Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
jar, JoeT, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (7 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,849 Year: 16,885/19,786 Month: 1,010/2,598 Week: 256/251 Day: 27/58 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with the Big Bang theory
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 254 of 303 (369927)
12-15-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by vitalprikalist
12-15-2006 11:09 AM


Knowing jack
And another thing, you don't know jack about me, or my majors, so back off.

Yes he does. It is a certainty that your major isn't physics. (well, ok not a certainty, if it is you're going to fail :) )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by vitalprikalist, posted 12-15-2006 11:09 AM vitalprikalist has not yet responded

Fabric
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 41
From: London, England
Joined: 02-27-2005


Message 255 of 303 (369938)
12-15-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Chiroptera
12-13-2006 7:16 PM


maybe theres other universe's too....??
This is a quote from Chiroptera...

"No. It is beyond science. Science basically describes what happens in the universe. I doubt it will ever be able to answer a question like why the universe exists.

Think about strange the question is. The "beginning of the universe" is the beginning of time itself. Before the beginning, there was no time. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole. It is a nonsense question; by definition, the North Pole is the northern most point.

In the same way, the ultimate beginning of the universe is the very first instant of time. There is no "before". So what does one mean by a "cause" for the universe? When people say "A causes B", they mean that they see A precede B in time. But nothing can precede the universe in time, because there is no time before the universe itself. Therefore, when people talk about a "cause" for the universe, I don't really know what they mean."

I like reading your post's because they are very clear and you explain things well, what i would like to know is your thoughts on the fine tuning of the universe, im sure your well a where of the fact that if the fundamentle constants ect.. were different just by a small fraction then the universe and life would be very different or impossible...

i would like to know other peoples thoughts on this too because recently this has been on my mind alot because if you stand back and look at the universe's structure and compatabillty for life it does look as though its been designed, im not saying it has but you can see why people argue this point

i dont want too bring any religeon into this but i would like to point out that im an agnostic, what i have real trouble dealing with is that the one universe there is, has structure, stars, galaxys,filaments etc.. and is hospitaple to life

what a coinsidence or not ???

Edited by Fabric, : a spelling mistake


Myspace!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Chiroptera, posted 12-13-2006 7:16 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by 1.61803, posted 12-15-2006 3:08 PM Fabric has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2905
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 256 of 303 (369944)
12-15-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Fabric
12-15-2006 2:16 PM


Re: maybe theres other universe's too....??
It is true that the universe operates under the framework of physics and chemistry. At every level of existance the universe seems to allow for it's very existance. ie: the density being right to support matter. All the way down to Water in it's solid form floating, or the homeostasis of all the systems that support life. This would seem to indicate a level of design or conciousness. To be rather than not. (sorry Shakespear)

The problem is one of parsimony. If the Universe and it's fundamental laws are sufficient for it's existance then what need to invoke other scenarios?
It comes down to a personal preference in my opinion.


"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Fabric, posted 12-15-2006 2:16 PM Fabric has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 257 of 303 (370084)
12-15-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ringo
12-14-2006 12:06 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
So far, those pieces look like a Big Bang. Until you can get Christ to spit 'em out and until you sweep behind the couch, you can't pretend to know what the picture "should" look like.

I don't pretend to know.

You can call me a liar, but I don't think you are.

I conceded already that the peices may look like a big bang. But a collage may look like planet... until you step back and see that it is a picture of God holding the whole thing in his hand.

You are coming from the position that facts are the only thing that matters. Am I correct? Is that the essential scientific concept wrapped up in the clearest terms?

If so, I think the problem with that is that Stalin obliterated 15 million people. It's just a fact. But without meaning, it is useless.

I can gather all kinds of facts about the meteorological conditions today in my region. All the best data! but can I tell you what the wheather was a month ago based on those mathematical models?

No! Nor can I tell you what it will be in a week. A close guess at best. There are forces at work too complex to pin down, and that's just the atmosphere on one planet out of untold hundreds of billions.

Yet, I am expected to believe that we have the ability to look into the past and calculate the entire universe's position and attitude.

The extreme disproportion in the differences in difficulty between the two problems is not even fathomable.

I do not deny science and collection of facts. I just think we are way ahead of ourselves and a tiny little tad bit arrogant.

I think the belief in the Big bang and other naturalistic theories is motivated much more by individual meaning be it subconscious or not.

