Before the bang

[JoshM]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

As for the last paragraph of yours, it is often better to admit we simply don't know something, than to accept a theory just because there isn't a better one out there yet. Example: We don't know exactly what causes the "pop" when we pop our knuckles. We think it has to do with gas bubbles escaping our joints, but we're withholding judgement until we know for sure. Admitting ignorance is an act of humility and prudence.

also..
this is ok however if you were to choose one theory over another wouldn’t it based on facts, patterns, tests and even experiences to support it? If you had to lean one way or another. Also I am still interested for another theory to explain origin besides creation. Perhaps it’s outside of my perception scope but no theory on the beginning stages of matter have given me anything better then creation being the catalyst. ie: big bang "but what started the bang?"

[Xodiac]

big bang "but what started the bang?"

Yeah! And for that matter, what started God? Does God exist infinitely into the past and future? Is it okay to say that about God, but not okay to say that about the universe by itself?

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by JoshM

And yes i like how you mentioned things not being explained. Sure thats always a possible and very plasuable conclusion but its like saying "I dont know" witch is fine. You're right that a humble man can admit to what he doesn't know but should that give you a reason to give up in your search? HELL NO! Life is too short. Why not and keep searching. Its not so much the destination but the journey

Oh yeah yeah, dont' get me wrong, I'm not saying "let's give up since we'll never know." I'm suggesting more along the lines of, "let's wait and see what we're able to discover before we jump to conclusions"

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Yeah! And for that matter, what started God? Does God exist infinitely into the past and future? Is it okay to say that about God, but not okay to say that about the universe by itself?

That's the reductio ad absurdum counter to the existenec of God. However, it presumes God to be part of creation (as something necessarily having a creator) rather than as creator.


Christopher Hitchens is fond of citing this as a reason for his atheism (anongst others reasons but he likes the reductio argument a lot)