>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Retro:
The big bang theory is a travesty. Nerd humor written by those who are clearly not nerds, and do not know how we act.

oh shush up. The only thing one has to get past besides ones own superiority clique complex is the laugh track.


The show is mildly funny on a good day. The laugh track and line, line, laugh formula is simply covering average writing and acting. Even without the laugh track, the show is just not funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmLQaTcViOA

>> ^Retro:

The big bang theory is a travesty. Nerd humor written by those who are clearly not nerds, and do not know how we act.


oh shush up. The only thing one has to get past besides ones own superiority clique complex is the laugh track.

The big bang theory is a travesty. Nerd humor written by those who are clearly not nerds, and do not know how we act.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

For someone who claims to have been a man of science, you are so far off on your understanding of science and even your ability to do basic research that you're looking a lot more like a troll on the Poe scale.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.
2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.
3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???
4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.
5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.
6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.
7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.
8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".
9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.
10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

The third thread about our (mostly your) beliefs seems like it might still be fun, and I may get there, but these first two two comments of yours really took the wind out of my sails.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

The argument does not just rest upon the fact that there are UMVs, although their existence is actually positive evidence for OMVs. The reason being, UMVs are exactly what you should expect to find if OMVs do exist. You're acting like OMVs are removed from human experience, and that is not true; although they are objectively determined (by God), they are subjectively experienced. They would be in fact ingrained into human beings. Which leads to the other part of the argument, which is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. It tells me that some things are absolutely wrong, and this sense precedes my opinions. So the reason why there are UMVs is because of this innate sense of right and wrong that everyone has, which aren't determined by mere opinion. This is sufficient evidence in my opinion to establish that UMVs are OMVs, in which case premise 2 stands.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

This isn't a relevant issue in this discussion. I have good reasons for what I believe, which I can sufficiently demonstrate. Remember, I used to hold the same beliefs you do, or near to them, about origins and so forth. And when I became a Christian, I was willing to integrate them into my faith. I was convinced to change my mind based on the shockingly weak evidence they are founded on, not because of a leap of faith.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed in the steady state theory which postulated a static and eternal universe. Because it was accepted as fact, they would use it to scoff and ridicule anyone who dared to suggest the Universe had a beginning. Yet, they were all wrong and the creationists were right. If they had listened to them, they would have made the discovery much earlier. Robert Wilson, one of people who discovered the CMBR that confirmed the theory, said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

This isn't science evidence and creation evidence. It's all the same evidence. The difference is that we are interpreting it differently, and that is through the lens of our respective worldviews.

You also miss out on the fact that the ultimate goal of science is to discover a theory of everything. It is seeking towards that very notion of infallibility that you are scoffing at. That Christians already claim to have it is no mark against Christianity; it would only actually be evidence of the superiority of its truth, or not. Consider this quote by Robert Jastrow, a noted Astronomer:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

Well, I am sure we will come to your beliefs eventually. In the meantime, I am happy to provide evidence for what I believe, and you can evaluate it as we go along.

>>

>> ^messenger>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

Let's just say we both mischaracterized eachother, I'm sorry, and move on.

What I want to say is that I really admire Stephan Hawking for this theory. I applaud his intellectual honesty. He knows that infinite universe theories, string theory, brane theories, and the like are just so much fluff, that prop up big bang cosomology. That they are just acting as place holders to keep the theory from falling under the shadow of its Ultimate Cause. He knows that time, space and matter had a beginning at the big bang and doubtless he sees the obvious implications of this. But it can't be God, so he takes the denial of a Creation to its natural conclusion. He proposes as the Ultimate Solution to the problem of the Ultimate Cause, the God of atheism, the anti-God: nothing at all. This is the Ultimate Solution for science, to get something from nothing. You see, scientists don't like the big bang theory. It disturbs them. They were much happier when they all believed the Universe had always existed. They don't want to have to deal with this, because a Universe with a beginning inescapably leads to an eternal, transcendent first cause. All Stephan Hawking has done is remain true to their logic and to their denial. He is intellectually honest enough to admit that the big bang strongly implicates God, so since God can't exist, the Universe must have been created by nothing.


