The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why is God the exception to your rule, cause he/it is eternal? Well I grant the universe the same exception giving the universe full rights to have no cause.

This is not special pleading for God, because atheists have always maintained that the universe is eternal. It just so happens that now we have PROOF that this isn't the case, so they can no longer think this. With respect to God, it is necessary that the cause be eternal, because if the cause isn't eternal, we are back to infinite regression, but we have reasons to believe that infinite regression is impossible, so there must be one uncaused cause, that doesn't depend on anything for its existence.

 

[lunakilo]

No, The universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years, and current tests have shown that it WILL expand forever. The 2.7 K is the current temperature of the universe after it cooled down after being in a extremely hot state.



So what?



The universe has been expanding ever since the big bang occurred. It never stopped expanding. First, science has already confirmed with a 95% degree of certainty that the density of matter is insufficient to half the expansion of the universe (Associated Press News Release, January 9, 1998). So it isn't as if the universe expanded, stopped, expanded, stopped, etc. It has been expanding since time began.



No doubt don't take my word for it, do some research on the expansion of the universe. You will learn many things about big bang cosmology. And that is only the beginning!!

You are not actually listening to what I ams saying (or maybe that should be reading what I am writinng )

We agree that the universe is expanding right?
One reason why this is a sensible thing to think is the redshift as we have both mentioned.

So how long has the universe been expanding?
Just because it is expanding now doesn't mean it always has been.
It is possible that it was once shrinking then stopped and began to expand.
It is possible that it was once smaller but holding steady (not the most acceptable theory I know, but in theory it is possible).

So you say the universe has bee expanding for 13.7 billion years.
That is the number you get if you assume there was a big bang and and use your knowledge of physics to 'run time backwards'.

But in truth you don't know that that is what happened because you don't have evidence going back that far.
The background radiation and the abundence of primordial elements only takes you part of the way. That is back 13.69 billion years or there about.

How can you possible know what happened before that?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The reason why I've accepted so much of empiricism is because it is the closest thing to Scientific Method, where knowledge is acquired from experience and evidence.

There is nothing wrong with the Scientific Method. But I think the problem arise when people try to use the scienctific method to explaind absolute origins. This is self defeating. You can't use science to explain the origin of science. This would be like saying "the origin of all humans is a human". If a human is the origin of all humans, he would be the origin of himself, because he is also a human. To explain absolute origins, you need a transcendent cause. You need the cause to exist beyond the domain to be the origin of the domain. And i think thats the problem that most naturalists make.

I am FOR metaphysics, but only to a certain extent. There are limits to what I will accept in metaphysics. Like I will accept cause-and-effect and possibility, and such, but if you were to introduce the supernatural as the "cause", without any evidence to support the reasoning or claim, then metaphysics goes out the window, become meaningless and useless.

The evidence is there. It is subjective though. Different people require different evidence. But i don't think that is the problem. I don't think the problem is lack of evidence. I think that some people are just so closed minded that they won't believe in the supernatural regardless of how much evidence is presented to them. I am a Christian, and i believe that atheists and agnostics don't believe in Christianity not because of lack of evidence, but because they know that once they believe, they will be held accountable to God. So with that being said, in their mind, its best for them to put up a front and not believe anything you say, rejecting (or flat out avoiding) all possible evidences. They take the "what i dont know cant hurt me" approach. But i feel as though deep down inside, they know. They just dont want to know.

But you said evidence, i have given philosophical reasons why i think the supernatural exists throughout this thread. I would like you to engage in the arguments, since you claim there is no evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

for those who think that i am wrong by saying that an actual explosion took place as a result of which the universe came to existence by the will of God and that it is expanding i have two quotes:

Stephen Hawking, in a youtube video about The Big Bang makes the following statement:
"In a nutshell do we need a God to set it up so that a big bang could, bang?"

Alan Guth, states:
"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing......."

i hope the statements clarify my stance especially those in bold

Are you familiar with the concept of "visual metaphors"?

 

[lunakilo]

the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem shows that any universe that has been expanding with at least a rate higher than 0 cannot be eternal.

That is true as far as I know if 'expanding with at least a rate higher than 0' means that the hubble expantion is greater is than zero averaged over the lifetime of the universe.

But is there proof of that?

 

[Gharib]

Are you familiar with the concept of "visual metaphors"?

from where exactly in my post did you get that from. those statements are very clear, but do correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is nothing wrong with the Scientific Method. But I think the problem arise when people try to use the scienctific method to explaind absolute origins. This is self defeating. You can't use science to explain the origin of science. This would be like saying "the origin of all humans is a human". If a human is the origin of all humans, he would be the origin of himself, because he is also a human. To explain absolute origins, you need a transcendent cause. You need the cause to exist beyond the domain to be the origin of the domain. And i think thats the problem that most naturalists make.

