The Myth of the Big Bang

[Ben Masada]

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.

Wow! Now, Wearer decided to go into the issue of afterlife. Heaven, Purgatory, fiery pit, etc. Why Wearer? The Scriptures is only too clear that

in the world of darkness where one goes with death, there is no return or going farther. (Job 10:21; Eccl. 9:5,6)

Ben

[Ben Masada]

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'.

.

Are you sure that it is impossible to know the "Why?" I am sure you know how we are born. Don't you know why are we born? To live, that's why.

Now, for the difference between science and religion, why was the issue of religion brought about in my question about the difference between

theory and myth? Carl Sagan was not a religious man. So, he did not need to be told the difference between science and religion.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

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.

Be careful Mr. Right Wing, we have atheists in this forum.

[Ben Masada]

This whole thread seems to be the result of a bit of quote mining. I think it's fair to assume that Sagan used a fair bit of poetic licence in his writing.

As an example, I was recently watching a BBC documentary about the great seasonal floods in Botswana that turn desert into a network of lagoons. I lost count of the number of times the narrator (David Attenborough) used terms like "magic" and "miracle" to describe the events.

Now, it's possible that he thinks there is a supernatural cause to the events - but I doubt it.

You are the right person for my question. When Albert Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he answered and said that all his life was trying

to catch God at His work of creation. Here, is the question: Do you think Einstein believed in the probability for the existence of a Creator for

the universe?

Ben

[Ben Masada]

First off I never said you googled anything. I said I googled the keywords 'carl sagan myth of big bang' and found the repeated internet spamming of your exact post, by you, over a multitude of forums.

Second, as someone who is a staunch, fence-sitting agnostic I believe you have every right to believe in a creator or creators, whatever makes your world-view happiest. However, just because you believe that a creator made the universe, does not mean that the BBT becomes a myth. Why the hell people think the two are mutual exclusive is beyond me. If there was a creator, why can't BBT be his/her/their mechanism. All science does is look at things and says "Hey, to the best of our understanding and data, this theory seem to explain how things work or happen."

What I don't like about your copy-paste post is that you take one statement about BBT by Carl Sagan, selectively edit it AND take it out of context, then run with it as your sole argument. That doesn't help your argument, if anything, it show you are being misleading at best.

It is perfectly probable that the big bang goes hand-in-hand with the concept of creation. I don't discard anything, as I have said before, I just cannot believe by faith in something I am not sure about it. And for Carl Sagan, I don't think I misquoted him. I just copied what he said. The

problem with atheists is that they don't like to hear of a scientist disagreeing with their views.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Lol, im not gonna take a side here, but i don't the we should focus on "god" rather the implications of the origin of the universe from an Intelligent source. Big bang is based up endless hypotheses which are supportd by more hypothesis almost all of which havent been proven, nor anywhere near proven, to make matters worse even those hypothesis are supported by more hypothesis lol. Electric or Plasma universe models are much more reliable , logical and are supported by far more evidence than the model of the universe and its origin that is perpetuated today. We shouldn't just disregard other theories , especially for the sake of traditional beliefs ...

That's where I stand. If the big bang is indeed based up on endless hypotheses, which I do agree with this view, I do not understand why the anger

raised by the revelation of this truth.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

You can prove (and disprove) a whole heap about the origin and expansion of the universe, as has already been done. The same cannot be said for the idea of a creator.

You don't understand the concept of empirical evidence.

Great! You have got down to the bottom line. If you believe that, absolutely, nothing can be said about the idea of a Creator, and that you can

prove (and disprove) a whole heap about the origin and expansion of the universe, go right ahead and tell us where the universe came from and what

was there before the big bang. I am all ears.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Understanding the big bang (I say "understanding" rather than "believing in", as that is the case with most misrepresented sciences - it is not a case of belief) has nothing to do with your religious orientation.

It is what the evidence points towards. Nothing more.

Emma, first of all, I am not religious. Then, if the case is not of "believing in" but of "understanding", I am sure you count yourself in among

those who understand. Go right ahead and tell me what and how you understand that the big bang gave origin to the universe. Then, you can add to

that an explanation of what was there before the big bang. Thanks.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

You are right, let's take every word literally..

