Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 241 of 317 (640393)
11-09-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Reply to Panda
designtheorist writes:
Regarding the issue of traction, the thread has generated a lot of interest. No atheist has decided to believe in God, but that was not the goal. People have new information about the big bang and the history of big bang theory. As a result, people are thinking about the big bang in a new and different way whether they want to admit it or not. That's progress.
I'll ask again: do you know what traction is? Interest is not traction. Progress is not traction.
*sigh* As Percy says: "If you are having to explain the meaning of common-place words, then it is probably time to give up."
designtheorist writes:
A claim that I am presenting an Argument from Authority does not defeat the argument. After all, the expert I am quoting could be correct. None of my arguments have been defeated. They may have been named or misnamed, but that is not the same thing.
Wrong - again. It does defeat your argument. Showing that your argument is fallacious proves it is false.
Does it show that there is no god? No. But you can't prove that something doesn't exist. The onus is on the person (you) claiming that something (god) does exist.
But your continued reliance on flawed, faulty, fallacious arguments is not getting you anywhere.
designtheorist writes:
Here's a quote for you: "Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy."
‘Jl‘TI—oCg
I would say in many cases it is even strong evidence. If the question is "What did Albert Einstein say about x?" then quoting Albert Einstein is the strongest form of evidence possible (as long as it is a relevant quote and not out of context to change the meaning).
And here's a quote for you: "Arguments based on [quote-mining can be] an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position." (Wiki) - and that is exactly what you did.
Your inability to understand what an Argument From Authority is, does not make your arguments valid.
For every scientist you name that changed to religion I could show one that changed to atheism or didn't change at all. This shows how flawed your argument is. But if you want to continue using logical fallacies then I will happily continue to point out that you are wrong.
designtheorist writes:
I did copy and paste one sentence as it contained the quote I was looking for and saved me keystrokes, but it is too short to be considered plagiarism.
You knowingly copied and pasted it and pretended it was your own work. That is plagiarism.
designtheorist writes:
Here is a definition of quote-mining from RationalWiki: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint."
I did not quote Burbidge out of context. For example, I did not claim Burbidge held to the Big Bang theory. Burbidge was a witness to the impact the big bang had on astronomers and physicists and it bothered him. Like Fred Hoyle, Burbidge was a steady state guy (who had to keep changing his view because observations kept disproving his theory). I hate to sound like I'm ragging on Burbidge because he was a brilliant guy, but his strident atheism kept him from embracing Big Bang Theory.
As you have finally admitted (in Message 233), you did quote-mine. You quoted him out of context and misrepresented what he was saying.
You need to stop blindly believing those creationist web-sites you are relying on.
designtheorist writes:
As to honesty and logic, these are two of my strong points.
Really? The evidence so far is inconclusive.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 11:35 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 242 of 317 (640398)
11-09-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 10:17 PM


Forum Guidelines Reminder
designtheorist writes:
Atheist astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge once worried aloud that his peers might rush off to join "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."
Here at EvC Forum we prefer that people debate using their own words, and we especially prefer that people not pass off the words of others as their own. You're also still using the argument from authority. While what Geoffrey Burbidge believed is interesting information, what's more important is why he believed it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 10:17 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 243 of 317 (640402)
11-09-2011 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Reply to Panda
Hi DesignTheorist,
Here at EvC Forum moderators try to keep discussion focused on how the evidence supports an argument or point of view rather than who supports it. This thread is about how Big Bang theory supports belief in a creator or designer, not who supports it. Discussion's primary focus should be on what the evidence tells us and not on what some scientists are telling us the evidence tells us.
The argument from authority is a rat hole that diverts attention from the topic. One person says, "X says it's true," another person says, "Y says it's not." Now what? Well, evidence is what.
People are demurring from taking up your argument from authority because they expected from your title and opening post ("Therefore, based on current science it is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of creator God or universe Designer.") that you would be arguing from the evidence, and because they understand that arguments from authority are not productive or informative. We're not in the business here of identifying the views with the most enthusiastic expressions of support. We're looking for what the evidence says.
If you'd like to propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics about how some scientists endorse belief in a creator or designer then I'd be glad to review it.
I did copy and paste one sentence as it contained the quote I was looking for and saved me keystrokes, but it is too short to be considered plagiarism.
Moderators here at EvC Forum are not aware of any minimum length requirement for plagiarism. Please clearly indicate any cut-n-pastes. Even better, say things in your own words.
I did not quote Burbidge out of context.
Not only did you quote Burbidge out of context, so did all the other websites where the quote occurs. There does not seem to be anywhere on the Internet that identifies when or where or in what context Burbidge said this. Context seems important, since it reads like a sarcastic comment about the eagerness with which his scientific colleagues were embracing not religion but Big Bang theory.
But we'd really like to avoid arguments about what Burbidge or any scientist really meant. It's not germane to the topic, and if we keep the focus on the evidence then the evidence can speak for itself.
Please, no replies to this message. Issues regarding discussion should be raised over at the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 11:35 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


