Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
171 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 170 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,315 Year: 4,427/6,534 Month: 641/900 Week: 165/182 Day: 45/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 256 of 317 (640475)
11-10-2011 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 12:02 AM


Levels of inconceivability
Designtheorist,

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it does not answer my question. What I want to know is how you get from an immaterial and timeless cause of the Big Bang to that cause having to be a being. You do not touch upon it at all.

I'll quote you again from Message 139:

Given those constraints [of the cause being immaterial and timeless], 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.

Can I conceive of anything immaterial and timeless which could effect the Big Bang and not be a being? Well, to begin with, I cannot even conceive of something immaterial and timeless causing the Big Bang, period. Let alone that this cause could not be anything other than a 'being'.

The way I see it, you start out posing something inconceivable and then compound the matter by adding an extra quality, of 'beingness' no less, thereby making it even more inconceivable. Had it been my flight of fancy, I would have bailed out at the first level of inconceivability.

However, please do not let this prevent you from trying to flesh out the argument on this point. I appreciate your attempts at thoroughness, but you have still to answer my question properly.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 12:02 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 9:44 AM Parasomnium has taken no action
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM Parasomnium has taken no action

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 257 of 317 (640476)
11-10-2011 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by designtheorist
11-09-2011 12:57 AM


400 times larger and 400 times further away
designtheorist writes:


That said, what I don't think you could *ever* prove is design with humans as an end goal. When I read Lee Strobel's _The Case for a Creator_ I was dismayed to read some very weak arguments towards the end of the book. I can't remember who he was interviewing (I don't have the book in front of me) however the arguments were dismal. That we are in a position to view eclipses was one particularly strange argument.

I have Strobel's book too. Parts of it were interesting and I found parts of it to be weak. I actually liked the argument regarding the earth being in position to view eclipses. I had never come across that idea before. Strobel was interviewing Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards. Gonzalez was talking about eclipses. 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.

Yes, it is a tad coincidental; why then would it need to be more than a mere coincidence? If you had actually looked into the claim, you would have found out something about the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; particularly that the moon's orbit is slowly receding from Earth due to the effects of tidal drag. It seems oddly strange that among the Cosmic Designer's intentions in the initial formation of the solar system was to impress our one particular species (Homo sapiens) at this one particular epoch (+/- 5,000,000 years) out of the whole 4,000,000,000 odd years during which time our moon has been continually getting further and further away. Hubris, indeed.


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. I have not had the time to look into these claims to know for certain they are true, but they are definitely intriguing to me.

Humanity in general is well known to make use of (or even abuse of) all sorts of natural phenomena for his own purposes. The Creator's alleged intentions are a bunch of vacuous irrelevancies, otherwise you may as well also be telling us that God providentially created the marijuana plant so that mankind could take pleasure in getting stoned.

Edited by DWIII, : more appropriate link to Wikipedia


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by designtheorist, posted 11-09-2011 12:57 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12793
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 258 of 317 (640484)
11-10-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 12:02 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
Hi DesignTheorist,

Please, no more quotes, it only invites discussion of what the people quoted really meant. If you would like to propose a thread to discuss what other scientists think then post it to Proposed New Topics and I'll take a look as soon as I can. If what I'm asking seems unreasonable or difficult to understand then please post a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 or send me a PM.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 12:02 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 10:03 AM Admin has seen this message

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 259 of 317 (640496)
11-10-2011 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Parasomnium
11-10-2011 4:05 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it does not answer my question. What I want to know is how you get from an immaterial and timeless cause of the Big Bang to that cause having to be a being. You do not touch upon it at all.

Now I understand your question better. Thank you for clarifying. Several scientists have commented on how issues around the big bang begin bordering on philosophy. And philosophy can make certain physics people uncomfortable (although not Stephen Hawking who is always willing to discuss his philosophy).

The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces. Davies makes that clear. So the cause of the big bang has to be 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. If your mind can conceive of this, I would be interested in hearing details.

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. The reasonableness of the argument is seen in the fact many of the leading astronomers and physicists who have progressed Big Bang Theory have spoken in a similar vein.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Parasomnium, posted 11-10-2011 4:05 AM Parasomnium has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 9:59 AM designtheorist has taken no action
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 10:22 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 266 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 11:03 AM designtheorist has taken no action
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:28 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 260 of 317 (640497)
11-10-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 9:44 AM


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. Davies makes that clear. So the cause of the big bang has to be supernatural.

It's not clear what you mean by physical and supernatural, nor what your reasoning is.

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. If your mind can conceive of this, I would be interested in hearing details.

What your mind can conceive of is not necessarily a good guide to physics.

I myself can imagine the possibility that something that can think caused the universe; I can also imagine the possibility that something that cannot think caused the universe. The second would be something which would be like the first thing in that it had the ability to cause the universe but unlike it in that it lacked the ability to think.

Why not? You don't say. One knows so little about the causes of the universe that one can hardly say that it necessarily required thought. In the non-physical realm of which you speak the occurrence of a universe might be as mindless as the fall of a raindrop or the opening of a flower. We don't know, because we don't know anything about it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 9:44 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 261 of 317 (640498)
11-10-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Admin
11-10-2011 7:26 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
Please, no more quotes, it only invites discussion of what the people quoted really meant.

The request for no more quotes is not reasonable. You seem to have a mistaken idea that quotes are not a valid source of information. When discussing the history of science, it is important to read and understand quotes from the scientists themselves. I am quoting from the leaders of big bang science.

Yes, it invites discussion of what the quote was intended to say or if it was taken out of context and that is a good and valid discussion to have. It increases learning. If someone had not challenged the Burbidge quote, I would not have known there was any controversy about it.

