Science Admits They Made Up Everything About the Big Bang

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You did not understand my post. It went over your head.

You cannot derive knowledge about what is outside a system of which one is a member.

Imagine I tell you there is a color no human being has ever seen, and more specifically, it cannot ever be observed because its definition is, "a color outside of the system of color." What color is it? An impossible question, by definition.

The same thing happens when you try to think where the universe came from. If you point me to the big bang, or even God, if you so choose, that is part of the universe. What the question means is, what existed prior to the universe?

But by definition one cannot know. You cannot know something that is outside the system from which one is gathering information.

And this is why questions of ultimate origins (and ends) are unanswerable. We only know the thing that is. It is vast, has a history, has laws, has processes, has end states (heat death).

But we do not know why it is here in the first place. never will.

You do not understand my post. It went over your head.

I guess your idea might be true if you define universe to be everything we can ever observe. But then your point is rather meaningless. If you use the more traditional definition of universe, then it's entirely possible we're just in one universe of some kind of multiverse, and who knows what kind of technology may come along in a few million/billion years that may permit us to move between them. But perhaps you already have the necessary knowledge and wisdom to know exactly what sentient life will be capable of in the far future.

Keep in mind we can make inferences about things that we cannot observe based upon their influence on things we do observe. For instance, it is impossible to observe gravity directly. We can only ever observe its indirect influence on matter and light. That's not to say that gravity exists outside of our universe, but it should be taken as an analogy. How do you know that there aren't things outside of our universe that have some kind of influence on things inside our universe, such that we can deduce the existence based upon observations within the universe? You seem to possess some rather amazing knowledge about the universe. Either you're some extraterrestrial with billions of years of scientific study under your belt, or you're just another internet expert.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess your idea might be true if you define universe to be everything we can ever observe.

That's all I meant. we misunderstood each other, or rather, I you. Did not see /wit

[r00t]

also I didn make that einstein picture I just searched for a vindication.jpg nad it popped up. Who gives a fuck if he failed at math or not? Hawkings was wrong on a lot of stuff not just the big bang, a brief history of time is worthless fiction at this point. Less historical fact than the good book.

[Langrisserx]

yea... no, yea see... no, yea, no

[Shaakglith12194]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

also I didn make that einstein picture I just searched for a vindication.jpg nad it popped up. Who gives a fuck if he failed at math or not? Hawkings was wrong on a lot of stuff not just the big bang, a brief history of time is worthless fiction at this point. Less historical fact than the good book.

The person whose name you keep misspelling is H A W K I N G, Stephen Hawking. Not H A W K I N G S. God, you are dumb. Also, he has come out and publicly said that he doesn't think there will ever be a grand unified theory. The thing about science is that theories about how the universe works are constantly evolving as our understanding does. But please, enlighten us on how the bible is so historically accurate.

[runlvlzero]

you got r00t to quad post, good job

[runlvlzero]

i can't count anymore =/ triple post...

[r00t]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Shaakglith12194]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

Almost universal assent. Note how that wikipedia article never once says anything about proof of existence. In fact, the whole article seems to state that this entire "Historicity of Jesus" is done by people who don't doubt that he existed already and work from that assumption. Here's something worth mentioning though:

""Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the existence of Jesus as described in the Christian gospels. The theory that Jesus never existed at all has support from a small minority of modern scholars."

Still waiting for you to point me to any reliable account of history taken from the christian bible.

[Langrisserx]

christianity is a mashup of religions in order to overtake them without violence and because they are unorginal.

its all astro-theological allegory plain as day.

the stars look different from different places on earth.

man is stupid and fearful.

ad nauseum