Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 13 of 317 (640028)
11-06-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


While the big bang is not absolute proof of the existence of God or a designer of some type, it is absolutely compatible with the concept of a creator God or Designer.
You have not in fact said that the BB is a proof of God (some other commenters on this thread have overlooked this and taken your assertion to be stronger than it is).
But you do say that it is "compatible with the concept of a creator God or Designer".
But what wouldn't be?
It is not particularly an argument in favor of a God/Designer that we live in a universe compatible with that hypothesis, if any universe would be equally compatible with it.
By contrast, consider the Big Bang itself. We have a reason to believe that it occurred because there is an agreement between the Big Bang and our observations that it is hard to dismiss as fortuitous --- that is, we can imagine universes which are not compatible with the Big Bang, and we find that by contrast with all these imagined alternatives we live in one that is.
But what sort of a universe could an omnipotent being not have created?
If there's no answer, then the mere observation that this universe is compatible with God is not actually informative about this universe.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 11-06-2011 5:39 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 317 (640077)
11-07-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 1:48 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
I am happy to invite your scrutiny into the evidence and logic as I lay it out.
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?
Otherwise, you see, the observation that ours is one of the universes which is compatible in this way doesn't actually get us anywhere.
* I write "omnipotent metaphysical being" rather than "God" not because I'm addicted to circumlocution (though I am) but because according to many popular definitions of God our universe is not compatible with the God hypothesis, because of the Problem of Evil.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:48 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 317 (640084)
11-07-2011 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 8:25 AM


Re: Reply to Hooah212002
So you want soooo bad to allow the option for a god, but you have no clue to what end? You have no clue what we would do with that information? You have no clue how that would advance our understanding of anything?
He just said he wouldn't address those questions yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:25 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 317 (640112)
11-07-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 9:40 AM


Re: The science of the big bang
In the first post, I covered the fact the Law of Conservation of Energy shows the big bang is unique in history ...
This is far from clear. Could we see some actual math?
... and supports the concept of a creator God or Designer of the Universe. I want to give a special shout out to Dr Adequate who grasped the argument on the first reading.
If I grasped it, I also saw a few things wrong with it --- some of which I didn't mention because other people had.
You still haven't answered my question, you know.
The more we learn about the universe, the more likely it will point to design. I am very pleased with the progress made at Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. See Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) I especially like this quote from point #9: however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed.
I predict these deviations from simple randomness will result in multiple theories, at least one which will point to a Designer and at least one which will point in the opposite direction. The prediction of a Designer theory is based on the fact the universe has order and that science is all about discovering the order of the universe. The prediction of non-designer theory is based on the observation that people will generate contrived theories whenever possible in order to avoid confronting the possible existence of a creator God or Designer of the universe.
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.
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?
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?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 9:40 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 68 of 317 (640140)
11-07-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by EWCCC777
11-07-2011 3:15 PM


Re: A being?
With all due respect, what implies that it wasn't?
The burden of proof is on someone asserting the positive. Anyone claiming that he knows why the Big Bang went bang doesn't get a free pass just because his conjecture is too vague and nebulous to be susceptible of falsification.
Anyone could do that sort of thing. If I claimed (for example) that Jimmy Hoffa was murdered by a redheaded man, then there's nothing whatsoever to imply that he wasn't. But if I'm going to claim that he was, I have to put up some sort of argument to suggest that that is the case, not just ask "what implies that he wasn't?"
No argument has surfaced that adequately explains the fine-tuning, for example, of the expansion rate of the universe (were it any different, life would not be possible, which I'm sure you already know). There IS evidence of design and fine-tuning, which happen to be consistent with words attributed to the "Being" Himself. While you may argue that the evidence is flawed or insufficient, it is present nonetheless, which makes this theory unique....others lack evidence. All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the best, yes? Since a Designer is the "Big Bang Cause" argument with the largest body of evidence, it is the default unless new information comes to light.
That was ... muddled. Perhaps you could expand on it a little.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by EWCCC777, posted 11-07-2011 3:15 PM EWCCC777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by EWCCC777, posted 11-07-2011 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 75 by EWCCC777, posted 11-07-2011 3:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 317 (640143)
11-07-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by EWCCC777
11-07-2011 3:34 PM


