New Images Support 'Big Bang' Theory
-
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).
espeir wrote:
The answer: Something.
but that's not God.
espeir wrote:
Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch"
it's a good thing that theory wasn't in the Bible. people would be doggedly defending it for thousands of years despite all evidence to the contrary! ;) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Then you're allowing your religion to determine your view on science.
i have no religion. and no, not having a religion is not a religion, by the definitions of "not", "having" and "religion".
espeir wrote:
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.
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at... yes, my lack of belief in a god of any kind prevents me from allowing that the Big Bang (or whatever the cause of the universe might have been) was god's work. why would i believe in what i don't believe in? if i'm proved wrong at some future date, that's fine. i'm willing to accept new evidence as it comes in. in other words: prove your God exists, and i'll consider him as a possible cause for my existence.
espeir wrote:
Others will know (assuming that you're correct...because it assumes we're capable of knowing such things). You will be dead
by "we", i meant the human species.
espeir wrote:
And since you're an atheist, your soul won't be around to know either.
my soul won't be around because i don't have one, not because i'm an atheist. :beer: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i have no religion.
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at...
Clearly not. Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave. However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory. As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
Chris Losinger wrote:
by "we", i meant the human species.
You will no longer be a member of the club.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i have no religion.
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at...
Clearly not. Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave. However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory. As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
Chris Losinger wrote:
by "we", i meant the human species.
You will no longer be a member of the club.
espeir wrote:
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
espeir wrote:
Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave.
care to elaborate?
espeir wrote:
However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory.
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
espeir wrote:
As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
i said no such thing. and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 16:59 Friday 17th March, 2006
-
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
-
espeir wrote:
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
espeir wrote:
Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave.
care to elaborate?
espeir wrote:
However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory.
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
espeir wrote:
As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
i said no such thing. and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 16:59 Friday 17th March, 2006
Chris, It's kind of an odd conversation you and espeir are having. Just a couple of observations and questions: Observations/comments: 1. God's existence/non-existence is independent of anyone's belief/disbelief in God. Truth is independent and stands on its own. 2. If God does exist, then it's probable that he/she was involved in the creation of the universe. 3. We don't know everything yet, and it's quite possible that we'll discover information that will invalidate or partially invalidate our current theories about how the universe works. (Newton->Einstein->Qantum whatever) 4. As such, I would think it more reasonable to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't/refuse to believe". The effect on you is negligible or none at all, but the first seems more open minded than the latter. 5. I've never been to china, so I can't personally vouch for its existence. But other people have been there and I've seen pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve them. The same sort of reasoning can be used for the existence of God. You and I have never seen God, but others have. I choose to believe what I've heard. I don't know what you've heard. I have just one question: What would you accept as proof of God's existence?
-
espeir wrote:
The answer: Something.
but that's not God.
espeir wrote:
Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch"
it's a good thing that theory wasn't in the Bible. people would be doggedly defending it for thousands of years despite all evidence to the contrary! ;) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
espeir wrote: The answer: Something. but that's not God.
How do you know?
-
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
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I'd say spirituality is on of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it.
I think your view of spirituality is flawed. All of the people who I know who are spiritual are some of the most intelligent, most thoughtful, most reasoning people I know. Their spirituality causes them to seek understanding of everything around them.
-
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
Matt Gerrans wrote:
explain the existence of God
"As Man now is God once was, as God is Man may become"
-
Chris, It's kind of an odd conversation you and espeir are having. Just a couple of observations and questions: Observations/comments: 1. God's existence/non-existence is independent of anyone's belief/disbelief in God. Truth is independent and stands on its own. 2. If God does exist, then it's probable that he/she was involved in the creation of the universe. 3. We don't know everything yet, and it's quite possible that we'll discover information that will invalidate or partially invalidate our current theories about how the universe works. (Newton->Einstein->Qantum whatever) 4. As such, I would think it more reasonable to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't/refuse to believe". The effect on you is negligible or none at all, but the first seems more open minded than the latter. 5. I've never been to china, so I can't personally vouch for its existence. But other people have been there and I've seen pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve them. The same sort of reasoning can be used for the existence of God. You and I have never seen God, but others have. I choose to believe what I've heard. I don't know what you've heard. I have just one question: What would you accept as proof of God's existence?
ahz wrote:
God's existence/non-existence is independent of anyone's belief/disbelief in God.
true. as is the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. would i be silly to give FSM credit for the creation of the universe?
ahz wrote:
If God does exist, then it's probable that he/she was involved in the creation of the universe.
we all know how "if" works. :)
ahz wrote:
We don't know everything yet, and it's quite possible...
of course. i've been saying that through the whole thread (or at least on another sub-thread of the same conversation). it's the main reason i don't need to resort to God Did It. currently-unknown natural explanations are more likely.
ahz wrote:
s such, I would think it more reasonable to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't/refuse to believe".
let's talk about the FSM again. would anyone question me, or think it was unacceptable, if i said i refused to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe ? why should this other myth get special treatment when it comes to scientific questions ?
ahz wrote:
You and I have never seen God, but others have.
others claim they have.
ahz wrote:
What would you accept as proof of God's existence?
i'm not sure. everything i'm thinking of could plausibly be the action of a natural being or force with powers we don't yet understand: big unexplained things acting on the earth - mountains moving, seas evaporating, mass levitation, you know - big miracle-y things. could just be a hostile alien playing with us. until natural explanations are ruled out, there's no proof of the super-natural. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Which Bible do you mean? Have you read it? All of it? Did you kill your goat today and sprinkle blood on both sides of the altar? Did you correctly remove the entrails before burning its head on the altar? No? Better go read up so you can get things right. Matt Gerrans
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
If you are serious, then you need an education in civility and what the grace of God, through the person of Jesus Christ, really means.
