[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by njp

That's because I have respect for many decades of observational data that are explained by the Big Bang theory better than any competing theory................

In which case I'm sure you'll be able to provide a list of this data.

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Justmadeit: The problem atheists have with the big bang theory is that the concept was developed by a Roman Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître). ..................

Wasn't he a canon?

Originally Posted by Moony

...........I do find it rather strange that only two theories seem to be the subjuct of debates such as this (evolution and big bang)

What about the lucrative global warming con trick?

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

What about the lucrative global warming con trick?

Yes because they don't like what the science shows (as with Evolution) unscrupulous people try to con the public into thinking there is serious doubt over the evidence when there isn't. For Evolution the evidence deniers are the religious literalists and for AGW they are those with a vested interest in fossil fuel use.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by bobcar

If you are taking it as meaning that I had that opinion yes; my whole quote with part of the sentence highlighted.

I think my punctuation and grammar should have been better, I was trying to say the sentiments in the rest of the sentence were wrong not just "this theory is right or wrong". The article by Azimov shows how science refines theories as they become "more correct" rather than incorrect in the first place.

Fair enough - apologies.

[Johnbee]

OP have a read of this.

Imagine the whole universe empty except for two boulders, 10 billion light years apart, floating at random. After 10 billion yeras, gravity will reach them from the other and they will be slightly attracted. It will take a few million years for them to perceptively move closer but they will be an inch closer. A billion years passes, and by now they will slowly be closing.

A few more billion years and they will be rushing together and after a very long time they will collide at millions of miles an hour with a tremendous crash and the explosion will be enormous.

Where has all that energy come from?

It has come from nothing. The huge amount of energy is balanced exactly by a huge amount of negative potential energy. The universe can add up to nothing, still be nothing in total, but it still exists as something, as well.

Notice after that, it immediately raises the question of 'But if something caused the energy to be split into positive and negative, what caused it?'

That is a different question, and shows that answers will generate more questions. But that is the idea of how it is possible for something to arise out of nothing.

The point that further questions arise is just science I am afraid.

[njp]

Originally Posted by jsmith99

In which case I'm sure you'll be able to provide a list of this data.

Indeed I could. But would you really be interested? You sound like you have already decided to reject Big Bang cosmology, for reasons you choose not to reveal.

What about the lucrative global warming con trick?

Ah. I think that gives me my answer.

[spiney2]

lemaitre was just solving einsteins equations in a particular way. as a mathematician. the fact he was a priest is irrelevant to the science.

although it must be siad the cathlolic church and particularly jesuits have a good record in astronomy ...... ironically, considering what happened to Galileo ....

[spiney2]

the expansionary universe was just one of several possibilities. it was shapley and hubble who confirmed it as true.

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by Raring_to_go

That prompts another leading question, if God created the universe who or what created God ?

That is an atheist default response that becomes less of a conundrum when compared with concepts like 'an infinite universe' or 'something arising from nothing'. A 'creative force existing before time as we conceive it' is no more far fetched, and requires about the same amount of imagination. Equating imagination as a trait contradictory to science is an error.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by bollywood

That is an atheist default response that becomes less of a conundrum when compared with concepts like 'an infinite universe' or 'something arising from nothing'. A 'creative force existing before time as we conceive it' is no more far fetched, and requires about the same amount of imagination. Equating imagination as a trait contradictory to science is an error.

No its a scientific response to ask questions. If you take the position that the universe cannot exist without being created - then you are immediately opening yourself up to the question "if the universe cannot exist without being created - then why do you assume a creator should be able to exist without having been created too".

If you claim the creator can exist without having been created - then a similar question arises - "why cant the universe"?

[Justmadeit]

Originally Posted by Johnbee

OP have a read of this.

Imagine the whole universe empty except for two boulders, 10 billion light years apart, floating at random. After 10 billion yeras, gravity will reach them from the other and they will be slightly attracted. It will take a few million years for them to perceptively move closer but they will be an inch closer. A billion years passes, and by now they will slowly be closing.

A few more billion years and they will be rushing together and after a very long time they will collide at millions of miles an hour with a tremendous crash and the explosion will be enormous.

Where has all that energy come from?

It has come from nothing. The huge amount of energy is balanced exactly by a huge amount of negative potential energy. The universe can add up to nothing, still be nothing in total, but it still exists as something, as well.

Notice after that, it immediately raises the question of 'But if something caused the energy to be split into positive and negative, what caused it?'

That is a different question, and shows that answers will generate more questions. But that is the idea of how it is possible for something to arise out of nothing.

