Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (3)

[Doveaman]

What you call 'faith', we call 'certainty'.

What we call ‘faith’, we call ‘certainty’.

Now faith is being sure...and certain....- Heb 11:1.

What you call ‘certainty’, we call ‘uncertainty’. Hence, ‘hypothesis/theory’.

As an explanation makes correct predictions, it is that much more likely to be true. That's how science works.

That’s how God works too, but perfectly. God makes predictions in His Holy Bible and they are always true.

Big Bang makes predictions in the peer-review bible and they are sometimes true (I assume).

If 'Goddidit' is an explanation, what predictions does it make?

Predicted 732 BC: Isaiah predicts the Medo-Persian empire will conquer Babylon [Isaiah 13:17-18] and Babylon would become a wasteland.–Fulfilled in 538 BC when the Medes took over Babylon and 275 BC when the Seleucids forced all of the inhabitants to leave.

Predicted 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).–Fulfilled 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.

Predicted 701 BC: Isaiah claims Israel will be taken captive by the Babylonian empire (Isaiah 39).–Fulfilled 597 & 586 BC: Babylon takes captives and sacks Jerusalem the first time then totally destroys Jerusalem about 10 years later.

Predicted 589 BC: Ezekiel tells about the destruction of the great city Tyre (Ezekiel 27).–Fulfilled in 1291: Muslims destroy the city.

What falsification tests, however farfetched, can be made?

Take a history lesson.

 

[sandwiches]

Predicted 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).–Fulfilled 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.

Predicted 701 BC: Isaiah claims Israel will be taken captive by the Babylonian empire (Isaiah 39).–Fulfilled 597 & 586 BC: Babylon takes captives and sacks Jerusalem the first time then totally destroys Jerusalem about 10 years later.

Predicted 589 BC: Ezekiel tells about the destruction of the great city Tyre (Ezekiel 27).–Fulfilled in 1291: Muslims destroy the city.
Take a history lesson.

Postdicting and ad hoc reasoning is not the same as making a prediction.

 

[Doveaman]

Scientists don't assume we have eternal life.

They assume once upon a time nothing went "Bang", and the universe was formed.

 

[sandwiches]

Predicted 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).–Fulfilled 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.

Predicted 701 BC: Isaiah claims Israel will be taken captive by the Babylonian empire (Isaiah 39).–Fulfilled 597 & 586 BC: Babylon takes captives and sacks Jerusalem the first time then totally destroys Jerusalem about 10 years later.

Predicted 589 BC: Ezekiel tells about the destruction of the great city Tyre (Ezekiel 27).–Fulfilled in 1291: Muslims destroy the city.
Take a history lesson.

Actually. This post made me look up a bunch of so-called predictions of the Bible and I came across this:
Prophecies in the Bible

It has little jewels such as this one:
"Ezekiel prophesies that Tyrus will be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and will never be built again. But it wasn't destroyed, as evidenced by the visits to Tyre by Jesus and Paul (Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3)."

Or

"[Isaiah 19:23-24] predict that there will be an alliance between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria. But there has never been any such alliance, and it's unlikely that it ever will since Assyria no longer exists."

I think this is where invoke the Sad Trombone

 

[Cabal]

They assume once upon a time nothing went "Bang", and the universe was formed.

For goodness sake, stick to one strawman at a time. At least TRY not to look as ravingly intellectually dishonest as you are.

First it's a singularity, then it's "nothing". The two are not the same.

False witness is a sin, y'know.

 

[sandwiches]

They assume once upon a time nothing went "Bang", and the universe was formed.

I seriously want to know. Why do you think that when we don't know where the universe comes from, "God did it" is the best explanation? What do you mean by that? Best in what respect? Do you mean you think it's the only that works? Is that the only answer that makes sense to you? Is the neatest? Is the easiest to understand? Is the one you want to believe? Is the one you were raised to believe?

 

[Doveaman]

Why is it certainly true?

Because God did it.

Says the theist who's arguing for God because there's no better explanation...

Yes

Perhaps his explanation is identical to Wikipedia's?

Then perhaps he can summarize.

 

[sandwiches]

Because God did it.

So, you're now reduced to 'because I said so?' Sad...

 

[Doveaman]

Proverbs 18:2 - A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.

Doveaman 1:1 - An Atheist quotes the Bible to support his view, but refuse to believe the Bible.

 

[Cabal]

Doveaman 1:1 - An Atheist quotes the Bible to support his view, but refuse to believe the Bible.

A Kruger-Dunning case with far too much confidence in his own opinion creates an imaginary book of the Bible to support his own view.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So, you're now reduced to 'because I said so?' Sad...

When have fundies ever ended up worshipping something besides themselves?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Doveaman 1:1 - An Atheist quotes the Bible to support his view, but refuse to believe the Bible.

Poe 3:16 -- Fundies will claim to believe the Bible, but throw it under the bus the minute it stops serving their purposes.

