Lets say the “Big Bang” really happened and all the matter in the universe just happened to be squished into one tiny dot that was smaller than a period... Then that one tiny dot began spinning, and then BOOM the big bang occurred!

Lets just say that the one tiny dot was spinning counter-clockwise, so when the big bang occurred everything that went spinning off into space should be spinning counter-clockwise also, right? Well if the big bang happened, why is Uranus, Venus, and even whole galaxies spinning backwards? :eek:

Now when you think about the above, I want you to also think about the creation of the universe as documented in Genesis.. What is so hard for you to believe?

Isn't it obvious that your "theory" is just that... Theoretical...

The 'Big Bang' does not refer to a singular point in space actually banging outward, like an explosion ... but rather that all 'points' banged into existence at once. Its a hard concept to explain.

Nobody is buying it. Try harder.

The 'Big Bang' does not refer to a singular point in space actually banging outward, like an explosion ... but rather that all 'points' banged into existence at once. Its a hard concept to explain.

So now there are multiple singularities? And they all coincidentally and mysteriously violate their own gravitational pulls at the exact same moment and begot the material universe. All of this done by a non-supernatural process?

And Faith is somehow less rational? I believe there's a conscious underlayment (Spirit, or God if you prefer) that binds all other consciouses (spirits) to each other and to their physical being, and I'm the guy who lives in a fantasy world.

If you think Obbe represents the scientific and/or atheist position, on this topic or any other topic, you're mistaken. His part of your nutjob camp.

So now there are multiple singularities? And they all coincidentally and mysteriously violate their own gravitational pulls at the exact same moment and begot the material universe. All of this done by a non-supernatural process?

I have no clue. I was remembering what I have read of the Big Bang theory from books long ago. I think it has to do with reality being much more complex then the not-quite-four dimensions you are aware of.

Ask ArmsMerchant what he thinks of 'supernatural' ... I feel more or less the same.

I believe there's a conscious underlayment (Spirit, or God if you prefer) that binds all other consciouses

Yes. So do I. Please see the "What is God? An Answer" thread for more on that.

If you think Obbe represents the scientific and/or atheist position, on this topic or any other topic, you're mistaken. His part of your nutjob camp.

Rust, I'm quite versed on laws and theories, thanks. I figured, at the moment, he was a sorely mistaken science student.

Still though, how the Big Bang theory has any credibility is beyond me. How is an object supposed to violate its own gravitation without a supernatural application of change?

Now, folks say that the Big Bang theory supposes an object of 'enormous' density. Black holes, wouldn't their collective gravitation be included within this; don't these monstrous celestial objects bend/swallow even light...doesn't absolutely nothing escape once it's within the event horizon?

Too large a hole for me to think it remotely adequate in and of itself. However, I've heard the Voice. If God said 'Let there be light.' There would fucking be light. The Voice has the power to force an object that will not budge nor escape itself to flee from itself by a single command.

Of course though, my experience doesn't constitute proof of the Voice as it was completely internal. Good luck figuring out the truth without the Truth. :)

I think I remembered what it was ... something about how we used to think this galaxy was the center because other galaxies appeared to be moving away from this one, but we later somehow figured out that if we traveled to another galaxy, it would then appear if all matter is moving away from that galaxy. Because of this, there wasn't really a 'point' in space where it all came from. I don't remember where I read this though.

I think I remembered what it was ... something about how we used to think this galaxy was the center because other galaxies appeared to be moving away from this one, but we later somehow figured out that if we traveled to another galaxy, it would then appear if all matter is moving away from that galaxy. Because of this, there wasn't really a 'point' in space where it all came from. I don't remember where I read this though.

That was part of the Big Bang's evolution as a theory. The observation of distancing galaxies lead to further inquiry. Eventually leading to expansion theory and singularity theory, which essentially combine in Big Bang theory.

The "I don't understand how somthing is possible so it must not be right" argument really sucks. Trying to put science on the same level as faith based entirely on your own ignorance might make you look smart to your pastor but not to anyone else.

I mean, please, read that archived "field guid to critical thinking" somwhere on the website so your posts are less painful to read.

