Summations Only

quote:

---

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.

---

If the universe has existed for all time, why would it need a cause ?Wouldn't you agree that we only need to invoke causes to account for changes and that changes only happen in time ?

quote:

---

Here's what we know. The universe exists. The universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago.

---

Hold on, what we don't know is if the Universe had a beginning as we understand it, or whether 13.7 billion years ago simply represents the first moment of time. We can't say that the universe came into existence at that point if it always existed.

quote:

---

Something or someone caused the universe to come into existence, because universes do not just happen on their own.

---

But if there is no time before the universe existed, how can you say that the universe "happened" ?

quote:

---

This person or thing acted before space and time were created.

---

Which only goes to support my point. You are assuming a state "before" time when the universe did not exist. However there cannot be a state before time, because "before" is a temporal term. It is logically impossible.So, we cannot have anything acting "before" time existed. At this point you have a number of alternatives:1) You can propose that time precedes the universe, thus losing your argument that the cause must be outside of spacetime.2) You can propose that our universe is embedded in a larger spacetime, again losing your argument that the cause must exist outside spacetime.3) You can try and come up with some other way to make sense of your position. One that doesn't come across as a "contrived theory" since you have such a negative opinion of such things. Good luck. You'll need it.

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.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. may have been a life long Quaker.
Paul Davies, one-time atheist, became agnostic.
Allan Sandage, one-time atheist, became a Christian.Here are some of the quotes from mainly atheistic and agnostic scientists:Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me I should like to find a genuine loophole.
Arthur Eddington The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450Arthur Eddington states: The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural. (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, p. 178)Allan Sandage was an atheist who became a Christian late in life and said, "If God did not exist, science would have to invent Him to explain what it is discovering at its core."I find it improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing. - Allan Sandage, Winner of the Crawford Prize in Astronomy, spoken before he became a ChristianSpeaking of the big bang, agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow says: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. (A scientist caught between two faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982).Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 14).Scientist George Smoot (who led the COBE team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation) says: There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. (quoted in Show me God by Fred Heeren, p. 139)Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning. - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.30Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say supernatural) plan. - Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physicsGeorge F.R. Ellis, a well-known cosmologist and one-time co-author with Stephen Hawking wrote: To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself. - George F. R. Ellis, Before the Beginning — Cosmology Explained, p. 97.The late Nobel laureate Paul Dirac stated "God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world."Here are some quotes from scientists stating that faith and science can be compatible:Albert Einstein said My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.In the lecture "Scientists and Their Gods" Henry Schaefer quotes physicist Robert Griffiths: "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."Atheist Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman admitted, "Many scientists do believe in both science and God . . . in a perfectly consistent way."Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics: Science wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated. Many scientists feel there is no place in research for discussion of anything that sounds mystical. But it is unreasonable to think we already know enough about the natural world to be confident about the totality of forces.I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute force. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level God is a matter of taste and definition. - Paul Davies, The Mind of GodI find it difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science. And there is certainly no scientific reason why God cannot retain the same relevance in our modern world that He held before we began probing His creation with telescopes, cyclotron and space vehicles. - Wernher von Braun, Creation: Nature’s Design and DesignerAfter close on two centuries of passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its adversary. On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of ManEdited by designtheorist, : Strikethrough controversial claim because Arthur Eddington may have been a life-long Quaker.

PaulK,
I see where you are getting hung up. Right now you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time. They cannot both be right. This is called "double-think" and it happens to all of us at one time or another. Either the universe always existed OR it began 13.7 billion years ago.In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people thought the earth always existed. This was the Steady State Theory. Big Bang Theory changed all of that. I wrote a little about the history of Big Bang Theory in the top post. Big Bang Theory has become the standard cosmology. People are working on other theories, but none have really been accepted like Big Bang.

quote:

---

Right now you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time. They cannot both be right. This is called "double-think" and it happens to all of us at one time or another. Either the universe always existed OR it began 13.7 billion years ago.

---

Actually I am not holding to both ideas. I assert that both are possible, but I do not hold that both are true. You are the one who seems to hold both simultaneously.

quote:

---

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people thought the earth always existed. This was the Steady State Theory. Big Bang Theory changed all of that. I wrote a little about the history of Big Bang Theory in the top post. Big Bang Theory has become the standard cosmology. People are working on other theories, but none have really been accepted like Big Bang.

---

This is completely irrelevant. My point is very simple. If the universe has existed for all of time, then it has always existed. If there is a time prior to the universe's existence than it has not. Which alternative do you choose ?

Hi designtheorist,I've not had time to read your entire post (I have to be off to work in a moment), but I do notice that this claim appears false. Where do you get that idea from? It sounds unlikely to me since Eddington was a Quaker, raised by Quaker parents. Sources that I can find refer to him as "a lifelong Quaker". Certainly he was an objector to World War One, because of his Quaker principles and that was well before the Big Bang existed as an idea.

---

-Added by Edit- I also think that your information about Sandage is wrong. Sandage did not convert to Christianity because of the Big Bang. He did convert, that's true, but only late in life, whereas he had been working on the Big bang all his professional life. Further, Sandage was very much of the opinion that science and religion were complementary but separate. I think it unlikely that he would have agreed with your position in this thread. He doubtless thought that the Big Bang was compatible with Christianity, but I doubt very much that he would have considered it to actually support Christianity. Here are some more quotes from Sandage;

quote:

---

In the case of scientific cosmology, the most one could say is that astronomers may have found the first effect, but not necessarily thereby the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas

---

quote:

---

Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator,

---

quote:

---

The answer to the question, "why", which I suppose down deep I was searching for in science, I realized itself had no answer in science. I forced myself to the statement that you’re asking the wrong questions or demanding too much for a proof. Why don’t you just begin to believe and see what happens?

