The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[outhouse]

The argument is, God is the most plausible explanation based on the evidence that is presented.

Ive never seen faith create anything, at this point its all you have.

no deity has ever had power to do anything over nature, the tsunami in japan was not created or prevented by a deity. Same for earthquakes and volcanos. the big bang was a act of nature


as far as we know, all gods have been created and worshipped differently by man

We are going with a most plausible hypothesis based on what we DO know

how can a myth create anything? that is not plausible at all!

we know the bible lies about many things regarding creation. So why would the big bang be correct when its not even mentioned. Now your making the tie only with IMAGINATION and nothing more

something can come from nothing

false again

the material was there to begin with, we just know it expanded. your using imagination to create magic and then attributing it to a myth by many standards

and that life can come from non-life

why not?? given 400,000 years and the right chemistry abiogenesis dopesnt seem far fetched.


a magic sky daddy that comes from a book proven not to be accurate seems far fetched.

 

[outhouse]

You are assuming that science can prove everything, which is special pleading

this is your lack of education speaking my friend

science doesnt prove anything, that is not their job.

Science will never be able to explain the origin of nature

it has already explained most of it, because they lack a small amout you want to say its all wrong???

myths however are funny to watch them explain things and adding magic when ever they are stumped.

\

If you are taking the stance that we should believe everything that can be scientifically proven

this makes no sense at all, none

 

[shawn001]

Well, it began from God. God is the best explanation for the big bang. Let me give a brief background.

In the early 1900's, an idiot named Albert Einstien came out with his General Theory of Relativity. Now based on these equations, {the famous E=MC(squared)}, he noticed that when he applied these equations to the universe, the universe would no longer be static (eternal). These equations were significant, because it was always thought that the universe was static and stationary. But based on this equation, the universe was expanding. Einstein did not like the implications of this, so he fudged the equations to get back to a static universe. A few years later, two prominent guys in mathematics and astronomy, (Friedman and Lemaitre), came up with independent solutions to his equation which also prediced an expanding universe. At this point, everything was all mathematical. There was no scientific evidence supporting this. That was until 1929, which Edwin Hubbel discovered the famous "Red Shift" as he looked through a telescope. He witnessed light from distant galaxies being shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This is the Doppler Effect, except instead of using sound, there was light. This meant that the other galaxies were moving away from one another, thus, the universe is expanding. The Hubble discovery is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. So we have proof that the universe is expanding.

Friedman and Lemaitre then formulated what is called "The Standard Big Bang model", which described the universe beginning to exist a finite time ago some 13.7 billion years ago. The expansion doesn't suggest the universe expanding into preexisting space, but the expansion of space itself. So we know that the universe is expanding. But if you trace the expansion backwards in time, the universe will shrink into zero distance. At this point all physics break down. That is why the big bang has been called the beginning of the universe, a point at which nothing existed prior.

Now the only question is, why and how? It is important to note that the big bang model has the most scientific evidence supporting it. Throughout the 20th century it has been well corroberated. That is the big bang in a nut shell. And i will argue that only a supernatural being is capable of causing this.

"In the early 1900's, an idiot named Albert Einstien came out with his General Theory of Relativity."

Your calling Albert Einstein an idiot?


"And i will argue that only a supernatural being is capable of causing this"

Argue away, but you can't show one single fact to support your hypothesis. Nor does it have to be the only explanation.

Its a good thing the earth violently collided with another planet in order for you to believe this to be the case.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

a few points, according to Stephen Hawking, energy and matter are the same thing, so he says we don't have three 'ingredients' but just two so einsteins formula could also look like E=ec2 .

Wouldn't that depend on the matter being in motion?

plus for scientists to say that there was nothing prior to the big bang is just to make an ignorant assumption about something they cannot prove.

I agree, a little. But see, the big bang theory is only scientific confirmation on what the theists have suspected all along, that the universe began to exist (Gen 1:1). If you don't accept what scientists say in regards to there being onting prior to the big bang, fine. At this point, all you can do is posit naturalistic explanations. But the problem with that is, all you do is push the question of origins one step backwards. We know from mathematics and philosophical arguments that infinite regress is illogical. So once you establish that the illogical cant exist in reality, the only remaining concept is an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause had to be temporal (without the universe), and immaterial, and a being of enormous power. These attributes define what theists always called.........God.

and if something is expanding there has to be something outside the universe for the universe to expand to. if there is no space or time on the outside of our universe, then into where is the universe expanding? a balloon when blown into, expands, where does it expand, into space and time outside of what is in it.

Agreed. Your point is well taken. I cant answer this. But what i can say, as i've said before, that we have good philosophical and scientific evidence that the universe began to exist. Regardless of the theories implications, the vast majority of all physicists believe that the universe began to exist. They are about four thousand years late on this, because Christians have always believed that the universe began to exist (Gen 1:1), and that it is expanding (Isaiah 45:11-13)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your calling Albert Einstein an idiot?