Because we have baby pictures.

from 2006
http://tinyurl.com/kaphg

from 2004
http://tinyurl.com/47y6h

What scientists know and how:

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

What creationists know and why:

God did it. B/C the bible tells me so.

NOW. One of these theories has been created and carefully crafted based on hundreds of years of compiled research into a large body of evidence.

The other has a single ancient book whose authorship and translations are in question today.

ONE of these CLEARLY carries MORE weight than the other.

What scientists know and how:

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the evidence that observers located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

What creationists know and why:

God did it. B/C the bible tells me so.



NOW. One of these theories has been created and carefully crafted based on hundreds of years of compiled research into a large body of evidence.

The other you just regurgitated your already biased opinion and tacked it onto a post...

ONE of these CLEARLY is pure bullshit...

Theories are theories because we don't know all of the facts in question. But, believe me there is physical evidence that the big bang is real. Look up background radiation. We do know that the universe is expanding. The universe is not completely infinite, right? So, obviously it had to come from a single point somewhere. But, there is no center of the universe. Think of the expansion as being on the surface of a balloon. Wherever you are it seems that everything is expanding away from you.

We use theories as a possible explanation and we expand on that. We test the theory until it is proven true or untrue and then we revise. A theory is not a bad thing. By the way, gravity is "just a theory" does that mean it doesn't exist? No, but it is a theory because we don't know completely for certain everything about it. There are only a few things that are actually laws. Theory of relativity also fits in this category.

A theory is there because its the best possible explanation with all of the scientific research and technology at our disposal. I would bet all my chips that it will be proven eventually, but we still do not know where this bang came from. That will be the next step.

There are many theories for that as well, including the multiverse theory and that our universe was created by two other universes colliding. There is a lot of scientific research behind the big bang. You should really look up the facts before you say "its just a theory" (although it is). If you don't like the big bang theory, I propose that you find one that explains all of the properties of the universe and that can be as well scientifically backed up. Just because you don't completely know all the fact doesn't mean you should make some up. Read a Brief History of Time by Hawking.


Because we have baby pictures.

from 2006
http://tinyurl.com/kaphg

from 2004
http://tinyurl.com/47y6h

^ Background radiation

Rust, I'm quite versed on laws and theories, thanks. I figured, at the moment, he was a sorely mistaken science student.

Obviously, you aren't.

However, the point I was trying to make was that since he doesn't represent the scientific or atheist community, making the point " And Faith is somehow less rational? " against what he says is absurd.

How is an object supposed to violate its own gravitation without a supernatural application of change?

You mean like a rocket, that has to violate not only "it's own gravitation" but that of the Earth (thousands if not millions of times its own)? Yeah, that's a real mystery!

Well if the big bang happened, why is Uranus, Venus, and even whole galaxies spinning backwards?

Those planets were not formed at the exact moment of the Big Bang. Also, objects have collided into planets, and have thus made them spin in different directions.

This is why people like you should not be taught any science. You will just misinterpret it and cause confusion.

You mean like a rocket, that has to violate not only "it's own gravitation" but that of the Earth (thousands if not millions of times its own)? Yeah, that's a real mystery!

Then where did the energy come from? Even if that was answered, the singularity would not have let it escape seeing as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and we have black holes that are literally billionths of the size of the Big Bang singularity that swallow everything.

A rocket can overcome the earth's gravity. Light cannot overcome a black hole; how are we to suppose it can overcome something billions of times larger?

NOW. One of these theories has been created and carefully crafted based on hundreds of years of compiled research into a large body of evidence.

The other you just regurgitated your already biased opinion and tacked it onto a post...

ONE of these CLEARLY is pure bullshit...

The laws of logic, mathematics, science, and morality are all in the bible and they are God's Laws...

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything...

Well you're argument here is that 'its in the bible'....

Then where did the energy come from? Even if that was answered, the singularity would not have let it escape seeing as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and we have black holes that are literally billionths of the size of the Big Bang singularity that swallow everything.

A rocket can overcome the earth's gravity. Light cannot overcome a black hole; how are we to suppose it can overcome something billions of times larger?


1. I was answering the question "How is an object supposed to violate its own gravitation without a supernatural application of change?". It can. Easily in fact. A rocket is a very good example of this.

