What are your reasons for believing whatever you may believe about Christianity?

[WaterOre]

what's the term for not giving a stuff?

probably agnostic atheist

[Ad Bot]

[Daswiruch]

what's the term for not giving a stuff?

no affiliation

[Red Spy]

I'll discuss my issues with the Big Bang in a bit.

Oh please do explain.

[SeventhSandwich]

I'll discuss my issues with the Big Bang in a bit.

I'm reasonably familiar with the physics involved with the Big Bang, so keep that in mind before you 'debunk' it with shaky philosophical arguments.

[Red Spy]

There's no way for it to just start with 70% carbon, 15% phosphorus, 12% hydrogen, 2% sulfur, 1% nitrogen, etc for no apparent reason.

You do know that the Universe started out as as singu-
forget it. He's going to 'debunk' that too.

[SeventhSandwich]

There's no way for it to just start with 70% carbon, 15% phosphorus, 12% hydrogen, 2% sulfur, 1% nitrogen, etc for no apparent reason.

Wow, I didn't even see this.

This isn't even correct. Based on what we know about the density/temperature of the early universe (compounded with experiments done at the LHC), the universe didn't just 'start out with atoms'. It was made out of this stuff called quark-gluon plasma, which is kind of like a mushy mix of the stuff that makes up the nuclei of atoms, but dissociated because of the extreme conditions.

Shortly afterwards, the universe was mostly hydrogen and helium, which formed heavier elements via fusion in stars, supernovae, etc. The breakdown of elements in the universe is pretty much just a direct consequence of how stars work, and there's nothing that suggests that it's chosen by some supreme intelligence...

[otto-san]

There's no way for it to just start with 70% carbon, 15% phosphorus, 12% hydrogen, 2% sulfur, 1% nitrogen, etc for no apparent reason.

pretty sure the universe didn't ""just start"" with all matter in its current form (edit: seventh caught it and explained it better)

stars are, in super-ridiculously-simple terms, pretty much element factories. the physics for why exactly things happened they way they did is explainable because we can still observe it and measure it. carbon is a ridiculously versatile element, which is why it's unsurprisingly the primary component for life on earth. to assume that we're the sole reason it happened that way would be really strange and backwards (literally, we didn't exist yet) considering how inconsequential we are to the entire universe's existence. i'm not saying it couldn't be intelligently "planned," there's no way to say whether or not that's the case, but it is completely unreasonable to say that it must be purely supernatural. there are mechanics that caused it to be, and we can observe and understand those mechanics. to me, that would make the idea of intelligent design even more amazing, believing that whatever awesome divine force created everything also created an order to everything that lets it govern itself, and that it created that order knowing how it would transpire. isn't that an even better picture of an all-knowing entity?

[WaterOre]

to me, that would make the idea of intelligent design even more amazing, believing that whatever awesome divine force created everything also created an order to everything that lets it govern itself, and that it created that order knowing how it would transpire. isn't that an even better picture of an all-knowing entity?

this is basically how deism works
I was going to say something about how stuff progressed from energy > quarks and leptons > hydrogen > helium > everything else, but it's basically been covered by seventh and otto. I also have no idea where you're pulling your choice of elements and values from, especially considering how relatively heavy phosphorus is and how starting with 12% hydrogen wouldn't let hydrogen currently be the most abundant element in the universe.

[Red Spy]

I also have no idea where you're pulling your choice of elements and values from,

I do believe he pulled it straight out of his ass

[Lego lad]

hes gonna debunk a tv show????????????? ????????????????

[Red Spy]

What

[WaterOre]

What

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory

[Wesley Williams]

Wow, I didn't even see this.

This isn't even correct. Based on what we know about the density/temperature of the early universe (compounded with experiments done at the LHC), the universe didn't just 'start out with atoms'. It was made out of this stuff called quark-gluon plasma, which is kind of like a mushy mix of the stuff that makes up the nuclei of atoms, but dissociated because of the extreme conditions.

That's evading the point. No matter what it started with, it started with a certain determined amount.

I was going to say something about how stuff progressed from energy > quarks and leptons > hydrogen > helium > everything else, but it's basically been covered by seventh and otto. I also have no idea where you're pulling your choice of elements and values from, especially considering how relatively heavy phosphorus is and how starting with 12% hydrogen wouldn't let hydrogen currently be the most abundant element in the universe.

Also evading the point. I have very little clue what the universe was initially made from, just made up some random figures as an example. This point isn't a big deal, I'll just concede it to you guys for now. With so many people fighting me, my logic is likely flawed so I'll continue to work on that argument.

In other news, I just almost got hit by lightning while riding my bike.

[SeventhSandwich]

That's evading the point. No matter what it started with, it started with a certain determined amount.

So? The universe is full of seemingly arbitrary constants. The fact that a number exists without a clear explanation for why doesn't mean 'someone' did it.

In other news, I just almost got hit by lightning while riding my bike.

That's the weather trying to punish you for the carnal sin of misrepresenting modern physics.

[XR-7]

The thing that I don't understand about the skeptics who believe in the secular version of the Big Bang is that they think that nothing exploded into something, yet completely ignore the theory that a creator could be out there to accomplish the exact same feat. Even if there was indeed something that exploded into the universe as we know it today, where could that something have come from? And where could that something have come from? Matter cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed either. With a theory involving a creator, you have a solution to where matter could've come from, but you can't scientifically test that. That creator would also have to have existed infinitely, be of infinite or unfathomable size, and live in another dimension, which you would just kind of have to accept.

Do you call that ignorance? You shouldn't. Seculars believe in the concept of infinite time or else they'd have to overturn the Conservation of Matter because of something that they also cannot test or witness. In other words, many atheists believe in speculation but make fun of people who speculate a god (it's happening in this thread right now). When questioned about your "better views of how things began" (implying before the Big Bang), the only answer that you can give is, "Hey idk but science will find out one day!" There is no logical proof that a creator doesn't exist but there are some hunches that one could exist.