INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I am not going to make any more posts in this thread. That is primarily because I am an agnostic, because cosmology cannot tell us who God is if he exists, and because I would be quite pleased if a moral God exists. As such, I never should have gotten into discussions about the existence of God.

What originally brought me to this thread was to try to get you to have some more discussions about homosexuality. Regarding that issue, I have the advantage. Please reply to my post #688 in the thread on homosexuality. Anyone who is interested can read that post at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-69.html#post3246693.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I am not going to make any more posts in this thread. That is primarily because I am an agnostic, because cosmology cannot tell us who God is if he exists, and because I would be quite pleased if a moral God exists. As such, I never should have gotten into discussions about the existence of God.

Well that was reasonable and honest and caused your stock to go up a bit with me. (Though what I think of you may not mean all that much to you). You are right, cosmology can't establish the moral character of God, it can't even prove God. It makes God or something identical in most respects necessary. It shows it very convincingly but it is not proof. To establish what character God has requires much more complex and lengthy discussions and evidence.

What originally brought me to this thread was to try to get you to have some more discussions about homosexuality. Regarding that issue, I have the advantage. Please reply to my post #688 in the thread on homosexuality. Anyone who is interested can read that post at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/142807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-69.html#post3246693.

I am not sure I will comply. I spend 98% of my time discussing God and went to the homosexual thread because I was bored. I have not researched the issue a fraction as much as theology and do not like condemning a practice and never a person or almost never. You have the advantage of sheer volume in either thread but that won't prevail unless you wear me out. If you can give me a way or procedure that the homosexual issue can be resolved I am sure I will respond. If you are just going to dismiss my data and demand I adopt your there is no resolution possible.

Dr. Richard Carrier easily refutes most of your arguments in a lengthy, scholarly article at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/. If you wish, you can contact Dr. Carrier at [email protected].

I will look into this but I aint calling the guy.

An obvious rebuttal to everything that you said is that none of it happened even if there was a religious teacher in Jerusalem named Jesus during the first half of the first century. All that you did was to use the Bible as its own witness without any corroboration from non-biblical sources.

So if Jesus existed then he didn't exist. Did you leave something out there?

There are almost no surviving original New Testament manuscripts from the first century A.D. Possible interpolations are a problem, especially First Corinthians 15:3-8. It is well-known that Matthew and Luke copied a good deal from Mark, and that John and the book of Acts were written too late to be of much use to Christians.

None are necessary. For the original text to be reliably known you need all of several things.

1. Early copies.
2. Independent copies.
3. Parallel transmission of many manuscript traditions.
4. Prolific manuscripts.
5. An additional helpful thing is early copies that were forgotten until a much later date. (Dead sea scrolls etc....)

The Bible has all of these many times over. No other theological work in ancient history has a fraction of what the Bible does in these regards. In fact no ancient text of any kind does. In fact the text is so tenacious when an error appears (and they did) they hang on like grim death and are easy to trace. The consensus among NT textual scholars is.

1. We have 99.9% of the original texts.
2. Even using the most popular critics numbers (Ehrman's). All official current versions are 95% accurate. Theologian numbers are 99.5%
3. Errors are almost always additions.
4. No errors exist in essential doctrine.
5. 99% of errors are known and indicated in all Bible's.
Most of this can be verified yourself using software.

 

[1robin]

On the contrary, there is a need if you are arguing against macro evolution based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

I never did. I have no personal knowledge of biology. The arguments I used were first, not claims evolution does not happen. The Bible and I have said many times it does. I never even said macro evolution doesn't. I said there is no proof it does and there are major problems with all of it. Second the arguments are from professionals who do have knowledge and PhD's.

Since you are not able to adequately critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun, you are not sufficiently informed about macro evolution to debate it based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. If you are merely quoting a relative handful of experts who agree with your religious opinions, why should anyone pay attention to anything that you say about macro evolution? Even if you were an expert, why should laymen trust your opinions over the opinions of a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian biologists? For laymen, accepting macro evolution is a good bet.

