[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[twinc]

are you sure white coated scientists are whiter than white - just see my post "The wilful Blindness of Scientists" - btw via google have a quick squint at science and scientists by [William R Corliss] - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

are you sure white coated scientists are whiter than white - just see my post "The wilful Blindness of Scientists" - twinc

More genetic fallacies, attempting to discredit the source of the information does not refute their findings. Find us evidence that their claims are wrong, and then we can move from there.

 

[twinc]

More genetic fallacies, attempting to discredit the source of the information does not refute their findings. Find us evidence that their claims are wrong, and then we can move from there.

do not forget your promise to be moved and move - meanwhile be moved by [William R Corliss] - twinc

 

[TOG]

Again, your position is implausible because it requires what is basically unimaginable - that thousands, nay tens of thousands, of highly trained experts are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to promote a model for the creation of the universe that excludes God, even if this means contradicting laws of physics that even a high school student could understand.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. That would imply that they are working together to deceive other people, and that's not what's happening. When a person rejects the possibility that God created the universe, as many do, then he has to find some other explanation for how things came into being. When they run into problems with those explanations, then they have to find a solution that doesn't involve God. For some people, setting aside the laws of physics is preferable to admitting that it couldn't have happened without a creator, so that's what they do.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. That would imply that they are working together to deceive other people, and that's not what's happening. When a person rejects the possibility that God created the universe, as many do, then he has to find some other explanation for how things came into being. When they run into problems with those explanations, then they have to find a solution that doesn't involve God. For some people, setting aside the laws of physics is preferable to admitting that it couldn't have happened without a creator, so that's what they do.

The TOG​

So a Monk, who believes in God.. discovers the Big Bang... you then conclude that it was because people didn't believe in God and were looking for other alternatives. Hmm.. seems you need to sort out some of the facts. Big Bang Theory is compatible with God and in fact perhaps may imply an omnipotent creator.

 

[Drew]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. That would imply that they are working together to deceive other people, and that's not what's happening. When a person rejects the possibility that God created the universe, as many do, then he has to find some other explanation for how things came into being. When they run into problems with those explanations, then they have to find a solution that doesn't involve God. For some people, setting aside the laws of physics is preferable to admitting that it couldn't have happened without a creator, so that's what they do.

The TOG​

Here is an example of a believer who is also one of the originators of the BB theory. From Wikipedia:

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966, was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He was the first known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of theprimeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"

Now please explain something to me. Mr. Lemaitre was a renowned physicist and a Christian.

Is he, like all these others if your model is correct, wilfully ignoring basic laws of physics?

 

[Drew]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. That would imply that they are working together to deceive other people, and that's not what's happening. When a person rejects the possibility that God created the universe, as many do, then he has to find some other explanation for how things came into being. When they run into problems with those explanations, then they have to find a solution that doesn't involve God. For some people, setting aside the laws of physics is preferable to admitting that it couldn't have happened without a creator, so that's what they do.

The TOG​

What you are suggesting is still completely implausible. You are asking readers to believe that thousands and thousands of experts basically lie to themselves and to the world (you are telling us that proponents of the Big Bang are wrong about obvious facts of physics) just to avoid having to involve God. Well surely there must be one believing physicist with a real degree from a real university who is a Christian (or perhaps a Muslim for that matter) who agrees with you in respect to your critique, reproduced following:

1. The universe has always existed (which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics)
2. The universe has a finite age and came into being out of nothing at some point (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics)

Please name just one such physicist.

 

[Drew]

It's not as if it were a blunder that they didn't realize. They all know that the big bang is impossible according to well known laws of physics. But if they have ruled out the possibility of God having created the universe, they are left with only 2 choices

1. The universe has always existed (which contradicts the second law of thermodynamics)
2. The universe has a finite age and came into being out of nothing at some point (which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics)

A few decades ago, there was a big debate among experts: one side thought the Big Bang model was correct, the other side thought the steady-state model (i.e. the universe existed forever) was correct.

Now if what you are asserting is true, either side could have used the arguments you are presenting to win the argument. To wit:

The BB people would point out that a claim that Universe existed forever violates the second law.

The Steady State people would point out that a claim that the Universe came into being at some time contradicts the first law.

Why did neither side use such arguments?

 

[Barbarian]

The Big Bang is in the same league as Evolution.

It can't be proven.

Nothing in science is "proven." Science is inductive, only inferring truth, not proving it. However we can directly observe evolution, so it's as well established as gravity.

Actually better. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't entirely sure why gravity works.

 

[twinc]

Nothing in science is "proven." Science is inductive, only inferring truth, not proving it. However we can directly observe evolution, so it's as well established as gravity.

Actually better. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't entirely sure why gravity works.

Origins evolution does not work and did not work - micro evolution works and we can observe it - twinc

 

[TOG]

What you are suggesting is still completely implausible. You are asking readers to believe that thousands and thousands of experts basically lie to themselves

You find it hard to believe that "thousands and thousands" lie to themselves? Look at some statistics.

• There are over 7 billion people in the world
• About 2 billion of them are (at least nominally) Christians
• Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, so all others have fewer adherents.

I, like most others here, believe that Christianity is the only correct faith and that the God of the Bible is the only true God, but lets look at all possibilities.

• Christianity is the correct religion
• Some other religion is correct

If Christianity is correct (as I believe it is), then 5 billion people lie to themselves about God every day, by denying what He has revealed to us, both through His Word and through nature. If any other religion is correct, then over 5.5 billion people lie to themselves every day (since the next largest religion has 1.5 billion adherents). In any case, I don't see a problem with believing that "thousands and thousands" lie to themselves every day.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You find it hard to believe that "thousands and thousands" lie to themselves? Look at some statistics.

