Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
476 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 474 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,602 Year: 5,248/14,102 Month: 169/677 Week: 28/26 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


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 2853 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 271 of 317 (640515)
11-10-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Taq
11-08-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Reply to pressie
Fred Hoyle's solution was "creation field" and "quasi-steady state" theory.

You are not thinking fourth dimensionally! Hoyle did not come up with these variations until after the CMB radiation was discovered in 1965. From 1948 to 1965, Hoyle favored Steady State which I am pretty sure is essentially the same at the ancient Static Universe theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 11-08-2011 4:41 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 317 (640516)
11-10-2011 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by kbertsche
11-10-2011 11:03 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
As Designtheorist says, theological answers to this question are perfectly compatible with our scientific picture of the Big Bang.

Sure, but he also said that the Big Band is supportive of a designer (and further that the desgner is a being), and I think that is definately a major blunder. That's been the source of my disagreement.

Simply "being compatible with" doesn't leave much to argue about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 11:03 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 317 (640517)
11-10-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:12 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.

What you've just written (and mine here now) exactly proves why using quotes like that is what is totally counterproductive to the purpose of this site. Nothing in these two posts has anything to do with the Big Bang supporting a Universe Designer or Creator God!

You've wasted this time that would be better served addressing the analogy that I provided that explains why you're wrong.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:12 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 274 of 317 (640518)
11-10-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:09 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.

Do try to concentrate. That is an interview of him talking after his conversion. I never said he didn't convert, I said he didn't convert because of the Big Bang. This interview, given after his conversion, proves that I am right. Even after his conversion, not only is he not adducing the Big Bang as a reason for his conversion, he is explicitly saying that it is not a reason to believe in theistic creation.

I gave you a link to the interview, you know. You could have read it, if you were actually interested in what he has to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:09 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Granny Magda, posted 11-10-2011 11:59 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 275 of 317 (640519)
11-10-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 10:03 AM


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?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by 1.61803, posted 11-10-2011 11:23 AM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 278 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:24 AM Taq has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2853 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 276 of 317 (640520)
11-10-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Parasomnium
11-10-2011 4:05 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
I should also have pointed out that the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God is dependent on "beingness." It is not possible to have an impersonal Designer because design requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a being.

As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Parasomnium, posted 11-10-2011 4:05 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:29 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 11:34 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 283 by jar, posted 11-10-2011 11:46 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 285 by 1.61803, posted 11-10-2011 11:51 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Dirk, posted 11-10-2011 1:00 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 296 by Rahvin, posted 11-10-2011 1:01 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 277 of 317 (640521)
11-10-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taq
11-10-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
Taq writes:

So where does that leave us?

Shaving with Occam's Razor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:20 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2853 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 278 of 317 (640522)
11-10-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taq
11-10-2011 11:20 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
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.

Studying what people think about the evidence is an important but secondary line of evidence. You can even earn a degree in History of Science. You might want to look up Spencer Weart. He is one of the leading science historians. His contribution to the understanding of science has pretty large.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:20 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:32 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 1:17 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(1)
Message 279 of 317 (640524)
11-10-2011 11:28 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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 9:44 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 280 of 317 (640525)
11-10-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
It is not possible to have an impersonal Designer because design requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a being.

Intelligence also requires a brain. And brains require matter and time. Therefore, there couldn't be any intelligence before matter existed in the Universe. Ergo, no Designer of the Big Bang.

As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.

Colliding Branes.

http://universe-review.ca/I15-39-collision.jpg

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by thingamabob, posted 11-10-2011 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.4


(2)
Message 281 of 317 (640526)
11-10-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:24 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:24 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 282 of 317 (640527)
11-10-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
I should also have pointed out that the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God is dependent on "beingness." It is not possible to have an impersonal Designer because design requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a being.

As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.

Are you trying to affirm the consequent?

You have not said what you mean by "being". If you just mean something rather than nothing, then you may well be right. But there is nothing about "something" that implies that it has intelligence.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33439
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 283 of 317 (640530)
11-10-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.

HUH?

You even mentioned at least two possible causes that do not require a "being" and still say that is inconceivable?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 1636 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 284 of 317 (640532)
11-10-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by New Cat's Eye
11-10-2011 11:29 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Catholic Scientist writes:

Colliding Branes.

If there was no time and no space where would the colliding branes exist to be able to collide?

thing,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:59 AM thingamabob has responded

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 285 of 317 (640533)
11-10-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
designtheorist writes:

As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.

To you. It is inconceivable to you.

There can only be two possiblities.

1. The universe in some form exist and always has.
2. The universe was created.

The universe as we know does exist.

However what we do not know is whether or not it was created.

We know the universe's initial state was a super ordered condensed singularity that has inflated to a highly un ordered state as we see it today.

It is unknown, prior to this inflation, how or why the state of the universe changed. All we know is it did some 13.7 billion years ago.

What caused this change is speculation. There need not be a cause. A self existant universe is just as likely as a created one. Except assuming a created on begs the question of who created it and who created the creator?

Personally I like to believe in God. I like to believe there is a objective morality too. I like to believe there is a reason de entre.
(reason for being.) I like to believe these things because they are more comforting to me than the alternative of nihilism.

But I do not expect to be able to provide evidence and convincing arguments beyond that of personal religious beliefs and traditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 12:07 PM 1.61803 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 © 2021