(3)
Message 244 of 317 (640408)
11-09-2011 9:15 AM


More logic
Designtheorist,
A while ago, in Message 139, you said:
quote:
... Because the cause of the big bang had to exist prior to the creation of spacetime, therefore the cause is not physical/material. Physical/material things must be located in spacetime. Since the cause existed before time, the cause must be timeless. Therefore, the cause of the big bang is both immaterial and timeless.
Given those constraints, can you conceive of anything immaterial and timeless which could effect the big bang and not be a being?
It must be a being because otherwise is inconceivable.
Unless, of course, you can conceive of an immaterial timeless cause which is sufficient to generate the big bang and physical universe as amazing as ours. If you can, I would love to hear your description of it.
Looking back on that, and also remembering earlier posts, I think your argument can be summarized as follows (leaving aside the details for a moment):
You begin (more or less) with al-Ghazali's - actually Aristotle's - syllogism "what begins to exist (et cetera)", thereby establishing the universe must have a cause. Next you reason that this cause must be immaterial and timeless. Finally, you conclude that this immaterial and timeless cause must be a conscious, godlike being.
Although I think that (1) it remains to be established whether the premises of the syllogism are true, and (2) you use tenuous logic in the next step, to do with time and existence, the thing that bemuses me most is the last step. Well, not the conclusion itself actually, which is to be expected, but rather the fact that this step is devoid of logic, tenuous or otherwise. In view of the rest of your posts, this is at least uncharacteristic.
If you cannot flesh out that last step considerably, then I'm afraid your reasoning amounts to little more than an argument from incredulity. Could you humour me?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 12:02 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 245 of 317 (640412)
11-09-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 10:47 PM


Re: Reply to DWIII
designtheorist writes:
And since when are only the famous scientists that you think you agree with right and every other famous scientist wrong? Or perhaps we could just throw sciency-sounding quotes at each other all day??? Sorry, but I have much better things to do with my valuable time.
I'm not saying every other scientist is wrong. The scientists I am quoting are describing the standard cosmology, the majority view regarding how the universe began. I thought I made that clear.
Apparently you do not know the difference between describing a scientific theory (which any decent textbook will do, if you would only take the trouble to find some) and philosophizing about it. Sloppy philosophizing is precisely the $elling point of these dumbed-down books in the first place, whether they are pandering to the religious folk (Jastrow et.al.), or pandering to the avowed atheists (Sagan et.al.). Even the superduper-world-famous Stephen Hawking deliberately goes out of his way to exclude virtually all of the mathematics behind the theories from his popular works, simply because he believes that any sort of mathematical formulae would hurt his $ale$ by alienating his intended audience.
There are scientists who proposed lesser known theories and these lesser known theories may turn out to be correct. My argument is that the standard cosmology of the big bang is compatible with and supports the view of a creator God or Designer of the universe.
You seem to want to disagree with me.
Do I detect a note of paranoia? I can't speak for everyone else, but I get the sense that nobody here wants to disagree with you purely for the sake of disagreeing with you. They (and I) would more likely be delighted to take into consideration any rational support whatsoever for your ideas, as opposed to being snowed by what amounts to oodles of lawyer tactics (even if that is not your intent).
If so, you need to find a way to argue that the big bang disproves God created the universe. You're welcome to try.
Would the existence of an eternal (i.e. infinitely extended in time) universe successfully disprove that God created it, more so than the existence of our type of finite-time universe? What a weak pathetic god you believe in; he apparently isn't all-powerful enough to create an infinite universe.