2. The Big Bang was not the same thing as a black hole. Moreover, it wasn't an explosion whereby matter moved through space-time (i.e. like a rocket escaping the Earth's gravitational pull) it was an expansion of space-time itself! Two very different things.

3. The Laws of Physics at time zero, or very very close after that, could have been entirely different of how we know them now.

---

The whole point was not to argue in favor of the Big Bang, but to show how his objection was wrong. An argument about the scientific merit of the Big Bang would probably be better off in Mad Scientists.

Still though, how the Big Bang theory has any credibility is beyond me. How is an object supposed to violate its own gravitation without a supernatural application of change?
It needn't be supernatural, only extremely energetic - and our universe has a lot of energy. :)

NOW. One of these theories has been created and carefully crafted based on hundreds of years of compiled research into a large body of evidence.

The other you just regurgitated your already biased opinion and tacked it onto a post...

ONE of these CLEARLY is pure bullshit...

Really? Care to go into more careful detail about the creationist theory?

Explain to me the Christian creationist theory in your own words and where that knowledge came from and I will tell you how it parrallels my explanation of the creationist theory. Mine may be simplified but I honestly do not think overly so.

I hope you are not saying that the scientists theory is CLEARLY pure bullshit without any evidence to the contrary. That would be ACTUAL bias rather than my FACTUAL bias. :)

Those planets were not formed at the exact moment of the Big Bang. Also, objects have collided into planets, and have thus made them spin in different directions.

This is why people like you should not be taught any science. You will just misinterpret it and cause confusion.

Nah, that makes sense, I can understand that...

Science shouldn't be made "exclusive"... Limiting who is taught science is it's own tyranny... Can we discuss without the intimidation next time, thank you...

Really? Care to go into more careful detail about the creationist theory?

Explain to me the Christian creationist theory in your own words and where that knowledge came from and I will tell you how it parrallels my explanation of the creationist theory. Mine may be simplified but I honestly do not think overly so.

I hope you are not saying that the scientists theory is CLEARLY pure bullshit without any evidence to the contrary. That would be ACTUAL bias rather than my FACTUAL bias. :)

Your quip regarding the interpretation of the bible was what I was referring to as pure bullshit... It proved to me you know nothing on the subject what so ever...

Your quip regarding the interpretation of the bible was what I was referring to as pure bullshit... It proved to me you know nothing on the subject what so ever...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me then?

Explain to me the Christian creationist theory in your own words and where that knowledge came from. Let me know if it differs from: God did it, B/C the bible tells me so.

Proved to you? My quip PROVES nothing more than I am being a bit of an asshole. Where as I will not be as foolish to say that your refusal to display your knowledge PROVES that the knowledge is absent from you; I would like to say it does not look good for your argument.

3. The Laws of Physics at time zero, or very very close after that, could have been entirely different of how we know them now.

I do believe I've heard this argument before... but where.... hmmmmmm

Please tell me where. While you're at it, spare me the shitty attitude; you're not clever enough to make it work.

Thanks! :)

tyranny...

Just like making heaven exclusive to those who have money. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)

Just like making heaven exclusive to those who kill themselves along with others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing)

Just like killing people who refuse to convert to your religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Peasants.27_War)

Just like killing a woman because she dated someone of a different faith. (http://www.vincentchow.net/1203/kurdish-girl-stoned-to-death)

Just like protesting a funeral of someone who just did what they were ordered to do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)

Just like denying that the Earth moved around the Sun because the man who suggested it and the movement he came from was 'radical' (Galileo) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church)

Tyranny, much? You religious people need a god damn history lesson.

Please tell me where. While you're at it, spare me the shitty attitude; you're not clever enough to make it work.

Thanks! :)

Many theists use it to back a 6-day creation. Surely you would have known that. :):confused:

Just like making heaven exclusive to those who have money. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)

Just like making heaven exclusive to those who kill themselves along with others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing)

Just like killing people who refuse to convert to your religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Peasants.27_War)

Just like killing a woman because she dated someone of a different faith. (http://www.vincentchow.net/1203/kurdish-girl-stoned-to-death)

Just like protesting a funeral of someone who just did what they were ordered to do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church)

Just like denying that the Earth moved around the Sun because the man who suggested it and the movement he came from was 'radical' (Galileo) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church)

Tyranny, much? You religious people need a god damn history lesson.