Stephan Hawking was asked in an interview that if he could have any one of his questions answered, what would it be? He answered "Why is there something rather than nothing." The sad irony of this question is painful to contemplate. The mental gymnastics he has gone through to deny the obvious fact of Creation just boggles the mind.


>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!"
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded".
And then here:
.before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense.
No, that's a lie. What I said was:
We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.
I said it doesn't make much sense. I still don't think it makes much sense and I still think it's unlikely to be true. But it could be true. I could be wrong.
Maybe you think I'm being a jerk or something, but mischaracterizing my opinions, as you've clearly, clearly done is dishonest. The most charitable thing I can say is maybe you thought I meant something else. I didn't. I meant what I said.
one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely.
He's not a shaper of modern scientific though, despite being famous and having made some important contributions earlier in his career. The reaction to this speech that I see (and to much of what he has said in recent years) is far from "sage nodding". Rather, it was more like "Is he being serious?" - well, except from the press which reacted with predictable mania.
Look, if what you'd said was "some scientists think the Universe came from nothing, and I think that's silly", I would have just agreed with you (as I've done quite a few times in different threads, sometimes when your opinion isn't popular). But you have a continued habit of pointing out speculative science you don't like and arguing against it as though it was established dogma (you've done this here in the past with things like string theory). It really looked like that's what you were doing here.
If what you meant was "some scientists believe x", you have an odd way of saying it:
I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded
Between that, and your previous, repeated derision at the Big Bang theory, I suppose you can excuse me for thinking that's what you thought the scientific consensus was. And if you did understand that this wasn't the scientific consensus, how can you really justify your phrasing above?

@shinyblurry

Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!"


No, that's a lie. What I said was:

No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded".


And then here:

.before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense.


No, that's a lie. What I said was:

We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.


I said it doesn't make much sense. I still don't think it makes much sense and I still think it's unlikely to be true. But it could be true. I could be wrong.

Maybe you think I'm being a jerk or something, but mischaracterizing my opinions, as you've clearly, clearly done is dishonest. The most charitable thing I can say is maybe you thought I meant something else. I didn't. I meant what I said.

one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely.


He's not a shaper of modern scientific though, despite being famous and having made some important contributions earlier in his career. The reaction to this speech that I see (and to much of what he has said in recent years) is far from "sage nodding". Rather, it was more like "Is he being serious?" - well, except from the press which reacted with predictable mania.

Look, if what you'd said was "some scientists think the Universe came from nothing, and I think that's silly", I would have just agreed with you (as I've done quite a few times in different threads, sometimes when your opinion isn't popular). But you have a continued habit of pointing out speculative science you don't like and arguing against it as though it was established dogma (you've done this here in the past with things like string theory). It really looked like that's what you were doing here.

If what you meant was "some scientists believe x", you have an odd way of saying it:

I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded


Between that, and your previous, repeated derision at the Big Bang theory, I suppose you can excuse me for thinking that's what you thought the scientific consensus was. And if you did understand that this wasn't the scientific consensus, how can you really justify your phrasing above?

Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.

How quickly your commentary changes. I guess that's scientific, right? Before it was "NO ONE IS SAYING SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING STUPID!" Now it's that there is no concensus.

To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.

Ahh, more science here..before you said, that something comes from nothing makes no sense. Now it's, a scientist said it so I can believe its true. Hah!

Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.

Science doesn't know anything about origins, whether it is the origin of the Universe, or life itself. It doesn't have a clue, and it is plainly obvious when one of the foremost scientists in the world is positing that something came from nothing and everyone is nodding sagely. The emperor has no clothes.

But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?

I don't want to lose the thread here. If you want to discuss all of these things, message me.

Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?

