What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[esme]

...So my question to you is:- why has science(and yourself) accepted a theory, based on an unfounded presumption.

 

because it matches the observable evidence and allows us to make predictions based on the theory that when we go and look we find do actually happen

 

now if we find observations that don't match the theory then the theory is wrong and we have to think of a better one, thats how we got to the theory we currently have

 

but until we find observations that don't fit and have a new theory to explain them then it makes sense to accept the theory we have as this allows us to progress

 

now if you don't agree with that then that's fine, it's your prerogative

 

but bear in mind without that sort of theorising and abstract thought you probably wouldn't be alive and what there is of the human race would probably still be living in caves and trees

[danot]

There are further limitations. Logic is a human invention and is, therefore, also limited by the imperfections of language. An obvious example of this is the spoken sentence: "I am now lying" which can neither be the truth or a lie.

 

I think Danot's main difficulty on this thread, assuming he's not just trolling or attempting some god-justification is that he is unable to accept that human experience, knowledge and language is not advanced enough to thoroughly comprehend the nature of the universe. HeadingNorth pointed this out earlier but was, largely, ignored.

My main difficulty on this thread?

 

I've been constant throughout this thread, in stating that humans are incapable of understanding how the universe was created. I've also been constant in pointing out the arrogance of scientists who speak with certainty about things they have no understanding of.

 

So what do you mean by "my difficulty on this thread"?.

[truman]

My main difficulty on this thread?

 

I've been constant throughout this thread, in stating that humans are incapable of understanding how the universe was created. I've also been constant in pointing out the arrogance of scientists who speak with certainty about things they have no understanding of.

 

So what do you mean by "my difficulty on this thread"?.

 

I don't think scientists do speak with certainty about things they "have no understanding of".....what's your beef?

[Obelix]

in pointing out the arrogance of scientists who speak with certainty about things they have no understanding of.

 

No you havn't. You've repeatedly made this accusation but have never demonstrated this arrogance at all.

 

You clearly have a personal beef against scientists, presumably because they *can* understand things you cannot. Just because that's the case is no need to carry on the way you do.

 

So I ask you again - what conceit and arrogance and prove they have no understanding. Note that proving you have no understanding is not the same as proving they have no understanding.

[danot]

because it matches the observable evidence and allows us to make predictions based on the theory that when we go and look we find do actually happen

 

now if we find observations that don't match the theory then the theory is wrong and we have to think of a better one, thats how we got to the theory we currently have

 

but until we find observations that don't fit and have a new theory to explain them then it makes sense to accept the theory we have as this allows us to progress

 

now if you don't agree with that then that's fine, it's your prerogative

 

but bear in mind without that sort of theorising and abstract thought you probably wouldn't be alive and what there is of the human race would probably still be living in caves and trees

I do agree with that, But;).. What does observable evidence have to do with what I'm saying?.. when the creation of the universe is not observable.

[danot]

No you havn't. You've repeatedly made this accusation but have never demonstrated this arrogance at all.

 

You clearly have a personal beef against scientists, presumably because they *can* understand things you cannot. Just because that's the case is no need to carry on the way you do.

 

So I ask you again - what conceit and arrogance and prove they have no understanding. Note that proving you have no understanding is not the same as proving they have no understanding.

I'll refer you to post 236 to answer that.

[Obelix]

I'll refer you to post 236 to answer that.

 

In other words, it's because you don't understand then. As I have said before, and as you repeatedly ignore, it is nonsensical to speak of the creation of the Universe.

 

So what is your beef?

[Obelix]

I do agree with that, But;).. What does observable evidence have to do with what I'm saying?.. when the creation of the universe is not observable.

 

Nonsensical.

 

What's your beef? Simple question - come on - what's the answer?

[esme]

I do agree with that, But;).. What does observable evidence have to do with what I'm saying?.. when the creation of the universe is not observable.

 

true it isn't, but the theory that explains what you can observe now also explains what you could observe yesterday, the day before and so on until you reach the big bang

 

any theory that is developed doesn't just have to explain new observations, it's got to fit with all the old ones too

 

similarly calculations made using a theory don't just predict future events they match old ones

 

so if the theory in use now matches all the observations to date and even matches observations we make in the future then it should be a pretty good theory to allow reasonably accurate calculations around the big bang

 

to test the theory against events that occurred at the time of the big bang is why things like the large hadron collider were built, this recreates some of the conditions at the time of the big bang and allows us to check them against the calculations the theory gives us

 

but ultimately I have to agree, we cannot observe that initial moment but the theory we develop and observations we make can get us pretty close to it, the last number I saw was something like 10^-12 seconds, which is pretty close

[MadnBad]

I'm leaning towards dave the fluffy bunny.