That one went way over your head, didn't it?

Argue away, but you can't show one single fact to support your hypothesis. Nor does it have to be the only explanation.

Well, if you dont believe that the universe had a beginning, then you are over 70 years late. The fact of the matter is, nature cannot be used to explain the origin of itself. I can support my hypothesis by appealing to the sensible view that nothing can be the origin of itself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

this is your lack of education speaking my friend

science doesnt prove anything, that is not their job.

Science can prove who your biological parents are, right?? So the statement that "science doesn't prove anything" was a statement made from someone who was so quick to attack without thinking clearly on what was being said.

 

[outhouse]

Science can prove who your biological parents are, right?? So the statement that "science doesn't prove anything" was a statement made from someone who was so quick to attack without thinking clearly on what was being said.

No

a test proves who your parents are.

science just developed it.

science is a method of study



im not attacking bud, but your making claims that are not only not backed by anyone, they are just personal opinions of your version for your interpretation of yahweh

 

[Tristesse]

Science can prove who your biological parents are, right?? So the statement that "science doesn't prove anything" was a statement made from someone who was so quick to attack without thinking clearly on what was being said.

Proof only deals with mathmatics and liquor. Evidence is the word you're looking for.

 

[Tristesse]

That one went way over your head, didn't it?



Well, if you dont believe that the universe had a beginning, then you are over 70 years late. The fact of the matter is, nature cannot be used to explain the origin of itself. I can support my hypothesis by appealing to the sensible view that nothing can be the origin of itself.

Well, the universe didn't "begin" to exist. It may have always existed in some form.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, the universe didn't "begin" to exist. It may have always existed in some form.

To bad your opinion on the matter goes against modern cosmology. The theist can now be a believer while completely falling in line with science. The nonbeliever can either stay in denial or accept the fact that the universe began to exist and therefore require a transcendent cause.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That one went way over your head, didn't it?

Oh no, I can attest, the irony of your statement was blatant

 

[Photonic]

Science can prove who your biological parents are, right?? So the statement that "science doesn't prove anything" was a statement made from someone who was so quick to attack without thinking clearly on what was being said.

Science can verify to within a certain probability that your parents are your biological parents. There is no "proving." This is a serious misconception on how science operates.

 

[outhouse]

To bad your opinion on the matter goes against modern cosmology. The theist can now be a believer while completely falling in line with science. The nonbeliever can either stay in denial or accept the fact that the universe began to exist and therefore require a transcendent cause.

Um no

you first need to show/prove where a magic sky daddy steps in and does anything.


If you learned about yahweh you would understand his limits and how and why early hebrews wrote about him and attributed powers to "him" a storm god turned into a warrior god turned into a ghost and a son turned into a arabic deity

 

[Tristesse]

To bad your opinion on the matter goes against modern cosmology. The theist can now be a believer while completely falling in line with science. The nonbeliever can either stay in denial or accept the fact that the universe began to exist and therefore require a transcendent cause.

No, actually science doesn't have a definitive answer to the origins of the universe at the moment(the planck time). But you cannot derive a theistic position from this. Because the theistic position would need evidence to support itself and not a lack of evidence for something else. The only thing you can say is "I don't know, but lets find out." However, your last statement about the universe "began" to exist leads me to believe that you either know very little about cosmology or your intentionally being dishonest.

 

[shawn001]

That one went way over your head, didn't it?



Well, if you dont believe that the universe had a beginning, then you are over 70 years late. The fact of the matter is, nature cannot be used to explain the origin of itself. I can support my hypothesis by appealing to the sensible view that nothing can be the origin of itself.

"The fact of the matter is, nature cannot be used to explain the origin of itself."

Why not?

This shows it can without breaking any laws of physics.

Is the Universe a free lunch? - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent

 

[shawn001]

Its not just about the begining its also about the end.

The End of Everything

The End of Everything

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, actually science doesn't have a definitive answer to the origins of the universe at the moment(the planck time).

Right, and everyone knows that General Relativity breaks down at that point. We have to use quantum physics to explain this and no one is sure how to do it. But it doesn't matter anyway, because in 2003, three prominent physicists named Arvine Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilkenkin produced a theorem (called the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem [BVG theorem), which shows that any universe that has been expanding at a rate higher than 0 cannot be infinite in the past and therefore have a beginning. And thats not all, the second law of thermodynamics can also be used to show that our universe had a beginning. So if you are really interested in finding the truth you dont do yourself justice by denying modern science. The universe began to exist.

But you cannot derive a theistic position from this.

Who is deriving a theistic position from this? I am simply saying the universe began to exist, which supports scientific data observation. Saying "the universe began to exist" is a religiously nuetral statement that can be found in any textbook on cosmology. The theist can make such a statement and be right in line with modern cosmology.

