Watchmaker Theory

[Taylor Seraphim]

Your intelligence apparently deserves insulting. You apparently know little of the big bang theory, and usually when someone enters a discussion of a topic, it is assumed they grasp the fundamentals. You have entered into a discussion, metaphorically, about the hit band run, without knowing what baseball is. A fellow poster has posted a very accurate description of the big bang, you must have seen it, I would suggest that you use it to try and catch up

Please then, show me a peer reviewed scientific article stating that the big bang was the beginning of the universe and that physics did not work the same way before hand.

Until then im putting that claim on the level of Astrology, Personal Gods, and Unicorns.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Which absurdity is more acceptable ? A creating God, or a self creating universe ?

If I had to choose I would say B.Self creating universe.....

But the correct answer is C. None of the above

The universe is eternal.

 

[shmogie]

God did it is not the issue, the issue is why forces or possibilities considered that the
' that may exist

Got that screwed up, hit the wrong key, sorry. The issue is the prejudice in the "scientific method" that no matter what is being studied must be studied with only material considerations. So, "nature created it" is the only acceptable result of any investigation, no

If I had to choose I would say B.Self creating universe.....

But the correct answer is C. None of the above

The universe is eternal.

No scientific evidence for that, but plenty to show that it will expand forever, galaxies will become totally separated from one another, all energy will be expended, all stars will burn out, there will be no heat, no light, the universe will die................... Unless a force outside the universe intrudes to change things

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Got that screwed up, hit the wrong key, sorry. The issue is the prejudice in the "scientific method" that no matter what is being studied must be studied with only material considerations. So, "nature created it" is the only acceptable result of any investigation, no

No scientific evidence for that, but plenty to show that it will expand forever, galaxies will become totally separated from one another, all energy will be expended, all stars will burn out, there will be no heat, no light, the universe will die................... Unless a force outside the universe intrudes to change things

Ok since you are obviously blatantly ignorant of scientific laws I will share with you the scientific law of conservation of energy.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.

 

[shmogie]

Please then, show me a peer reviewed scientific article stating that the big bang was the beginning of the universe and that physics did not work the same way before hand.

Until then im putting that claim on the level of Astrology, Personal Gods, and Unicorns.

Have you ever heard of the big bang theory ? Have you ever head of a singularity ? have you ever heard of hubble and the red shift of light ? Or Stephan Hawking or Fred Hoyle ? Anyway, I'll do better than an article, read "a brief history of time" by Hawking, it is easy to understand, readily available, and will clear up the issue for you

 

[shmogie]

Ok since you are obviously blatantly ignorant of scientific laws I will share with you the scientific law of conservation of energy.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another.

So, what ids your point ?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Have you ever heard of the big bang theory ? Have you ever head of a singularity ? have you ever heard of hubble and the red shift of light ? Or Stephan Hawking or Fred Hoyle ? Anyway, I'll do better than an article, read "a brief history of time" by Hawking, it is easy to understand, readily available, and will clear up the issue for you

Why do you not pull up evidence if it is so easy to prove?

Could it be you are trying to strawman science?

The [big bang] model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So, what ids your point ?

Therefore all of the energy in the universe cannot all be "spent up".

 

[shmogie]

Therefore all of the energy in the universe cannot all be "spent up".

Sorry, but you are in error

 

[shmogie]

Why do you not pull up evidence if it is so easy to prove?

Could it be you are trying to strawman science?

The [big bang] model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state.

Please, the model further states that prior to the rapid expansion, a singularity existed, a singularity where all physical laws that we know did not exist. call it what you will, strawman science if you choose, I have enough trouble typing without having to feed you baby food. You win. you are right, the universe never began and will never end. Feel better now ? Lets just leave it there

 

[Neo Deist]

If you want to claim someone did something THEN YOU need to provide evidence for it or else I will assume you are talking out of your rectum.

But I am saying if they are to intelligent to disagree with then how could you disagree with Hawkins?

Sorry I missed that but here it is: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

This has nothing to do with our current conversation.

Nah, do your own research before making statements that you present as absolutes. Simply put, you are wrong.

And yes, thermodynamics has everything to do with our conversation. It contradicts your claim:

I would say the universe is eternal...

I also noticed you can't explain the "laws of physics" defying bumblebee. Imagine that!

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Nah, do your own research before making statements that you present as absolutes. Simply put, you are wrong.

And yes, thermodynamics has everything to do with our conversation. It contradicts your claim:


I also noticed you can't explain the "laws of physics" defying bumblebee. Imagine that!

