Mercenary Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 But that is exactly what I'm not doing. It is in fact scientists that are making those presumptions, what I'm doing is questioning their logic. Well that's fair enough (and quite rightly the scientific method) but with the equipment available it simply isn't possible to know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 But that is exactly what I'm not doing. It is in fact scientists that are making those presumptions, what I'm doing is questioning their logic. No you aren't, stop throwing around the word logic when you clearly don't understand it. You are questioning things that don't make sense to you, logic has very little to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 something had to bang? something had to create the bang, a bang can not create a noise without something solid to bang The Big Bang was not a literal explosion. Indeed, the name was coined by scientists who thought it was a silly idea, to show how silly an idea it was. They turned out to be wrong when we found the "echoes" of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 I agree. It doesnt make it any less true though. Quantum mechanics is another field that appears to be exceedingly strange at first - in fact as someone once said, if you haven't been shocked by quantum theory you have not grasped or understood it. Why does there have to be? It's a serious question - there is nothing that says there must be something there... that maybe why it's flawed Obelix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 The Big Banger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 Well that's fair enough (and quite rightly the scientific method) but with the equipment available it simply isn't possible to know the answer.That's why I haven't asked for any.. I only asked for theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 that maybe why it's flawed Obelix. You insist on claiming that the argument is flawed, but you've yet to point at any flaw in it. If you can't find one, you must conclude that it not flawed, however much you think it makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 It's turtles all the way down................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 It's turtles all the way down................ Or causes all the way back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted August 9, 2010 Author Share Posted August 9, 2010 No you aren't, stop throwing around the word logic when you clearly don't understand it. You are questioning things that don't make sense to you, logic has very little to do with it. Incorrect Jimmy. scientific logic(which is what I'm questioning)has everything to do with it. Simply because it cannot support it's own claim that nothing exists beyond the expanding universe, nor can it satisfactorily explain the question that I've asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.