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 10:47 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 246 of 317 (640413)
11-09-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by designtheorist
11-09-2011 1:44 AM


Re: Reply to Pressie
quote:
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 seem to be missing a few points. If, as you seem to agree, the conservation laws are only descriptive, then we don't know if they have been true for the entire lifetime of the universe. You make one exception for God, but we must also entertain other possibilities for creating matter/energy that might have existed in the early universe.
Secondly, you and some others are citing an incorrect version of the conservation laws. Unlike the situation in the 19th century, we know that neither matter nor energy are conserved quantities. Matter can be created... from energy, and matter can be destroyed leaving only energy. We observed those things happening in our universe and we understand that the matter currently in our universe is the remnant of a net imbalance between matter and anti-matter that existed after the big bang.
For each of the reasons given above, your line of argument that the existence of matter demonstrates evidence that God exists is just bad. Other than in your head, there is no contradiction that requires an exception that can only be God. The steady state models that Hoyle and others favored also required matter and energy to be constantly created and destroyed. Apparently those atheists did not think creating matter/energy required God.
No truly scientific method is ever going to prove or disprove that God exists. Yes, there is a description of God that is compatible with the big bang, but there is also a description of the steady state universe that is compatible with God. Perhaps that's enough to suggests that people who disagree with you aren't doing so out of willful disobedience to God. To me that nonsense is every bit as offensive as being called a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by designtheorist, posted 11-09-2011 1:44 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 247 of 317 (640424)
11-09-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by designtheorist
11-09-2011 1:58 AM


I'm disappointed that you didn't get a chance to reply to my Message 185.
The main points are offering Colliding Branes as an alternative to a being as the Big Banger. That the phrase "before time" is nonsensical because you have to have time already to have something be "before". I also point out that your "support" for the Big Banger being a being was simply an Argument from Incredultiy. I'd also like to add that your argument that the Big Banger must be a being doesn't rule out multiple beings nor ones that where cosumed in the creation process, among other things.
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, there is no point in time where the Universe does not exist. It exist in all points of time because time, itself, is a part of it. The Big Bang Theory does have the Universe existing for all time.
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.
The big band does not say the universe had a beginning in the same way that you're using it in your arguments. I'm going to trout out this same old analogy to explain this:
Spacetime is a four deminsional manifold with some particular "shape". We can't really imagine that, so to make it easier we'll have to reduce the number of dimensions, and have the shape be a sphere. The globe of the Earth works well for this. Imagine that the sruface of the earth represents all four dimentions. Just the surface, not the inside of it nor the space around it. Let the lines of latitude represent different times. As you go southward from the north pole, you are going forward in time. The circumferance of the Earth gets bigger the farther you tavel (forget about passing the equator), and this represents the expansion of the three dimensions of space. As you go north towards the north pole, space gets smaller and smaller, until you get to the north pole, itself. You can't go farther north than that, there is no north direction from the north pole. In the same way, when you get to the singularity, there is no time "before" that. The surface of the Earth exists at all the points of latitude, just like the Universe exists at all points of time. There is no point of latitude where the Earth doesn't exist like there is no point in time where the Universe doesn't exist.
Now, it doesn't really make sense to say that the Earth "begins to exist" at the north pole, as if there's some place beside the Earth where it doesn't exist. Remember that in the analogy, we are limited to just the surface of the Earth, itself, and cannot use the space around it. Too, the fact that the Earth has a north pole doesn't necessitate that there is some "cause" for the Earth to exist there. That's just the shape that it has. The same goes for the Universe.
The universe began to exist.
Not really. Not in the sense of an Effect that requires a Cause. Just like the Earth doesn't begin to exist at the north pole.
So what happened before the big bang?
That's as nonsensical as asking what is north of the north pole. There is nothing thatta way, because you can't even point in that direction. All directions are south from the north pole. As you approach the singularity back in time, you're approaching the smoothing out of the direction in which your traveling like the surface of a Earth smooths out at the north pole into a place where all directions become south.
My answer is that you can only speak of the cause of the big bang.
That makes no more sense that speaking of the cause of the north pole, as if there is some place on the surface of the earth, that is not on the surface of the earth, and from which the north pole emerges.
You need to understand this to get the appropriate view of what the big bang is actually describing. It is not some "thing" that existed, its a descritption of the behavior of the universe... or more specifically, its a description of the shape of the four deminsional manifold that is spacetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by designtheorist, posted 11-09-2011 1:58 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 248 of 317 (640445)
11-09-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by EWCCC777
11-07-2011 10:06 PM


