Reyginus: Lol. Now that you've decided to think, can we move on? Oh yes, we can.

*smh*, you were clearly wrong.. you now want to claim I am not thinking, in what language? did anony bite you? actually this is even worse than his shenanigans. anyways...

Reyginus:
I'm starting from the root of the matter, the big bang.
Our theory suggests there was a massive explosion of a singularity. This stirred up the universe as we know it. It went further to posit the big b.ang was the beginning.

No it claims there was an expansion. Explode into what space? There wasn't even any. Anyways, it posits the big b.ang is the beginning of THIS UNIVERSE

Reyginus:
That claim is too much to be swallowed. I know all there is, cannot be made to explode. This thing that carried it out surely cannot be part of the singularity, neglecting the fact the theory acknowledged the action of a beginner.

Again, of this universe, nothing hard to swallow about that. As for expanding, it still is. The forces are there, gravity et al, responsible for that.

Reyginus: The options leading us to this path are, it is either the big bang is not the beginning or it is. Our theory holds it is.

It undoubtedly is the beginning of this universe, time and space began then.

Reyginus:
The self-contradiction is clear to any unbiased mind. It is not possible for a thing which was caused to begin, to be the beginning.

Have you ever heard of the uncertainty principle? Guess what, it's happening right now to the quarks that make up your body. Something can come from nothing in this universe

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

Reyginus:
I wonder how anybody could take such theory as the truth.

These are facts. You can choose to ignore the evidence, though I wonder how anybody could ignore the evidence to create his own 'truth'.

Read brah, rather than display ignorance. Or do you require diagrams and maybe a hawt primary school teacher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

Reyginus:
I don't know if there is a way the beginning of all things will be made to begin. Maybe you tell me.

Science doesn't claim to know, it knows the beginning of this universe, not all things. But supposing this universe was birthed by another, do you understand what another universe implies? Even if another universe exists, it is by definition another universe. Another existence, completely separate from this one, so how are we going to get there? This is why some people think it's a waste of time and focus on what we can observe, this universe. But there are lots of hypotheses (hypotheses like string theory) flying around, most of them having to do with a multi-verse (my personal favorites).

.

wiegraf:
*smh*, you were clearly wrong.. you now want to claim I am not thinking, in what language? did anony bite you? actually this is even worse than his shenanigans. anyways...



No it claims there was an expansion. Explode into what space? There wasn't even any. Anyways, it posits the big b.ang is the beginning of THIS UNIVERSE



Again, of this universe, nothing hard to swallow about that. As for expanding, it still is. The forces are there, gravity et al, responsible for that.



It undoubtedly is the beginning of this universe, time and space began then.



Have you ever heard of the uncertainty principle? Guess what, it's happening right now to the quarks that make up your body. Something can come from nothing in this universe

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



These are facts. You can choose to ignore the evidence, though I wonder how anybody could ignore the evidence to create his own 'truth'.

Read brah, rather than display ignorance. Or do you require diagrams and maybe a hawt primary school teacher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence





Science doesn't claim to know, it knows the beginning of this universe, not all things. But supposing this universe was birthed by another, do you understand what another universe implies? Even if another universe exists, it is by definition another universe. Another existence, completely separate from this one, so how are we going to get there? This is why some people think it's a waste of time and focus on what we can observe, this universe. But there are lots of hypotheses (hypotheses like string theory) flying around, most of them having to do with a multi-verse (my personal favorites).

Bringing 'em fighter jets.
1. Oh I forget, google was your thinking cap.
2. Expansion? Lol. Their was an explosion before the expansion. Cause and effect my friend. You are trying to twist the claim of the theory. Why this universe?
3. This is even more laughable. Can a thing be only existing in union with gravity? What does it mean to exist alone?
4. It's high time you explained the phrase 'this universe'.
5. Ah! Even scientists fall for this. Vacuum flunctuation. The problem with vacuum flunctuation is that it neglects the fact that it can only occur in an empty space. If it can't happen everywhere it shows that it only becomes effective in a vacuum. That said, the casaul agent exists only in a vaccuum. Some scientists are too dumb, to think so.
6. I hate to read when I'm supposed to think.
7. What about a multiverse now?