If you claim I didn't you must how it is that I didn't. In fact it is impossible to show that, even if I am wrong. The counterclaim I made is perfectly consistent with logic and reason. There is no doubt that even if he was right he did not prove anything in that paper. He gave a counter assumption to which I gave an equally possible counter assumption.

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

I am not responsible for Morris. We are not discussing the flood. In my opinion the flood is likely metaphorical but just for the heck of it I can give you many facts that are consistent with an actual flood if you need them.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

You just can't help it can you. I already answered this in the thread where it belongs I think.

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

As I said the last time you posted this. This is an argument for my side.
[/quote] But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking." [/quote]Another argument for my side. They are saying that regardless of benefit or loss evil is evil and good is good in a theological context. So even if no one died from aids homosexuality would be wrong anyway if God exists. However that was not my argument. My argument was secular. I can't expect you to obey a God you do not believe in. BTW is the fact that my God says what you like is wrong the reason you will not believe. You said you wish a moral God existed, what if his morals are inconvenient?

Many of the creationist experts in biology that you referred to have the same attitude that Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse do, which is that science is only right when it agrees with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. That is science from belief, and from convenience, not following the evidence wherever it leads.

I do not think I gave any names and no one I would use would go along with this. I am not responsible for anything a Christian says. I disagree with them many times. Are you responsible for everything a homosexual person does or says?

A good percentage of creationist experts in biology also believe that a global flood occurred. Since it is very probable that a global flood did not occur, is that not sufficient evidence to suspect confirmation bias, and presuppositionalism on the part of many creationist experts in biology regarding macro evolution?

Prove this is true first.

You have said that some experts have serious reservations about macro evolution. What about the vast majority who don't? Who are you to adequately judge debates between experts? Ken Miller testified at the Dover trial. He said that some experts on the other side had no rebuttals for some of his arguments. Since a large consensus of experts accepts macro evolution, you should have said that the vast majority of experts have serious reservations about creationism.

The majority of scholars claiming X is true does carry some weight. Why they conclude this carries more? The political environment they operate in carries weight? What the problems are specifically carries weight? For example until they can get around abiogenesis, get a universe at all, or explain fine tuning without God the conversation is moot. Unlike you apparently my position is composed of more than scholarly conclusion alone.

It is often not difficult to find a relative handful of people with college degrees who believe all kinds of wierd things. The vast majority of creationists, and the vast majority of everyone else, would not be able to understand Ken Miller's article well enough to have informed scientific opinions about it, nor would they be able to understand William Dembski's mathematical arguments for intelligent design. Your arguments in this thread would not be well understood by probably at least 90% of the people in the world. How much knowledge about science, history, and biblical criticism do you think the Bible requires people to know before they become Christians?

The Bible says that the existance of God can be derived from what he has made alone. I agree but when atheists try and use science to obscure that I must use science to counter that if I believe it to be false. You are making an argument about the efficiency of information concerning faith derived from an argument about cosmology and evolution not given in that context. You make the most disjointed relationships possible. You have a very strange style of logic or illogic I have ever ran up against. One thought does not flow into a second. You select one thought in a certain context and an unrelated thought from another and using some strange fission meld them together. Basically you put a horse head on a tortoise body and go “what about that?”. I have no idea what to do with a hortoise.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am not sure I will comply. I spend 98% of my time discussing God and went to the homosexual thread because I was bored. I have not researched the issue a fraction as much as theology and do not like condemning a practice and never a person or almost never. You have the advantage of sheer volume in either thread but that won't prevail unless you wear me out. If you can give me a way or procedure that the homosexual issue can be resolved I am sure I will respond. If you are just going to dismiss my data and demand I adopt your there is no resolution possible.

Wearing you out is not my intent. My intent is to try to get you to actually reply to my arguments, which recently you have refused to do, and quite conveniently I might add since you know that some of them are good. All that you need to do is go to http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-69.html#post3246693, and reply to all of my post #688.

You still continue to make the false claim that I have objected to your data when I have not objected to any of your statistics from the CDC, nor from the International Journal of Epidemology. You cannot provide one single example of where I said that any of the CDC's statistics are false. Your only reason for continuing to make that false claim is to try to come up with a flimsy excuse why you will not make any more posts in that thread since you know that some of my arguments are better than yours. Please reply to all of that post, and we will see whose arguments are better. Anyone who has kept up with that thread knows that my main objections to your arguments have certainly not been regarding statistics from the CDC, but a lot of other issues, most of which I discussed in my most recent post in that thread. Normally, you do not beat around the bush like you are doing now. That is because normally, you believe that you have the advantage, and this time, you do not believe that you have the advantage.