We'll be in for some fun:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39)

I think the quotation above was said by someone in a tremendous need of attention and love. And he was ready to react violently against being rejected. It sounds to me that either the writer was Paul or a disciple of his; because it sounds like his policy of Replacement Theology, which

is the vandalism of Judaism by Christianity, the religion he founded in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Great! In that case, since no one can prove the big bang, there is no evidence that is was a fact. Therefore, Carl Sagan was right. Thanks.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Who is the audience of Cosmos that Sagan is addressing when he says "our modern scientific myth"?

Is it the scientific community, or is it the lay-community?

The lay-community; otherwise, the book would not have been published to all people. Perhaps, he tried to let us know that the big bang should not

be something to believe in by faith but just a myth, whatever he meant. He was probably aware that it has not been proved a fact and that it

probably could never be.

Ben

[Beckys_Mom]

Well, for a start, you are telling me that you can't stand the heat. You must have someone else to cook for you the games you bring from your hunting

sprees with this arrow of yours. Ben

Ha ha poor Ben...Someone points out straight facts for one of his multi forum posts on the SAME subject and he flips the lid ...Ben .Anger and silly remarks will not make your case look good... Out of the multi forums you belong to, you'd think you'd know what an avatar was by now?

And for theory, I thought it would be so, till it has been proved as a fact.

Obviously you have NO clear idea what the term scientific theory means do you Ben? ...You are completely confusing hypothesis with theory, this is a typical mistake done by many religious... Please research their meanings BEFORE you try and counter my posts... Otherwise you will fail to convince anyone else reading......

When it dies

or it is changed according to new discoveries or research, it becomes a myth if it is still appealed to as a possibility

Ben........Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word - MYTH ...I have already explained to you what the word means... and you ignore it... So it seems you do not believe me... Maybe I am feeding you a tall tale aka a Myth lol... So get a dictionary and look it up...

Then, if you did not mean to put Carl Sagan down for referring to the big bang as a myth, you have contradicted yourself by referring to him as a tell-taler.

I did not put him down... I just know and understand what the definitions for the words - THEORY - HYPOTHESIS and MYTH

Now It is called thinking for oneself... Get a dictionary and look all three of these words up BEFORE you ever try and reply to my post I am saying this because you do not seem to beleive in the definitions I gave you previously .

I am not the one who said that the big bang is "our modern myth" but Carl Sagan. Would you please give me a break?

Give you a break? Ben that is something you have not taken.. You do belong to multi forums posting up the exact same threads auguring with everyone .... That is not taking a break, it is obsession...Many call it forum trolling. Now take a break and get the dictionary and look up the relevant words you seem to be confused on... I see no point in trying to ague about MYTH and THEORY when you blatantly ignore their true meanings...

Edited April 13, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[White Crane Feather]

I think your main problem here is your use of words. Complex. Error. Successful. You're looking at things purely from the point of design, from the point of an "end goal" - when you do this, all you will see are things that looked designed.

If you look at the world in terms of its end goal being the proliferation of human life, then yes, its been damn successful. But to start with a conclusion and work backwards is not scientific, and will lead us nowhere.

This is not how nature works, and this becomes painfully evident if you'd just learn the science. But it sounds as if your conclusion has already been made.

Consider my case well and truly rested.

Yes you are correct... But you are just as guilty. You start from a position of materialism and describe every thing as such. Reguardless of of evidence to tge contrary

But we don't need to go through all that again. My previouse post was actually the way evolution works. Genetic mutations ( errors) cause evolution. Evolution is not error correction. Evolution It is beneficial error selection. Those mutations that benefit the organisms ability to reproduce are more successful. Do you not agree?

Materialist dogmatic mindsets are the culpret here. Your comments proove the point.

Weather someone wants to view creation as a tool for a greater concousness or a cosmic accident ( or certainty) is a matter of philosophy because only philosophy can atempt to penetrate our current scientific barriers.

I tend to hold a view that sort of encompasses both. But don't pretend to have scientific answers for the great mystery. You don't. And the mire you cling to outdated paradimes the further from reality you will drift.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Great! In that case, since no one can prove the big bang, there is no evidence that is was a fact. Therefore, Carl Sagan was right. Thanks.