Re: A being?
Forgive me, but the odds of that happening in an instant, unprovoked by anything but pressure and energy, seem to have to be the worst odds of all time (or whatever came before--or not "before" since there was no "before", but you get my drift --time).
This is exactly correct.
However, no actual scientific theory proposes any such thing.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by EWCCC777, posted 11-07-2011 10:06 PM EWCCC777 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 249 of 317 (640446)
11-09-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 7:40 PM


Re: Reply to Taq
I believe you are describing Hoyle's later position, after the CMB radiation was discovered in 1965. This is the position some came to call "steady bang," although I don't think Hoyle ever used that term. Prior to 1965, Hoyle had publicly defended the Steady State Theory. As far as I know, Hoyle's view was not appreciably different that the Static Universe view described in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier. I could be wrong on that. I will have to do a little more reading to find out.
Once expansion was undeniably evidenced he had to move to a new theory. That theory was C-field (which he didn't invent, but he did adopt). In this theory, matter is created through a type of quantum fluctuation due to the expansion of space. According to Hoyle, the universe still has an infinite past but can still expand. QSS was a response to the discovery of the CMB later on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 7:40 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 250 of 317 (640447)
11-09-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by designtheorist
11-09-2011 12:57 AM


Re: Reply to Wollysaurus
It is a tad coincidental the Sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times further away, making full solar eclipses possible. That does not happen anywhere else in our solar system. What was most impressive to me were the three discoveries made because of eclipses. If true, it does seem like evidence the Designer arranged for this relationship of Sun and moon so mankind could discover more secrets of the universe.
It is statements like this that make design theory all but worthless. Is it a tad coincidental? Absolutely, BECAUSE IT IS A CONCIDENCE. Given the millions to one odds of anyone winning the lottery I would guess that you also think God picks the winners. There is never anything connecting the facts with a designer other than the needs of the person based on their already held religious beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by designtheorist, posted 11-09-2011 12:57 AM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Wollysaurus, posted 11-09-2011 8:48 PM Taq has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 317 (640455)
11-09-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by designtheorist
11-09-2011 12:57 AM


Re: Reply to Wollysaurus
It is a tad coincidental the Sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times further away, making full solar eclipses possible. That does not happen anywhere else in our solar system.
Perhaps Strobel said something a little different from the summary above, because what is stated about is not accurate. Surely Strobel must have limited his discussion to the types of total eclipses we can see from earth.
First, solar eclipses are possible as long as the apparent size of the moon is greater than or equal to the apparent size of the sun. If the moon were substantially larger, we might still be able to observe the sun's corona during an eclipse.
As for no other places in the solar system allowing eclipses of the type on earth, I don't believe that is correct. It is the case that there are no other places on the surfaces of planets where the apparent size of the sun and satellite are as nearly equal as they are on earth (although it must be pointed out that annular eclipses do occur on earth).
Also I'm sure that one of Strobel's discoveries had to do with Eddington's experiment. I agree that the experiment would not have been possible in the early 20th century without the son/moon size coincidence. But let's put the experiment into perspective. Einstein had predicted the bending of light, and the resulting confirmation (not discovery) made Einstein famous in his lifetime.
But let's not forget that many other pieces of evidence have confirmed the General Theory of Relativity, and at least one such confirmation (GR predictions Mercury's perihelion anomally) predates Eddington's observations. Further, we can observe gravitational lensing even without eclipses. We can also create artificial eclipses using equipment on orbiting vehicles.
I don't know if Strobel actually makes the argument that God wanted to make Einstein famous, but the argument would seem incredibly silly.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by designtheorist, posted 11-09-2011 12:57 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


