Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Xris]

Well no. I, not trawling through hours of Google searches. The incentive to disprove the big bang is massive, why do you think science is conspiring to maintain the status quo?

You made a specific claim that science was attempting to disprove the BB. There is no such thing. Any evidence that questions the BB only causes further invention.Dark energy for one. Quantum fluctuation for another.

-- Updated Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:58 pm to add the following --

Xris, wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I cannot extrapolate any sense from this comment. As far as I can tell, it is a reinforcement of things that you already know about me from 2 years ago, and a claim of absolution about your god, without any evidence to support your absolute claim. Nonsense.

I am not questioning your beliefs at this precise moment. I have all the evidence in the world not a little black book full of nonsense. I asked you how you arrive at the idea that the universe had a beginning without the concept of the BB.

[Fanman]

Xris, wrote:

I am not questioning your beliefs at this precise moment. I have all the evidence in the world not a little black book full of nonsense. I asked you how you arrive at the idea that the universe had a beginning without the concept of the BB.

I can feel what you're trying to do, but you're too late, the ship has already set sail and the captain is on board . If you have the wisdom to realise what I am talking about then good, hopefully you will stop your denigration of my beliefs. However, if you continue, then I will simply stop debating with you. I have no desire to engage in circular arguments or adhominem wars.

[Xris]

Xris, wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I can feel what you're trying to do, but you're too late, the ship has already set sail and the captain is on board . If you have the wisdom to realise what I am talking about then good, hopefully you will stop your denigration of my beliefs. However, if you continue, then I will simply stop debating with you. I have no desire to engage in circular arguments or adhominem wars.

Do you understand what ad hominem means exactly.You have to indicate where am I attacking you personally and where is the circular argument in asking you the same question twice when you obviously ignored the first time.I have not denigrated your beliefs or you so please stop these false accusations. It something you are fond of doing when ever you find a debate a bit beyond you.

[Fanman]

Xris, wrote:

Do you understand what ad hominem means exactly.You have to indicate where am I attacking you personally and where is the circular argument in asking you the same question twice when you obviously ignored the first time.I have not denigrated your beliefs or you so please stop these false accusations. It something you are fond of doing when ever you find a debate a bit beyond you.

Ok, since you insist, I can do philosophical war... an ad hominem, is a personal attack designed to discredit the intellect of your opponent; rather than dealing with their argument. It is a crass tactic used by those who are intellectually inferior, that is why I do not engage in ad hominem attacks, because they are at the level of a playground bully (not to mention being against the forum rules). I walk with Jesus my friend, meaning that I am enlightened. Thus, I am bringing myself down to a lower-level by engaging in them, but its good to get dirty once in a while...

You have attacked my beliefs in this statement:- "I have all the evidence in the world not a little black book full of nonsense." In this statement, you, have attempted to ascent to a level where you can claim that my beliefs are nonsense, because they are based upon Biblical scripture - therein lies the ad hominem attack. I have not accused you of anything, please indicate when or where I have done so? All I did, was to indicate that I did not want to engage in circular arguments, or ad hominem wars, this was based upon what I know of your argumentation style and my 'ability' to predict exactly where you are going with your line of argumentation - its not rocket science... .

Your mistake was in claiming this:- "It something you are fond of doing when ever you find a debate a bit beyond you." Can you please indicate where I have done so in any other debate, I bet you cannot! With regards to your final point, I accept my intellectual limitations, if there is such a thing, since God gave us the ability to learn.

[Xris]

Xris, wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


Ok, since you insist, I can do philosophical war... an ad hominem, is a personal attack designed to discredit the intellect of your opponent; rather than dealing with their argument. It is a crass tactic used by those who are intellectually inferior, that is why I do not engage in ad hominem attacks, because they are at the level of a playground bully (not to mention being against the forum rules). I walk with Jesus my friend, meaning that I am enlightened. Thus, I am bringing myself down to a lower-level by engaging in them, but its good to get dirty once in a while...

