Re: big bang ?

From: Mitchell Jones (mjones_at_21cenlogic.com)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: 09 Mar 2005 16:20:58 EST

In article <1110332093.597108.280630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dave P. wrote:
> > On 7 Mar 2005 23:04:27 -0800, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>Specifically, if you believe that everything must have a "creator,"
> > >>why doesn't that apply to God? And if it does, how do we avoid
> concluding
> > >>that Supergod must have existed, to create God? On the other hand,
> if
> > >>we give God a special dispensation and allow that he may have
> always
> > >>existed, then what need do we have for the God hypothesis, since in
> > >>that case the universe itself may have always existed?
> >
> The Uncreated Creator too hard for you?
> >
> > I agree with Mr. Jones. If one can accept that God exists without the
> > need of a creator, then it is just as easy to accept that the
> universe
> > can exist without the need of a creator... especially so, since there
> > is no evidence of any God, the creator.
> >
> > Dave P.
> The rationalization of the atheists.
>
> The universe came from somewhere.

***{If the universe had to "come from somewhere," then logical
consistency requires that God also had to "come from somewhere." Result:
Supergod. But you reject Supergod. And yet you call me a moron. Well,
hey, if all else fails... :-) --MJ}***

 That is what the Big Bang is about -
> a begining.

***{Not really. It is just as far back as those particular theoretical
extrapolations can be taken, based on the premises of those making them.
Indeed, they believe that no inferences about details are allowed prior
to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang (the so-called "Planck time"), due
to quantum mechanical uncertainties. That does not mean nothing existed
before the big bang. It just means most theorists are hesitant to
speculate about it.

There have, however, been some such speculations along those lines. For
example, some have alleged that the universe oscillates, meaning that
prior to the big bang there was a "big crunch" in which a prior universe
collapsed to form the ultradense condition out of which developed the
big bang, which then produced the present universe. By that
interpretation the current expansion will itself coast to a halt,
reverse into contraction, and crash down into yet another big crunch,
yielding up yet another ultradense condition, followed by another big
bang, and so on forever and ever.

My own view is that the "big bang" is one of those fairy castles in the
sky that academic "physicists" spend their time playing in, at public
expense. Just as the definition of "God" has been tweaked each time the
advancement of knowledge led to the falsification of the previous
definition, so too has the definition of the big bang, and I do not view
this state of affairs as coincidental. My attitude toward the big bang,
however, is not a matter that is relevant to our dispute. What matters
here is that nothing implicit in the big bang theory requires that the
universe had a beginning. Thus if you want to use it to claim scientific
support for your view, you are barking up the wrong tree. Many prominent
big bang proponents (e.g., Nobelist Steven Weinberg) are avowed
atheists. Here, for example, is a quote from Weinberg:

"As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can
understand more and more without any reference to supernatural
intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists
I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves
atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science --
that it has made it possible for people not to be religious." --Steven
Weinberg

See http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm for lots
more along the same lines.

--Mitchell Jones}***

 So you must think that a mindless lump is the creator
> then Dave? That's where the universe came from?
>
> ... Another moron.

***{All you prove by calling people names is that you are out of
intellectual ammunition, but lack the good manners and the good sense
that ought to motivate you, at that point, to shut your mouth. But, hey,
you're a "good Christian!" That means we can overlook your lapses and
applaud the fact that you managed to put forth a grammatical sentence or
two. (We applaud when we see a monkey riding a bicycle, right? :-)
--MJ}***

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Reason is dead - was Reason Prevails
    ... > accept His existence and respond appropriately, ... been simply "Because God wills it so". ... today of *how* the universe exists than we did in the past, ... explosion (or "Big Bang") occur?" ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Physical Manifestations: The Evidence says "God"
    ... universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth ... cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang. ... God is and who or what God isn't. ... It tells us that the creator is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physical Manifestations: The Evidence says "God"
    ... universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth ... cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang. ... God is and who or what God isn't. ... It tells us that the creator is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physical Manifestations: The Evidence says "God"
    ... universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth ... cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang. ... God is and who or what God isn't. ... creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years, ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast