Forum

I'm just observing your dialogue from the sidelines, and I get the impression that you haven't even bothered to read the wiki article; it's just some kind of populism. It's really just a theory, but it's quite well-structured and logical. And you're talking about factories and airplanes. It's completely irrelevant, seriously. In this case, it might seem that you're the one with a cognitive dissonance, not your opponents.

I've read the article on Wikipedia more than once. And I can't even imagine a more absurd theory. The problem is that we are being misled by absurd theories, and we swallow them without even trying to understand them.

Populism (from Latin populus – people) is a political position or rhetorical style that appeals to broad popular masses.

I'm just pointing out that we, the people, are being misled by using the authority of official academic science. They are counting on the fact that we won't try to delve into the essence of the theories that official academic science offers us.

The thing is that the "Big Bang Theory" is just a theory that has no basis in terms of structure and logic. And yet, they present it to us as the main, dominant, and most authoritative version of the universe's formation (while excluding the divine version of the universe's creation – this is the goal of the creators of this Big Bang theory) – and who is doing this? The International Academy of Sciences!

Where did you see the structure and logic???
What, in your opinion, is the logic of the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory states that the universe originated from a point with zero volume, infinite density, and infinite temperature as a result of an explosion. This state, which exploded with tremendous force, was called a singularity. But this singularity not only cannot be mathematically described but also does not obey any known law of physics.

1) What is this point? Where did this point come from?
Has anyone ever encountered a zero volume from which a harmonious structure with infinite volume arises? And all this as a result of an explosion.
Can something come from nothing?

2) An explosion can only destroy!

Please give at least one example in which an explosion can create a harmonious structure or a harmonious complex object?!

3) If we assume that the universe was created by an explosion, and that the explosion created a strictly regular structure, then we can assume that a spaceship can be built using the explosion of an aircraft factory. These are equivalent statements, and the absurdity of the second is obvious to everyone, but the absurdity of the first is somehow not even considered.

4) In addition, no existing theory can explain how galaxies, planets, and stars arose from a homogeneous gas? And even the formation of our solar system is still a mystery for modern science.

5) According to Nobel laureate Weinberg, "The origin of galaxies is one of the most difficult problems in astrophysics, which is still far from being solved."

And yet, this theory, like many other "scientific" theories existing in official academic science, is presented as an absolute reality.
_________
Modern science describes the processes that occur in nature, describes the laws, but it cannot currently explain the nature of the described phenomena and laws (why the laws are exactly as they are). Who is this legislator whose laws physics describes and studies?
If we assume that the universe has a разумный creator, wouldn't he have created an instruction manual for it? Wouldn't it be logical to study the instructions from the chief designer?
If I buy a complex mechanical or electrical device, and I have no experience with it, wouldn't it be logical to read the instructions from the creator of this device?

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
In the kindly moderated part of my previous message, Lider1 claims that the statements I make are inadequate and stupid, in general, nonsense.
In my response, there was no rudeness or flooding; I asked him on what basis he considers this or that statement to be nonsense?

Well, he probably means 1) 650 million warriors that don't fit into his understanding of reality, and 2) elephants that were launched into Earth orbit, for which there is evidence in the form of testimonies from astronauts on the Mir station – this also does not fit into our understanding of reality. 3) Huge, unsinkable stones weighing 10, 15, or 20 tons, with the word "Rama" written on them in Sanskrit, which are found in the Indian and Atlantic oceans. These stones contradict the official theory of physics today, and if we recognize the existence of such stones – the nature of which modern physics, modern science, cannot explain – then we will have to admit the invalidity of the current academic science. But academics, doctors of science, professors with degrees, positions, and respect cannot do this. These are all the facts that modern science cannot explain and that are being kept silent. (In 20–30 years, I think these archives will be declassified)
Although they may not be declassified, for example, the fact that the Leningrad blockade was organized by the Soviet government itself, which has not yet been officially declassified. The fact that no one has ever flown to the moon, that no lunar rover has ever been on the moon (neither Soviet nor American) is also a secret. The fact that the budget in Russia, America, and Germany allocated for research on extraterrestrial civilizations is 10 times greater than the budget of these countries is also a secret. There are hundreds of such facts.
I make certain statements and provide certain evidence; you disagree with them – that is your right.
But at the same time, Lider1 makes statements that all this is nonsense, without providing any arguments in favor of this:
If you call something nonsense, then at least provide some arguments; otherwise, how can we have a constructive dialogue?
1) Inadequacy, nonsense #1 – why is this nonsense – the basis, and your vision of the question.
2) Inadequacy, nonsense #2 – why is this nonsense – the basis, and your vision of the question.
etc.

________________________________________
Before that, I said:
1) If there is a concept, then there is also an object that is described by this concept. If there were no God, then there would be no concept of God.

The thought is absolutely incorrect and illogical.
If the roof is wet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's raining.

That's right, if the roof is wet, it doesn't necessarily mean it's raining. But what does this have to do with it?

I was saying that if there are such concepts as a roof, rain, and wetness, then there are also objects described by these concepts.

2) Atheism is a form of perceiving God through its denial.
If there were no God, then there would be nothing to deny.

Please give an example of at least one statement in which something that does not exist in nature, in the universe, or with God is denied.
1) ?