I think Designtheorist is to be congratulated for a clear OP, and for trying to stick to his main points and to avoid being sidetracked on the many rabit trails that were offered him. The main points of the OP were:
quote:...While the big bang is not absolute proof of the existence of God or a designer of some type, it is absolutely compatible with the concept of a creator God or Designer.
Simply stated – “If there was a big bang, there has to be a Big Banger.”
Unfortunately, there has been little if any discussion of or disagreement with these points in this thread. Perhaps these points are not very controversial, and are generally accepted?
Rather than addressing these main points, it appears that the critics in this thread tried to make Designtheorist go much further in his claims, so that they could more easily attack and dismiss his arguments. The major disagreement and discussion in this thread has been about the nature of the "creator" or "designer"; must the designer be personal? sentient? These are important questions, but they are secondary to the main points in the OP.
But the OP went a bit farther than "compatibility;" it also claimed "support":
quote:The better we understand the science behind the big bang, the better we understand how the big bang supports the concept of a pre-existing designer or creator God.
I would have liked to see more fleshing out and discussion of this topic. Some good points were made about it, but there seems to still be some confusion about some of the terms used and what the claims even mean. (I would say that the science of the Big Bang begs us to ask philosophical questions about its causation. These philosophical considerations support the concept of a non-physical "creator" or "designer".)
The OP also reminded us of the Kalaam cosmological argument:
quote: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.”
This argument has been discussed in other threads on EvC forum, so perhaps it didn't need to be discussed much in this thread. But I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of it nonetheless.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"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
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.