Quote from: BCEmporium on October 19, 2017, 12:43:40 PM

Quote from: Astargath on October 19, 2017, 11:02:29 AM

Quote from: BCEmporium on October 19, 2017, 10:56:16 AM

Quote from: Astargath on October 19, 2017, 10:37:12 AM

Quote from: BCEmporium on October 19, 2017, 10:21:34 AM

Quote from: Astargath on October 19, 2017, 09:37:17 AM

Quote from: BCEmporium on October 19, 2017, 08:29:56 AM

Quote from: Astargath on October 18, 2017, 11:05:49 AM

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.

No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.

The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously.
You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied.

No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you.

The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time.

Let me say something first, I'm not claiming the big bang is exactly what happened but the big bang is not hypothetical is a theory (and you told me I don't know what I'm talking about, go figure lol) I'm not a big bang expert whatsoever nor I am a scientist but it is the most prevailing theory for the existence of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence There is a lot of evidence to support it, again I'm not claiming it is exactly what happened and it is true that we don't know what happened before the big bang. My point again was simply that even If I agree with badecker that the universe needs a creator, we don't know what the creator is and we don't gain anything by saying it's god and describing god as the creator of the universe, there is no information gained from that, there is no observational evidence for god.

Look, I've repeatedly pointed out that I understand exactly where you're coming from and that you keep repeating it with different words. You can just keep saying the same stuff over and over, even though you know yourself that you're no scientist and thus don't really understand the details of the hypothesis of the big bang, or you can actually take some time to re-read my initial post attentively and actually try to get my point (which you currently clearly do not). The devil is in the details, and you've skimmed over my post so quickly that you've completely missed the point and based all of your further comments on your assumption of what you believe I've said.

You can say it as many times as you want but the big bang is a scientific theory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Your first post was meaningless, ''And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence'' So what? What if we can't prove anything 100% Science does as much as it can, that doesn't mean you should believe anything just because the other thing is not proved 100% either. That doesn't mean it's logical to believe god exists instead of the big bang simply because it wasn't proved to be 100% true. The big bang has evidence supporting it, god doesn't.

''By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false.''
No again, that is not my argument, my argument is that what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence, like a glass, you observe the glass, you touch it, you measure it and then you define it (a hard, brittle, noncrystalline, more or less transparent substance produced by fusion, usually consisting of mutually dissolved silica and silicates that also contain soda and lime, as in the ordinary variety used for windows and bottles.)
Now the glass has value because its description is real. The description of god is made up, we haven't observed things and then concluded ok, all these things together point to this thing which we are going to call god, we can't observe god, we can't touch it, measure it, etc etc. Badecker is simply giving god the description of the creator of the universe and then saying that the creator of the universe is god because god is the creator of the universe.