Matty wrote: GREATPURPLESHARK wrote:
Hi Matty, there is a huge, and very important, difference between belief and knowledge. People can believe anything they want. Some people still “believe” that the Earth is flat. But they are stupid and wrong for too many reasons to even begin to list here. I am not interested in what is possible for me to believe, I am interested in believing things that are actually, demonstrably true. It is possible for me to imagine that a being was the creator of the universe, but since there is absolutely no evidence to support this idea I choose not to believe it. The time to believe something is AFTER it has been demonstrated to be true. The god claims of many societies, involving many different gods, have never risen to the level of being provably demonstrated, so there is literally no good reason to believe in any of them. Many people do believe in them all around the world for reasons of indoctrination, wishful and hopeful thinking, lack of critical examination of those claims, among many other bad reasons for belief. I need good reasons to believe something, and without any good reasons I am making the only rational choice available to withhold my belief until any one of those many claims can be shown to be true, That is the only reasonable and defensible position an intelligent person can take. You also seem confused by the very big difference between believing in a god despite not being there to personally witness and verify it’s reality and believing in the big bang theory without being there to personally witness it’s reality. The difference is that there are exactly zero lines of scientific evidence to Support the reality of any god claim, yet there are multiple lines of scientific evidence to support the reality of the big bang theory, such as red shifted light that we can directly observe, and a measurably expanding universe that can be regressed back to a single point at some time in the past, which we have measured to be about 14 billion years ago (13.8 to be more precise). So, yes, there are very good, and scientifically valid reasons to believe that the big bang theory is correct, and yet there are no scientifically valid reasons to believe in either the existence of any god at all, or of the claim that any one of these gods is responsible for the creation of the universe. These two beliefs are not equal in any way, and believing in one is justified while believing in the other is not.
They don't call the big bang a theory for nothing. And I don't need to tell you about the countless of scientific reports that have been debunked over the years. Your idea of a "Scientific evidence" of something doesn't make it a fact unless we can actually observe it to be the case.
You just said the big bang can be demonstrated to be true, so do one for us. Show me that something - living or non-living - can come out of thin air.
Hello again Matty, Oh boy, where to even start with this mess ? First of all, you have made several different errors in your understanding of the science involved, as well as scientific terms. First, you seem to be saying “the big bang is not proven because it is only a theory”. In science a theory is very different than what you might mean when you use the word theory As just some kind of “guess”. In science a theory is a hypothesis that has one or multiple lines of supporting evidence that explains all known data without any contradicting data. That is not a guess. The big bang theory is not a guess, it is a well-supported scientific theory that explains all available data. If you drop a pen do you doubt that it will fall to the ground because gravity is “just a theory” ? If you stick your hand in a jar of influenza do you doubt that you will get sick because “germ theory” is “just a theory” ? Do you doubt that the Earth orbits the sun just because Heliocentrism is “just a theory” ? These theories are actually considered scientific fact. Just because you don’t understand how the word theory is used in science doesn’t make any of it untrue or unreliable.
Many theories change over time as new data emerges, and if the theory can not account for the new data it must be changed or discarded. That is how science works. That is why, when the extraordinarily few scientific hoaxes have occurred it was actually other scientists who exposed them. But do not be confused, there is a huge difference between a hoax or junk science claim that can legitimately be “debunked” and the large number of legitimate theories that have been modified over time to account for new information (such as evolution, that knew absolutely nothing about genetics when it was proposed). Theories that are amended over time are still legitimate and reliable explanations of the mechanisms of nature.
As for your contention that only science that is observable can be considered fact .... that just displays such a kindergarten level of misunderstanding of how science works that it is not even worth going through a lengthy explanation to make it clear to you how deeply and thoroughly wrong you are about that. Just go read a few science books and you will figure it out.
As for your last statement about the big bang theory, you asked me to give you a demonstration of how it can be scientifically supported, and yet you say this after I just gave you at least two examples of how we know it is correct. Maybe you should read more slowly to aid your comprehension.
You did say one interesting thing though. You implied that it is impossible for something to appear out of nothing, as if that is the stupidest thing that you can imagine, and yet you are clearly unaware of the recent discovery of particles that seem to pop in and out of existence without an apparent cause. Your attitude also seems very strange for a guy that seems to support the idea of a christian god. This is the same god, of course, that literally spoke some magic words and made the universe appear, out of NOTHING !
Maybe you need to sit down and think through your positions a little more carefully.