Kay 17: @ reyginus. Ok I will do the work for you.
http://www.illusions.org/

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

3. You were the one that said all absolute statements are true

first link filled with images, second link filled with thanks, 3rd link was it. All affect consciousness.
That's why I asked if it is possible to consciously see an illusion?

Reyginus: Bringing 'em fighter jets.
1. Oh I forget, google was your thinking cap.

Again, I ask you show me how. Baseless, even anony doesn't make gaffes this silly. This is embarrassing.

You can't even tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, yet you think yourself an expert on thinking?

Even ignoring the above, what exactly are you saying, that my arguments come from google? Or is it from reading books about the universe? In essence, are you saying I don't need to learn anything but just figure everything out on my own? Do you know how stoopid that sounds? I see, einstein et al, geniuses as they are, figured everything out from the scratch on their own too. Wow. This is what religion causes, baseless conclusions and hubris.

Let's explore your professional 'thinking' now.

Reyginus:
2. Expansion? Lol. Their was an explosion before the expansion. Cause and effect my friend. You are trying to twist the claim of the theory. Why this universe?

Great thinking here. What exploded? Into what space? Space and time came into existence at the big ban.g's inception. Energy of some sort may have existed, but not necessarily what we know of as energy in this universe nor need said energy be part of this universe (except of course that which may have mutated to form this universe).

You say an explosion occurred, explain how and provide your evidence. This is science please, don't make stuff up. All we know for sure is that our space and time as we know it were created and began expanding at some point in the past, and are in fact still expanding.

Where did this event take place? Everywhere. And it's still happening, the universe is still expanding and cooling down. The early stages of this expansion are what we call the big ba.ng.

Reyginus:
3. This is even more laughable. Can a thing be only existing in union with gravity? What does it mean to exist alone?

This is even better thinking. Where do I say the bolded? I said the forces, gravity and the rest (3 other basic forces, google, I'm tired of doing it for you) are there responsible for the expansion. Gravity is pulling us together yes? Mysterious dark energy pulling us apart, no? Various electromagnetic forces dictate the laws of physics.

Reyginus:
4. It's high time you explained the phrase 'this universe'.

This universe means this universe... Everything we can access, even theoretically, would constitute as this universe. Dictionary definition

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=universe+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos."

Or

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe

"All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."

Reyginus:
5. Ah! Even scientists fall for this. Vacuum flunctuation. The problem with vacuum flunctuation is that it neglects the fact that it can only occur in an empty space. If it can't happen everywhere it shows that it only becomes effective in a vacuum. That said, the casaul agent exists only in a vaccuum. Some scientists are too dumb, to think so.

Where in the world did you come across this dross? There is no such thing as a true vacuum in this universe. Quantum fluctuations require a vacuum to be present before they manifest? *smh*. The issue here is with the nature of energy. Rather than remain a steady point, it fluctuates, unpredictably (wave/particle). What determines these fluctuations, how does it have this value and then that value the next moment is completely arbitrarily. So, where does the extra energy causing the fluctuations come from? Nothing. It all tallies up at the end of the day (thankfully), but it doesn't change the fact that energy was created from seemingly nothing, even if for only a very short amount of time. This potential, which is used by 'real' energy to get around, exists everywhere in this universe*.

And note, this energy, seemingly from nowhere, can be measured

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

Reyginus:
6. I hate to read when I'm supposed to think.

Yes, because Reyginus the genius already knows all without even looking at the evidence. That is the evidence, draw up your conclusions from there, but don't make $hit up. I imagine your conclusions would involve some old dude who was willing to wait 14 billion years just to watch big brother.

Reyginus:
7. What about a multiverse now?

Hypotheses, not theories, like your old man in the sky one, except they make a hell of a lot more sense.


So, try that thinking you assume you're actually capable of.


*random: since you are made up of energy, yes, you are fluctuating, obviously not noticably. and this mechanism, which energy uses to move around, could actually result in a particle here showing up at the other side of the galaxy immediately, but of course the odds of that happening are astronomically low. science is a lot weirder than the hocus pocus nonsense that is religion, and better yet, it can be tested.

*edited

@wiegraf.
1. What I'm saying is simple. You post what you feel are claims from Google. But when asked to be a man and defend them, you say you are not a professional. You must be ready to stand by whatever you are quoting, from wherever.
Now you're talking about a theory and a hypothesis. The sciences can be so contradicting to themselves. Almost everything about the big bang theory is false. The problem is, you think whatever the scientist call a theory is. A theory cannot be with filled half-truths and begging evidence. The big bang is too wack to be seen in the light of a theory.
My aim here is to make you think. Good I'm achieving that.
And dude, stop getting emotional.
2. The question of what caused the explosion is the contradiction of the theory. I wonder how a singularity can be made to explode. Into what space? That's an intelligent question to nail you. Into what space? Can a thing be only existing and be caused to explode? If you still hold that it didn't explode(which is not according to the theory), the question still is, into what space? Did it create spaces by itself? All I've done in this arguement is to show how unfounded the claims of the big bang theory are. Now asking me the evidence shows you've little or no understanding of it. The question should thrown to you. Since the big bang theory talked of an explosion, where is the evidence? You don't ask me to provide evidence that your guesswork is true. Lol. Another scientific blunder contradicting your initial claim. How can the early stages of the universe be what we call the big b.ang? And also the present expansion? You even need to understand yourselve.
3. Lol. Dude, you don't have to say that exactly. You talked about gravity influencing the beginning. Can a singularity, the only thing that existed in the beginning, be under the influence of anything? How can anything even govern the only thing that existed?
I don't think the laws in the beginning are physical, but metaphysical laws. Physical laws cannot tell with certainty how a single entity can begin to expand on its own.
4. How can this universe mean this universe. What a senseless answer. Just like saying that the meaning of my name is my name. I thought you had some multiverse theories. Like there is another universe I know not about.
5. Still pointing to how dumb scientists can be. Even what is called vacuum is filled by microparticles. How dumb? The rest are not necessary.
6. Lol@my conclusion. Let's not deviate.
7. This doesn't make any sense. You used the beginning of This Universe too loosely that I thought you are talking about a multiverse.
Anyway, thumbs up so far.

Reyginus:
first link filled with images, second link filled with thanks, 3rd link was it. All affect consciousness.
That's why I asked if it is possible to consciously see an illusion?

Yes and consider how much intoxication alters consciousness.

Reyginus: Bringing 'em fighter jets.
1. Oh I forget, google was your thinking cap.
2. Expansion? Lol. Their was an explosion before the expansion. Cause and effect my friend. You are trying to twist the claim of the theory. Why this universe?
3. This is even more laughable. Can a thing be only existing in union with gravity? What does it mean to exist alone?
4. It's high time you explained the phrase 'this universe'.
5. Ah! Even scientists fall for this. Vacuum flunctuation. The problem with vacuum flunctuation is that it neglects the fact that it can only occur in an empty space. If it can't happen everywhere it shows that it only becomes effective in a vacuum. That said, the casaul agent exists only in a vaccuum. Some scientists are too dumb, to think so.
6. I hate to read when I'm supposed to think.
7. What about a multiverse now?

