Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (3)

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Third thread! By Dawkins this is unexpected.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Third thread! By Dawkins this is unexpected.

Not really -- "Goddidit" is all creationists have to work with (such as it is), so you have to expect them to fight tooth and nail against anthing that might threaten their religion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

From a scientific point of view: Would it make the slightest bit of difference to substitute "Goddidit" with "Magical Space Llamas did it?"

If so, what?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There would be no “Big Bang” without a “Bang”.

The phrase "Big Bang" was first used as a criticism of it, and it's stuck. Try not to take it so literally.

Can you empirically demonstrate that there was indeed a “Bang” and what caused the “Bang” so that we may know that there was indeed a “Bang” based on empirical evidence, and not blindly conclude that there was a “Bang” because the peer-review bible says so?

At present I am more inclined to believe God did it because the Holy Bible says so.

So you're disinclined to believe peer-reviewed science, but you'll happily accept whatever the Bible says? Talk about a double standard...

If you cannot empirically demonstrate that there was indeed a “Bang” or what caused the “Bang”, why should I believe the peer-review bible instead of the Holy Bible?

You shouldn't: this "Bang" you keep talking about is just a strawman constructed in your own mind. You think the Big Bang theory posits that the universe was created when a singularity popped out of nowhere and exploded. I have no desire to attack strawmen.

Well, you are making it pretty obvious that the peer-review bible does not have a better explanation.

The point, which I thought didn't need explaining, was that any explanation is better.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From a scientific point of view: Would it make the slightest bit of difference to substitute "Goddidit" with "Magical Space Llamas did it?"

If so, what?

My god could beat up your space llamas, that's what.

 

[SithDoughnut]

From a scientific point of view: Would it make the slightest bit of difference to substitute "Goddidit" with "Magical Space Llamas did it?"

If so, what?

It would be much more fun to debate. Llamas make everything fun.

Other than that, no. You're just replacing one unsupported hypothesis with another.

 

[Skaloop]

From a scientific point of view: Would it make the slightest bit of difference to substitute "Goddidit" with "Magical Space Llamas did it?"

If so, what?

No difference, since both are false compared to "Skaloop did it." After all, I clearly exist (exist in as much as I am posting here; i don't see god or magical space llamas arguing their case).

 

[Doveaman]

What are you talking about? I'm not asking anyone to accept anything. I told you, there is currently no definite idea on what initiated the expansion - and LCDM doesn't explain that, it STARTS with an expanding universe.

At the same time, being able to explain back to 10^-43 second after the expansion started is pretty good going, and is consistent with all assumptions made.

No. Such an expansion could never be “initiated” in the first place unless God did it. Its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it back into a singularity.

Now, unless you have a scientific explanation of how such an impossible “initiation” can take place in the first place, then it’s not science; it’s faith.

You expect to convince others that there was such an impossible “Bang” and you cannot even explain the impossible “Bang” or what could possibly cause such an impossible “Bang”? I don’t think so.

God did it.

 

[Skaloop]

No. Such an expansion could never be “initiated” in the first place unless God did it. Its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it back into a singularity.

Now, unless you have a scientific explanation of how such an impossible “initiation” can take place in the first place, then it’s not science; it’s faith.

You expect to convince others that there was such an impossible “Bang” and you cannot even explain the impossible “Bang” or what could possible cause such an impossible “Bang”? I don’t think so.

God did it.

No, I did it.

 

[Doveaman]

The phrase "Big Bang" was first used as a criticism of it, and it's stuck. Try not to take it so literally.

I know exactly what I mean by "Big Bang", and I am using it the same way Big Bang cosmologists use it.

You shouldn't: this "Bang" you keep talking about is just a strawman constructed in your own mind. You think the Big Bang theory posits that the universe was created when a singularity popped out of nowhere and exploded. I have no desire to attack strawmen.

I never knew you to be a man to run away from a debate unless you felt you were losing.

 

[Cabal]

No. Such an expansion could never be “initiated” in the first place unless God did it. Its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it back into a singularity.

Again, this is a strawman of what current cosmology says.

The universe expanding is not necessarily forbidden by a particular amount of mass in it.

Now, unless you have a scientific explanation of how such an impossible “initiation” can take place in the first place, then it’s not science; it’s faith.

No, it's called being reasonable.

Firstly, you, who has a well-documented history on this forum of being irrationally against LCDM and demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge of science and the scientific method, are straight-out declaring that the assumptions of LCDM are impossible. This is not a good foundation for your approach.

Secondly, literally every other process ever determined by science gets by just fine without inserting a deity in it - why in the world should we presume that this one requires it?

You expect to convince others that there was such an impossible “Bang” and you cannot even explain the impossible “Bang” or what could possibly cause such an impossible “Bang”? I don’t think so.

God did it.

Actually, Allah did it.

 

[BananaSlug]

Even though it is quite frustrating to spend a lot of work putting together a great rebuttal post only to have it ingored by the poster you are replying to... I assume the lack of a reply means your argument was good enough to silence them. I see Doveaman is off of his EU cosmology at the moment.

 

[Skaloop]

Even though it is quite frustrating to spend a lot of work putting together a great rebuttal post only to have it ingored by the poster you are replying to... I assume the lack of a reply means your argument was good enough to silence them. I see Doveaman is off of his EU cosmology at the moment.

I know, right? I mean, it took me way longer to come up with "Skaloop did it" than it took anyone to come up with "God did it." Mainly because Skaloop has 4 more letters than God, and thus takes longer to type.

 

[BananaSlug]

No. Such an expansion could never be “initiated” in the first place unless God did it.

Evidence? I'm not going to lie, we have no clue what started the expansion of the universe. That does not mean we are going to insert "Goddidit" into every unknown because then you get a "God of the Gaps".

Its intense gravitational field would (unless something or someone else intervened) snuff it out of existence immediately, crushing it back into a singularity.

What ever happened to Plasma cosmology? I thought you didn't believe in the gravitational force as proposed by Einstein's theory of general relativity?

Now, unless you have a scientific explanation of how such an impossible “initiation” can take place in the first place, then it’s not science; it’s faith.

Dark Energy.

You expect to convince others that there was such an impossible “Bang” and you cannot even explain the impossible “Bang” or what could possibly cause such an impossible “Bang”? I don’t think so.

Nobody knows what caused the expansion of the universe to begin. That doesn't mean we should insert "Goddidit" into the explanation.

God did it.

Brahmadidit.
Odindidit.
Mbombodidit.
Kamuididit.
Izanagididit.
Mardukdidit.

According to you, the above explanations are also just as scientific as "God did it".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know exactly what I mean by "Big Bang", and I am using it the same way Big Bang cosmologists use it.

Then why talk as if the Big Bang has anything to do with the beginning of the universe?

I never knew you to be a man to run away from a debate unless you felt you were losing.

Even if I'm losing, I stick it out to the end. But this isn't a debate, it's an exercise in futility. You won't accept anything we cite as evidence for the Big Bang, you continue to build strawmen of the Big Bang, and above all else the veracity of the Big Bang theory is not germane.

 

[pgp_protector]

No difference, since both are false compared to "Skaloop did it." After all, I clearly exist (exist in as much as I am posting here; i don't see god or magical space llamas arguing their case).

Do "you" exist, maybe you're just my sock posting via proxies so the IP address look different.

Or maybe I'm a your sock and I don't exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do "you" exist, maybe you're just my sock posting via proxies so the IP address look different.

Or maybe I'm a your sock and I don't exist.

There's an easy way to see if you exist, or if you're just a bot:

Did you cry when Littlefoot's mum died in The Land Before Time?

(Shamelessly stolen from XKCD )

 

[pgp_protector]

There's an easy way to see if you exist, or if you're just a bot:

Did you cry when Littlefoot's mum died in The Land Before Time?

(Shamelessly stolen from XKCD )

I haven't seen The Land Before Time.

 

[Skaloop]

Do "you" exist, maybe you're just my sock posting via proxies so the IP address look different.

Or maybe I'm a your sock and I don't exist.

Perhaps I am. Maybe I'm your sock, or you're my sock, or we're both someone else's sock, or we're both real posters. Nonetheless, Skaloop is posting to this forum. God isn't. Magical Space Llamas aren't. So there is that tangible quality that I possess that the others don't.

Plus, even if I am a sock of someone else, I created that someone else, so they are essentially my sock.