 

[1robin]

Wearing you out is not my intent. My intent is to try to get you to actually reply to my arguments, which recently you have refused to do, and quite conveniently I might add since you know that some of them are good. All that you need to do is go to http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/142807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-69.html#post3246693, and reply to all of my post #688.

Let me assure you I avoided no post because I was intimidated. I can't even figure out what it is your are saying half the time. I avoid that thread because I do not care that much and am not as comfortable there. I avoid other posts because you make more than I can address and it takes a while to figure out what in the world you are trying so hard to say. In fact you post long sections of identical things I already have answered without even saying why. A mistake, did you need clarity, what?

You still continue to make the false claim that I have objected to your data when I have not objected to any of your statistics from the CDC, nor from the International Journal of Epidemiology. You cannot provide one single example of where I said that any of the CDC's statistics are false. Your only reason for continuing to make that false claim is to try to come up with a flimsy excuse why you will not make any more posts in that thread since you know that some of my arguments are better than yours. Please reply to all of that post, and we will see whose arguments are better. Anyone who has kept up with that thread knows that my main objections to your arguments have certainly not been regarding statistics from the CDC, but a lot of other issues, most of which I discussed in my most recent post in that thread.

You keep this up and your will inherit the whirlwind, call down the thunder, reap your ruin, and have your cheeto's stolen at the same time. I will at least answer that post above and look for where you performed some intellectual acrobatics to get out of data I gave but after that I will not feel obligated further. I am leaving soon but you are welcome to remind me if I fail to remember what I said here. Have a good weekend.

 

[Agnostic75]

I can't even figure out what it is your are saying half the time.

You certainly can regarding my post #688 in that thread. It is your absurd claim that all homosexuals, even monogamous homosexuals, should practice abstinence for life that is strange. No major medical association, including the CDC, would agree with that preposterous claim.

I avoid that thread because I do not care that much and am not as comfortable there.

That is because you know that you are poorly prepared to debate homosexuality from a secular perspective.

I avoid other posts because you make more than I can address.......

But all that you need to do is reply to my post #688.

.......and it takes a while to figure out what in the world you are trying so hard to say.

The average sixth grader would easily be able to understand my most recent post. It is very clear, and very easy to understand.

In fact you post long sections of identical things I already have answered without even saying why.

You have not recently replied to most of my post #688.

I will at least answer that post above and look for where you performed some intellectual acrobatics to get out of data I gave.......

There you go again making up a story that never happened. That thread has never been about me objecting to your CDC statistics. Virtually all experts on both sides agree that homosexuals generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do, sometimes a lot more.

If you reply to that post at all, you will probably not reply to all of it, and when I reply to your reply, you will make up some flimsy excuses why you will not make any more posts in that thread.

Please show my most recent post in that thread to some of your friends, and ask them if they can easily understand what I said, and if they agree with everything that you said. Surely anyone at this forum who reads that post will easily be able to understand it.

In debates, I sometimes start slowly, and improve as I go. I think that that has happened in that thread. I think that my most recent post is very clear, and very logical, and that all of my arguments in that post are better than your arguments. One of your main problems in that thread is that not any widely respected medical organization agrees with your claim that all homosexuals, even monogamous homosexuals, should practice abstinence for life. Even many of the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality would not use such a silly argument.

Your absurd claim that homosexuality is caused 100% by enviroment is just as silly, as I showed in my most recent post in that thread.

I am not trying to pester, or provoke you. I am a very peaceful person. All that I ask is that you make at least a few more posts in that thread. If you do not want to make any more posts, just say so, and I will not mention that thread again to you.

 

[Alceste]

1 robin, I can't be bothered to get into your post too deeply as it would require I learn an entirely different reality from, well, reality. Suffice it to say that "Hawking's" is not an actual person, and even if he was the multiverse and associated hypotheses are not dependent on any one person, but supported by the work a great many practicing physicists (most of them, in fact). Finally, knowing a guy who knows a guy who knows this "Hawking's" would give you no special insight whatsoever on the subject, even if he was the sole proponent of M-theory.

 

[1robin]

1 robin, I can't be bothered to get into your post too deeply as it would require I learn an entirely different reality from, well, reality. Suffice it to say that "Hawking's" is not an actual person, and even if he was the multiverse and associated hypotheses are not dependent on any one person, but supported by the work a great many practicing physicists (most of them, in fact). I Finally, knowing a guy who knows a guy who knows this "Hawking's" would give you no special insight whatsoever on the subject, even if he was the sole proponent of M-theory.

It is supported by nothing but fantasy and no most of them do not support the ridiculous multiverse fairy tale.If your reality makes you claim that Hawking does not exist and then comment on a work he produced, I would be looking out for the guys in white coats. Yes, knowing a guy who studied under the person who invented much of the math Hawking used does give me access to things you can't. However if that won't be accepted then how about Hawking's former collaborator Penrose.

Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory" on Premier Christian Radio.

Speaking on the station's weekly faith debate program Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking's new book The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations."

Penrose was in dialogue on the programme with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking's new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.

Criticising M-theory, Penrose said: "It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it's nothing of the sort. It's not even a theory."

Universe has not been shown to "create itself from nothing".

Asked whether science shows that the universe could "create itself from nothing" as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the 'string' theory that lies behind Hawking's statement: "It's certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It's not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas." He added that such ideas are ""very far from any testability. They are hardly science."

As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking's views.

"Multi-verse" has not superseded God

He also responded to the so-called "multi-verse" hypothesis that Hawking's theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly "fine-tuned" for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking's "multi-verse" hypothesis is a form of the 'anthropic principle': since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct 'settings' that support conscious life.

Responding to the 'multi-verse' hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs," said: "Its overused, and this is a place where it overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory."

Premier presenter Justin Brierley said: "What's interesting is that Penrose's criticisms of Hawking are not driven by any faith position. Instead he simply recognizes that the science does not justify making statements about God's non-existence, which is a much more honest position than other well-known scientists, such as Dawkins, who want to equate science with atheism."

Scientist debunks Hawking's 'no God needed' theory on Independent Catholic News

Of course you can simply claim he does not exist either and get out of this mess you are stuck in. Heck get rid of me and you will not have to say anything.

 

[Alceste]

It is supported by nothing but fantasy and no most of them do not support the ridiculous multiverse fairy tale.If your reality makes you claim that Hawking does not exist and then comment on a work he produced, I would be looking out for the guys in white coats. Yes, knowing a guy who studied under the person who invented much of the math Hawking used does give me access to things you can't. However if that won't be accepted then how about Hawking's former collaborator Penrose.

Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory" on Premier Christian Radio.

Speaking on the station's weekly faith debate program Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking's new book The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations."

Penrose was in dialogue on the programme with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking's new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.

Criticising M-theory, Penrose said: "It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it's nothing of the sort. It's not even a theory."

Universe has not been shown to "create itself from nothing".

Asked whether science shows that the universe could "create itself from nothing" as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the 'string' theory that lies behind Hawking's statement: "It's certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It's not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas." He added that such ideas are ""very far from any testability. They are hardly science."

As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking's views.

"Multi-verse" has not superseded God

He also responded to the so-called "multi-verse" hypothesis that Hawking's theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly "fine-tuned" for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking's "multi-verse" hypothesis is a form of the 'anthropic principle': since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct 'settings' that support conscious life.

Responding to the 'multi-verse' hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs," said: "Its overused, and this is a place where it overused. It's an excuse for not having a good theory."

Premier presenter Justin Brierley said: "What's interesting is that Penrose's criticisms of Hawking are not driven by any faith position. Instead he simply recognizes that the science does not justify making statements about God's non-existence, which is a much more honest position than other well-known scientists, such as Dawkins, who want to equate science with atheism."

Scientist debunks Hawking's 'no God needed' theory on Independent Catholic News

Of course you can simply claim he does not exist either and get out of this mess you are stuck in. Heck get rid of me and you will not have to say anything.