I read through it and none of that applies to me in the slightest... In fact, I'm not even mentioned, not even once... :eek:

You see 23, I only deal with individuals... I would never make statements that start with "People like you..." because that's just condescending...

Here's a statement for you: You 23, as an individual, need to work on calming your anger towards me... I know you don't want to hear it, but Jesus can help you with this...

I asked a question, I'll admit you gave me a pretty good answer... But that wasn't enough for you... Do you just come here to flame people?

Many theists use it to back a 6-day creation. Surely you would have known that. :):confused:

There's a humongous difference between saying that a mathematical model (which the Laws of Physics and cosmological models essential are) might have limitations in very extreme circumstances (like the Big Bang) and what a theist usually says.

Hell even if there was no difference, what do you want me to do? Lie? It's the truth: mathematical models (like models resulting from Einstein's field equations) can fail under certain circumstances. Quantum theory famously resolved some of relativities problems when dealing with atomic/sub-atomic scales. We simply cannot be 100% sure that at time zero (when all time and space was concentrated in one spot) our laws of physics as we know it now (when all of time and space is not concentrated in one spot) where the same.

Don't the laws of physics break down in the presence of a black hole as well?

There's a humongous difference between saying that a mathematical model (which the Laws of Physics and cosmological models essential are) might have limitations in very extreme circumstances (like the Big Bang) and what a theist usually says.

Hell even if there was no difference, what do you want me to do? Lie? It's the truth: mathematical models (like models resulting from Einstein's field equations) can fail under certain circumstances. Quantum theory famously resolved some of relativities problems when dealing with atomic/sub-atomic scales. We simply cannot be 100% sure that at time zero (when all time and space was concentrated in one spot) our laws of physics as we know it now (when all of time and space is not concentrated in one spot) where the same.

You do realize a theist could turn that argument around by replacing a few words, right?

"What do you want me to do? Lie? God made the universe, it's the truth because science doesn't apply in that situation. Scientists admit it themselves, thus there must at least have been a divine spark".

1. That's nothing close to the same argument. I did not say "X is true because Science doesn't apply in that situation". I said that the laws of Physics might not have applied at very close time zero (by very close I mean, much less than a second). That's it. That was a general warning since it seemed you were trying to apply them absolutely to the Big Bang.

2. Even if it were the same, which it isn't, what am I supposed to do? If it's true, it's true. Whether theists can use it as an argument - they can't, it's not the same thing - is irrelevant. I don't hide truths just because they might also be used by theists...

Just like making heaven exclusive to those who have money. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)


Just like killing people who refuse to convert to your religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Peasants.27_War)



I believe followers of Jesus fall into one of those two categories, unless you are a Mormon or something...

The religion you follow has inspired those events.

So yes, I did mention you.

1. That's nothing close to the same argument. I did not say "X is true because Science doesn't apply in that situation". I said that the laws of Physics might not have applied at very close time zero (by very close I mean, much less than a second). That's it. That was a general warning since it seemed you were trying to apply them absolutely to the Big Bang.

It isn't the same, and I brought that up, albeit implicatively. The point was that it could be turned around and thus you should be able to refute the corresponding argument (if your viewpoint is correct, that is).

The question still remains: If science and mathematics don't apply to the first trillionth of a second of the Big Bang, why should we presuppose a purely materialistic creation? Doesn't inapplicability of natural laws imply the supernatural? Since materialism and science don't have the answer (though they are working on it ever diligently), where else can it be found?

Your question still doesn't accurately represent what I said. I did not say that the laws of physics don't apply, I said we can't know for sure that they applied as we currently understand to apply now.

That does not mean that there were no laws of physics, or that we cannot work with a "materialistic creation"*.

Moreover, that Science does not have the answer now, does not mean it won't have the answer in the future. Immediately inserting a supernatural entity is superfluous; we can remain in a neutral position on "creation" - we don't automatically have to claim "god did it".


