Summations Only

How so? How would you describe a being who existed before time and the material universe? Can you honestly argue that such a being would be bound by the physical laws of the universe? You misunderstand. I said I agreed with the Davies quote I provided. I did not say Davies agreed with me. In one post I even said that I go beyond what Davies would say but I believe my conclusion is warranted and I provided the logic which I used to get there. You have not pointed out any errors in my logic. BTW, I would say cause always precedes effects in the natural universe. People are free to speculate about whatever they choose. You may or may not find my speculation interesting or compelling, but neither have you pointed out any errors in my logic. I think what Davies is saying is that we cannot know for certain what the causative agency is. No. I said any creator God or Designer of the universe would be above the physical laws because he made the laws and he is not subject to them. No, my position is the logical extension of Davies statement. If my logic is wrong, point out the error. Not exactly right. I said the physical laws of the universe were not in effect at the big bang because the universe did not exist at that point. I also said it is logical to think any being powerful enough to create the big bang would retain that power. The law of conservation of energy says matter and energy are not created or destroyed. However, a creator God could certainly still create if he or she wanted to. The law of conservation of energy is a natural law applying to the physical universe and does not apply to immaterial, eternal and supernatural beings. I don't see it that way. It is perfectly logical to think that if a creator God or Designer exists, it would be possible for that being to continue to create. I am not trying to explain any secondary creation here. I'm just saying it is illogical to assume any creative being could only do it once. I think the ideas have gotten some traction. There are already more than 200 posts. It is pretty hard to argue against the number of scientists who held to static universe theory were effected by their conversion to big bang theory. I provided a number of quotes showing it changed their world view and their thoughts about the possible existence of God. Atheist astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge once worried aloud that his peers might rush off to join "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang. If you don't understand why so many astronomers and physicists would look at the possibility of God differently, then you do not understand the big bang yet.

Regarding the difficulty of quantifying the vastness of the ocean you write: So, you think because you were able to look it up on google that it was easy to come up with those numbers? Do you know what instruments were used to arrive at that estimate? Do you know where the error bars are at? Do you have an opinion on whether the numbers would be the same if the estimate was made today as the last time? Or ten years before that?Enough of this nonsense. Let's get back to the issue at hand. Do you see how the standard cosmology of the big bang supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe?

You are right, of course. PaulK's comment confused me. It seemed to me that he was struggling with the idea both were true.On the other point, I meant to type "universe" and not "earth." I will try to proofread my own copy better before submitting.

Do you not understand what traction is? No-one has agreed with your claims in any of the 200 posts. You have gained no traction at all. Wrong - it is very easy to argue against it: it is called an Argument From Authority. It is the same logical fallacy that you have been previously criticised for. Firstly: you are plagiarising this from other sites. You did not write it.
Secondly: you are quote-mining Geoffrey Burbidge.After the criticism you have received for plagiarism, Arguments From Authority and quote-mining, I would have hoped you would have adjusted your behaviour.
But honesty and logic both seem to be beyond your reach.

I'm not saying every other scientist is wrong. The scientists I am quoting are describing the standard cosmology, the majority view regarding how the universe began. I thought I made that clear. There are scientists who proposed lesser known theories and these lesser known theories may turn out to be correct. My argument is that the standard cosmology of the big bang is compatible with and supports the view of a creator God or Designer of the universe.You seem to want to disagree with me. If so, you need to find a way to argue that the big bang disproves God created the universe. You're welcome to try.

Regarding the issue of traction, the thread has generated a lot of interest. No atheist has decided to believe in God, but that was not the goal. People have new information about the big bang and the history of big bang theory. As a result, people are thinking about the big bang in a new and different way whether they want to admit it or not. That's progress. A claim that I am presenting an Argument from Authority does not defeat the argument. After all, the expert I am quoting could be correct. None of my arguments have been defeated. They may have been named or misnamed, but that is not the same thing.Here's a quote for you: "Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy."
‘Jl‘TI—oCgI would say in many cases it is even strong evidence. If the question is "What did Albert Einstein say about x?" then quoting Albert Einstein is the strongest form of evidence possible (as long as it is a relevant quote and not out of context to change the meaning). I did copy and paste one sentence as it contained the quote I was looking for and saved me keystrokes, but it is too short to be considered plagiarism. Here is a definition of quote-mining from RationalWiki: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint."I did not quote Burbidge out of context. For example, I did not claim Burbidge held to the Big Bang theory. Burbidge was a witness to the impact the big bang had on astronomers and physicists and it bothered him. Like Fred Hoyle, Burbidge was a steady state guy (who had to keep changing his view because observations kept disproving his theory). I hate to sound like I'm ragging on Burbidge because he was a brilliant guy, but his strident atheism kept him from embracing Big Bang Theory.As to honesty and logic, these are two of my strong points.

