Big Bang

RevJP · Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:27 am Post subject:

I'm wondering.....

God created the heavens and the earth... that is accepted. Is it reasonable to assume then that NO evidence of His act of creation would exist? Are we to assume then, given our understanding of the world (which he created), and the fact that nothing happens in this world except through a process, that God would not have used a process to create?

I'm thinking of a pyramid. If we build one would we not cut and place block of stone atop block of stone, over and over again until completion? If God spoke one into existence, would not the same process have occurred but in the blink of an eye? If we were to dismantle it would it not come down the same?

Just wondering....

The Barbarian · Not So Newbie Joined: 13 Oct 2003 Posts: 7

After all, God tells us in Genesis that the earth and waters brought forth life, as He intended.

Hence, natruralistic origin of life is not only reasonable, but scriptural.

metothezero · Tadpole Joined: 28 Aug 2003 Posts: 28

The Barbarian · Not So Newbie Joined: 13 Oct 2003 Posts: 7

Even better, when scientists realized that the evidence (and there's a lot more than the fact the universe is expanding) pointed to the Big Bang, they also realized that it must have left a signature in a burst of radiation.

And eventually, they found it. The microwave background, isotropic wherever you look, and the right temperature precisely.

Whan a theory makes useful predictions, it's a good sign.

Jubilee · Not So Newbie Joined: 28 Nov 2003 Posts: 9

I am a scientist in training, and the argument about the big bang is silly. Physicists have already proven that the big bang did not occur, it is just the simplest way of looking at in now. This does not prove that G_D created the universe, just that we don' t have the scientific proof as to what happened billions of years ago.

just wondering, if you believe g-d made the universe out of nothing, why did he include fossils of early man , and dinosaurs?

thanks for any comments, I am open to any thought out point of views, but I work from reason more than faith.
Shocked

Van · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:38 pm Post subject:

Jubilee, I am curious about someone who works from reason rather than faith. Is a working hypothesis representitive of faith or reason? Why, when you do your best to connect the dots based on limited knowledge do you classify it as reason, but when I do it, you disparage it as mere faith, a close cousin to superstition.

The Big Bang has not been proven wrong as far as I know. Perhaps you could provide a link to a paper that asserts this position? Atheist do not accept it because it matches the Bible's assertion that our universe and time had a beginning. They do not like it because it requires a transcendent cause, which of course could be the God of the Bible. YEC do not like it because it accepts the evidence from science that the universe is billions of years old.

Jubilee · Not So Newbie Joined: 28 Nov 2003 Posts: 9

First of all, working on reason does not imply that I have no faith. I believe in many things that can not be proven with a formula, or viewed through a microscope. I however would not expect anyone else to believe them, unless they have had the exact same experiences I have.
Those thoughts that come into direct conflict with fact, reason wins out. Reason is thought based on fact, faith is thought in the absence of fact. (My definition may not exactly be Webster’s).
And although atheist are considered a religion (pretty much the same way that black is considered a colour) there is no central dogma, they only believe there is no God. And physics in general goes on this theory, electrons and the rest of the subatomic particles, although beyond my scope of reasoning, are the foundation of the beginning, matter begins with energy, and time is created by man.
And if the bible allows such gross interpretation as to translate 7 days into billions of years, than it is left to the interpretation of man and every passage can say anything you want it to, much like a horoscope.
I live my life according to reason because too many wars and prejudices have been backed up by a book that teaches love.
Reason can be proven wrong and modified accordingly; faith is in essence passionate ignorance.
I will have to get back to you on the Big Bang article.

Van · Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:41 pm Post subject:

Well you have certainly given me enough for now Wink

Time was not invented by man. Time started at the Big Bang.
Man has been around for less than 5 billion years, perhaps as little as 50,000 years. So if the Universe is 15 billion years old, then time was ticking away for more than 10 billion years before mankind "invented" time. Your statement that man invented time is based on our understanding of the facts, your reasoning ability and I have faith that your statement is either wrong or misleading.

Atheists alway claim that a belief in the non-existence of God is based on reason, and the belief in the existence of God is based on faith. However, the Big Bang requires a transcendent cause, so belief in a transcendent cause for the universe is based on reason and a non-belief in the transcendent cause is based on faith. I could go on but perhaps you get the point - your ground is just as shaky as my ground.

If the creation days in Genesis one are indeterminate periods of time, which is one of the meanings of the word translated "day" then this is not any far-out twisting of scripture.

I live my life according to reason because the bible is the cause of war - surly you jest. You live your life by what you call reason but is based on faith, just like everybody else. When you posted that you would get back to me, that was faith speaking, an opinion concerning future events not fully under your control.

shoshin · Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:35 pm Post subject:

"Time was not invented by man. Time started at the Big Bang."
Time does not exist. Time itself is an invention of man. Time is a unit of measurement created by man. Science works on experience. We experience time, we needed something to organize ourselves. Time is one invention we created to do this.

"Time was ticking away for more than 10 billion years before mankind "invented" time"
We did not invent time in the same way that we invented the telephone or the electric toothbrush. We invented it the same way we invented a "pound" or a "meter." The idea of length still applied 10 billion years ago, but there was nothing to measure it.

"Atheists alway claim"
Okay, first of all, the ONLY things that Athiests ALWAYS claim, is what MAKES THEM ATHIEST - the lack of belief in a deity. Trying to get two athiests to agree on anything else has the same odds as getting anyone else to agree...
Athiesm is a label, not a belief structure.

"your ground is just as shaky as my ground"
Science is not made out to be this infallible being of super-cosmic judgement. They have proven, disproven, and reproven so many things, its kind of ridiculous. But what makes science credible, is that ability to SHOW thing, time and time again, in many different experiments.
If I drop a rock in New York or in Hong Kong - it drops to the ground. That makes me think that gravity exists.
If I slam on the brakes in a car or on a bike - I dont stop instantly - this makes me believe in inertia.
However, I dont know anyone who can walk on water, or turn water into wine, or multiply food without a 2-for-1 deal.

"You live your life by what you call reason but is based on faith, just like everybody else"
Faith that I will see tommorow and Faith in a non-corporeal omnipotent being are separate things. It is like saying all happy people are homosexual because "gay" can mean either.
Faith to see tommorow is based more on experience - I have seen my tommorow for quite a few years now... The odds that I will see this tommorow is quite good. Reason is about statistics.
Faith in a being that has no proof behind it other than a book, and people who stand behind that book, is a much different form of faith.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying you are right or wrong, because I believe in freedom of belief. One cannot prove or disprove christianity, or any other religion - or it would have been done many times over, and this discussion would not be taking place. But to twist words around to say that faith in tommorow equates a faith with no backing - that is not valid.[/quote]

Van · Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:13 pm Post subject:

Sir, you seem to believe you get to define all the terms in the discussion. Faith in the future is not faith, but faith in God is faith.
Blather. We live our lives by uncertain knowledge, and whether we call it faith or connecting the dots or a working hypothesis, it is the same thing, and it is faith.

Two, the cult of atheism churns out cookie cutter indivduals that make all the same arguments. At least three separate individuals have said "atheists do not agree on anything except there is no God". Why do they make the same arguements found of the atheist websites? Because they agree!

Man did not invent time. It is silly to say man must be aware of time for time to exist. This says there is no objective reality. But try this mind experiment. Stand on the tracks of an oncoming train and say the train does not exist because I do not believe it exists.
You will not sustain that argument.

Your ground is just as shaky as mind. You have limited knowledge and you have formed your beliefs. I have limited knowledge and I have formed my beliefs. To not concede this point is to say "my daddy is bigger than your daddy". It is an infantile attempt to frame the discussion according to your presuppositions. Blather.

Your next argument, your risk assessment is solid, mine is silly is yet another groundless assertion that ignores the facts. The Big Bang theory says the universe had a transcendant cause. This could be the God of the Bible. We do not know! To assert that you know it is not is based on pure speculation, or in otherwords you are taking an unnecessary risk of error. Therefore, your risk assessments are just like mine.

Faith that your vision of the future will not be disrupted by the unexpected is blind faith. You do not have blind faith. Your idea is that if something does not come up that you do not know about, you will do this or that. No different that when I say, God willing, I will do this or that. Changing the names does not change the reality.

Final thought, liberty is all about the right to make our own risk assessments. The liberty you seek to destroy might be your own.

RevJP · Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:22 am Post subject:

pardon the interruption, I don't want to detract from Van's solid arguments, but I wanted to point out that his reference to time is entirely correct.

Time exists with or without man. Man did not invent time, he has merely defined it. Man invented clocks, sundials, calendars, etc. to measure time according to his definition, much the same way he invented jars and bottles to hold and measure water - we did not invent water, we just invented ways to hold and measure it.

shoshin · Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:31 pm Post subject:

"Sir, you seem to believe you get to define all the terms in the discussion"
Is there an echo in here?
WE ALL DO.
You argue time, I argue time... we get to define what time means to us...
This is what we argue. I cannot argue for what time means to you, you cannot argue for what time means to me - we have no idea.
This whole thing is like the "If a tree falls in the forest debate"
But even worse... because a tree has gravity, mass, intertia, and sound waves to prove itself.
Time has only itself.

"We live our lives by uncertain knowledge"
Uncertain knowledge and illogical knowledge are two separate things.