* That term is a little iffy when applied to the Big Bang. There are many theories/hypothesis of how something could have preceded the Big Bang.

Your question still doesn't accurately represent what I said. I did not say that the laws of physics don't apply, I said we can't know for sure that they applied as we currently understand to apply now.
What if we never understand? Will all atheists live and die to never have their scientific dreams of explaining everything that ever occurred? I suppose agnosticism is the only rational position then.

And why can't they work at the instant of the Big Bang? They work now; to change them would be to change their application to our modern reality. Why else do physicists search for a unified theory? Because delineations of "this law here, that law there" are just unacceptable. What if this grand theory never occurs? How can we place trust in science until we are certain of its applicability in the earliest moment of time? I say this only because you yourself claimed to be an atheist and perhaps to convince others. I understand, however; that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable position--just to be clear.

Moreover, that Science does not have the answer now, does not mean it won't have the answer in the future. Immediately inserting a supernatural entity is superfluous; we can remain in a neutral position on "creation" - we don't automatically have to claim "god did it".

Who said anything about a supernatural entity? What about an undirected supernatural force itself? We don't automatically have to claim "God didn't do it" either, yet that's what atheists believe. In fact, one can explain the creation (forming, beginning, first instant, whatever) of the universe without using God at all, again using that concept of an unguided supernatural force. Why insert a force into the equation? It's just as rational as physics during the Big Bang. How can one prove that the laws must have been different or that we don't understand them except by recursive reasoning (which again, presupposes materialism)?

* That term is a little iffy when applied to the Big Bang. There are many theories/hypothesis of how something could have preceded the Big Bang.

But they're all materialistic in nature. Colliding universes--materialistic. Big crunch--materialistic. Black hole through another dimension--still materialistic. There's no way of getting around it.

By materialistic here I tentatively mean "without a supernatural force of any sort".

What if we never understand? Will all atheists live and die to never have their scientific dreams of explaining everything that ever occurred? I suppose agnosticism is the only rational position then.

You've just said: "If we never understand, then we never understand." What does that change or prove? That does not make "agnosticism" the only rational position. That's a non-sequitur.

An atheist doesn't have to claim that Science will find every answer, to be an atheist. Nor does he have to claim a god doesn't exist, to be an atheist.


And why can't they work at the instant of the Big Bang? They work now; to change them would be to change their application to our modern reality.Again, I said they might not. Not that they can't. You keep confusing the two.

That they work now, in these circumstances does not mean they must work before, in other circumstances. More over, it certainly doesn't mean that it would change their application to our modern reality. It merely means that we've developed these laws of physics with our current "modern reality" as you call it, in mind; these models were developed to work when the universe is similar to its current state. At the Big Bang, the universe was in a very different state, thus we can't be sure they worked then. That's it. They still apply today, because we've developed them with "today" in mind!


Why else do physicists search for a unified theory? Because delineations of "this law here, that law there" are just unacceptable. What if this grand theory never occurs? How can we place trust in science until we are certain of its applicability in the earliest moment of time? I say this only because you yourself claimed to be an atheist and perhaps to convince others. I understand, however; that "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable position--just to be clear.1. Scientists search for a unified theory because it would be a more elegant set of "laws" or equations to explain phenomenon; and all that elegance entails (i.e. ease, efficiency, completeness...). The very fact that they are searching, though, proves my point that certain mathematical models can fail at certain things.

2. We can trust in Science, because it can work, and indeed it has worked for countless years, without it needing to be applicable in the earliest moments of time. In fact, there are more branches of Science that are not concerned with the earliest moments of time, than those that are. They work quite fine.


Who said anything about a supernatural entity? What about an undirected supernatural force itself? We don't automatically have to claim "God didn't do it" either, yet that's what atheists believe. In fact, one can explain the creation (forming, beginning, first instant, whatever) of the universe without using God at all, again using that concept of an unguided supernatural force. Why insert a force into the equation? It's just as rational as physics during the Big Bang. How can one prove that the laws must have been different or that we don't understand them except by recursive reasoning (which again, presupposes materialism)?1. It was a simple choice of words. Call it an "entity", "force", what have you, the point remains the same. It is superfluous.