You keep saying "supports", but have yet to show that. I think the word you are looking for is "allow" because, let's face it, it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to absolutely rule out His Noodley Holiness as the Big Banger.

It was not easy, but at least they got the numbers (they actually did research, instead of just guessing that the Indian Ocean is bigger than the North Sea). You (or more specific, the creationists on whose writings you rely), on the other hand, have still not provided the numbers to show that a human is more complex than a stone or a tree. I hope that you agree with me that just guessing that a human is more complex is not really scientific, don't you think? I might, if you had offered any support at all. But the only thing I could find is Message 139 where you write: This is the only argument so far that you have presented in favour of a "Designer God". But people may have thought it inconceivable that man would walk on the moon, yet they did. So please explain why "inconceivable" is a valid, scientific argument here.As I already mentioned in Message 150 (and to which you have not responded for some reason), the fact that you find everything else but a god inconceivable only demonstrates that YOU cannot think of another way; it says nothing about reality and whether other options are actually possible or not.So to answer your question: no, I don't see it. And neither do you, I think... If it supports any god at all, it is a god of the gaps...

You see, here you lied again. Burbidge wasn’t worried about all those peers turning religious, he was worried that his peers followed the BB religiously. See, you didn’t tell the truth about what Burbidge thought. That is a classic definition of a quote mine. A form of telling porkies. Again.

That depends on how you define complexity (don't worry, cdesign propontists better than yourself have yet to do so). I'd say the a gas nebula is far more complex than myself because I know I can't create fucking stars and planets, no matter how many research grants I get.

Pressie, I won't claim you lied. I will just point out your error. Let's revisit the Burbidge quote exactly. "Geoffrey Burbidge once worried aloud that his peers might rush off to join 'the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.." He did not call it "the First Church of the Big Bang" which might have allowed for the interpretation you gave it. Obviously, Burbidge was concerned about his peers getting religious and turning to Christ.The book by Robert Jastrow titled "God and the Astronomers" says much the same thing (only Jastrow was not concerned about it). I forget how Jastrow worded it exactly but he said something like "I would not be surprised if a cosmology arose which specifically relied on God as creator" (or he said something very similar to that). In a magazine interview Jastrow said That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.This is becoming a constant theme, but I feel I have to say it again. If you do not understand that the big bang compatible with and supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe, then you do not understand the big bang. This does not mean you have to believe in the existence of God or a Designer. But if you don't understand this point, then you have a complete misapprehension of this important period in the history of science.

No, it is neither compaitible nor supports any creator, because, from message 1 What don’t you understand about the Law of Conservation of Energy? It is very straightforward: energy and matter cannot be created. By noone, nobody, nothing, not by a fairy with a magic wand or even by a garden gnome.Energy and matter can't be created. Full stop. No word salad is going to change it.

designtheorist, I will claim that you are telling porkies, again. Burbidge was worried that his peers were treating the BB like a religion. In this case, because he lives in the West, he mentioned Christ. Not because scientists turned religious because of the BB, but because scientists started accepting BB without questioning it. Like a religion.

Oh, and designtheorist, why do you quote somebody who said something about it in 1982? That is a long time ago; supernatural forces are still not "proven facts" anywhere, even though we've learned a lot more than he knew in 1982. Why don't you rather quote Hawking? His last quote that made the news is way more recent.

I have Strobel's book too. Parts of it were interesting and I found parts of it to be weak. I actually liked the argument regarding the earth being in position to view eclipses. I had never come across that idea before. Strobel was interviewing Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards. Gonzalez was talking about eclipses. It is a tad coincidental the Sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times further away, making full solar eclipses possible. That does not happen anywhere else in our solar system. What was most impressive to me were the three discoveries made because of eclipses. If true, it does seem like evidence the Designer arranged for this relationship of Sun and moon so mankind could discover more secrets of the universe. I have not had the time to look into these claims to know for certain they are true, but they are definitely intriguing to me.