2. Did you mean that an explosion is necessary for expansion or that the theory actually espouses an explosions.

Reyginus: @wiegraf.
1. What I'm saying is simple. You post what you feel are claims from Google. But when asked to be a man and defend them, you say you are not a professional. You must be ready to stand by whatever you are quoting, from wherever.
Now you're talking about a theory and a hypothesis. The sciences can be so contradicting to themselves. Almost everything about the big bang theory is false. The problem is, you think whatever the scientist call a theory is. A theory cannot be with filled half-truths and begging evidence. The big bang is too wack to be seen in the light of a theory.
My aim here is to make you think. Good I'm achieving that.
And dude, stop getting emotional.
2. The question of what caused the explosion is the contradiction of the theory. I wonder how a singularity can be made to explode. Into what space? That's an intelligent question to nail you. Into what space? Can a thing be only existing and be caused to explode? If you still hold that it didn't explode(which is not according to the theory), the question still is, into what space? Did it create spaces by itself? All I've done in this arguement is to show how unfounded the claims of the big bang theory are. Now asking me the evidence shows you've little or no understanding of it. The question should thrown to you. Since the big bang theory talked of an explosion, where is the evidence? You don't ask me to provide evidence that your guesswork is true. Lol. Another scientific blunder contradicting your initial claim. How can the early stages of the universe be what we call the big b.ang? And also the present expansion? You even need to understand yourselve.
3. Lol. Dude, you don't have to say that exactly. You talked about gravity influencing the beginning. Can a singularity, the only thing that existed in the beginning, be under the influence of anything? How can anything even govern the only thing that existed?
I don't think the laws in the beginning are physical, but metaphysical laws. Physical laws cannot tell with certainty how a single entity can begin to expand on its own.
4. How can this universe mean this universe. What a senseless answer. Just like saying that the meaning of my name is my name. I thought you had some multiverse theories. Like there is another universe I know not about.
5. Still pointing to how dumb scientists can be. Even what is called vacuum is filled by microparticles. How dumb? The rest are not necessary.
6. Lol@my conclusion. Let's not deviate.
7. This doesn't make any sense. You used the beginning of This Universe too loosely that I thought you are talking about a multiverse.
Anyway, thumbs up so far.

1. I don't see any contradiction between theories and hypotheses.

2. That depends on what you think space-time continuum is made of/composed of. And how it behaves.

3. You haven't explained why you'd ASSUME laws existing in the beginning of this Universe are supernatural, (metaphysical covers both physical and phenomenonal substances). And the scientists are involved yet in the origin of the singularity from which the Universe sprung from.

Hmm, i have no idea as to wtf is happening here. I posted a reply, somehow it's not here....

Kay 17:

Yes and consider how much intoxication alters consciousness.

Is that all you've got to say about it?

Kay 17:

2. Did you mean that an explosion is necessary for expansion or that the theory actually espouses an explosions.

Lol. How can anyone think an explosion is necessary for any expansion. The big bang man.

Kay 17:

1. I don't see any contradiction between theories and hypotheses.

2. That depends on what you think space-time continuum is made of/composed of. And how it behaves.

3. You haven't explained why you'd ASSUME laws existing in the beginning of this Universe are supernatural, (metaphysical covers both physical and phenomenonal substances). And the scientists are involved yet in the origin of the singularity from which the Universe sprung from.

1. What do you mean here?
2. Are we now into space-time continuum, when their was none in the first place.
3. And you've not explained why you think a physical law can cause a single entity to explode.

wiegraf: Hmm, i have no idea as to wtf is happening here. I posted a reply, somehow it's not here....

Lololol. Wiegraf! We don't play childish games here sir.

Reyg dmmit you claiming there was an explosion is an unfounded claim, where from? And in what space or time even? You don't have any proof there was any before big b.ang

I wrote that post on bb, was so sleepy, and sometimes you have to hit the submit button twice. Crap. And my battery died. But yes, quickly (as usual) kay is on point, you dont understand the nature of spacetime

Of course my post was more colorful, for instnce 5, wtf? You see evidence and then shout lalalalalaalala. What do you want to do, wish it away? And i'm not mad, this is how i am naturally, a natral aśśhole, i can't even see why you'd think i'm mad.

wiegraf: Reyg dmmit you claiming there was an explosion is an unfounded claim, where from?

Lololol. Exactly why the theory is unfounded.
Now search 'big bang' with your thinking cap to know whose claim is unfounded.

Reyginus: Lololol. Exactly why the theory is unfounded.
Now search 'big bang' with your thinking cap to know whose claim is unfounded.

Bros, how many xx do i have to tell you that if you cannot discern a theory from a hypthesis, then you really dont know what thinking is about. And you're still on about the google thing, blindly fumbling on

This is real simple, where the fúck did the explosion take place? Put on your thinking cap now and consider that. Like kay said earlier, what physical law is there that states there must be an eplosion before an expansion? Because a scientist, or google, calls it big b.ang that does not neccesarily mean there was a b.ang.

