Summations Only

"I'll get back to you" in IDist speak is "I don't have an answer for that question" or "I have no clue". Every single time a Cdesign propontist says "I'll get back to you on that", they never do.

nope he is gonna concatce his fundamentalist preacher or go trough his tapes to find an excuse if he docent THEN he will not get back to you. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

If you really want this conversation to go forward, then please do me the courtesy of pointing out the specific errors in logic which you refer to.Here, I will lay it all out on the table in formal terms in order to make it easy for you to poke whatever holes you wish in it.I'm quite sure you would agree with statement #1: "If the universe had a beginning (P), then it has existed for a finite amount of time (Q)"; i.e., P implies Q. You and I agree that the universe has (so far) existed for a finite amount of time. This is the central crux of General Relativity as it is applied to the type of universe which we mutually observe. Therefore, it remains to be established that the universe had a beginning.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)"; i.e., Q implies P. If you think that this naturally follows from the first statement, then you are committing the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. In other words, given P implies Q, you cannot derive Q implies P.In fact, I went even further than that; I have given an example of how "not P" ("The universe did not have a beginning") is perfectly consistent with "Q" ("The universe has existed for a finite amount of time") by way of geometric analogy with an open line segment. Also, if you understand anything at all about cosmology, you would have already known that General Relativity simply does not apply at the Big Bang singularity, due to spacetime becoming infinitely curved if you take things back to what you would call "the first moment" of time. If there is no first moment, then there is no beginning, irregardless of whether or not time goes back only yea far.After you have successfully pointed out the flaws of reasoning in the above, please also answer the four (4) simple basic questions which I put to you:

A big Thank you! to everyone who responded.As I mentioned, 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 want to explore exactly what science says about the big bang, because the better the science is understood the easier it is to dispense with some of the common misconceptions about the big bang. It is important that we press on.In the first post, I covered the fact the Law of Conservation of Energy shows the big bang is unique in history (we do not have to worry it will repeat itself within our universe) and supports the concept of a creator God or Designer of the Universe. I want to give a special shout out to Dr Adequate who grasped the argument on the first reading.What exactly happened at the big bang?
Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, wrote the interesting book The First Three Minutes. Here are three short excerpts: In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning, with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle. All space in this context may mean either all of an infinite universe, or all of a finite universe which curves back on itself like the surface of a sphere. Neither possibility is easy to comprehend, but this will not get in our way; it matters hardly at all in the early universe whether space is finite or infinite. (p.5) At about one-hundreth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about one hundred thousand million (1011) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than the center of the hottest star, so hot, in fact, that none of the components of ordinary matter, molecules or atoms, or even the nuclei of atoms, could have held together. Instead, the matter rushing apart in this explosion consisted of various types of the so-called elementary particles, which are the subject of modern high-energy nuclear physics. (p.5) It is natural to ask how large the universe was at very early times. Unfortunately, we do not know, and we are not even sure that the question has any meaning. As indicated in Chapter II, the universe may well be infinite now, in which case it was infinite at the time of the first frame, and will always be infinite. On the other hand, it is possible that the universe now has a finite circumference, sometimes estimated to be about 125 thousand million light years. (The circumference is the distance one must travel in a straight line before finding oneself back where one started. This estimate is based on the Hubble constant, under the supposition that the density of the universe is about twice its critical value.) Since the temperature of the universe falls in inverse proportion to its size, the circumference of the universe at the time of the first frame was less than at present by the ratio of the temperature then (1011 K) to the present temperature (3 K); this gives a first-frame circumference of the universe of about four light years. None of the details of the story of cosmic evolution in the first few minutes will depend on whether the circumference of the universe was infinite or only a few light years. (p.106)Paul Davies is a physicist and cosmologist at Arizona State University. In addition to being a popular author, he has won the Kelvin Medal from the Institute of Physics and the Faraday Prize from The Royal Society. Here are two excerpts from his book Cosmic Jackpot.We know the universe is expanding In the past it was smaller. If we run the expansion in reverse for 13.7 billion years, then the ball shrinks to a single point, a single, sizeless dot. And then ? Nothing. The ball has vanished! Play the sequence forward, and the universe appears from nothing at a single point, balloons out, and eventually expands to cosmic proportions. Now, let’s consider what is meant by nothing in the foregoing description. Clearly it is empty space. If this account captures the essential manner in which the universe came into existence, then we are left with a puzzle. Why should a ball of matter suddenly appear out of nowhere, at some particular moment in time and at some particular location in preexisting empty space, when this event has not happened for all eternity up to that moment? What would cause it to happen, and happen just then just there? There is no satisfactory answer. (p.66) I described the singularity in the movie-in-reverse account as the vanishing point of the universe. But why did it have to vanish? Could the singularity not have just sat there? In forward-time description, there would be a singularity — think of a point of infinite density if you like, a structureless, sizeless cosmic egg — existing for all eternity, when suddenly it went bang! In that case, what came before the big bang would no longer be nothing; it would be a singularity. Some popular accounts of the origin of the universe promulgate this dubious notion. However, it won’t do. The theory of relativity links space and time together to form a unified spacetime. You can’t have time without space, or space without time, so if space cannot be continued back through the big bang singularity, then neither can time. This conclusion carries a momentous implication. If the universe was bounded by a past singularity, then the big bang was not just the origin of space, but the origin of time too. To repeat: time itself began with the big bang. This neatly disposes of the awkward question of what happened before the big bang. If there was no time before the big bang, then the question is meaningless. In the same way, speculation about what caused the big bang is also out of place because causes normally precede effects. 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. (p.68)Davies is correct. When the physical/material universe came into existence, its cause must be outside of the physical/material universe. The cause must be immaterial. In the same way, if the cause is not part of spacetime, then the cause must not be subject to time. The cause must be eternal.How do we know what happened at the Big Bang?
NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) was launched November 18, 1989. See LAMBDA - Cosmic Background Explorer Based on observations from this satellite George Smoot and John Mather the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006. Cosmic Background Explorer - WikipediaRegarding NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE), Martin Rees writes: This truly remarkable measurement, with an accuracy of one part in 10,000, confirms beyond reasonable doubt that everything in our universe — all the stuff that galaxies are now made of — was once a compressed gas, hotter than the Sun’s core. Just Six Numbers, p. 66The successor to COBE was Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) launched June 30, 2001. One of the goals of WMAP is to produce a detailed map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - Wikipedia You can see some of the interesting images created by WMAP at WMAP CMB imagesThe more we learn about the universe, the more likely it will point to design. I am very pleased with the progress made at Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. See Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) I especially like this quote from point #9: however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed.I predict these deviations from simple randomness will result in multiple theories, at least one which will point to a Designer and at least one which will point in the opposite direction. The prediction of a Designer theory is based on the fact the universe has order and that science is all about discovering the order of the universe. The prediction of non-designer theory is based on the observation that people will generate contrived theories whenever possible in order to avoid confronting the possible existence of a creator God or Designer of the universe.It is important to see how scientists in the past have responded when confronted with evidence of something outside the physical universe we live in.

