I quoted Hawking saying essentially the same thing as the OP. As for what you think I'm trying to say, why not stick to what I've said? You have absolutely no idea what my beliefs are - you simply assume that they are different from yours because no one so rational as to select the same hypothesis (#1) as you could possibly fill their heads with such nonsense. A creationist would say the exact same thing about me, except that the #1 would be changed to a #2 in the previous sentence.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Yeah, later on he did that, and that sure as hell isn't following the thread of thought from Hawking.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
It's even worse than that. His assertions basically say "god did it, but made it look like he didn't!"Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
..while there is absolutely no support for "god did it" which is what option no2 implies...
He screwed up his OP and continued to defend it, i think he tries to inject his own ideas into an argument and then say "Hawking says this" while Hawking most certainly does not.
I'm no scientist, definently not although i'm very keen on following biology and biochemistry and tend to read every scientific paper i can get my hands on (to me it's more important to know that omega3, while generally a great supplement, will make my muscles grow less while the arachidonic acid from beef and egg yolks will make it grow more, inflammation is important in building muscle mass), not a math genius either, psychology is important in my line of work and that i know very well.
you're assuming that there was a "beginning." What we currently refer to as "the beginning," or the "initial conditions" may very well turn out to be just another point in time, or some other as yet unknown dimension or measure.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?
Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."How, exactly?
Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.
Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.
That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.
as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.The answer would be exactly the same.
"God" is what broke your example.I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.
I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.
Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...
It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.
Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Ah, the ad hominems come out in force early with this guy. The ideas in my post are so offensive to you because they are true. Subconsciously, you know them to be true. Consciously, you cannot accept that they are true, so you attack me rather than anything that I have said. You cannot determine anything about my religion or lack thereof from my posts, so any attempt to do so on your part is simply a diversion.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I would bet anything on that Cyclowizard is a Christian, or at least a believer in a magical supreme being and this whole BS is just so he can justify his beliefs to himself. Even though he is a scientist in his own mind, he isn't one in his heart.
Why are these explanations opposing? If you assume that #2 happened long enough ago, you actually recover hypothesis #1. In reality, both hypotheses lead to the same observations and falsifiability since they make the same predictions. Science says nothing about how "probable" it is that an explanation is correct. In fact, this notion is complete nonsense since the probability is either 1 or 0, it cannot be anywhere in between.In reality observable evidence and falsifiability DOES matter and two opposing explanations are never equally probable or correct.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
you're assuming that there was a "beginning." What we currently refer to as "the beginning," or the "initial conditions" may very well turn out to be just another point in time, or some other as yet unknown dimension or measure.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?
Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."How, exactly?
Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.
Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.
That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.
as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.The answer would be exactly the same.
"God" is what broke your example.I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.
I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.
Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...
It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.
Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.
considering quantum theory, it's not too far of a reach to imagine that here are multiple universes existing at the same "time." One of the others could have even been the origin of our own. (BBT in a petri dish?)
Science may eventually tell us just that.
Philosophical discussions are grand, but to say that BBT is based on a philosophical decision is inaccurate - it's actually based on raw data (evidence) that is being collected using legitimate scientific methods. The same cannot be said of hypothesis #2 in the OP, no matter how often Cyclo says it is.
Now you're limiting the statement to "our universe," "our standards," and "as we know it." I'm hypothesizing beyond those limits!Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
you're assuming that there was a "beginning." What we currently refer to as "the beginning," or the "initial conditions" may very well turn out to be just another point in time, or some other as yet unknown dimension or measure.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?
Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."How, exactly?
Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.
Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.
That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.
as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.The answer would be exactly the same.
"God" is what broke your example.I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.
I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.
Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...
It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.
Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.
considering quantum theory, it's not too far of a reach to imagine that here are multiple universes existing at the same "time." One of the others could have even been the origin of our own. (BBT in a petri dish?)
Science may eventually tell us just that.
Philosophical discussions are grand, but to say that BBT is based on a philosophical decision is inaccurate - it's actually based on raw data (evidence) that is being collected using legitimate scientific methods. The same cannot be said of hypothesis #2 in the OP, no matter how often Cyclo says it is.
