|
Author
|
Topic: Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
Re: Some quotes on the big bang
quote:
This thread began with the goal to show that, contrary to many people’s opinions, Big Bang Theory is compatible with and supports the view a creator God or Designer was involved at the start of the universe. It was not my goal to prove God created the universe, only that the available science is compatible with and supports such a belief. At the very least, people should not see a conflict between science and a belief in a Designer or creator God.
There are several problems with this approach. First, you are relying on the Anthropic principle. The confirmation bias inherent to the Anthropic principle is quite obvious. If the universe were not capable of producing intelligent beings then who would be here to notice? Obviously, no one. So it is not that suprising that a universe capable of producing intelligent life has intelligent life in it. Even more, this universe could have been designed by a poor designer, one that was trying to create a sterile universe but failed. Second, by definition any conceivable observation can be consistent with an omnipotent creator, including a steady state universe. An omnipotent designer could create a universe with a false history of steady state conditions. In fact, an omnipotent creator could have created the universe last Thursday, complete with a false history and intelligent beings with false memories. It is a fool's errand to try and find evidence which would falsify a designer since no such evidence can exist. Third, theistic claims have completely failed for quite a few years now. To quote Steven Weinberg:
quote:
Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."
Theistic explanations just don't work. They never really did. We were told that gods made thunder and lightning. They were wrong. We were told that Baccus made grape juice ferment. They were wrong. Over and over gods have disappeared from our explanation of nature. You have now retreated to the few gaps left in our knowledge and have now declared that God exists there. Sorry, not falling for it.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
Re: Reply to pressie
I think Fred Hoyle just renamed the old theory, but perhaps I am wrong on that. Fred Hoyle's solution was "creation field" and "quasi-steady state" theory. Both allowed for an expanding universe with continual creation of energy, and thus matter. This way the universe was eternal and expanding. For C-field and QSS the universe is not static. It is expanding. However, it has an infinite history compared to a finite history for the BB.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
Re: Reply to Taq
I believe you are describing Hoyle's later position, after the CMB radiation was discovered in 1965. This is the position some came to call "steady bang," although I don't think Hoyle ever used that term. Prior to 1965, Hoyle had publicly defended the Steady State Theory. As far as I know, Hoyle's view was not appreciably different that the Static Universe view described in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier. I could be wrong on that. I will have to do a little more reading to find out. Once expansion was undeniably evidenced he had to move to a new theory. That theory was C-field (which he didn't invent, but he did adopt). In this theory, matter is created through a type of quantum fluctuation due to the expansion of space. According to Hoyle, the universe still has an infinite past but can still expand. QSS was a response to the discovery of the CMB later on.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Reply to Wollysaurus
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. It is statements like this that make design theory all but worthless. Is it a tad coincidental? Absolutely, BECAUSE IT IS A CONCIDENCE. Given the millions to one odds of anyone winning the lottery I would guess that you also think God picks the winners. There is never anything connecting the facts with a designer other than the needs of the person based on their already held religious beliefs.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
Re: Reply to Parsomnium
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?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
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. 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.
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Reply to Parsomnium
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?
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 292 of 317 (640540)
11-10-2011 12:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 289 by kbertsche
11-10-2011 12:07 PM
|
|
Re: Levels of inconceivability
Really?!? Please name even one thing physical thing which has "begun to exist" which has no "cause." 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. We could also look at quantum fluctuations, the uncaused and spontaneous appearance of virtual particles.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 289 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 12:07 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10073 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.2
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 317 of 317 (641022)
11-15-2011 11:46 AM
|
|
|
Evidence, not quotes!!!!
Once again we have seen a disconnect between what ID/creationists think is science and what scientists think is science. ID/creationists think that quotes are evidence for a specific theory. They are not. No theory is supported by the weight of quotes from degreed scientists. Theories are supported by empirical evidence and experimentation. Nowhere did designtheorist support his arguments for a designed universe with actual evidence. Instead, quotes were used as smoke and mirrors to cover up the lack of evidence. Without evidence or a testable model there is nothing to argue other than belief. If designtheorist believes that the universe is designed, and points to other scientists with those same beliefs, then that's fine. However, if designtheorist wants to claim that a designed universe is a conclusion backed by evidence then designtheorist needs to supply this evidence. Pointing to the beliefs of other scientists is only evidence of their beliefs. Being an expert does not make your beliefs any truer.
|
™ Version 4.2