The point that further questions arise is just science I am afraid.

id like to know where the boulders came from !

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by Moony

No its a scientific response to ask questions. If you take the position that the universe cannot exist without being created - then you are immediately opening yourself up to the question "if the universe cannot exist without being created - then why do you assume a creator should be able to exist without having been created too".

If you claim the creator can exist without having been created - then a similar question arises - "why cant the universe"?

Then you got my point. One is not more inconceivable than the other.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by bollywood

Then you got my point. One is not more inconceivable than the other.

I think you missed mine though. People who belive in a creator generally apply different criteria to that creator than they do to the universe. They claim the universe in all its complexity cannot possibly have came into being through some benign, undirected mechanism, and so invoke something that is arguably even more complex - an intelligent, omnipotent being who lives in a realm outside of time, space etc and who has powers beyond any of the known physical laws in order to try and "explain" it.

They essentially regress the line if thinking back one more step than needed. What is the motivation in invoking a creator - is it really answering a question, or is it simply a way of validating a belief they already hold.

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by Moony

I think you missed mine though. People who belive in a creator generally apply different criteria to that creator than they do to the universe. They claim the universe in all its complexity cannot possibly have came into being through some benign, undirected mechanism, and so invoke something that is arguably even more complex - an intelligent, omnipotent being who lives in a realm outside of time, space etc and who has powers beyond any of the known physical laws in order to try and "explain" it.

They essentially regress the line if thinking back one more step than needed. What is the motivation in invoking a creator - is it really answering a question, or is it simply a way of validating a belief they already hold.

Possibly I have missed your point, because don' t many atheists believe it is not possible for time to be other than we pre-conceive of it, and many are convinced that the universe by chance is the lesser complex occurrence, whereas it would be incredibly complex. Scientific ideas like multiverses could also take us beyond known physical laws just as you say belief in s deity does.

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by Moony

I think you missed mine though. People who belive in a creator generally apply different criteria to that creator than they do to the universe. They claim the universe in all its complexity cannot possibly have came into being through some benign, undirected mechanism, and so invoke something that is arguably even more complex - an intelligent, omnipotent being who lives in a realm outside of time, space etc and who has powers beyond any of the known physical laws in order to try and "explain" it.

They essentially regress the line if thinking back one more step than needed. What is the motivation in invoking a creator - is it really answering a question, or is it simply a way of validating a belief they already hold.

Possibly I have missed your point, because don' t many atheists believe it is not possible for time to be other than we pre-conceive of it, and many are convinced that the universe by chance is the lesser complex occurrence, whereas it would be incredibly complex. Scientific ideas like multiverses could also take us beyond known physical laws just as you say belief in a deity does. God would be more the Occam' s Razor of the two explanations.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by bollywood

Possibly I have missed your point, because don' t many atheists believe it is not possible for time to be other than we pre-conceive of it, and many are convinced that the universe by chance is the lesser complex occurrence, whereas it would be incredibly complex. Scientific ideas like multiverses could also take us beyond known physical laws just as you say belief in a deity does. God would be more the Occam' s Razor of the two explanations.

I have no idea what "many atheists believe". As for time - I dont think a consensus has been reached over what it is or how it manifests itself. Time certainly is not fixed as demonstrated practically and explained theoretically by special relativity.

Complexity isn't really the key here - we know from the existing physical laws that incredible complexity and variety can arise perfectly naturally and spontaneously - even though the underlying laws that govern that complexity may be very simple.

Multi-verses may take us beyond the known physical laws that is true - I don't claim that we have a complete understanding of what they may be - however the real key here is that, whatever physical laws are in existence, even if they are currently unknown to us - will govern multi-verses. Many interpretations/definitions of the creator require that he not be subject to any or all physical laws (i.e. is supernatural).

Why would god be the simplest explanation - invoking god always leads to more questions - invoking god is never an end point in itself.

What is it that makes you want to invoke god in explaining how the universe arose. Since we don't yet have a full understanding of how the universe may have arisen, and certainly haven't reached an impasse in either the data we can gather, or the theoretical models we can employ - isn't it a little premature to invoke or include something that may not actually be required.

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by Moony

I have no idea what "many atheists believe".

Complexity isn't really the key here - we know from the existing physical laws that incredible complexity and variety can arise perfectly naturally and spontaneously - even though the underlying laws that govern that complexity may be very simple.

Multi-verses may take us beyond the known physical laws that is true - I don't claim that we have a complete understanding of what they may be - however the real key here is that, whatever physical laws are in existence, even if they are currently unknown to us - will govern multi-verses. Many interpretations/definitions of the creator require that he not be subject to any or all physical laws (i.e. is supernatural).

Why would god be the simplest explanation - invoking god always leads to more questions - invoking god is never an end point in itself.

Yet you seem to know in your previous post how people who believe in a creator generally process their thinking.

Complexity is an issue because of timing, temperature, mass, a measurement being off by the slightest would null the universe.

It doesn't mean it could not happen, but the concept of a designer is the simplest explanation. If I see a beautifully built piece of architecture I guess it could have fallen into place by chance, but more likely I think of an architect. And a building is a fairly weak analogy compared to the universe.

It isn't true that multiverses have to follow physical laws, in some proposed scenarios they defy the laws of physics as we now know them, much as you say it is regressed to imagine deities doing the same.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by bollywood

Yet you seem to know in your previous post how people who believe in a creator generally process their thinking.

Complexity is an issue because of timing, temperature, mass, a measurement being off by the slightest would null the universe.

It doesn't mean it could not happen, but the concept of a designer is the simplest explanation. If I see a beautifully built piece of architecture I guess it could have fallen into place by chance, but more likely I think of an architect.

It isn't true that multiverses have to follow physical laws, in some proposed scenarios they defy the laws of physics as we now know them, much as you say it is regressed to imagine deities doing the same.

Its based on my experience with religious people, the arguments they employ and religious texts. I have met a few atheists - but have never heard any of them claim that time cannot be anything other than we pre-conceive it. Of course they may believe that - but I have never heard such a thing discussed.

Would it null the universe - or would it simply result in a different universe. Some simulations suggest that if the physical constants were different, the universe may not have formed, or may not be able to support life - but then again, we have no precedent to show that they can be different. The physical constants may simply be.

You are employing a "god of the gaps" argument - you cant see how the complexity could have arisen naturally - so invoke god to fill the gap in your knowledge. As for your building - that's just a variation on the Watchmaker argument - the problems of which has been done to death.

Hence the reason I stated that our understanding of the physical laws are incomplete. They will follow some physical laws - even if we don't currently know what they are - whereas, depending on who you ask - a creator doesn't have to follow any physical law, even unknown ones.

[ItsNick]

The Big Bang is what created the Universe as we know it NOW. Before the BB there obviously was something else otherwise you wouldn't have had a big bang.
I don't believe for one second that god created it. That's the biggest load of tosh ever. People who think god created the universe always say "you can't create something out nothing". If that's true where did god come from.
Let's say for arguments sake that god did create it. How did he do it. If there was nothing he wouldn't have had anything to create it with.
The truth is that there's always been something.

[SULLA]

Originally Posted by alfster

Make that 3:

Genesis 1.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

When people post Genesis as fact all I can think is: grow up...

I didn't post Genesis as fact I merely posted it

Originally Posted by jjne

Apparently the Bible isn't the word of God. So given that no-one was there to hear the almighty say those words, how do we know they are true?

I am assuming that when this 'BIg Bang' occured there was a lot of light created. Genesis records that this light was created before the Sun and the other stars.

I don't claim Genesis to be true but in the absence of positive proof about anything else, it will do for me.
I tend not to fret about it

[jjne]

Originally Posted by ItsNick

The Big Bang is what created the Universe as we know it NOW. Before the BB there obviously was something else otherwise you wouldn't have had a big bang.

The truth is that there's always been something.

I was always under the impression that space-time within this universe was created during the BB.

The concept of linear time as we understand it may or may not exist outside this realm.

If there is something that is 'infinite', the concept of linear time makes little sense in any case.

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by Moony

Its based on my experience with religious people, the arguments they employ and religious texts. I have met a few atheists - but have never heard any of them claim that time cannot be anything other than we pre-conceive it. Of course they may believe that - but I have never heard such a thing discussed.

Would it null the universe - or would it simply result in a different universe. Some simulations suggest that if the physical constants were different, the universe may not have formed, or may not be able to support life - but then again, we have no precedent to show that they can be different. The physical constants may simply be.

You are employing a "god of the gaps" argument - you cant see how the complexity could have arisen naturally - so invoke god to fill the gap in your knowledge. As for your building - that's just a variation on the Watchmaker argument - the problems of which has been done to death.

Hence the reason I stated that our understanding of the physical laws are incomplete. They will follow some physical laws - even if we don't currently know what they are - whereas, depending on who you ask - a creator doesn't have to follow any physical law, even unknown ones.

My experiences are based on discussions with atheists who cannot conceive of time as non-linear and cannot conceive of an entity that could exist outside of time.

