biblical argument you make is invalid. (Your argument was simply wrong on its face- whether someone knows where their argument came from is completely irrelevant to the validity of the argument.)
I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
By your logic, the theory of gravity, germ theory, and atomic theory are all invalid as they have never been proven.
I asked a counter-question though. Which you didn't answer.
You just quoted my answer to your counter question. Asking what happened before the big bang is pointless, as it is impossible to determine that given current technology. Youâve also dodged my question for roughly 2.5 pages now.
God said "Let there be Universe" or something. The Universe Appeared. Simple. It could happen again if he stated that phrase again.
And how does that work?
So I'd say "If you don't know and I don't know then my statement is True until proven False. Like the justice system innocent until proven guilty." I'd say.
That is just about the stupidest thing youâve said so far. Unicorns exist, PROVE ME WRONG. Bill Clinton is an Irish fairy, PROVE ME WRONG. No, if neither of us knows the truth value of a statement, that does not make it true.
It's something you can actually SEE. You can not SEE that the Big Bang happened so it needs proof.
Once again, YOU CANNOT PROVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid.
So it's common sense that a super powered being created the universe that created this super powered being and you know this without anything of substance to support it?
"Okay fair enough I can't back up my claims but I can still believe them."
Since you seem to be admitting here that your claim is unsubstantiated then it should be considered invalid.
I asked a counter-question though. Which you didn't answer.
We have been answering you while all you have done is dodge questions.
God said "Let there be Universe" or something. The Universe Appeared. Simple. It could happen again if he stated that phrase again.
Literally you're believing that some being said abracadabra and that made the universe.
"From the creationistâs perspective, the method or mechanism of creation which these mystical beings use is nothing more than a golem spell where clay statues are animated with an enchantment. Or its an incantation in which complex modern plants and animals are "spoken" into being. Thatâs right, magic words which cause fully-developed adult animals to be conjured out of thin air. Or a god simply wishes them to exist; so they do. Thatâs it! There really is nothing more to it than that; pure freakinâ magic â"by definition." -AronRa
So I'd say "If you don't know and I don't know then my statement is True until proven False. Like the justice system innocent until proven guilty." I'd say.
You got it backwards. The claim in a justice system is that a person did it. So in a justice system something would be false until proven true. This is also so in science. i would recommend you look up something called the null hypothesis.
I don't know what Bible you read but NEVER anywhere in the Bible does it say anything but God.
Okay i guess i will step in here. There are various terms used when speaking of God, one of them is his proper name, which in the Hebrew text is only two letter. The closest translation we have for these letters into English is Yhwh. We really have no idea how exactly this was originally pronounced, but the closest we could figure would have been Yahweh. Jehovah is another way to pronounce it as some alphabets Y and J can be interchangeable and W and V (or more accurately VV) can be interchangeable. However J and V didn't exist in this early language, this is why Y and W are the more likely characters.
As for that blue Bible site. El is a proper name of a god and a title, translating as "most high" or "God". Earlier religions has El as Yahweh's father. There is also Elohim. This is a pluralization of El, so Elohim means gods.
On a final note Allah is just the word for God, not exactly a name.
Now going back to the topic.
That's talking about something else, It's something you can actually SEE. You can not SEE that the Big Bang happened so it needs proof.
I provided you with the evidence for the Big Bang, even bothering to copy and paste it all down here because you didn't like the look of the site, which you subsequently ignored.
WE HAVE THE "PROOF" THAT WE CAN SEE!
However you have no "roof" that this God did what you claim he did or even that this God exists at all. You don't know either, yet you are claiming that you do.
That's simply because it's Common knowledge where to get stuff to make a cake. It's not common knowledge to know where to get stuff to make a universe from an EMPTY void.
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
But then where did the stuff that formed the Big Bang come from. We basically have no idea.
Yet you're claiming to know what I unknown. That is what's making your statements so intellectually dishonest.
No what I meant was you can't ask me about it in my theory if you don't even know it yourself in yours.
Yes we can since you're positing a claim to know.
Denomination?
There are other versions?
Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Anabaptist, Methodist, Latter Day Saints...
Basically you mean it would be Instant Death?
If you were there at the time, yes. For starters, there was no air.
Gravity has been.
There is indeed plenty of evidence supporting it, but it is still a falsifiable scientific Theory.
Exactly. The Hebrew Test. I am a Christian though.
You do realize that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and the New Testament was originally written in Greek, right? What language is 'Christian'?
Yes but it doesn't make it false.
The side with the positive claim must provide the evidence.
There have never been Unicorn sightings
Then why is the unicorn mentioned in the bible?
I told you in my bible it just says God.
Which version? King James? New International Version? American Standard Version?
Denomination?
Sigh.
Is there an ending on the church you go to? Actually, ask your parents. I'm sure they can tell you what you believe.
Basically you mean it would be Instant Death?
Pretty much...
There are other versions?
Go learn what you believe. Then we can talk about how it's not backed by any type of evidence.
