Why Is It Called Big Bang Theory?

[Kairos2014 3]

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I was pondering on Evolution vs Creation and thought why the big bang is a theory? What scientific method would they use to be able to test the big bang or have I misunderstood?

I thought it was more like a hypothesis then a theory.

 

Thanks in advance

[Enoch 2021 411]

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I was pondering on Evolution vs Creation and thought why the big bang is a theory? What scientific method would they use to be able to test the big bang or have I misunderstood?

I thought it was more like a hypothesis then a theory.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Hello,

 

Na, you haven't misunderstood...you're right on the mark:

 

The big bang is a "Just So" Story.  It's not even a Scientific Hypothesis,  Crocheting is more Scientific 

 

regards

[gilbo12345 858]

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I was pondering on Evolution vs Creation and thought why the big bang is a theory? What scientific method would they use to be able to test the big bang or have I misunderstood?

I thought it was more like a hypothesis then a theory.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Sadly, due to the bastardisation of actual science via evolution "science"... Untested hypotheses are being deemed scientific "theories".

 

I guess they have to keep up appearances, can't have evolution as the only untested hypothesis "theory".

[Goku 272]

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I was pondering on Evolution vs Creation and thought why the big bang is a theory? What scientific method would they use to be able to test the big bang or have I misunderstood?

I thought it was more like a hypothesis then a theory.

 

Thanks in advance

 

In a nutshell the big 'test' for big bang theory was the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB. It was predicted that there would be a CMB if big bang was true, and after a few decades they accidentally found it.

 

The three pillars of evidence for the big bang would be the CMB, the expanding universe (Hubble's Law), and the distribution of elements throughout the universe.

[Kairos2014 3]

Hello,

 

Na, you haven't misunderstood...you're right on the mark:

 

The big bang is a "Just So" Story.  It's not even a Scientific Hypothesis,  Crocheting is more Scientific 

 

regards

Thanks Enoch good to hear from you old friend. "Crocheting" lol.

 

Sadly, due to the bastardisation of actual science via evolution "science"... Untested hypotheses are being deemed scientific "theories".

 

I guess they have to keep up appearances, can't have evolution as the only untested hypothesis "theory".

 

Ah I see.

 

I was watching the Richards Dawkins vs John Lennox debate/dialogue and found it interesting when the big bang was mentioned a few times which led to me here to open it up.

[Enoch 2021 411]

In a nutshell 

 

That's an uber precise description and explanation.  

 

How may times have I (and others) taken these fairytales (CMB and Hubble's Law) to the Woodshed? Check the date on this and who it's addressed to : http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6018-its-a-matter-of-time-the-philosophy-of-it-all/page-2&do=findComment&comment=115078

 

 

the big 'test' for big bang theory was the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMB. It was predicted that there would be a CMB if big bang was true, and after a few decades they accidentally found it.

 

 

By Far, your favorite Fallacy is.... Affirming The Consequent -- http://www.logicalfa...the-consequent/ :

 

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

 

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)

2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)

3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

Or

 

If the big bang is true we observe la la la

We Observe la la la.

Therefore, the big bang is True.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?  Or the 'ole 96-er'...

 

 

 

 

The three pillars of evidence for the big bang would be the CMB, the expanding universe (Hubble's Law), and the distribution of elements throughout the universe.

 

 

The distribution of elements throughout the universe?    How bout these...

 

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.2Bly-away EGS8p7) 

- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction

- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions

- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist

- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth 

- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos

- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars [Population III Stars] that the failed search has implied simply never existed

- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity

- Solar system formation theory wrong too

- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center

- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center

- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart

- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected

- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes

- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies

- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies

- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved

- The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)

- These "shouldn't exist" â€“ a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy â€“ but they do

- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.

http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

 

regards

[nandoschicken 5]

 

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.2Bly-away EGS8p7) 

 

Yet they are still at a distance of 13.2 Bly, not 6000 light years.