Poe 3:17 -- Because they really hate it when the nonbelievers know the Bible better than they do.

 

[Nostromo]

Doveaman 1:1 - An Atheist quotes the Bible to support his view, but refuse to believe the Bible.

I refuse to believe it has any divine inspiration, but as a book written by men about men and their nature, it's not too bad.

 

[Doveaman]

Ignorance truely is bliss, I suppose.

I’m sure Big Bang cosmologists would agree.

a proposed, testable explanation for observed phenomenon. Now you know what a hypothesis is! Now you can stop mangling its definition in a vain effort to make your case.

How do you test the impossible “Bang”? What cause it? How do I know it actually happened?

Prove it emperically. Until then, they are on the same footing.

Prove empirically how the impossible “Bang” occurred out of the singularity to become the universe we live in today.

It took over 100 years of geology before plate tectonics became a well-evidenced theory. Duration of investigation=/= quality of hypothesis.

This sounds like nothing more than a justification of ignorance.

The OP is questioning whether or not 'goddidit' is an acceptable explanation for anything. If it is, there would be evidence to the affirmative. you have yet to post any. Please do so now, if you have the ability.

And I am questioning weather or not a “Bang” could possibly occur out of a singularity to become the universe we live in today. If it did, there would be evidence to the affirmative. You have yet to post any. Please do so now, if you have the ability.

 

[sandwiches]

I’m sure Big Bang cosmologists would agree.
How do you test the impossible “Bang”? What cause it? How do I know it actually happened?
Prove empirically how the impossible “Bang” occurred out of the singularity to become the universe we live in today.
This sounds like nothing more than a justification of ignorance.
And I am questioning weather or not a “Bang” could possibly occur out of a singularity to become the universe we live in today. If it did, there would be evidence to the affirmative. You have yet to post any. Please do so now, if you have the ability.

Translation: I have nothing but the ability to repeat, 'God did it.'

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because God did it.

...
You're saying it's certain that God did it because God did it?

Doveaman, do you know what a circular argument is? More importantly, are you aware that they're fallacious?

Yes

And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

Then perhaps he can summarize.

Why, can't you read the article?

 

[Cabal]

This sounds like nothing more than a justification of ignorance.

This just sounds rich coming from someone with no scientific background or ability and who does nothing but criticise.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

How do you test the impossible “Bang”? What cause it? How do I know it actually happened?

We're actively searching for ways to test the theory. We do not know its cause, and that has been said to you multiple times. But that is not the point. We went thousands of years without knowing that the earth is spherical, that doesn't mean that it's not, or that it wasn't until we figured out that it was. Lack of understanding=/= lack of existance. Not a particularly difficult concept, although somehow you struggle mightily with it.

Prove empirically how the impossible “Bang” occurred out of the singularity to become the universe we live in today.

There is no proof in science, only evidence for or against. Otherwise, see above comment.

This sounds like nothing more than a justification of ignorance.

Well isn't that a laugher from someone who would rather sit and type 'all work an no play makes jack a dull boy' rather than going out and learning something for himself? One of us is actively working on solving scientific problems. It's certainly not you. I've dedicated my life to increasing the human race's knowledge of our universe and decreasing our ignorance as a species. What have you done besides sit back and say 3 simple words that don't increase your knowledge one iota?

So far in this thread you have been rude, deceptive, deceitful, prideful, condescending, and boistrous, and frankly, intellectually slothful. You've done nothing but ridicule those of use who have made the effort to learn, and are in turn making the effort to help educate you. None of this seems particularly christian to me, especially the two deadly sins that you've displayed. I'd examine my actions if I were you.

And I am questioning weather or not a “Bang” could possibly occur out of a singularity to become the universe we live in today. If it did, there would be evidence to the affirmative. You have yet to post any. Please do so now, if you have the ability.

There's my evidence, now where is yours?

 

[Michael]

There's my evidence, now where is yours?

Where's your physical empirical link between those images and "dark" anything and/or "inflation"? What makes "inflation and dark invisible friends did it" any more empirically viable than "Godflation, God energy and God matter did it" with the same trumped up math?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Where's your physical empirical link between those images and "dark" anything and/or "inflation"? What makes "inflation and dark invisible friends did it" any more empirically viable than "Godflation, God energy and God matter did it" with the same trumped up math?

Let's do this the easy way, shall we?

Evidence for the Big Bang

That's a pretty competent summary of the evidence for the big bang. Now I know, I know, 'but what about blah, blah, blah.' Yes, there are holes in this theory. But there is also quite a lot of good evidence (by the by, your inability to believe and/or comprehend the evidence does not falsify it), whereas there is nothing (that I know of, please prove me wrong) emperical about 'goddidit'.

ps~ A rose by any other name... call it godflation all you want. The theory is the same. That's just one more 'god' you'll have to remove when things are figured out.