You have attacked my beliefs in this statement:- "I have all the evidence in the world not a little black book full of nonsense." In this statement, you, have attempted to ascent to a level where you can claim that my beliefs are nonsense, because they are based upon Biblical scripture - therein lies the ad hominem attack. I have not accused you of anything, please indicate when or where I have done so? All I did, was to indicate that I did not want to engage in circular arguments, or ad hominem wars, this was based upon what I know of your argumentation style and my 'ability' to predict exactly where you are going with your line of argumentation - its not rocket science... .

Your mistake was in claiming this:- "It something you are fond of doing when ever you find a debate a bit beyond you." Can you please indicate where I have done so in any other debate, I bet you cannot! With regards to your final point, I accept my intellectual limitations, if there is such a thing, since God gave us the ability to learn.

The word nonsense was indicating my view of the bible. It was not directed at you or your beliefs and to attempt to make the association is spurious.I think if your faith is so insecure that the bible can not be criticised you should consider not entering into debate on such subjects. It reminds me of the fundamentalist view held by certain muslims and the koran.When you admit that you are aware of my ad hominem attacks and my circular arguments from passed experience"argumentative style""your ability to predict" why should I need search for any where you have previously accused me of such.




As for the idea that asking a question twice is somehow a circular argument can you explain?

[Misty]

It is easy to say God caused the “Big Bang,” it is however not so easy to say what that three letter little word, “God,” is or to say for that matter what that “Big Bang is.” A lot of people assume they know what the Big Bang is, and if there is a deep mystery about the Big Bang, why assume to know God better? Because a supposed angel spat in a prophet’s ear? If there is a God, we can be sure we don’t know squat about him. It is funny how complex mathematical ideas are expressed so cryptically, but the concept of God is reduced to a word with three letters.

I also don’t understand why “nothing” or “nothingness” is such an issue. According to science nothing is apparently dark matter and has more energy and weighs more than anything else. Apparently it takes a lot out of nothing to be nothing. First we had the atom bomb, maybe next we’ll have the nothing bomb and create another Big Bang.

Hello Whitedragon,

How is dark matter weighed? How do they measure its energy?

Misty

[Fanman]

Xris, wrote:

The word nonsense was indicating my view of the bible. It was not directed at you or your beliefs and to attempt to make the association is spurious.I think if your faith is so insecure that the bible can not be criticised you should consider not entering into debate on such subjects. It reminds me of the fundamentalist view held by certain muslims and the koran.When you admit that you are aware of my ad hominem attacks and my circular arguments from passed experience"argumentative style""your ability to predict" why should I need search for any where you have previously accused me of such.

As for the idea that asking a question twice is somehow a circular argument can you explain?

You present with left-field arguments, making it tiresome to respond, having to dismantle and re-organise what it is precisely that you are saying, in order for it to make sense. Anyway, I have time today, and as they say no pain, no gain!

You indicated that the Bible was nonsense, surely then anyone who believes in the Bible believes in nonsense? That is the logical conclusion is it not? And, since you know the veracity with which I regard the Bible, it is obvious that you aimed an ad hominem attack upon me, indirectly claiming that I believed in nonsense. I'm not going to report you to Scott, don't worry . You can criticise the Bible all you want, but a criticism should be intellectually sound and contain some detail, since this is a philosophy forum. Simply calling the Bible "nonsense" without supporting that notion is an ad hominem attack; especially when directed at a thiest whom you know believes in the Bible, that is unquestionable.

With regards to your last point, you are merely trying to confuse the issue. I know what you are like, and how you debate, but you claimed that I use a tactic of making false accusations when a debate gets "a bit beyond me." You, have to learn to support your claims with facts, otherwise you are just talking ****. If you don't support your assertions they remain as such, and cannot ascent any further.

Perhaps I am wrong, I can't remember, which question did you ask me twice? Please ask it a third time, and I will answer.

[Xris]

Xris, wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I cannot extrapolate any sense from this comment. As far as I can tell, it is a reinforcement of things that you already know about me from 2 years ago, and a claim of absolution about your god, without any evidence to support your absolute claim. Nonsense.