 

 

 

- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction

 

 

 

Nope, the antimatter asymmetry is not directly related to the big bang, and certainly does not invalidate it.

 

Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions

 

 

 

As the universe is accelerating, and the distance between most galaxies is increasing, why is this a problem.

 

- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist

 

Anything beyond 6000 light years shouldn't exist at all.

 

A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth 

 

Then is a problem with our idea about star formation, not the big bang

 

 

Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos

 

Then the universe is even older than 13.8 Billion years, they certainly don't form in 6000 years.

 

A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars [Population III Stars] that the failed search has implied simply never existed

 

 

 

Maybe we just haven't found them yet

 

 

Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity

 

What does this even mean. Nothing to do with the big bang.

 

 

Solar system formation theory wrong too

 

Nothing to do with the big bang

 

 

It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center

 

Every galaxy would see the same thing, so there is no way to tell where the centre is.

 

- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center

 

 

If true, still doesn't refute the idea of a big bang

 

- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart

 

 

Nothing to do with the big bang.

 

 

- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected

 

Nothing to do with the big bang

 

 

Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes

 

Nothing to do with the big bang

 

- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies

 

 

Galaxies are moving apart

 

 

Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies

 

brightness is not the same as red shift

 

 

- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved

 

very much doubt it, since we already know we cannot observe this era with electromagnetic-based astronomy

 

 

The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)

 

The CMB does exist

 

 

These "shouldn't exist" â€“ a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy â€“ but they do

 

why shouldn't they exist

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

Yet they are still at a distance of 13.2 Bly, not 6000 light years.

 

 

Light Years is not a Measure of "TIME", it's one "Distance". (duh)

 

Also,

 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you MUST know the "One-Way" Speed of Light. Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy...In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 

 

Einstein made the same conclusion...“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.â€

A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

 

Moreover, regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.†{Emphasis Mine}

A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.

 

Ergo...the speed of light (average "Two-Way Speed) is merely a 'Convention' that we've agreed upon.

 

More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of measurement/ observation/ "A KNOWER" of 'which-path' information, Photons (including ...Elementary Particles/Atoms/Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. Therefore...

 

Unless you can explicitly identify "a Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and recorded it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....

 

The Speed for a Wave of Potentialities !!   Go ahead...?

 

Nope, the antimatter asymmetry is not directly related to the big bang, and certainly does not invalidate it.

 

So "Na'ahh" is your rebuttal ?  How Scientific of you.

 

Post the Scientific big bang theory...?

 

 

Anything beyond 6000 light years shouldn't exist at all.

 

You're a doofus (with all do respect), SEE above everything after "Light Years is not a measure...."

 

ps. go and tell the evolutionist-r-us site (where you got this from) that they need to update "Their Material"; 1906 called, they want their material back!  

 

 

Then is a problem with our idea about star formation, not the big bang

 

Their Nebular Hypothesis  , btw....is part of it.

 

 

Then the universe is even older than 13.8 Billion years, they certainly don't form in 6000 years.

 

oy vey

 

Maybe we just haven't found them yet

 

Maybe Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons exist too, we just haven't found them yet.     There's burn marks on my garage wall, so there's still hope.

 

 

The CMB does exist

 

In your imagination.

 

Nothing to do with the big bang.

Nothing to do with the big bang

Nothing to do with the big bang

Nothing to do with the big bang

 

So "Na'ahh" x 4 is your rebuttal again ?  How Scientific of you x 4.

 

Post the Scientific big bang theory...?

 

 

why shouldn't they exist

 

1:20 - 3:40

 

 

 

regards

[piasan 605]

Yet they are still at a distance of 13.2 Bly, not 6000 light years.

 

Light Years is not a Measure of "TIME", it's one "Distance". (duh)

 

Ya think maybe that's why he said they are at a DISTANCE of 13.2 billion light years?   (duh)

 

 

Also,

 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you MUST know the "One-Way" Speed of Light. Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy...In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 

Still 

 

Done and done.