You are entitled to disagree, but I stand firm on these points until persuaded otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 12:06 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 12:59 AM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 258 of 303 (370091)
12-15-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
12-13-2006 11:34 PM


An off topic apology
I would like to offer a sincere apology for insulting you. It is I who am the pompous ass. I expect more from myself.

You present vigorous challenges that I may have wrongly perceived as dishonest. After giving it much consideration, I think that I have been guilty of being provacative.

I will attempt to separate my emotional attatchment more in the future. Your patience is appriciated.

I look forward to simmilar vigorous challenges with you in the future.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 12-13-2006 11:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:08 PM Rob has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 259 of 303 (370094)
12-15-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Rob
12-15-2006 11:05 PM


Re: An off topic apology
NP

But remember that on the science side you MUST support your position with evidence. Asserting GOD carries NO weight.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Rob, posted 12-15-2006 11:05 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 12:36 AM jar has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 260 of 303 (370121)
12-16-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
12-15-2006 11:08 PM


Re: An off topic apology
Well, that certainly seems to be the consensus. The convention, if you will. I don't like it, but I guess you've got to pay to play. The world is ruled by men, and I suppose I must cooperate in a respectable manner if I have any chance of participating in the debate.

If you don't mind me saying, I don't think that science can even be considered a consensus. I recently heard a very well known radio talk show host make that very point rather well considering his general simplicity in the intellectual battle-ground. Consensus does not change facts. So when we hear that the consensus among scientists is that 'such and such' would lead us to believe 'this or that' they are themselves stepping over that line that you have drawn.

What they are actually doing, is projecting meaning from the facts at hand. Often correctly! And I have always maintained that that is what we are forced to do, if we are to make such facts useful to the promotion of our respective worldviews, and in the making of useful benefits to us in the most immediate and practical ways as well.

The BB is a perfect example of this. There is simply no reason (or meaning) to infer, if one is operating from a position of actual neutrality. Since the worldview of a scientist is typically claimed to be one of agnosticism in regards to theism, a pure scientist in that stripe would infer nothing, because we simply cannot ever know all the facts by his own presupposition.

I find it all disturbing to say the least, but will restrict myself to disciplined arguments such as this in the future. I do not believe I am the only one on the planet who needs to step back and acknowledge nearsightedness. Nor do I believe that I am the only one who is promoting a particular meaning onto the evidence. I think that it is simply absurd to suggest that any human being can really posess that purity of objectivity. We are forced to be subjective, because we cannot breath methane and remain alive.

I am just dissapointed with my own impatience and egomaniacal attitude, which completely destroys any ability to find some common ground with which to meet on these very difficult issues.

Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

Edited by scottness, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2006 12:46 AM Rob has responded
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-16-2006 12:56 AM Rob has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 303 (370125)
12-16-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Rob
12-16-2006 12:36 AM


Re: An off topic apology
If you don't mind me saying, I don't think that science can even be considered a consensus.

Well, that's simply untrue. Scientists do organize into consensus(es) on scientific issues. Sometimes the consensus is divided. But on the basic accuracy of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity and history of life on Earth? There's no real dispute.

I recently heard a very well known radio talk show host make that very point rather well considering his general simplicity in the intellectual battle-ground. Consensus does not change facts.

Well, no, it doesn't; but when the subject is something that it takes years of technical study to arrive at a considered opinion on, for people who don't have the time to devote to the subject, it's appropriate to defer to the consensus judgement of experts.

Don't you think? We can't all be experts on everything. It's no crime to defer to the consensus of experts; but neither should we expect that the consensus reflects anything but what is understood from the evidence we have now.

The only alternative is to become an expert, yourself, and then arrive at your own opinion.

I am just dissapointed with my own impatience and egomaniacal attitude, which completely destroys any ability to find some common ground with which to meet on these very difficult issues.

There's nothing to be disappointed about. Nobody's going to be up in your face if you say "I don't know" or "I want to learn more" or even "I was wrong." But I know (believe me) that those are hard things to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 12:36 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 12:55 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 262 of 303 (370128)
12-16-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by crashfrog
12-16-2006 12:46 AM


Re: An off topic apology
it's appropriate to defer to the consensus judgement of experts.

Don't you think? We can't all be experts on everything. It's no crime to defer to the consensus of experts; but neither should we expect that the consensus reflects anything but what is understood from the evidence we have now.

I don't have a problem with this in general. I mean obviously we are forced to accept many things on authority. As you implied, we simply cannot individually be experts on everything. But it is very risky. That is why so many do not trust religious leaders. And rightly so!