Ben

but there are indications- For example expanding universe can be indication of big bang.

[eight bits]

By referring to the big bang as "our scientific myth," Carl Sagan rather called it a myth considered so by scientists.

No, Ben, Carl Sagan didn't call it a myth. You did.

End of story.

[Beckys_Mom]

No, Ben, Carl Sagan didn't call it a myth. You did.

End of story.

Oh my word... Now this is what I call a PRICELESS post....BRILLIANT.. just .................BRILLIANT

So brilliant that it needs to be bolded, highlighted and enlarged for all to spot lol

[CommunitarianKevin]

If you are not, what is taking you so long to tell me what you know that I don't? Let us start with the universe. How did it come about and what was there before the big bang, if you believe that it came from it?

Ben

Well I know how to quote people properly and not quote mine...I do not know how it came about or what was there before it and I do not think it is possible for us to know...that is why I am agnostic.

[ShadowSot]

I take it he's probably familiar wtih Daniel Dennet's statements concerning evolution, either.

While I hesitate to give him more... well, actually it'd just be a load of blanks instead of ammunition, but still.

I believe it's in Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous idea, where he speaks about the value of evolution as a creation myth, replacing older myths of construction and providing a narrative for mankind's origin, much like other creation myths.

However, he goes on to explicitly state that his point is not that evolution is itself mythical, but the story it tells has in it's own way elements of a grand mythical story.

[Emma_Acid]

And what are the evidences?

Go right ahead and tell me what and how you understand that the big bang gave origin to the universe.

You actually both want me to do your research for you?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Emma_Acid

[Beckys_Mom]

You actually want me to do your research for you?

If he is a male... then yes lol .........

.......I kid on that only some will be that lazy

[Emma_Acid]

Materialist dogmatic mindsets are the culpret here.

We've been through this before.

The retreat to the "materialists vs us" argument is one taken by those who are annoyed that the findings of empirical science don't agree with the way they want to world to be.

I am not a "materialist" - and there was no such thing as "materialist science" until it was invented by those I just described - people who can't process the fact that there is simply no evidence for the sort of spiritualist reality they were hoping for.

[Emma_Acid]

......I kid on that only some will be that lazy

It's all out there. Countless articles, papers and books about the origin of the universe, its evidence, the predictions made (and met!) and the ongoing work. Its not as easy as Wishing Something To Be True, so I don't expect much of a response.

[Arbenol]

You are the right person for my question. When Albert Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he answered and said that all his life was trying

to catch God at His work of creation. Here, is the question: Do you think Einstein believed in the probability for the existence of a Creator for

the universe?

Ben

Who Knows? I'm not going to speculate what Einstein really thought. You can find other quotes that appear to show he did not think there was any need for a creator.

[Lion6969]

You actually both want me to do your research for you?

This reply is to a different post not the one above. You accused someone starting from a conclusion then working their way backwards. You said science does not work like this. I agree, but how does science work?

What's the difference with having a theory a hypothesis which would include some form of an early conclusion an early draft.....science only comes in via the methodology to establish observable data which may justify a theory or not.

Let me give an example, materialists in the past concluded the universe was infinite, based on what, let's judge it by your own standards, scientific empiricism, how would you test such a conclusion that had no backing empirically? There are still fools who believe this, especially materialists.

[Lion6969]

You and Preacherman are looking at it incorrectly, intelligent designers create things that are simple--Not complex. Complex things in nature are sloppy, like DNA. And while we're at it; define "complex" anyway. How is DNA complex? In it's bond structure? Cause I can think of many, many things with much more complex bonds. In its superstructure? Because things that helical (like an alpha helix) aren't complex, they are actually rather simple structures--Again, I can think of molecular topology much more complex. In the "information" it contains? DNA is a 4 base "code"--Lots of other systems in biology are much more complex.

Smart people (or beings) design things that don't have lots of added "junk" and unnecessary parts susceptible to error. DNA isn't designed by something smart--Its the result of nature, ergo its sloppy, full of mishaps and prone to error.

Information is complex! The four letter code is complex, it's not matter, it's immaterial. Where did the information come from? Who or how was it coded into four letter codes. What has more complex information than DNA?

Cheers copa!