Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
88 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 80 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,830 Year: 942/6,534 Month: 942/682 Week: 177/445 Day: 22/48 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2947 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


(1)
Message 1 of 317 (640014)
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


The standard cosmology is the universe started with a big bang about 13.7 billion years ago. But many people are under the mistaken idea the big bang is an argument against the existence of God or against the concept of a designer who formed the universe. Not true. 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.”

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.

The Law of Conservation of Energy says energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. This is the most important reason why so many scientists in the 19th and early 20th centuries believed the universe always existed.

Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, published in 1916, led to a revolution in physics, astronomy and cosmology. Using General Relativity, physicists theorized the universe must be expanding. Logically, if the universe is expanding, then it was smaller in the past. If you run the movie backward far enough, then the universe must have had a beginning.

A Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics named Georges LeMaitre introduced Big Bang theory in a 1927 paper titled “The primeval atom.” This paper was published two years before the Edwin Hubble paper describing his observations of the expanding universe. Initially Einstein did not like LeMaitre’s theory, but after Hubble’s paper was published Einstein, Arthur Eddington and others were persuaded by Big Bang Theory. Some holdouts, including Sir Fred Hoyle, were still not convinced.

With the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation in 1965, Big Bang Theory has convinced nearly everyone the universe had a beginning. The discovery of CMB radiation is described in the excellent book by Robert Jastrow titled “God and the Astronomers.”

So where did all that energy and matter come from? Who or what caused the Big Bang?

Before trying to answer that question, it is interesting to note that about 1,000 years ago an Islamic philosopher named al-Ghazali formulated this argument:

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

His argument (or a variation) was picked up by Bonaventure, then Locke and Kant among others. The problem was until science could prove the universe had a beginning, the argument lacked power. But now that the big bang is well-supported by the evidence and has become the standard cosmology, the argument gains tremendous strength. Therefore, based on current science it is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of creator God or universe Designer.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 7:24 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 4 by frako, posted 11-06-2011 7:26 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 11-06-2011 7:27 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 6 by DWIII, posted 11-06-2011 7:44 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 11-06-2011 7:49 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 11-06-2011 7:57 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 9 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2011 7:58 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2011 9:02 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 15 by Pressie, posted 11-06-2011 11:09 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2011 2:19 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 44 by Aware Wolf, posted 11-07-2011 8:36 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 170 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 6:41 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 317 (640016)
11-06-2011 7:11 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 3 of 317 (640017)
11-06-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


So where did all that energy and matter come from? Who or what caused the Big Bang?

Basically, your argument boils down to, "We don't know the answer to this question, therefore god."

Have you ever heard the phrase "God of the gaps?"


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2011 8:03 PM subbie has responded
 Message 17 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:38 AM subbie has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 4 of 317 (640018)
11-06-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


Simply stated – “If there was a big bang, there has to be a Big Banger.”

Your logic fails

Al stars are on fire so they had to be at one point lit, so there had to be a firestarter, no there was no firestarter they lit themselves when the pressure their own gravity caused they got on "fire".

The Law of Conservation of Energy says energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. This is the most important reason why so many scientists in the 19th and early 20th centuries believed the universe always existed.

And yet virtual particles start to exists and in the next moment cease to exist,

So where did all that energy and matter come from? Who or what caused the Big Bang?

We dont know like we dont know how to go south of the south pole. There are so many things we dont know about the subject, firstly what was before the big bang if anything what about time dose it start there or not or was there a time before, if there is none or an infinite lenght of time how did we get to the point of the big bang starting.

Saying god did it is as just as good of an argument an alien kid lit his fart on fire.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:39 AM frako has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33650
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 5 of 317 (640019)
11-06-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


Even if true it provides no support for any creator or god
Even if your unsupported assumptions

(“Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.” )

were true, it provides absolutely no support for any Universe Designer or Creator God, or any god for that matter, and this was clearly pointed out to the then Pope back in 1927 by none other than Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître.

Even if there was some cause to the Big Bang there is no reason that the cause need not be entirely normal, trivial and transient.

Just as the spark that starts a forest fire is small, trivial and does not survive the event itself, just as the crack that allows a dam to break leading to a massive flood might be small, trivial and not survive the event itself, the cause if there was one for the Big Bang need not be significant, large or continue to exist after the event.

Sorry, but the Big Bang supplies no support for any Universe Designer or Creator God, or any god for that matter.


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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:41 AM jar has responded

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 866 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 6 of 317 (640020)
11-06-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


designtheorist writes:


The standard cosmology is the universe started with a big bang about 13.7 billion years ago. But many people are under the mistaken idea the big bang is an argument against the existence of God or against the concept of a designer who formed the universe. Not true. 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."

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.

The Law of Conservation of Energy says energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. This is the most important reason why so many scientists in the 19th and early 20th centuries believed the universe always existed.

Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, published in 1916, led to a revolution in physics, astronomy and cosmology. Using General Relativity, physicists theorized the universe must be expanding. Logically, if the universe is expanding, then it was smaller in the past. If you run the movie backward far enough, then the universe must have had a beginning.

For the sake of argument, I will concede that if the universe had a beginning, then it has existed only for a finite amount of time. However, this is only a one-way implication, and the reverse need not hold. If the universe has existed only for a finite amount of time, it does not imply that it had a beginning. Within the confines of General Relativity (and all evidence shows that GR most definitely holds in our universe), the Big Bang singularity represents only a limit point with respect to physical time, which need not itself have ever physically existed. By way of analogy, if a continuous line segment has its leftmost point removed, there is no such thing as a second-leftmost point lying on that segment to suddenly take the removed point's place. In other words, there need be no first moment in a given finite stretch of time. (If you can't swallow that, please tell me what the smallest positive non-zero real number is.)