*EDIT*

The second law of thermodynamics states that all the energy in the universe will become heat (entropy) but that does not mean it will be destroyed after all the law of conservations of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

So therefore eventually all energy will be in the form known as heat.

Now

*EDIT*

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Please, the model further states that prior to the rapid expansion, a singularity existed, a singularity where all physical laws that we know did not exist. call it what you will, strawman science if you choose, I have enough trouble typing without having to feed you baby food. You win. you are right, the universe never began and will never end. Feel better now ? Lets just leave it there

Can you please show me a scientific article that states this?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Sorry, but you are in error

How? This is a scientific law, a FACT.

If you disagree with it, you are a science denier.

 

[metis]

I will give you significant credit for defending a position that is indefensible, bravo. Nevertheless, you are wrong. If all laws of physics cease to exist, then no laws of physics can be applied, neither macro or quantum. Without the laws of physics to apply, or mathematics used to illustrate the processes of the laws, nothing is known. I am not calling any scientists anything, I have total faith in their integrity and I am sure they would not confuse hypotheses with a guesses or opinions. I have read Cosmologists who speculate about the nature of the singularity, but they clearly label speculation for what it is. Creation is important for me, because it puts us all on an equal footing, no one knows what occurred, we only know something appears to have occurred to send everything outward in every direction. So, whose speculation is best ? Which absurdity is more acceptable ? A creating God, or a self creating universe ? Science represented by Hoyle and others were convinced that their models and mathematics proved a steady state universe, one that always was and always would be, energy being created as energy was expended. This was the dominant scientific theory, the way it was as understood by the best minds to understand it. Then came Hubble, and his red shift proof the universe was in fact expanding. The steady staters were upset, to say the least. Then came the closed universe, one that expanded to a certain point, then contracted, to repeat the process forever. Finally we have the open universe, one that was created, expanded, continues to expand ever more quickly, with not enough matter, counting black matter, for gravity to condense it again, irrespective of the unknown force that is accelerating the expansion. A universe that will expand forever, a universe that was born, and will die. However, there is a book that described very accurately the creation of the universe, from nothing, and it's eventual death. While the steady staters touted their models and mathematics, this book existed, while the closed universe proponents touted their models and mathematics, this book existed, when the open universe fans finally arrived, this book had existed for at least 4,000 years. That has some evidentiary value to me, and in fact it was my study of cosmology that lead me to this book that caused me to abandon my agnosticism. Here is a comment on the scientific method vis a vis it's objectivity by one of it's greatest known figures " We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's constucts, in spite of it's failure to fulfill many of it's extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to to material causes an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations , no matter how counterintuitive , no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" Carl Sagan, "The demon haunted world: science as a candle in the dark", New York review , january 9, 1997

It is quite obvious that you cannot provide even one shred of evidence to support what you claim, so we're back to the real formula you are operating from: 0 + 0 = 0. You have offered up nothing. zero. nada. zip. The only thing you can do is to demonize and misrepresent science. I have provided sources, including a quote from Wikipedia, whereas you have provided nothing.

The only thing you have provided is song and dance minus any evidence. I have asked you questions, but you have not answered them. Frankly, at least at this point, you are offering up nothing, plus being disingenuous by misrepresenting what we actually do in science and how we operate.

So, maybe you should think very carefully about your tactics here.

 

[metis]

Oh, btw, how exactly is my position "indefensible" when I have stated that "Whatever cause our universe/multiverse I'll call 'God', and pretty much just leave it at that."? How is it that my position is "indefensible" when I have repeatedly stated that "I don't know" what cause the BB? How is it "indefensible" when I post sources and information along with a quote and a link that also contains other links but you provide nothing of the sort?

If there is anything that is "indefensible" it is your very disingenuous statements that defy what I actually posted and defy how we as scientists work-- that's truly "indefensible".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you please show me a scientific article that states this?

you were advised to read "a brief history of time" by Hawking..
An intro to the subject can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

It is impossible to see the singularity or the actual Big Bang itself, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity and, therefore, there would be no way to transmit any radiation from before the Big Bang to the present day. However, evidence for the existence of an initial singularity, and the Big Bang theory itself, comes in the form of the cosmic microwave background and the continued expansion of the Universe

 

[metis]

you were advised to read "a brief history of time" by Hawking..
An intro to the subject can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

It is impossible to see the singularity or the actual Big Bang itself, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity and, therefore, there would be no way to transmit any radiation from before the Big Bang to the present day. However, evidence for the existence of an initial singularity, and the Big Bang theory itself, comes in the form of the cosmic microwave background and the continued expansion of the Universe

Even though the above was not addressed to me, let me chime in on this.