" the cult of atheism churns out cookie cutter indivduals that make all the same arguments"
Wow... thats so different from every other religious persuasion its scary isnt it?

"At least three separate individuals..."
Wow? There are only 3 athiests? What about my 10+ athiest friends? Do they have to dual for the title.. or how does one earn that exactly?

"Stand on the tracks of an oncoming train and say the train does not exist because I do not believe it exists"
I can prove a train. A train has mass, it caries inertia, it reflects light, it moves the air around it... its is quite real.
Time affects nothing but itself...
I know a few mathemeticians who say that "Math is like time. It is only a theory." A good theory, I agree... but a theory nonetheless...
We invented math. Without math, 3 apples + 3 apples would still equal 6 (given base 7 math or higher), but the equation would not exist. Math is a theory. So is time.
We needed math to count.. to have something to grasp...
Time is the same (imho).

"You have limited knowledge and you have formed your beliefs"
It this server in a cave? There is DEFINITELY an echo in here...
WE ALL HAVE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE.
We choose to get this limited knowledge from different sources.
I choose to get mine from experience, from my senses...
You choose to let a book tell you what to believe...
Maybe you were given proof or experiences I was not...
To each their own...

"This could be the God of the Bible. We do not know!"
In saying this, I can agree.
However, is could also be the greek gods, the pagan gods, allah, a giant crow... really.. it could be anything.. they all have the same logic behind them. They all start from ground zero for proof, and try to work their way up using themselves as proof...

Probability is not universal.
If you give me $15,000, I will roll a 1,000,000 sided die... if it lands on 254,834, I will give you $15,004. Good deal eh?

My idea of "if something does not happen" (ie. me dying) is based on years of direct experience.
I am still alive.
My nonbeleif in a deity is based on years of direct inexperience.
When I was a christian - I saw no proof.
I am not a christian - I still see no proof.
So, do a select few get the proof? Or do you have no backing but a book, and your belief on that book?

And I seek to take no ones liberty.
I ask now, the same questions I asked myself.
I would never take away anyones ability to ask a quesiton.
I am a firm believer in what Voltaire once said:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defened, to the death, your right to say it."

If I was given proof that god existed today, I would believe. I would not, however, after seeing/experiencing that proof, expect anyone else who did not experience to believe. I may WANT them too. But I would be unsure of anyone who took my word over something so dire, with no proof whatsoever.

Van · Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:56 pm Post subject:

I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you believe there is not objective reality that we can share, then discussion becomes he said, she said pointlessness.

Your ten atheists friends... birds of a feather flock together.

I said we live our lives by uncertain knowledge, indicating we all live by faith, no matter what we call it. You again try to define uncertain knowledge as illogical knowledge and associate it with me. Blather.

As I said at the outset, since you are committed to your presuppositions, and silly arguments - man invented time means only that man measures time - I see no reason to continue the discussion.

RevJP · Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:44 pm Post subject:

One could not discuss philosophy, logic, theology, or any other science or esoteric issue with this individual becasue this individual seems to wish and wash at every turn. There has to be a basis for agreement somewhere in order for debate or discussion to proceed intelligently, refusal to establish that basis even for discussion purposes is cowardly.

shoshin · Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:57 pm Post subject:

Who says there is no objective reality?
Time is but one thing to discuss...
My point is - you say I define what the discussion means.
No.. I define what the discussion means to me - thats what a debate IS.
If there was some definitive answer to any of this, we would not be having this conversation - correct?
Do you want to argue about 1+1=2?
Neither do I.
Time itself is still argued about by the scientific community...
as is math...
I myself admitted that the time conversation was alike to the "tree falling in a forest debate" - the famous debate which no one can win. There is no RIGHT answer.

"Your ten atheists friends... birds of a feather flock together"
Meaning...?
I'm not an athiest... I'm an agnostic buddhist...
And I have christian friends, catholic friends, jewish, pagan, athiest, agnostic, muslim... you name it.
And not only that - my ten athiest friends disagree as often as everyone else.

Uncertain knowledge - something we believe, but cannot be 100% sure of.

Illogical knowledge - knowledge without logic.

Logic - noun - a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.

Logic needs proof. Logic is in the realm of science.

Faith - noun - (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Faith does not need proof. Faith is in the realm of religion.

I am not saying you are stupid for believing in God. I do not believe such a thing. You believe you are doing what is best for your eternal being - if I believed in God, I would of course be doing the same thing.

I said that time exists like math exists - it still does what we define it to do. There are many forces which we do not have names or sciences for, which we do not yet acknowledge their existance. This does not mean they do not exist. It simply means they are not real.

However, since I feel I've explained the same thing a few times now... and you seem to think that is me dodging the issue...
I'll agree that we should drop this...
I'll stick to debating time, and trees falling in forests with science geeks and philosophers...