Jump to content


Photo

Beginning Of The Universe/big Bang Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#41 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 June 2005 - 02:46 PM

It is a belief, because you dont quite know all of the evidence of what was before the big bang and how it happened, therefore you are putting a lot of faith in the idea. I would even call that a religon because it requires faith.....

View Post


Modulus will not be replying (banned). However to dispel your misconception, there is faith in the religious sense and faith in the ‘trust’ sense. Not the same at all.

#42 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2005 - 02:43 AM

Modulus will not be replying (banned).  However to dispel your misconception, there is faith in the religious sense and faith in the ‘trust’ sense.  Not the same at all.


Faith is a sytem of perception. Its a transitive verb which means it requires an object to complete its meaning. I have a faith in Jesus Christ to be able to provide salvation and eternal life for my soul, it means that I "trust" the testimony of the Bible and God the Holy Spirit that the Gosple is the absolute truth. The Lord Jesus Christ is the object of my faith.

If you have faith in science, it means that you trust that man has the ability to figure out what happened in the past based on extrapolation and guess work from observations in the present. Man is the object of your faith.

There is no real difference in the application of the verb, only the sources of information. In the former, the information is divine, and the later its human.

It absolutely requires faith to believe scientific postulations about the past since they are not in the realm of rationale or emperical observation.

Terry

#43 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 June 2005 - 02:23 PM

Faith is a sytem of perception.  Its a transitive verb which means it requires an object to complete its meaning.  I have a faith in Jesus Christ to be able to provide salvation and eternal life for my soul, it means that I "trust" the testimony of the Bible and God the Holy Spirit that the Gosple is the absolute truth.  The Lord Jesus Christ is the object of my faith.

If you have faith in science, it means that you trust that man has the ability to figure out what happened in the past based on extrapolation and guess work from observations in the present.  Man is the object of your faith.

There is no real difference in the application of the verb, only the sources of information.  In the former, the information is divine, and the later its human.

It absolutely requires faith to believe scientific postulations about the past since they are not in the realm of rationale or emperical observation.

Terry

View Post



NO. Re faith in science - within that ‘faith’ is the knowledge that mans work can be in error and by default correctable. I need not commit. There is no worship. You may liken it to having faith in the television working when you apply power, it is no deeper than that. That is the biggest difference to a religious Faith with absolutes of right and wrong.

#44 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:39 PM

"within that ‘faith’ is the knowledge that mans work can be in error and by default correctable. I need not commit. There is no worship. You may liken it to having faith in the television working when you apply power, it is no deeper than that. That is the biggest difference to a religious Faith with absolutes of right and wrong."

Within that faith which you put into science, comes certain things required of it. The requirements of my faith happen to be following the Creator, obeying him, keeping his commandments, and living for him. On the other hand, you have just about no requirements in atheism. Yes, there is the knowledge of man being in error in my faith as well! That's why we need to correct what is in error...

#45 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:02 AM

I dont know too much of science or how Big Bang wupposedly worked as most other people in this forum, but still I have a few points i think can reasonably oppose Big Bang.

Someone questioned where did the matters for Big Bang come from, and someone said there was no matter during the expansion because of the heat and the matters formed by compression after Big Bang

Isnt heat eneregy? where does the energy come from? and has it been proven that matters can be formed through compression out of nothing?

Feel free to correct me, but please do answer me as well.

Also, someone mentioned that although they do not know how it works, there are enough proofs for Big Bang. I dont really see how there could be "proofs" on this occasion, or "facts" to be precise.

I learned that there are three types of "facts". The Historical Facts, the scientifical facts, and the Biblical facts(its what i learned, plz dont argue).
Scientific Facts must be observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Historical Facts must either be recorded, or have been observed.
Obviously, the proofs for the Big Bang must be scientific, but are there really proofs about Big Bang that can meet all three points of the scientific fact?

#46 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 June 2005 - 02:22 PM

"within that ‘faith’ is the knowledge that mans work can be in error and by default correctable. I need not commit. There is no worship. You may liken it to having faith in the television working when you apply power, it is no deeper than that. That is the biggest difference to a religious Faith with absolutes of right and wrong."