Also, saying that the universe has always existed is not the same as saying that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If only a finite amount of time is ultimately available for a universe to exist, utilizing the entirety of that time would legitimately qualify as "always".


So where did all that energy and matter come from?

Given that mass-energy is conserved in a closed system, and that the universe is a closed system by definition, the total mass-energy content of the universe is simply a physical property of the universe which holds during its entire existence. In other words, it doesn't have to come from anywhere, as long as the total amount remains constant.

Before we go any further on this subject, please answer the following questions: Do you accept the statement from physics that "energy can be neither created or destroyed"? Yes, or no? Do you accept that the universe is a closed system? Yes or no? If it isn't a closed system, is mass-energy conserved in the wider system of which the universe is a smaller part? If it isn't ultimately conserved under the design model, what are the specific circumstances (if any) in which the conservation of mass-energy fails?


DWIII

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:42 AM DWIII has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 7 of 317 (640021)
11-06-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


Ok, let's assume first that you will actually have a discussion about this. Next, let's assume all of what you said is true. We allow the possibility that some god character started the big bang. What's next? How does this assertion help us learn anything about the universe? What can we learn about anything by saying "some god character caused the big bang."?

Therefore, based on current science it is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of creator God or universe Designer.

Well, that depends. What, exactly, did this creator god create? If you accept current cosmology, and you also posit that this god character created humans, you have to also accept that he sat on his ass for 13.7 billion years doing nothing.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2011 8:08 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 21 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:44 AM hooah212002 has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 723 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 8 of 317 (640022)
11-06-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


What beginning?
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

Why do you consider the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?

What is the universe? Surely it is all that exists, yes?

If we run the piano roll backward, we hear the singularity: the singularity (pardon my double negative) is not nothing.

Aside from the other issues with the argument raised by others, you have failed to identify a beginning.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:45 AM Omnivorous has responded
 Message 28 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2011 2:21 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 9 of 317 (640023)
11-06-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM.
quote:
The standard cosmology is the universe started with a big bang about 13.7 billion years ago. But many people are under the mistaken idea the big bang is an argument against the existence of God or against the concept of a designer who formed the universe. Not true. 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.

Absolutely. If anything, the BB is a scientific impression, as in an emperically based conclusion, of the veracity of a universe maker for a universe. Look no further than this fact:

Based on a finite universe, as introduced in Genesis, it says once the universe and everything contained therein, never existed before.

Q. So what triggered the "BANG!"?

A. Not an external force [these never existed], nor a component of the first entity that went BANG [else it was not a first entity]. Such would violate the finite factor. This says:

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO A UNIVERSE MAKER FOR AN EMERGING UNIVERSE.

Those who deny or omit the finite factor of the universe have already lost the scientific test; they do so in denial of all evidences, because they have lost this battle of correct thought and cling to a circular premise: proof it is the wrong path.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 11-06-2011 5:39 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 10 of 317 (640024)
11-06-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
11-06-2011 7:24 PM


quote:
So where did all that energy and matter come from? Who or what caused the Big Bang?

Basically, your argument boils down to, "We don't know the answer to this question, therefore god."


Disagree. The question is incumbent; its concusion in the absence of an alternative, vindicated. There is no science without the incumbent question - it alludes to less than magic and voodooism passed on as science.

The flat earth was not overturned because someone said so; proof was required the earth is a sphearical ball spinning around the sun. This proof was tended.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 7:24 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 8:54 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 11 of 317 (640025)
11-06-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by hooah212002
11-06-2011 7:49 PM


quote:
How does this assertion help us learn anything about the universe? What can we learn about anything by saying "some god character caused the big bang."?

This is not the criteria; that question can be asked in either scenario. If someone produces a car and others marvel at it, they can either learn how that car works - or they can ask your question.

quote:

you have to also accept that he sat on his ass for 13.7 billion years doing nothing.


Last time I checked, the universe was and is a most busy realm the past 13.7B years.We are only now coming to fathom some of it.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 11-06-2011 7:49 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(7)
Message 12 of 317 (640027)
11-06-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by IamJoseph
11-06-2011 8:03 PM


Disagree. The question is incumbent; its concusion in the absence of an alternative, vindicated. There is no science without the incumbent question - it alludes to less than magic and voodooism passed on as science.

The flat earth was not overturned because someone said so; proof was required the earth is a sphearical ball spinning around the sun. This proof was tended.

Meaninglessness is inherent in word salad selection. No dressing is sufficient for or capable of adding content to lettuce that has no head. Croutons cannot flavor that which is tasteless from the outset. When all the containers in the salad bar are empty, it necessarily follows that the bowl will be empty as well. Toss it however you wish, you still end up with no food.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2011 8:03 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 11-06-2011 10:49 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 16112
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 responded

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

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2782 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 14 of 317 (640030)
11-06-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
11-06-2011 8:54 PM


quote:
Meaninglessness

If the universe began 13B years ago, it means it is finite. Word salads to no appear in meaningless fashion; the science says there 'MUST' be a cause factor which is transcendent of the resultant outcome. Saying, not necessarily, also does not cut it, nor is it a premise of proving a negative. Science works via the plausible and what can be scientifically inferrred.

Science is aligned with Creationism. It is the theologies which are A-scientific.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 11-06-2011 8:54 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 11-07-2011 1:07 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 15 of 317 (640032)
11-06-2011 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
11-06-2011 5:39 PM


IamJoseph writes:

The Law of Conservation of Energy says energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.

Bang goes a designer. Energy and matter was never created.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by designtheorist, posted 11-07-2011 1:49 AM Pressie has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022