I've highlighted in bold where you start making baseless assumptions. You can no more conclude that the Universe was the result of a "trascendant cause" than anybody can conclude that the Universe created itself. At this current moment in time, there is absolutely zero reason to conclude one or the other, and absolutely zero evidence on which to base either supposition.

The evidence is there. It is subjective though.

Then it is not evidence. Evidence, by definition, has to be objectively verifiable.

Different people require different evidence. But i don't think that is the problem. I don't think the problem is lack of evidence. I think that some people are just so closed minded that they won't believe in the supernatural regardless of how much evidence is presented to them.

Then please present some evidence.

I am a Christian, and i believe that atheists and agnostics don't believe in Christianity not because of lack of evidence, but because they know that once they believe, they will be held accountable to God. So with that being said, in their mind, its best for them to put up a front and not believe anything you say, rejecting (or flat out avoiding) all possible evidences. They take the "what i dont know cant hurt me" approach. But i feel as though deep down inside, they know. They just dont want to know.

That is a tremedously arrogant thing to say. Why would I fear being accountable to something I don't believe exists? Is the reason you don't believe in Bigfoot because you don't want to fear he will attack you when you're out in the woods? Also, you presume that there must be something we should be held "accountable" for. In spite of my atheism, I would say I have lead a good life even by Christian standards, so what exactly do I have to fear if I believed in such a God?

Please refrain from such ignorant presumptions about atheists in future, if you wish to be taken seriously in any debate about the subject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

from where exactly in my post did you get that from. those statements are very clear, but do correct me if i'm wrong.

If you're familiar with visual metaphors, then it should be pretty obvious that both of the people who you were quoting (out of context, I may add) are talking in visual metaphor. Neither stated (nor do either believe) that the Big Bang was a literal "bang".

 

[Gharib]

If you're familiar with visual metaphors, then it should be pretty obvious that both of the people who you were quoting (out of context, I may add) are talking in visual metaphor. Neither stated (nor do either believe) that the Big Bang was a literal "bang".

you could have a point. i will do further investigation to be sure.

 

[lunakilo]

This is not special pleading for God, because atheists have always maintained that the universe is eternal.

That is wrong.

Some atheists like the idea of an eternal universe. Probably because it very beautifully removes the need of a god from the equation.

But some atheists have no problem with the universe having a beginning, they just don't see the need for a god to be involved.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are not actually listening to what I ams saying (or maybe that should be reading what I am writinng )

Well, considering the fact that I just read most of this post and you are still asking questions that I know I've already answered, and the fact that I am getting ready to therefore repeat myself, maybe you aren't reading what i am writing

So how long has the universe been expanding?

The universe has been expanding throughout its existence, which is an estimated time of 13.7 billion years. I've already said the universe has been expanding forever.

Just because it is expanding now doesn't mean it always has been.

I have already said, and gave REFERENCE to the fact that studies have shown with 95% certainty that the matter within the universe is insufficient to halt the expansion.

It is possible that it was once shrinking then stopped and began to expand.

You are positing the Oscillating model. This is an old model that no one is taking serious anymore because the Hawking/Penrose theorems in the 70's already showed that an initial singularity is inescapable. You are saying that it is possible, when it was already proven that it isnt possible. The universe has been expanding forever.

It is possible that it was once smaller but holding steady (not the most acceptable theory I know, but in theory it is possible).

No it isn't, because we already know that the universe has been expanding throughout its history!!!!

So you say the universe has bee expanding for 13.7 billion years.
That is the number you get if you assume there was a big bang and and use your knowledge of physics to 'run time backwards'.

Well, due to the fact that big bang cosmology is the predominant view in cosmology and it is based on the best evidence that has been presented over the course of almost 100 years, you are the one that is doing the assuming because you are going against science, which baffles me.

But in truth you don't know that that is what happened because you don't have evidence going back that far.

"Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time)

The background radiation and the abundence of primordial elements only takes you part of the way. That is back 13.69 billion years or there about.

Wow. If there was no universe prior to that then obviously something outside of it had to give it its beginning. Am I in the twilight zone?? I am repeating the same thing over and over again.

How can you possible know what happened before that?

Logic and reason

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is wrong.

Some atheists like the idea of an eternal universe. Probably because it very beautifully removes the need of a god from the equation.

Well, that is the motive. So, if an eternal universe removes the need of a god, then i guess a universe that has a beginning implicates the need for a god. Thank you

But some atheists have no problem with the universe having a beginning, they just don't see the need for a god to be involved.

The above statement is equivilent to "Some people dont have a problem with the space shuttle having a beginning, they just dont see the need for intelligent people to create it"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, that is the motive. So, if an eternal universe removes the need of a god, then i guess a universe that has a beginning implicates the need for a god.

Actually, neither "need" a God.

