Why Is It Called Big Bang Theory?

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

IF something could come from nothing then it would destroy science, since nothing coming from nothing is one of the foundational tenets of science. Let me explain.

 

Experiments are conducted to determine cause-effect relationships. This is done by controlling all other variables which means changes to the dependent variable can be logically determined to be caused by the independent variable since all other variables are being controlled, (not always perfectly, but a controlled environment stifles outside interference).

IF something could come from nothing then I have no means to control such interference, therefore when I conduct an experiment I cannot know for sure whether my results are due to the independent variable or if some unknown factor mysteriously appeared out of nothing to influence my results. Which means I cannot claim what the cause-effect relationships are with what I am testing since it will always be unknown.

 

Therefore IF you wish to claim that something can come from nothing then be prepared to experiment the blow-back which includes, every single experiment or test conducted by man would be wrong or unknown.

 

So essentially atheists will destroy science, with their beliefs....

(Small price to pay to not admit God )

 

 

An Absolute Masterpiece !!!

 

[gilbo12345 860]

An Absolute Masterpiece !!!

 

 

Thank you good sir!

[nandoschicken 5]

 

It IS exclusively an issue for the big bang "theory", but more on that later.

 

Nandos I suggest you think a bit more about this statement.

 

IF something could come from nothing then it would destroy science, since nothing coming from nothing is one of the foundational tenets of science. Let me explain.

 

Experiments are conducted to determine cause-effect relationships. This is done by controlling all other variables which means changes to the dependent variable can be logically determined to be caused by the independent variable since all other variables are being controlled, (not always perfectly, but a controlled environment stifles outside interference).

IF something could come from nothing then I have no means to control such interference, therefore when I conduct an experiment I cannot know for sure whether my results are due to the independent variable or if some unknown factor mysteriously appeared out of nothing to influence my results. Which means I cannot claim what the cause-effect relationships are with what I am testing since it will always be unknown.

 

Therefore IF you wish to claim that something can come from nothing then be prepared to experiment the blow-back which includes, every single experiment or test conducted by man would be wrong or unknown.

 

So essentially atheists will destroy science, with their beliefs....

(Small price to pay to not admit God )

 

 

Ok more of your "only controlled experiments are science". Already said as much as I can on that. (p.s. it's not true )

 

 

 

You're using one of Dawkins idiotic arguments, the "who created God argument"...

 

Firstly, no Christian has ever believed in a created god, a created god is an idol... Hence this "argument" is attacking a strawman god and not the actual God.

 

Secondly, Christians believe that God is eternal, He is uncreated. Hence this question doesn't even apply.

 

Thirdly, why invoke God?... Well because when you get down to the nuts and bolts if the issue you'd realise that a being with all the God-like qualities would need to exist in order to answer where the universe came from.

 

William Lane Craig explains this in his debates, here is a quick overview.

 

Creation of matter = Immaterial

Creation of time = Timeless

Creation of temporal universe despite being timeless = Sentient / Personal

 

The question does apply, if we want it to apply. It arises from curiosity.  

 

Whatever philosophy you want to throw up it still doesn't stop us from asking the question. We live in a physical universe, so why can't we investigate how "god" made it?

 

 

Firstly, HOW is God complex?

 

If you view God as a disembodied mind then God is incredibly simple since there are no tangible working parts... Perhaps Dawkins is confusing God with the complexity of God's ideas....

 

 

However Dawkins argument is even more idiotic since we use complex explanations for simple things all the time.

 

The book "The God Delusion" is explained as coming from Richard Dawkins. I assume Richard Dawkins, a human, is more complex than a book of paper and ink... So here we have an example of something complex being used to explain the existence of something simpler than itself.

 

Hence Dawkins himself demolishes his own argument by his very existence.... Pretty ironic yes? And kinda shows how idiotic his "logic" is, yes?

 

No, he doesn't. If the universe's origin (or physics in general) was explainable by basic analogies with humans, we wouldn't know anything in physics at all. Even the stuff we do know is deeply counterintuitive.

 

 

Sadly Mr Tyson is just as delusional as Mr Dawkins is...Tyson is implying that God is only a "God of the gaps" whereby Gods influence is only found in the things that we don't know.

 

I have provided you with a list of things that we DO know that point towards God.... Not by how it works but God as the creator of such a thing.

 

The thing is that there are often may different explanations for the same thing. The car engine can be explained either by how it works, or by the person who created it in the first place.

 

 

Something exists.

 

Therefore someone created it.

 

Its the oldest and least convincing argument for god

 

 

 

That is your analogy GIlbo.

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

Ok more of your "only controlled experiments are science". Already said as much as I can on that. (p.s. it's not true )

 

 

 

(p.s. You'd fail 5th Grade General Science)

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

We live in a physical universe, so why can't we investigate how "god" made it?

 

 

Because we don't have a "Time Machine".  Because the FIRST STEP of the Scientific Method states: 'Observe a Phenomenon' and...

 

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."

Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

 

If you want to know how, SEE: Genesis Chapters 1-2.  That's as close to "The How" as you'll ever get.

 

 

Something exists.

 

Therefore someone created it.

 

Its the oldest and least convincing argument for god

 

 

Well in this particular case that Something is 'The Universe'.

 

And the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that:  Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy.

 

Ergo....GOD.

 

It's kinda Air-Tight  

 

 

regards

[Kairos2014 3]

Loving the response by Enoch and Gilbo, masterful.
That "Who created GOD" argument use to puzzle me a bit but good to know our very own William Lane Craig and other Christian apologists have answered this.