By the way, I've been doing a little research on the Burbidge quote. I have not found the original article it appeared in yet, but I did find one important point in Burbidge's Ny Times obituary. The Times article quotes Allan Sandage as saying the Burbidge would call him three times a week for 40 years to debate the big bang. That, by itself, might not mean a lot to most people. But Allan Sandage was a leading astronomer in his own right and converted to Christianity because of the big bang. This is historical evidence Burbidge was concerned about his peers being converted to religion as a result of the big bang. Robert Jastrow talked about the topic in his book as well.

This cite is supposed to be about increasing understanding through discussion. By attempting to put quotes off limits, you are only getting in the way of the purpose of the web site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Admin, posted 11-10-2011 7:26 AM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 11-10-2011 10:15 AM designtheorist has taken no action
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 10:25 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 10:39 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:20 AM designtheorist has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33908
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 262 of 317 (640499)
11-10-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
That, by itself, might not mean a lot to most people. But Allan Sandage was a leading astronomer in his own right and converted to Christianity because of the big bang.

That also offers no support for the existence of some Designer or Creator God, particularly the Christian created concept of GOD.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 317 (640501)
11-10-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 9:44 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
My mind cannot conceive of any impersonal supernatural force with such capabilities. If your mind can conceive of this, I would be interested in hearing details.

See Message 185 for information on Colliding Branes. There's even pictures!

The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces. Davies makes that clear. So the cause of the big bang has to be 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.

If your only "support" for the Big Banger being a being is an Argument from Incredulity, then you don't really have support.

In Message 253, you wrote:

quote:
First, let’s start at the goal of the argument. The point is to persuade people that the big bang is both compatible with and supportive of the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God.

You fail your first goal, that the big bang is supportive of a Universe Designer or Creator God, if you cannot support the notion of the Big Banger as a being with nothing more that an Argument from Incredulity.

The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces. Davies makes that clear. So the cause of the big bang has to be supernatural.

Has to be? No. It could be quasinatural, or seminatural, or anatural, etc.

The goal is to show that it is both internally consistent and reasonable.

Well, its not. You have time not existing outside of the big bang, but then also things existing before it. That is inconsistent.

You employ a logical fallacy, the Argument from Incredulity, to finish the last step of your argument and that is unreasonable.

Please see Message 247 for an analogy of the Big Bang that I believe can help clear up some of your misconsceptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 9:44 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 317 (640502)
11-10-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
I totally disagree with you about the quotes. It doesn't matter what other people think. We're here to discuss this between each other. Also, quotes are terribly twisted and misunderstood, taken out of context and misused, so you never really know what the person who was quoted actually thought.

They just draw the focus away from the things we should be discussing: how the big bang supports a creator. Instead, we'd be talking about what and whether or not another person meant by a few words that are attributed to them. You know, they could just be wrong too. Its a waste of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 265 of 317 (640504)
11-10-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 10:03 AM


Allan Sandage
But Allan Sandage was a leading astronomer in his own right and converted to Christianity because of the big bang.

Not according to him he didn't. Here he is talking about creation and the Big Bang in an interview in Science and the spiritual quest: new essays by leading scientists. The emphasis is in the original.

I'm a cosmologist. What I do is study the evolution of the universe. I've been doing that for forty years. A creation event is not, for me, a proof of the existence of God. [...] One can bolster one's faith, I suppose, by saying that there was a creation event. But Big Bang cosmology does not say that this is the creation of the universe. It is some catastrophic event, but the mystery of creation out of nothing remains a mystery.

You can read the whole interview if you follow the link. Not only does he not say that cosmology supports his theology, but he specifically says that it doesn't.

---

So yeah, I too think you might leave non-technical statements by scientists alone until you can stop misinterpreting them. Pretty much everything you've said along these lines has turned out to be untrue, does this not bother you?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 266 of 317 (640507)
11-10-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 9:44 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
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.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 9:44 AM designtheorist has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:15 AM kbertsche has taken no action

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 267 of 317 (640509)
11-10-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
11-10-2011 10:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
I mentioned that it was not my goal to defeat every minor competing theory to the big bang. Colliding branes is an outgrowth of string theory. It may be on the right track but it still has problems and is not highly regarded in many quarters. Big Bang Theory remains the standard cosmology and the argument only deals with the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:12 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 268 of 317 (640511)
11-10-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Dr Adequate
11-10-2011 10:39 AM


Re: Allan Sandage
Yes, Sandage gave interviews before his conversion. However, the fact Sandage ultimately did convert is not subject to any controversy. Look him up in Wikipedia or google him. There are news articles about his conversion and/or orbituaries which talk about his conversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 11:18 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 317 (640513)
11-10-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:06 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability

You write:

quote:
I would be interested in hearing details.

I provide the details. You hand wave them away!

Your sincerity and honesty are becomming suspect.

Big Bang Theory remains the standard cosmology and the argument only deals with the big bang.

Except for the part where your adding a Big Banger to it! There's nothing in the Big Bang Theory about a Big Banger. You're not "only dealing with the big bang". And, you specifically asked for alternatives. But now that you have it, you don't want to deal with it.

And you totally avoided all the other refutations of your specualtions that I provided.

Good day, sir.

Sorry about your epic fail...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:06 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 270 of 317 (640514)
11-10-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
11-10-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
Actually, with the advent of the internet, it is pretty easy to determine if a quote represents a famous person's point of view or not. And I learned something valuable when the Burbidge quote was challenged. To attempt to block quotes is counterproductive to the purpose of this site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:18 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022