Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 7, 2012 #26 Share Posted April 7, 2012 All right WfH, what can you prove or disprove, the big bang or the non-existence of a Divine Creator for the universe? No offense meant, but when the Psalmist said in Psalm 14:1 that fools declare in their hearts that there is no God, he meant not only atheists but also theists that claim for sure that God was indeed the Creator of the universe. What do we know? We are all ignorant about these things. Therefore, the right path to choose is to adopt the concept of probability and never discard anything we cannot prove or disprove. Ben Who's discarding anything? I'm Catholic. I also believe that what science is describing is the mechanism God used to create the universe. What's time to an omniscient being? There are innumerable times in the Bible where God said "don't you worry about that darling, everything'll be right on the night", how did he know this? Because he knows this, he's God. Scientists have discovered mesons and particles from a massive x-ray burst in the past and nothing from earlier then that, now either the x-ray burst was so great it's blotted out what happened before it or it was "Event One". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion6969 Posted April 7, 2012 #27 Share Posted April 7, 2012 It's a bit misleading of Carl and others to suggest the big bang is a myth or creation myth of a creative mind! The big bang has never been proposed as the reason behind creation the big bang is simply the empirical data pointing us towards the beginning of our universe, it does not answer how it came in to being which is what creation myth and the atheist version which are the self create myths! Carl was a great scientist and thinker and I have upmost respect for him, but he was not always right. He leaned towards an infinite universe if I remember right, but modern data and past empirical data clearly point towards a beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion6969 Posted April 7, 2012 #28 Share Posted April 7, 2012 It is important, imo, when considering Big Bang Theory, to make a distinction between 'the universe', and 'all that is in (or, that we can observe within) the universe'. BBT can be applied to the latter with much more certainty that it can the former. There is also no real evidence for the singularity which many promote BBT as being preceded by. It could be said, therefore, that those who apply BBT to the universe itself and make a statement of it along the lines of "The universe began with a singularity" are promoting a myth with no more real evidence for it than any religious account of creation. Singularity has mathematical, and empirical data pointing towards it ie CBR among other observable phenomena! What people don't understand is this, they think this singularity existed in the universe and then expanded! Intact within this singularity is where the universe came from along with us and the whole existence were from the singularity, which mathematically means nothing! It's where all our empirical means physics, light, matter, energy etc all breakdown to nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion6969 Posted April 8, 2012 #29 Share Posted April 8, 2012 I think 8 bits reply was sufficient and I would like to give a philosophical angle on what Sagan was referring to....in 8 bits quote of Sagan it's clear that he says the if the big bang is correct it actually leaves us with much tougher questions to answer and in this process he says that questions which are beyond science are responded by saying "well it must have been god" this is the god of gaps argument Sagan was referring to, his own response is "well where did god come from" very similar to the regurgitated quote of Dawkins "who designed the designer". This is expected from Dawkins and Sagan they are scientists and good ones but not philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science, because if they were they would understand such questions are philosophically and logically redundant and shows lack of understanding of the actual argument for god. That said the god of the gaps was a Christian theological response to questions science could not answer, it's very simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommunitarianKevin Posted April 8, 2012 #30 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Why don't you share with me what you teach your daughter about the big bang? I do have also a few questions. And if you sigh about it being a myth, you must not believe that Carl Sagan was a famous astrophysicist to refer to the big bang as a myth. Do you know what quote mining is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommunitarianKevin Posted April 8, 2012 #31 Share Posted April 8, 2012 We are all ignorant about these things. If you are ignorant about these things, be quiet. I prefer the opinions of those who are not ignorant, but you just admitted you are ignorant towards these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted April 8, 2012 #32 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Unfortunately for the op, the BB theory makes predictions about what the cosmos should look like, then those predictions can be tested. So far they it's fairly acurate. The theme of creation however is not inconsistent with the BB theory. Only inconsistent with literalist interpretations. I'm not a creationist, but genisus is a pretty acurate poetic summary of the BB when view from unbiased eyes. My own personal experience with altered state symbolism lends me to beleive like most spiritual revelations, the original story came from someone witnessing the BB In a vision and trying to describe it in the language available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copasetic Posted April 8, 2012 #33 Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) This is expected from Dawkins and Sagan they are scientists and good ones but not philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science, This is ridiculous Lion. Sagan was not familiar with the philosophy of science? You realize what the P in PhD stands for right? Oh, please allow us all to now be enlightened by a 'former'-atheist-converted-muslim-cabdriver-turned-internet-philosophizer to inform us on the philosophy of science.....Dunning and Kruger-- damn them, striking again! Edit to test out my psychic powers: Can you then quote me and add a bunch of "lols", whilst claiming I also know nothing about the philosophy of science--simultaneously singing your praises for your l33t philosophy skills! Edited April 8, 2012 by Copasetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted April 8, 2012 #34 Share Posted April 8, 2012 I can't agree with you more. My point is to avoid the emotive eruption to deny or affirm anything we are not sure about it. Ben My post was not made to agree with your OP in the specifics of it. I was pointing out that people, who generally have an imperfect understanding of something, tend to create their own mythology built on that imperfect understanding. In the case of the BBT, it is not that the theory itself describes a myth, but that lay-people have made claims regarding what BBT states which amount to myth. You are somewhat correct when you refer to "the myth of the Big Bang" (although your referencing of Sagan to make this point was not), but it is what people claim the theory states that is the myth - not the theory itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted April 8, 2012 #35 Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) It is a pleasant surprise to find myself in partial agreement with Lion. However, there is no surprise that we disagree about many things here. because if they were (philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science) they would understand such questions ("well where did god come from" and "who designed the designer") are philosophically and logically redundant and shows lack of understanding of the actual argument for god. Well, of course, Dawkins' question has an additional complication that Sagan's does not, which narrows it possible application. Must a designer be designed? If yes, then since I have designed things, I must have been designed. Dawkins disbelieves this. That leaves us with no, in which case, the objection doesn't rebut the truth of the claim that a designer God exists. Dawkins' remark seems to have arisen in the face of pseudoscientific arguments that alleged "complexity" in biology requires a designer. His objection is perfect rebuttal to the force of the argument, since it reveals the argument to be incoherent. An incoherent argument can support nothing, however, so its defeat can't support anything, either, as noted earlier. Sagan, I think, was hunting for bigger game. There is a heuristic, rooted in scientific practice, maybe best expounded by Richard Feynman. If the strength of evidence in favor of an existence claim consistently decreases the more and more carefully the claim is investigated, then the claim is that much more likely to be false. Sagan's "God of the gaps" visibly specializes Feynman's principle to the ontological claim "God exists." While a heuristic does not prove anything, it can furnish a rational basis upon which to adopt a belief or to increase confidence in a belief. Thus, Sagan's "gaps" argument justifies the idea that science does provide a rational basis to reject Creator God claims. That justification happens despite the question not being a direct object of scientific inquiry, and occurs in addition to the complete uselessness of those claims for conducting scientific inquiry. That's pretty good shooting for a guy who's unfamiliar with the philosophy of science. You may wish to revisit your estimate of Sagan. - Edited April 8, 2012 by eight bits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted April 8, 2012 #36 Share Posted April 8, 2012 What evidence do you believe there is for intelligent design? Im not sure where to start BB. Everything seems to have the finger print of intelligent design. From a simple grain of sand, to the most complex life forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommunitarianKevin Posted April 8, 2012 #37 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Im not sure where to start BB. Everything seems to have the finger print of intelligent design. From a simple grain of sand, to the most complex life forms. Well that sounds nice and all but it will never be taught in a science classroom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted April 8, 2012 #38 Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) Why don't you share with me what you teach your daughter about the big bang? Well for a start..... I will teach her not to pay attention to spamming posts on multi forums by the same perosn Ben Masdas .... If I teach her anything about the Big Bang, it will be my OWN choice of science books... ....And what I teach her is is my own business And if you sigh about it being a myth,you must not believe that Carl Sagan was a famous astrophysicist to refer to the big bang as a myth. I am not putting down Carl Sagan ....What I am going to do here is point out the differences between - Myth and Theory Theory An idea or hypothesis that is tested through scientific methods, conclusions drawn, presenting an outcome OR facts ....Example - Often so many creationists will mix up the words - Theory and Hypothesis . Myth Are made up tales about super humans or fictional events even tale tales ...Myths have absolutely no evidence to back them.. so they remain a collection of tall tales AKA myths Edited April 8, 2012 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted April 8, 2012 #39 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Im not sure where to start BB. Everything seems to have the finger print of intelligent design. From a simple grain of sand, to the most complex life forms. And this "finger print" something that can be compared? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciriuslea Posted April 8, 2012 #40 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Isn't the Big Bang a theory based on a hypothesis that seeing as we are expanding, if you rewind the timeline then there comes a point when the expansion must have started..its not a myth its an explanation based on science, science is still debating this event...even using the religious explanation god created everything...so there must have been an time when there was nothing and then suddenly everything...a big bang event ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted April 9, 2012 #41 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Im not sure where to start BB. Everything seems to have the finger print of intelligent design. From a simple grain of sand, to the most complex life forms. Seems to have until you look at the details. That is not evidence. That is belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copasetic Posted April 10, 2012 #42 Share Posted April 10, 2012 That's pretty good shooting for a guy who's unfamiliar with the philosophy of science. You may wish to revisit your estimate of Sagan. - Annnnd, here's your sign.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 10, 2012 #43 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) I think 8 bits reply was sufficient and I would like to give a philosophical angle on what Sagan was referring to....in 8 bits quote of Sagan it's clear that he says the if the big bang is correct it actually leaves us with much tougher questions to answer and in this process he says that questions which are beyond science are responded by saying "well it must have been god" this is the god of gaps argument Sagan was referring to, his own response is "well where did god come from" very similar to the regurgitated quote of Dawkins "who designed the designer". This is expected from Dawkins and Sagan they are scientists and good ones but not philosophers or familiar with philosophy of science, because if they were they would understand such questions are philosophically and logically redundant and shows lack of understanding of the actual argument for god. That said the god of the gaps was a Christian theological response to questions science could not answer, it's very simplistic. I saw a live braodcast between Dawkins and catholic arch bishop of sydney, australia, Pell, on ABC last night. One thing became vey clear. Their world views are so different that they speak different languages. Eg dawkins said science could explain why we are here. But he meant in a mechanistic sense Pell said only religion could explain why we are here. Dawkins said this was a nonsense question? He didn't go so far as to explain that, to him there IS no inherent purpose to our existence. Pell then explained that, to him, the metaphysical/philosophic question of why we exist and what our puprose is, is the single most important/fundamental question humanity can ask. The basic difference in understanding and priorities of these two world views made any sensible dialogue almost impossible. DAwkins knew his science far far beter tha pell, but pell knew people and their needs much better. Near the end of the show a young woman asked dawkins that, if no god existed, but belief in god conferred benefits, wasn't that a logical reason to believe in god. DAwkins, first, really did not accept significant benefits of belief, but then said no, the truth was more important than any benefits conferred by belief. Again this is a limited view. If one truth is that belief will improve, lengthen and enhance your life, then why is that truth less significant than any truth about the existence of a physical god? It is what is physically demonstrable which is most important. And the benefits of faith ARE provable. The non existence of god is not. One is not really a belief at all, while the other is. Unfortunately, IMO, pell agreed. He said that belief was not important, but that the truth was. And to him, gods existence is a truth. I dont see how, as for most people it is a world view based on faith. Finally, and most interestingly, pell said that catholc theology says humans will be resurrected in a new physical body, with our old soul, and placed on a new earth. Dawkins simply refuse to accept that Pell believed this. H could not see beyond the brain and body dieing and thus being impossible to ressurect. I susoect this refusal lays at the heart of dawkin's atheism. He has never really considered the possibility of, or potentialities arising from, a full physical resurrection of body and soul as possible. Raised an anglican he must have only considered resurrection as an extension of consciousness, and knowing that consciousness is a product of our body, concluded that it was impossible once the btrain was dead. Pell explained that he really believed that both body and soul would be reborn and that go dhas the power to do both quite easily.. Dawkins was certain that pell's belief was metaphysically/philosophically based, rather than physically. Dawkins evidently has no room, in any belief structure, for a god so powerful it can resuusrect both body and soul. Where as Pell sees god as that powerful, and also existing beyond/outside of our own space time continuum. Unfortunately that issue was not resolved, as they ran out of time. One other comment by pell, i found fascinating. He said all humans are saved by christ. He does not expect any human to suffer in hell for eternity, althought he believes such a place exists. Rather, he expects people who are not immediately saved to be re-educated and reconnected to god after varying periods of time. I found that fascinating, bcause it is not what i would view as traditional catholic theology. Edited April 10, 2012 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted April 10, 2012 #44 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I love Pell, and I think Global Cayholicism last out when he didn't become heir to the throne of Saint Peter. And the concept of everyone getting into Heaven/reborn is in line with the concept of Purgatory cleasening us all of sins and then allowing us the Grace of God, with the fiery pit only for those who actively side against God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted April 10, 2012 #45 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Seems to have until you look at the details. That is not evidence. That is belief. Its no more of a belief then believing a fork is a intelligent design. What details are you talking about? Its admited by honest scientist they have no idea, say for instance, how the first living cell formed. Some people look at it, with all its amazing complexity and say it must be designed. Others look at it and assume conditions must have been perfect for it to create its self. Seems to me, though both take a leap of faith, believing it could create its self takes at least as much faith then thinking it was designed. Edited April 10, 2012 by preacherman76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted April 10, 2012 #46 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Its no more of a belief then believing a fork is a intelligent design. What details are you talking about? Intelligent design is based on belief... There is no evidence for intelligent design... It is creationism in disguise.. Edited April 10, 2012 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted April 10, 2012 #47 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Nevertheless, it was a famous astrophysicist who referred to the big bang as "our modern myth." You should have told him before he died that there is a big difference between theory and myth. I will bet others scientists already did tell him. That's the difference between science and religion: you can criticize/question a hypothesis or a theory or a scientist, but religion is absolute and cannot be questioned. The main difference between science and religion is this: science tries to explain how we got here, religion tries to explain why we got here. You can find out about the 'how', but never about the 'why'. . Edited April 10, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Right Wing Posted April 10, 2012 #48 Share Posted April 10, 2012 THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG Before you jump into the conclusion that I am about to bash the believers of this myth, I need to bring to your attention that the title of this thread, I have borrowed it from the great Astrophysicist Carl Sagan in his book "Cosmos," page 258. After going through some quotations about the myths of creation, Carl Sagan refers to them as tributes to human audacity, being the chief difference between them and "our modern scientific myth of the big bang, that science is self-questioning through the performance of experiments and observations to test our ideas." Never mind how a myth can be tested or experimented upon. The bottom line is that it was rather magnanimous of Carl Sagan to admit the big bang as no more, no less, a myth, just like any other mythological account of creation, which, nevertheless, is "equally worthy our deep respect." Here, Carl Sagan implies, IMHO, that the concept of probability is as good as gold in both cases: Creation and the big bang. There are two modalities of beliefs: To believe by faith, when we don't know much about what we believe in, and to believe on the basis of probability, when even imaginable things move from zero to some possibility. To believe by faith, which leads to a claim or denial of anything as a fact, Carl Sagan calls it audacity, while king David calls it foolishness. (Psalm 14:1) No wonder some theists charge atheists with equal need of faith to believe or to deny as both do each other. So, the only solution to this predicament is to believe on the basis of the concept of probability. Thus, audacity and foolishness are replaced by wisdom. Ben I too believe the Big Bang is a myth. If one was to research into how scientists tell how far away stars are they would discover its done using trigonometry. One telescope aligns itself with a star from one side of the planet and another telescope from the opposite side. Angles of the telescopes are calculated, the distance between the telescopes is know and this allows them to come up with a value. The problem is how do you calculate the distance of a star with any accuracy when your angle is 0000000.1 degrees. The scientists opening admit triginometry can only be used to calcuate the distance of a star out to 100 light years with any accuracy. Now how on Earth can a scientist tell us we have galaxies millions of light years away and trace them back to a central location from which they emerged 14.5 billions years ago? Its a wild guess with an error rate of 99.99999%. I may as well go to a psychic and have them predict how far away a galaxy is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted April 10, 2012 #49 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I too believe the Big Bang is a myth. If one was to research into how scientists tell how far away stars are they would discover its done using trigonometry. One telescope aligns itself with a star from one side of the planet and another telescope from the opposite side. Angles of the telescopes are calculated, the distance between the telescopes is know and this allows them to come up with a value. The problem is how do you calculate the distance of a star with any accuracy when your angle is 0000000.1 degrees. The scientists opening admit triginometry can only be used to calcuate the distance of a star out to 100 light years with any accuracy. Now how on Earth can a scientist tell us we have galaxies millions of light years away and trace them back to a central location from which they emerged 14.5 billions years ago? Its a wild guess with an error rate of 99.99999%. I may as well go to a psychic and have them predict how far away a galaxy is. Trigonometric parallax is used to measure the distances of the nearby stars. The stars are so far away that observing a star from opposite sides of the Earth would produce a parallax angle much, much too small to detect. As large a baseline as possible must be used. The largest one that can be easily used is the orbit of the Earth. In this case the baseline is the distance between the Earth and the Sun---an astronomical unit (AU) or 149.6 million kilometers! http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm And when you use a baseline connecting opposite points in the Earth's orbit, you get double that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 10, 2012 #50 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Trigonometric parallax is used to measure the distances of the nearby stars. The stars are so far away that observing a star from opposite sides of the Earth would produce a parallax angle much, much too small to detect. As large a baseline as possible must be used. The largest one that can be easily used is the orbit of the Earth. In this case the baseline is the distance between the Earth and the Sun---an astronomical unit (AU) or 149.6 million kilometers! http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm And when you use a baseline connecting opposite points in the Earth's orbit, you get double that number. In simple terms, take one measurement at one extreme of the earths orbit and another at the other extreme, and you have baseline approx 180 million miles long. I guess, as long as the star is about at right angles to the plane of the earths orbit. It wouldnt work if the star was on the same( but extended) ellipse as the earth's orbit.(or close to it) Hope i got my terms right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts