I will now prove atheists are illogical!

The Big Bang is the only theory, by definition.

 

The fact is, we have no examples of nothing. It would be dishonest to say something cannot come from nothing because nothing has never been observed. We have never observed anything being "created" either. We have only witnessed things change from one state to another. The only pseudo example of something being "created" is Quantum Foam, where in particles on very small scales come into being, seemingly from nothing, and almost as quick as they came, than annihilate.

The premise of creation needing a creator is a false analogy. I propose we have never witnessed the creation of anything, only the changing from one state to another. The watchmaker argument is than moot. The watchmaker did not create the components, he simply took things and changed them. To state otherwise is dishonest.

No one knows if God exists or not. I would suggest being wary of anyone who claims with absolute certainty that he does as well as vice versa.

The only logical stance to be taken is that of the aleprechaunists and abigfootists. Until evidence can be provided supporting the existence of such things, it is reasonable to assume they do not exists. This isn't the same as claiming they do not exist. This is the default position anyone should take on anything that has yet to be established by overcoming a reasonable burden of proof.

 

You are mistaken. That's not what atheism means.

athe·ism noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity ​

 

It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the common meaning of words, especially those that you will be using in your argument, before making yourself look like a dishonest ass. How can anyone take you seriously when you won't even take a few simple steps to inform yourself.

Religion requires faith. It is the number one attribute of its proponents. Desperately trying to prove the existence of God shows a surprisingly large lack of said faith. Are you trying to convince us? Or yourself?

 

Not really, a law is relating a pattern in what you've observed. A hypothesis is putting an explanation to that pattern. A theory is the model that results from iterating and improving on that explanation until you consider it a useful tool.

A theory is the best "why" you can come up with, a law is what you offer when you can't come up with any "why" at all.

 

Fact - An observation.

Law - Simple statement regarding facts that usually states that something has never been observed to happen any other way. Not as concrete as people think they are. Laws basically state that up until this point we've only seen it happen that way and not actually that it's impossible for it to happen another way.

Hypothesis - Attempted explanation using facts and laws.

Theory - Accepted explanation that uses facts, laws and hypothesises.



Examples I guess.

Drop a pen. It falls to the floor. That's a fact.

It falls at a known rate that we know due to repeatedly dropping pens. That's a law.

Einstein came up a hypothesis to attempt to explain how gravity works. Around the time of the 1960s I believe it was considered tested enough that it became accepted as the best explanation of gravity around and became the Theory of General Relativity.

 

i thought the big bang was the expansion of everything not its creation more of a transformation

 

Facts are for lawyers, scientists will stick with observations and measurements. To call something a fact implies a confidence that only a lawyer could have.

 

No, the term fact is used in science to denote something that is observed.

 

To poor ends. I observed a disembodied head on this table, but if I claimed it was a fact that there was a disembodied head on the table... well, that's why it's a dangerous word.​

(done with mirrors)​

 

this will be good .

 

Ya .. and it seems that this theory has some issues in light of recent scientific discoveries

 

See i think your problem is that you think that a SCIENTIFICALLY tested Theory ,is the same as a Belief.

When a scientist takes the body of historical Knowledge that preceeded his existance ,meaning the HISTORY of SCIENCE ,and proposes a theory that differs to previously accepted doctrine ,a Method yes a defined and proven method is employed .

All other scientists then reveiw his work that lead him to his conclusions ,they attempt to rip it apart replicate the conclusions independently ,check matematics ,equations, propositions,analysis ,duplicate independently experiments and observations .

What does NEVER happen with scientific method is that a Theory is just accepted on the basis of BLIND FAITH because someone said so.

The 'theory 'or more correctly Scientifically peer reveiwed theory ,of the Big Bang explains why the presently observable ,quick put your head out the window,universe acts the way it does .

The big bang Scientifically based theory,does not claim omnipotence i fact it calls for more and more accurate definition of the process that lead to it in the First place .

the alternate veiw which isn't in the scientific sense a Theory,God creationism falls down before it even starts because it demands that you have BLIND IGNORANCE sorry Faith in what a Pope or Rabbi ect .

Tells you to think.

 

Can you show me what discoveries? I am intrigued.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-2011-nobel-prize-in-prize-physics

Apparently the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

 

That doesn't cast doubt on the Big Bang Theory at all.

 

We must be getting near the edge.



(jk)

 

I might be mistaken but i believe that necessitates dark energy, and does not significantly alter TBB theory.

 

I thought I read somewhere that it didn't jive with current theory. Not that we throw the whole baby out with the bathwater ..

 

It was that simple all along, I'm converted.

*Starts praying to the omnipotent one*

 

Oh (*)(*)(*)(*), so it's not as simple as the OP said.

*Stops praying to "omnipotent one*

 

Bugger! I'd not heard of the "It's the rule of two" before.

*Starts praying to omnipotent one*.

 

He should have asked you to prove the existence of a purposeful creator, who listens to prayers and acts upon them. There would have been two foolish looking people in class that day.

 

I am 'atheist' although my beliefs in atheism are half hearted at best. But it is a mistaken belief to believe that atheists in general turn to science when they denounce god.

I dislike the big bang theory with furious vengance as it insults my intelligence. The great cosmic fart, i call it.

So therefore i await a 3rd option, that has nothing to do with gods or scientific theories.

 

Obviously you have not heard of the "Rule of two". It is either god or big bang theory. End of.

The world is a beautifully binary place, which of course begs the question "why did it take man to invent analogue to digital converters?".