Don't bother.No one is here to be lectured.If you cannot respond with something more than hand-waving to objections as they arise, go home.

I'm curious for your response to Son: He/she showed (with maths) Message 33 that there does not need to be a designer.Could you show where his/her maths is wrong? This seems to unconnected with you assertation That is to say, Davies says nothing of the sort. Again, this assertion does not follow from what Davies wrote.Davies said as time did not exist at his specified point it is inappropriate to think of causality. That's all he said. You are deciding this means more than he is saying. Do you know what a 'quote mine' is? I assure you everyone here does. The prediction of a Designer theory is based on religion.

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.Edited by subbie, : Additional thought

DPEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is far from clear. Could we see some actual math? If I grasped it, I also saw a few things wrong with it --- some of which I didn't mention because other people had.You still haven't answered my question, you know. 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.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?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?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Not every proposed topic that says unto admin, "Physics, physics," should enter into the science forums.

quote:

---

The prediction of a Designer theory is based on the fact the universe has order and that science is all about discovering the order of the universe. The prediction of non-designer theory is based on the observation that people will generate contrived theories whenever possible in order to avoid confronting the possible existence of a creator God or Designer of the universe.

---

That's right. Your contrived nonsense is the truth, and everyone who disagrees with you does so out of willful disobedience to the Lord.Herr Ober, zhalen bitte!

And again, your reasoning is sophomoric.Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph douard Lematre did not write the Pope to emphasize that his theory did not add support for a Creator God or Designer because he did not believe in God.As a Christian I did not point out that the cause, if there was one, for the Big Bang could be trivial, insignificant and transient because I do not believe in God.The reason that both of us responded as we did is because... wait for it ... wait for it ... the cause of the Big Bang if there was a cause could be anything, something trivial and insignificant and transient.

My prediction is that this thread will die when either Cavediver arrives or the OP addresses Son's post.I smell someone not expecting the expertise this site attracts.

You write ""compatible with" is not the same as "supports". Which did you mean ?"Both actually. My first general post focused on information showing the big bang is compatible with the concept of a creator God or universe Designer. My second general post focused on information which supports the view a pre-existing (eternal) and immaterial being was the First Cause of the big bang. Essentially, because spacetime was created at the big bang, the cause of the big bang has to be outside of spacetime.

You write "Energy and matter can’t be created. No creator involved. Energy and matter are inconsistent with the idea of a creator."Not true. It seems your mind is trapped within the spacetime universe in which your body dwells. I would encourage you to try to think outside of this box. It may help to do some reading on multiverses.Think of it this way. In the universe we know, the Law of Conservation of Energy holds true. However, before the universe came into existence, the physical laws which govern the universe were not in effect.The standard cosmology is the universe had a beginning at the big bang and at that point energy and matter were created.