Simpleminded Proof of Non-existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_S_Saint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James_S_Saint

Guest
  1. Scientist cannot see anything before the Big Bang
  2. What scientists cannot see does not exist
  3. Therefore, before the Big Bang, nothing existed.
:rolleyes:

This is supported further by;
  1. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing to cause mass and energy flow, no laws of physics
  2. Before the Big Bang, nothing existed fore it had no cause (those laws)
  3. God is the Cause of the universe
  4. Therefore before the Big Bang, there was no God. :eek:
:rolleyes:

{people REALLY need to be careful thinking like scientists}
 
  1. Scientist cannot see anything before the Big Bang
  2. What scientists cannot see does not exist
  3. Therefore, before the Big Bang, nothing existed
This is really not a good way to think. It can lead to some fallacious scenarios.

For instance

1: Scientist cannot see own brain.
2: What scientists cannot see does not exist.
3: Therefore, the scientist does not have a brain.

(Now that’s sort of uncharitable, so if you’re talking about a real person use something else like lung)
 
This is really not a good way to think. It can lead to some fallacious scenarios.

For instance

1: Scientist cannot see own brain.
2: What scientists cannot see does not exist.
3: Therefore, the scientist does not have a brain.

(Now that’s sort of uncharitable, so if you’re talking about a real person use something else like lung)
Lol! I think the OP knows… he’s mocking this logical argument. See his little sarcastic smily? :rolleyes:
 
Let me fix this for those that do not understand the scientific method :p. 😃
  1. Scientist cannot see anything before the Big Bang
  2. What scientists cannot make any *SCIENTIFIC *claims about that which is unobservable/untestable.
  3. Therefore there is no general consensus among scientists regarding what existed before the big bang.
It is worth pointing out that it has always been better to wait for evidence before drawing conclusions, than it has been to make up unfounded, unsupported, mythical claims.
 
It is worth pointing out that it has always been better to wait for evidence before drawing conclusions, than it has been to make up unfounded, unsupported, mythical claims.
Nor deny any claims that have already been put forth as “mythical”. But then if you understood “scientific method”, you would have already known that. 😛

Of course, those speaking for Science tend to make up all kinds of claims that Science has actually said nothing about. I suspect it is that inherent arrogance thing, “if we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist”. Some things require thought in order to “see”.
 
** “if we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist”. Some things require thought in order to “see”.**
LOL i guess you didn’t read the three lines you missed when you quoted me.

2) What scientists cannot make any SCIENTIFIC claims about that which is unobservable/untestable.
3) Therefore there is no general consensus among scientists regarding what existed before the big bang.


Hmm i cant see where i said “if we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist”? :rolleyes:
 
Can see nothing before the Big Bang “party” took place:D

Then if nothing existed before this HUGE event,Where in blue bloody blazes did the gases and dust and all the other stuff come from that made up this Bang?🤷

Scientist give me a head-ache:banghead:
But they also amuse me:rotfl:
 
Can see nothing before the Big Bang “party” took place:D

Then if nothing existed before this HUGE event,Where in blue bloody blazes did the gases and dust and all the other stuff come from that made up this Bang?🤷

Scientist give me a head-ache:banghead:
But they also amuse me:rotfl:
OMG, ok really really slowly…

THERE IS NOT A GENERAL CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS THAT NOTHING EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BAG! :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top