Summations Only

I see you've got your ad hominem arguments ready even before the observations have actually been made or a non-magical theory has been supplied to account for them.I'm sorry you took it that way. I do not make ad hominem arguments. I didn't know it was possible for someone to be accused of an ad hominem attack when no individual was named. I was not trying to be offensive. I was just trying to point out that we are all products of our environment to a certain extent. We would all like to think we pursue the data wherever it goes, but do we? Einstein fell into the same thing. He was a product of the static state universe which had gained ascendancy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. When General Relativity led to the view the universe ought to be expanding, Einstein inserted a mathematical symbol into his equations to represent the cosmological constant. He kept pursuing research in that mindset for more than a decade until Hubble actually observed the expanding universe. Einstein later said the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career. What would your objections be to a non-magical theory of what happens after the Big Bang? Why do you have to discount (in advance) any such theory as the product of Evil Bigoted Atheists? Do you have the same objection to (for example) naturalistic explanations of the rainbow?"Non-magical theory?" Wow. I will pull together some statements from different agnostic scientists about how the big bang must be supernatural. I know those types of comments make certain people uncomfortable but it is important to understand why they say the things they said. No, I do not have any problems with a naturalistic explanation of the rainbow. If the reason was in fact a perfectly good one, would you have the expertise in physics to know that, or would you have to judge it solely in the light of your theological predispositions?I try to judge science on the merits of the science. I believe all truth is one.

Your second sentence shows that the first is not rue. The purpose of science is not to support any truth.

This does not follow. Theoretical physics does get pretty close to philosophy very early on. You must build your scientific construct (or philosophical construct) on solid ground.Here's what we know. The universe exists. The universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. Something or someone caused the universe to come into existence, because universes do not just happen on their own. This person or thing acted before space and time were created. Therefore, the cause of the big bang is not subject to space or time. He or she or it cannot be physical/material because physical/material objects have to exist in spacetime. Since he or she or it is not subject to time, then he must be timeless or eternal.

Good question! Just out of curiosity, have you asked yourself the same question?Think about it for a minute. If everything else I said makes sense, is it possible for the cause to be anything but a being?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.

Out of curiosity, how do you not run into the problem of infinite regression? Who designed the designer? If the universe must have a designer because it is complex or exhibits "tuning", wouldn't the same hold true for a "being" complex enough to create a universe? If not, why does this creator being get a free pass as "uncreated" while the universe does not?

Actually a fairly large number of measurable items and ratios appear to be fine-tuned. This is actually a very strong argument for design when the science is properly understood. I intend to do a thread on it. You are correct that most of the universe is inimical to life. The fine tuned argument does not say the universe will be hospitable to life in many places. Most of the fine tuned items have to do with the existence of the universe. Can you tell me the natural cause of the big bang?

How do you know this? Do you have examples of other universes? If there is a cause, why does it have to be a deity?You are not using sound logic.

This is all nothing more than a continuation of the god of the gaps argument. No it isn't.
This is no more convincing an argument than the puddle and pothole argument.
It is amazing that for a universe so fine tuned for life, life exist in such a miniscule part of it.

Hey Wollysaurus,The answer regarding infinite regression lies in the requirements necessary to be sufficient cause of the big bang.Whatever being caused the big bang was not subject to spacetime. A creator God or Designer would have to exist before spacetime in order to create it. If he or she existed before spacetime, would he or she exist in it or separate from it? Separate, right? If a being is separate from spacetime, then the being must be non-physical and timeless. Timeless means having no beginning.

I would really like to know your thoughts on this.Please explain how a burnt forest is less complex than an unburnt forest.

I don't want to get into the fine tuning argument now. When you understand the science, it is powerful. It is nothing at all like the pothole full of water analogy. Better to just look forward to it.

Hmm... I think that's an argument formed from a misonception of what BB theory actually postulates. Others on here already mentioned the meaninglessness of the phrase "before the BB" with the analogy of asking what is north of the north pole.

Certainly! Every cell of every living tree contains tons of information. Cells are incredibly complex and function using photosynthesis, chemical transmitters and biochemical cascades. After a forest fire, many trees are burned and every burned tree lose trillions of these complex cells. The photosynthesis stops, the communication stops. Once living trees are turned into ash. Ashes are not nearly as complex as living cells.

Wollysaurus, the math cannot go past the singularity because math breaks down when it hits infinity. In my post on Message 49, I quote Paul Davies talking about before the singularity. Some might argue that theoretical physics is starting to tread on philosophy, but that has always been true. The simple fact is the singularity is wrongly conceived of by many as something that could exist for billions of years as an infinitely dense and supremely hot period sized dot. It simply isn't true. Heat expands. As soon as the singularity came into existence, it would have to rapidly expand.

I knew it! Zeus DOES exist!But seriously, the only thing this post illustrates is that because YOU cannot think of another way, it must be god. Classic god of the gaps after all...Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.