Summations Only

I promise to begin a discussion of the fine-tuning argument in a later thread. It is quite a strong argument when properly understood. I would really like to keep this conversation focused on the very narrow points I am making in my first and second general posts. In an hour or so I will begin to answer some of the questions and objections raised earlier.

Nuggin,
I'm sorry I didn't read your post more closely. I presumed you were discussing a well-known theory. The theory you have laid out here is not one I have encountered before. While it is an interesting thought, I do not think it will do. The universe certainly had a beginning and will certainly grow cold, dark and uninhabitable. I have not come across any theory in which the universe will become empty. Nor do I know of any physical law which would suggest such an ending. For example, we know the natural history of Sun-like stars. The active fusion state (like our Sun is in now), then comes the Red Giant phase (when the nuclear fuel becomes depleted), then the planetary nebula phase (when the outer layers of the Sun break away), to the White Dwarf phase (when the Sun has cooled and shrunk), and finally to the Black Dwarf phase (then the Sun has lost all its heat).You seem to be proposing that at this stage the Sun would begin to break apart into subatomic particles as though there was an end to gravity. I do not think this is supportable. Do you happen to have any support for this idea?

When matter is destroyed, energy is released. This is the very definition of Conservation of Energy.

It appears your disagreement with me rests on the size of the singularity. Really?I don't really think the size of the singularity is significant because the singularity did not exist at that size for even a millisecond. Perhaps you have already read my second general post (Message 49) in which I quote Steven Weinberg and Paul Davies regarding the standard cosmology of the big bang. I think they explain quite clearly how quickly things changed once the singularity came into existence.Alternatively, you can do a thought experiment. Pick a singularity of any size you like - tennis ball, grape, or the period at the end of this sentence. Or you can think of it as the primeval atom, as LeMaitre did. It doesn't matter. Consider it as it sits there infinitely dense and supremely hot. How long do you think it can stay in that condition before it begins to rapidly expand? I'm certain you understand that heat expands. The answer is clear - not even a millisecond.The singularity is a mathematical concept used because equations break down when they hit infinity. Do not think of the singularity as a physical entity with a long temporal existence. It doesn't work.

There is no evidence of any god or designers while there is overwhelming evidence that causes are usually trivial, insignificant and transient.I am intrigued by the assertion. However, a theory becomes more persuasive as it is seen to have better explanatory power than competing theories. I'm sorry but the universe did not come into being as the result of a "trivial, insignificant and transient" cause.Just out of curiosity, what is the largest and most complex result you have seen come from a "trivial, insignificant and transient" cause? Obviously, a forest fire from a lighted match does not meet the requirement because it results in less complexity. I'm eager to hear your answer!

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?Yes, of course. The idea common in the 19th and early 20th centuries that the universe was static-state, had always existed and would always exist leaves no room for a creator God or Designer of the universe.When the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1965, it shocked the scientific world to the core. Of course, some experts in General Relativity like Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington had already come to the conclusion LeMaitre was correct. But Fred Hoyle still had a number of followers in 1965. I will pull together some quotes by Robert Jastrow and others about how the discovery of CMB radiation changed cosmology. Jastrow wrote a famous book on it titled God and the Astronomers. It is a short book on this very important period in the history of science. I'm certain you can find it in your local library. It is well worth the investment of time.

I am trying to focus on very narrow points. It is far to easy to get pulled in different directions and never come to agreement on the foundational issues.My post in Message 49 develops my thought into the next step.

And if there is a Big Banger, there has to be a Big Banger Factory, or whatever it is you want to call the thing that created the Big Banger.First, I love your nickname. Very clever.Second, my post in Message 49 unpacks this a little. You might want to check it out for more context. Briefly, the Big Banger (because he/she pre-exists time and space) is best thought of as non-temporal, eternal. Therefore, he/she does not need a beginning or a factory.

Your argument so far hinges on asserting, without proof, statement #2: "If the universe has existed for a finite amount of time (Q), then the universe had a beginning (P)"Not true. I never made that argument. The argument I quoted was this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

The universe began to exist. 

Therefore, the universe has a cause.I also discussed the history of Big Bang Theory from its theoretical origins to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is nearly universally seen as observational evidence of the big bang, the beginning of our spacetime/universe.The answers to your questions regarding the conservation of energy would only apply after the big bang and not before. The physical laws of our universe only apply to our universe. You cannot expect them to apply before the universe came into existence. Yes, I agree in the present universe that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by or in nature. I accept the universe is a closed system, except, of course, to the creator God or Designer who can do whatever he wants when he wants, but such actions would be miracles because they would violate the natural physical laws. I am uncertain of your meaning regarding the wider system of which the universe is a smaller part? The conservation of energy would only fail upon the action of the creator God or Designer to create or destroy matter-energy.Sorry I was not able to respond more fully earlier. I was trying to get the post Message 49 prepared and was pressed for time.