Gravity has been.
No it hasn't. We don't know why gravity exists or if it's caused by a certain particle or whatever. All we know is that from the observable data mass draws other mass to it, and the more mass the more it draws.
Yes but it doesn't make it false.
If you're okay with what you believe being on the level of a nine toed pixie, well, that's that I suppose.
[quote]Well He says words. The universe appears. That's how.
Magic is fun isn't it?
No it's called R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N
Religion doesn't have to have a god. So, no, not really actually.
It's not a spell. He said "Let Their Be Life." And then he Breathed Life into the clay. Not just "Abracaherpyderp" And he did nothing and it magically happened.
Let's take a closer look at this.
Magic: Words are said, effects happen.
God: Words are said, effects happen.
What do you know, they're the same.
Exactly. The Hebrew Test. I am a Christian though.
You're a horribly, horribly, horribly ignorant Christian who doesn't know the first thing about his own faith because you just listen to what others tell you without question.
The ENTIRE Old Testament is Hebrew writings. Your ENTIRE argument about how God made the universe COMES FROM HEBREW WRITINGS.
And where is that.
On page 8.
He was saying the Universe is like Cake.
*facepalm*
No. I was saying that the Big Bang theory did not cover events preceding the Big Bang. Way to understand an analogy.
Yes but it doesn't make it false.
If you're okay with what you believe being on the level of a nine toed pixie, well, that's that I suppose.
Well He says words. The universe appears. That's how.
Magic is fun isn't it?
No it's called R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N
Religion doesn't have to have a god. So, no, not really actually.
It's not a spell. He said "Let Their Be Life." And then he Breathed Life into the clay. Not just "Abracaherpyderp" And he did nothing and it magically happened.
Let's take a closer look at this.
Magic: Words are said, effects happen.
God: Words are said, effects happen.
What do you know, they're the same.
Exactly. The Hebrew Test. I am a Christian though.
You're a horribly, horribly, horribly ignorant Christian who doesn't know the first thing about his own faith because you just listen to what others tell you without question.
The ENTIRE Old Testament is Hebrew writings. Your ENTIRE argument about how God made the universe COMES FROM HEBREW WRITINGS.
And where is that.
On page 8.
He was saying the Universe is like Cake.
*facepalm*
No. I was saying that the Big Bang theory did not cover events preceding the Big Bang. Way to understand an analogy.
*Quote fixes.
Basically you mean it would be Instant Death?
That is the problem. If you tried to watch it occur, well it would be impossible. Nothing would exist outside of the singularity, not air, not even empty space. You would coexist with non-existance, if that's comprehendable.
Exactly. The Hebrew Test. I am a Christian though.
As they say in Hebrew, atah nevaar ben zoneh
Let's take a closer look at this.
Magic: Words are said, effects happen.
God: Words are said, effects happen.
What do you know, they're the same.
I think he was pointing out that his God did something more than solely words: 'Breathing Life' into the clay (not that this substantiates the claim any more than a magician clapping their hands while saying the word and making a dove appear).
Heh Heh. I don't know what country you're from but it's "Innocent until proven Guilty" in the U.S
The prosecution claims the defendant is guilty. That's a positive claim. The prosecution needs to bring the evidence that supports their positive claim. The court sees the defendant as innocent until the prosecution's positive claim that the defendant is guilty is supported by sufficient evidence. Getting it?
Also, how old (or young) are you?
Not really sure, I'de probably have to go with billions of years old.
I don't know... like 200. 200 years
Trolling works better when you don't have 8,400 posts.
I think he was pointing out that his God did something more than solely words: 'Breathing Life' into the clay (not that this substantiates the claim any more than a magician clapping their hands while saying the word and making a dove appear).
Traditionally magic isn't done solely with just spoken words either. Ritual items and certain conditions have to be met with your more formal magicky things.
Not really sure, I'de probably have to go with billions of years old.
If you don't know, why don't you look into it? Giving a random number is simply making something up for no reason...
There are other versions?
There are many versions of the Bible (King James, New International, Young's Literal, etc.). As well, there are many denominations (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, British Episcopalian, etc.).
Gravity has been.
Once again, you cannot prove a scientific theory; you can only demonstrate its validity and accuracy.
Well He says words. The universe appears. That's how.
What chemical interactions does that entail?
Yes but it doesn't make it false.
Until you can demonstrate a truth value for a claim, it is either senseless or dishonest to assign a truth value to it.
Also There have never been Unicorn sightings and Bill Clinton doesn't have fairy wings.
No unicorn sightings you say?
Of course he does.
That is the problem. If you tried to watch it occur, well it would be impossible. Nothing would exist outside of the singularity, not air, not even empty space. You would coexist with non-existance, if that's comprehendable.
Ah, so you were there? You can tell us firsthand what happened? (Also, comprehensible, not comprehendable, and non-existence, not non-existance. You make me sic.)
You must be logged in to post a reply!