Jump to content

who made the big bang go off??


NORA BATTY

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is unreasonable & to be honest silly to ask such an infinately complicated question to a forum filled with teenagers.To completely understand the theory of the big bang you would need an immense depth of scientific knowledge, something that noone here possesses, and even then, Science is about research so all the itme answers are changing, what was unknown today, tomorrow is known.However, lack of an answer such as this does not mean that the most absurd suggestion is the truth."The Big Bang" is also often the generic phrase used to explain the start of the universe, wether it be through an actuall type of explosion, or steady forming of planets over billions of years from dust & gas particles.Do not take everything so literally.If this was bait, it has failed to draw a bite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats wrong with it being by chancedo you know the odds to be talkin bout it being 'an off chance'?
Them Nas long "locations" eh?The fact is the odds are more in favour of the big bang then they are of the existance of god.its a shame people are biting.The very nature of "God" is worked out well, it is as such that you can always claim he is behind something.@ Jubez.YOu cannot DISPROVE God, because there is no proof that he exists.You have to PROVE something exists to disprove it in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can it be silly? its not like you know the answer so how is it silly?
That is why it is silly.It is like asking someone here for a detailed description of "What happens after death?"As much as everybody likes to speculate, nobody knows.It is silly to ask people a question they couldn't possibly have the intelligence to comprehend.You answered your own question with your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats wrong with it being by chancedo you know the odds to be talkin bout it being 'an off chance'?
whats wrong with it being by chancedo you know the odds to be talkin bout it being 'an off chance'?
Them Nas long "locations" eh?The fact is the odds are more in favour of the big bang then they are of the existance of god.its a shame people are biting.The very nature of "God" is worked out well, it is as such that you can always claim he is behind something.@ Jubez.YOu cannot DISPROVE God, because there is no proof that he exists.You have to PROVE something exists to disprove it in the first place.
how can you prove something exists then disprove it? you can only do one or the other mate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can it be silly? its not like you know the answer so how is it silly?
That is why it is silly.It is like asking someone here for a detailed description of "What happens after death?"As much as everybody likes to speculate, nobody knows.It is silly to ask people a question they couldn't possibly have the intelligence to comprehend.You answered your own question with your post.
first of all how you know we dont have the intelligence to comprehend? thats a stereotype.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats wrong with it being by chancedo you know the odds to be talkin bout it being 'an off chance'?
whats wrong with it being by chancedo you know the odds to be talkin bout it being 'an off chance'?
Them Nas long "locations" eh?The fact is the odds are more in favour of the big bang then they are of the existance of god.its a shame people are biting.The very nature of "God" is worked out well, it is as such that you can always claim he is behind something.@ Jubez.YOu cannot DISPROVE God, because there is no proof that he exists.You have to PROVE something exists to disprove it in the first place.
how can you prove something exists then disprove it? you can only do one or the other mate.
You clearly misunderstood.Without proof of existance, something cannot be said to exist.You cannot ask someone to disprove something that is not there because there is no way to do so.I could say to you there is an invisible teapot hovering above my shoulder, and tell you to disprove that it was there.You couldnt. Does that mean by the fact you cannot disprove it, that it exists? Of course not.It is the same thing with God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can it be silly? its not like you know the answer so how is it silly?
That is why it is silly.It is like asking someone here for a detailed description of "What happens after death?"As much as everybody likes to speculate, nobody knows.It is silly to ask people a question they couldn't possibly have the intelligence to comprehend.You answered your own question with your post.
first of all how you know we dont have the intelligence to comprehend? thats a stereotype.
I can see the way this debate is going.I think you should read up on the definition of stereotype, you used it in completely the wrong context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is the odds are more in favour of the big bang then they are of the existance of god.
how do you know?
Because we can point to facts to INDICATE that something similiar to the theories of the big bang/evolution could have happened.But there are no facts to prove that God exists.Therefore, the odds are more in favour of evolutionism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say to you there is an invisible teapot hovering above my shoulder, and tell you to disprove that it was there.You couldnt. Does that mean by the fact you cannot disprove it, that it exists? Of course not.
and if you proved it did exist could you disprove it? of course not.therefore : ''how can you prove something exists then disprove it? you can only do one or the other mate.''
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say to you there is an invisible teapot hovering above my shoulder, and tell you to disprove that it was there.You couldnt. Does that mean by the fact you cannot disprove it, that it exists? Of course not.
and if you proved it did exist could you disprove it? of course not.therefore : ''how can you prove something exists then disprove it? you can only do one or the other mate.''
I perhaps made a typo, but you have skirted the real issue being the fact that you cannot find a way past what I have said, and instead decided to focus on an error I made while typing.What I have posted after that still stands and remains to be answered.However.It means that lack of evidence to prove something exists, means by default it does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...