Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Big Bang vs God

JohnDWigingham
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 2:50:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Here's my personal take on things. I do believe in the big bang, evolution and all the science based topics on how we and the universe came to be. But, this does not negate the existence of God. As an omnipotent being it is assumed that God is all knowing; the supreme intelligence. It is my belief that creation began on at a subatomic level, and grew from there. The gases in the cosmos for the big bang to the elements in the primordial soup that began life on earth were derived from this small spark.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 4:01:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Well, actually, the concept of the Big Bang seems more in line with the Biblical description, then what science and the intellectual community believed before the Big Bang was adopted by them. Which was that the universe always was. They thought it to be eternal. A eternal that made them. Now it has a start, but stay tuned, what they think you ought to believe and teach it in schools, might change to something else.
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 1:43:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The OP misunderstands the Big Bang. The Big Bang doesn't exactly detail an "explosion," nor does it talk about a "multiverse that smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying." All of that is nonsense. The Big Bang is merely a model of cosmology that details the evolution of the universe for ~13.8 billion years. In 1927, a physicist and priest called Georges Lemaitre outlined a proposal for the origin of the universe. The idea was fairly simple, but was unique -- the universe was originally in a high-density state, and then expanded.

The Big Bang model, as proposed today, says that the universe is expanding. What does "the universe expanding" mean? Space is a dimension. It's the distance between two points in various directions. That makes it a geometry, as general relativity posits. So the geometry of the distance between any two points is constantly changing without the two points themselves changing. That's what "expanding space" means. Einstein posited that the multi-directional distance was a geometry, which allows its relative expansion. If that distance is constantly expanding, then at some point the universe was at a high-density state. The expansion also entails a uniform, black-body radiation throughout the universe -- which has been observed as the cosmic microwave background radiation. The CMBR is basically thermal energy, heat, left over from the universe's high-density state. The existence of the uniform CMBR also confirms that the universe is spatially "flat," which means the expansion is technically retarding (slowing down). But something called "dark energy" manages to accelerate the expansion, as proven by Lawrence Krauss' observations.

The Big Bang doesn't exactly talk about the origins of the universe, since it's more about GR than special relativity; the latter is required to speculate about the exact "origin" prior to the high-density state. SR suggests that time itself represents a distance between two points, similar to space. Under such a worldview, the universe is expanding from the point of view of someone inside, but remains "static" from the outside. That would mean the universe didn't exactly have an "origin," and remains a tenseless, four-dimensional block. There are various alternate views as well.

Furthermore, there's actual scientific evidence that inductively suggests the Big Bang. Science is predicated upon inductive reasoning. And the CMBR and other inductive evidence suggests the Big Bang, along with the observed expansion of the universe -- the two of which being fundamental to the Big Bang's interpretation of cosmology.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:15:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 1:43:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
The OP misunderstands the Big Bang. The Big Bang doesn't exactly detail an "explosion," nor does it talk about a "multiverse that smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying." All of that is nonsense. The Big Bang is merely a model of cosmology that details the evolution of the universe for ~13.8 billion years. In 1927, a physicist and priest called Georges Lemaitre outlined a proposal for the origin of the universe. The idea was fairly simple, but was unique -- the universe was originally in a high-density state, and then expanded.

Do you realise the priest was trying to scientifically explain how God created the universe and the whole idea is based on the presumption and speculation that the universe once did not exist but was indeed created or formed in some way?
His religious beliefs affected his thinking even if subconsciously.

The Big Bang model, as proposed today, says that the universe is expanding. What does "the universe expanding" mean? Space is a dimension. It's the distance between two points in various directions. That makes it a geometry, as general relativity posits. So the geometry of the distance between any two points is constantly changing without the two points themselves changing. That's what "expanding space" means.

Space does not expand when distance between two points increases.
Only the distance between the points increases. The overall amount of space remains the same since it is simply transferred from the front of the object to the back of the object when an object is moving forward.
Think of it like two cars moving away from each other on Earth. The distance between them increases but the space around Earth in general does not increase or expand.
Expanding space is an illusion.
The distances between any moving objects in space are constantly changing since orbits are not perfectly circular around anything and no two things move at exactly the same speed.
That does not mean space is expanding or increasing.
It would be impossible to determine whether space is expanding or contracting because it has no boundaries to measure. You need boundaries to space itself if you wish to infer it is expanding or contracting. Measuring distances between objects in space is not measuring space any more than measuring distances between moving objects on Earth is measuring space. It is measuring distance.

