Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 9 of 317 (640023)
11-06-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM.
quote:
The standard cosmology is the universe started with a big bang about 13.7 billion years ago. But many people are under the mistaken idea the big bang is an argument against the existence of God or against the concept of a designer who formed the universe. Not true. While the big bang is not absolute proof of the existence of God or a designer of some type, it is absolutely compatible with the concept of a creator God or Designer.
Absolutely. If anything, the BB is a scientific impression, as in an emperically based conclusion, of the veracity of a universe maker for a universe. Look no further than this fact:
Based on a finite universe, as introduced in Genesis, it says once the universe and everything contained therein, never existed before.
Q. So what triggered the "BANG!"?
A. Not an external force [these never existed], nor a component of the first entity that went BANG [else it was not a first entity]. Such would violate the finite factor. This says:
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO A UNIVERSE MAKER FOR AN EMERGING UNIVERSE.
Those who deny or omit the finite factor of the universe have already lost the scientific test; they do so in denial of all evidences, because they have lost this battle of correct thought and cling to a circular premise: proof it is the wrong path.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 11-06-2011 5:39 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 10 of 317 (640024)
11-06-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
11-06-2011 7:24 PM


quote:
So where did all that energy and matter come from? Who or what caused the Big Bang?
Basically, your argument boils down to, "We don't know the answer to this question, therefore god."
Disagree. The question is incumbent; its concusion in the absence of an alternative, vindicated. There is no science without the incumbent question - it alludes to less than magic and voodooism passed on as science.
The flat earth was not overturned because someone said so; proof was required the earth is a sphearical ball spinning around the sun. This proof was tended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 7:24 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 8:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 11 of 317 (640025)
11-06-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by hooah212002
11-06-2011 7:49 PM


quote:
How does this assertion help us learn anything about the universe? What can we learn about anything by saying "some god character caused the big bang."?
This is not the criteria; that question can be asked in either scenario. If someone produces a car and others marvel at it, they can either learn how that car works - or they can ask your question.
quote:
you have to also accept that he sat on his ass for 13.7 billion years doing nothing.
Last time I checked, the universe was and is a most busy realm the past 13.7B years.We are only now coming to fathom some of it.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 11-06-2011 7:49 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 14 of 317 (640030)
11-06-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
11-06-2011 8:54 PM


quote:
Meaninglessness
If the universe began 13B years ago, it means it is finite. Word salads to no appear in meaningless fashion; the science says there 'MUST' be a cause factor which is transcendent of the resultant outcome. Saying, not necessarily, also does not cut it, nor is it a premise of proving a negative. Science works via the plausible and what can be scientifically inferrred.
Science is aligned with Creationism. It is the theologies which are A-scientific.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 8:54 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 1:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 28 of 317 (640047)
11-07-2011 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Omnivorous
11-06-2011 7:57 PM


Re: What beginning?
quote:
Why do you consider the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
The universe is finite [100% so]; it was not infinite 10 seconds ago - it is, and has been, expanding in a compound excelleration.
There is no evidence of anything existing pre-BB; not even residual imprints of something which once existed. None of the stars were around way back. The universe's age cannot be measured unless it is finite. The finite factor applies to space, time, energy, forces, light, darkness and pineapples.
It is for the above reason there is no alternative to Creationism - it is a scientific conclusion. Beware those slight of hand casino science peddlers who omit stating their preamble up top which universe they inhabit, a finite or infinite one. They have good reason to duck this issue.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 11-06-2011 7:57 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 2:30 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 317 (640050)
11-07-2011 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nuggin
11-07-2011 1:07 AM


quote:
The Universe as it is now could be one of an infinite series Universes bursting forth in a Big Bang, expanding until heat death eventually shatters all the atoms into nothingness followed by a new Big Bang
A finite cannot contain an infinite. Science #101.
There was once no heat; heat requires dual-entity friction; thus no 'shatters'; atoms [plural]; nor multiverses - these all violate the finite factor.
The case in this thread is already vindicated the universe is finite, in which case none can explain its emergence outside of a universe creator or an external, precedent and transcendent force which is infinite and singularly so; namely one not subject to change.
IMHO, there can be only one potential, possible exception: if another realm does exist, it will not contain anything which is already contained in this universe; nothing physical or corporeal. Thus none here would be able to percieve it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 1:07 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Admin, posted 11-07-2011 6:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 8:06 AM IamJoseph 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