Oh there most certainly was a beginning to the universe as we know it, before that there was (after our standards) nothing.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I quoted Hawking saying essentially the same thing as the OP. As for what you think I'm trying to say, why not stick to what I've said? You have absolutely no idea what my beliefs are - you simply assume that they are different from yours because no one so rational as to select the same hypothesis (#1) as you could possibly fill their heads with such nonsense. A creationist would say the exact same thing about me, except that the #1 would be changed to a #2 in the previous sentence.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Yeah, later on he did that, and that sure as hell isn't following the thread of thought from Hawking.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
It's even worse than that. His assertions basically say "god did it, but made it look like he didn't!"Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
..while there is absolutely no support for "god did it" which is what option no2 implies...
He screwed up his OP and continued to defend it, i think he tries to inject his own ideas into an argument and then say "Hawking says this" while Hawking most certainly does not.
I'm no scientist, definently not although i'm very keen on following biology and biochemistry and tend to read every scientific paper i can get my hands on (to me it's more important to know that omega3, while generally a great supplement, will make my muscles grow less while the arachidonic acid from beef and egg yolks will make it grow more, inflammation is important in building muscle mass), not a math genius either, psychology is important in my line of work and that i know very well.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Now you're limiting the statement to "our universe," "our standards," and "as we know it." I'm hypothesizing beyond those limits!Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
you're assuming that there was a "beginning." What we currently refer to as "the beginning," or the "initial conditions" may very well turn out to be just another point in time, or some other as yet unknown dimension or measure.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?
Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."How, exactly?
Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.
Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.
That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.
as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.The answer would be exactly the same.
"God" is what broke your example.I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.
I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.
Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...
It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.
Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.
considering quantum theory, it's not too far of a reach to imagine that here are multiple universes existing at the same "time." One of the others could have even been the origin of our own. (BBT in a petri dish?)
Science may eventually tell us just that.
Philosophical discussions are grand, but to say that BBT is based on a philosophical decision is inaccurate - it's actually based on raw data (evidence) that is being collected using legitimate scientific methods. The same cannot be said of hypothesis #2 in the OP, no matter how often Cyclo says it is.
Oh there most certainly was a beginning to the universe as we know it, before that there was (after our standards) nothing.
Science may very well go beyond those limits someday, thereby shattering what we currently refer to as the boundaries of "our universe." Our perceptions, definitions, and boundaries will shift accordingly.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Now you're limiting the statement to "our universe," "our standards," and "as we know it." I'm hypothesizing beyond those limits!Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
you're assuming that there was a "beginning." What we currently refer to as "the beginning," or the "initial conditions" may very well turn out to be just another point in time, or some other as yet unknown dimension or measure.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?
Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."How, exactly?
Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.
Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.
That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.
as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.The answer would be exactly the same.
"God" is what broke your example.I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.
I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.
Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...
It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.
Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.
considering quantum theory, it's not too far of a reach to imagine that here are multiple universes existing at the same "time." One of the others could have even been the origin of our own. (BBT in a petri dish?)
Science may eventually tell us just that.
Philosophical discussions are grand, but to say that BBT is based on a philosophical decision is inaccurate - it's actually based on raw data (evidence) that is being collected using legitimate scientific methods. The same cannot be said of hypothesis #2 in the OP, no matter how often Cyclo says it is.
Oh there most certainly was a beginning to the universe as we know it, before that there was (after our standards) nothing.
Science may very well go beyond those limits someday, thereby shattering what we currently refer to as the boundaries of "our universe." Our perceptions, definitions, and boundaries will shift accordingly.
Well, i'm a moron so i go with known reality and leave the exponential realms of reality up to those who know shit about other realities.
Before there was something there was........? Science may take this one step further, just like it might be possible to measure the exact location of the south pole even closer and thus move the limit for how much more south you can go, but beyond the known universe, even if we do find something else, it doesn't matter, because beyond that or beyond that, or beyond that, we come to a point where something came out of nothing (as we define nothingness, we have to use definitions that exist in our realm of reality, other arguments are just as bad as "god did it")
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Now you're limiting the statement to "our universe," "our standards," and "as we know it." I'm hypothesizing beyond those limits!Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
you're assuming that there was a "beginning." What we currently refer to as "the beginning," or the "initial conditions" may very well turn out to be just another point in time, or some other as yet unknown dimension or measure.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?
Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."How, exactly?
Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.
Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.
That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.
as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.The answer would be exactly the same.
"God" is what broke your example.I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.
I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.
Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...
It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.
Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.
considering quantum theory, it's not too far of a reach to imagine that here are multiple universes existing at the same "time." One of the others could have even been the origin of our own. (BBT in a petri dish?)
Science may eventually tell us just that.
Philosophical discussions are grand, but to say that BBT is based on a philosophical decision is inaccurate - it's actually based on raw data (evidence) that is being collected using legitimate scientific methods. The same cannot be said of hypothesis #2 in the OP, no matter how often Cyclo says it is.
Oh there most certainly was a beginning to the universe as we know it, before that there was (after our standards) nothing.
Science may very well go beyond those limits someday, thereby shattering what we currently refer to as the boundaries of "our universe." Our perceptions, definitions, and boundaries will shift accordingly.
Well, i'm a moron so i go with known reality and leave the exponential realms of reality up to those who know shit about other realities.
Before there was something there was........? Science may take this one step further, just like it might be possible to measure the exact location of the south pole even closer and thus move the limit for how much more south you can go, but beyond the known universe, even if we do find something else, it doesn't matter, because beyond that or beyond that, or beyond that, we come to a point where something came out of nothing (as we define nothingness, we have to use definitions that exist in our realm of reality, other arguments are just as bad as "god did it")
existential?
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
haha werd
and for the record my opinion on the matter is as follows:
creationism = faith /= science
diet coke > diet pepsi
UFC = teh win
We must expand...Originally posted by: jjzelinski
haha werd
and for the record my opinion on the matter is as follows:
creationism = faith /= science
diet coke > diet pepsi
UFC = teh win
Ridiculous. (2) does NOT make predictions -- it makes baseless assertions. If we discovered that the universe wasn't expanding, for example, that wouldn't let us conclude that your supposition that the universe is 6000 years old is now false. The claim that the universe is 6000 years old wasn't based on the evidence that indicated a Big Bang in the first place, so falsification of that evidence doesn't falsify the claim.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Wrong. If you falsify #1, you would also falsify #2, since they make the same predictions. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this. If you take any reference to God out of #2 and assume that there are simply two initial conditions for the universe and neglect how they got there, you recover the same essential hypotheses, both of which lead to identical predictions and states of the universe.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You asked how one might falsify either hypothesis. (1) could be falsified any number of ways. (2) which is essentially omphalism, is unfalsifiable, so it is scientifically meaningless.
You acknowledge that they are objectively indistinguishable. This implies that they are scientifically undistinguishable. [/quote]Nonsense. It is YOU that is missing the point that the although the two may be objectively indistinguishable, that doesn't mean they are equally scientific or rational. (1) fits with our expectations about the universe and is falsifiable, therefore scientific. (2) is not. That's how I discern between them using science. It is not irrational to believe that the universe is as it appears to be (1), however it is irrational to believe that the universe is something else than what it appears to be (2).
It seems that according to you it would be irrational to believe that the sun actually rose today since one is unable to objectively distinguish "the sun rose" from "my brain in a vat being deceived by an evil genius into thinking that the sun rose," and of course the latter must be a valid scientific hypothesis.Which is rational is purely a nonsensical question because at that point, you're choosing one over the other.
Again, that is nonsense. Methodological naturalism decides what is or is not science by stipulating the preconditions for meaningful data.Choice is inherently irrational and, therefore, has no meaning in science. Science cannot choose anything.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The simple truth is we don't know jack shit 100% for sure, of how the earth and us earthlings came to be, IMO. It's all based on faith or theory, but not proven.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The simple truth is we don't know jack shit 100% for sure, of how the earth and us earthlings came to be, IMO. It's all based on faith or theory, but not proven.