Science gets a lot right but overall it is blind. I appreciate science, and I have nothing against it. I am just against things which aren't science, such as macro evolution.

>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
You never explained anything but rather offered your amatuer opinion. Here is the opinion of an expert:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
Congrats, you can use Google - but no, that isn't much of a link (I'm very surprised you couldn't find something better than that, really). Hell, the story doesn't even support the headline. But even if Stephen Hawking swears on his life that the Universe came from nothing, it wouldn't mean us "followers of Scientism" would believe that. Science doesn't work like that.
Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.
And did I explain it before? Yes, I did. I just checked. So did a couple other VS posters. And you commented on the Tyson Big Bang video. Did you watch it before writing your stupid comment (oh, and it was stupid)? In there, he explicitly says that the Big Bang theory doesn't explain what happened before a certain threshold. As Tyson says around 31 minutes, we need a new theory to get us before that.
That's the current scientific consensus. His talk is simple and easy to understand, and you pretended to watch it. Do you think he's lying about the current state of knowledge? Do you think he's wrong? Or do you think some new secret scientific consensus has maybe emerged since that video? Hint: it hasn't.
To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.
To learn about what is the Big Bang theory, try the Wikipedia article - which, as I quoted before, does represent more or less the current consensus. (Hint: when you want to learn about scientific theory at a "popular" level, try Wikipedia before USA Today). As it says, science doesn't have a consensus on seeing past the Big Bang. You can see some other speculative theories at the end of that article.
Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.
But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?
Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?

@shinyblurry

You never explained anything but rather offered your amatuer opinion. Here is the opinion of an expert:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm


Congrats, you can use Google - but no, that isn't much of a link (I'm very surprised you couldn't find something better than that, really). Hell, the story doesn't even support the headline. But even if Stephen Hawking swears on his life that the Universe came from nothing, it wouldn't mean us "followers of Scientism" would believe that. Science doesn't work like that.

Again, there is no scientific consensus on seeing past the big bang. There just isn't. Stephen Hawking might have an idea - actually he has had a few contradictory different opinions on things over the years and he's honestly not universally respected at this point - but he's not "science" and US Today is not a great place to learn about science.

And did I explain it before? Yes, I did. I just checked. So did a couple other VS posters. And you commented on the Tyson Big Bang video. Did you watch it before writing your stupid comment (oh, and it was stupid)? In there, he explicitly says that the Big Bang theory doesn't explain what happened before a certain threshold. As Tyson says around 31 minutes, we need a new theory to get us before that.

That's the current scientific consensus. His talk is simple and easy to understand, and you pretended to watch it. Do you think he's lying about the current state of knowledge? Do you think he's wrong? Or do you think some new secret scientific consensus has maybe emerged since that video? Hint: it hasn't.

To be clear, I'm not making the opposite assumption. If Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, for all I know he's right. Maybe one day that will become part of established theory. Right now it isn't - in any way, shape or form - and it's not part of the general Big Bang theory; it's just the speculation, possibly not even terribly serious speculation, of a famous physicist.

To learn about what is the Big Bang theory, try the Wikipedia article - which, as I quoted before, does represent more or less the current consensus. (Hint: when you want to learn about scientific theory at a "popular" level, try Wikipedia before USA Today). As it says, science doesn't have a consensus on seeing past the Big Bang. You can see some other speculative theories at the end of that article.

Science doesn't have the full picture. People will try to figure out more, but until then Science is OK with not knowing everything.

But now I'm curious, about your full picture. How old is the Earth? How long ago were Adam and Eve (assuming you believe in a literal Adam and Eve)? Was there a worldwide flood? Why does it really, really look like there wasn't? Were there dinosaurs? When did they live and die? Was there pre-human human like beings (Cromagnons and what not)? If not, what are all those skeletons, artifacts and history? Why is it the further we dig the less complex the fossils are? Did all humans once speak the same language? Was there a tower of Babel where the languages split? Is the universe expanding?

