Where did all those big bang particles come from?
Powdered Doughnut.
Sorry, I'm hungry!
Where did all those big bang particles come from?
The Big Bang is proveable. It makes testable predictions about the universe that can be tested now, have been, and have proven valid. That it has also proven nuanced and a more fertile ground for theoretical physics than some may have at first thought does not undermine that.
We're not talking about the big bang. Before the Big Bang. All the particles. Always had been? Put there by design?
Your assertion, however, that it was created from nothing, through magic, by "god" (a creature indistinguishable from something that can only live inside someone's imagination) is so extraordinary that surely you must have extraordinary evidence to support it?
What evidence can we observe that can differentiate between a spontaneous "big bang" and all matter being spoken into existence instantly, by an infinite, omnipotent God?
Several people have hit on the essential problem of religious believers versus religious skeptics. It does indeed start with the dichotomous question, "Does god exist?" The problem with this question is, you're already building in a bias for monotheistic religions. If you answer that question "yes", you're assuming that there's indeed only one god. You're cutting all of the polytheistic religions out of the picture before the fun even starts. So, let's start from a properly eccumenical foundation:
"Do any gods exist?"
The Atheist answers, "no."
The deist answers, "yes."
The theist answers, "yes."
The monotheist answers, "yes."
The polytheist answers, "yes."
The agnostic answers, "I don't know."
The ambivatheist answers, "I don't care."
The Dadaist answers, "carrot."
Now, what duties do the various answerers of this question have for their responses? The Atheist has no responsibilities. I say there is no god. The universe never had one, never will. Materialistic natural law and mechanistic time is entirely sufficient to explain all phenomena given enough time and honest investigation via the Scientific Method.
Everyone who answered "yes", however, now has a responsibility. You've made a positive claim of existence for this thing called by the English word "god". Okay. Describe it. What's it called? Where is it? What does it do? What color is it? How much does it weigh? And, of course, how many are there?
Now, here's the thing, all of those answers to the core question, "Do any gods exist?" are logicly, morally, ethicly, and in all other ways that matter, equivalent, because every one of those answers share the exact same degree of proveability, i.e. none. I cannot prove that there is no god, first and foremost because there is no system of logic in which you can prove a negative. One answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is Zeus, he sits on a throne of clouds up on Mt. Olympus with all his other god friends, Hera, his wife, Apollo, Vulcan, Hermes, etc. Another answerer cannot prove that there is only one god, he goes by many names, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, I Am, he is totally non-corporeal and only exerts influence on this universe through the minds of men. Another answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is George, he's a purple unicorn. He stands just 2 feet tall at the whithers, which is convenient for him to hide behind my couch so no one but me can see him and he feeds me Skittles from the tip of his horn.
All possible answers to this question are equivalent, because this question, and all possible answers to it are at the core, are the beginning of religion. The very nature of religion is that it is unproveable. Once it can be proven, it ceases to be religion.
We're not talking about the big bang. Before the Big Bang. All the particles. Always had been? Put there by design?
What other logical explanation is there?
If something exists that never did before, what is it made out of? I have no problem believing God said "bang" and a universe was created. They are not mutually exclusive.
Powdered Doughnut.
Sorry, I'm hungry!
There is a logical fallacy that needs to be addressed here. The bible asserts there was a beginning, but there was not. There cannot be. There was a time that our sun was born. There was a time that the nebula that birthed our sun was born, there was a time that the galaxy that birthed the nebula that birthed our sun was born. Going back from that we can trace to an event...a big event, that shaped everything that we know about the universe...People call that the big bang. The "Beginning of the Universe". But it wasn't the beginning, and it was just a relatively small and routine event in a universe that is actually infinite in scope and scale.
If something exists now, something existed before. That is logical.
That nothing existed before, and everything was willed into being by an all-mighty creator...that sounds ridiculous. Do you have anything more convincing than an ancient book full of contradictions?
Several people have hit on the essential problem of religious believers versus religious skeptics. It does indeed start with the dichotomous question, "Does god exist?" The problem with this question is, you're already building in a bias for monotheistic religions. If you answer that question "yes", you're assuming that there's indeed only one god. You're cutting all of the polytheistic religions out of the picture before the fun even starts. So, let's start from a properly eccumenical foundation:
"Do any gods exist?"
The Atheist answers, "no."
The deist answers, "yes."
The theist answers, "yes."
The monotheist answers, "yes."
The polytheist answers, "yes."
The agnostic answers, "I don't know."
The ambivatheist answers, "I don't care."
The Dadaist answers, "carrot."
Now, what duties do the various answerers of this question have for their responses? The Atheist has no responsibilities. I say there is no god. The universe never had one, never will. Materialistic natural law and mechanistic time is entirely sufficient to explain all phenomena given enough time and honest investigation via the Scientific Method.
Everyone who answered "yes", however, now has a responsibility. You've made a positive claim of existence for this thing called by the English word "god". Okay. Describe it. What's it called? Where is it? What does it do? What color is it? How much does it weigh? And, of course, how many are there?
Now, here's the thing, all of those answers to the core question, "Do any gods exist?" are logicly, morally, ethicly, and in all other ways that matter, equivalent, because every one of those answers share the exact same degree of proveability, i.e. none. I cannot prove that there is no god, first and foremost because there is no system of logic in which you can prove a negative. One answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is Zeus, he sits on a throne of clouds up on Mt. Olympus with all his other god friends, Hera, his wife, Apollo, Vulcan, Hermes, etc. Another answerer cannot prove that there is only one god, he goes by many names, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, I Am, he is totally non-corporeal and only exerts influence on this universe through the minds of men. Another answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is George, he's a purple unicorn. He stands just 2 feet tall at the whithers, which is convenient for him to hide behind my couch so no one but me can see him and he feeds me Skittles from the tip of his horn.
All possible answers to this question are equivalent, because this question, and all possible answers to it are at the core, are the beginning of religion. The very nature of religion is that it is unproveable. Once it can be proven, it ceases to be religion.
[video=youtube;G1XJ7DeR5fc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1XJ7DeR5fc[/video]
Not a logical fallacy at all. I am not going to argue with you over this since it won't stay civil as you disparage Christianity.
The Bible is written for man who lives in a world constrained by time. God does not. Beginnings are for those constrained by time. Calling the concepts inherent to A religion "ridiculous" does not seem "civil"
To me.
I told you I'm done. Thanks for the cat [strike]reference[/strike] metaphor, proves my point more.