(2)
Message 252 of 317 (640459)
11-09-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Taq
11-09-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Reply to Wollysaurus
Re: Reply to Wollysaurus
It is a tad coincidental the Sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times further away, making full solar eclipses possible. That does not happen anywhere else in our solar system. What was most impressive to me were the three discoveries made because of eclipses. If true, it does seem like evidence the Designer arranged for this relationship of Sun and moon so mankind could discover more secrets of the universe.
Taq writes:
It is statements like this that make design theory all but worthless. Is it a tad coincidental? Absolutely, BECAUSE IT IS A CONCIDENCE. Given the millions to one odds of anyone winning the lottery I would guess that you also think God picks the winners. There is never anything connecting the facts with a designer other than the needs of the person based on their already held religious beliefs.
To assume that the way the solar system works is designed for the pleasure of human scientific instruments is just a bizarre level of hubris.
You could apply the same sort of "logic" to all sorts of things. God wanted the British Empire to rule the seas so that one day Darwin would visit some islands and begin to piece together biological evolution. God made that mountain so that whoever lives there would have a better view of the sea. God made the skies clear as they are so that telescopes could begin to piece together the workings of the solar system in the first place. It's just bizarre. Well, not really bizarre, it is grasping at straws.
Even supposing that the earth and solar system here were built for some purpose, this still would not require the "designer" to be the builder of the universe -- just the solar system. Why is God required to be a universal architect? Why is the possibility of an entity operating as part of and within the rules of the universe immediately excluded? I'm guessing that's because such an entity should be detectable and quantifiable, and it is much easier to keep God around if he possesses all the qualities of something which does not exist.
Mind you, I'm not saying there *is* evidence, just that the creationist presupposes that their deity is responsible for life, the universe, and everything, when often their "evidence" is quite local in nature. They suppose that if they can "prove" that life on earth did not evolve, or that the earth is not as old as it is (among YECs anyway), any other scientific field of study, theory or law that disagrees with their worldview somehow goes *poof*. The more I read these sorts of exchanges, the more creationist arguments appear to be little more than giant leaps in bad logic rooted in presuppositions which cannot be tested, much less falsified.
Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 11-09-2011 6:14 PM Taq has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 253 of 317 (640468)
11-10-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Parasomnium
11-09-2011 9:15 AM


