Summations Only

quote:

---

While the big bang may not be proof of God’s creation or the work of a Designer, the evidence is strong enough to have convinced many astronomers and physicists to change their views. These scientists did not all join some organized religion, but their views about the possible existence of God and the nature of the universe changed because of the big bang. Here are a few high profile examples:

​

Arthur Eddington, one-time atheist, became agnostic.
Paul Davies, one-time atheist, became agnostic.
Allan Sandage, one-time atheist, became a Christian.

---

And you could add:Richard Smalley, Nobel laureate in chemistry, became a Christian
Anthony Flew, noted philosopher, became a theist

quote:

---

...I still believe that people who write that "in the 19th and 20th centuries, people thought that the earth always existed", belong in institutions.

---

I suspect that designtheorist meant "universe" instead of "earth." If so, he is correct.

quote:

---

My answer was: Nonsense. Steady State Theory was only devised in 1948, it was a cosmological theory and had nothing to do with the age of the earth ". I quoted from Wiki, showing you that you were not telling the truth at all. I even showed you who and when Solid State Theory started.

---

It may be true that the Steady State theory in its current form was devised by Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold in 1948, but the general idea is much, much older. The conception of a steady-state eternal universe has been popular from the time of Aristotle to the mid 20th century.According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
According to Wikipedia:
And according to Wikipedia, steady-state cosmologies were held by Aristotle, Newton, Descartes, Kant, Einstein, and MacMillan.

quote:

---

The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces.

---

I think part of the disagreement and confusion here involves the use and meaning of the word "before". If time began with the Big Bang, there can be nothing "before" it in a temporal sense. However, one can still discuss a "cause" in a logical or philosophical sense. If the entire physical universe, and time itself, began at the Big Bang, then the cause of the Big Bang must lie outside of the physical universe and of time itself.Once we start asking such questions, we have left science proper and have entered into logic, philosophy, and theology. These questions cannot be addressed by science, but they are valid and important questions nonetheless. As Designtheorist says, theological answers to this question are perfectly compatible with our scientific picture of the Big Bang.

quote:

---

There need not be a cause.

---

Really?!? Please name even one thing physical thing which has "begun to exist" which has no "cause."

quote:

---

A self existant universe is just as likely as a created one.

---

Really?!? Please name one physical thing which is generally accepted to be "self existent."You could perhaps argue that "A self existent universe is just as likely as a self existent God", but that's not what you said. Even then, I don't know how you could objectively judge the "likelihood" of such things. (And this would be tantamount to making the universe your God.)Edited by kbertsche, : Add comment re likelihood.

quote:

---

We could look at the decay products of any unstable isotope. The decay is the result of spontaneous quantum tunneling. There is no cause in the normal sense. It is a spontaneous and uncaused event.

---

Wrong. This is the same erroneous argument that Stenger uses. Radioactive decay has a definite cause--the instability of its nucleus, which leads to the spontaneous quantum tunneling that you mention. "Spontaneous" is not the same as "uncaused".

quote:

---

We could also look at quantum fluctuations, the uncaused and spontaneous appearance of virtual particles.

---

Wrong again. The cause of quantum fluctuations and virtual particles can be ascribed to the nature of the universe, the nature of the vacuum, the standard model, and/or a variety of other physical causes. "Random" or "stochastic" is not the same as "uncaused".Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I think Designtheorist is to be congratulated for a clear OP, and for trying to stick to his main points and to avoid being sidetracked on the many rabit trails that were offered him. The main points of the OP were:

quote:

---

...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.

​

Simply stated — If there was a big bang, there has to be a Big Banger.

---

Unfortunately, there has been little if any discussion of or disagreement with these points in this thread. Perhaps these points are not very controversial, and are generally accepted?Rather than addressing these main points, it appears that the critics in this thread tried to make Designtheorist go much further in his claims, so that they could more easily attack and dismiss his arguments. The major disagreement and discussion in this thread has been about the nature of the "creator" or "designer"; must the designer be personal? sentient? These are important questions, but they are secondary to the main points in the OP.But the OP went a bit farther than "compatibility;" it also claimed "support":

quote:

---

The better we understand the science behind the big bang, the better we understand how the big bang supports the concept of a pre-existing designer or creator God.

---

I would have liked to see more fleshing out and discussion of this topic. Some good points were made about it, but there seems to still be some confusion about some of the terms used and what the claims even mean. (I would say that the science of the Big Bang begs us to ask philosophical questions about its causation. These philosophical considerations support the concept of a non-physical "creator" or "designer".)The OP also reminded us of the Kalaam cosmological argument:

quote:

---

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

---

This argument has been discussed in other threads on EvC forum, so perhaps it didn't need to be discussed much in this thread. But I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of it nonetheless.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.