Because the theistic position would need evidence to support itself and not a lack of evidence for something else.

Plenty evidence.

The only thing you can say is "I don't know, but lets find out." However, your last statement about the universe "began" to exist leads me to believe that you either know very little about cosmology or your intentionally being dishonest.

Am i the only one being dishonest?? Lets see...

Paul Davies, english physicists said: "The universe can't have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago" (Paul Davies, The Big Bang-and Before, The Thomas Aquinas College Lecture series, March 2002)

Sir Arthur Eddington, british astrophyscists said: "The beginning seems to present inspurable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural" (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York: MacMillan, 1933, pg 24)

J. Richard Gott (physicists), James Gunn (physicists), David Schramm (physicists) said: "The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago." (Will the Universe Expand Forever?, Scientific American, March 1976, pg 65 Gott, Gunn, Schramm)

Stephen Hawking, physicists, said: "Almost everyone now believes the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and time, 1996, pg 20)

There you have quotes from prominent physcists from 1933 all the way to 2002, who all agree that based on evidence and observation, that the universe began to exist. So either everyone is wrong but you, or you are in deep denial of the data because you are aware of its implications.

 

[Pineblossom]

Not at all. According to the theory, literally nothing existed prior to the big bang. So it is not a matter of me saying "the universe is so complicated", at least not in the case. The argument is, God is the most plausible explanation based on the evidence that is presented.

Which is exactly what I said.

The alphabet soup theory works like this - there are dancing elephants of Saturn's moons. Why? Because no one can prove there are no dancing elephants on Saturn's moons.

There is now a quantity of evidence to suggest everything was contained before the big bang. All the big bang did was to add space.

We are not inventing a suitable story based on what we don't know. We are going with a most plausible hypothesis based on what we DO know. Since we know the universe began to exist, then it has a cause. The cause cannot be material or spatial, with enormous power and free will. Sounds like God to me.

See above.

Fantasy is Ok for kids, huh. So some of you people need to stop believing that something can come from nothing, that chaos can create order, and that life can come from non-life. If that isn't fantasy I don't know what is.

Get into the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no 'order' in the cosmos - it only looks like order from our perspective.

You are assuming that science can prove everything, which is special pleading. Science will never be able to explain the origin of nature.

Give it time.

So at this point you have to posit metaphysics. If you are taking the stance that we should believe everything that can be scientifically proven, you are begging the question in favor of naturalism, which is a fallacy.

If science is fallacy I'll stick with science rather than the mumbo-jumbo of religion.

 

[Pineblossom]

Science can verify to within a certain probability that your parents are your biological parents. There is no "proving." This is a serious misconception on how science operates.

Now that would an interesting argument in a court of law.

I wonder if you have heard of the idea of replication.

In other words, if I carried out the same examination of your biological parents and came up with the same conclusion such would be a 'misconception'? Interesting science.

 

[Photonic]

Right, and everyone knows that General Relativity breaks down at that point. We have to use quantum physics to explain this and no one is sure how to do it. But it doesn't matter anyway, because in 2003, three prominent physicists named Arvine Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilkenkin produced a theorem (called the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem [BVG theorem), which shows that any universe that has been expanding at a rate higher than 0 cannot be infinite in the past and therefore have a beginning. And thats not all, the second law of thermodynamics can also be used to show that our universe had a beginning. So if you are really interested in finding the truth you dont do yourself justice by denying modern science. The universe began to exist.



Who is deriving a theistic position from this? I am simply saying the universe began to exist, which supports scientific data observation. Saying "the universe began to exist" is a religiously nuetral statement that can be found in any textbook on cosmology. The theist can make such a statement and be right in line with modern cosmology.



Plenty evidence.



Am i the only one being dishonest?? Lets see...

Paul Davies, english physicists said: "The universe can't have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago" (Paul Davies, The Big Bang-and Before, The Thomas Aquinas College Lecture series, March 2002)

Sir Arthur Eddington, british astrophyscists said: "The beginning seems to present inspurable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural" (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York: MacMillan, 1933, pg 24)

J. Richard Gott (physicists), James Gunn (physicists), David Schramm (physicists) said: "The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago." (Will the Universe Expand Forever?, Scientific American, March 1976, pg 65 Gott, Gunn, Schramm)

Stephen Hawking, physicists, said: "Almost everyone now believes the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and time, 1996, pg 20)

There you have quotes from prominent physcists from 1933 all the way to 2002, who all agree that based on evidence and observation, that the universe began to exist. So either everyone is wrong but you, or you are in deep denial of the data because you are aware of its implications.

Photonic (physicist) said: "There is no reason to believe that there is an absolute beginning or end, only a conceptual start and end is conceivable."