Watchmaker Theory

[metis]

There is a hypothesis sometimes called "the Big Crunch", but it is not that popular amongst cosmologists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The big bang virtually mirrors the creation of everything by God in Genesis. It wasn't, then it was. The issue after that is time, how much was required to a relatively stable universe and life on earth. I believe that science is wrong re billions and billions of years

That's exactly why it was rejected and mocked by atheists as 'Big Bang' at the time. The term was coined by atheist Hoyle as a pejorative term for the priest Lemaitre's 'Primeval Atom theory' A far better, more descriptive term. They complained of the overt theistic implications of such a creation event- until it was proven byond most doubt, at which point those implications mysteriously vanished!

 

[Milton Platt]

There is a hypothesis sometimes called "the Big Crunch", but it is not that popular amongst cosmologists.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. As you say this is only a hypothesis. The poster seemed to be indicating a collision rather than an ever more dense point . I am curious as to that poster's claim that scientists are usually wrong. If he is meaning the theories usually are wrong, he needs to support that. Theories are always open to modification if and when new information can be added. That does not mean that they were entirely wrong.

 

[Milton Platt]

That's exactly why it was rejected and mocked by atheists as 'Big Bang' at the time. The term was coined by atheist Hoyle as a pejorative term for the priest Lemaitre's 'Primeval Atom theory' A far better, more descriptive term. They complained of the overt theistic implications of such a creation event- until it was proven byond most doubt, at which point those implications mysteriously vanished!

But they changed their stance when more evidence to support the hypothesis became available and it became a theory with predictive properties. Nothing wrong with that. However, going from "the known universe" had a beginning saying a supernatural being existing outside of time and space did it. Nothing within the theory supports that contention. Further, we can only use physics down to a small fraction of time following the initial expansion. Before that, we have no knowledge of conditions, only speculation. It is intellectually dishonest to simply say a god did it simply to fill the information void. It is extremely arrogant to insist it was your particular god out

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But they changed their stance when more evidence to support the hypothesis became available and it became a theory with predictive properties. Nothing wrong with that.

Well Hoyle never changed his mind, he took his stance to the grave- that's one problem with mocking other people beliefs, it makes it very difficult to ever change your mind, no matter the evidence!

science eventually won out over atheism perhaps, decades later, when Lemaitre was on his death bed, and never received a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time..

However, going from "the known universe" had a beginning saying a supernatural being existing outside of time and space did it. Nothing within the theory supports that contention.

well you could have argued that with Hoyle and other atheists at the time couldn't you, that implication is exactly, explicitly why they disliked the theory, their opinions not mine.

Further, we can only use physics down to a small fraction of time following the initial expansion. Before that, we have no knowledge of conditions, only speculation. It is intellectually dishonest to simply say a god did it simply to fill the information void. It is extremely arrogant to insist it was your particular god out

Neither of us of have empirical evidence for our beliefs, but I acknowledge my faith in mine, do you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Even as a teenager I never believed in the big bang theory. History also proves that scientist are usually wrong in their theories anyway. The big bang makes no sense to me. That idea suggest that an accidental chaotic collision began the formation and timing of the solar system and planets.

Oh .. I just saw an article on the news that confirmed 'the big-bang' theory .. it was referring to gravitational waves that they have detcted recently..
The model DOES NOT say whether the creation of the universe is accidental or not, as far as I'm aware..

..it takes a mind to make a watch just like it takes a mind to create planets and suns etc.

I have no argument with you about the evolution of intelligence. I don't think it plausable to evolve from nought, either!

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I believe that science is wrong re billions and billions of years

You could well be right
They are effectively 'looking into a mirror' .. and then making calculations on a presumed linear scale of time .. Almighty God knows best what the meaning of their result actually is..

 

[muhammad_isa]

So free will does not apply. People who are supposed to go to heaven or hell have no choice. It has been predetermined by god from the beginning.

Uhhh no! Almighty God is omniscient .. He is aware of what we will choose. I know many people can't 'get their head round it', but God is 'not of this world'

 

[Milton Platt]

Well Hoyle never changed his mind, he took his stance to the grave- that's one problem with mocking other people beliefs, it makes it very difficult to ever change your mind, no matter the evidence!

science eventually won out over atheism perhaps, decades later, when Lemaitre was on his death bed, and never received a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time..



well you could have argued that with Hoyle and other atheists at the time couldn't you, that implication is exactly, explicitly why they disliked the theory, their opinions not mine.



Neither of us of have empirical evidence for our beliefs, but I acknowledge my faith in mine, do you?

You are trying to make atheists monolithic in the rejection of the Big Bang, which is the equivalent of stating all Christians have the same belief about such things. It just isn't so in either case. I have watched atheists get their hat handed to them for trying to pull that off and rightly so.

What belief of mine are you referring to which has no empirical evidence?
I am sure we all have a few such beliefs. Having faith in a belief has no bearing on the truthfulness of a belief, which is the problem with faith

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

God reveals Himself to whom He wishes. Look at Paul for example.

Do not quote my post if you are not going to answer the question in them.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The big bang virtually mirrors the creation of everything by God in Genesis. It wasn't, then it was. The issue after that is time, how much was required to a relatively stable universe and life on earth. I believe that science is wrong re billions and billions of years

Incorrect, have you even read Genesis?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are trying to make atheists monolithic in the rejection of the Big Bang, which is the equivalent of stating all Christians have the same belief about such things. It just isn't so in either case. I have watched atheists get their hat handed to them for trying to pull that off and rightly so.

What belief of mine are you referring to which has no empirical evidence?
I am sure we all have a few such beliefs. Having faith in a belief has no bearing on the truthfulness of a belief, which is the problem with faith

Not really, he was helped by atheists later as the theory gained evidence, I'm just saying it's part of the equation, and it played it's part in classical physics and evolution also. No coincidence Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

Whichever belief you have re. cosmogony, life the universe and everything!

Acknowledging faith acknowledges our beliefs as such
Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Neither of us of have empirical evidence for our beliefs, but I acknowledge my faith in mine, do you?

Meanwhile at bull****claims.com

 

[Milton Platt]

Uhhh no! Almighty God is omniscient .. He is aware of what we will choose. I know many people can't 'get their head round it', but God is 'not of this world'

So we have no real choice because we cannot make a choice different from the one he foresaw, right?

Just wanted a clarification because I always hear Christians saying belief in God is a choice. So no free will.... You must make the choice he has foreseen.

Why doesn't he just sort it out right up front and skip the middle step. Straight to reward or punishment. If your fate is locked in from birth it is a waste of time to go through the motions.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not really, he was helped by atheists later as the theory gained evidence, I'm just saying it's part of the equation, and it played it's part in classical physics and evolution also. No coincidence Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism also.

Whichever belief you have re. cosmogony, life the universe and everything!

Acknowledging faith acknowledges our beliefs as such
Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

I agree with most of this post except perhaps your description of faith. But like many words in the English language it is rather elastic.

Much of what I believe about the universe and life does have empirical evidence. Some more than others. Some require more than others as well. Faith actually does not require any empirical evidence. In fact with enough evidence, faith becomes unnecessary .

 

[shmogie]

Incorrect, have you even read Genesis?

Many many times, I'll go over it with you, since you are true to form in being way off track

 

[shmogie]

Uhhh no! Almighty God is omniscient .. He is aware of what we will choose. I know many people can't 'get their head round it', but God is 'not of this world'

There is a theological concept called " the open view of God",to which many theologians ascribe, and I do too, In a nutshell it is this. God cannot see the future, either by design or choice. Regardless of what occurs, God is perfectly ptepared to deal with what occurs. The only exception to this is when God reaches into history to influence events, such as prophecy. Thus, God does not know what ultimate choice I will make. Because he knows me so very well, based upon me he may have a superlative idea of my choice, but he doesn't "know". If God knew exactly my life, a million years before I was born, then I don't have any free will, I might as well do whatever I want, because I will do exactly what God foreknew

 

[shmogie]

That's exactly why it was rejected and mocked by atheists as 'Big Bang' at the time. The term was coined by atheist Hoyle as a pejorative term for the priest Lemaitre's 'Primeval Atom theory' A far better, more descriptive term. They complained of the overt theistic implications of such a creation event- until it was proven byond most doubt, at which point those implications mysteriously vanished!

Yep, Hoyle was a believer in a steady state universe, the big bang shook him to his core, because, as an atheist, he could see God

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yep, Hoyle was a believer in a steady state universe, the big bang shook him to his core, because, as an atheist, he could see God

Yes, "no creation = no creator" was and still is a guiding principle of atheist cosmogony, in static, eternal, steady state, big crunch. All debunked, and still we are left with a specific singular creation event, inexplicable by any known natural cause.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So we have no real choice because we cannot make a choice different from the one he foresaw, right?
.

Wrong!
We won't make a choice different to what is ordained, but that in no way removes our free-will
The reason that you are thinking so is because you can't understand how the present and future are related. It does not mean that we have 'no real choice'.

Almighty God does not 'foresee' .. He is outside of the universe, where the concept of time as we see it no longer applies.