|
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Fred Hoyle's solution was "creation field" and "quasi-steady state" theory. You are not thinking fourth dimensionally! Hoyle did not come up with these variations until after the CMB radiation was discovered in 1965. From 1948 to 1965, Hoyle favored Steady State which I am pretty sure is essentially the same at the ancient Static Universe theory.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As Designtheorist says, theological answers to this question are perfectly compatible with our scientific picture of the Big Bang. Sure, but he also said that the Big Band is supportive of a designer (and further that the desgner is a being), and I think that is definately a major blunder. That's been the source of my disagreement. Simply "being compatible with" doesn't leave much to argue about.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Actually, with the advent of the internet, it is pretty easy to determine if a quote represents a famous person's point of view or not. And I learned something valuable when the Burbidge quote was challenged. To attempt to block quotes is counterproductive to the purpose of this site.
What you've just written (and mine here now) exactly proves why using quotes like that is what is totally counterproductive to the purpose of this site. Nothing in these two posts has anything to do with the Big Bang supporting a Universe Designer or Creator God! You've wasted this time that would be better served addressing the analogy that I provided that explains why you're wrong. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You seem to have a mistaken idea that quotes are not a valid source of information. It depends on what type of information you are after. Are we discussing what people believe? No. We are discussing whether or not the EVIDENCE supports a creator. Thus, a discussion of the EVIDENCE is what should be occuring. What people believe is irrelevant. So what evidence has been put forward? Thus far, the Anthropic argument seems to be the only one that was really pushed. This argument when unevidenced. You were never able to show that the universe was made for us, or any other living being. So where does that leave us?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Taq writes: So where does that leave us? Shaving with Occam's Razor.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
It depends on what type of information you are after. Are we discussing what people believe? No. We are discussing whether or not the EVIDENCE supports a creator. Thus, a discussion of the EVIDENCE is what should be occuring. What people believe is irrelevant. Studying what people think about the evidence is an important but secondary line of evidence. You can even earn a degree in History of Science. You might want to look up Spencer Weart. He is one of the leading science historians. His contribution to the understanding of science has pretty large.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces. Evidence please.
So the cause of the big bang has to be supernatural. False dichotomy. It is possible that it could be both non-physical and non-supernatural.
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. Reality does not conform to what we can or can not conceive. We are talking about what is real, not what you can or can not imagine. There are many things we understand as facts today that would have once been considered unimaginable.
Please remember, the goal is not to convince everyone that my argument is the only possible argument. The goal is to show that it is both internally consistent and reasonable. Then perhaps you should base your arguments on evidence instead of your limited imagination.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It is not possible to have an impersonal Designer because design requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a being. Intelligence also requires a brain. And brains require matter and time. Therefore, there couldn't be any intelligence before matter existed in the Universe. Ergo, no Designer of the Big Bang.
As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable. Colliding Branes.
http://universe-review.ca/I15-39-collision.jpg Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Studying what people think about the evidence is an important but secondary line of evidence. It is not important. Please focus on the primary line of evidence, the evidence itself. Let me put it another way. I work in a biomedical research lab. I have presented our findings to other scientists at meetings. I am an author on a few papers. I would never, ever present an argument to other scientists that is based solely on quotes from other scientists. If I did that I would be laughed at, and rightly so. In science you put forward your hypothesis, describe the tests that you ran to test the hypothesis, describe the results of those tests, and then show how the results support your hypothesis. You do NOT quote other scientists as evidence for your hypothesis. Never. That is how science works. So will we be seeing a discussion of the evidence anytime soon?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable. HUH? You even mentioned at least two possible causes that do not require a "being" and still say that is inconceivable?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
thingamabob Junior Member (Idle past 2645 days) Posts: 23 From: New Jerusalem Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Colliding Branes. If there was no time and no space where would the colliding branes exist to be able to collide? thing,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
designtheorist writes: As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable. To you. It is inconceivable to you. There can only be two possiblities. 1. The universe in some form exist and always has.2. The universe was created. The universe as we know does exist. However what we do not know is whether or not it was created. We know the universe's initial state was a super ordered condensed singularity that has inflated to a highly un ordered state as we see it today. It is unknown, prior to this inflation, how or why the state of the universe changed. All we know is it did some 13.7 billion years ago. What caused this change is speculation. There need not be a cause. A self existant universe is just as likely as a created one. Except assuming a created on begs the question of who created it and who created the creator? Personally I like to believe in God. I like to believe there is a objective morality too. I like to believe there is a reason de entre.(reason for being.) I like to believe these things because they are more comforting to me than the alternative of nihilism. But I do not expect to be able to provide evidence and convincing arguments beyond that of personal religious beliefs and traditions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024