Summations Only

Basically, your argument boils down to, "We don't know the answer to this question, therefore god."Have you ever heard the phrase "God of the gaps?"

Meaninglessness is inherent in word salad selection. No dressing is sufficient for or capable of adding content to lettuce that has no head. Croutons cannot flavor that which is tasteless from the outset. When all the containers in the salad bar are empty, it necessarily follows that the bowl will be empty as well. Toss it however you wish, you still end up with no food.

Can you conceive of a universe that wouldn't be consistent with the existence of a creator god or designer? If not, the fact that this one is consistent is of no significance.My position is that gods are a product of the imaginations of sentient beings that inhabit this universe. An inhabitant of this universe would create a god that is consistent with this universe. The fact that the designer god is consistent with this universe supports my position that gods are made up.{AbE}Oh, and it's manifestly true that you're not just saying that the big bang is consistent with your idea of god. The very title of this thread, "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God," is a much stronger claim than mere consistency.Edited by subbie, : Additional thought

I haven't the inclination to parse out that particular serving of word salad to try to determine if there's a point in there or not. If you'd like to have another go at it, I'll take another look. In other words, you don't understand this apparent paradox, therefore god. Color me unimpressed.

I don't suppose you can provide the name of that scientist/philosopher (an extraordinarily unlikely combination of vocations) or a cite to where he/she said that, can you? Or how about a link to the calculations used to arrive at the "one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" figure? Because that sounds like a completely bogus "statistic," exactly the kind that cdesign proponentsists like to make up.

Some might. I might.But I'm reasonably confident that Professor Hawking never said anything about "one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" of anything. And if he did, it had nothing to do with the "fine tuning" fable.And given that the Professor has also said, and I strongly doubt that he meant by the portion of his book that you quoted to imply that a designer is a necessary or even salutary conclusion from his observation.

Well, I'd like to explore this further.It seems to me that the fine tuning argument rests on the premise that if everything weren't exactly as it is to the "one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" place, nothing would exist. This raises two questions is my mind.One, is the fine tuning that scientists recognize as sensitive as that with regard to conditions in our universe?Two, would a differently tuned universe be impossible, or could it simply contain conditions different from ours but capable of allowing the development of a different kind of life?My advanced physics knowledge is largely derived from "The Big Bang Theory," so I fully appreciate that my questions may be badly worded or even nonsense. But if you can understand the questions I'm trying to ask and respond in layman's terms I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

I'm stunned, a cdesign proponentsist from stem to stern.Meyer is not a scientist. He's not even really a philosopher. He a Christian dominionist who runs a think tank dedicated to undermining science. From their own website:

So you're apparently of the belief that the older an idea is the less the burden of proof. Curiouser and curiouser.

His PhD is in the history and philosophy of science. That does not make him a scientist. Then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a raft of peer reviewed papers he's written. 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. 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.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that biologists are all atheists. This is wrong. You also seem to be laboring under the misconception that transitional intermediates are the sine qua non of the Theory of Evolution. This is also wrong.Darwin himself was a devout Christian and, like most scientists of the time, believed the bible provided an accurate natural history of the Earth. In fact, before his voyage on the Beagle, he believed that adaptation of species was evidence of design. It wasn't until after his voyage that he began to doubt the scientific accuracy of the bible. It was not until after years of study and comparing the concept of design with the evidence of the real world that he developed his theory of evolution.Like a true scientist, the evidence informed his conclusions rather than they reverse.I suspect that like most creos who come here, you've heard various stories about Darwin and science in general from various sources that are
at best ill-informed and at worst outright lies. You will find that there are many people here who have studied these things for years. This study has included extensive readings in science as well as reading what creationists and cdesign proponentsists have written. I suspect I know considerably more about creo ideas than you do. Your ignorance of the history of science rivals your apparent ignorance about science itself.

Perhaps you can explain why those who believed in the steady state universe also believed in the christian god and believed he created it. I'm quite confident that I understand the science considerably better than you do.

It's expected here that when you cut and paste information from another source that you indicate in some way that it's quoted from somewhere else and that you credit that source somewhere in your post. Failure to do so is called plagiarism.Since the post I am responding to came about 10 minutes after your previous post in this thread, I find it very unlikely that you wrote it yourself.Please keep this in mind in the future.

Strictly speaking you are correct. There are many different kinds of evolution. However, if you want to avoid confusion when talking about any kind of change other than biological, I suggest you modify the word "evolution" with an additional descriptive term, such as stellar evolution. Particularly at this forum, when someone uses the word "evolution," they are usually referring to biological evolution.You should also keep in mind that there are many creos who simply lump together all the sciences they don't like, the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, geology, into something they refer to as "origins." Then, they pretend that any criticism of any of those theories undermines all of them. If you are imprecise in your word usage and appear to conflate terms, many here will assume you do not understand the difference.Of course, the choice is yours.