Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Spacewyrm]

I have an explanation. I did it. I created the entirety of existence, and I did so exactly as it appears in the historical/geological/paleontological record. That's a much better explanation than "God did it" because mine is not open to debate. I did it exactly how it looks like I did it. Show me wrong, I dare you to try.

Well, I'm convinced! How does one convert to Skaloopism? I won't be expected to tithe at all will I?

 

[Skaloop]

Well, I'm convinced! How does one convert to Skaloopism? I won't be expected to tithe at all will I?

You have already converted just by asking how to convert! You don't have to tithe, but if you want to, I can provide a Paypal account.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You have already converted just by asking how to convert! You don't have to tithe, but if you want to, I can provide a Paypal account.

The Magic Space Llamas will not be pleased...

 

[Doveaman]

So, when you said before that scientists were claiming this, you were lying -- is that it?

What part of “not just” don’t you understand?

From a strictly scientific point of view, what would be the difference between saying "God did it," and saying "Magical Space Llamas did it?"

What's that, you say? None whatsoever?

Do you have a better explanation for how the singularity rapidly expanded to become the universe we live in today? or do you have None whatsoever?
__________________

I got a better one. One day, the universe decided to create itself.

What's that baseless nonsense, you say? Exactly.

Can you empirically demonstrate how the universe created itself from the singularity? or is this just baseless nonsense?
__________________

"Goddidit" is nothing more than "Assume there was a cause. Call that cause 'God'. Therefore, God did it". That's not an explanation, that's semantics.

It is the Big Bang theorists who assume there was a cause, not me. I am simply offering an explanation of that cause, and God being the cause makes more sense to me, weather He did it miraculously, mathemiracally, or mathemagically.

Do you have a better explanation of what caused the singularity to rapidly expand to become the universe we live in today?
__________________

I have an explanation. I did it. I created the entirety of existence, and I did so exactly as it appears in the historical/geological/paleontological record. That's a much better explanation than "God did it" because mine is not open to debate. I did it exactly how it looks like I did it. Show me wrong, I dare you to try.

So you believe “Skaloop did it” instead of “God did it”.

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop did it”?

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop” was able to cause the universe to rapidly expand from the singularity that was smaller than a proton to the size the universe is today - 156 billion light-years in diameter - and how “Skaloop” was able to accomplish this feat in only 13.7 billion years?
__________________

You see that word I highlighted there? That's the reason why "Goddidit" is a hypothesis. I don't have a concrete theory, but that doesn't mean we should jump to an unfounded conclusion because it "seems" to be a good one. Instead, we must accept that we don't actually know, and work to find out the truth.

Based on my personal experience of God it is logical for me and many Christian scientists to conclude that God did it, in addition to the fact that scientists can offer no better explanation of what caused the singularity to rapidly expand to become the universe we live in today.

"God did it" is a hypothesis. Replaced God with your word of choice ("Cheese did it") and you have another hypothesis.

Is Big Bang a hypothesis?

"Come up with an entirely different idea ("Nothing can actually create something given that the laws of cause and effect were not in place") and you have another hypothesis. None of these are theories.

If God did it, then God was the cause and the universe rapidly expanding from the singularity is the effect.

The correct answer to "how the the universe begin" is "we don't know yet". Making up answers that seem right just works to stifle what knowledge we may actually get.

Then the Big Bang never happened because making up answers that seem right just works to stifle what knowledge we may actually get.

 

[Cabal]

What part of “not just” don’t you understand?
Do you have a better explanation for how the singularity rapidly expanded to become the universe we live in today? or do you have None whatsoever?
__________________

Can you empirically demonstrate how the universe created itself from the singularity? or is this just baseless nonsense?
__________________

It is the Big Bang theorists who assume there was a cause, not me. I am simply offering an explanation of the cause, and God being the cause makes more sense to me, weather He did it miraculously, mathemiracally, or mathemagically.

Do you have a better explanation of what caused the singularity to rapidly expand to become the universe we live in today?
__________________

So you believe “Skaloop did it” instead of “God did it”.

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop did it”?

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop” was able to cause the universe to rapidly expand from the singularity that was smaller than a proton to the size the universe is today - 156 billion light-years radius - and how “Skaloop” was able to accomplish this feat in only 13.7 billion years?

Whatever you need to tell yourself to convince yourself.

ETA: Here, I'll save you from spamming this thread with any more posts saying the same thing - this has been done already, it's called the God of the gaps argument. It is not scientific, and it is logical fail. As I said, whatever terrible arguments you need to tell yourself to support your faith, knock yourself out.

 

[Nostromo]

Then the Big Bang never happened. Making up answers that seem right just works to stifle what knowledge we may actually get.

You occasionally come out with these little nuggets of sense, but don't seem to recognise how they apply to your own situation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is the Big Bang theorists who assume there was a cause, not me.