And therefore all ideas have equal merit whether it's the musings of a 6 year old child or a team of the most highly regarded scientists? Clearly the answer is no, so the important part is how we go about figuring things out in order to get as close as we can to that impossible to attain 100% correct answer.
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
The simple truth is we don't know jack shit 100% for sure, of how the earth and us earthlings came to be, IMO. It's all based on faith or theory, but not proven.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We must expand...Originally posted by: jjzelinski
haha werd
and for the record my opinion on the matter is as follows:
creationism = faith /= science
diet coke > diet pepsi
UFC = teh win
Beer > Coke > Pepsi > Diet Coke > Diet Pepsi...
but you're right, UFC is tha shite!
You have assumed an argument for me, then proceeded to personally attack me based on your assumed argument. That is some sort of strange hybrid logical fallacy, where you constructed a strawman then beat it to death. Being a military man, I would have thought you would apply your vicious nature more efficiently and come after me directly. Instead, you're still on the practice range shooting up dummies. Let me know when you want to address my arguments instead of what you wish my arguments were.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Essentially is NOT good enough, i can say essentially what you are saying and yet you would get a completely different impression from what i wrote, as proven in this thread.
What you do not realise is that regardless of the statements, most people see these arguments and acknowledge the statements for what they are, statements in another debate (Big Bang theory vs young earth creationism), this is due to familiarity of arguments, you knew that would happen and wanted it to happen so you could sit on your high horse and tell people how they have failed.
The only one that has really failed is you.
#2 in and of itself makes no assertions other than that the initial state of the universe was a solution of #1. Thus, it necessarily leads to the same predictions. I'm sorry if you can't see that, but I have already shown in this thread multiple times exactly how this can be achieved using a very simple case. Since this seems to be the problem you're addressing in the rest of your post, I'm going to skip the rest. You either understand this or you don't, so my rehashing it ten times isn't going to help anyone out.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Ridiculous. (2) does NOT make predictions -- it makes baseless assertions. If we discovered that the universe wasn't expanding, for example, that wouldn't let us conclude that your supposition that the universe is 6000 years old is now false. The claim that the universe is 6000 years old wasn't based on the evidence that indicated a Big Bang in the first place, so falsification of that evidence doesn't falsify the claim.
I'll say this again because I haven't told you yet. The two hypotheses lead to physically identical universes since the initial condition of #2 is any arbitrary solution to #1. Given that, both are equally falsifiable and make the same predictions - if one is false, so is the other in a scientific sense.Originally posted by: blackllotus
Cyclowizard, what is your purpose in pointing this out? Obviously both theories could be possible. I don't even see way it matters which one is actually correct. The second one is rather unsatisifying because it is always valid regardless of new evidence (unfalsifiable) and doesn't provide any meaningful insight. Btw, it's pretty easy [in theory] to falsify the big bang. If we found a huge section of space where the background radiation is significantly hotter than normal (or significantly colder) then that would bring the Big Bang theory into serious question. The same would be true if we found a huge chuck of space where most objects have a blueshift instead of a redshift.
EDIT: I'll prevent a cop out response (not saying you would give one) by acknowledging that the big bang would still be theoretically viable even if those two evidences listed above were discovered. However, It would still be falsified for all intents and purposes because the chances of the background radiation being blown to hell in a large chunk of the universe is astronomically improbable given what we know.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You have assumed an argument for me, then proceeded to personally attack me based on your assumed argument. That is some sort of strange hybrid logical fallacy, where you constructed a strawman then beat it to death. Being a military man, I would have thought you would apply your vicious nature more efficiently and come after me directly. Instead, you're still on the practice range shooting up dummies. Let me know when you want to address my arguments instead of what you wish my arguments were.Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Essentially is NOT good enough, i can say essentially what you are saying and yet you would get a completely different impression from what i wrote, as proven in this thread.
What you do not realise is that regardless of the statements, most people see these arguments and acknowledge the statements for what they are, statements in another debate (Big Bang theory vs young earth creationism), this is due to familiarity of arguments, you knew that would happen and wanted it to happen so you could sit on your high horse and tell people how they have failed.
The only one that has really failed is you.