I am saying the evidence some scientists think confirms the Big Bang doesnt confirm the Big Bang and in fact the evidence contradicts it happening.
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data, as shown by many teams of researchers.
The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
Given that the article here has no attribution whatsoever, I don't see why I should consider any of the arguments it presents as valid.
And anyway, a quick search through the arguments showed that there are proposed solutions for them.
For example, here are some of the proposed solutions for the first:
Cosmological lithium problem - Wikipedia
And for the second.
Baryon asymmetry - Wikipedia
I mean, even a quick check on Wikipedia shows that these problems are not death knells for the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument
This paper provides both logical proof and corroborating scientific evidence that the universe could not have begun from a singularity
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Conclusive Argument
An article written by this guy:
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/david-rowland
Somehow, given the number of wildly different fields he is into, I doubt that he is well versed in any of them.
Thats a given, I could ask why do we treat rape as a crime. Why is it condemned by the UN Human Rights and most countries in the world. Why do we say to those cultures that think rape is OK that they are wrong as crimes against humanity. Its obvious "rape" harms humans and denies and disrespects "Life" as being intrinsically valuable.
Really?
The best answer you've got is, "It just is"?
Its all about the evidence fitting the observations and because current theories are not doing that alternative ideas are presented some of which fit the evdience better and yet scientists choose to stick with the current ideas because they think that this is fact. Like the CBMR is suppose to prove the Big Bang but it doesn't.
Of course, any alternative would have to explain EVERYTHING that the current theories do, as well as or even better than the current theories.
Well yes once again ideas like Evolution,
Ernst Mayr observed, "The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact.
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory.
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia
Yet evolution is being disputed as fact.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? | Nature
Can you show me any reputable scientist in a relevant field who claims that evolution is not the correct explanation for the variety of life? I think you'll find that if there are any, the split between the scientists in relevant fields who accept evolution and those who dispute it is extremely one-sided.
I have been telling you that since we started debating. Remember the Flat earth example. Despite the earth being a sphere some subjectively think its flat. My point back then was just because people may have subjective views doesn't mean there is no facts about the physical world. Just like if people have subjetcive views about morality doesn't mean there are no moral truths.
You have continually used the fact that morality is not objective but rather relative/subjective because people disagree about morality. You also claimed that science is clear and concise and yet we find with many ideas its not and there is much disagreement even when there are obvious physical support.
So therefore morality can act the same where people agree about obvious moral truths like "don't murder and rape" but may argue and disagree about more complicated moral issues like in science.
So if you understand that people can think that something is objectively true when it isn't, why do you refuse to consider that morality may not be objectively true?
Then I was correct. You think that the only reality is material reality. But you just acknowledged that there can be non-material and verifiable facts/truths with ideas like colours, Math, beauty, happiness, ect.
Math is objective, it can be described in the kind of language I've been asking you to provide for morality for ages.
But of course, beauty and happiness are subjective, aren't they? What one person finds beautiful, another may find repulsive.
It sounds like your still taking the materialist position and that at the end of the day only the scientific method can verify something. Yet it is widely acknowledged that science cannot answer questions like morality. So the alternative way to support morality is not through science.
That is why I have been pointing out that human experience, assumptions justified by proper beliefs and rationality are how we determine morality. We use this same method for other non-physical facts/truths like in Math, and psychology for example but also in everyday life in how we experience colours, beauty ect are real entities. But even some aspects of science are not verifiable and yet we still accept them.
But the human experience and assumptions you have been using to claim morality is objective, they're all SUBJECTIVE things.
It doesn't matter because either answer is an objective determination. Thats the nature of morality, its either "right or wrong" and doesn't have room for subjective views. Whether a culture says its right or wrong, they are not going to make that determination on a whim. They will have used some objective basis for their determination.
If they happen to conflict and disagree then someone is right and someone is wrong. It doesn't matter who is truely right because either way its objective. We may not be able to work out who is right and who is wrong for some issues. But that doesn't negate that an objective determination is needed.
Stop avoiding the question.
If morality is really objective, then you should be able to answer the question of whether executing criminals for certain crimes is objectively morally good or objectively morally bad in just the same way that you can say if two plus two is objectively four or objectively five.
Your refusal to answer the question shows that you can't do it - which should not be the case if morality is truly objective as you claim.
See you keep reverting back to subjective thinking when I clearly explained that preferences, feelings and opinions of the subject are descriptive and not normative like morality. You cannot be wrong for liking a TV show but you can be wrong for raping someone under a normative system.
So, in a system where you ought not rape people, raping people is something you ought not do.
That seems rather circular to me.
But how do you know this.
Because when people treat their subjective opinions as objective fact, you get people who disagree with each other and insist that they are right and the other is wrong, and neither of them can provide any actual testable evidence to support their position.
You are once again appealing to something that you say has no evidence to support it. You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing when trying to support objective morals.
Except my explanation fits in better with what we see in reality.
If there was really only subjective morality then first we could say that evryone is acting in contradiction to the subjective system. That in itself is a poor reflection on subjective morlaity.
Do you mean that people acting as though their opinions are objective contradicts the fact that their opinions are subjective?
Well, sure, but there's nothing that says such irrational behaviour is impossible.
Second as I have said many times now "people don't just act like morality is objective they make it a reality in this world. If morality can only be determined by what we assume and justifiably believe then acting like morality is objective is how morality really is.
People can not make a subjective opinion into an objective fact just by wanting it to be objective really hard.
Third if people express morals as being a case of getting at something true in the world then it follows that sometimes these expressions are actually true.
People believing a thing does not mean that thing is real.
And as you ask me what evidence do you have for this. You have just made a truth claim. See how it works both ways.
So what? I was not making a moral statement, was I?
You can't claim that just because some things are objective that morality is also objective.
It seems to me that people cannot help but make morality a case of being objective by the way they act. You may say that what people express is not really how things are but that also undermines any claims you make about morality as well.
How many times do I need to point out that people acting as though their morality is objective doesn't mean it IS objective?
If there are no moral absolutes then why does the UN impose moral absolutes in their Human Rights.
Because we live in a society where such moral views are widely agreed on. I've been saying this for ages.
Why do some cultures condemn other cultures that their moral view is wrong when there is no absolutes.
Because they are acting as though their morality is the objective morality by which all other moral views should be judged. Again, as I've said for ages, this is yet another example of people acting like their subjective opinions are objective fact.
Claiming that another culture is wrong implies that there must be some moral truth that applies to all cultures.
No it doesn't.
If I claim Star Trek is better than Star Wars, does that imply that there must be some objective truth to it that applies to all of fandom?
They not only condemn other cultures but take action with things like sanctions and appeals to UN as crimes against humanity. If thats the case then they are acting in contradiction to relative morality which means that each culture is not wrong in any universal way.
Who says that something must be UNIVERSALLY wrong in order to take action against it?