stardust wrote:Ok Clown, this one is about a physics lesson especially to you.
Thank you for politely asking for it.
I am willing to help you to get out of your 'black and white' extremes.
Certainly I know this is a big challenge for your little ego, but excuse me, I am sure it will be a good intellectual exercise and learning for you.
Gary did already a good job showing your science abuse.
What remains IMHO is:
1.) Big Bang theory is descriptive only at least when it comes to the Planck era, beacuse there is no math approach to correctly model the singularity.
2.) All serious scientist know that and have no problem with that, because that is normal for the scientific approach: to strive for improvements, knowing that a theory is a theory.
3.) Big Bang theory has its known limits: As a hint to you, since you seem to be a seriously interested adept, I am talking about the dark matter/dark energy complex and the genesis of large scale structures in the universe like the 'great wall'.
4.) There are no probes (empiric physical ones) that allow any conclusion about the planck era (staying in the context of today's physics of the standard model). Even if the TOE (maybe based on the current candidates String theory, M-Theory or Quantum loop theory) would be able to unify gravitaion with the other 3 forces and in general GTR with Quantum theory,
we scientists do not have a gravitation probe into planck era, due to the practical limits of our technology.
5.) There are no probes at all to hop outside this universe (uni-verse) and look from outside and especially before the start of spacetime after (after !!) planck era.
You are still there Clown ? That means you and we dont know nothing about before the assumed singularity.
And a scientist does not even have a philosophical problem with the limitations of its theory before and after, because he knows his limits.
I am not even touching the questions of who and why ? Do you notice that ?
Conclusion (not exegesis):
Science (here cosmology) is not black and white (deterministic, materialistic)
as you and your atheist cretins want to abuse it.
It just tells you what is empirically accessible and it knows its limits:
- the epistemologic ones, that you guys ignore constantly
- the existing flaws of the theories like Big Bang theory
- the transition between physics and meta-physics
break - here we get into a philosophical dispute beyond science.
And now you loosers come in and write nonsense about why science is the ultimate proof for the presumptuous superiority of atheism.
We had that before.
There is no proof of atheism and there is no for theism by science (
argumentum ad ignorantiam )
Why ?
Because per definition this kind of philosophical discussion is not about empiric research, but exegesis of phenomenons. In best case it is about Meta-physics, and in the case of atheism a one dimensional anti-position to the theistic pole.
Stop spoiling science with your presumptuousness, learn modesty, logic and manners and if you really are interested physics.
)
