Summations Only

Can you provide any evidence for your claim? A link maybe?

Just out of curiosity; does your designer have a name? Zeus maybe? Vishnu, Marduk or Odin, or the FSM perhaps? Or is the big bang perhaps compatible with multiple gods? If not, how do you know?Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

Do you understand that your view is atypical? Perhaps atypical is not a strong enough word. Your view is 180 degrees from the most common interpretation of the big bang. Do you realize that?You have a wrong idea about what the physical laws really mean.Here's a quote for you:
"Scientific laws do not prescribe what must happen; they describe what has happened. The earth does not go round the sun because Newton's (or Einstein's) law makes it, or tells it to. The earth goes its own way, and the scientific laws are our generalized way of describing how it goes. All that they prescribe are our expectations." — Donald MacKay, The Clockwork ImageWhen we say energy and matter are not created or destroyed, this mean when matter is annihilated, energy is released. Nothing is lost. Also, matter does not just pop into existence unannounced. It is not likely you will go off to work in the morning and come home at night and find a pony in your living room. That kind of thing does not happen in our universe. (BTW, in Fred Hoyle's steady bang theory, matter was being created all the time.)Logic tells us if there was a big bang, there has to be a Big Banger. The laws of the universe are not able to limit the Big Banger or prevent him or her from doing anything. The created thing is not more powerful than the creator.

Which one? The one about Jastrow saying something about the supernatural being a proven fact? From: A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982.The one about supernatural forces not being a proven fact? There are no links because supernatural forces are not a proven fact. If they were, there would be sources.Hawking? God was not needed to create the Universe . That's from last year.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Any evidence for this or are you hoping the FSM exists? Any evidence for this or are you hoping the FSM exists? If the Big Banger could pop up into existence unannounced, why can't matter?

quote:

---

You are right, of course. PaulK's comment confused me. It seemed to me that he was struggling with the idea both were true.

---

I would say that you were already confused, because you hadn't seen the problem with your argument. Also my argument should have been clearer in context with the other points made - which you did not address.(e.g.) So, we come to the question of which position you are going to take. Are you going to argue that the universe has existed for all time and also needs a cause ? If so, we need to see that argument because it is certainly not obvious that something that has always existed would need a cause.Or are you going to find a different argument for your claim that the cause of the universe must be outside of spacetime ? Or drop that argument altogether ?

Exactly, energy and matter could not be created in the past. You see, the Law of Conservation tells you what happened in the past. As well as what is happening today. Energy and Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore, the idea of a creator is inconsistent with the laws of nature. Therefore no creator.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I was asking for a link to prove your claim that Burbidge was referring to the fervor of scientists for the big bang. But never mind, after more research I found that you are correct after all. Burbidge had to write a letter to someone to clear up the misunderstanding. Letter from Professor Burbidge was dated 31 January 1995.Still, the point I was making is valid. The big bang did effect the world view of a large number of astronomers and physicists. If you doubt that, you can read Jastrow's book "God and the Astronomers."

You are still missing the point. The physical laws only describe what happens in the natural universe, they do not prescribe what can happen. There is no physical law so powerful it could prevent God, if he exists, from creating or destroying matter or energy. This is muddleheaded thinking.

You are confusing me again, Paul. I have never argued the universe has existed for all time. This is the view of the static universe. It was common in the 19th and early 20th century. This view was overthrown by the big bang.If you read the top post (comment #1), I made the argument that Big Bang Theory was compatible with and supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe. Why?Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.If the universe has a beginning (and the big bang says it does), then it has a cause.In comment #49, I provided some additional information about the big bang from leading experts who understand the details of the standard view of the big bang. These details make it clear the singularity could not exist without expanding rapidly. As soon as the singularity came into existence, the universe began to expand and burst onto the scene with light and heat.So what happened before the big bang? Most physicists will not speculate because how can you speak of time before time began? My answer is that you can only speak of the cause of the big bang. Therefore it is logically consistent to say cause of the big bang had to exist prior to spacetime, which means the Big Banger is both timeless (eternal) and immaterial (not part of the physical universe). I quoted Paul Davies who also agreed the cause of the big bang could not be physical.