 

The one way speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second as confirmed by more than 70 years of radio navigation using multiple systems.

 

Without precise synchronization of "clocks" (to within a few billionths of a second), over distances greater than 10,000 miles the GPS navigation most of us have in our cars or cell phones would not function.

 

Moreover, regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.†{Emphasis Mine}

A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.

Einstein was discussing how to define simultaneity, not saying the one way speed of light couldn't be measured.  One could probably say "That light requires the same time to traverse the path A-M as for the B-M" is a requirement of simultaneity.

 

Ergo...the speed of light (average "Two-Way Speed) is merely a 'Convention' that we've agreed upon.

It is much more than a mere "convention."  That the one-way speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second in all directions is a confirmed fact.

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

Ya think maybe that's why he said they are at a DISTANCE of 13.2 billion light years?   (duh)

 

 

Sir, until you can provide documentation (Notarized) that shows you can meet or exceed the requirements to pass 5th Grade General Science, I will not directly respond.

 

And speaking of    review this thread starting here...

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6439-the-one-way-speed-of-light/page-2&do=findComment&comment=125954  

 

 

regards

[piasan 605]

Yet they are still at a distance of 13.2 Bly, not 6000 light years.

Light Years is not a Measure of "TIME", it's one "Distance". (duh)

Ya think maybe that's why he said they are at a DISTANCE of 13.2 billion light years?   (duh)

Sir, until you can provide documentation (Notarized) that shows you can meet or exceed the requirements to pass 5th Grade General Science, I will not directly respond.

Let's see.... someone specifically states objects are at a DISTANCE measured in light years.   You respond by saying light years is a measure of distance along with an insulting "duh."  Then, when you're called on it, the only response you have is to demand proof of "5th Grade General Science" on my part.

 

Since the original comment specifically said a DISTANCE was measured in light years and you responded as if the source didn't know it's a distance, perhaps you should provide NOTARIZED documentation you have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grade special education student.

 

And speaking of    review this thread starting here...

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6439-the-one-way-speed-of-light/page-2&do=findComment&comment=125954  

Yeah.... a rehash of the same refuted claim we don't know the one way speed of light and can't synchronize clocks.

 

Perhaps you can explain how radio navigation can work if the one way speed of light is direction dependent?  How about how GPS can work if the transmitter and receiver clocks aren't synchronized within a few billionths of a second?

 

No?   Didn't think so.  After all, that would require something more than another repost of the same regurgiquote.   You would need to actually address the issue(s) raised with your initial claim.

[Enoch 2021 411]

Let's see.... someone specifically states objects are at a DISTANCE measured in light years.   You respond by saying light years is a measure of distance along with an insulting "duh."  Then, when you're called on it, the only response you have is to demand proof of "5th Grade General Science" on my part.

 

Hey doofus, he was stumbling over himself to imply that "Light Years' was a TIME measurement...

 

nandoschicken:  "Yet they are still at a distance of 13.2 Bly, not 6000 light years."  

 

And then he came right out and said the obvious TWICE...

 

nandoschicken:  "Anything beyond 6000 light years shouldn't exist at all."

nandoschicken: "Then the universe is even older than 13.8 Billion years, they certainly don't form in 6000 years.

 

Ahh TIME "duh". 

 

 

GPS 

 

oy vey.  Take the next 3 days off...then quit. 

[piasan 605]

Hey doofus, he was stumbling over himself to imply that "Light Years' was a TIME measurement...

 

nandoschicken:  "Yet they are still at a distance (Emphasis Pi's) of 13.2 Bly, not 6000 light years."  

 

And then he came right out and said the obvious TWICE...

 

nandoschicken:  "Anything beyond 6000 light years shouldn't exist at all."

nandoschicken: "Then the universe is even older than 13.8 Billion years, they certainly don't form in 6000 years.

He clearly stated light years is a distance.