Re: A being?
As I said, that isn't an argument; just "food for thought." I'm aware. Still, hard to ignore.
I find it easy to ignore things that aren't arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by EWCCC777, posted 11-07-2011 3:34 PM EWCCC777 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 157 of 317 (640259)
11-08-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by designtheorist
11-07-2011 11:33 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
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.
Few would have dreamed that it was possible to commit an ad hominem attack on persons unknown --- until you did it. Without knowing who they are, or indeed what their theological leanings will be, you know that scientists will produce a non-magical explanation (which you haven't seen) of a phenomenon which has not yet been adequately measured; and you've already decided that when whoever they are and whatever they say, they'll be "generating contrived theories whenever possible in order to avoid confronting the possible existence of a creator God". Thus constructing an ad hominem argument about people of whom you know nothing (since you don't know who they are) to counter an argument of which you also know nothing (since it has not yet been formulated).
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.
But Einstein was pursuing the data. Have you ever looked at the night sky? The cosmos looks static. He was putting the data before his theory. As soon as there were data showing the cosmos was expanding, he changed his mind.
"Non-magical theory?" Wow. I will pull together some statements from different agnostic scientists about how the big bang must be supernatural.
How is it even possible to be agnostic and say that something must be supernatural? Surely an agnostic would have to say: "It may be supernatural, I don't know".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 11:33 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 317 (640261)
11-08-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by designtheorist
11-08-2011 2:06 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Right now you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time. They cannot both be right. This is called "double-think" and it happens to all of us at one time or another.
No, double-think is holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and believing both of them. Holding them in your head and thinking that one or the other is true is normal. For example, I believe that you are male or female. PaulK thinks that either the universe had a beginning or it didn't.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people thought the earth always existed.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 2:06 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 5:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 11-08-2011 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 317 (640268)
11-08-2011 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Pressie
11-08-2011 5:26 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Hermaphrodites.
Sure, I was trying to keep things simple. But if I exclude hermaphrodites I am committing a false dichotomy, not doublethink; and if I add hermaphrodites to my list of things designtheorist could be, that isn't triplethink, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 5:26 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 6:15 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 240 of 317 (640390)
11-09-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by designtheorist
11-09-2011 1:13 AM


Re: Reply to Pressie
The laws of the universe are not able to limit the Big Banger or prevent him or her from doing anything. The created thing is not more powerful than the creator.
This is not necessarily the case. The people who made my car can't, by virtue of that fact, make it run on water or exceed the speed of sound; nor is any of them powerful enough to lift their creation; moreover if you drove the car at one of them at speed then the car would come off better than the person.
Considerations of this kind show that the creator can have fairly limited power over the thing created. We know so very little about either universes or their creators ... it might be, for example, that for safety reasons it is only possible to make universes in (the analog of) some sort of sealed container, and this Big Banger of whom you speak can only observe the development of the universe through his measuring instruments, but is powerless to intervene.
Of course, you like to assume that your Big Banger has the properties that theologians like to attribute to God, such as omnipotence, but neither the facts nor your arguments support that.
If there was a Big Banger maybe his last thought before he accidentally fell into a black hole and was squished to death by his own creation was "Damn, I really messed this one up". (The inept inventor Thomas Midgley was killed by a device he invented to get him out of bed. The creator was not more powerful than the thing he created. There is no reason why he should be.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by designtheorist, posted 11-09-2011 1:13 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 260 of 317 (640497)
11-10-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 9:44 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces. Davies makes that clear. So the cause of the big bang has to be supernatural.
It's not clear what you mean by physical and supernatural, nor what your reasoning is.
My mind can conceive of a supernatural being which is timeless and immaterial and powerful enough to design and create the universe out of nothing. My mind cannot conceive of any impersonal supernatural force with such capabilities. If your mind can conceive of this, I would be interested in hearing details.
What your mind can conceive of is not necessarily a good guide to physics.
I myself can imagine the possibility that something that can think caused the universe; I can also imagine the possibility that something that cannot think caused the universe. The second would be something which would be like the first thing in that it had the ability to cause the universe but unlike it in that it lacked the ability to think.
Why not? You don't say. One knows so little about the causes of the universe that one can hardly say that it necessarily required thought. In the non-physical realm of which you speak the occurrence of a universe might be as mindless as the fall of a raindrop or the opening of a flower. We don't know, because we don't know anything about it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 9:44 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 265 of 317 (640504)
11-10-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 10:03 AM


Allan Sandage
But Allan Sandage was a leading astronomer in his own right and converted to Christianity because of the big bang.
Not according to him he didn't. Here he is talking about creation and the Big Bang in an interview in Science and the spiritual quest: new essays by leading scientists. The emphasis is in the original.
I'm a cosmologist. What I do is study the evolution of the universe. I've been doing that for forty years. A creation event is not, for me, a proof of the existence of God. [...] One can bolster one's faith, I suppose, by saying that there was a creation event. But Big Bang cosmology does not say that this is the creation of the universe. It is some catastrophic event, but the mystery of creation out of nothing remains a mystery.
You can read the whole interview if you follow the link. Not only does he not say that cosmology supports his theology, but he specifically says that it doesn't.
---
So yeah, I too think you might leave non-technical statements by scientists alone until you can stop misinterpreting them. Pretty much everything you've said along these lines has turned out to be untrue, does this not bother you?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 274 of 317 (640518)
11-10-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:09 AM


Re: Allan Sandage
Yes, Sandage gave interviews before his conversion. However, the fact Sandage ultimately did convert is not subject to any controversy. Look him up in Wikipedia or google him. There are news articles about his conversion and/or orbituaries which talk about his conversion.
Do try to concentrate. That is an interview of him talking after his conversion. I never said he didn't convert, I said he didn't convert because of the Big Bang. This interview, given after his conversion, proves that I am right. Even after his conversion, not only is he not adducing the Big Bang as a reason for his conversion, he is explicitly saying that it is not a reason to believe in theistic creation.
I gave you a link to the interview, you know. You could have read it, if you were actually interested in what he has to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:09 AM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Granny Magda, posted 11-10-2011 11:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 282 of 317 (640527)
11-10-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
I should also have pointed out that the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God is dependent on "beingness." It is not possible to have an impersonal Designer because design requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a being.
As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.
Are you trying to affirm the consequent?
You have not said what you mean by "being". If you just mean something rather than nothing, then you may well be right. But there is nothing about "something" that implies that it has intelligence.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 308 of 317 (640601)
11-10-2011 9:56 PM


The Gap Of The Gods
Well, we don't seem to have got very far.
On the one hand, we have the idea that the universe had something like a cause. I say something like because normally the idea of cause is bound up with the idea of time, which is something that happens inside our universe.
On the other hand, we have the idea of God, a person having various properties such as wisdom and justice and so forth, who sits in some ethereal realm outside of spacetime and who made our universe from this vantage point.
Such a being would qualify as a "cause" of the universe, but is there any reason except wishful thinking and shameless anthropomorphism to think that he is, in fact, the cause? There is not (and many would say that there are cogent arguments against it, since the universe does not appear to have been framed by wisdom and justice).
Let us grant an ethereal realm in which the cause of the universe dwells. Who can say what it's like? In this other world, universes might form as naturally, as mindlessly, as the dew on the grass in the morning. Heck, maybe in that great unknown people poop universes. Who can say? The most we know about it is that it is not like the universe we live in. We do not know that any analogy would be fruitful.
Think of someone who'd lived his whole life inside a large cardboard box. Let him grasp the possibility that there is something outside of the box. Would he be right to infer that it was a bigger box? No, he would not. Would he be capable of inferring the Atlantic Ocean, or the Milky Way? Could he even infer colors he had never seen, such as green and blue?
There is, then, a great gap between what we can reasonably conjecture (a "cause") and what we would like to conjecture (a god). Designtheorist tells us that his mind cannot conceive of any "cause" except something like a person. This argument cuts little ice with me, for two reasons. First, I can think of lots of other alternatives. But second, I don't see why the "cause" should be like anything that we can imagine. Nothing I've ever seen can cause universes, so why should the cause of the universe be like anything I've ever seen? The gap remains, and designtheorist's personal lack of imagination does nothing to close it.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024