real life wrote:Your concept of a 'singularity' preceding the BB is a supernatural explanation of origins.
Why?
Because as postulated, said singularity was not subject to the laws of our physical universe, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that such a thing EVER actually existed. None.
What else would you call something for which there is no evidence (the BEST that can be said is that , since a negative cannot be proven , then it COULDA happened, yeah it MIGHTA been there) and which is not subject to the physical laws of our universe?
It's supernatural by definition. Deal with it.
Do you consider a belief in the supernatural to be a 'scientific view'?
This is a clear cut example of your habitual distortion of definitions. You insist upon using the word "supernatural" because you know that you can most readily associate that with your imaginary friend superstition.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines supernatural as follows:
Quote:supernatural
Main Entry:
su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date:
15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
(emphasis has been added)
You want to insist on supernatural, not because of the ordinary meaning of definition two, " . . . so as to
appear to transcend the laws of nature;" rather, you want to be able to insist upon your imaginary friend, you want to imply the second part of definition one, " . . . especially . . . of or relating to God . . ."
With the simple-minded dualism upon which you always operate, you want to set up a situation in which you can say that if science cannot explain something, if it cannot be accounted for in terms of the laws of nature as they are presently known, that something is therefore by default the product of the will of your imaginary friend, of your God.
As you will acknowledge yourself, if you are willing to be honest, on the "other side" of a singularity, we would not know what laws of nature obtain. Given that the thesis is that space/time did not exist until the singularity "blew up," natural laws as we understand the term did not exist. That makes it other than natural, non-natural, unnatural--but you want to insist upon "supernatural," because you're attempting to shoehorn this into your imaginary friend superstition.
This is typical of your dishonesty, and the very narrow, limited view which your unreconstructed christian dualism gives you. It never matters what the topic of a dispute is, your underlying thesis is that if science cannot explain it, then by default your personal, preferred superstitious explanation is the correct one.
By the way, words
do get defined by consensus, and language will not work unless people adhere to a system of most commonly understood definitions. What is really hilarious, though, it to see
you attempting to take anyone else to task for how they define terms.
.