Fanman let me remind you of a post you made.Now what is nonsense. My belief that nature is my god or what I base my beliefs on. The Bible in my opinion is total nonsense.Written by man with all the anger and hatred you should not find to guide a man to god. It is not your beliefs but the book from which you refer to. I maintain that opinion and you have every right to report me to Scott.I do not fear a reprimand for holding an opinion.

Watch out for an old thread.You may find it interesting.

[Fanman]

Xris, wrote:

Fanman let me remind you of a post you made.Now what is nonsense. My belief that nature is my god or what I base my beliefs on. The Bible in my opinion is total nonsense.Written by man with all the anger and hatred you should not find to guide a man to god. It is not your beliefs but the book from which you refer to. I maintain that opinion and you have every right to report me to Scott.I do not fear a reprimand for holding an opinion.

This response is really weak. I did not begin with stating that what you said was nonsense. I began by explaining in detail why I thought what you said was nonsense, that is the truth in black and white for all to see. Should I call nonsense, sense? How can you seperate the Bible from the man who believes in the Bible? They are one and the same! I would not report you to Scott, it was a joke . I remember that post you made against Scott when he repremanded you the last time. There is nothing wrong with being afraid, it is a part of the human experience. I am afraid to get a warning or worse. As such I will end this line of discussion, because that is where it is heading.

Watch out for an old thread.You may find it interesting.

I find it amusing that you think if you go backwards, you will be able to go forwards .

[Xris]

What a relief that would be not hear your constant complaints about ad hominem attacks upon your frail character.

[Fanman]

Xris, wrote:

What a relief that would be not hear your constant complaints about ad hominem attacks upon your frail character.

Ah, finally the truth of your disdain towards me rises to the surface, Lord knows you couldn't keep it bottled-up any longer . "My frail character" Ha, ha, ha! Coming from you, I take that as a huge compliment! Since detractors are bound by the compulsion to label those they detract from as the opposite of what they perceive them as. Thank you Xris, thank you. Your compliment regarding my "character" is much appreciated.

[Anthony Edgar]

Before this alleged Big Bang event, were the laws of physics already in place? I mean, without any laws of physics, maybe no explosion at all could have occurred. Or did the laws of physics arrive after this Big Bang? My brain hurts when I contemplate these things.

[Renee]

Before this alleged Big Bang event, were the laws of physics already in place? I mean, without any laws of physics, maybe no explosion at all could have occurred. Or did the laws of physics arrive after this Big Bang? My brain hurts when I contemplate these things.

Our brains hurt too, when you contemplate these things, Anthony.

A brief explanation, without going into specifics, to what laws of physics were in place and what were not:

Some laws of physics are decided by the ratio of different kinds of electromagnetic quantums. This ratio was established immediately coming out of the chaos phase of the Bing Bang. If the ratio of different electromagnetic quantums were differently established, then some (but not all) our physical laws would be different.

The Bing Bang theory should make clear sense to you with regard to the specifics if you at least, for crying out loud, finally made us all happy and took a four-year intense physics honour degree course at a better university. Barring that, we're barking up at trees.

-- Updated November 17th, 2016, 7:17 am to add the following --

Fanman, I asked you how you arrive at the idea that the universe had a beginning without the concept of the BB.

I can feel what you're trying to do, but you're too late, the ship has already set sail and the captain is on board . If you have the wisdom to realise what I am talking about then good, hopefully you will stop your denigration of my beliefs.

Fanman, I can't speak for Xris, but only for myself.

I clearly don't have the wisdom to realize how the world had a beginning when it has been everlastingly long.

You say that wisdom can explain that. I lack that wisdom.

Instead of "feeling" what others are trying to do, why don't you just simply explain what others ask of you? I ask also, because there is no doubt about it, I lack the wisdom that you have, which wisdom tells you how an infinitely long thing has had a beginning.

All we need of you, Fanman, is to explain that. No other argument is needed for my satisfaction that you are right, but this explanation by you is very needed. Please supply.

[Dolphin42]

A change to the rules regulating the London Stock Exchange.

[Present awareness]

In my view, the Big Bang is just a local event in an infinite universe.

On a cellular level, Big Bang's are happening all the time when a sperm cell enters and egg, creating a rapid and massive expansion of cells!