---

William A Durbin writes of Sandage's conversion;

quote:

---

Again, this step was not necessitated by any implications of big bang cosmology or, more broadly, by the experience of beauty and truth in science.

---

You can read Durbin's whole article Negotiating the Boundaries of Science and Religion II: The Conversion of Allan Sandage. It goes into Sandage's beliefs about religion and science and his conversion at some length.I am also uncertain about your characterisation of Paul Davies as an agnostic, although in this case I think you've underestimated his religiosity. He comes across more as a theist to me, if not a very specific sort of theist. Adherents.com has him down as a deist.

---

Even if true, I fail to see how this matters. I don't care how many religiose scientists you can name. It's just an argument from authority.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

You can always count on a lot of creationists to start quote-mining and telling porkies the moment their arguments are shown to be bunk. Not at all. He’s withholding judgement till the evidence is in. Nothing wrong with that. Not at all. We can only have a valid judgment till one Planck second after the BB. What happened before that nobody knows. Not at all. People thought that the world was created a few thousand years ago. Compte du Buffon calculated the earth to be 75 000 years old in 1779. John Philips (1800-1874) calculated the earth to be around 96 million years old. William Thomson calculated the earth to be 20 to 400 million years old in 1872. 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. Even Wiki shows that you are not telling the truth. Wiki
Nonsense. The Big Bang Theory did not change what we knew about the age of the earth at all. Geology did. Years before BB theory came about.Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence

Few would have dreamed that it was possible to commit an ad hominem attack on persons unknown --- until you did it. Without knowing who they are, or indeed what their theological leanings will be, you know that scientists will produce a non-magical explanation (which you haven't seen) of a phenomenon which has not yet been adequately measured; and you've already decided that when whoever they are and whatever they say, they'll be "generating contrived theories whenever possible in order to avoid confronting the possible existence of a creator God". Thus constructing an ad hominem argument about people of whom you know nothing (since you don't know who they are) to counter an argument of which you also know nothing (since it has not yet been formulated). But Einstein was pursuing the data. Have you ever looked at the night sky? The cosmos looks static. He was putting the data before his theory. As soon as there were data showing the cosmos was expanding, he changed his mind. How is it even possible to be agnostic and say that something must be supernatural? Surely an agnostic would have to say: "It may be supernatural, I don't know".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

These quote-mines always amaze me.It consistently reminds me of the Hawking quote from 1988: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we should know the mind of God.Every religious website, book, pamphlet, I mean, everything religious, always used to quote-mine "... -for then we should know the mind of God" All pretended that it proofs Jesus". A lot of them also added: "You think you know more than Hawking?"I can just imagine how many years of webmaster time it must have taken to erase all that after the quote-mine ..God was not needed to create the Universe came around. I noticed that designtheorist ignored both Hawking quotes..I wonder why.

No, double-think is holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and believing both of them. Holding them in your head and thinking that one or the other is true is normal. For example, I believe that you are male or female. PaulK thinks that either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. No.

No. My disagreement is with the use of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. The theory only says the universe was very small about 13.7 billion years ago, prior to that point "something else" occurs and it is invalid to continue to use the equations. If you do you get the fictitious singularity, but that's not meaningful.The Big Bang theory tells how the universe has evolved over the past 13.7 billion years from a hot dense ball (but not a singularity). What existed prior to that hot little ball is unknown.

Since science has not yet produced the higgs bozon it stands to reason that no science theory compeats with the theory of pink gravity and mass unicorns many scientists have in the lack of finding the higs boson converted to worship the flying spaghetti monsteror otherwise known as Pastafarianism, scientists like Bobby Henderson or the Austrian Niko Austrian Wins Right To Wear Pasta Strainer In Driver’s License « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
If a religion does not compeate with a scientific theory that does not prove that that religion is trueEdited by frako, : No reason given.

You see, designtheorist, here you loose all respect from everyone else in the whole world who is not in a mental institution.Your statement simply is untrue. You know it, we know it.We are not allowed to use stronger language, but people do think in stronger language in reaction to what you wrote down. In effect it boils down to: there's no use in having a rational conversation with somebody who belongs in some institution for the mentally unstable. Or it's no use trying to have a rational conversation with someone who cannot tell the truth at all. Or this person is so deluded that he will fly into buildings for his belief. Or all of this, combining other unhealthy practices too, being the most likely scenario in your case.

This is special pleading.You say in Message 49 that you and Davies both agree. So Davies says speculation is out of place but here you are speculating a cause. Davies states in this part of his book that there is no causative agency.You say there is one: your god who does not obey the laws of physics.So you claim Davies is agreeing with you (when he is not). You then go on to do the very thing he claims is inappropriate.You are in direct opposition to what you wrote Davies states.Therefor you cannot use Message 49 to support your points.What you are doing is saying is, in essence "look at how I think the laws of physics make my god the only answer to the question about the origin of the big bang, but for this to work my god must break these laws of physics"This is the logical fallacy called 'special pleading' with a liberal dose of 'god of the gaps'.You need to do better than quote mining (and getting it wrong) and logical fallacies to get any traction for your ideas here.

Hermaphrodites. Males and females are not mutually exclusive. Maybe the origin of the universe is way too strange to contemplate. In the meantime evidence is needed.My own deduction is that the Universe always existed in some form or the other (you know, according to the Law designproponent highlighted so eloquently ; energy and matter can't be created nor destroyed). It means that there can't be a creator of energy and matter as this contradicts a fundamental law.Edited by Pressie, : Changed spelling.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

No it isn't. It's called cognitive dissonace and PaulK is not guilty of it in this situation.He caught you in a contradiction.