No, he didn’t show that. I have responded to his comment. You are welcome to read it.Next, you question whether my comments follow from the Davies quote I cited. Let’s do this again.Davies writes:
If there was no time (or place) before the big bang for a causative agency to exist, then we can attribute no physical cause to the big bang.Note the word physical in the sentence. Davies is correct. Because the big bang happened before a physical universe existed, we cannot attribute a physical cause. I am saying we can attribute and, in my opinion, must attribute an unphysical (or immaterial) cause. In the same way because the big bang happened before time was created, the big bang must have been caused by a being which is timeless or eternal.Does my explanation go beyond what Davies was willing to write? Certainly. But I also think you can see the logic of my conclusions. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Can you conceive of a universe that wouldn't be consistent with the existence of a creator god or designer? If not, the fact that this one is consistent is of no significance.

​

My position is that gods are a product of the imaginations of sentient beings that inhabit this universe. An inhabitant of this universe would create a god that is consistent with this universe. The fact that the designer god is consistent with this universe supports my position that gods are made up.

​

{AbE}Oh, and it's manifestly true that you're not just saying that the big bang is consistent with your idea of god. The very title of this thread, "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God," is a much stronger claim than mere consistency.Yes, I can conceive of a universe which would not be consistent with a creator God or Designer. It would be the static state universe, the former cosmology which was in vogue during the 19th and early 20th centuries. If the universe was truly constant and unchanging, eternal and always existed, then there is no place for a creator or Designer. The fact the universe came into existence is, by itself, support for the activity of a creator God. Is it proof? No.Regarding your question if my goal is to show compatibility with a creator or support for a creator, the answer is both. In my first post, I was focusing on compatibility. In my second General Post, Message 49, I provide some additional facts about the science of the big bang which provides greater support for the work of a creator God or Designer of the universe.The better you understand the science, the more clearly you will see the evidence for design.

{baseless assertion}
{proof by assertion}
{brown-nosing}
{appeal to authority} {"He won an award!"}
{quote-mine} {quote-mine} {quote-mine}
{appeal to authority} {appeal to popularity} {"He won two awards!!!"}
{quote-mine} {quote-mine}
{baseless assertions}
{"He won an award!"}
{quote-mine}
{"Look at the pretty pictures!"}
{baseless assertion} {quote-mine}
{wishful thinking} {baseless assertion} {demonizing the opposition}
{non-sequitur}Anyone can do what you did in mischaracterizing my argument. Let me pick just the example of your charge of quote mining and appeal to authority.Do you honestly expect me to think you would present an argument without quoting any support for your statements? Part of the reason people have a wrong view of the big bang is because they do not understand the science. So I quote from famous and Nobel Prize winning physicists to explain the standard cosmology and you claim I am quote mining. That's just ridiculous! Either you don't know what quote mining means or you have no inclination to interact with data and logic which is contrary to your world view. Which is it?

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.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. I was not trying to be offensive. I was just trying to point out that we are all products of our environment to a certain extent. 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. 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?"Non-magical theory?" Wow. I will pull together some statements from different agnostic scientists about how the big bang must be supernatural. I know those types of comments make certain people uncomfortable but it is important to understand why they say the things they said. No, I do not have any problems with a naturalistic explanation 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?I try to judge science on the merits of the science. I believe all truth is one.

This does not follow. Theoretical physics does get pretty close to philosophy very early on. You must build your scientific construct (or philosophical construct) on solid ground.Here's what we know. The universe exists. The universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. Something or someone caused the universe to come into existence, because universes do not just happen on their own. This person or thing acted before space and time were created. Therefore, the cause of the big bang is not subject to space or time. He or she or it cannot be physical/material because physical/material objects have to exist in spacetime. Since he or she or it is not subject to time, then he must be timeless or eternal.

Good question! Just out of curiosity, have you asked yourself the same question?Think about it for a minute. If everything else I said makes sense, is it possible for the cause to be anything but a being?Because the cause of the big bang had to exist prior to the creation of spacetime, therefore the cause is not physical/material. Physical/material things must be located in spacetime. Since the cause existed before time, the cause must be timeless. Therefore, the cause of the big bang is both immaterial and timeless.Given those constraints, can you conceive of anything immaterial and timeless which could effect the big bang and not be a being?It must be a being because otherwise is inconceivable.Unless, of course, you can conceive of an immaterial timeless cause which is sufficient to generate the big bang and physical universe as amazing as ours. If you can, I would love to hear your description of it.