Within that faith which you put into science, comes certain things required of it. The requirements of my faith happen to be following the Creator, obeying him, keeping his commandments, and living for him. On the other hand, you have just about no requirements in atheism. Yes, there is the knowledge of man being in error in my faith as well! That's why we need to correct what is in error...

View Post


Your faith requirements are not in question, I only make the point that, claiming atheism to be a faith in the same way that you have faith in your religion are not the same thing at all. Your requirements are fixed (somewhat) mine are adaptable (somewhat).

#47 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 20 June 2005 - 08:25 PM

There seems to be many misconceptions about Big Bang theory and the nature of the universe. Here is an excellent article that I think we should all read before going further with this discussion:

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

This article is very readable and serves as an excellent introduction to the Big Bang. Enjoy!

Cheers,

st_dissent

#48 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 June 2005 - 08:56 PM

There seems to be many misconceptions about Big Bang theory and the nature of the universe.  Here is an excellent article that I think we should all read before going further with this discussion:

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

This article is very readable and serves as an excellent introduction to the Big Bang.  Enjoy!

Cheers,

st_dissent

View Post



The number of problems for the big bang are so large and undeniable that there are some prominent evolutionists who are starting to complain:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org

Fred

#49 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 01:16 PM

The Big Bang Theory is a myth. If the Big Bang is to be believed, then what was there before thre Big Bang. This makes no sense. The univese has always existed and will always exist. There is the infinitely large and the infinitely small. The infinitely large means that our whole universe is part of an atom which is part of a solar system which is part of another atom and so forth. This is represented by the triangle pointing upward. The infinitely small means that the atoms all around us have a universe with solar systems, planets, etc and that universe has atoms with solar systems, planets, etc and so forth. This is represented by the triangle pointing downward. The swirl in the middle represents infinity in time as explained previously. And that's what the medallion on the right represents. Given this information, The Big Bang Theory is not fact. There is no beginning or end.

#50 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:28 PM

Please ignore posts by raelian1.

#51 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 28 June 2005 - 10:34 PM

"The Big Bang Theory is a myth. If the Big Bang is to be believed, then what was there before thre Big Bang. This makes no sense. The univese has always existed and will always exist. There is the infinitely large and the infinitely small. The infinitely large means that our whole universe is part of an atom which is part of a solar system which is part of another atom and so forth. This is represented by the triangle pointing upward. The infinitely small means that the atoms all around us have a universe with solar systems, planets, etc and that universe has atoms with solar systems, planets, etc and so forth. This is represented by the triangle pointing downward. The swirl in the middle represents infinity in time as explained previously. And that's what the medallion on the right represents. Given this information, The Big Bang Theory is not fact. There is no beginning or end."

Jeez, he got the myth part right, but I think he's one of those, "we're not really here, we just think we're here" kind of people. Lol. He sure made a lot of statements with approximately ZERO support any of them.

#52 Joshua

Joshua

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Planet Earth

Posted 02 September 2005 - 04:05 PM

Where did the matter that caused the Big Bang come from?

View Post


Stephen Hawking and Co have empirically verified energy into matter transformation. In other words, matter is created from energy. (E=MC2). Unfortunately I only have a video of the documentary and cannot provide a link. But I am sure I read an online explanation some place. I’ll try and find it.

#53 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 09:04 AM

Stephen Hawking and Co have empirically verified energy into matter transformation. In other words, matter is created from energy. (E=MC2). Unfortunately I only have a video of the documentary and cannot provide a link. But I am sure I read an online explanation some place. I’ll try and find it.

View Post


This was done long before Hawking.

It doesn't matter, if it suits you better: Where did the energy come from?

Terry

#54 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 04 September 2005 - 10:25 PM

"It doesn't matter, if it suits you better: Where did the energy come from?

Terry"

You took the words right out of my mouth!

#55 Joshua

Joshua

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Planet Earth

Posted 17 September 2005 - 06:35 AM

I have a question for you – If we don’t know the precise cause of the big bang, yet the evidence that a big bang happened is all around, does not knowing the cause discount the fact?

Or to put it a somewhat different perspective:  If I don’t know the precise cause of a headache, yet taking aspirin cures the headache, does not knowing how aspirin works prove that headaches are impossible?


Interesting. Do you apply this level of critique in the case of an intelligent designer ? In other words, if we don’t know who the intelligent designer is, yet the evidence suggests that intelligence played a role in our existence, does not knowing who or what the intelligent designer is discount ID ?

Apologies, I know this is slightly off topic but Anti-IDists discard the status of IDT simply because they want to know who / why / what of the designer, yet when asked the cause of the Big Bang, “it just happened” and even if we do not know the cause, it doesn’t matter.

This type of double standard really annoys me.

#56 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 September 2005 - 01:44 PM

(chance @ Apr 27 2005, 07:52 PM)
I have a question for you – If we don’t know the precise cause of the big bang, yet the evidence that a big bang happened is all around, does not knowing the cause discount the fact?

Or to put it a somewhat different perspective:  If I don’t know the precise cause of a headache, yet taking aspirin cures the headache, does not knowing how aspirin works prove that headaches are impossible?

Interesting. Do you apply this level of critique in the case of an intelligent designer ? In other words, if we don’t know who the intelligent designer is, yet the evidence suggests that intelligence played a role in our existence, does not knowing who or what the intelligent designer is discount ID ?


whew, that’s going back a few months!


One can always speculate any hypothetic – In this case your point is, I believe the position of ID proponents, i.e. that the intelligent designer is not known, nor is it a requirement to ID that the designer be known. Philosophically I agree with this position.


Apologies, I know this is slightly off topic but Anti-IDists discard the status of IDT simply because they want to know who / why / what of the designer, yet when asked the cause of the Big Bang, “it just happened” and even if we do not know the cause, it doesn’t matter.

This type of double standard really annoys me.


Again it’s what constitutes as evidence. One can get into all manner of philosophic discussions of ID, but when push comes to shove one will have to rely on the evidence to further ones ideas, and that where ID falls short.

#57 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 06:34 AM

chance:
Again it’s what constitutes as evidence. One can get into all manner of philosophic discussions of ID, but when push comes to shove one will have to rely on the evidence to further ones ideas, and that where ID falls short.


How would you know whether or not ID falls short on the evidence? Please tell us all of the literature for ID, written by IDists, that you have read.

Ya see I know that ID is based on the evidence. I know that because I, unlike you, have actually followed the debate.

#58 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 September 2005 - 02:29 PM

How would you know whether or not ID falls short on the evidence? Please tell us all of the literature for ID, written by IDists, that you have read.


Well, I’m not aware of any peer reviewed articles that have passed scientific scrutiny.

I have read some popular books on the subject, if you consider that to be evidence somehow e.g. Darwin’s Black Box. Skimmed “No Free Lunch”. And some other that I can’t recollect at the moment.
In addition websites by, AIG, the discovery institute (various), Dembski blog, and for a laugh Dr Dino.

Ya see I know that ID is based on the evidence. I know that because I, unlike you, have actually followed the debate.


I can assure you I have followed the debates for some time, and am willing to discuss what you claim is evidence for ID.

#59 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:22 PM

"Well, I’m not aware of any peer reviewed articles that have passed scientific scrutiny. "

This is the standard response I hear from a lot of evolutionists. "If it isn't passed as scientific by atheisticly minded "scientists" then it doesn't constitute science." (Please correct me if this is not what you meant.) My whole point is that anything relating to the supernatural does not fall into the realm of science. Science is a very limited tool, and in my opinion, pretty worthless to an extent.

#60 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 September 2005 - 02:35 PM

This is the standard response I hear from a lot of evolutionists. "If it isn't passed as scientific by atheisticly minded "scientists" then it doesn't constitute science." (Please correct me if this is not what you meant.) My whole point is that anything relating to the supernatural does not fall into the realm of science. Science is a very limited tool, and in my opinion, pretty worthless to an extent.


That would be correct (but athiesm has nothing to do with it).

But to qualify your last point, if the claim is that the supernatural event in question leaves some measurable/observable signature, then it can be investigated by science. E.g. The Norse god Thor was responsible for thunder and lightning, the science shows that it is caused of static electricity. E.g. Some people claim they can ‘speak to the dead’ or ‘channel aliens’ if the discussions reveal some testable fact, like “where dear departed grandfather hid his last will and testament”, then you could dig it up and prove the fact, or if the ‘channeler’ provided details of a hyper drive space ship engine, we could build one, or not.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users