What do you call a large number? Ten maybe? Do you know how many physicists and Astronomers there are in the world who's "worldview" was not changed by the Big Bang?At the moment the overwhelming majority of Physicists and Astronomers have accepted the Big Bang. The only objections I've seen lately are from :
1. Very old scientists who have already retired and hold on to old theories as if they are religions.
2. The few creationists who don't want to accept the BB theory for religious reasons.
There may be one or two others, but they are a very, very tiny minority of the relevant scientists.

I understand perfectly well. You just want to hope that the FSM exists. Any evidence that there is anything else apart from the natural universe?

Hi designtheorist, No. You will always get replies here, no matter how wrong you are or how little support you get. We will argue with any old nutter here. You'd get replies if you were arguing that the moon was made of chutney. We just like to argue. Bull. If you quote someone in support of your position, you imply that they... well, that they support your position. Quoting someone who disagrees with you is called "Quote mining" and it is a form of lying. Since you seem to think yourself above that sort of thing, perhaps you might like to be a little more careful who you quote. What? You haven't named any! You mentioned a few Big Bang converts, but all your examples were wrong. It is very easy to be unimpressed with a list with no names on it.Or don't you care that your claims have been proved false? Do you really want to keep plugging away at a falsified claim? Because that's another form of lying.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

You are confusing me again, Paul. I have never argued the universe has existed for all time. This is the view of the static universe. It was common in the 19th and early 20th century. This view was overthrown by the big bang.

---

No, you are confused again And ignoring points which would clarify what I am saying. I am not talking about a static universe, I am talking about the idea that there is no time preceding the existence of the universe.Here's where you argue it: Message 59

quote:

---

If the universe has a beginning (and the big bang says it does), then it has a cause.

---

However, as I have already pointed out if there is no time before the universe existed it did not have a beginning as we understand it, and it is questionable whether it needs a cause.

quote:

---

So what happened before the big bang? Most physicists will not speculate because how can you speak of time before time began?

---

Actually you can't because it is logically incoherent. And physicists don't speak of that at all (they will sometimes speak of time extending before the Big Bang, but that is different). As Son Goku has pointed out in this thread the reason why we are forced to speculation is because our current understanding of Physics is not adequate to deal with anything past a certain point (and as I understand it the singularity blocks observation of any hypothetical preceding state)

quote:

---

Therefore it is logically consistent to say cause of the big bang had to exist prior to spacetime,

---

And you call ME confused ? No, it is not logically consistent. "Prior" is a temporal term which requires time.Let us also note that this disposes of your argument about conservation of mass and energy - if all of the mass/energy of the universe existed at the Big Bang, with no prior state where it did not exist, then there is no violation.

quote:

---

which means the Big Banger is both timeless (eternal) and immaterial (not part of the physical universe). I quoted Paul Davies who also agreed the cause of the big bang could not be physical.

---

Actually according to your quote Davies says: It seems to me that he is not suggesting that it had a supernatural cause, but that there was NO cause. Note also that Davies expressly agrees with my point that it is logically incoherent to speak of anything before the Big Bang, if we accept that the Big Bang is the start of time.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This is not necessarily the case. The people who made my car can't, by virtue of that fact, make it run on water or exceed the speed of sound; nor is any of them powerful enough to lift their creation; moreover if you drove the car at one of them at speed then the car would come off better than the person.Considerations of this kind show that the creator can have fairly limited power over the thing created. We know so very little about either universes or their creators ... it might be, for example, that for safety reasons it is only possible to make universes in (the analog of) some sort of sealed container, and this Big Banger of whom you speak can only observe the development of the universe through his measuring instruments, but is powerless to intervene.Of course, you like to assume that your Big Banger has the properties that theologians like to attribute to God, such as omnipotence, but neither the facts nor your arguments support that.If there was a Big Banger maybe his last thought before he accidentally fell into a black hole and was squished to death by his own creation was "Damn, I really messed this one up". (The inept inventor Thomas Midgley was killed by a device he invented to get him out of bed. The creator was not more powerful than the thing he created. There is no reason why he should be.)