Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle (3 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,278 Year: 4,390/6,534 Month: 604/900 Week: 128/182 Day: 8/27 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3225
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 46 of 301 (722546)
03-22-2014 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 4:36 PM


Now, when it comes to 'predicting' anything, you can say the bible predicted anything you want, after the fact. Now, showing a prediction for something that isn't known and accepted before hand, , that is different.

Shoehorning a concept into place after the fact doesn't really say anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 4:36 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 301 (722567)
03-22-2014 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 9:43 PM


Hype machine running full bore (pun intended)
Hugh makes a strong, plausible case that the biblical sequence of creation is consistent with what an observer on earth would have seen.

For some definition of plausible. I'd be happy to discuss the reasons why his position is not plausible when actual science is accounted for.

I would express things a bit more like another friend, Leslie Wickman

Who the heck is Leslie Wickman?

As has been acknowledged in a few discussions here, the Big Bang theory is compatible with the idea of a universe that is not eternal but has a creation point. It is harder, but not impossible, to read alternatives like the Steady State hypothesis as being compatible, because even that hypothesis required continual creation and destruction of matter and energy.

If you cannot say anything more than that about this new understanding, then the newest discovery has no significant implication for the the Judeo-Christian worldview. Additionally The Steady State hypothesis was rejected 60 years ago.

Here is the truth without the hype. The implications, such as they are, are exactly the same for Bible followers as they are for people who prefer the Koran to the Bible.

The implications are equally compatible with this ancient Greek take on the origin of everything.

quote:
In the beginning there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared.

NoNukes writes:

What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes.

Hugh is a friend of mine, and I won't say anything negative about him.

I didn't ask you to say anything negative. I asked you for the truth. However, your faint praise was noted.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:43 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by kbertsche, posted 03-23-2014 1:25 AM NoNukes has seen this message

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


Message 48 of 301 (722587)
03-23-2014 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
03-22-2014 4:47 PM


Re: Hype machine running full bore (pun intended)
NoNukes writes:

I didn't ask you to say anything negative. I asked you for the truth. However, your faint praise was noted.


To clarify, I have very high respect for Hugh Ross. I generally agree with what he says. Hugh makes the strongest case I've ever heard for the "day-age" or "progressive creation" view. I'm just not as strongly convinced of this view as I once was; I see much in the "Framework" and "ancient near eastern cosmology" views to commend them.

"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 47 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2014 4:47 PM NoNukes has seen this message

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 1569 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 49 of 301 (722651)
03-24-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 9:43 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Regarding this conclusion by Leslie Wickman, which you seem to endorse:

quote:
... it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

I'm not a physicist, and I'm just trying to comprehend the recent findings (folks here have been very helpful in that regard - thank you all), but based on what I've been able to understand so far, it seems to me that the BICEPS2 results do not provide any support for the assertion that there was "something or someone outside" that caused the inflation. As far as I've been able to tell, the results have nothing at all to say about the cause of the inflation; they only describe its nature, speed and duration.

If I'm wrong about that, and these results (or existing aspects of the scientific theories supported by these results) do say something about what would have caused the inflation to occur, I suspect that the explanation involves just natural conditions with natural consequences, rather than any kind of deliberate, goal-oriented action on the part of some sort of self-conscious entity whose "image" is somehow related to homo sapiens.

To be frank, it's egregiously silly to assert that the Book of Genesis "predicts" anything in particular at all. I suppose you could say that by asserting the falsehood of other mythical accounts, it "predicts" that we will not find the earth to be sitting atop an elephant or turtle, will not find a giant serpent encompassing the universe, etc.

You can look for an interpretation of your scripture that isn't flat out incompatible with physical truth, and if you can find one that doesn't involve blatant violations of basic linguistic principles, then you can rest easy that the foundational text for your belief could still be regarded in general as "not necessarily false."

In any case, given that the first two books of Genesis refute each other as to the sequence of events, it seems pointless to talk about either of them having any relevance to physical truth. The first is poetry, and the second is a relatively simple-minded "just-so" story.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:43 PM kbertsche has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM Otto Tellick has taken no action

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 50 of 301 (722710)
03-24-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Otto Tellick
03-24-2014 12:17 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
otto tellick writes:

I'm not a physicist, and I'm just trying to comprehend the recent findings (folks here have been very helpful in that regard - thank you all), but based on what I've been able to understand so far, it seems to me that the BICEPS2 results do not provide any support for the assertion that there was "something or someone outside" that caused the inflation. As far as I've been able to tell, the results have nothing at all to say about the cause of the inflation; they only describe its nature, speed and duration.

I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe. It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.

Edited by shadow71, : excessive verbiage

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2014 12:17 AM Otto Tellick has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 12:56 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 1:36 PM shadow71 has taken no action
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:15 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 03-29-2014 1:47 PM shadow71 has taken no action

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


(2)
Message 51 of 301 (722712)
03-24-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 9:43 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Well, you know, I'd be more inclined to think that the Big Bang was consistent with the Bible if the world was less full of Christians telling me that the Big Bang is an evil atheist lie contrary to the Bible and thought up by Satan to con people into rejecting God. The existence of these people, who are invariably awfully keen on the Bible and indeed never shut up about it, suggests that Ross's interpretation is not exactly clear-cut. So while I might concede that the BB is consistent with the Bible if you interpret it with enough latitude, the fact that it occurred doesn't seem to me to be evidence weighing on the side of the Bible, that would be going too far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:43 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 03-24-2014 2:56 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1309
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 52 of 301 (722713)
03-24-2014 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by shadow71
03-24-2014 12:36 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe. It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.

