Question to atheists

[TheBear]

Hey, suzybeezy!

 

[TheBear]

to what do you attribute the initial cause of the 'expansion/inflation/bang'?

...anyone can field this

A religious explanation would be that god caused it. And I appreciate and respect your right to believe that.

That said, once things are finalized with 'god did it', we're no longer in the realm of science. No research is done, no papers published, no methodology...nothing. There's no need, because you got your final answer.

Science doesn't work that way. If it did, we would be living in a very different world today. Things like the computer you're sitting in front of, wouldn't exist. Space stations, space observatories and telescopes wouldn't exist. All modern medicine would be non-existent. We would have no clue about any illness.

Only in recent history have we researched the cosmos. For thousands of years, no one on the planet had a clue about the universe, the solar system, the earth, galaxies, black holes, solar storms, asteroids or comets. In more recent history, we have discovered an expanding universe, and that the expansion is accelerating.

And here we are today, with more knowledge of how the world works, talking about what came before the big bang - a concept non-existent a mere 100 years ago.

We're at the 'what came before the big bang?' stage. Once we discover that answer, the next question will be, what came before that...and on.

 

[Loudmouth]

unless something has happened since last week, quantum gravity and string theroy are unfalsifiable...

The problem is that we discovered string theory before we were able to build instruments that can directly test it. As far as the math goes, string theory is spot on. From first principles string theory produces Einstein's equations. That, in itself, is quite extraordinary. If Einstein had not already discovered these equations you would not be claiming that string theory is unfalsifiable.

and they are purely hypothetical... and ive never seen anyone stating that the math even works out.

Actually, the math does work out. The only problem is that there are too many solutions.

In reality, these things are no more viable than to say 'God did it' while providing no evidence...

They are much more viable. No one has ever read the Bible or used creationism to produce Einstein's equations.

i DO however believe we have evidences for a proper 'theory' that God created the heavens and the earth

That theory has already been falsified hundreds of times. You seem to forget that you are not the only one who has claimed a specific time for the return of Jesus. People have made these claims for 2,000 years and they have all been wrong.

 

[mrpiddly]

I think the better question is how did god create such round planets and such perfect universe.

Please dont say he clapped his hands once and everything just appeared or that he just thought things and they came to be.



Please, do explain how "god" did this all in 7 days. I seem to remember that you cant create or destroy matter/energy.

 

[Tynan]

Since we haven't figured it all out, we should just give up now, claim that God did it, and be done with it. It would be much easier that way.

Or how about since we haven't figured it all out, we can not sound as if we do have it all figured out. (à la Carl Sagan)

Religion claims to know how the universe was formed. Religion does not claim this idea as a theory, hypothesis or guess, but as inerrant fact.

Science does not make this claim, our observations only allow science to put forward tentative hypotheses up until the very first moments after the expansion, beyond that point science (currently) makes no claims.

You need to direct your criticism in the correct direction.

 

[SpaghettiM0nst3r]

Thank you Mincus

Now that we agree any 'theory' out there is no more scientificly viable than someone saying "God made the heavens and the earth," with no evidence offered, this could mean they are on equal ground.

I think you're allowing yourself to much here. Just because any given theory is labeled a "theory" in no way implies that it is on equal ground with any other competing theory, or on equal playing field with all theories. This oversimplification is inadmissible.

Dealing specifically with the physical evidence we have that supports the idea that the universe is expanding isn't overwhelming, but it is a growing body. A few terms you could research to help demonstrate that in fact this theory is based on observable evidence check out "Hubble's Law Expansion," "Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation," "Abundance of Primordial Elements," "Galactic Evolution and Distribution."

This Theory is not without it's shortcomings, but the point is we're looking at this theory because of the accumulation of evidence from the different sources listed (and many many more), and this seems to be a very consistent interpretation of observable facts. We are able to answer some of the Hows, some of the Whens, and many of the Whats and Whys.

The fact that we can't answer them all and we don't pretend to be able to is, I think, a huge advantage over the god hypothesis.

If you were to study Physical Cosmology you could begin to get a glimpse of our understanding of how things formed (not how god formed them) the way they did, why the structure of the known universe is as such and not any other way.

If they are on equal ground and evidences can actually be shown, this then, "God created" becomes the superior theory, even reaching the ranks of 'theory' by proper definition if it can be tested... and it can be observed.

I'm not sure what you meant here. Are you saying that you're able to test the means by which god created the universe? or do you mean that you're capable of interpreting any amount of ostensive data into an ever accumulating, never revised, sum that equals, "god created...?"

I would like to see any amount of physical evidence that actually suggests a creator. Physical evidence would not be what we currently do not know.

i DO however believe we have evidences for a proper 'theory' that God created the heavens and the earth.

I'd like you to present it.

In the efforts of continuing the thread, please present your evidence.

We're still waiting...

 

[Tynan]

We had to begin somewhere!

Does everything have to begin somewhere ?

 

[ReverendDG]

you dont seem to understand mincus

you already agreed it leaves the possibility... i go on to claim it is more scientificly sound than anything else and can prove it... IF i offer evidence on this and offer more evidence than the opposition can offer, it indeed DOES hold more merit

A remote possibility doesn't mean that its more likely, yahwah creating the universe is as likely as odin, vi, and vir doing it, or zeus.
how is it scientifically sound? what possible scientific knowledge do we gain? what you are saying isn't really scientific it sounds more like a one-upmanship thing to me, heck this post seems like one to me ie: AH-HA you admit to the possibility that god is the source!

the fact is even if you could show evidence for god, it wouldn't be useful at all, showing god created everything and HOW would maybe, but even then there is nothing to build a theory from, in fact if god did everything what would be the point of science at that point i wonder

i'd love to see one creationist show any evidence that isn't inference or from the bible though

 

[PacificPandeist]

The planets are not perfectly round.... they are rough spheriods with numerous imperfections.... the reason for the approximate roundness is that things will tend to be distributed an even distance from the center of gravity.... if a planet were shaped like a cube, for example, the "points" of the cube would be like extremely high mountains, and things would tend to roll down the sides of those mountains to fill the gravitational valley in between....

 

[z3ro]

How did an explosion ( the big bang) cause such a beautiful world and perfectly round planets.

We had to begin somewhere!

Just because no one has said it yet; Isn't it amazing how potholes are shaped perfectly for the water inside them?

 

[Wonderfulcross]

*QUOTE* First of all, the big bang was not an explosion - it was an expansion. It also did not create Earth - the big bang was 13.7 billion years ago. Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.

After the remnants of the big bang started to cool, hydrogen could form. This was about 10,000 years into the universe already. Clouds of hydrogen collapsed to form the early stars. These stars were massive, and only lived a few million years, then exploded, spreading heavier elements formed in their cores and their explosions throughout the universe. That's where we got the building blocks for this planet, which formed much later out of a similar cloud of gas and dust in the solar nebula.

Planets are round because they have enough mass to collapse gravitationally. *UNQOUTE*

Wow. That was almost somewhat maybe possibly considerabely perhaps an intelligent answer. But you left out some stuff. First of all, where's the proof? All you are doing is making a statement and saying it all confidently, as if it's already a fact. But guess what. It's still a theory. Second of all, has it occured to you that the "big bang" theory is in COMPLETE contradiction with the LAWS of probability, entropy, thermodynamics, and the conservation of angular momentum? Those are laws. And unlike your little theory, they've been PROVEN. YOU CAN"T ARGUE WITH PROOF, AND PROOF ARGUES WITH THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE, THE BIG BANG IS IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROVEN SCIENCE. Hmmm, theory or LAW? Which one should we all believe...?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wow. That was almost somewhat maybe possibly considerabely perhaps an intelligent answer. But you left out some stuff. First of all, where's the proof? All you are doing is making a statement and saying it all confidently, as if it's already a fact. But guess what. It's still a theory.

Indeed. A theory supported by the facts that we've been gathering.

Second of all, has it occured to you that the "big bang" theory is in COMPLETE contradiction with the LAWS of probability, entropy, thermodynamics, and the conservation of angular momentum? Those are laws. And unlike your little theory, they've been PROVEN. YOU CAN"T ARGUE WITH PROOF, AND PROOF ARGUES WITH THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE, THE BIG BANG IS IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROVEN SCIENCE. Hmmm, theory or LAW? Which one should we all believe...?

Well, let's see: The laws of which you speak (and really, why the need for caps?) have been in place since the beginning of the universe. And yet, here we are talking about the conditions under leading up to the beginning of the universe. See the issue here?

Less hysteria, more rationality -- I'm sure you'll see the solution.

 

[us38]

It's still a theory. Second of all, has it occured to you that the "big bang" theory is in COMPLETE contradiction with the LAWS of probability, entropy, thermodynamics, and the conservation of angular momentum? Those are laws. And unlike your little theory, they've been PROVEN. YOU CAN"T ARGUE WITH PROOF, AND PROOF ARGUES WITH THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE, THE BIG BANG IS IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROVEN SCIENCE. Hmmm, theory or LAW? Which one should we all believe...?

You clearly do not understand what "theory" and "law" mean in science. A theory in science IS NOT some random guess as is implied by the common usage of the word "theory". It is an unfalsified (but potentially falsifiable) model that explains observed phenomena and predicts what would happen in other circumstances. A law in science is not proven. It is simply a math equation that fits observed data. Laws can and often are proven to be inadequate.

 

[z3ro]

*QUOTE* First of all, the big bang was not an explosion - it was an expansion. It also did not create Earth - the big bang was 13.7 billion years ago. Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.

After the remnants of the big bang started to cool, hydrogen could form. This was about 10,000 years into the universe already. Clouds of hydrogen collapsed to form the early stars. These stars were massive, and only lived a few million years, then exploded, spreading heavier elements formed in their cores and their explosions throughout the universe. That's where we got the building blocks for this planet, which formed much later out of a similar cloud of gas and dust in the solar nebula.

Planets are round because they have enough mass to collapse gravitationally. *UNQOUTE*

Wow. That was almost somewhat maybe possibly considerabely perhaps an intelligent answer. But you left out some stuff. First of all, where's the proof? All you are doing is making a statement and saying it all confidently, as if it's already a fact. But guess what. It's still a theory. Second of all, has it occured to you that the "big bang" theory is in COMPLETE contradiction with the LAWS of probability, entropy, thermodynamics, and the conservation of angular momentum? Those are laws. And unlike your little theory, they've been PROVEN. YOU CAN"T ARGUE WITH PROOF, AND PROOF ARGUES WITH THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE, THE BIG BANG IS IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROVEN SCIENCE. Hmmm, theory or LAW? Which one should we all believe...?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...oh, you were serious. You realize that theories don't get promoted into laws, right? Because I'm sure you wouldn't take forcefully about things you don't understand. Right?

 

[Psudopod]

Wow. That was almost somewhat maybe possibly considerabely perhaps an intelligent answer. But you left out some stuff.

It's a good answer. It's lacking in detail, but I suspect the poster has better things to do that give you a degree level education in cosmology.

First of all, where's the proof? All you are doing is making a statement and saying it all confidently, as if it's already a fact.

There is no proof. Ther is only evidence, and the evidence points to the events described above. There is never any proof in science, only maths. The best science can do is build up the pile of evidnce in favour of a theory. the bigger the pile, the closer we know we are to the truth. Of course, if we find anything against the theory, the thoery will be dismissed or revised.

But guess what. It's still a theory.

And that is all it will ever be. That's the best it gets.

Second of all, has it occured to you that the "big bang" theory is in COMPLETE contradiction with the LAWS of probability, entropy, thermodynamics, and the conservation of angular momentum?

And has it ever occured to you that you may be speaking to people who have degrees in this subject and who may even work in the field? People who might actually know what they are talking about?

Please demonstrate you understand the big bang, probability, entropy and angular momentum byt showing why the first goes against the others. I think we may see some misunderstandings on your part.

Those are laws. And unlike your little theory, they've been PROVEN. YOU CAN"T ARGUE WITH PROOF, AND PROOF ARGUES WITH THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE, THE BIG BANG IS IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROVEN SCIENCE. Hmmm, theory or LAW? Which one should we all believe...?

Ah ha, here we go. No, they are not proven. They can never be proven. The merely have evidence going for them. Laws are not above theories. Laws are mathmatical statements that are included in theories. Theory is as good as it gets.

 

[Tynan]

*QUOTE* First of all, the big bang was not an explosion - it was an expansion. It also did not create Earth - the big bang was 13.7 billion years ago. Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.

After the remnants of the big bang started to cool, hydrogen could form. This was about 10,000 years into the universe already. Clouds of hydrogen collapsed to form the early stars. These stars were massive, and only lived a few million years, then exploded, spreading heavier elements formed in their cores and their explosions throughout the universe. That's where we got the building blocks for this planet, which formed much later out of a similar cloud of gas and dust in the solar nebula.

Planets are round because they have enough mass to collapse gravitationally. *UNQOUTE*

Wow. That was almost somewhat maybe possibly considerabely perhaps an intelligent answer. But you left out some stuff. First of all, where's the proof? All you are doing is making a statement and saying it all confidently, as if it's already a fact. But guess what. It's still a theory. Second of all, has it occured to you that the "big bang" theory is in COMPLETE contradiction with the LAWS of probability, entropy, thermodynamics, and the conservation of angular momentum? Those are laws. And unlike your little theory, they've been PROVEN. YOU CAN"T ARGUE WITH PROOF, AND PROOF ARGUES WITH THE BIG BANG. THEREFORE, THE BIG BANG IS IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH PROVEN SCIENCE. Hmmm, theory or LAW? Which one should we all believe...?

WOW !



Religious inerrancy: 0
Education: 1

 

[RomanSoldier]

How did an explosion ( the big bang) cause such a beautiful world and perfectly round planets.

We had to begin somewhere!

What sorts of shapes would you expect if God didn't do it?

 

[truth above all else]

First of all, the big bang was not an explosion - it was an expansion. It also did not create Earth - the big bang was 13.7 billion years ago. Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.

After the remnants of the big bang started to cool, hydrogen could form. This was about 10,000 years into the universe already. Clouds of hydrogen collapsed to form the early stars. These stars were massive, and only lived a few million years, then exploded, spreading heavier elements formed in their cores and their explosions throughout the universe. That's where we got the building blocks for this planet, which formed much later out of a similar cloud of gas and dust in the solar nebula.

Planets are round because they have enough mass to collapse gravitationally.

sounds like wishful thinking to me, the absurdly named big bang appeals to scientific reason because it is difficult for the layman to comprehend, the philosophy associated with the existance of this wonderful universe is not dissimilar to the philosophy relating to the existance of life.

 

[Valkhorn]

sounds like wishful thinking to me, the absurdly named big bang appeals to scientific reason because it is difficult for the layman to comprehend, the philosophy associated with the existance of this wonderful universe is not dissimilar to the philosophy relating to the existance of life.

So in other words if a 4th grader can't understand it it has to be wrong?

Listen, there are many very complicated things in this world that not everyone is going to understand. That doesn't make it any less true.

For someone who has 'truth above all else' as a name, it seems your truth is rather relative.

 

[Herman Hedning]

sounds like wishful thinking to me, the absurdly named big bang appeals to scientific reason because it is difficult for the layman to comprehend, the philosophy associated with the existance of this wonderful universe is not dissimilar to the philosophy relating to the existance of life.

The "Big bang" was actually named by Fred Hoyle, who was a detractor of the expanding universe theory. He called it thus exactly to scorn the theory and make it look absurd. But the name stuck, and it is universally used today.

Still doesn't make the beginning an actual bang, though.