I call this issue a draw.
How? What points did you score?
It's like an algebraic equation. If both sides of the argument have the same weaknesses we can cross them out of the equation. I don't know how a Creator would cause the universe you don't know how unintended forces unintentionally caused the universe that supports life.
To simplify we can cross that off either theory. I might add the OP was really just a gotcha question.
But both sides do NOT have the same weaknesses. At all.
There is a lot of math that help understand +1 second, which can allow estimation of the existence of what happened before.
Then you say things like,
They infer the existence of a singularity
As if inference is not supported by evidence that makes it plausible.
That is how human knowledge and development work. As I described in detail above, inferences lead us to figuring out what experiment to test. A lot of people have done a lot of work on this.
The non-god explanation has a LOT of supporting data behind its inference.
The god explanation does not infer, it simply fabricates. You have no data or analog to explain “this is what we see that supports this idea.”
and then you say things like this:
that operates outside of the laws of physics that hadn't yet come into existence.
Which is a complete bastardization of the actual science, which never says the laws had not come into existence, it says, they do not apply at those conditions. They are still there.
It’s like you saying that whenever we look at atomic forces, gravity stops existing. No, it doesn’t. It just fails to have any effect at atomic levels. It’s still there. It’s still a force that is true.
I don’t know if you read these words and take anything away from them, learning a little more about science as you ride your “one god” horse around the plains, or if you will talk tomorrow as if the words had never been said today. Evidence so far in this thread suggests that none of the science that has been explained to you, will ever earn a dwelling place in your beliefs; because that space is occupied by a straw man that you feel you have vanquished and keep in a box there.
For others reading - Drew’s assertions have been met with data. And he appears to be singing Lalalala with his fingers in his ears, only to then say, “your evidence is just as weak as mine.” Don’t buy what he’s selling - it is willful ignorance.
Drew - this is not a draw. The arguments are not equally weak.
Your arguments are “because it’s god” and that somehow you know about it, and somehow you know what it did, and somehow you know there is one and not many… because… you observe things that you won’t talk about.
While science says: this is how the universe around us behaves. This is how it behaves when it looks more like what we are proposing as an early point. This is how the late behavior and mid behavior and the early behavior compare. This is what it would look like if we extend that line. All of the observatons agree on that direction. We have some gaps that we continue to study And test against what we know of stars, dense stars, very dense stars, dense objects that are not stars, small black holes, large black holes and very large black holes. This gives us a
really solid backdrop for our hypotheses.
And then we look back at you saying, “I can’t know what that one god did because what do I know, but I’ll tell you I know it’s one god!”
Nothing else we do on this planet or in this life would survive such a careless approach. Indeed, we would not long survive if we used that approach in any other endeavor.