Einstein posited that the multi-directional distance was a geometry, which allows its relative expansion. If that distance is constantly expanding, then at some point the universe was at a high-density state. The expansion also entails a uniform, black-body radiation throughout the universe -- which has been observed as the cosmic microwave background radiation. The CMBR is basically thermal energy, heat, left over from the universe's high-density state. The existence of the uniform CMBR also confirms that the universe is spatially "flat," which means the expansion is technically retarding (slowing down). But something called "dark energy" manages to accelerate the expansion, as proven by Lawrence Krauss' observations.

Believe all the science fiction you want. It needs to be believed by faith in what the science teachers teach you in the same way the religious people believe in God by faith in what their religious leaders teach them.
Both sides manage to support their own beliefs with circumstantial or contrived evidence so they can claim to have evidence.

The Big Bang doesn't exactly talk about the origins of the universe, since it's more about GR than special relativity; the latter is required to speculate about the exact "origin" prior to the high-density state. SR suggests that time itself represents a distance between two points, similar to space. Under such a worldview, the universe is expanding from the point of view of someone inside, but remains "static" from the outside. That would mean the universe didn't exactly have an "origin," and remains a tenseless, four-dimensional block. There are various alternate views as well.

Time is an illusion according to Einstein.
Human observation of space from planet Earth creates many illusions.
Things are not necessarily what they appear to be.

Furthermore, there's actual scientific evidence that inductively suggests the Big Bang. Science is predicated upon inductive reasoning. And the CMBR and other inductive evidence suggests the Big Bang, along with the observed expansion of the universe -- the two of which being fundamental to the Big Bang's interpretation of cosmology.

Humans can suggest all kinds of things about their observations but they are not necessarily correct. The problem with humans is they tend to try to connect dots which don't necessarily connect. They are all trying to prove or disprove some theory instead of understanding how it all works to create illusions.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:21:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 2:50:11 PM, Peepette wrote:
Here's my personal take on things. I do believe in the big bang, evolution and all the science based topics on how we and the universe came to be. But, this does not negate the existence of God. As an omnipotent being it is assumed that God is all knowing; the supreme intelligence. It is my belief that creation began on at a subatomic level, and grew from there. The gases in the cosmos for the big bang to the elements in the primordial soup that began life on earth were derived from this small spark.

Why do you believe that ? Because science teachers taught it to you and you don't have enough intelligence to question them so you simply take their word for it the same as they took the word of their teachers before them etc etc ?

Where does the whole idea that the universe had a beginning at all come from ? Religion and the story of creation ?

What if the universe never had a beginning but always existed as an eternal recycling process?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:37:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Both scenarios take faith to believe them.
You can choose to have faith in what the religious leaders teach or have faith in what the science nerds teach. Either way, the students need to have faith that their teachers are telling the truth or at least what they believe to be true.
However, human perception and preconceived ideas play a large part in whether people believe something is true or false.

In my mind, it is illogical that the universe once did not exist or once existed as a very tiny speck of something.

Nothing can happen unless something causes it to happen. Therefore physical objects which cause physical phenomenon to happen existed before any event in question.

The fact that you cannot have an effect without a cause suggests that something has always existed. That something must be physical in order to create physical phenomenon.

The most logical answer to "What has always existed?" must be Energy since Energy cannot be created or destroyed according to Einstein and the L.O.C.E.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If something cannot be created or destroyed, it has logically always existed and is uncreated.

E=MC2

God, in that case would merely be a personification of Energy in the same way Mother Nature is a personification of nature.
Carcharus
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:34:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
1. There is strong inductive evidence for the Big Bang, as opposed to God.