 

 

Ahh TIME "duh". 

 

 

GPS 

 

oy vey. 

Best you can do, isn't it?

 

 

 Take the next 3 days off...then quit. 

Interesting thought.

 

Lead by example.

[Mambo 4]

I wonder if I understand where you're coming from Enoch.

 

Piasan and nandoschicken believe that it takes light 1 year to travel 5.879 × 10 to the power of 12 miles. Do you disagree on this point?

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

I wonder if I understand where you're coming from Enoch.

 

 

Central Missouri

 

 

Piasan and nandoschicken believe that it takes light 1 year to travel 5.879 × 10 to the power of 12 miles. Do you disagree on this point?

 

 

Yes.  That's the average "Two-Way" Speed of Light.

 

Didn't I explain this quite comprehensively just above in Post #8 : http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6582-why-is-it-called-big-bang-theory/&do=findComment&comment=130740 ....

 

Enoch2021:

 

Light Years is not a Measure of "TIME", it's one "Distance". (duh)

 

For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you MUST know the "One-Way" Speed of Light. Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy...In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. 

Einstein made the same conclusion...“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.â€

A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

 

Moreover, regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.†{Emphasis Mine}

A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.

 

Ergo...the speed of light (average "Two-Way Speed) is merely a 'Convention' that we've agreed upon.

 

More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of measurement/ observation/ "A KNOWER" of 'which-path' information, Photons (including ...Elementary Particles/Atoms/Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. Therefore...

 

Unless you can explicitly identify "a Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and recorded it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....

 

The Speed for a Wave of Potentialities !!   Go ahead...?

 

 

Is there something that's confusing about my explanation?

 

 

regards

[piasan 605]

Is there something that's confusing about my explanation?

Nope.

 

But it's still wrong.

[jansen 3]

Enoch 2021:

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

Or

 

If the big bang is true we observe la la la

We Observe la la la.

Therefore, the big bang is True.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?  Or the 'ole 96-er'...

 

You are correct that these are both examples of affirming the consequent. The problem with your argument, however, is that we use modus tollens in science. 

 

If A then B 

Not-A 

Therefore, not-B

 

 

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

Enoch 2021:

 

You are correct that these are both examples of affirming the consequent. The problem with your argument, however, is that we use modus tollens in science. 

 

If A then B 

Not-A 

Therefore, not-B

 

 

Well you forgot something: the "If A then B" must be Validated Unequivocally FIRST.

 

If not, you have a Modus.... Denying The Antecedent Fallacy. 

 

 

So in this particular Case:

 

If the 'big bang' [A] is true then CMB .

 

To kick things off, Please post the Scientific 'big bang' Theory....?

 

 

 

regards

[jansen 3]

 

Well you forgot something: the "If A then B" must be Validated Unequivocally FIRST.

 

If not, you have a Modus.... Denying The Antecedent Fallacy. 

That is the case with any conditional. For anyone familiar with formal logic that much is obvious.

[Enoch 2021 411]

That is the case with any conditional.  For anyone familiar with formal logic that much is obvious.

 

Apparently not for evolutionists or 'big bang-ists'.    I'll show you...

 

As I said, lets continue the string...

 

So in this particular Case: If the 'big bang' [A] is true then CMB .

 

To kick things off, Please post the Scientific 'big bang' Theory....?

 

Go...?

[jansen 3]

 

Apparently not for evolutionists or 'big bang-ists'.    I'll show you...

 

As I said, lets continue the string...

 

So in this particular Case: If the 'big bang' [A] is true then CMB .

 

To kick things off, Please post the Scientific 'big bang' Theory....?

 

Go...?

I'm not really interested in following you down this rabbit hole. Why don't you just explain why B does not follow from A?

[Enoch 2021 411]

I'm not really interested in following you down this rabbit hole. 

 

Ha, Rabbit Hole?    

