FYI, I'm sorry I missed your response earlier.
Why do you need empirical evidence for God?
It does depend on what you mean by empirical. You do observe evidence to suport the big bang (you do, you have those 3 very famous evidences. the theory might be wrong, but those 3 proofs suport it, a wrong theory still can be suported by evidence). I don't need that god is tested in the lab to believe in it xD
No, actually I don't. I see proof of an electric universe in the universe.
Like i said, there's proof that suports the big bang. You can have proof against it, and the theory will be wrong if the proof against it is "stronger" then the other proof.
I also violates many facts, like the fact that matter cannot expand faster than light.
That's expalined by the fact that it is spacetime that expands (now, you may not believe that it does, but IF it does, it MAY explain that, i think we can agree on that)
Well, if it can't be tested in a lab, what's the difference between religion and science?
That's an excelent question and the answer depends on you opinion of religion.
You see, it is no faith to believe in the big bang. You don't believe it 100% without proof. I could say that i believe in invisible cats in my living room. That would the faith. If you have a little bit of proof then it is not faith. It's like M theory. Except you can try to detect dark matter in the lab for example. There are devices design for that.
Oh, but I personally can and do deny it. I see proof of redshifted photons, nothing more. I see no proof that "dark energy did it".
Actually no. You can't even 'theoretically" tell me where "dark energy" comes from. You might have a point with dark matter theories as it relates to SUSY theory, but that's a *NON STANDARD* particle physics theory that enjoys no empirical lab support whereas standard theory is but one particle away from demonstrating all the proposed particles in that theory.
Dark energy would be a prediction of the theory then. I didn't said every aspect of the theory was theoretically based. The theory was created through other scientific theories, so it is theoretically suported, it wasn't observed and then interpreted, the observation came after the theory. Dark energy (whatever that is i admit we don't really know it) is a predition of the theory. We need it to make it work. To be honest i also feel a little like you in that point! But that fact alone doesn't make the theory wrong. But it is good to question it.
That is actually a statement of faith on your part. Most alternative 'explanations' are actually based on 'tired light' and "infinite universe" types of theories. If it's wrong, it's as likely to be *COMPLETELY* wrong as much as it is likely to be "a little wrong".
I don't really remember why i said that, i had specific reasons (your fault for only comenting what i said so late!! u.u).
Well yeah, you can say it is a little bit of faith. But most theories in physics aren't completly wrong.
Actually no. I have seen absolutely, positively no physical experiment that links inflation or dark energy to the change in any photons here on Earth. I'm simply supposed to "have faith" that these things did it, somewhere in time that I can never reach, and somewhere in space that I can never reach. Talk about pure acts of faith!
If there's inflation you can easily see why the red shift (and the inflation is explained by the dark energy). I mean, you see these things in space every day. You can't ignore stuff just because you can't test it on the lab. That alone is no proof a theory is wrong. In M theory, you only actually have theory to suport you. You can't observe proof nor test it. In Big Bang you may not test it but you can observe it, see the difference?
Um, that is the basic premise.
Well it's much more complex then that. I meant litterally saying JUST that. Not any calculation, any physics, not even trying. Well, the theory is not just that, it actually tries to explain and predict and be suported by evidence. In no book about the big bang you see just that sentence "big bang did it". I was caused by the big bang but we try and explain how and why, we don't just stop at that. I hope you're understanding me here.
There is no theoretical basis for claiming that "space expands'. The only thing that 'expands" in experiments on Earth are OBJECTS. They can move and expand of course, but only objects do any expanding in spacetime. SPACE EXPANSION is a figment of mainstream imagination and it has no legitimate theoretical foundation. It only happens in one creation mythos, well two if you count YEC.
And again, you can't ignore possibilities outside the lab, you sound just like an experimental physicist!
Anyway, you say spacetime can't expand. Why can't it?
Look, it's a theory, yes, it can be wrong. I'm not saying it's 100% right, i do agree it has flaws. Just do me the favor to see that it is not faith, specially because you do have proof in favor of it and you don't have proof against it (saying that there's no lab experiments in favor of dark energy and inflation is not proof against it). You could have better proof indeed, but the theory is no proved wrong. And all you'r saying, with all your arguments is that for you it just has too much uncertainty (you don't actually have proof directly against it), you think that even though it has evidence, it's not good enough to accept inflation and dark energy and that's a valid position. Just don't say it's 100% wrong and only faith, because then you became what you're trying to fight...