The above statement is equivilent to "Some people dont have a problem with the space shuttle having a beginning, they just dont see the need for intelligent people to create it"

False dichotomy. You cannot compare something we know is man-made to something that we have yet to fully understand the origin of and say that both had a similar origin. That's no different to saying that because cars and squirrels both exist, Squirrels must be made by Ford motors.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is true as far as I know if 'expanding with at least a rate higher than 0' means that the hubble expantion is greater is than zero averaged over the lifetime of the universe.

But is there proof of that?

Um, an expansion rate less than 0 would mean not expanding at all. The universe will expand forever. Everytime you make a statement about the expansion of the universe not expanding forever i will keep repeating "The universe will expand forever" and say nothing else. You are raising these silly objections as if i am making this stuff up when in fact these are well established facts in cosmology. So the next time you make a statement as such i will just repeat, "THE UNIVERSE WILL EXPAND FOREVER", whether you agree with it or not, that is science.

 

[lunakilo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunakilo
The background radiation and the abundence of primordial elements only takes you part of the way. That is back 13.69 billion years or there about.

Wow. If there was no universe prior to that then obviously something outside of it had to give it its beginning. Am I in the twilight zone?? I am repeating the same thing over and over again.

Yes you are repeating yourself.
You keep saying that the universe has been expanding since the big bang.

Your argument for this is "that's what science says", and then you expect me to accept that as an explanation.

If it is so simple as you seem to think to see that this is true then why can't you explain to me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunakilo
How can you possible know what happened before that?

Logic and reason

Sounds good.
Let me hear the arguments you have.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually, neither "need" a God.

Well, explain how the origin of the universe could be natural without positing infinite regression. Lets see it.

False dichotomy. You cannot compare something we know is man-made to something that we have yet to fully understand the origin of and say that both had a similar origin. That's no different to saying that because cars and squirrels both exist, Squirrels must be made by Ford motors.

This is not a false dichotomy. Our universe is more complex than the space shuttle. So my point was, even if you took two people from the 14th century and placed them in NASA and they observed the space shuttle, they would conclude that it was designed. They may not know how or why the thing exist, but they would know that it was designed. My point was if we can look at the space shuttle and know that it is designed, how can we not conclude that the universe is designed when it is much more complex than the space shuttle.

And second, your analogy is false. I won't conclude that cars and squirrels are both from Ford Motors, but i would conclude that they were both designed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, explain how the origin of the universe could be natural without positing infinite regression. Lets see it.

No idea.

This is not a false dichotomy. Our universe is more complex than the space shuttle. So my point was, even if you took two people from the 14th century and placed them in NASA and they observed the space shuttle, they would conclude that it was designed. They may not know how or why the thing exist, but they would know that it was designed. My point was if we can look at the space shuttle and know that it is designed, how can we not conclude that the universe is designed when it is much more complex than the space shuttle.

This is still a false dichotomy. Just because something is "complex" does not mean it was designed. To use your analogy, a squirrel is more complicated than a nutcracker. Does this mean it is reasonable for people who aren't immediately aware of the origin of squirrels to conclude that the squirrel was made in the same fashion as a nutcracker?

Complexity, does not require design. This is a logical fallacy.

And second, your analogy is false. I won't conclude that cars and squirrels are both from Ford Motors, but i would conclude that they were both designed.

In spite of the fact that we know that squirrels reproduce naturally? This is proof that what you believe to be designed can be the result of natural processes, therefore your argument is false and the analogy stands.

 

[lunakilo]

Um, an expansion rate less than 0 would mean not expanding at all.

The Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem you seem to be so happy about is about the average expansion rate.

The expantion rate at the present time is greater than zero. Yes. I trust we agree on that.

If you look at an oscillating universe then the average expansion rate would be equal to zero.

My point? Just because the current expansion rate is greater than zero does not mean the the average expansion rate is greater than zero.

So I ask you again what evidende is there that average expansion rate is greater than zero?

 

[lunakilo]

That is wrong.

Some atheists like the idea of an eternal universe. Probably because it very beautifully removes the need of a god from the equation.

Well, that is the motive. So, if an eternal universe removes the need of a god, then i guess a universe that has a beginning implicates the need for a god. Thank you

So you are are saying that is a leads to b, then not-a leads to not-b :areyoucra

But some atheists have no problem with the universe having a beginning, they just don't see the need for a god to be involved.

The above statement is equivilent to "Some people dont have a problem with the space shuttle having a beginning, they just dont see the need for intelligent people to create it"

Strawman

 

[PolyHedral]

Um, an expansion rate less than 0 would mean not expanding at all. The universe will expand forever. Everytime you make a statement about the expansion of the universe not expanding forever i will keep repeating "The universe will expand forever" and say nothing else. You are raising these silly objections as if i am making this stuff up when in fact these are well established facts in cosmology. So the next time you make a statement as such i will just repeat, "THE UNIVERSE WILL EXPAND FOREVER", whether you agree with it or not, that is science.

Your source, please.