2. I agree with tejretics' post that you are misinterpreting the universe. The Big Bang doesn't talk about an 'explosion that created the universe'. It talks about the expansion of space, general relativity, and the homogeneity of the universe. The Big Bang does postulate that the universe was once in a 'high-density state', and some scientists do conclude that it was in a state of gravitational singularity, i.e., in a state with 'infinite density' and 'zero volume' per calculations on general relativity. I think simultaneous causation - whatever its origin (it could even be an intelligent entity) - is a good explanation for the causality of the universe.[http://infidels.org...]

Regardless, cosmological theories for the origin of the universe do resemble God - except the lack of empirical evidence for the latter.

Footnote

I am not an atheist - this post has indications that might suggest so for some, so I clarify that I'm not an atheist.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:40:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 5:21:39 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/16/2016 2:50:11 PM, Peepette wrote:
Here's my personal take on things. I do believe in the big bang, evolution and all the science based topics on how we and the universe came to be. But, this does not negate the existence of God. As an omnipotent being it is assumed that God is all knowing; the supreme intelligence. It is my belief that creation began on at a subatomic level, and grew from there. The gases in the cosmos for the big bang to the elements in the primordial soup that began life on earth were derived from this small spark.

Why do you believe that ? Because science teachers taught it to you and you don't have enough intelligence to question them so you simply take their word for it the same as they took the word of their teachers before them etc etc ?

Where does the whole idea that the universe had a beginning at all come from ? Religion and the story of creation ?

What if the universe never had a beginning but always existed as an eternal recycling process?

Theories in science change over time as methods for observation and testing progresses. It gets us closer to better understandings of the world and universe. Just a few decades ago it was thought that Neanderthals were stupid lumbering creatures who went around bopping individuals over the head with clubs; that premise has been proved to be incorrect. Maybe the universe never had a beginning. In time, this might be theorized that this is the case. I am not intellectually stymied with a belief in an omnipotent being. I do not ascribe to any organized religion due to its narrow confines that don"t include scientific explanations or discoveries. I don't buy into any religious genesis story telling. The subatomic spark theory is just that, a personal theory; a thinking there was an impetus that something came from nothing at some point in time. As science advances this might be proven incorrect. I"m certainly fine with that and will grow intellectually by it
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:44:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 5:37:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Both scenarios take faith to believe them.
You can choose to have faith in what the religious leaders teach or have faith in what the science nerds teach. Either way, the students need to have faith that their teachers are telling the truth or at least what they believe to be true.
However, human perception and preconceived ideas play a large part in whether people believe something is true or false.

In my mind, it is illogical that the universe once did not exist or once existed as a very tiny speck of something.

Nothing can happen unless something causes it to happen. Therefore physical objects which cause physical phenomenon to happen existed before any event in question.

The fact that you cannot have an effect without a cause suggests that something has always existed. That something must be physical in order to create physical phenomenon.

The most logical answer to "What has always existed?" must be Energy since Energy cannot be created or destroyed according to Einstein and the L.O.C.E.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If something cannot be created or destroyed, it has logically always existed and is uncreated.

E=MC2


God, in that case would merely be a personification of Energy in the same way Mother Nature is a personification of nature.

Well said.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 10:43:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 5:40:55 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 1/18/2016 5:21:39 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/16/2016 2:50:11 PM, Peepette wrote:
Here's my personal take on things. I do believe in the big bang, evolution and all the science based topics on how we and the universe came to be. But, this does not negate the existence of God. As an omnipotent being it is assumed that God is all knowing; the supreme intelligence. It is my belief that creation began on at a subatomic level, and grew from there. The gases in the cosmos for the big bang to the elements in the primordial soup that began life on earth were derived from this small spark.

Why do you believe that ? Because science teachers taught it to you and you don't have enough intelligence to question them so you simply take their word for it the same as they took the word of their teachers before them etc etc ?

Where does the whole idea that the universe had a beginning at all come from ? Religion and the story of creation ?

What if the universe never had a beginning but always existed as an eternal recycling process?