For the love of all that's holy, I hope you realize that the book the Grand Design only describes M-theory, dumbed down for laymen like you and I. It doesn't introduce M-theory. Is the fact that Stephen Hawking (not Hawkings) wrote a pop sci book about M-theory all you needed to decide that he invented it, and is its only proponent? I simply cannot bear the thought of learning how to process information however one must in order to draw such absurd conclusions, so I will assume I'm mistaken in my impression.

So you have Hawking and Penrose - two scientists who disagree with one another regarding the quality of the book the Grand Design. What does that have to do with the soundness of M-theory?

 

[McBell]

For the love of all that's holy, I hope you realize that the book the Grand Design only describes M-theory, dumbed down for laymen like you and I. It doesn't introduce M-theory.

And even then it iseems it was not dumbed down enough for some....

 

[Agnostic75]

Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory" on Premier Christian Radio.

Consider the following:

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com

November 19, 2010

Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". That is the sensational claim being made by University of Oxford theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who says that data collected by NASA's WMAP satellite support his idea of "conformal cyclic cosmology". This claim is bound to prove controversial, however, because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology.

According to inflationary theory, the universe started from a point of infinite density known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, expanded extremely rapidly for a fraction of a second and has continued to expand much more slowly ever since, during which time stars, planets and ultimately humans have emerged. That expansion is now believed to be accelerating and is expected to result in a cold, uniform, featureless universe.

Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe.

According to Penrose and Gurzadyan, these circles allow us to "see through" the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. The circles, they say, are the marks left in our aeon by the spherical ripples of gravitational waves that were generated when black holes collided in the previous aeon. And they say that these circles pose a problem for inflationary theory because this theory says that the distribution of temperature variations across the sky should be Gaussian, or random, rather than having discernable structures within it.

Julian Barbour, a visiting professor of physics at the University of Oxford, says that these circles would be "remarkable if real and sensational if they confirm Penrose's theory". They would, he says, "overthrow the standard inflationary picture", which, he adds, has become widely accepted as scientific fact by many cosmologists. But he believes that the result will be "very controversial" and that other researchers will look at the data very critically. He says there are many disputable aspects to the theory, including the abrupt shift of scale between aeons and the assumption, central to the theory, that all particles will become massless in the very distant future. He points out, for example, that there is no evidence that electrons decay.

What is your opinion of that?

 

[1robin]

Consider the following:

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com
What is your opinion of that?

Well Agnostic this is the best argument you have made in any subject IMO. However it does not add up to what you might think.

Let me illustrate some issues that show these claims have little effect.

1. Penrose is on record (as an agnostic I might add) that no theory on the table has ruled out the need for God.

2. This paper about his ideas is given within the context of a proposition not even a theory, really. He does not say that his ideas are currently a reason to overturn the inflationary model. His ideas are speculation only and I am certainly in favor of pursuing all reasonable scientific speculations.

3. The inflationary model (which contains the borde guth vilenkin theory among many others) is the dominant theory in cosmology.

4. The oscillation model he mentions here has severe problems.

a. There is no evidence available at this time that shows the universe will one day in the future contract. Everything in the universe that can be measured is flying away from it's original Big Bang location (for lack of a better word). It is doing so at an increasing rate and there is no reason to think it will slow down or reverse direction. By the way I have always wondered where this Big Bang singularity is supposed to be. That would have been the first thing I wanted to know as a cosmologist.

b. The force most associated with what governs mass is gravity. There is no massive object in the universe center known that would slow down and reverse the expansion. That is why it is not slowing down.

c. Even if in spite of current data, which indicates the exact opposite is true in every measurement done, it will for some reason stop and reverse course to become a singularity again which will explode again, it still has problems. These actions would not be perfectly efficient. Just like a spring that will oscillate for a bit but will stop in a short time the universe would do the same. That means that every oscillation would be less powerful and shorter than the last. That means if the universe is infinitely old it should have stopped oscillating by now.

