|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3864 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
A forest fire certainly is more complex than the spark that started it, or perhaps you have never been in one.
The evidence though is overwhelming that many causes are insignificant, trivial and transient.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You are making a claim that there is some Designer or Creator God, yet seem unwilling to present evidence of such a critter. And yes, if you did bring such a critter in for examination it would show that it was not anything supernatural.
That is exactly why is is so silly and sophomoric to try to make a claim of evidence of God. I certainly am not ridiculing you, only the ideas that you have presented.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4553 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
Well, yes, he is a CP! I would have assumed you would have inferred that from the information I had already given you. I wasn't attempting to hide that fact! But as for being a scientist, he has a doctorate from Cambridge,and has spent a lifetime doing scientific research. Yes, he holds a worldview that includes a Creator and apparently includes Western Thinking. Maybe this doesn't qualify him as a scientist to you.
Do you believe that one cannot a scientist if he holds a different worldview than yours? I know some believe that only one worldview is welcome in the scientific community, to say nothing of the intellectual community as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
but design theory in some form has been around the longest, so the idea that the burden of proof rests with design just because someone says so doesn't make sense. The BB is not free of the burden of proof, which is why you'll find scientists working to provide evidence of it.
Many, many people have believed in a creator since the beginning of humanity, and believe they have seen evidence of His existence.
By creator you mean the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Odin the Allfather right?God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4553 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
I think fine tuning is reasonable evidence for a designer. I think the personal experiences of so many people who have encountered Him (eyewitness accounts) are reasonable evidence (though I know it is much easier and more convenient to mock these people than consider that they might actually be intelligent...although, if you read, for example, an epistle of the apostle Paul, you might disagree with him; you might find him narrow and trite, but you may find it very hard to believe that he was nothing more than a moron who was willing to die for a faith for which he had no evidence). I think the Cambrian explosion is at least interesting in relation to the design concept. I do not have physical proof...but neither do you. We each know of evidence that we believe to be reliable. Who is to say my evidence is less reliable than yours? According to my worldview, it is infinitely more reliable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3864 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Your argument so far hinges on asserting, without proof, statement #2: "If the universe has existed for a finite amount of time (Q), then the universe had a beginning (P)"
Not true. I never made that argument. The argument I quoted was this:Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. I also discussed the history of Big Bang Theory from its theoretical origins to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is nearly universally seen as observational evidence of the big bang, the beginning of our spacetime/universe. The answers to your questions regarding the conservation of energy would only apply after the big bang and not before. The physical laws of our universe only apply to our universe. You cannot expect them to apply before the universe came into existence. Yes, I agree in the present universe that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by or in nature. I accept the universe is a closed system, except, of course, to the creator God or Designer who can do whatever he wants when he wants, but such actions would be miracles because they would violate the natural physical laws. I am uncertain of your meaning regarding the wider system of which the universe is a smaller part? The conservation of energy would only fail upon the action of the creator God or Designer to create or destroy matter-energy. Sorry I was not able to respond more fully earlier. I was trying to get the post Message 49 prepared and was pressed for time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Obviously, a forest fire from a lighted match does not meet the requirement because it results in less complexity. I'm eager to hear your answer! Please explain how a burnt forest is less complex than an unburnt forest. I am eager to hear your answer.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
where as evolution is a relatively new theory Do you have an understanding of what a scientific theory is? Hint, it is not a conjecture or hypothesis.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4553 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
Right, and if the BB is not free of the burden of proof, how is it any more solid than design theory? Which is actually kind of beside the point, because the BB and design theory are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.
And yes, that is exactly what I mean. Different variations on the same theory, some seemingly ridiculous, some seemingly more plausible. Kind of like BB theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
he has a doctorate from Cambridge His PhD is in the history and philosophy of science. That does not make him a scientist.
and has spent a lifetime doing scientific research. Then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a raft of peer reviewed papers he's written.
Yes, he holds a worldview that includes a Creator and apparently includes Western Thinking. Maybe this doesn't qualify him as a scientist to you. If his "worldview" directs his view of the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead him to his conclusions, he's not a scientist. Scientists don't begin with a conclusion then bend the evidence to fit within that conclusion. They try to conform their conclusions to the evidence.
Do you believe that one cannot a scientist if he holds a different worldview than yours? No, I believe someone cannot be a scientist if he doesn't follow the scientific method. Meyer doesn't. He can hold any "worldview" he wants, but if he doesn't follow the scientific method, he's not a scientist.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4553 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
Yes, I understand. But thanks for clarifying anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Right, and if the BB is not free of the burden of proof, how is it any more solid than design theory?
No theory is free from the burden of proof, scientists constantly work to either support or tear down established theories. What makes the BB more solid than any of the design "theories" is the work of scientists that support it.God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Well you certainly do not act as if you do. Why don't you humor me and give me your understanding of what a scientific theory is? It would certainly make discussions easier if we knew we had a common understanding of scientific theory.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Do you believe that one cannot a scientist if he holds a different worldview than yours? I know some believe that only one worldview is welcome in the scientific community, to say nothing of the intellectual community as a whole.
What qualifies one as a scientist is following the scientific method. Credentials are nice but all the credentials in the world won't make a creationist into a scientist if the scientific method isn't followed. (We see a lot of that.)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3864 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I'm curious for your response to Son: He/she showed (with maths) Message 33 that there does not need to be a designer. No, he didn’t show that. I have responded to his comment. You are welcome to read it. Next, you question whether my comments follow from the Davies quote I cited. Let’s do this again. Davies writes:
If there was no time (or place) before the big bang for a causative agency to exist, then we can attribute no physical cause to the big bang. Note the word physical in the sentence. Davies is correct. Because the big bang happened before a physical universe existed, we cannot attribute a physical cause. I am saying we can attribute and, in my opinion, must attribute an unphysical (or immaterial) cause. In the same way because the big bang happened before time was created, the big bang must have been caused by a being which is timeless or eternal. Does my explanation go beyond what Davies was willing to write? Certainly. But I also think you can see the logic of my conclusions. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024