 

Rabbit Hole: a bizarre or difficult state or situation —usually used in the phrase down the rabbit hole. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rabbit%20hole

 

How on Earth can asking: "What is the Scientific 'big bang' Theory?" have to do with following me down a Rabbit Hole, pray tell...?    What is "Bizarre" about this simple query?

 

Isn't this a tad^{100000000000---->} "Over The Top"? 

 

Why don't you just explain why B does not follow from A?

 

I will, What's A? i.e., What's the Scientific 'big bang' Theory ?  

 

When you post that, I'll be more that happy to show you 'exhaustively' why not only "B" doesn't follow.... but NOTHING FOLLOWS because Nothing from Nothing ='s Nothing; then I'll take "B", via it's own tenets, to the Woodshed and Bludgeon it Senseless.   

 

regards

[nandoschicken 5]

 

I will, What's A? i.e., What's the Scientific 'big bang' Theory ?  

 

When you post that, I'll be more that happy to show you 'exhaustively' why not only "B" doesn't follow.... but NOTHING FOLLOWS because Nothing from Nothing ='s Nothing; then I'll take "B", via it's own tenets, to the Woodshed and Bludgeon it Senseless.   

 

Explaining how something can come from nothing is not exclusively a problem of the big bang theory. If you just say "god", that certainly explains the universe, but it essentially just moves the question one place backwards. So why invoke god to begin with?

 

Your saying not only do you know how and why the universe began, but which god caused it.

 

As Dawkins and others have put it, if you need something as complicated as god to explain the complexity of the universe, then the complexity of god must also necessitate a creator by virtue of the same argument.

 

and as Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it, if GOD to you is the mystery in the universe, then God occupies an ever receding space.

[Enoch 2021 411]

 

Explaining how something can come from nothing is not exclusively a problem of the big bang theory. 

 

 

1.  I never said it was.

 

2. What is the "Scientific 'big bang' Theory....?

 

3.  And GOD, isn't "Nothing".

 

 

If you just say "god", that certainly explains the universe, but it essentially just moves the question one place backwards. So why invoke god to begin with?

 

How so....?

 

 

Your saying not only do you know how and why the universe began...

 

The 'How' and 'Why' questions are irrelevant, and inaccessible Scientifically Speaking.  The Question is the "IS".

 

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD -Guided). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).   This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is No THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

 

1LOT by itself clobbers "Nature" as responsible:  Natural Law CAN NOT create Matter/Energy.

 

Quantum Mechanics 'Jacks it Yard' forever !!

 

 

but which god caused it

 

Jesus Christ.

 

There can only be ONE GOD, CREATOR.  Proffering more than one is Logical Seppuku.

 

 

As Dawkins and others have put it, if you need something as complicated as god to explain the complexity of the universe, then the complexity of god must also necessitate a creator by virtue of the same argument

 

The ole "Who created the creators creator", eh?

 

Well,  He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.  Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal ("Always Was") Source; it's a Contingent Necessary FACT.  SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause).  To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress (like you just did in your query)...it's Fallacious.

 

Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence.  Logical Seppuku

 

Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku.

 

and as Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it, if GOD to you is the mystery in the universe, then God occupies an ever receding space.

 

 

Neil 'smokin de-grass' Tyson doesn't even know what a Scientific Theory is.

 

As one of the Father's of Quantum Mechanics 'put's it'...

 

"The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." -- Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize, Physics)

 

Appears some have yet to acquire the glass, eh nandoschicken? 

 

regards

[gilbo12345 858]

Explaining how something can come from nothing is not exclusively a problem of the big bang theory.

 

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 )

 

 

 

If you just say "god", that certainly explains the universe, but it essentially just moves the question one place backwards. So why invoke god to begin with?

 

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

 

 

 

As Dawkins and others have put it, if you need something as complicated as god to explain the complexity of the universe, then the complexity of god must also necessitate a creator by virtue of the same argument.

 

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?

 

 

and as Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it, if GOD to you is the mystery in the universe, then God occupies an ever receding space.

 

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.