d. Even if there was a mass large enough to cause the oscillations, and the efficiency was perfect, that would mean that the universe has been in motion forever. If the past number of universes stretched off into infinity in the past then ours would be number "infinity". Can you count to infinity? Then how could this specific oscillation (we are experiencing) be arrived at? You also get into mathematic absurdities when considering an infinite anything. The one before us would have been number infinity as well so we would have infinity minus one equals infinity. That is why most philosophers think an actual infinity is a logical absurdity. It is most likely an abstract idea and does not exist in nature.

e. The law of cause and effect would dictate that an infinite number of causes made an infinite number of effects in time. How could an infinite number of physical events occur in time? If you count the times a second hand ticks will you ever reach infinity.

f. For these reasons and many more even oscillating universes can’t be infinite and still in the need of a creator. It would have just kicked the can down the road a ways.


I can keep going but this should be enough to indicate that the consensus inflationary model is by far the best and avoids all these logical impossibilities and this speculative idea has problems that do not have any reasonable, even theoretical method, by which these problems may be overcome. However I am all for studying every option especially since it is Penrose. This is nothing new, people have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at the cosmology given in Genesis only to see them all smashed to pieces over time by actual discoveries that clear up faults in earlier speculations. I claim only that the dominant (by far) theory in cosmology matches the Bible perfectly. BTW the comments at the bottom of that site laid out a few more objections.

 

[1robin]

For the love of all that's holy, I hope you realize that the book the Grand Design only describes M-theory, dumbed down for laymen like you and I. It doesn't introduce M-theory. Is the fact that Stephen Hawking (not Hawkings) wrote a pop sci book about M-theory all you needed to decide that he invented it, and is its only proponent? I simply cannot bear the thought of learning how to process information however one must in order to draw such absurd conclusions, so I will assume I'm mistaken in my impression.

It is not the issue who came up with it. It is the concepts merits not it's proponents. I had never seen anything on M-theory that did not have Hawking's name all through it. Whether he invented, adopted, or just mentioned the theory makes no difference, I am not countering the source but the concept its self. M-theory relies heavily on string theory. String theory is on the way out these days. It has gained a reputation for inspiring more jokes than scientific resolution. Here is what one source said about it.

The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.
This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.
String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? | Science | The Observer

So you have Hawking and Penrose - two scientists who disagree with one another regarding the quality of the book the Grand Design. What does that have to do with the soundness of M-theory?

He did not say the book was nonsense he said: The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations."

Though if he condemned the entire book instead of only M-theory I am unclear why you think that helpfull for your case. I also gave the impression of one of the people on who's work M-theory was partly drawn as well as the opinion of the PhD I work with. However forget all that. M-theory is a faith based guess. It is not the consensus of cosmology. The inflationary theory is the most widely held view of our universe.

Even forgetting how subjectively insuffecient M-theory is in comparison, just how many statements showing M-theory has little actual scientific merit to explain the universe are necessary? I could give you ten from secular sources I have already read at least, would that do it? What would? Anything?Why deny the 80 percentile answer and put forward the 1 percentile guess?

This is a more telling issue. Why are you ignoring the most solid theory in cosmology concerning the universe's history and instead putting forward one based on nothing but the most fantastic conjecture? It is not for scientific reasons, inflationary models are infinitly more scientifically valid than M-theory or all the counter models combined. Since it isn't scientific what is the motivation? Not that I know it to be true, but the implications of the dominant theory are all that's left for a candidate to explain what you have said. Is the fact someone somewhere has a different idea really a contention worth typing? If so then nothing is known because someone somehwere dissagress.

 

[Alceste]

Robin, I'm obviously not ignoring current theoretical models of the universe, of which M-theory, string theory, the holographic principle, quantum physics and many other concepts are a part. The better question is why are you so attached to an outdated model that cannot even explain gravity? Could it be because that's the only remaining model that leaves enough space to cram your God into?

 

[1robin]

Robin, I'm obviously not ignoring current theoretical models of the universe, of which M-theory, string theory, the holographic principle, quantum physics and many other concepts are a part. The better question is why are you so attached to an outdated model that cannot even explain gravity? Could it be because that's the only remaining model that leaves enough space to cram your God into?

Good night nurse. It isn't out dated; the inflationary model case was pretty much ailed shut as recently as 2003 with the Bord Buth Velankin theorum, but is still the most solid theory available without it. The people who researched this theorem and the majority of cosmologists who have conceded this as the most comprehensive theory to date are secular. If you can stomach going to a creationist site you can see why SECULAR scientists say that all other competing models fall well short. It is the state of secular cosmology currently and there is no good reason to think it may be shown false in the future.

I did not understand the claim that inflationary cosmology does not explain gravity. It is a historical cosmological origins theory not a gravity theory. As far as I can tell no rival theory can be shown to give us a fraction of what we know to exist. They may explain 10% or so of reality but the Inflationary model vastly higher percentages. If science was the deciding factor here then Inflationary model would be adopted by everyone. Since science isn't what the objection is we get this stuff. I guess rigorous adherence to what science claims is only valid if it does not indicate the need for a God. BTW nothing explains gravity nor hundreds of other constants in nature that have no natural cause. There exists nothing in natural law currently that necessitates these extremely fine-tuned constants must be what they are. If they were different by 1 part in 10^20 or worse we get no universe at all. Whatever the answer is for this it has no reason to be thought to exist in natural law besides bias.

It is said as some kind of argument that monkeys (unintentional natural events) typing on typewriters would eventually produce Shakespeare. As absurd as that is as a comparison with the universe no one but an atheist could find a copy of King Lear and proclaim look what some moneys (unintentional natural events) did. Why are you looking at the universe and making the same unscientific conclusion?

BTW I never looked for anything in particular. I kept hearing secular cosmologists, philosophers, and Christian debators refer to that theorum as the dominant model in modern cosmology and finally looked it up one day.

 

[Alceste]

The inflationary model is not at odds with M-theory. They are complementary models, not competing models.

Hope that clears things up for you!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hope that clears things up for you!

When someone's head is stuck in the mud, you have to pull it out first, before they can see anything clearly.

 

[1robin]

The inflationary model is not at odds with M-theory. They are complementary models, not competing models.

Hope that clears things up for you!

The inflationary model at least in the case of where it relys on the Bord Buth Velankin theorum is finite and allows for no oscillations, multiverses, or an eternal universe of any kind. In fact a universe with an average positive expansion rate has no oscillation possible. I know of little within the inflationary model as a whole that would get you out of that implication. Currently everything is accelerating apart and there is no scientific reason to think it will stop. This rules out oscillations and makes no comment about other fantasy universes. My claim was the Bible posits a single (though it does not rule out multiple) finite universe that was caused by something beyond nature. That is exactly what the predominant theory in cosmology (inflationary model) produces. If you feel comfortable saying M-theory does the same thing then there is no claim to rebut. Everything we KNOW concerning cosmology is consistent with the Bible. However fantasy land being what it is, I am quite sure is filled to capacity with any theory that has the slightest negative implication on God whether that theory has any evidence or not. I do not think M-theory is quantifiable enough to claim what it is consistent with or not. It seems to be a place holder for a bunch of faith based guesses. I have no reason to argue against researching it but as of now it is impotent to comment on cosmology in a reliable manner.

I did not become a Christian based on cosmology. The reason I have persued this course is to demonstrate that the atheist who mandates we must follow "science" where it leads, violates his own rules. Science won't even follow science, why should you insist I do? Not that a rejection of reliable science is necessary, most of it is consistent or irrelevant to the Bible. I have even had a group of six atheist evolutionists tell me point blank I must accept macro-evolution on the sole basis most scientists agreed with it. Besides being a fallacy what the majority of scientists conclude about something that first needs to violate a principle which has no know violations, has never been observed, and what has many serious problems carries little weight. I just want consistentcy.

Again the dominant theory of the universe is finite and so far no natural cause looks possible. In fact it looks silly trying to say nature created nature. Why are you resisting this idea? There is no scientific reason.

 

[1robin]

When someone's head is stuck in the mud, you have to pull it out first, before they can see anything clearly.

Have you ever added anything of substance to a debate or this the best you can muster?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Have you ever added anything of substance to a debate or this the best you can muster?

I once gave my dog a fifty-dollar bill. He dropped it in the corner and peed on it.