|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3861 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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." Have you ever heard the phrase "God of the gaps?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I’m saying only that the big bang is consistent with the existence of creator God or a Designer. 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 thoughtRidicule 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Sorry, but your argument that the it seems like the universe is consistent with Design Theory because Design Theory was invented by humans because it seems like the universe is consistent with Design Theory because Design Theory was imagined by humans is a bit on the circular side... 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.
Ok. Matter can't be created or destroyed in our universe..we agree on this, at least. So...I will try to put this into words the best I can. As soon as the universe was created, matter was created in the universe. In other words, simultaneously, the universe began and universal laws took effect. So for matter to have been "spontaneously created" in the Big Bang is impossible. The instant it was created it could not be created...a paradox. Unless there is a supernatural..oops, dirty word! Excuse me ... Unless there is a TRANSCENDENT explanation. In other words, you don't understand this apparent paradox, therefore god. Color me unimpressed.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I've heard one scientist/philosopher assert that it is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, and that were changed by one part the universe would not support life. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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, Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
and
It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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:
Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
...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. So you're apparently of the belief that the older an idea is the less the burden of proof. Curiouser and curiouser.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Oh... so...evolutionists didn't decide that God didn't exist until after they saw all those transitional intermediates on the lab table...right? 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 areat 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. The entire concept of evolution was approached in exactly the manner you're demonizing. Your ignorance of the history of science rivals your apparent ignorance about science itself.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Yes, I can conceive of a universe which would not be consistent with a creator God or Designer. It would be the static state universe, the former cosmology which was in vogue during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps you can explain why those who believed in the steady state universe also believed in the christian god and believed he created it.
The better you understand the science, the more clearly you will see the evidence for design. I'm quite confident that I understand the science considerably better than you do.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
No, I don't conflate these ideas. I do see and use the word "evolution" in its broadest sense, including the evolution of the universe. It does not apply strictly to biology as some people think. 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.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024