Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

No one is claiming that a universe filled with photons is nothing, but rather the final step in the evolution of the universe we live in. The claim is that there was nothing and then the big bang happened. After that, it evolved according to the laws of physics and will continue to do so forever.

There will not be an equilibrium because as the universe continues to expand and density decreases, the photons we're talking about become ever more dispersed. Eventually, there may even be empty regions of space large enough for the process to start all over again, resulting in new big bangs, though I admit that last bit is speculative.

There will thermodynamic equilibrium which means no more work can be extracted from the universe. Maximum entropy. I don't know what you call that other than "nothing". It's very much speculative because it can't be tested. It in no way addresses the "why" question people want answers too.
 
Last edited:
There will thermodynamic equilibrium which means no more work can be extracted from the universe. Maximum entropy. I don't know what you call that other than "nothing". It's very much speculative because it can't in be tested. It in no way addresses the "why" question people want answers too.
There's no intent to address the why, only the how. And no, it's not speculative. The point of religion is to invent the why. You're welcome to do the same. If you're trying to understand reality, you need to observe and reason, not make shit up.

The big bang theory doesn't just explain the past, it predicts the future, and none of these predictions are contradicted by what has been observed up to now; and a fuck of a lot has been observed.
 
There's no intent to address the why, only the how. And no, it's not speculative. The point of religion is to invent the why. You're welcome to do the same. If you're trying to understand reality, you need to observe and reason, not make shit up.

The big bang theory doesn't just explain the past, it predicts the future, and none of these predictions are contradicted by what has been observed up to now; and a fuck of a lot has been observed.
Untestable ideas Andy, you know this.

Best guess framework
 
Sounds like that’s a fancy way of saying, “explain away the magic”. There’s tons of magic in the New Testament too. Did Jesus perform magic or was that also highly stylized and crafted for the authors theological purposes?


If you're uneducated and you project your modern bias onto the literature you can think that I guess... but that's your problem. And I notice you keep jumping from point to point playing gotcha... how about admit you've been wrong about everything you've said up until now and address that?

You were wrong about Joe Rogan's position so you switched to...
Being wrong about the term 'faith" and how its used so you switched to...
Being wrong about the genre of literature you tried to use as a gotcha revealing you don't know the first thing about Christians interpretations of the old testament.


It's kind of pathetic man. And I get it. You're stuck in the '90s being an atheist edge Lord, but you might want to let that tendency fade into obscurity like all the other losers who lost their followings.

Most people have decided you're the biggest assholes on the internet. Stop trying so hard to prove them right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Untestable ideas Andy, you know this.

Best guess framework
Ah, le sigh.

Consider this,
"As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium."

A proper scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested experimentally.

Newton's three laws of motion weren't proved wrong by Einstein; they were refined and expanded upon. If we successfully expand upon the big bang theory, that will not prove it wrong either.
 
I laughed at first.

But now truly think you should stop typing on this.
are you unaware of what many mathematicians say the odds are that the universe was NOT created by something? its pretty crazy math man and in part is why so many quantum physicists are asking other quantum physicists to stop using the many worlds fabrication/mythology to explain it away.


just so you know... I don't put any stock one way or another in the latest science because I know it can and indeed may change but as it stands now the odds are for a creator.
 
Easy to say that about most subjects if you wish to remain ignorant.

He went from "I would never have Trump on because I don't want to help or humanize him" to "Yeah I just want to have a conversation".

You know why? Because Theo had him on first. Can't handle being the number 2 guy, especially to another comedian who Rogan himself brought out to the public sphere.

You dont even make any sense in your own bizarro world. If it was so important for Rogan to be first, he would have been first. Its not like he was incapable of doing it prior to Theo having him on. But this is how bias works. You have your conclusion first and work backwards so everything "fits".
 
No dummy. You didn't follow. The Big Bang Theory could be part of Intelligent Design. Please follow along.

The exceptional amount of extreme outliers required to make it just a chance occurrence from chaos requires absolute extreme faith. To be an Atheist means you defy Math.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.
 
are you unaware of what many mathematicians say the odds are that the universe was NOT created by something? its pretty crazy math man and in part is why so many quantum physicists are asking other quantum physicists to stop using the many worlds fabrication/mythology to explain it away.


just so you know... I don't put any stock one way or another in the latest science because I know it can and indeed may change but as it stands now the odds are for a creator.
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

And like I said earlier, just as Newton was not proved wrong by Einstein, but improved upon, similarly, the Big Bang Theory may be improved upon, but it will not be proved wrong.
 
"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

And like I said earlier, just as Newton was not proved wrong by Einstein, but improved upon, similarly, the Big Bang Theory may be improved upon, but it will not be proved wrong.
this has nothing to do with my post.
 
Ah, le sigh.

Consider this,
"As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium."

A proper scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested experimentally.

Newton's three laws of motion weren't proved wrong by Einstein; they were refined and expanded upon. If we successfully expand upon the big bang theory, that will not prove it wrong either.
There is still a leap of faith involved in this theory. You know it, I know it.
 
this has nothing to do with my post.
Of course it does. You said, "...as it stands now the odds are for a creator." That's just making shit up out of whole cloth. There is an explanation for everything in the universe without having to resort to the existence of a creator to explain it. If a creator is not necessary, why would it be more likely than not?

As I posted earlier (more than once), if you want to believe a creator set the starting conditions of this universe, go for it, but it's nothing more than a belief. There's no evidence any creator had a hand in the evolution of the universe after that, hence the Hawking quote.
 
Of course it does. You said, "...as it stands now the odds are for a creator." That's just making shit up out of whole cloth. There is an explanation for everything in the universe without having to resort to the existence of a creator to explain it. If a creator is not necessary, why would it be more likely than not?

As I posted earlier (more than once), if you want to believe a creator set the starting conditions of this universe, go for it, but it's nothing more than a belief. There's no evidence any creator had a hand in the evolution of the universe after that, hence the Hawking quote.
. Fine-Tuning Argument
Mathematicians and physicists note that the constants of nature (like gravity, cosmological constant, etc.) appear exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

The probability of all these constants falling into the narrow range required for life by chance is often claimed to be astronomically small — figures like 1 in 10^60 or 1 in 10^120 are sometimes quoted.

Some interpret this as evidence for a Creator or intelligent designer, because chance alone seems so unlikely.

3. Roger Penrose's Estimate
Nobel-winning mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the universe beginning in a low-entropy state (which allows for life) as about 1 in 10^(10^123).

He wasn't arguing for a Creator, but this number is often cited by theists to say that the conditions for life are so unlikely that they suggest design.
 
. Fine-Tuning Argument
Mathematicians and physicists note that the constants of nature (like gravity, cosmological constant, etc.) appear exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

The probability of all these constants falling into the narrow range required for life by chance is often claimed to be astronomically small — figures like 1 in 10^60 or 1 in 10^120 are sometimes quoted.

Some interpret this as evidence for a Creator or intelligent designer, because chance alone seems so unlikely.

3. Roger Penrose's Estimate
Nobel-winning mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the universe beginning in a low-entropy state (which allows for life) as about 1 in 10^(10^123).

He wasn't arguing for a Creator, but this number is often cited by theists to say that the conditions for life are so unlikely that they suggest design.
I call your fine-tuning argument and raise you the anthropic principle.
 
Back
Top