Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 181 of 317 (640290)
11-08-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by EWCCC777
11-07-2011 11:09 PM


Re: A being?
Even if all of those factors were true (and many are only trivially true and relevant only from the perspective of the one form of life we know about so far) they still offer no support for either a Designer or a Creator God.
In addition, they are vaguely worded. How much bigger or smaller might they be before it became a problem?
Remember, in the original version of Christians Marketing the Fine Tune Argument, they tried to pitch nonsense like the Earth is the right distance from the sun, and it was only when the audience were rolling on the floor laughing that they changed the marketing spiel to look at the basic forces you mention.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by EWCCC777, posted 11-07-2011 11:09 PM EWCCC777 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 182 of 317 (640291)
11-08-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 9:59 AM


Re: Reply to jar
As a Christian, that may well be true.
But speaking of causes, it is not a matter of faith at all but rather as I mention, a conclusion based on solid evidence.
As I said, in all of history not one single unnatural cause of anything has ever been found so I can say with a very high degree of confidence that when the cause of the Big Bang is found it will be a natural cause.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 9:59 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dirk
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


(2)
Message 183 of 317 (640292)
11-08-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 9:56 AM


Re: Bump for dt
Regarding which is more complex, the human or the tree - I have never given the matter any thought. I'm not even sure how someone might quantify it. [...] To be honest, the question does not interest me much. But if I had to guess, I would guess humans are more complex because of the higher level of function.
So you have absolutely no clue how you can quantify or define complexity, yet you continue to claim that a burned forest is less complex than a non-burned one? And then you go on that you are not even interested? Seriously? How can you even hope to debate complexity if you don't even know what it means?
Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.
Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 9:56 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 8:19 PM Dirk has replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 184 of 317 (640293)
11-08-2011 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 11:19 PM


The joy of mining for Juicy Quotes by Famous Scientists
designtheorist writes:

... {appeal to authority} {"He won an award!"}
{quote-mine} {quote-mine} {quote-mine}
{appeal to authority} {appeal to popularity} {"He won two awards!!!"}
{quote-mine} {quote-mine} ...
Anyone can do what you did in mischaracterizing my argument. Let me pick just the example of your charge of quote mining and appeal to authority.
Do you honestly expect me to think you would present an argument without quoting any support for your statements?
Yes, I honestly expect you to think that I would present an argument without having to leach off of the writings (intended for public consumption by the lowest common denominator) of various scientists-suddenly-turned-philosophers to let them do my arguing for me.
Part of the reason people have a wrong view of the big bang is because they do not understand the science.
The evidence so far indicates that your understanding of the science involved leaves very much to be desired. Thus you resort to the tactic of wowing them with scads of sciency-sounding stuff.
So I quote from famous and Nobel Prize winning physicists to explain the standard cosmology and you claim I am quote mining. That's just ridiculous! Either you don't know what quote mining means or you have no inclination to interact with data and logic which is contrary to your world view. Which is it?
Famous? Nobel-Prize-winning? Is that all that science means to you? If you personally feel inadequate to sufficiently explain it yourself, you would have done much better by referring us to the standard literature, citing actual scientific papers, or even just pointing us in the general direction of a good encyclopedia entry for explaining the deeper details of that which you are trying (but failing) to get across. Authoritative QuotesTM of the type your general ilk pushes tend to be crutches for people who cannot adequately understand and discuss the basic issues for themselves.
And since when are only the famous scientists that you think you agree with right and every other famous scientist wrong? Or perhaps we could just throw sciency-sounding quotes at each other all day??? Sorry, but I have much better things to do with my valuable time.