Theories in science change over time as methods for observation and testing progresses. It gets us closer to better understandings of the world and universe. Just a few decades ago it was thought that Neanderthals were stupid lumbering creatures who went around bopping individuals over the head with clubs; that premise has been proved to be incorrect. Maybe the universe never had a beginning. In time, this might be theorized that this is the case. I am not intellectually stymied with a belief in an omnipotent being. I do not ascribe to any organized religion due to its narrow confines that don"t include scientific explanations or discoveries. I don't buy into any religious genesis story telling. The subatomic spark theory is just that, a personal theory; a thinking there was an impetus that something came from nothing at some point in time. As science advances this might be proven incorrect. I"m certainly fine with that and will grow intellectually by it

Either the universe came from nothing or it has always existed in a constantly moving and changing form. There is no other choice. Since it is impossible for something to come from nothing, the only other logical conclusion is that the universe has always exited in some form and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, all the energy which is currently in the universe must have always existed and has not increased or decreased at all at any point in time. Also time is merely just an illusion so claiming the universe was smaller in the past is sheer speculation about an illusory reality.

http://everythingforever.com...

An eternally recycling universe makes far more sense to me than any other theory.
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:25:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

According to me, The Big-Bang is an evidence for God's being.
This shows that the universe is not infinite, there is a start.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:42:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 5:44:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 1/18/2016 5:37:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Both scenarios take faith to believe them.
You can choose to have faith in what the religious leaders teach or have faith in what the science nerds teach. Either way, the students need to have faith that their teachers are telling the truth or at least what they believe to be true.
However, human perception and preconceived ideas play a large part in whether people believe something is true or false.

In my mind, it is illogical that the universe once did not exist or once existed as a very tiny speck of something.

Nothing can happen unless something causes it to happen. Therefore physical objects which cause physical phenomenon to happen existed before any event in question.

The fact that you cannot have an effect without a cause suggests that something has always existed. That something must be physical in order to create physical phenomenon.

The most logical answer to "What has always existed?" must be Energy since Energy cannot be created or destroyed according to Einstein and the L.O.C.E.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If something cannot be created or destroyed, it has logically always existed and is uncreated.

E=MC2


God, in that case would merely be a personification of Energy in the same way Mother Nature is a personification of nature.

Well said.
It's only well said if you assume humans are authorities on what can be created or destroyed. I would love someone to prove we are, as there isn't any scientific basis for the assertion. The proper assertion is humans cannot ,or as of yet have not found a way , to destroy energy. That doesn't mean it can't be done.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 10:09:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 1:43:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
The OP misunderstands the Big Bang. The Big Bang doesn't exactly detail an "explosion," nor does it talk about a "multiverse that smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying." All of that is nonsense. The Big Bang is merely a model of cosmology that details the evolution of the universe for ~13.8 billion years. In 1927, a physicist and priest called Georges Lemaitre outlined a proposal for the origin of the universe. The idea was fairly simple, but was unique -- the universe was originally in a high-density state, and then expanded.
It doesn't address multi verse because the people had brains. Btw, expanded in space is explosion.
The Big Bang model, as proposed today, says that the universe is expanding. What does "the universe expanding" mean? Space is a dimension. It's the distance between two points in various directions. That makes it a geometry, as general relativity posits. So the geometry of the distance between any two points is constantly changing without the two points themselves changing. That's what "expanding space" means. Einstein posited that the multi-directional distance was a geometry, which allows its relative expansion. If that distance is constantly expanding, then at some point the universe was at a high-density state. The expansion also entails a uniform, black-body radiation throughout the universe -- which has been observed as the cosmic microwave background radiation. The CMBR is basically thermal energy, heat, left over from the universe's high-density state. The existence of the uniform CMBR also confirms that the universe is spatially "flat," which means the expansion is technically retarding (slowing down). But something called "dark energy" manages to accelerate the expansion, as proven by Lawrence Krauss' observations.
Bible says the universe is expanding.
Space is a dimension? Lol, prove it, btw, no it isn't. Do You have anything other than these bold face lies?
The Big Bang doesn't exactly talk about the origins of the universe, since it's more about GR than special relativity; the latter is required to speculate about the exact "origin" prior to the high-density state. SR suggests that time itself represents a distance between two points, similar to space. Under such a worldview, the universe is expanding from the point of view of someone inside, but remains "static" from the outside. That would mean the universe didn't exactly have an "origin," and remains a tenseless, four-dimensional block. There are various alternate views as well.
The only "time is a distance between 2 points" comment that has actual meaning would be in reference to the shadow cast by a sundial moving in between 2 man-made points that have been put around the outside of the dial itself. Hint, time exists in consciousness. If you assert time didn't begin, therefore is eternal , then you merely are copying creationists because the eternal consciousness would be God.
Remains static from the outside, lmao. Where do you get this fairytale nonsense? Are you competing with creationists for most outrageous way of copying them but pretending you're not?
Tenseless equals illogical nonsense, that would be presently illogical, illogical in the future and just plain unreasonable for all of humanities existence. Trust me on this one, it's a present tense joke. Meaning I told it now, I mean then, oops, in the past But present although I'm too slow of a typist for it to be this moment. (Thats a joke)
Furthermore, there's actual scientific evidence that inductively suggests the Big Bang. Science is predicated upon inductive reasoning. And the CMBR and other inductive evidence suggests the Big Bang, along with the observed expansion of the universe -- the two of which being fundamental to the Big Bang's interpretation of cosmology.
Inductive reasoning is merely believing something is true. What's your point besides you're calling science a belief? Don't answer. I kid....
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:23:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

The Big Bang pretty much negates Gods existence. Since before we had the Big Bang we had quantum fluctuations (the result of stripping something of it's matter, gravity, time, energy etc.) Since the universe was supposedly made over a period of time (usually 7 days). God cannot exist (at least some of the major and most believed in Gods) if the Big bang happened since before the big bang there was no time and the most commonly believed in Gods required time to create the universe.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 8:38:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Define God, then we can talk about whether belief in the big bang is at all similar.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 2:02:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

JohnD, excellent Q and one atheists avoid like the plague since their answer, no matter what it is, will contract the laws of science or not be scientific at all. For example, if they say the universe is infinitely old, they violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If they say they universe popped up out of nothing, they violate the 1st Law of Theromdynamics. Either way, they have stopped doing science the moment they start talking about it because nothing they claim is observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:22:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"Nuttin done it vs. "Somethin done it". Hmmm....
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:23:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

It's not. Atheists are making it up as they go along. Look up the "walking whale".
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:27:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Atheist Science

"July 1895, a party of miners working near Bridal Veil Falls, California, found the tomb of woman whose skeletal remains were six-feet-eight inches in length. The miners had found the Amazon behind a wall of rock that had been shaped and fitted together with an apparent knowledge of masonry. When they had broken through the wall, they hoped that they had stumbled upon some ancient treasure trove. Instead of gold or jewels, the miners remains of a woman whose skeletal frame measured six-feet-eight inches in height. The mysterious madonna had been wrapped in animal skins and covered with a fine gray powder. She clutched the remains of a child to her breast.

Scientists in Los Angeles agreed that the mummy was that of a woman from a race that had flourished on the continent long before any of the Native American tribes had become dominant. Their learned consensus was that she would have stood over seven feet tall in life, thereby making the males of her kind at least eight feet tall."

www.bradandsherry.com/ancientrabtexts.htm

"What you have to remember is that Egypt has monuments such as the Sphinx that are 30, 000 years old."

(30,000 eh?)

www.city-data.com/forum/history/554353-what-came-before-ancient-egypt-babylon.html

Ambulocetus and Rotocetus

http://www.amnh.org...

The Science of Ambulocetus and Rotocetus "The walking whale"

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:38:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
If you measure the light from the stars and galaxies, it appears they are moving away from each other. Working backwards, 13.8 billion years ago everything would have been concentrated at a single point.

If everything was concentrated at a single point all that time ago and expanded from then till now, then the ratio of ydrogen, helium and lithium would be what we observe it to be, and the cosmos would be filled with radiation at 2.7K = and it is.

The big bang (or something very, very like it) almost certainly happened. Quite how it happened, or what happened before the big bang is not clear - yet. But chances are some PhD will work it out soon enough. Now knowing is not unscientific - indeed having certain knowledge is the mark of dogmatic religion religion, and has no place in science.

I don't know any good reason to believe in gods.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:42:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
In the walking whale video we hear 2 things.

1)We rarely EVER find a transition fossil or skeleton.

2)This was one of those "rare transition fossils" that we "rarely ever come across.

3)He guessed that it had a flanked tail(like a whale) and he guessed about the flippers(once he knew he was caught). Then it turned out it had arms and hands. That was your transitionskeleton to prove the "evolution of whales".
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:45:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:38:41 PM, keithprosser wrote:
If you measure the light from the stars and galaxies, it appears they are moving away from each other. Working backwards, 13.8 billion years ago everything would have been concentrated at a single point.

If everything was concentrated at a single point all that time ago and expanded from then till now, then the ratio of ydrogen, helium and lithium would be what we observe it to be, and the cosmos would be filled with radiation at 2.7K = and it is.

The big bang (or something very, very like it) almost certainly happened. Quite how it happened, or what happened before the big bang is not clear - yet. But chances are some PhD will work it out soon enough. Now knowing is not unscientific - indeed having certain knowledge is the mark of dogmatic religion religion, and has no place in science.

I don't know any good reason to believe in gods.

Jesus walked the Earth and the prophecies are coming true. We didn't imagine him up.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 7:31:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:38:41 PM, keithprosser wrote:
If you measure the light from the stars and galaxies, it appears they are moving away from each other. Working backwards, 13.8 billion years ago everything would have been concentrated at a single point.
This is circular reasoning Not science.
Varying red shifts of sister stars were first seen by Hubbles assistant. This calls into question the estimates of the universe' age and how it is being determined.
If everything was concentrated at a single point all that time ago and expanded from then till now, then the ratio of ydrogen, helium and lithium would be what we observe it to be, and the cosmos would be filled with radiation at 2.7K = and it is.
Once again circular reasoning.
The big bang (or something very, very like it) almost certainly happened. Quite how it happened, or what happened before the big bang is not clear - yet. But chances are some PhD will work it out soon enough. Now knowing is not unscientific - indeed having certain knowledge is the mark of dogmatic religion religion, and has no place in science.
See, this why your above ideas are a result of circular reasoning. Assume big bang then calculate elements and radiation to claim that it supports the big bang? Scientific proof of big bang isn't science, at all.
I don't know any good reason to believe in gods.
Well if you don't know it then it must not exist, is that about right?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 2:25:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 5:42:24 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/18/2016 5:44:37 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 1/18/2016 5:37:53 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Both scenarios take faith to believe them.
You can choose to have faith in what the religious leaders teach or have faith in what the science nerds teach. Either way, the students need to have faith that their teachers are telling the truth or at least what they believe to be true.
However, human perception and preconceived ideas play a large part in whether people believe something is true or false.

In my mind, it is illogical that the universe once did not exist or once existed as a very tiny speck of something.

Nothing can happen unless something causes it to happen. Therefore physical objects which cause physical phenomenon to happen existed before any event in question.

The fact that you cannot have an effect without a cause suggests that something has always existed. That something must be physical in order to create physical phenomenon.

The most logical answer to "What has always existed?" must be Energy since Energy cannot be created or destroyed according to Einstein and the L.O.C.E.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

If something cannot be created or destroyed, it has logically always existed and is uncreated.

E=MC2


God, in that case would merely be a personification of Energy in the same way Mother Nature is a personification of nature.

Well said.
It's only well said if you assume humans are authorities on what can be created or destroyed. I would love someone to prove we are, as there isn't any scientific basis for the assertion. The proper assertion is humans cannot ,or as of yet have not found a way , to destroy energy. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

That also means there is literally no reason to believe otherwise.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2016 8:57:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
See, this why your above ideas are a result of circular reasoning. Assume big bang then calculate elements and radiation to claim that it supports the big bang? Scientific proof of big bang isn't science, at all.

One can take a horse to water....

I don't know if its circular or not.... the logical sequence is

a) it is observed that the galaxies are moving away from each other.
b) someone works out that if such motion has always been happening, then everything was concentrated at a point 13. million years ago.
c)Some one else calculates that if everything was concentrated at a point 13.8 million years ago, then it must have been hot and dense. which means that - if the idea of a original point origin is true - then we shoud see a particalar ratio of light elements and a particualr sort of background radiation.

d)Someone goes out and checks. They found the ligt-element ratio and radiation is indeed as calculated on the basis of a hot, dense origin of the universe 133.8 million years ago.

