by Philadelphia Ponos 97 Replies latest jw friends
Philadelphia Ponos,
-- The Big Bang theory does not suggest that everything in the universe was created by absolutely nothing.
-- The Big Bang theory is an attempt to understand the universe we live in.
If you want to repeat two sentences regarding the Big Bang, I suggest the two above.
Marvin Shilmer
It seems to little Ole' me, that the problem with this thread is with the first verb-phrase: Was Created.
To most of the posters who support God it seems they define 'Created' as the work of a designer, a master craftsman.
Those without the God-crutch are willing to understand and accept the random nature of things, that given enough time/space/conditions, all of what is passed off as 'creation' can be understood to be a fulfillment of mathematical probability. And much of it is far from 'craftsmanship' when one looks carefully.
There is also the very confining nature of our limited exposure to reality. What seems beautiful to our senses may in the larger picture be chaos/destruction. Such is the case in our observation of celestial photographs or the savage reality of a stalking carnivore. Examination of the micro or the macro may leave us with a sense of awe - but it should rarely leave us with a sense of completed 'creation'. My backyard is full of millions of daily examples of fit survival. It is ugly. I detest it sometimes, while loving the resultant life I have been given that is a direct by-product. And yet with the same mind, I plan my daily part in it - for I wish to survive.
It seems that there is fairly universal acceptance of the idea of energy/matter having always been present. This may be the only premise that matters in this discussion. Really.
Jeff
This has already been covered, so I am just joining a chorus:
If believers can accept that God always existed outside of time and space and not subject to the laws of the universe then why couldn't matter/energy have always existed outside of time and space and not subject to the laws of the universe.
Regardless of whether you call that matter/energy by the name "God" or not, you can recognize that all religion was created by men and worship has been created by men as a tool to manipulate people.
If that matter/energy has some kind of intelligence (and I am not saying it does), then let it tell each individual clearly what it expects of them and why they should listen to it (or even worship it).
The question becomes, is the Big Bang itself non-contingent. Paul Steinhardt (Professor of Science at Princeton University) and others are working on models, using deeply abstracted tools in mathematical physics (built on ideas that are extrapolations of other ideas that seem to be implied by other ideas that might be a mathematical, maybe even physical consequence of other ideas - none of which have been observed, that might possibly account for some of the things that we see.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/
Thanks for the quote mine Maze. You've also grossly misinterpreted mathematical terminology for layman's phrases. Theory mean two different things in scientific terms and layman's terms.
There is not now nor could there possibly be (in any remotely meaningful way) anything that qualifies as genuine evidence for these types of theories. They are somewhat elegant theories, but they are not remotely "science" - it is mathematical philosophy at best. String theory alone may one day find some evidence, but the pre-Big Bang models based on string theory are fundamentally un-empirical.
String theory is completely falsifiable. Essentially one is solving for x, if you can accept that you can find an unknown by using geometry (finding the length of a side of a triangle by using the pythagorean theorum) then you should be able to accept the findings of theoretical physics.
Furthermore, as it currently stands, those models appear to be fundamentally incompatible with current cosmological observations, hence the enormous number of non-empircally based ideas that go along with them.
Where are you getting this from because it's been clearly observed that the universe is expanding in exact conjunction with the big bang model.
And, the Ekpyrotic/Cyclic models that they are working on end up positing extraordinarily complicated mathematical "entities", or "bulks" (fancy word for bigger universes) that require a tremendous number of non-trivial assumptions that are based on nothing other than "to make it work out".
Please give an example of these non-trivial assumptions because mathematics is even more cut-throat than science is. For a paper to be a peer-reviewed accepted study it must undergo the scrutiny of millions of mathemeticians.
So sure, you can hold out for one of these theories. But you don't get to pretend that you're sticking with empirical or scientific ideas. You're at least as religious as any hyper fundamentalist in any religion.
Ah the science is a religion argument, made completely invalid by the fact all science and math is falsifiable. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it does not work out or make sense.
I am a theist because I believe it provides the greatest metaphysical explanatory power with the fewest non-trivial assumptions. I feel that naturalism, while a plausible and logically consistent worldview, ultimately runs into too many difficulties to be taken seriously.