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander if you don't mind the cliche. Joseph Mengala anyone?

We end up getting into that fuzzy necessity of ethics and morality. And that is why i cannot disconnect the emperical from the existential. How any sane and self respecting rationalist (and most of you are brilliant ( except Crash :D )) can actually propose that we do is something that is very difficult for me to relate to.

I must conclude that there is an persoanl issue getting in the way of an honest assesment of the whole picture. Not making accusations here... I do the same thing if I do not examine myself carefully. It is part and parcel of the human condition.

Is that unreasonable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2006 12:46 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31277
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 263 of 303 (370129)
12-16-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Rob
12-16-2006 12:36 AM


back towards the Big Bang
The BB is a perfect example of this. There is simply no reason (or meaning) to infer, if one is operating from a position of actual neutrality.

Again, the BB has NOTHING to do with causes. It does not refute or challenge GOD in anyway. It is simply a conclusion based on the evidence.

If you pay attention you will find that there are quite a few theist and even staunch Christians here that support the Big Bang.

Since the worldview of a scientist is typically claimed to be one of agnosticism in regards to theism, a pure scientist in that stripe would infer nothing, because we simply cannot ever know all the facts by his own presupposition.

And that shows again a misunderstanding. Scientists can be theist. They can be Christians.

Science, the practice of Science, the Scientific Method, excludes the supernatural from study only because by definition, it cannot be measured, quantified and observed. GOD is NOT a Natural Force.

If GOD were subject to scientific study GOD would have to be only natural. GOD would have to be nothing but another natural phenomena like magnetism or gravity or light.

Are you saying GOD is not supernatural but just another substance to be codified?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 12:36 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 1:05 AM jar has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17295
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 264 of 303 (370131)
12-16-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Rob
12-15-2006 10:56 PM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
scottness writes:

You are coming from the position that facts are the only thing that matters. Am I correct? Is that the essential scientific concept wrapped up in the clearest terms?

That would depend on the definition of "facts" - and I would dispute your definition to some degree (but that's not the topic).

Yet, I am expected to believe that we have the ability to look into the past and calculate the entire universe's position and attitude.

Not at all.

First, nobody cares what you "believe".

Second, you're still hung up on "correctness" and absolutes. Nobody claims that we have The AnswerTM about the universe's "position and attitude". What we have is the best possible explanation given the available data.

I think the belief in the Big bang and other naturalistic theories is motivated much more by individual meaning be it subconscious or not.

It's not a "belief" - it's a conclusion, based on the available facts. It is arrogant to think that you know other people's motivations.

... I stand firm on these points until persuaded otherwise.

Once again, nobody cares what you believe and nobody is trying to persuade you.

This is a science thread where only evidence matters. (And I probably shouldn't be wasting space trying to explain such fundamentals to you.)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Rob, posted 12-15-2006 10:56 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 1:07 AM ringo has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 265 of 303 (370133)
12-16-2006 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
12-16-2006 12:56 AM


Re: back towards the Big Bang
I will have to defer the kind of response that this post requires for another day, lest I risk repeating past mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-16-2006 12:56 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 266 of 303 (370134)
12-16-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
12-16-2006 12:59 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
It is arrogant to think that you know other people's motivations.

Yeah, it's not like I'm human...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 12:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 1:13 AM Rob has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17295
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 267 of 303 (370135)
12-16-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Rob
12-16-2006 1:07 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
scottness writes:

Yeah, it's not like I'm human...

Well, don't project your own failings on everybody else. :)

Just a quick word about "facts": It's consensus (*ahem*) that reduces one's all-too-human arrogance. If others see the same "facts" as I do, they are more likely to be facts and not just mere beliefs.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 1:07 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rob, posted 12-16-2006 1:16 AM ringo has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4107 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 268 of 303 (370136)
12-16-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by ringo
12-16-2006 1:13 AM


Re: Why it is irrelevant.
If others see the same "facts" as I do, they are more likely to be facts and not just mere beliefs.

I probably shouldn't provoke you, but...

Is that why the majority of people believe in a creator? I guess I'm in good company even if we are despised.

You see? I don't just project arrogance, but expose it as well.

Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

Edited by scottness, : n't


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 1:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 12-16-2006 1:29 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 271 by Percy, posted 12-16-2006 10:33 AM Rob 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 © 2019