The Big Bang is not a theory on the origins of the universe, it simply describes how the universe has developed over the past 13.5 billion years; what happened before then is currently unknown.

If you're going to criticise a theory, it helps if you know what it actually says.

I am simply offering an explanation of that cause, and God being the cause makes more sense to me, weather He did it miraculously, mathemiracally, or mathemagically.

An explanation is not "X did it, where X is whatever it is that did it", since that is just tautologous wordplay. You have not offered an explanation of the cause, you've simply given it a label.

And inventing quaint terms like 'mathemiracally' just makes you look a petulant fool, pretty much how the crocoduck served to make Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort look like idiots.

Do you have a better explanation of what caused the singularity to rapidly expand to become the universe we live in today?

Yes: Zeus did it. Aliens did it. My can of Strongbow did it.

So you believe “Skaloop did it” instead of “God did it”.

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop did it”?

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop” was able to cause the universe to rapidly expand from the singularity that was smaller than a proton to the size the universe is today - 156 billion light-years in diameter - and how “Skaloop” was able to accomplish this feat in only 13.7 billion years?

Can you do any of that, replacing 'Skaloop' with 'God' and vice versa?

Based on my personal experience of God it is logical for me and many Christian scientists to conclude that God did it, in addition to the fact that scientists can offer no better explanation of what caused the singularity to rapidly expand to become the universe we live in today.

Is Big Bang a hypothesis?

It's a theory (no matter how much you may stamp your foot).

If God did it, then God was the cause and the universe rapidly expanding from the singularity is the effect.

And if cheese did it, then cheese was the cause and the blah blah blah.

Then the Big Bang never happened because making up answers that seem right just works to stifle what knowledge we may actually get.

Please, please, please demonstrate how the Big Bang theory is a made-up answer designed to stifle proper science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you have a better explanation for how the singularity rapidly expanded to become the universe we live in today? or do you have None whatsoever?

Magical Space Llamas it is, then.

 

[Doveaman]

The Big Bang is not a theory on the origins of the universe, it simply describes how the universe has developed over the past 13.5 billion years; what happened before then is currently unknown.

If you're going to criticise a theory, it helps if you know what it actually says.

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

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.

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?

Zeus did it. Aliens did it. My can of Strongbow did it.

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

 

[Doveaman]

Magical Space Llamas it is, then.

Do you have a peer-review source. If not, then it's not science. Sorry.

 

[Cabal]

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?

Because it's a false dichotomy, which is more logical fail.

 

[Cabal]

Do you have a peer-review source. If not, then it's not science. Sorry.

Neither is the Bible, so your idea is not science. Sorry.

 

[Skaloop]

So you believe “Skaloop did it” instead of “God did it”.

Yes. I did it. Can you show otherwise?

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop did it”?

Yes. I will demonstrate it if you ask nicely.

Can you empirically demonstrate how “Skaloop” was able to cause the universe to rapidly expand from the singularity that was smaller than a proton to the size the universe is today - 156 billion light-years in diameter - and how “Skaloop” was able to accomplish this feat in only 13.7 billion years?

Yes. Unfortunately, you wouldn't understand due to the limits of your human mind.

 

[Skaloop]

Do you have a peer-review source. If not, then it's not science. Sorry.

No, he doesn't, because Magic Space Llamas don't exist, since I didn't create them. I created everything else, though.

And before you ask, no, I have no peer-reviewed source because, as the sole creator of all existence, I have no peers.

 

[Doveaman]

Neither is the Bible, so your idea is not science. Sorry.

So let's all just accept that we are all relying on faith, and not on science, and get ourselves some rest from this debate.

 

[Cabal]

So let's all just accept that we are all relying on faith, and not on science, and get ourselves some rest from this debate.

Uh, except science isn't making any theoretical claims about what caused the Big Bang - you are, and badly.

 

[Doveaman]

Uh, except science isn't making any theoretical claims about what caused the Big Bang

Yeah, right.

 

[Skaloop]

So let's all just accept that we are all relying on faith, and not on science, and get ourselves some rest from this debate.

Faith? That I did it does not rely on faith, but on scientific fact. Name any scientific fact, and I did it. How is that faith?

 

[Nostromo]

100 pages later and Doveaman has not managed to further his argument in the slightest.

 

[Cabal]

Yeah, right.

Wow. A stunning refutation. I will alter my opinions exactly to yours posthaste.

No, science has not yet attained the evidence regarding what happened during the t=0 moment of the Big Bang to about t = 10^-43. A whole bunch of hypotheses are probably out there, I suspect, but nothing concrete yet as far as I know. This isn't going to stop us from exploring that.

Conversely, your approach is to insert God into the places that science (currently) can't explain adequately.

You do realise people did that pre-LCDM cosmology too, right? So please, carry on retreating. Eventually you'll run out of places to hide.