You're forgetting that, inextricably linked with the creation of space, the singularity which we know as "the big bang" also created time. Actually created time itself. There is no "before" the big bang - the concept is as meaningless as asking someone at the north pole to walk further north.

As a result, concepts like "logic", and our day to day experience of cause and effect don't apply. There wasn't a "moving force", which you refer to, to create anything, because there was no time before the big bang for it to move in.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 3:28 PM vimesey has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8494
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 53 of 301 (722716)
03-24-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by shadow71
03-24-2014 12:36 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Shaddow71 writes:

It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force

There's nothing logical about this - you leave logic and common sense at the door when you enter this argument.

All the matter in the universe was created in a trillion of a second and expanded to the size of an orange faster than the speed of light?? And expanded into what??? It created time...what????

Edited by Tangle, : Fixed quote cock-up


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM shadow71 has taken no action

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


Message 54 of 301 (722721)
03-24-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2014 12:50 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Dr. A writes:

Well, you know, I'd be more inclined to think that the Big Bang was consistent with the Bible if the world was less full of Christians telling me that the Big Bang is an evil atheist lie contrary to the Bible and thought up by Satan to con people into rejecting God. The existence of these people, who are invariably awfully keen on the Bible and indeed never shut up about it, suggests that Ross's interpretation is not exactly clear-cut. So while I might concede that the BB is consistent with the Bible if you interpret it with enough latitude, the fact that it occurred doesn't seem to me to be evidence weighing on the side of the Bible, that would be going too far.


The only ones who call it "an evil atheist lie" are the YECs, of course. But you are correct that the Evangelical reaction to this discovery is quite varied. Karl Giberson has given a nice summary of the varied reactions here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...to-do-with-the-big-bang.html

"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 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2014 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 55 of 301 (722735)
03-24-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by vimesey
03-24-2014 12:56 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
vimesey writes:

You're forgetting that, inextricably linked with the creation of space, the singularity which we know as "the big bang" also created time. Actually created time itself. There is no "before" the big bang - the concept is as meaningless as asking someone at the north pole to walk further north.

That is compatable with a Supernatural being creating everything out of nothing.
The principle of "Occam"s razor basically states that when you have 2 competing theories making the same prediction the simplest one is the better theory.
Here there is no real basis for a spontaneous cause of the universe, but a universe created out of nothing by a supernatural being is plausible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 12:56 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:58 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 57 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 4:02 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8494
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 56 of 301 (722739)
03-24-2014 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by shadow71
03-24-2014 3:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Shaddow71 writes:

Here there is no real basis for a spontaneous cause of the universe, but a universe created out of nothing by a supernatural being is plausible.

Says you. Stephen Hawking disagrees and so do I.

Now what?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 3:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 4:48 PM Tangle has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1309
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 57 of 301 (722740)
03-24-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by shadow71
03-24-2014 3:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
That is compatable with a Supernatural being creating everything out of nothing.

If wands were real, they'd be compatible with anything. But for as long as we have no evidence that magic exists, we'll keep going where the evidence leads us. Saying that a scenario is compatible with a supernaturally omnipotent being is semantically circular and trivial - a meaningless statement which takes us nowhere. It's the same as me saying that if I had Superman's powers, I could leap tall buildings. True enough semantically, but nothing that gets us anywhere.

The principle of "Occam"s razor basically states that when you have 2 competing theories making the same prediction the simplest one is the better theory.

You've got two problems here.

First, the supernatural is not a theory - it's an abstract concept, with no basis in observed evidence. Applying Occam's Razor to the supernatural and a scientific theory is inappropriate.

Second, even if you could apply Occam's Razor in this way, how on earth do you know if the supernatural is the more parsimonious explanation ? If it existed, maybe its processes and steps would be hugely more convoluted, involved and complex than those of the scientific theory - there is no way you could tell, unless you could test the supernatural explanation. By definition, you cannot.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 3:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 4:52 PM vimesey has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 58 of 301 (722744)
03-24-2014 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tangle
03-24-2014 3:58 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 4:59 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 5:12 PM shadow71 has seen this message

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2172 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 59 of 301 (722745)
03-24-2014 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by vimesey
03-24-2014 4:02 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
vimesey writes:

If wands were real, they'd be compatible with anything. But for as long as we have no evidence that magic exists, we'll keep going where the evidence leads us. Saying that a scenario is compatible with a supernaturally omnipotent being is semantically circular and trivial - a meaningless statement which takes us nowhere. It's the same as me saying that if I had Superman's powers, I could leap tall buildings. True enough semantically, but nothing that gets us anywhere.

Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the evidence may never be found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 4:02 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by vimesey, posted 03-24-2014 5:11 PM shadow71 has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 60 of 301 (722746)
03-24-2014 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by shadow71
03-24-2014 4:48 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.

There is no point in time, in the Big Bang Theory, where the Universe does not exist. That is, the Universe exists at every point in time.

So there never is a "nothing" for the Universe to be created out of.

And being created "out of" nothing means that there had to be a point in time where the Universe did not exist, which is incompatible with the Big Bang Theory.

So the Big Band Theory is not the idea that the Universe was created out of nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 4:48 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 6:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022