@reyginus

1. Wiegraf had many links on that. Hypotheses are the formative stage of a theory. They are immediately supported with evidence. Whike thoeries require falsification to break down.

2. I asked you that question, bro.

3. Good question. Yes, for example water boiling at a certain temperature in the consequence of physcial law. Same with gravity. The behaviour and mutual interations btw matter, energy and entites is what constitutes physical law. So the singularity is acting in accordance to its character which we don't know much about.

Where to reyg? We're not done here...

Shame about my earlier post, too lazy to redo all that. So I'll focus all the rage on this only, your claim that science makes unfounded claims. (there's a lot more to rant about in your post, dohohoho (and I did...like how you missed the obvious "...")

Let's take wiki's definition and pull out some bits since you seem uninterested in actually looking up what the big b.ang actually is

wiki:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it can be inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

"While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of the Steady State theory, most scientists became convinced that some version of the Big Bang scenario best fit observations after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body.

Looking at this here, I don't see the word explosion anywhere, nor do I see the need to add it. Anyways, look at the bolded, experiments and observed data, testable prediction (background radiation) and NO ASSUMPTIONS ACCEPTED AS FACT WHERE THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE, highlighted here for instance:

"There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

So things like your insistence the very beginnings of the universe are metaphysical and an explosion taking place = assumptions. You can have them around if you wish, as hypothesis. Don't mix them up with theories, which are more or else fact.

Now, like I've said over and over, even proper theories themselves need not be 100% accurate, they may have fuzzy details. But they still work as effective theories, and hopefully with time we will perfect these theories and produce more accurate versions, just like einstein improved on newtons work with gravity. In fact, like I said earlier, since a theory of everything would affect "everything", you could say all scientific theories are incomplete, until the true theory of everything is found (lemme guess, you're still going to take the word 'true' and run around?).

How you can say science makes unfounded claims is beyond me. Theories are validated after meticulously examining the evidence and various tests and criteria, with a clear emphasis on the objective, not on baseless assumptions.

.

wiegraf:

Bros, how many xx do i have to tell you that if you cannot discern a theory from a hypthesis, then you really dont know what thinking is about. And you're still on about the google thing, blindly fumbling on

This is real simple, where the fúck did the explosion take place? Put on your thinking cap now and consider that. Like kay said earlier, what physical law is there that states there must be an eplosion before an expansion? Because a scientist, or google, calls it big b.ang that does not neccesarily mean there was a b.ang.

You are becoming dumber. How do you understand? Is it a matter of where the explosion occured, or that your theory claims there was one?
Stop acting dumb please. Haba!

.

Kay 17: @reyginus

1. Wiegraf had many links on that. Hypotheses are the formative stage of a theory. They are immediately supported with evidence. Whike thoeries require falsification to break down.

2. I asked you that question, bro.

3. Good question. Yes, for example water boiling at a certain temperature in the consequence of physcial law. Same with gravity. The behaviour and mutual interations btw matter, energy and entites is what constitutes physical law. So the singularity is acting in accordance to its character which we don't know much about.

Lolol. I think wiegraf is affecting how you fashion your points.
The question is not if the singularity follows physical laws. It is, if the cause of the singularity's effect followed physical laws, when we claim the singularity is the only existing entity?

wiegraf: Where to reyg? We're not done here...

Shame about my earlier post, too lazy to redo all that. So I'll focus all the rage on this only, your claim that science makes unfounded claims. (there's a lot more to rant about in your post, dohohoho (and I did...like how you missed the obvious "...")

Let's take wiki's definition and pull out some bits since you seem uninterested in actually looking up what the big b.ang actually is



Looking at this here, I don't see the word explosion anywhere, nor do I see the need to add it. Anyways, look at the bolded, experiments and observed data, testable prediction (background radiation) and NO ASSUMPTIONS ACCEPTED AS FACT WHERE THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE, highlighted here for instance:

"There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

So things like your insistence the very beginnings of the universe are metaphysical and an explosion taking place = assumptions. You can have them around if you wish, as hypothesis. Don't mix them up with theories, which are more or else fact.

