# "Obvious Facts" Debate thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309 "2010-02-02T00:13:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/21 "2010-02-02T02:32:34Z")
> [@](#): > > MEBuckner What I find incredulous is that we know what occurred before the ‘First Stars at 400m years’ mark on this map: Why would that be any more difficult than believing that we know the history of the 13 colonies before the Declaration of Independence? Sure, there weren’t any states back then, but there were things that would later become the states, and we can read things written about them. Likewise, before the point you’re talking about, there were no stars, but there were things that would later become stars. ---
**Author:** ![dragoncat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@dragoncat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dragoncat)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/22 "2010-02-02T05:47:10Z")
Wow, this thread is really confusing to me. Does Genesis or the Big Bang make more “sense”? If by “sense” you mean accordance with the observable world (and universe), then the Big Bang makes more sense. If by “sense” you mean a more entertaining series of narratives, then Genesis makes more sense. But it’s true that neither of them answer the question of “what is underneath the bottom turtle.” ---
**Author:** ![Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/face_intentionally_left_blank/32/288_2.png) [@Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/23 "2010-02-02T09:17:29Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Incidentally, note how _easy_ it is to say “Oh, there’s no evidence for that!”, and how many words it takes to refute such a claim, if one wishes to go beyond just saying “Is too!” Thanks for the effort here, and yes, that last sentence resonates. This is a problem that I’ve noticed here: someone can put forth an idea in a few sentences, but it takes a great deal of time and effort to prove/disprove. Totally independent of whether I agree with the point of a post, I appreciate those of you who make the effort, and all who debate in good faith. An honest debate based in fact, with cites and well-argued points of view, is a learning experience for all who care to partake of it. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/24 "2010-02-02T09:54:25Z")
> [@dragoncat](#): > > But it’s true that neither of them answer the question of “what is underneath the bottom turtle.” As I’m sure you know, it’s turtles all the way down. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/25 "2010-02-02T12:32:24Z")
> [@dragoncat](#): > > But it’s true that neither of them answer the question of “what is underneath the bottom turtle.” The Big Bang theory very much answers this question. There is _nothing_. Which exploded. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/26 "2010-02-02T14:08:24Z")
Is this thread for all the “obvious facts” in that other thread? Because I was interested in seeing what people have to say about the “obvious fact” that men want sex more than women. Not in my experience. In my experience, women are typically horny bastards, and men (well, in my experience, “boys” since I’m talking about when I was in high school) are scared to death of 'em. (Of women, or I guess, “girls,” I mean.) Did I just run with an unusual crowd? I knew at the time that this was different than popular depictions, but I figured popular depictions are often unreliable and that what I was experiencing was actually more typical. But was I wrong? Not looking for anecdotes. Looking for evidence. Studies and the like. (On the other hand, my experience _confirms_ the popular stereotype that women naturally connect sex with affection and commitment while men do not. But that’s just my experience. I’d be interested in seeing the evidence regarding this one as well.) ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/27 "2010-02-02T15:15:14Z")
As for the Big Bang, if you’ve ever watched TV on one of those old analog room antenna sets, you’ve seen it if you’ve tuned in to an empty station – about a percent of the noise you were seeing was caused by the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a direct result of the Big Bang (as **MEBuckner** already said). This isn’t all that different from how we perceive everything else: I know of the house across the street because light emitted by it hits my detector, my retina; I know of the Big Bang because light emitted by it hits my detector, the antenna. If the first is evidence enough to conclude that there in fact is a house across the street, then why should the latter not be evidence enough to conclude that the Big Bang happened? Sure, there are conceivably alternative hypotheses that explain the background radiation; but then, there are alternative hypotheses that explain the house radiation – my window could have been swapped for a high-definition LCD screen, for example; but the noncommittalism of therefore not accepting either hypothesis strikes me as an altogether useless point of view, at least when one wants to be able to make any statements about the world at all. In any case, being able to at least somewhat directly observe the Big Bang certainly puts in on far more solid footing than any of the events described in the book of Genesis. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/28 "2010-02-02T15:52:45Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Why would that be any more difficult than believing that we know the history of the 13 colonies before the Declaration of Independence? Sure, there weren’t any states back then, but there were things that would later become the states, and we can read things written about them. Likewise, before the point you’re talking about, there were no stars, but there were things that would later become stars. I am skeptical that we are able to measure that accurately. That is all. Basically it goes like this. Our understanding of physics and concepts such as redshift are related to how energy interacts in a system where the stars exist and the universe has been expanding at a stable rate. But before the creation of stars, who do we know that particular physical interactions worked the same way we think they should work in a system that has stars? How do we know there is not some universal filtering mechanism that skews the perception completely. How do we know that the formation of stars does not distort our ability to see that far behind us? Comparing this to the colonies is silly for what should be obvious reasons. But I’ll mention the most obvious one anyway, because during the colonies there were people alive who were there, and who wrote down their experiences and passed on the information orally. But to be fair to your comparison, I’ll also note that time has distorted how we perceive that much more recent period in our history. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/29 "2010-02-02T16:07:27Z")
**Mswas** is pulling something I have seen done on the SDMB often enough which is quibbling over the word “know”. Taken to an extreme we can say we cannot “know” anything…even our own existence is, at some level, unprovable. So, since no one was around to take pictures of the Big Bang and blog about it we cannot know anything about it in these people’s view. Taken to a more reasonable level that is a wrongheaded view since a little simple logic can lead you to sound conclusions. We can look at the universe today and see the galaxies are all flying away from each other. So, tomorrow the galaxies will be further apart than they are today. It is then inescapable logic that yesterday they had to be closer together. Now, simply keep winding the clock back further and further and you are led to the unavoidable conclusion that everything had to be in one place in the distant past. With basic physics we know this would be a very hot place and things like stars (much less planets) could not exist. Other properties of what such a place may have been like are founded in well understood physics (up to a point…at the super extremes of temperature and gravity that would have existed I think our math fails but it only fails fractions of a second post Big Bang back to the BB itself). Scientists are not making this stuff up. They have very good and well founded reasons for their views on this matter and, so far, all evidence seems to keep supporting the idea. To assume it was somehow different you need to come up with a testable theory. There are no others however that stand-up to scrutiny. It is true the BB theory is not complete and refinements will be made. As noted it is possible it may be tossed wholesale sometime in the future. Nevertheless it remains a theory that fits neatly with all we do currently know and is not a “guess” by any measure. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/30 "2010-02-02T16:12:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > **Mswas** is pulling something I have seen done on the SDMB often enough which is quibbling over the word “know”. Taken to an extreme we can say we cannot “know” anything…even our own existence is, at some level, unprovable. > > So, since no one was around to take pictures of the Big Bang and blog about it we cannot know anything about it in these people’s view. > > Taken to a more reasonable level that is a wrongheaded view since a little simple logic can lead you to sound conclusions. > > We can look at the universe today and see the galaxies are all flying away from each other. So, tomorrow the galaxies will be further apart than they are today. It is then inescapable logic that yesterday they had to be closer together. Now, simply keep winding the clock back further and further and you are led to the unavoidable conclusion that everything had to be in one place in the distant past. With basic physics we know this would be a very hot place and things like stars (much less planets) could not exist. Other properties of what such a place may have been like are founded in well understood physics (up to a point…at the super extremes of temperature and gravity that would have existed I think our math fails but it only fails fractions of a second post Big Bang back to the BB itself). > > Scientists are not making this stuff up. They have very good and well founded reasons for their views on this matter and, so far, all evidence seems to keep supporting the idea. To assume it was somehow different you need to come up with a testable theory. There are no others however that stand-up to scrutiny. > > It is true the BB theory is not complete and refinements will be made. As noted it is possible it may be tossed wholesale sometime in the future. Nevertheless it remains a theory that fits neatly with all we do currently know and is not a “guess” by any measure. Your entire post was an appeal to authority. And no, I am not arguing for radical espistemology here. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/31 "2010-02-02T16:13:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The Big Bang theory very much answers this question. There is _nothing_. Which exploded. Well, if Hawkings is correct and if the current apparent lack of dark matter appears to be true, then you are correct. If we stumble over the missing dark matter and it is enough to initiate the Big Crunch, then there might be a successive series of crunches and bangs. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/32 "2010-02-02T16:18:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I am skeptical that we are able to measure that accurately. That is all. > > Basically it goes like this. Our understanding of physics and concepts such as redshift are related to how energy interacts in a system where the stars exist and the universe has been expanding at a stable rate. But before the creation of stars, who do we know that particular physical interactions worked the same way we think they should work in a system that has stars? How do we know there is not some universal filtering mechanism that skews the perception completely. How do we know that the formation of stars does not distort our ability to see that far behind us? > > Comparing this to the colonies is silly for what should be obvious reasons. But I’ll mention the most obvious one anyway, because during the colonies there were people alive who were there, and who wrote down their experiences and passed on the information orally. But to be fair to your comparison, I’ll also note that time has distorted how we perceive that much more recent period in our history. How do we know that passing down information worked the same way before the establishment of the colonies? How do we know there is no universal filtering mechanism that, say, changed the way language worked after the colonies were founded? The historical documents you think chronicle Columbus’ voyage maybe just were elaborate recipes for applesauce. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/33 "2010-02-02T16:19:36Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your entire post was an appeal to authority. No it’s not. Look it up. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/34 "2010-02-02T16:53:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > No it’s not. Look it up. The defense rests. **Half-Man-Half-Wit** Actually we know that language DOES change over time and that history is distorted by the retelling of it through the partisan biases of the tellers in the present and more recent past. We can’t even know the recent past that perfectly, and that is more directly observable than the vast universal time-scale that the Big Bang requires. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/35 "2010-02-02T17:12:16Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The defense rests. Then the defense loses. Appeal to authority as a fallacy only applies when the person(s) being appealed to do not actually have the expertise claimed. It is entirely normal and appropriate to cite legitimate experts in a given field. > [@](#): > > This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. > > This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. > > When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one. > > Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted: > > 1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. > > 2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. > > 3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. > > 4. The person in question is not significantly biased. > > 5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. > > 6. The authority in question must be identified. > > SOURCE: [Description of Appeal to Authority](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) I only missed on #6 but that is easily rectified since the vast majority of cosmologists (and other disciplines) accept the Big Bang as the best model we have for this. Note it is not merely one thing…it is [lots of things](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence) all backing up the notion that the BB is correct. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/36 "2010-02-02T17:19:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Then the defense loses. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Appeal to authority as a fallacy only applies when the person(s) being appealed to do not actually have the expertise claimed. It is entirely normal and appropriate to cite legitimate experts in a given field. Except it’s not a valid response to my argument, as what I am questioning is the ability of human beings to know the origins of the universe. Explaining to me what I already know and have already addressed just shows you didn’t actually read the thread before responding. > [@](#): > > I only missed on #6 but that is easily rectified since the vast majority of cosmologists (and other disciplines) accept the Big Bang as the best model we have for this. ‘best model’ so pregnant with meaning. You clearly didn’t listen to anything I said before repeating what about five people said before you. BEST MODEL might be completely inaccurate. > [@](#): > > Note it is not merely one thing…it is [lots of things](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence) all backing up the notion that the BB is correct. Sure. I didn’t say I disbelieve it. If you read what I wrote before you’d know this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/37 "2010-02-02T17:31:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except it’s not a valid response to my argument, as what I am questioning is the ability of human beings to know the origins of the universe. Explaining to me what I already know and have already addressed just shows you didn’t actually read the thread before responding. Then you’re not reading. Big Bang Theory says nothing about the origins of the Universe. It talks about how the Universe evolved over time from a starting point. > [@](#): > > ‘best model’ so pregnant with meaning. You clearly didn’t listen to anything I said before repeating what about five people said before you. > > BEST MODEL might be completely inaccurate. It might be wrong but probably is accurate…or nearly so. Sure some aspects may get tweaked but to fit a multitude of observations so well and turn out to be utterly wrong is unlikely. Particularly since over time, as new data and more refined/accurate data become available, the theory is only strengthened. > [@](#): > > Sure. I didn’t say I disbelieve it. If you read what I wrote before you’d know this. I did read your posts. To wit: _“I don’t believe in the ‘facts’ of the Big Bang anymore than I believe in the ‘facts’ of Genesis.”_ (Post #5) _“Until I can verify it myself or I benefit from some technology that needs the theory to be correct in order to function empirically, I don’t believe it, pretty much.”_ (Post #12) _“And I am skeptical that the vast majority of people who believe in the Big Bang have properly assessed the evidence. Which is precisely what I am saying. I didn’t say I disbelieve it, only that I don’t believe it.”_ (Post #15) So you don’t “disbelieve” it but rather you “don’t believe” it. Talk about doublespeak. :rolleyes: And you can verify this stuff yourself if you were of a mind to. This is not some super secret info people are keeping from you and telling you to accept. The info is out there and you are free to study it as much as you want. If you’d rather not then it behooves you to accept the judgment of the vast majority of experts in the field who have studied it in detail. I even provided a link upthread for you spelling out much of the evidence in layman’s terms and that cite includes its own references for you to check. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/38 "2010-02-02T17:36:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Then you’re not reading. Big Bang Theory says nothing about the origins of the Universe. It talks about how the Universe evolved over time from a starting point. Contradiction in terms. A starting point is known as an origin. > [@](#): > > It might be wrong but probably is accurate…or nearly so. Sure some aspects may get tweaked but to fit a multitude of observations so well and turn out to be utterly wrong is unlikely. Particularly since over time, as new data and more refined/accurate data become available, the theory is only strengthened. Perhaps. > [@](#): > > I did read your posts. To wit: > > _“I don’t believe in the ‘facts’ of the Big Bang anymore than I believe in the ‘facts’ of Genesis.”_ (Post #5) > > _“Until I can verify it myself or I benefit from some technology that needs the theory to be correct in order to function empirically, I don’t believe it, pretty much.”_ (Post #12) > > _“And I am skeptical that the vast majority of people who believe in the Big Bang have properly assessed the evidence. Which is precisely what I am saying. I didn’t say **I disbelieve it, only that I don’t believe it.** ”_ (Post #15) > [@](#): > > So you don’t “disbelieve” it but rather you “don’t believe” it. Talk about doublespeak. :rolleyes: Just repurposing the atheist language. > [@](#): > > And you can verify this stuff yourself if you were of a mind to. This is not some super secret info people are keeping from you and telling you to accept. The info is out there and you are free to study it as much as you want. If you’d rather not then it behooves you to accept the judgment of the vast majority of experts in the field who have studied it in detail. I even provided a link upthread for you spelling out much of the evidence in layman’s terms and that cite includes its own references for you to check. Yes, I could conceivably learn the math necessary to do so. But it doesn’t really matter if I do or not. It doesn’t matter if I believe it or not. It doesn’t behoove me to accept anything as there is no necessity for me to understand the origins of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/39 "2010-02-02T17:50:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Contradiction in terms. A starting point is known as an origin. No it isn’t. Indeed it is a critical difference. People argue against Evolution (in part) because they cannot believe life was created out of the primordial soup. Thing is Evolution says nothing about how life started. It only talks about how life changes over time. This is not a nitpick, it is a critical distinction. So too with the Big Bang. It says nothing about what caused the Big Bang or what was “before” or why it happened. It only talks about how the Universe evolved over time after the BB went bang. > [@](#): > > Perhaps. It is silly to look at the obvious trend in the information and bet against it. Over 80 years all sorts of disciplines have been adding to the pile of evidence with ever better and more refined tests and repeatedly the BB theory has withstood the new evidence and, in fact, been strengthened. > [@](#): > > Just repurposing the atheist language. I do not know what this means. > [@](#): > > Yes, I could conceivably learn the math necessary to do so. But it doesn’t really matter if I do or not. It doesn’t matter if I believe it or not. It doesn’t behoove me to accept anything as there is no necessity for me to understand the origins of the universe. If you refuse to educate yourself on a subject and refuse to accept the notions of people who are educated in a subject then you should refrain from talking about it at all. If you want to be willfully ignorant on a subject that is your call but then you have given up any pretense of having a worthy opinion of your own on it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309/40 "2010-02-02T17:53:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > C > > Just repurposing the atheist language. Give us half as much evidence for any god as we have for the Big Bang theory, and also half as many predictions which are verified, and you’d have a point. Atheists don’t naysay, we ask for data, which is oddly lacking. > [@](#): > > Yes, I could conceivably learn the math necessary to do so. But it doesn’t really matter if I do or not. It doesn’t matter if I believe it or not. It doesn’t behoove me to accept anything as there is no necessity for me to understand the origins of the universe. True. But if you spend your time posting about it, you should at least learn enough about it to not seem silly. You don’t need math, I suck at differential equations, but I certainly understand enough of the theory and its implications to be convinced. As for knowing the past, do you think we know enough about some murder to convict someone of it? We can’t go back and observe that either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obvious-facts-debate-thread/527309.md?page=3)