I did not choose designer because of an *inability to understand* how the complexity could have arisen naturally -that is where you are generalizing about believers again.

I have read Hawking's account of how it (the universe)*could* have occurred naturally, but I side with other thinkers who concluded it did not.

You can't really throw out a "God of the Gaps" accusation without having someone throw "Accident of the Gaps" back at you. You don't know how the complexity arose either but if you say it was an accident, that leaves out all the religious baggage you might not want to think about. So both believers and atheists can accuse each other of having a bias.

You can say believers want to believe and atheists want not to.

Your argument that a creator does not have to follow *any* laws is not entirely logical, because laws would have to be followed sufficient to create and sustain the universe.

Meant to add, it is hard to tell when you are talking about evolution or big bang. By complexity I meant what it took for the universe to come into place.

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by bollywood

Complexity is an issue because of timing, temperature, mass, a measurement being off by the slightest would null the universe.

With an infinite number of universes with different physical properties that doesn't matter at all. Intelligent life can only ask that question in a suitable universe, it doesn't matter if the chances of a random universe being suitable are billions to one against.

[archiver]

Originally Posted by bollywood

My experiences are based on discussions with atheists who who cannot conceive of time as non-linear and cannot conceive of an entity that could exist outside of time.

What do you mean by "an entity"? If you mean a life form, then no. Such an entity could not exist in a living form "outside of time". Nothing could be said by such an entity either, so if God said "Let there be light" he certainly was in some kind of time frame at the time.

I did not choose design because of an inability to understand how the complexity could have arisen naturally -that is where you are generalizing about believers again.

I have read Hawking's account of how it (the universe)*could* have occurred naturally, but I side with other thinkers who concluded it did not.

Which evidence would you say was the clincher which brought you to that conclusion?

You can't really throw out a "God of the Gaps" accusation without having one throw "Accident of the Gaps" back at you. You don't know how the complexity arose either but if you say it was an accident that leaves out all the religious baggage you might not want to think about. So both believers and atheists can accuse each other of having a bias.

I'd rather have bias than baggage.

Your argument that a creator does not have to follow *any* laws is not entirely logical, because laws would have to be followed sufficient to create and sustain the universe.

Are you accepting that laws for a working universe existed before god?

Meant to add, it is hard to tell when you are talking about evolution or big bang. By complexity I meant what it took for the universe to come into place.

Which is more complex, an object? Or an entity which can create that same object?

[bollywood]

Originally Posted by bobcar

With an infinite number of universes with different physical properties that doesn't matter at all. Intelligent life can only ask that question in a suitable universe, it doesn't matter if the chances of a random universe being suitable are billions to one against.

I'm not clear what your argument is here, please explain. The chances of our world being suitable for us were way way way beyond billions to one.

=archiver;58888489]What do you mean by "an entity"? If you mean a life form, then no. Such an entity could not exist in a living form "outside of time". Nothing could be said by such an entity either, so if God said "Let there be light" he certainly was in some kind of time frame at the time.

Well I didn't post, 'let there be light,' but it is nice symbolism.
By entity I meant God, creator or designer although not the literal God of Genesis, as I see creation stories as attempts to bring creation to human and cultural level.

If you are saying God could not exist outside time *as we now conceive of time* then you are a good example of someone as I posted above who has difficulty with this concept. Note that I did not say 'outside time' but outside time in our pre-conceived notion.

Which evidence would you say was the clincher which brought you to that conclusion?

No clincher, but a combination of factors.

I'd rather have bias than baggage.

Me too.

Are you accepting that laws for a working universe existed before god?

I'm accepting that God would need to use laws of the physical universe to provide laws of the physical universe. I don't think that a multiverse having different physical laws from the ones we know implies anything about God. I am fond of the idea of a mysterious or hidden God, that is not to say people cannot have religious experiences.

Which is more complex, an object? Or an entity which can create that same object?

That was not my point. My point was not about the object, but the complexity of the *process* to bring the object into being. It is somewhat like psychology, in which you do not isolate one or two factors, but all the factors that lead up to an event.

So it is not just fine tuning, or complexity, or odds, or chaos theory, right brain, or deep instinct, but putting them all together.

[jsmith99]

Originally Posted by njp

Indeed I could. But would you really be interested? You sound like you have already decided to reject Big Bang cosmology, for reasons you choose not to reveal.
.................

Yet earlier you asked an FM for a list of sources, despite the fact that you obviously had no interest in their opinion. And where have I rejected the big bang theory?