Quote:
Originally Posted by alanX
I can't.
There's no proof in any of this. The big bang is trying to explain something, but it definitely isn't proof.
You can't "answer me." We will never have "proof" for the answer of the question I asked, therefore, you can't answer. (Going by your principal that everything need's proof.)
Don't really know the point you're trying to make here.
"Prove" to me that things don't need a source. You can't. Just as I can't.
|
I don't need to disprove something that isn't proven. The way we see the world, the reality, it seems as things don't have a source... they just transform via chemical reactions. There is a law we learn at chemistry in school which is
"Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transforming". From our observations, we made that. So it's you who needs to prove the different way.
Now, the Big Bang is a theory. The LHC Collider is a test to prove if it's true or not. Until then, nobody takes it for true, because you have no proof at all, no observations, no witnesses, it's a plain human idea that logically seems to be right.
I prefer the Big Bounce theory tbh.