What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[skinz]

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.

 

 

:huh:Are you claiming that to be educationally stunted is a bonus?

 

 

Which alternative text books are you using to bolster your argument?

[HeadingNorth]

;6571670']But if it is true would that mean that it would be possible for our universe to be a construct within a multiverse that has always existed?

 

It would be possible. However, it doesn't solve the original question - if something has always existed, infinitely and forever, then what caused it to have existed forever?

 

 

This is why the original question becomes meaningless. The assumption that everything must have a cause leads only to the conclusion that things have existed forever, without having a cause - which contradicts the original assumption. The assumption is therefore false - not everything has a cause.

[plekhanov]

The big bang Theory has never been observed or experimented on, so does it qualify as a theory?

That you can make such a cretinous claim simply demonstrates yet again that you lack even the most basic understanding of the incredibly complex and often counter-intuitive concepts you are trying to debate.

 

Read any basic book on cosmology and you'll learn of all manner of observations and experiments that The Big Bang model is built upon.

[[Matt]]

The assumption is therefore false - not everything has a cause.

Indeed.

[danot]

I believe it was Obelix who posted the analogous argument, way back in this thread. Certainly it is Obelix who has repeated it time after time, in the vain hope that you might actually learn to grasp the idea of logical deduction. You have failed to do so.

That was not my point. See bold below.

 

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 wouldn't make sense according to human experience - but why would it? All human experience takes place inside the universe, and the rules that apply inside it don't necessarily apply outside of it

By your own reasoning, anything is possible outside of the universe, which would imply that there is something(not nothing)outside our universe.

[truman]

That was not my point. See bold below.

 

By your own reasoning, anything is possible outside of the universe, which would imply that there is something(not nothing)outside our universe.

 

I'm sorry ,that doesn't make sense...

[HeadingNorth]

By your own reasoning, anything is possible outside of the universe, which would imply that there is something(not nothing)outside our universe.

 

 

It would not imply any such thing. If "anything is possible," then the complete absence of time, space or matter is possible.

[danot]

In fact is has. Calculations based upon the Big Bang hypothesis (before it reached the status of Theory!) showed that, if it had happened, it would have left a background radiation, detectable now in the microwave region at a very specific wavelength.

 

Radiation at exactly that wavelength was, at the very time the calculations were done, being detected by a group of people looking for something else entirely and wondering what the blazes was causing all the background noise.

Nonetheless, "technically", it could be deemed an untested theory.

[plekhanov]

:huh:Are you claiming that to be educationally stunted is a bonus?

 

 

Which alternative text books are you using to bolster your argument?

That attack is particularly ironic as it's being made by someone who throughout this thread consistently demonstrates themselves to be utterly unable to think outside "the box" of things they can intuitively understand using common sense "logic" that they seem to take pride in not having challenged or built upon through education.

 

The notion that scientists are unable to "think outside the box" is just absurd, as anyone who's ever attempted to read a little quantum theory for example knows you can hardly get more "outside the box" than that.

[plekhanov]

Nonetheless, "technically", it could be deemed an untested theory.

The theory generated predictions which were tested against later observations, how exactly do you figure it is "untested"?