Reply to Parsomnium
Parasomnium,
Parsomnium,
Thank you for a thoughtful post. You obviously spent a lot of time reading and thinking critically about my argument — and that’s great. I realize you were trying to leave out some details in your recap, but some of the details are quite important. If the foundations of the argument are not strong and well understood, then the later steps will seem devoid of logic. It may be helpful if I provide my own recap.
First, let’s start at the goal of the argument. The point is to persuade people that the big bang is both compatible with and supportive of the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God. The goal is not to convince atheists that God exists or that God created. There will always be some idea or theory claiming to show a Designer or Creator is not necessary. It is not my goal to defeat each of these competing theories. Also, the goal is not to convince anyone that the big bang requires people to believe in a Universe Designer or Creator God. The goal is to demonstrate that the view the big bang is supportive of the idea of a Creator God is internally consistent.
Secondary goals for this debate include correcting or clarifying certain common misconceptions about the big bang, a theory which is poorly understood by most people. Misconceptions needing to be corrected include:
The false view the big bang is somehow anti-God or is evidence against creation
The false view the singularity could exist in that form for any period of time (the singularity is a mathematical concept, not a physical one)
The false view the singularity could somehow get triggered into the big bang through some physical/natural process
Adequate understanding of the science will correct each of the above false views. I attempted to clearly lay out the science which corrects these false views in Message 49. I also wish to argue that, while some scientists refuse to do so, it is possible to speculate about the nature of the Big Banger based upon the limited information we have. (Speculation can be based on logic and imagination, but not mathematical physics. Einstein said Imagination is more important than knowledge.)
With this as background, and building on al-Ghazali, we now we can summarize the steps of my argument:
If the universe had a beginning in the big bang (the standard view of cosmology)
The universe must have a cause.
The cause cannot be physical because it happened before the physical universe was created. (See Paul Davies book Cosmic Jackpot - Davies will not speculate on non-physical causes because he limits himself to mathematical physics)
And the cause happened before time was created. (See Paul Davies book)
Therefore it is internally consistent to believe the cause of the big bang (Big Banger) is both immaterial and timeless.
As corroborating evidence, I give you the history of science around the big bang. Robert Jastrow’s book God and the Astronomers is a detailed account of big bang theory and discovery of the CMB radiation (which confirmed the theory) and the impact it had on cosmology and the personal world views of these scientists.
Here’s a sampling of the quotes I presented earlier:
Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 14).
Speaking of the big bang, agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow says: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. (A scientist caught between two faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982).
Scientist George Smoot (who led the COBE team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation) says: There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. (quoted in Show me God by Fred Heeren, p. 139)
Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning. - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.30
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say supernatural) plan. - Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics
I hope this recap helps you evaluate whether the argument I provided achieves the goal(s) I set out to achieve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Parasomnium, posted 11-09-2011 9:15 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Pressie, posted 11-10-2011 12:33 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 11-10-2011 1:50 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 256 by Parasomnium, posted 11-10-2011 4:05 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 258 by Admin, posted 11-10-2011 7:26 AM designtheorist has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 254 of 317 (640471)
11-10-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 12:02 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
designtheorist writes:
First, let’s start at the goal of the argument. The point is to persuade people that the big bang is both compatible with and supportive of the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God.
Well, you dismally failed to achieve that.
I think the main cause for it is that you don't even have a faint grasp of what the standard cosmological theory, the Big Bang is. You've been shown where you were wrong by a few very knowledgable posters, but you keep repeating the same completely false concepts. An example is :
designtheorist writes:
The cause cannot be physical because it happened before the physical universe was created.
This makes no sense at all. There can't be anything "before" the BB. Time started itself with the BB. This indicates that you don't seem to even want to learn the very, very basics of the BB theory. You want to cling to your straw man of what the BB actually is.
Furthermore, you made a few very false statements, together with logical fallacies such special pleading and quote-mining, etc. And you keep on repeating them. Even after being shown exactly why it is very bad logic. This does not further your cause at all.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistakes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 12:02 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 255 of 317 (640473)
11-10-2011 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 12:02 AM


Looking at the argument:
quote:
If the universe had a beginning in the big bang (the standard view of cosmology)
The universe must have a cause.
If there was no time preceding the universe - the view you were putting forward - we are speaking of something different from our intuitive idea of a "beginning". It is certainly questionable whether our intuitive ideas about "beginnings" can be applies in this situation.
I would say not, for the reason I have already given:
Only changes require causes, and there is no change outside of time.
Or put another way - if, as you are proposing, the universe has always existed there is no reason to suppose that there must be a cause of that existence. (Just to forestall your repeated confusion, this is NOT speaking of a static universe, just your proposal that there was no time preceding the universe).
quote:
The cause cannot be physical because it happened before the physical universe was created. (See Paul Davies book Cosmic Jackpot - Davies will not speculate on non-physical causes because he limits himself to mathematical physics)
This is a misrepresentation of Davies. Davies states that the concept of "before" time is meaningless. In the quote given, Davies does not even consider the possibility of a non-physical cause, which suggests that we are dealing with something of a quote-mine here. If Davies really proposed a non-physical cause, why not quote him saying so ?
It seems more likely that Davies is rejecting the notion of a cause of the Big Bang altogether.
quote:
And the cause happened before time was created. (See Paul Davies book)
Davies does NOT say this. Davies states that such talk is meaningless.
quote:
Therefore it is internally consistent to believe the cause of the big bang (Big Banger) is both immaterial and timeless.
Since you have gone against your own source and assumed a logical contradiction (that Davies rejects) this only follows in the degenerate sense that anything may be derived from a falsehood. Misrepresentation is in no way a substitute for actually dealing with the problems of timeless causation at the least.
There is no need to say more. Your case rests on misrepresentation and logical falsehood. Therefore it fails.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 12:02 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024