Questions the BB proponents have no answers for.

[The magical volleyball]

Do you honestly think that is a rational statement? There are millions of us that believe in the supernatural, many of whom are scientists that have gone to the same universities, have access to the same data and have the same letters behind their names as those that "believe" in the BB theory.

"I have seen anti-creationists claim that all true scientists support Evolution, and that those who support Creation are not really scientists and that their credentials are less than legitimate. Is this true?"

Do real scientists believe in Creation? • ChristianAnswers.Net

How many questions in the science lab do you apply the answer "God did it", and stop researching? How many times is the supernatural explanation more logical than the natural explanation? Christian scientist pray to God, go to church on Sundays, and believe they will go to heaven when they die, but when they are in the lab they are atheist. I stand by my assertion that if supernatural explanations for events and religious doctrine had never been challenged by natural explanations then science would not exist. Please give me one example of a scientific area of study that has been furthered by supernatural explanations.

 

[Darkstorn]

Please give me one example of a scientific area of study that has been furthered by supernatural explanations.

Mechanical engineering?

You know, ghost detectors and stuff.

 

[Ted Evans]

I stand by my assertion that if supernatural explanations for events and religious doctrine had never been challenged by natural explanations then science would not exist.

Is that what you wrote, really? This is what I read.

If everyone on the planet gave into supernatural beliefs then research and science wouldn't exist.

IF, you think those two statements have the same meaning then no rational discussion could proceed, IMO.

 

[Darkstorn]

IF, you think those two statements have the same meaning then no rational discussion could proceed, IMO.

This is what I read.

But you thought those two statements have the same meaning. How exactly do you explain that?

I'm guessing you can't. Rationally i mean.

 

[Polymath257]

And so (answering your points in reverse order) how do you get the causality between X and Y... without the information for X and Y??

The causality from X to Y happens because of the natural laws: given X as an initial condition, Y will be the case at a later time.

The Big Bang, was the literal beginning, creation, of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly ever know, or probably even investigate it right? I think 'beginning' or 'creation event' is a pretty fair term for this. Otherwise by your rationale, artwork is not created, has no beginning, because the atoms in the paint go way back.. This universe came to be a few billion years ago, what's the most likely explanation for that? isn't that the question?

Well, there are many *extensions* of the BB scenario where the start of the expansion is NOT the start of the universe (or multiverse, if applicable). Whether we can investigate 'before' depends on the specifics of how quantum gravity works, so we do not know yet.

But to call it a 'creation event' as opposed to simply a 'beginning' is to imply there is a 'before'. But a 'beginning' is just a statement that the thing doesn't exist earlier. If there *is* no 'earlier', you can have a 'beginning', but not a 'creation'.

Art is 'created' mainly because it is assembled from pre-existing materials. There is a time before the art existed and the art consists of the use of pre-existing materials to produce the desired result. Which, I might add, can only happen through the application of natural laws.

Again, my position is that the universe of spacetime (so ALL of space and ALL of time) simply exists. It is impossible to talk about a cause of it simply because it is all of space and time. And that is the case even if time began.

And then you bring up a different question, a distinctly different paradox: 'first cause' which applies to any explanation (where did that come from??) so it's a wash and a moot point, because we are here, and so this problem is obviously solved one way or another.

But what is not a wash, is the capacity of creative intelligence, v spontaneous unguided mechanism, to create everything you see around you- which boils down to a lot of information, nested in hierarchies, the primeval atom was quite literally a self extracting archive of highly compressed information

You seem to be focused on 'unguided spontaneous mechanisms' as a counter to 'creative intelligence'. I don't see the two as opposites or even to account for all possibilities. How about 'creative spontaneous mechanisms'? For example, gravity with an initial instability will spontaneously take a cloud of gas and dust and produce stars and planets. No intelligence required. But that is certainly a 'creation event'.

Intelligence is a dominant aspect of creativity in human societies, but is clearly NOT a dominant aspect in the universe at large. Many, many things spontaneously form from the action of natural laws without an intelligent intervention.

But there is also a distinction to be made between formation of things *in* the universe and formation of the universe itself. The first is, potentially, a causal thing because of the action of natural laws. The second, by its very nature *cannot* be causal because it would imply a cause outside of time, which is contradictory (causes are inside of time and the action of natural laws).

We know for sure that such information systems can be generated with creativity, but how to achieve the same, while utterly forbidding any creativity at any stage.. remains the unsolved problem here.

The issue isn't 'creativity' as much as 'intelligence'. And yes, we know that information systems of high complexity *can* for spontaneously because of the action of natural laws. What is required is a certain type of feedback that is pretty common in non-linear dynamical systems (which are common).

I have to run but I appreciate your thoughtful responses..

Thanks!

 

[The magical volleyball]

Is that what you wrote, really? This is what I read.



IF, you think those two statements have the same meaning then no rational discussion could proceed, IMO.

Please tell me what's the difference between a world where everyone gives into supernatural explanations and a world where supernatural explanations are never challenged.

Pretty sure giving into something and not challenging it are the same thing

 

[Darkstorn]

Pretty sure giving into something and not challenging it are the same thing

Well. I believe there are varying levels of "giving into something." It doesn't have to be black and white. There are people who choose to believe the supernatural explanation until challenged.

Not saying i'm one of those people. But still. But i do believe the two statements presented by Ted Evans are actually distinct, if we take your opinion out of it. Logically speaking, they are not entirely equivalent.

 

[Ted Evans]

If everyone on the planet gave into supernatural beliefs then research and science wouldn't exist.

I stand by my assertion that if supernatural explanations for events and religious doctrine had never been challenged by natural explanations then science would not exist.

IF, you think those two statements have the same meaning then no rational discussion could proceed, IMO.

Obviously, he does think the meanings are the same so I stand by my statement.

Please tell me what's the difference between a world where everyone gives into supernatural explanations and a world where supernatural explanations are never challenged.

 

[Darkstorn]

Obviously, he does think the meanings are the same so I stand by my statement.

But you also think the meanings are the same. You're the one who wrote the second statement, not him. You openly admitted that what you wrote is how you read his statement.

So, feel free to stand by your statement. I just feel it's a missed opportunity from you to stand by a statement about rationality, yet behaving so irrationally. You almost could have made a point there if it wasn't so contradictory.

 

[The magical volleyball]

Obviously, he does think the meanings are the same so I stand by my statement.

Thats ok I didn't have much hope for a rational conversation when your whole post is a critique of how a scientific theory (big bang) doesnt mesh with your supernatural belief of a created universe. And somehow your beliefs are just as reasonable as anyone else's beliefs because none of them have been proven true. Even though your belief can never be proven true and beliefs of proponents of the big bang haven't been proven true yet. IMO Your belief is not on equal footing as scientific beliefs because it does not give us the prospect of gaining new knowledge. It is simply a theory that has no hope of ever becoming anything more than that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well they already did Mote...quite emphatically, theists just have not had to yet.

(Wiki)

Hoyle found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[46]

So atheists drew a very clear line in the sand here, and then rubbed it out, all the theistic implications they bitterly complained off, suddenly and mysteriously vanished once it was proven beyond most reasonable doubt.

Truthfully, I believe the universe had no beginning. Doesn't need one in my opinion. But I also don't see the point in positing "God" as being responsible for any of it. Doesn't need to be a beginning... doesn't need to be a God. Where is my line in that sand, I wonder?

 

[Milton Platt]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

What do the cosmologists and physicists say when you ask them? What do the papers they have written say? I see no reason to do your work for you, but then again, if abiogenesis and evolution were shown to be wrong, that does not get you to a god, so what is the point of this?

 

[gnostic]

Aw, don't get mad! You can't help it if you bought into it.

I swear, Christian creationists get weirder by the year.

I would say creationists get weirder by the week...or in some extreme cases, weirder by the day.

 

[DavidFirth]

I would say creationists get weirder by the week...or in some extreme cases, weirder by the day.

Hmm... They said the same thing about Christ and the apostles so I consider myself in excellent company.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm... They said the same thing about Christ and the apostles so I consider myself in excellent company.

They laughed at Jesus and the apostles. They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Einstein.

But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

[Ted Evans]

so what is the point of this?

IF, we have empirical evidence in support of our views, should we be able to answer all questions we may be asked? IF, we cannot, then is our views facts or, our beliefs?

My point is, when it comes to creation, "in the beginning", there are some that try to pass off their "beliefs" as if they are fact and are quick to ridicule those who may have a different "belief".

 

[Polymath257]

IF, we have empirical evidence in support of our views, should we be able to answer all questions we may be asked? IF, we cannot, then is our views facts or, our beliefs?

My point is, when it comes to creation, "in the beginning", there are some that try to pass off their "beliefs" as if they are fact and are quick to ridicule those who may have a different "belief".

No, we may NOT be able to answer all questions asked. We can have empirical evidence for our beliefs, but still have unresolved questions left. In fact, that is common and is how science progresses. That doesn't mean that what we *have* figured out isn't a fact.

 

[Skwim]

IF, we have empirical evidence in support of our views, should we be able to answer all questions we may be asked?

No. Evidence does not necessarily = comprehension.

IF, we cannot, then is our views facts or, our beliefs?

Depends on the construction of our views.

My point is, when it comes to creation, "in the beginning", there are some that try to pass off their "beliefs" as if they are fact and are quick to ridicule those who may have a different "belief".

Yup. Happens all the time, even around here. "I believe what the Bible says is true, therefore it's factual." OR the more onerous, "I know what the Bible says is true, therefore it's factual."

.

 

[Milton Platt]

IF, we have empirical evidence in support of our views, should we be able to answer all questions we may be asked? IF, we cannot, then is our views facts or, our beliefs?

My point is, when it comes to creation, "in the beginning", there are some that try to pass off their "beliefs" as if they are fact and are quick to ridicule those who may have a different "belief".

It depends entirely upon what you define a fact is here. I would say a fact is something that is supported by a large body of confirming evidence. Of course, nothing is ever 100%. Just because one person does not have all knowledge pertaining to a given perceived fact does not mean the person is wrong. But if the "fact" is contradicted very plainly by evidence, then it certainly is quetionable.

 

[gnostic]

IF, we have empirical evidence in support of our views, should we be able to answer all questions we may be asked? IF, we cannot, then is our views facts or, our beliefs?

My point is, when it comes to creation, "in the beginning", there are some that try to pass off their "beliefs" as if they are fact and are quick to ridicule those who may have a different "belief".

Fact is, and should be independent of belief and opinion.

Belief, is more like opinion, where it is subjective, based on one's view.

Fact is only fact when it has verifiable evidences that support it.

If 5 independent inspectors investigate a cattle farm, which has 100 cows, coming at 5 different days, then each inspector would find 100 cows, should he count the numbers. Then each inspector would recall the number in his or her report.

That's fact, and it would have nothing do with anyone's opinion, whether it be the owner or any of the inspectors.

Empirical evidence, is being able to verify one evidence against another. The more evidences you have, the more probable it is.

Of course, evidences can go against any statement or claim, which would make the statement or claim to be improbable or unlikely or highly unlikely.

Science using evidences rely on probability, not on absolute. Nothing is ever 100% absolutely certain.

For example, with cattle farm example, one or two of the cows could die for whatever reasons on the 3rd day, which will askew the count by one or two. But as long as the owner informed what happened with his cow(s), then the inspectors could take into account that are only 98 or 99 cows.