Wow, your arrogance is breathtaking. Who the hell do you think you are to preach? How dare you presume to tell other people what to believe and how to behave. It is you that needs an education and if you truly claim to represent your god then I pity that poor entity its choice of followers. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are to preach?
I don't suppose a verbal attack on a forum qualifies as preaching? ;P Maybe I'm naive to be tempted to group an expression of outrage together with trying to influence how people behave. :) Paul
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
espeir wrote: The answer: Something. but that's not God.
How do you know?
i was unclear. i meant: that Something does not automatically mean God. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 18:46 Friday 17th March, 2006
-
i was unclear. i meant: that Something does not automatically mean God. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 18:46 Friday 17th March, 2006
Chris Losinger wrote:
that Something does not automatically mean God.
I didn't say it did. That's why I specifically said "something" instead of "God". But it was "something". Was that "something" God? Personally, I don't think that creating a universe is really a trivial thing. My money is on God.
-
espeir wrote:
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
espeir wrote:
Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave.
care to elaborate?
espeir wrote:
However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory.
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
espeir wrote:
As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
i said no such thing. and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 16:59 Friday 17th March, 2006
Chris Losinger wrote:
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
I get that you're offended by the notion of religion which is why you're an atheist. Same old song. But if you had no religion, then you would not have a structured belief system like you do. Agnosticism does not have a defined belief system and atheism does. Sorry...But that's a religion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
care to elaborate?
Becase, per your example, X is not yet solved for. While there is a definite solution to X, you don't know what that is. Therefore, by excluding God as a possible answer to X, you are excluding a possible answer without any evidence (beyond your own personal religious beliefs) to do so.
Chris Losinger wrote:
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
I'm doing neither as I am incapable. However, you asserted that there is no God so the onus is equally on your shoulders to prove that He does not exist in order to validate your belief system. While you explicitely stated that God did not create the big bang, I stated that I believe He created the big bang, but that is not the only possible solution. You excluded that solution based on your religious beliefs. So, since you're so very "scientific", prove that God does not exist.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i said no such thing.
Yes you did. You said "i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists." So then your religious beliefs (that there is no God) govern your scientific beliefs.
Chris Losinger wrote:
and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe
No good scientist would ever exclude the possibility of t
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
that Something does not automatically mean God.
I didn't say it did. That's why I specifically said "something" instead of "God". But it was "something". Was that "something" God? Personally, I don't think that creating a universe is really a trivial thing. My money is on God.
espeir wrote:
I didn't say it did.
i encourage you to re-read the thread. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
I get that you're offended by the notion of religion which is why you're an atheist. Same old song. But if you had no religion, then you would not have a structured belief system like you do. Agnosticism does not have a defined belief system and atheism does. Sorry...But that's a religion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
care to elaborate?
Becase, per your example, X is not yet solved for. While there is a definite solution to X, you don't know what that is. Therefore, by excluding God as a possible answer to X, you are excluding a possible answer without any evidence (beyond your own personal religious beliefs) to do so.
Chris Losinger wrote:
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
I'm doing neither as I am incapable. However, you asserted that there is no God so the onus is equally on your shoulders to prove that He does not exist in order to validate your belief system. While you explicitely stated that God did not create the big bang, I stated that I believe He created the big bang, but that is not the only possible solution. You excluded that solution based on your religious beliefs. So, since you're so very "scientific", prove that God does not exist.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i said no such thing.
Yes you did. You said "i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists." So then your religious beliefs (that there is no God) govern your scientific beliefs.
Chris Losinger wrote:
and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe
No good scientist would ever exclude the possibility of t
espeir wrote:
then you would not have a structured belief system like you do
religion and "belief system" are not equivalent. and, to be completely honest, in my experience, the only people who say they are are religious people who are trying to get non-religious people to play by an inappropriate set of rules. frankly it's an old and tiresome ploy.
espeir wrote:
Therefore, by excluding God as a possible answer to X, you are excluding a possible answer without any evidence
there is no way to convince me that "God" is an answer to any scientific question unless you have first proven God exists. prove that, and we'll talk science. otherwise, you're talking myth, superstition and philosophy, and that has no place in a discussion of science. how many times can you ignore this ? and, let's be frank; you're not arguing that a god created the universe, you're arguing that the Christian God did it. but the argument you're pushing ("you can't know for sure!") also allows that Buddha, Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. nobody can disprove any of those either (give it a try). you're making a bogus argument: X + Y = 10, for all X; it's asking for a solution that lies outside the known laws of mathematics. to avoid that, you need to prove God exists; bring him into the realm of science, and don't insist he's beyond science's capabilities but that he still should be considered as part of science when it's convenient for you. do that and then we can talk about how he fits into the universe - including the Big Bang, evolution, fossils, carbon dating, etc..
espeir wrote:
So then your religious beliefs (that there is no God) govern your scientific beliefs.
sorry, you can't declare yourself the winner of a conversation based on semantics if we don't agree on the simple definitions of words.
espeir wrote:
No good scientist would ever exclude the possibility of the existence of God or His role in the creation of the universe because, as you stated, there is simply no evidence either way
ignorance is not a positive argument. based on your arguement, there are an infinite number of things "no good scientist" should ever exclude (anything and everything imaginable, in fact). but that's not an argument for<