Does that prove the big bang is true? It depends on what you mean by 'prove'. It is patently obvious that (in theory) there might be other scenarios that produce the same red shift of galaxies, the same ratio of light elements and the same CMB as is observed - but (AFAIK) no one has come up with a better one that the big bang. An alternative scenario isn't easy to come up with, because any alternative has to explain all we have observed so far, and have no extra consequences that don't match what is observed.

It's not circular to confirm something by checking theoretical consequences against observation, because if the theory had been wrong checking it would have revealed a problem.

The best theory we have today if that the universe stared from a hot, dense point 13.8 billion years ago. That leaves some intriguing questions - such as what was going on before then - and I feel confident in saying that no-one is too sure about the answer to that! But science is always a work-in-progress where each answer leads only to more questions - which is how some of us like it!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 9:20:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Before the existence of the universe there were to laws of nature, because there were no laws no nothing, literally anything could happen, so the universe burst into existence because there were no laws preventing it from happening. For some people its a difficult concept to wrap your head around.
Meh!
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 10:15:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 9:20:56 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Before the existence of the universe there were to laws of nature, because there were no laws no nothing, literally anything could happen, so the universe burst into existence because there were no laws preventing it from happening. For some people its a difficult concept to wrap your head around.
You obviously have difficult wrapping your brain around the most simplistic use of logic I could personally reference.
"No laws of nature"
"Burst into existence"
When someone so blatantly contradicts themselves within 3 sentences you have to wonder what exactly this person cannot see,.....Let me know when you figure out that using the word burst is a cowardly way of you attempting to be vague enough, in your minds own warped idea of logic, to seemingly ignore the fact that a burst is an explosion which is a law of nature.
Is this really what you think "other people" have a hard time wrapping their heads around?
This is where you make a special pleading fallacy and claim we have to use a word to describe something happening to nothing, because you know, a thing can happen to a no "thing". Oh wait. If there is no thing than there can't be a happening to the "no thing".
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 8:56:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

No scientist is asking anyone to believe that multiverse smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying, so how believable it is doesn't really enter into.

Let's stick with what scientists would like people to believe, which is that 13.8 billion years ago the universe was concentrated at a hot,dense point which expanded to produce the vast cosmos we see today.

Why believe that? The reason is that - when expressed in precise mathematical terms there are definite consequences of that ancient scenario that should be observable today - and they are.

I am not sure it can be said that the consequences of 'god did it' match up what we can observe today.

Which is my answer to the question 'How is this more believable than God?'.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 9:51:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 10:15:32 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/30/2016 9:20:56 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 1/16/2016 1:58:40 PM, JohnDWigingham wrote:
Isn't believing in the Big Bang pretty much the same idea as believing in God? I'm not saying the Big Bang's impossible, but how did the matter come to exist in the first place? Why did it explode? Apparently a supposed multi-verse we have no proof of just smashed into our galaxy and sent everything flying? How is this more believable than God?

Before the existence of the universe there were to laws of nature, because there were no laws no nothing, literally anything could happen, so the universe burst into existence because there were no laws preventing it from happening. For some people its a difficult concept to wrap your head around.
You obviously have difficult wrapping your brain around the most simplistic use of logic I could personally reference.
"No laws of nature"
"Burst into existence"
When someone so blatantly contradicts themselves within 3 sentences you have to wonder what exactly this person cannot see,.....Let me know when you figure out that using the word burst is a cowardly way of you attempting to be vague enough, in your minds own warped idea of logic, to seemingly ignore the fact that a burst is an explosion which is a law of nature.
Is this really what you think "other people" have a hard time wrapping their heads around?
This is where you make a special pleading fallacy and claim we have to use a word to describe something happening to nothing, because you know, a thing can happen to a no "thing". Oh wait. If there is no thing than there can't be a happening to the "no thing".

Just think carefully. What stops universes from entering existence now? Our various laws of nature/existence. Before the universe, none of these laws existed (Still understanding?), therefore the universe could just happen for no reason at all, simply because there were no laws preventing it from happening.

Is this the bit where you fail to understand and reply with a snarky remark?
Meh!