Overall, is science right about pretty much everything, other than the few places it contradicts your scripture? Isn't that an odd coincidence? Or do you think science is wrong about a bunch of other stuff too?

No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded". And I've explained this to you before. And if you had read all the books you claim to have read (which you're either lying about, you're piss-poor at reading comprehension, or you just don't want to let go of your straw-man) you'd have read this explanation many times before. But it has somehow not sunk in, so I'll try again.

You never explained anything but rather offered your amatuer opinion. Here is the opinion of an expert:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm

The "Big Bang Theory" does not say how that lump of hot dense matter came to be there. The Big Bang is not a "from nothing" beginning, it's a threshold beyond which we can't currently see or extrapolate. There are other theories that attempt to look further, but none of them is an "established winner" - and to a certain extent even "Big Bang" isn't an established winner, it's just as good a way as we've found to explain things like microwave background radiation and the general distribution of stuff we can see in the universe.

From Wikipedia:

Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

I am well aware of what the theory does and doesn't explain.

It explains stuff starting at a certain point. It doesn't say where stuff came from. We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.

You're right, it makes no sense at all, yet this is what scientists claim happened.

I don't know why I'm trying again to help you understand this; I guess I'm hoping that some day it'll sink in. Sometimes you do seem to want to discuss things honestly, so I'm hoping this is one of those times and you finally give up on some of your silly mischaracterizations of science.

What you're doing is trying to assert yourself as some sort of authority on the matter over me, when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Science is indeed saying that something came from nothing.

I think if you took any significant time to try to understand science, your opinion on it would change significantly.

And please, please don't tell me you have. It's clear in every post you make that you haven't - not even at a pop-sci level - and lying about it is degrading to all of us.

I think it's clear that I know more about the subject than you do, especially the underlying philosophical implications science is predicated on, of which you seem to have no awareness of.

>> ^jmzero:
@shinyblurry
I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded
No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded". And I've explained this to you before. And if you had read all the books you claim to have read (which you're either lying about, you're piss-poor at reading comprehension, or you just don't want to let go of your straw-man) you'd have read this explanation many times before. But it has somehow not sunk in, so I'll try again.
The "Big Bang Theory" does not say how that lump of hot dense matter came to be there. The Big Bang is not a "from nothing" beginning, it's a threshold beyond which we can't currently see or extrapolate. There are other theories that attempt to look further, but none of them is an "established winner" - and to a certain extent even "Big Bang" isn't an established winner, it's just as good a way as we've found to explain things like microwave background radiation and the general distribution of stuff we can see in the universe. From Wikipedia:
Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
It explains stuff starting at a certain point. It doesn't say where stuff came from. We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.
I don't know why I'm trying again to help you understand this; I guess I'm hoping that some day it'll sink in. Sometimes you do seem to want to discuss things honestly, so I'm hoping this is one of those times and you finally give up on some of your silly mischaracterizations of science.
I think if you took any significant time to try to understand science, your opinion on it would change significantly. And please, please don't tell me you have. It's clear in every post you make that you haven't - not even at a pop-sci level - and lying about it is degrading to all of us.

@shinyblurry

I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded


No. The "Big Bang Theory" does not say that "nothing exploded". And I've explained this to you before. And if you had read all the books you claim to have read (which you're either lying about, you're piss-poor at reading comprehension, or you just don't want to let go of your straw-man) you'd have read this explanation many times before. But it has somehow not sunk in, so I'll try again.

The "Big Bang Theory" does not say how that lump of hot dense matter came to be there. The Big Bang is not a "from nothing" beginning, it's a threshold beyond which we can't currently see or extrapolate. There are other theories that attempt to look further, but none of them is an "established winner" - and to a certain extent even "Big Bang" isn't an established winner, it's just as good a way as we've found to explain things like microwave background radiation and the general distribution of stuff we can see in the universe. From Wikipedia:

Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.


