The Evidence and Explanation of The Big Bang Theory

It's a pretty good joke to not believe such a complex and interesting idea, and instead opt for a more simple and stupid idea.

>instead opt for a more simple and stupid idea

Like "I think, therefore I am thus I exist"[sic]?

You should post this in Veeky Forums. I'd love to see their opinion on it.

go now

>"I think therefore I am, thus I exist" presupposes data exists and logic exists.

The statement "I think therefore I am", if true, presupposes a great deal, including that logical entailment can "say" something about the nature of reality.

>‘I think’ is an example of a piece of data. Before this phrase could be uttered, data must exist.

On it's own, the statement 'I think' merely proposes the fact, or datum, that some subject thinks. Whether or not this is the case requires further demonstration. You cannot infer that 'data' 'exists' just based on the proposition 'I think'.

>‘therefore’ and ‘thus’ are examples of invocations of logic. Before this reasoning could be attempted, logic must exist.

They are conventions for expressing entailment in natural language. That such conventions are used does not entail platonic objects, just as my using a chair, or rather being able to utter the conventional term 'chair' and have it understood that I mean some object used for sitting, does not entail that there is some ideal object of which my utterance and the object to which I refer is but a mere shadow.

Should I keep going?

Actually, you can. For a hypothetical statement to be made, you assert that the data it represents hypothetically exists. Therefore, in accordance with the argument, data MUST exist, or the argument cannot have a form of any kind, and thus cannot be made.

Actually, that's pretty much wrong. We could define chair more specifically and then create an epitomized version of that ideal that would indeed make all previous chairs mere shadows of the true idea of a chair - if such an idea were possible our current idea would be itself a shadow.

You are completely wrong, what I describe is Set Theory - the set of Logic contains anything which is completely consistent with all principles of logic and thus all other logic. The set of data contains a very finite amount of physical data and an infinite amount of theoretical data.

These sets, as the theoretical possible variations of their master ideas (data and logic) can be said to exist theoretically if each concept can be said to exist objectively. I prove that both exist objectively, and thus I prove the origin of this perceived 'existence'.

Hahahah yeah okay mate
>implying you would know what objective reality was if you weren't in it and didn't know that.

I have posted it in Sci already.

>For a hypothetical statement to be made, you assert that the data it represents hypothetically exists.

Okay.

>Therefore, in accordance with the argument, data MUST exist, or the argument cannot have a form of any kind, and thus cannot be made

No. At best, a single datum--'I think'--is TRUE, not 'existent'. Facts aren't things; they are statements about the world.

>what I describe is Set Theory

No, you don't.

>the set of Logic

Blegh.

>all other logic

Let's grant that 'Logic' can be described as a set, and in fact that set which subsumes all those 'principles of logic' under itself. In that case, there is no 'other logic', only the set 'Logic'.

>The set of data contains a very finite amount of physical data and an infinite amount of theoretical data.

Just like there are an infinite number of possible fat men wearing a hat in my doorway. Can we say these infinite fat men with hats 'exist', even if they're only 'possible'?

> We could define chair more specifically

Then you have a determined concept of chair, which cannot be a platonic Idea, being determined.

>These sets, as the theoretical possible variations of their master ideas (data and logic) can be said to exist theoretically if each concept can be said to exist objectively.

Neither being physical objects, you cannot even prove theoretically that these 'master Ideas' exist.

>I prove that both exist objectively

You don't. You can't.

>and thus I prove the origin of this perceived 'existence'.

lol

lol look at all this shit:

>Life's nature is to survive

>Proof by contradiction:

>Premises (2): Life's nature is not to survive; Life exists

>Step 1. Life does not survive, thus life does not exist

>Step 2. Therefore, either life's nature is to survive, or life does not exist.

>Step 3. Since life exists, life's nature is to survive.

>Conclusion: Life's nature is to survive so that life may exist.

Jesus.

>Rocks' nature is not to survive, but rocks exist
>If rocks' do not survive, rocks do not exist
>rocks exist
>therefore it is the nature of rocks to survive

>I

Rocks exist without surviving; they do not require action to maintain existence in their current state. We do. There is a distinction.
Plus, rocks aren't alive... therefore, there is an obvious distinction.

If something is true, then a concept must exist to make that thing true. Data cannot be true if data does not exist. It is not true and it is not false, or any other value, and it is not even technically valueless, because it doesn't even exist to possibly hold a value.

Yes, I do. You can't just contradict me, you need to justify how I don't...

Blegh? lmao
There is 'reasoning' which is an attempt at logic which is not necessarily in the set of logic. Correct reasoning, which is also contained in the set of all reasoning, intersects with the set of Logic because they are the same definition - correct reasoning IS logic.

Theoretically, yes, you can.

What do you mean by platonic idea? If there is a determined definition of what something is, and the version you have is not comprehensively consistent with that definition, then you do not have a thing of that type, or you have a thing which is a shadow of that type - similar at best.

Yes, I can, by demonstrating as I have that the objective existence of manifestations of the concepts necessitates conceptual space.

I don't? I can't?
I fucking did idiot. Read it. It's near the end, in my explanation for how. I have a proof for Data existing objectively. Then I use that to prove logic exists objectively. And then I use those proofs to explain this existence as theoretical.
Read it and weep.

>Rocks exist without surviving; they do not require action to maintain existence in their current state. We do. There is a distinction.

Yes, but your argument was basically 'life exists, therefore it is the nature of life to CONTINUE its existence' which is obviously not entailed, as my replacing the term 'life' with 'rocks' demonstrated.

>If something is true, then a concept must exist to make that thing true

Oy. I can see how tedious this could become if I were to commit myself to it. I don't feel like putting myself through that, so I won't.

If I post in this thread, OP licks the cheesy discharge out of overworked porn actors' anuses fur for a living
I am posting in this thread
Therefore etc.

QED FAGGIT

The only WAY for life to exist is to continue existing. Rocks continue existing without trying. Life does not.

You are wrong mate, you're not avoiding tedium; you are avoiding admitting that you're wrong.

Yeah goddem :)