Yes it's the most plausable, we have never oberserved a being outside of our natural realm yet we are to believe he exists. We have never observed anything without a beginning yet we are to believe he exists. We have never seen anything created ex-nilo yet we are to believe the entire universe came to be in such a way. These are few non-trivial assumptions, you are assuming that something you have never seen or even can come up with the mathematical equation to explain exists and not just exists but has done something that we have never seen or have a mathematical equation for. Sure, very plausable and logically consistent.
If one insists on holding out for a scientific answer, then you will never find the answer. Any proposed explanation for the origin of the universe will be metaphysical and outside the reach of empirical science, whether it is theism, a string derived model, or turtles all the way down.
Again Law of Conservation of energy, it's not outside the reach of empirical science. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it has always been in existence even if it's in it's energy form (Theory of Relativity).
Nothing on this plain. Look at the work they are doing with dark matter and dark energy these days. Maby the pinpoint where all matter, energy, space and time came from a pinpoint from another realm.
They already know where all matter, energy, space and time came from. As a matter of fact it has always been there in some form or another. The Big Bang theory (what theoretical physics claimed happened in the first few nanoseconds of the universe at least) has been empirically proven with particle accelerators. Dark matter is there to explain the gravitational pull of objects that exist but that do not have any emissions and dark energy is only there to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, actually those are entirely within the framework of a Big Bang theory, not of a God theory.
Actually, if God created everyone of us to their kind these questions come up: why do all creatures from fish to mammal share similar biologies? why are we built so poorly? what is the deal with the laryngeal nerve taking a long, unnecessary detour to reach a place right next to where it started, wouldn't proper engineering have fixed that? why do we have a need for an opposable thumb (to use tools) if God was just going to provide for all in a paradise from trees and vegetation of the field? why are we built and required to be omnivores while the bible (the story of Noah) suggest we were originally vegetarians?
There is so much evidence against God that it can not be taken seriously. All theists have recently done to prove God exists is continue adapting this God-person to fit current scientific evidence. God in the scientific community is there to fill the voids, not to answer questions, if the voids disappear so does God.
God does exist in the minds of people however it is only proven to be a figment of the imagination so far. God-experiences can be induced in the brain by powerful magnets that alter the chemistry in the brain. God-experiences can be seen on MRI's as well but as the Gorillaz famously said
"Where the thought is I brought all this
So you can survive when law is lawless
Feelings sensations that you thought was dead
No squealing remember that it's all in your head"
There is not now nor could there possibly be (in any remotely meaningful way) anything that qualifies as genuine evidence for these types of theories
Yeah. Just like your metaphysical theories of ancient creator gods.
@James Thomas: I did read your previous posts. However, I don't see what the relationship with light/darkness and what gives things quality versus the lack of quality of nothingness has to do with God being omnipresent.
OnTheWayOut writes:
“If believers can accept that God always existed outside of time and space and not subject to the laws of the universe then why couldn't matter/energy have always existed outside of time and space and not subject to the laws of the universe.”
You and I, and everything else—including space and time—of our universe is the universe we know and live with and in. Hence to wonder if something not our universe is part of our universe is paradoxical. We might as well ask “Is something not me, me?”
The fact of the matter is that we know precious little about the universe we are part of, let alone something we are not a part of. If there is something more than our universe it is beyond our comprehension because our comprehension is part of this universe. As part of this universe it is captured by our universe.
There is a biblical passage reading “God is more exalted than we can know; In number his years are beyond searching.”
The biblical God is presented as having no beginning, yet our comprehension—which is part of this universe—tells us such a thing is impossible. If the Bible has some supernatural influence could that passage quoted above be telling humans not to let what is beyond our comprehension lead us to believe something is impossible, such as a God without a beginning? Maybe God does not have “a beginning” because “beginning” is a concept of our universe and our comprehension is captured by our universe; hence we cannot comprehend something with no beginning.
I’m just saying…
Marvin Shilmer
I love this little quote:
"The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God."
~ Euclid
