New Images Support 'Big Bang' Theory
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
2 things... 1) What does ID have to do with the big bang? 2) The notion of causality (which is required in science) denotes the same logic you just summarized.
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
So, from your logic, where did the material for the 'big bang' come from?
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The bible claimed the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter was roughly three
huh? where?
1 Kings 7:23 Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The bible claimed the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter was roughly three
huh? where?
It is not however, a mathematics lesson. It is a description of the measurements of what is essentially a vase. The brim was ten cubits across. The verse then said it was 30 cubits in circumference and 5 cubits high. It did not say, however, that the brim was 30 cubits in circumference. The next verse implies that the brim was wider than the rest of the vase. May have looked like the right side of this picture.[^] Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read -- modified at 13:48 Friday 17th March, 2006
-
Pursuing the big bang theory is a futile attempt. I think the universe was never meant to be understood. Maybe the universe represents all that cannot be explained - the ultimate truth. No matter how many books or articles I read on this subject, it all sounds like a fantasy tale which always ends with "well we could be completely wrong here"
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
The very question of how or when God was created contains a logical flaw. See http://thecodeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1412296#xx1412296xx[^] I might also add, if God were to do some act, we might call it supernatural; that is, it is not natural, it doesn't follow the laws of nature. Your question imposes natural laws on something extra-natural, something not from nature.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
1 Kings 7:23 Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
That's merely a description of a big tub. And I'm sure the measurements are approximate. Further, it's probable the tub was not exactly circular. No direct instruction is given here (nor can any direct conclusion be correctly drawn) of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
The essence of faith is to believe without requiring proof. But, for proof, I look at the marvel that is creation; I see the flowers in their infinite beauty; I see the stars that light the night sky.
Could this part of the discussion be taken to the soapbox before it degrades into a verbal brawl?
dan neely wrote:
discussion be taken
no
-
That's merely a description of a big tub. And I'm sure the measurements are approximate. Further, it's probable the tub was not exactly circular. No direct instruction is given here (nor can any direct conclusion be correctly drawn) of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.
ahz wrote:
That's merely a description of a big tub
As I stated in my follow-up reply :) Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Then is your explanation simply a refusal of all other proposed explanations?
i don't have an explanation. but i don't much believe in 'chance', either. chance is just shorthand for 'i don't have time to figure out all the things that contributed to this event'. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Whereas Christianity teaches that God created the world in 6 days (without Arnold's help :) ), our religion believes in the "let there be light" approach. God created the world instantaneously. That brings up a lot of "impossible to answer through science or faith" questions like how or when did it happen. But since we're all here arguing about it, something did happen. Most atheists have a hard time accepting God and religion unfortunately pushes itself rather than God. Religion only explains God in its way and that's why a large majority of people are atheists. God is not defined to be an old man with a beard. God is just the reason for our existance. God could be a being, the universe (Big Bang) or even we could be living things in God. Any way you wish to explain it is equally plausible. We'll never know for sure. But to say there is no God when you accept the Big Bang blindly is self-denial. "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
God is not defined to be an old man with a beard. God is just the reason for our existance. God could be a being, the universe (Big Bang) or even we could be living things in God.
that bit sounds a lot like Deism. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
i don't have an explanation. but i don't much believe in 'chance', either. chance is just shorthand for 'i don't have time to figure out all the things that contributed to this event'. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
In which case, I would think you should just say that you don't know one way or the other (which is the case for everybody here). Could be chance...Could be God, but you just don't know....And never will.
-
In which case, I would think you should just say that you don't know one way or the other (which is the case for everybody here). Could be chance...Could be God, but you just don't know....And never will.
i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists. so it would be silly of me to say "Could be God". and i think i've already explained my position on 'chance'; it's a surrender to ignorance. my position is this: we don't know, but if it is withing the realm of knowable things, someday we will know*. * : barring the premature demise of the human race, the sun-death of the solar system or the destruction of the universe itself. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
So, from your logic, where did the material for the 'big bang' come from?
we don't know. however, that bit of ignorance says nothing about God. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
The very question of how or when God was created contains a logical flaw. See http://thecodeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1412296#xx1412296xx[^] I might also add, if God were to do some act, we might call it supernatural; that is, it is not natural, it doesn't follow the laws of nature. Your question imposes natural laws on something extra-natural, something not from nature.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Punt! Matt Gerrans
-
we don't know. however, that bit of ignorance says nothing about God. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Causality does.
-
Causality does.
what does it say? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
mysticism != sprituality. The former implies union with God while the latter implies awareness of Him. For starters sprituality is uniquely human. No animal has that ability (or the innate desire) to understand divinity. While most of our other thought processes are shared with one or more of our brothers in the animal kingdom, the fact that we alone have this quircky nature shows that it is a uniquely higher function.
BS. First of all you don't know that (who are you to say there is no "spiritual" animal?), but that's moot. There are tons of intellectual things we do that animals don't, but you specifically said "Spirituality is actually one of the highest functions of the human mind." That doesn't have anything to do with what other animals can or can't do. Just because we do something that animals don't, doesn't mean it is "higher." Animals don't smoke crack. Bad example; I guess that gets people higher. Animals don't create nuclear weapons, etc. Perhaps mysticism != sprituality, but certainly, spirituality == mysticism. ;P I'd say spirituality is one of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it. Matt Gerrans
-
i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists. so it would be silly of me to say "Could be God". and i think i've already explained my position on 'chance'; it's a surrender to ignorance. my position is this: we don't know, but if it is withing the realm of knowable things, someday we will know*. * : barring the premature demise of the human race, the sun-death of the solar system or the destruction of the universe itself. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists. so it would be silly of me to say "Could be God".
Then you're allowing your religion to determine your view on science. If you exclude the possbility of God without explicitly proving his nonexistence and involvement in the big bang, then you're just excluding a possible solution based entirely on religious beliefs and with no facts.
Chris Losinger wrote:
my position is this: we don't know, but if it is withing the realm of knowable things, someday we will know*.
Correction: Others will know (assuming that you're correct...because it assumes we're capable of knowing such things). You will be dead. And since you're an atheist, your soul won't be around to know either.
-
what does it say? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument[^] If the universe existed as a singularity at one point, and space and time did not exist, something would have had to occur (despite the lack of time) to cause the big bang. This event would have had to have causation and (as the theory goes) if there is neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor radiation, what could have caused this magnificant event. The answer: Something. What can possibly exist where there is no matter, time, space or energy that could prompt such an event? Therein lies the answer we seek and will probably never find. Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch" (as the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing) so that eliminates the universe itself as the causal element (in that it bangs, expands, then contracts to a point where the process repeats).