• There are over 7 billion people in the world
• About 2 billion of them are (at least nominally) Christians
• Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, so all others have fewer adherents.

I, like most others here, believe that Christianity is the only correct faith and that the God of the Bible is the only true God, but lets look at all possibilities.

• Christianity is the correct religion
• Some other religion is correct

If Christianity is correct (as I believe it is), then 5 billion people lie to themselves about God every day, by denying what He has revealed to us, both through His Word and through nature. If any other religion is correct, then over 5.5 billion people lie to themselves every day (since the next largest religion has 1.5 billion adherents). In any case, I don't see a problem with believing that "thousands and thousands" lie to themselves every day.

The TOG​

Ultimately this whole thing is wrapped up in a fallacious argument. There is some degree of power to the claims of scientific consensus, but all the same, it's best we just look to the evidence.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Origins evolution does not work and did not work - micro evolution works and we can observe it - twinc

Broaden the scale... THERE! You basically believe in Evolution, you just need to have your scale increased to the proper size. Microevolution is simply another scale at which we can see evolution happening.

 

[TOG]

Here is an example of a believer who is also one of the originators of the BB theory. From Wikipedia:

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966, was a Belgian priest,

Great...So the guy had a long name and was a priest. What does that prove? I've never known a Catholic priest personally, but I have been personally acquainted with a number of Protestant pastors and preachers of various denominations. Some of them have been born-again Christians, while others did not believe the Bible to be God's word and some even didn't believe in God's existence. I once knew a pastor who invited mediums to hold seances at his church, and I once heard him say in a sermon that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament weren't the same God, and that he didn't know which one was his God. In fact, he said he didn't know whether his God was dead or alive. Saying that somebody was a priest means nothing. Show me some evidence of what his personal religious beliefs actually were, and you may have a point, but the fact that he was a priest doesn't prove anything.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Great...So the guy had a long name and was a priest. What does that prove? I've never known a Catholic priest personally, but I have been personally acquainted with a number of Protestant pastors and preachers of various denominations. Some of them have been born-again Christians, while others did not believe the Bible to be God's word and some even didn't believe in God's existence. I once knew a pastor who invited mediums to hold seances at his church, and I once heard him say in a sermon that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament weren't the same God, and that he didn't know which one was his God. In fact, he said he didn't know whether his God was dead or alive. Saying that somebody was a priest means nothing. Show me some evidence of what his personal religious beliefs actually were, and you may have a point, but the fact that he was a priest doesn't prove anything.

The TOG​

Yes, he took a vow of celibacy, poverty and obedience because he didn't believe in God... Clearly the man was a Theist at least, whether he was a genuine Christian is between himself and the Lord.

There are loads of Christians and other Theists who embrace the Big Bang Theory, and the Catholic Church even took his findings as scientific validation of God in 1951.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The idea behind science is to best understand the universe the best we can and to find answers to questions we have using a philosophy of science. Religion attempts the same but prefers to use divine attributes instead of the philosophy of science.

I think the biggest problem is that science doesn't simply give the answers out, its a process and takes a lot of study and work to fully understand what has been figured out by those that came before them. Religion doesn't require as much, but instead demands devotion.

So the fence really sits on whether one is motivated by devotion or curiosity.

 

[Barbarian]

Ironically, atheists once attacked the Big Bang theory, because it looks so much like God created the universe.

As a theory which addresses the origins of the universe, the Big Bang has always carried theological implications, most notably, the concept of creatio ex nihilo, which stems from the Genesis creation narrative.[16][17][18][19][20] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges-Henri Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic Christian clergyman.[21] Pope Pius XII, declared at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science

 

[Pizza]

Ironically, atheists once attacked the Big Bang theory, because it looks so much like God created the universe.

As a theory which addresses the origins of the universe, the Big Bang has always carried theological implications, most notably, the concept of creatio ex nihilo, which stems from the Genesis creation narrative.[16][17][18][19][20] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges-Henri Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic Christian clergyman.[21] Pope Pius XII, declared at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science

Which is what I have been saying for over 20 years.

The BBT sounds a LOT like early Genesis to me. I am convinced, yes CONVINCED that:

1) The BBT is essentially accurate in describing creation itself.
2) When science "looks back" and sees what it describes as "the big bang", what science is actually doing is describing the moment of creation as science sees it.

Look, God created all - when He said, "Let there be light...", what makes ANYONE thing that would be a non-event? It was a HECK of an event, and science can look back now and 'see' it - to them, it was an AWESOME big bang. As awesome as the God who made it happen. I don't see what there is to argue about.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nothing in science is "proven." Science is inductive, only inferring truth, not proving it. However we can directly observe evolution, so it's as well established as gravity.

Actually better. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't entirely sure why gravity works.

Origins evolution does not work and did not work

Oh, you're thinking of microgravity. Microgravity works and we can observe it. But the idea that it made Pluto orbit the sun, that's macrogravity, and no one has ever seen a complete orbit of Pluto.

 

[Drew]

I think the biggest problem is that science doesn't simply give the answers out, its a process and takes a lot of study and work to fully understand what has been figured out by those that came before them. Religion doesn't require as much, but instead demands devotion.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Can you please clarify. For my part, I would say that, in the Jewish / Christian context at least (I know nothing about other religions), there is indeed "a lot of study and work" that needs to be done to fully understand the model of reality that is being set forth.