First of all, statements like the above must be put into a scientific context, so let me do this for ya. When cosmologists say "time and space did not exist", this is a bit of an overstatement, and a more precise way of saying it would be "time and space as we know it did not exist".

Most cosmologists tend to lean with the model that posits our universe prior to the BB being roughly the size of a present-day atom, which is "space" of sorts, but it's pretty difficult, to say the least, for me and probably most to imagine our universe being that small when we look at the volume of it today-- it's mind-boggling, but it's still the most likely mathematical model.

In regards to time, if there is any sequencing of any type, that is "time", and most cosmologists believe it is likely that there was some sort of movement, whether that be like we find in M-Theory, String Theory, our universe being spit out of a black hole, the Big Crunch hypothesis, etc. Each of these involve movement. But with the tremendous condensation of sub-atomic-type particles under immense pressure and heat, movement would be so terribly slow as compared to today so as to appear not to move at all. There's even some question as to whether the Theory of Relativity would break down under those conditions.

No cosmologist I have ever read believes that there was an uncaused cause to the BB. As I mentioned before, Gasperini's book goes through a litany of various hypotheses on what might have caused it to happened.

So, context is important here, and when one reads what the cosmologists and quantum physicists have said, they provide the context. If you are interested, I can give you a list of the books on this that I have read, but let me just also add that I am a 50 year subscriber to "Scientific American", and I have seen the evolution of what we now know about the BB covered in that magazine as well, so you can go to the library and usually check past articles over the last several years on this.

I'll be back a bit later today, but I will have very little time because of the Sabbath starting, so I could give you that list on either Sunday or Monday if you or anyone else so desires. If I were to forget, please remind me-- hey, I'm 70, and I do have a fair number of "senior moments", let me tell ya.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If you are interested, I can give you a list of the books on this that I have read..
. . .
If I were to forget, please remind me-- hey, I'm 70, and I do have a fair number of "senior moments", let me tell ya.

Thanks

 

[shmogie]

It is quite obvious that you cannot provide even one shred of evidence to support what you claim, so we're back to the real formula you are operating from: 0 + 0 = 0. You have offered up nothing. zero. nada. zip. The only thing you can do is to demonize and misrepresent science. I have provided sources, including a quote from Wikipedia, whereas you have provided nothing.

The only thing you have provided is song and dance minus any evidence. I have asked you questions, but you have not answered them. Frankly, at least at this point, you are offering up nothing, plus being disingenuous by misrepresenting what we actually do in science and how we operate.

So, maybe you should think very carefully about your tactics here.

Interesting, I am not demonizing science................. I am simply demonstrating that science is predisposed to only consider material causation and never anything else, the "faith" of science is solely vested in the material. Now some, when confronted with evidence that the material model does'nt work find their faith wavering, and they become heretics, and objective in at least considering other possibilities. I will provide you a quotation from one. Yes, you provided a quotation, for which I am appreciative, but you did try and make it say something it did not. You were clinging to your faith in trying to tell me that through the known physical laws of quantum mechanics and mathematical equations the unknown singularity that existed before the BB is being defined. That my friend is simply not true. There are opinions, nothing more. "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions { of scientists to the evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning] They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of material phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science , it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event, every effect must have it's cause, there is no first cause,,,,,,, This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a discovery under which the known laws of physic's are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications he would be traumatized " Robert Jastrow PhD, Astronomer, Cosmologist, agnostic " The Enchanted loom, Mind in the Universe" 1981, Simon and Shuster I know I am frustrating you, but that is not my intent. You have asked for evidence and I will provide it. However, my education and experience is in the law, so I know a bit about presenting evidence, and putting together cases for litigation. When you are asked to present evidence for consideration, you have been wise to determine biases in those who will judge the evidence, You can't wait for me to present something as evidence that you believe you can demolish, I understand that, but I am stating flat out that you are biased and contrary to the "jury instructions " to be objective and allow the evidence to lead to a conclusion that is possible, reasonable, and fits the facts of the case, you will not. You will not because regardless of the evidence a certain possible conclusion is not possible to you. The deck is stacked, you know it as do I. So, if we proceed on the issue of Divine creation, under the "watchmaker theory' thread which I am happy to do, I will object and point out where the judge ( you) are unfair as to the evidence. I will begin to present my case; Statement one : The universe began from an unknown cause, outside of the universe, for which no applicable method can determine this cause, no rules of physics apply, and no knowledge can be obtained of conditions, if any, before the big bang. This first cause could just as easily be the result of Divine creation as any other material first cause. Rebut if you choose