Now, like I've said over and over, even proper theories themselves need not be 100% accurate, they may have fuzzy details. But they still work as effective theories, and hopefully with time we will perfect these theories and produce more accurate versions, just like einstein improved on newtons work with gravity. In fact, like I said earlier, since a theory of everything would affect "everything", you could say all scientific theories are incomplete, until the true theory of everything is found (lemme guess, you're still going to take the word 'true' and run around?).

How you can say science makes unfounded claims is beyond me. Theories are validated after meticulously examining the evidence and various tests and criteria, with a clear emphasis on the objective, not on baseless assumptions.

Dude, thank you for selecting what to post and not.
You are not in the right position to discuss this topic. Not at all.
Anyone who don't know the big b.ang as claimed, is as a result of an explosion is either dumb or deliberately misfiring. Maybe kay can help you.

Reyginus: Dude, thank you for selecting what to post and not.
You are not in the right position to discuss this topic. Not at all.
Anyone who don't know the big b.ang as claimed, is as a result of an explosion is either dumb or deliberately misfiring. Maybe kay can help you.

Please find one scientific source which claims an explosion took place. I'm waiting

Also, find another which shows how an explosion could take place without spacetime

You've now clearly crossed into unadulterated stoopid territory. Because you see b.ang in the title you assume there was an explosion, yet you claim science makes unfounded claims?

Reyginus: Lolol. I think wiegraf is affecting how you fashion your points.
The question is not if the singularity follows physical laws. It is, if the cause of the singularity's effect follows physical laws, when we claim the singularity is the only existing entity?

The cause of singularity is unknown, much of the nature of the singularity is unknown. That's an open question.

wiegraf:

Please find one scientific source which claims an explosion took place. I'm waiting

Also, find another which shows how an explosion could take place without spacetime

You've now clearly crossed into unadulterated stoopid territory. Because you see b.ang in the title you assume there was an explosion, yet you claim science make unfounded claims?

I'm using a phone.
It's like we are coming close.
As it stands now, you posit that any claim on an explosion is not true, and hence unfounded.
I hold their is a claim on an explosion, and that's why it's unfounded.
My question to you now is, would you agree science make unfounded claims, if I show you where it claims an explosion occured? Yes or No.

Kay 17:

The cause of singularity is unknown, much of the nature of the singularity is unknown. That's an open question.

Do you also hold the claim of an explosion will render your stand null?

Reyginus: I'm using a phone.
It's like we are coming close.
As it stands now, you posit that any claim on an explosion is not true, and hence unfounded.
I hold their is a claim on an explosion, and that's why it's unfounded.
My question to you now is, would you agree science make unfounded claims, if I show you where it claims an explosion occured? Yes or No.

No, and don't waste my time. Show me this explosion.

wiegraf:

No, and don't waste my time. Show me this explosion.

No? Why?

Reyginus: No? Why?

Because your link would feature someone making unfounded claims, thereby violating the scientific method. There is no reason to assume an explosion, at all, so why add one? Science should stick to the facts, nothing more. And it should stick to simplest explanation that explains all observations, or ockam's razor. So again, no need to assume an explosion, and it complicates things. If there was one, how? In what space or time? Matter was involved? Where from? etc. If he provides evidence, then sure, why not? But as is, I know of non

This is why science doesn't give any clear answers as to the very beginning of the big b.ang, it simply doesn't know enough at the moment to make claims. And it's not afraid to say so. The challenge is finding out what happened, objectively.

wiegraf:

Because your link would feature someone making unfounded claims, thereby violating the scientific method. There is no reason to assume an explosion, at all, so why add one? Science should stick to the facts, nothing more. And it should stick to simplest explanation that explains all observations, or ockam's razor. So again, no need to assume an explosion, and it complicates things. If there was one, how? In what space or time? Matter was involved? Where from? etc. If he provides evidence, then sure, why not? But as is, I know of non

This is why science doesn't give any clear answers as to the very beginning of the big b.ang, it simply doesn't know enough at the moment to make claims. And it's not afraid to say so. The challenge is finding out what happened, objectively.

Lololololol. What if the link is from google or wikipedia?