|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3862 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
With all due respect, that's just your opinion. Many scientists agree that there is at least the appearance of fine-tuning around us. And whether you are Christian or not, I am sort of shocked that you would accuse me of being "sophomoric" and "silly" when I am trying to have a respectful discussion and we have never actually met. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you. You are, of course, entitled to your own. My understanding is that we are free to disagree on the internet and in this forum in particular....have I missed something? We are adults here, yes? In any case, may you be blessed and I wish you the best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
Yes, I can, though I doubt it will satisfy you. Stephen C. Meyer, PHD from Cambridge University. At the time he said this, he was the Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, though I'm not sure if that still applies.He has spoken in symposia at various institutes of higher learning such as Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, etc.and has written for The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, National Review, and others.
As for the statistic, not being a scientist myself, I have no idea how he arrived at the figure. I am new to all of this and am fascinated by it, so am reading a lot. You are free to try to debunk him....if you are a scientist, you are far better equipped to do so than am I.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
When we apply this spacetime to our universe, with its particular collection of matter, it turns out the universe would have been about the size of a tennis ball about 13.7 billion years ago. Unfortunately we can't go any further back than this because the equation: G_uv = 8pi T_uv becomes unreliable. So that's it. I don't particularly see anything there that implies a creator god. It appears your disagreement with me rests on the size of the singularity. Really? I don't really think the size of the singularity is significant because the singularity did not exist at that size for even a millisecond. Perhaps you have already read my second general post (Message 49) in which I quote Steven Weinberg and Paul Davies regarding the standard cosmology of the big bang. I think they explain quite clearly how quickly things changed once the singularity came into existence. Alternatively, you can do a thought experiment. Pick a singularity of any size you like - tennis ball, grape, or the period at the end of this sentence. Or you can think of it as the primeval atom, as LeMaitre did. It doesn't matter. Consider it as it sits there infinitely dense and supremely hot. How long do you think it can stay in that condition before it begins to rapidly expand? I'm certain you understand that heat expands. The answer is clear - not even a millisecond. The singularity is a mathematical concept used because equations break down when they hit infinity. Do not think of the singularity as a physical entity with a long temporal existence. It doesn't work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Your opinion could not in any way offend me, that would be even sillier than the "Fine Tuning" argument.
I said the "Fine Tuning" argument is silly and sophomoric, not that you are silly or sophomoric. It (the Fine Tuning argument as evidence of some Designer or Creator God), like the ideas presented in the OP are simply irrelevant and offer no indication of any designer or Creator God. The Universe is as it is. As I pointed out it is almost universally inimical to life. There is ample evidence to support the existence natural causes but so far no one has presented any evidence of the existence of any Designer or Creator God. When you or someone else actually presents evidence of some Designer or Creator God, then that evidence can be examined and tested. Bring the Designer or Creator God in and put it on the lab table or into evidence and let us take a look at it.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
I understand all you're saying, and you make some valid points, and are clearly much more informed than I am, but as for the concept of God being something I imagined... well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but as you know there are literally millions upon millions at least that would disagree, and who've interacted with or seen the results of interactions with said force. I imagine that you will say that this is not a valid argument because personal accounts are unreliable, but if you had millions of personal accounts by scientists who had seen firsthand a certain natural force at work and were forthcoming with all kinds of information describing the force, even though they could not yet explain it, I doubt you would accuse them of suffering from some sort of mass delusion or inferior intellect simply because you personally had not seen the same force at work or had the same experiences.
Edited by EWCCC777, : fixed a grammatical and clarified a couple of points
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
There is no evidence of any god or designers while there is overwhelming evidence that causes are usually trivial, insignificant and transient.
I am intrigued by the assertion. However, a theory becomes more persuasive as it is seen to have better explanatory power than competing theories. I'm sorry but the universe did not come into being as the result of a "trivial, insignificant and transient" cause. Just out of curiosity, what is the largest and most complex result you have seen come from a "trivial, insignificant and transient" cause? Obviously, a forest fire from a lighted match does not meet the requirement because it results in less complexity. I'm eager to hear your answer!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
If we did that you would say, "See? Told you there was no God. If there was, He wouldn't be lying here on this lab table." Well, perhaps not, but that is certainly how it feels on our end. Can you absolutely prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that He is not real?
I'm sorry; perhaps I misinterpreted your tone as is wont to happen via the internet from time to time, but it certainly seemed like you were ridiculing me. I still think you were, no offense. I know you will say that the burden of proof rests with us (Design proponents), but certainly the idea of Design has been around since the beginning of humanity in one form or another, where as evolution is a relatively new theory, so (and I realize that I am flying in the face of many, many scientists who think theists have to "defend" faith as if we are ashamed of it) one could argue that the burden of proof could just as easily rest with science. All about the spin. Edited by EWCCC777, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
... but certainly the idea of Design has been around since the beginning of time in one form or another, where as evolution is a relatively new theory a: I thought we were talking about the big bang not about evolution.2: Something being around for a long time doesn't make it true, just old. God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
I forgot to add that we are not discussing a pothole full of water but an extremely complex universe capable of sustaining life, full of sytems for "producing food, replenishing the air, generating energy, and disposing of wastes." It is full of these processes that center around the survival of life, which are continuous and interdependent. 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Well, so far my scrutiny has consisted of asking you a question, which I shall restate: are there (conceivable) universes which would not be compatible with the idea that some omnipotent metaphysical being* wanted them to exist and be the way they are?
Yes, of course. The idea common in the 19th and early 20th centuries that the universe was static-state, had always existed and would always exist leaves no room for a creator God or Designer of the universe. When the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1965, it shocked the scientific world to the core. Of course, some experts in General Relativity like Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington had already come to the conclusion LeMaitre was correct. But Fred Hoyle still had a number of followers in 1965. I will pull together some quotes by Robert Jastrow and others about how the discovery of CMB radiation changed cosmology. Jastrow wrote a famous book on it titled God and the Astronomers. It is a short book on this very important period in the history of science. I'm certain you can find it in your local library. It is well worth the investment of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I am trying to focus on very narrow points. It is far to easy to get pulled in different directions and never come to agreement on the foundational issues.
My post in Message 49 develops my thought into the next step.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
And if there is a Big Banger, there has to be a Big Banger Factory, or whatever it is you want to call the thing that created the Big Banger.
First, I love your nickname. Very clever. Second, my post in Message 49 unpacks this a little. You might want to check it out for more context. Briefly, the Big Banger (because he/she pre-exists time and space) is best thought of as non-temporal, eternal. Therefore, he/she does not need a beginning or a factory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EWCCC777 Junior Member (Idle past 4552 days) Posts: 22 Joined: |
Ok then. You're right, we are discussing the Big Bang...I made a mental leap by myself, so I stand corrected. Even so, the Big Bang is an even newer theory than evolution...a theory which, by the way, I do not contest. All I contest is the idea that it happened spontaneously.
Additionally, you probably already know this, but I never said that an idea being old made it true...I was just pointing out that design is a theory; so is evolution (and so is the BB for that matter), 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. Many, many people have believed in a creator since the beginning of humanity, and believe they have seen evidence of His existence. You may disagree, but the fact that in the past two hundred years or so people have questioned design more and have found "evidence" of evolution (but not conclusive, once-for-all proof) does not automatically make evolution theory true...any more than being "old" makes design theory true. Edited by EWCCC777, : changed pronouns to nouns for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024