It explains stuff starting at a certain point. It doesn't say where stuff came from. We don't know where it came from, but it's not very likely to be "nothing", as that doesn't make much sense.

I don't know why I'm trying again to help you understand this; I guess I'm hoping that some day it'll sink in. Sometimes you do seem to want to discuss things honestly, so I'm hoping this is one of those times and you finally give up on some of your silly mischaracterizations of science.

I think if you took any significant time to try to understand science, your opinion on it would change significantly. And please, please don't tell me you have. It's clear in every post you make that you haven't - not even at a pop-sci level - and lying about it is degrading to all of us.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Well, this is only half the story. There is a certain amount of faith in science as a whole. This is because science doesn't actually prove anything:

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

To believe in science you must have faith in empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Yet there are many truths empiricism cannot account for. Science itself is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions called "brute givens" which presume the operations of the Universe have remained constant in the past and will continue to do so. Here is a good dialog on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Please ignore the title, it was just the best clip I could find. Also, check out this conversation between a physics major and a bunch of physicists and mathematicians about him losing faith in empiricism:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

This isn't always true. For instance, the scientific community at large consider evolution to be "proven" and won't tolerate any dissent on the issue. A scientist who even breathes the words "intelligent design" will be totally ostracized, have their reputations ruined, be unable to publish scientific papers and lose their ability to get grants. It is nearly impossible to do any work on intelligent design for that reason. Evolutionary theories are the sacred cow of science, and they religiously defend it, even to the point of suppressing any debate on it, and also by propagating this view into our political and education system. They also file lawsuits to keep intelligent design from being mentioned in classrooms. This has clearly gone beyond the bounds of mere scientific inquiry. If scientists had taken this same attitude on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics may never have been discovered.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

Well, you have to realize that some of things you seem to consider facts, aren't. The Big Bang theory is not a fact, it is totally unprovable. Not only that, but the theory itself doesn't even really work..it has a number of problems, from how stars and planets form, to the lack of observable matter and energy to make it work, to what they call the smoothness problem:

"These structures must have arisen from tiny variations in the energy density in the early universe. Where the densities were greatest is, presumably, where gravity caused matter to collapse into the structures we see today.

The problem is that to explain these structures seems to require a universe that was created in an incredibly smooth non-chaotic manner. This seems extremely unlikely."''

I like the last bit. It isn't unlikely if you consider the Universe was created by an omniopotent being. The basic problem with big bang cosmology and evoltuion is that they are not real science. You can't observe and test them, they are speculation and assumption about things that happened in the past. It is mere interpretation of data, and there are many ways to interpret it. We are both looking at the same facts, but interpreting them in different ways.

Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

I don't preumse I can prove to you that Christianity is true. I can show you that there are good reasons to believe there is a God, and that there is good evidence for Christianity, but I cannot prove my experience. I can however tell you this is something you can prove to yourself. If you ask God for the evidence, He will provide it to you. You can do this by praying something like this: "Jesus, if you're real, I want to know about it. If you're God please come into my life and I will give it over to you" If you can pray those words and mean them, you will get an answer. He promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him dilligently.

As far as the crutch thing goes, what I am speaking about is sin. Those who don't know God are in a servitude to their passions and desires. Meaning, the first priority is a fulfillment of these desires, which the intellect first assents to, and then seeks out a worldview that justifies this fulfillment. Meaning, the atheist naturally doesn't want to believe that which contradicts the fulfillment of his natural desires, and will resist believing it. Admitting that God exists also means that you have a responsibility to obey Him, which further means that you can no longer live according to fleshly desires. So, an atheist will resist the knowledge of God so they can continue to live as they please, doing that which they know by their conscience is wrong, but being unable to resist these things. It has virtually nothing to do with evidence; our sinful nature is just naturally inclined to be in rebellion against Gods authority and will continue to operate this way on any pretense that seems even remotely plausible.

>> ^Quboid:
I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.
There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.
Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.
The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.
Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.
(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

* Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.

(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.