What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[HeadingNorth]

It's not a fallacy because you cannot understand it.

 

 

You may want to recast that sentence, as it can be read in two ways; the wrong way being "the reason it is not a fallacy, is because Danot cannot understand it."

 

 

What you mean, of course, is that just because someone cannot understand it, does not make it a fallacy.

[plekhanov]

Please to note it's called the Big Bang THEORY.

Theory, not fact.

 

Your original question is a good one, shows you have a curious mind.

Sigh. Scientists and lay people use the word "theory" differently. When scientists call something a "theory" this is what they mean:

 

b. A system of ideas or statements explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the things to be explained; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for known facts. M17.

atomic theory, gauge theory, theory of evolution, theory of numbers, theory of relativity, etc.

 

whereas anti-scientific buffoons like you think they mean theory in the most pejorative lay meaning:

 

5. loosely. An unsubstantiated hypothesis; a speculative (esp. fanciful) view. L18.

[danot]

That is not a contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when an argument shows that something must be both true, and false.

Which also applies to this.

 

Posted by HeadingNorth

The assumption that "if something exists, it must have a cause" leads to the conclusion that something exists without having a cause, which contradicts the original assumption. Ergo, the original assumption cannot be true, because if it were true it would also be false.

Then why wouldn't that be the case with this?.

 

To suggest: 'Before something existed there was nothing', implies that "something" was created from the "nothing" that existed before it, which is a contradiction. And before you say,'nothing didn't actually exist'; it must have!, otherwise, it couldn't have created "something"?

 

Posted by HeadingNorth

The assumption that "something can exist without having a cause" does not lead to any such logical contradiction. Since it is the only alternative to the one proven false, it must be true.

It's not true, it's a fallacy.

[HeadingNorth]

Then why wouldn't that be the case with this?.

 

To suggest: 'Before something existed there was nothing', implies that "something" was created from the "nothing" that existed before it, which is a contradiction.

 

 

It is not a contradiction. I just pointed that out, in the very post to which you are replying.

 

The assumption that something can be created out of nothing does not lead to a logical contradiction.

[artisan]

Which also applies to this.

 

Then why wouldn't that be the case with this?.

 

To suggest: 'Before something existed there was nothing', implies that "something" was created from the "nothing" that existed before it, which is a contradiction. And before you say,'nothing didn't actually exist'; it must have!, otherwise, it couldn't have created "something"?

 

It's not true, it's a fallacy.

 

You dont seem to get your head around the 'nothing' idea.

You seem to be thinking of a vacuum, or something.

The sheer fact is that there was nothing.

Space and Time did not exist, there was nothing to expand into.

Until the singularity expanded nothing was there.

It is impossible for the human mind to comprehend.

[danot]

Yet again my mind is boggled by the incredible lack of self awareness necessary for someone privileged enough to live in our society, which in so many ways is only made possible by science, using the internet of all things to try and attack the validity of science.

 

Not only do you have no understanding of logic or basic scientific concepts (never mind the highly advanced ones you're trying to debate) but you don't even seem to realise that you're only able to post your attacks upon science on this forum because science works. Works so well in fact that in the few centuries we've had the scientific method it has enabled humanity to soar far above the level all those millennia dominated the instinctive, intuitive, ignorance you prefer.

Oh step down off your soap box.

 

Who's talking about using the internet?.. what do computers have to do with my reasons for calling scientists arrogant?.

 

This is the problem with the "well educated", their inability to think outside of the box debilitates them, they're reasoning is restricted by the flawed text book theories that their scientific peers, claim they know, but cannot explain.

[artisan]

It is not a contradiction. I just pointed that out, in the very post to which you are replying.

 

The assumption that something can be created out of nothing does not lead to a logical contradiction.

 

Apart from your lapse of English , I know what you mean.

[Uptowngirl]

Have you ever wondered where navel fluff comes from?

[HeadingNorth]

This is the problem with the "well educated", their inability to think outside of the box debilitates them, they're reasoning is restricted by the flawed text book theories that their scientific peers, claim they know, but cannot explain.

 

 

It isn't necessary to be well-educated to understand why your claim is false. Even I can prove that your claim is false, and I did so at the very beginning of this thread.

[danot]

Merely claiming it is a fallacy is worthless. If you can find a flaw in the logical reasoning, point to it, otherwise the conclusion stands. It doesn't make sense according to human experience - but why should it? All human experience takes place inside the Universe, and the rules that apply inside it don't necessarily apply outside of it.

If you truly believe the above to be true HN.. why are you also claiming "space being contained"? leads to a contradiction in human logic, which proves it false?