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 11:19 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 10:47 PM DWIII has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 317 (640295)
11-08-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Reply to Catholic Scientist
Good question! Just out of curiosity, have you asked yourself the same question?
Think about it for a minute.
I've been posting here for over 6 years with over 6000 posts... I've been around the block a few time.
If everything else I said makes sense, is it possible for the cause to be anything but a being?
Yes, or; it is not impossible.
Because the cause of the big bang had to exist prior to the creation of spacetime,
"Prior time" is a nonsensical phrase. Being "prior" requires time, so it cannot exist without the creation of time already.
therefore the cause is not physical/material.
Assuming their was a cause (which *is* still an assumption here), I'll grant you that it is "not physical/material". But that's starting to contradict the definition of a "being".
Since the cause existed before time,
"Before time" is a nonsensical phrase. Being "before" requires time, so it cannot exist without the creation of time already.
the cause must be timeless.
So it exists never? How is never existing different from not existing? Being a "being" implies that it is some thing that exists within time. Its a bad description.
Therefore, the cause of the big bang is both immaterial and timeless.
Well, the argument that got you there is weak and flawed, but I'll grant you these for the sake of discussion.
Given those constraints, can you conceive of anything immaterial and timeless which could effect the big bang and not be a being?
Really? I asked you: "What suggests the cause was a "being"?", and you're answer is an Argument from Incredulity? Weak.
But to answer your question: Yes, colliding branes would not be a being.
It must be a being because otherwise is inconceivable.
Nope, here is a conception of colliding branes:
Anyways, being a "being" makes this whole thing paradoxical. If you rewind the Universe back to the singularity, and then place god beside it as the creator, then as a thing he would have to be included within the Universe, by definition because the universe is everything. Any"thing" you place next to the universe will immediately be swallowed by it as a part of it because it is every"thing". In order for the "cause" of the Universe to be outside of it, the Universe would have to be a subset of some Greaterverse. If you're going to have this Greaterverse be god, then its no good calling him a "being" because that implies something that exists within the Universe.
Your supposations turn god into a kid with an antfarm... er, well, I guess Family Guy provided a better illustration:
This 'Being Illustration' works good for cartoons and the silly idea of Intelligent Design, but its piss poor science, and frankly, piss poor theology too.
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.
Lets start with this:
ABE (added by edit):
I don't think that last picture is showing up so here's the direct link:
http://universe-review.ca/I15-39-collision.jpg
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 11:56 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4262 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


(2)
Message 186 of 317 (640297)
11-08-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 11:47 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
because universes do not just happen on their own
Evidence for this assertion?
This person or thing acted before space and time were created
How can something happen "before" time?
There is no "before" time, just like there is no "north" of the north pole.
He or she or it cannot be physical/material because physical/material objects have to exist in spacetime.
This description seems to define something as non-existance.
If you disagree, please explain the difference between something that is "not bound to space-time, not physical and not measurable" and something that doesn't exist.
How do you tell the difference between existance and non-existance if something existant can (apparantly) have all the properties of something non-existant and....none of the properties of what defines existance?
Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 11:47 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 187 of 317 (640299)
11-08-2011 11:43 AM


A change in tone this morning
When I went to bed last night the discussion was pleasant. Obviously there were disagreements but it was a civil discussion. When I came on this morning, I was a little shocked by the vehemence and personal attacks against me in a number of posts.
I have not had a chance to determine what caused the change yet because I have not read all the posts yet. Perhaps I misunderstood PaulK and it all started from that misunderstanding. If so, I apologize. I was not attempting to offend.
Alternatively, perhaps the increased personal attacks has to do with the quotes I provided last night from cosmologists and astronomers regarding how their conversion to the big bang cosmology effected their world view and their thoughts regarding the possibility of God. If that is what caused the change, that's sad.
Anyway, I have a busy day at work today. I hope to find time to read all the comments tonight and find out what I did to offend people.

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 11:53 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 11-08-2011 12:22 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-08-2011 12:30 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 197 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 1:54 PM designtheorist has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 188 of 317 (640301)
11-08-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 9:59 AM


Re: Reply to jar
I see designtheorist is trying to change the definition of faith now, for his purposes. Dishonest again. That's all you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 9:59 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 189 of 317 (640302)
11-08-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 11:43 AM


Re: A change in tone this morning
It's not unpleasantless to tell you that you are telling porkies. The fact is: you don't tell the truth. It's just unpleasant for you to hear, because you certainly are are very dishonest, but most people are too pleasant to tell it to your face. You were caught out. That's it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 11:43 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 190 of 317 (640303)
11-08-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 10:44 PM


Re: Reply to DWIII
designtheorist writes:
Your argument so far hinges on asserting, without proof, statement #2: "If the universe has existed for a finite amount of time (Q), then the universe had a beginning (P)"
Not true. I never made that argument. The argument I quoted was this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

The universe began to exist. 

Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Yes, I know, I know, the well-known and done-to-death Kalam. I wasn't referring to that as such, but now that you mention it, I seem to have inadvertently refuted the second premise(!). If you cannot convincingly support that second premise, you have not even gotten your horse out of the starting gate yet.
I also discussed the history of Big Bang Theory from its theoretical origins to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is nearly universally seen as observational evidence of the big bang, the beginning of our spacetime/universe.
I grant you that the Big Bang is essentially the earliest known set of historical events which astronomers/physicists has found evidence of and are currently engaging in active research. Why must this imply a "beginning"? And also very much dumb-downed literature for the unwashed masses has been thrown our way which pretty much say silly things like "In teh beginning, teh Big Bang, like, explodered REAL GOOD!". So what? Have you ever considered digging just a little bit deeper than the dumbed-down literature?
The answers to your questions regarding the conservation of energy would only apply after the big bang and not before. The physical laws of our universe only apply to our universe. You cannot expect them to apply before the universe came into existence.
BEEP!!! USER ERROR DETECTED IN LINE 47: USER ATTEMPTED TO INSERT NEGATIVE TEMPORAL VALUE IN UNIVERSAL SPACETIME MATRIX; THIS APPLICATION WILL NOW BE TERMINATED. BEEP!!! {my apologies!; simply couldn't resist.}
Yes, I agree in the present universe that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by or in nature. I accept the universe is a closed system, except, of course, to the creator God or Designer who can do whatever he wants when he wants, but such actions would be miracles because they would violate the natural physical laws.
Special pleading, appeal to miracles, the list grows on...
I am uncertain of your meaning regarding the wider system of which the universe is a smaller part? The conservation of energy would only fail upon the action of the creator God or Designer to create or destroy matter-energy.
The wider system would, of course, be the presumably vast (perhaps infinite) realm in which (1) the creator God or Designer dwells, and of which (2) our mere physical universe would be a tiny insignificant speck. Think of it as the set-theoretic union of all of nature and all of supernature.
Tell me, are there ANY conservation laws which hold in that wider system?

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 10:44 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 191 of 317 (640305)
11-08-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 11:43 AM


Re: A change in tone this morning
and personal attacks against me in a number of posts.
Really? Where?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 11:43 AM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Panda, posted 11-08-2011 12:33 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 192 of 317 (640306)
11-08-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 10:15 PM


Re: Reply to Aware Wolf
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.
This thread is growing faster than I can keep up with, so I may be (probably am) repeating someone's post, however...
I don't know why it is "best thought of" for the Big Banger to be non-temporal or eternal. Does anyone know anything about things "outside" the Universe enough to make this claim? If this Big Banger can be non-temporal or eternal, why can't the Universe be non-temporal or eternal, which would obviate the need for the Big Banger?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 10:15 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 193 of 317 (640307)
11-08-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 11:43 AM


Re: A change in tone this morning
Some people here are jerks. Don't let that affect the rest of us. You don't have to reply to everybody. Just ignore them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 11:43 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 194 of 317 (640308)
11-08-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Theodoric
11-08-2011 12:22 PM


Re: A change in tone this morning
Theo writes:
Really? Where?
I think Pressie has become frustrated at the amount of patently false claims being made by designtheorist and this is reflected in his posts.
But I can't say I would feel any different if I was taking a fully active role in this discussion.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Theodoric, posted 11-08-2011 12:22 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 195 of 317 (640311)
11-08-2011 12:46 PM


A Forum Guideline Reminder
Discussion participants are expected to make their arguments in their own words, using links and quotes only as supporting material. The assumption is that each person understands both the rationale and evidence supporting their position. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
  2. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024