2. I know we don't have to claim "god didn't do it either", which is precisely why I said "we can remain in a neutral position on "creation" - we don't automatically have to claim "god did it". Also, atheists don't have to say "god didn't do it" if that's what you're going for.

3. Inserting a supernatural force is definitely not as rational as the Big Bang. The Big Bang has vast amounts of evidence supporting it. Everything we've observed so far has been natural, thus we have a pretty reasonable expectation that things we've been trying to explain in the future will also be natural.


But they're all materialistic in nature. Colliding universes--materialistic. Big crunch--materialistic. Black hole through another dimension--still materialistic. There's no way of getting around it.I know. What I was trying to say was that Science does not claim the Big Bang was the very first thing ever. Thus, aligning "material creation" with it, is iffy. That's it. I'm trying to get the actual Scientific position across, not saying that the Big Bang isn't a naturalistic explanation.

Hilltop Hoods - Recapturing The Vibe

You've just said: "If we never understand, then we never understand." What does that change or prove? That does not make "agnosticism" the only rational position. That's a non-sequitur.
If we never understand then everybody who believes in science's application to the first instant of time will be wrong. How can we know that we'll never understand? We simply can't until after the actual understanding has taken place. My point was that we must be uncertain of whether or not we'll ever understand, thus your original statement was a non-sequitor since we were on the same page (knowing that we might never understand) to begin with. That's all.

An atheist doesn't have to claim that Science will find every answer, to be an atheist. Nor does he have to claim a god doesn't exist, to be an atheist.
True, but most atheists still treat it as that. The vast majority say "God simply doesn't exist", and they're not merely saying that they just lack a belief in God (though we are talking about the supernatural itself).

Again, I said they might not. Not that they can't. You keep confusing the two.
I said "science [as we know it today] doesn't apply to the first instant of time.
You said "that doesn't mean science can't apply."
I said "we must be uncertain of that until it happens"

Especially considering how most theories that claim that the laws were different (such as unifying the various forces) are not backed up by much besides semi-logic (we don't know what happens in extreme cases) and recursive reasoning (I exist and am a scientist, so there must be a material creation; how can I get out of having to explain it with current science?).

That they work now, in these circumstances does not mean they must work before, in other circumstances.
Then what must have worked? We don't know. Can we discover what must have worked? We try but we're not sure. See the first few paragraphs; you don't really address my point because there is always the chance that science will not be able to find out; until then we can't be sure of either side.

More over, it certainly doesn't mean that it would change their application to our modern reality. It merely means that we've developed these laws of physics with our current "modern reality" as you call it, in mind; these models were developed to work when the universe is similar to its current state.
At the Big Bang, the universe was in a very different state, thus we can't be sure they worked then. That's it. They still apply today, because we've developed them with "today" in mind!
Nobody's denying that they apply today, the problem is that today=/=14ish billion years ago and thus science has yet to find a solution for the first instant even though we can be reasonably sure of the second minute. Science is great at predicting things in the near future, but why should we think it applies (or that we can chage/discover laws that would make itself apply) to the beginning of time? Exactly; we can't. It appears that you're proposing that because science is designed with the present in mind it can't apply to the extreme past because we don't know that it could have.

1. Scientists search for a unified theory because it would be a more elegant set of "laws" or equations to explain phenomenon; and all that elegance entails (i.e. ease, efficiency, completeness...). The very fact that they are searching, though, proves my point that certain mathematical models can fail at certain things.
Exactly, so why should we rule out the supernatural (God, whatever) at least at the beginning of time? You might not but certainly others are.

2. We can trust in Science, because it can work, and indeed it has worked for countless years, without it needing to be applicable in the earliest moments of time. In fact, there are more branches of Science that are not concerned with the earliest moments of time, than those that are. They work quite fine.
This doesn't say anything about science's ability to eventually be able to say something definitive about the first moment. All it says is that "the nature of science is in the present". What good is a methodology that deals only in the present and near future when applied to the beginning? Especially since most scientific fields only deal with the present.

1. It was a simple choice of words. Call it an "entity", "force", what have you, the point remains the same. It is superfluous.
Until science proves otherwise we must be uncertain and open to the possibility of anything. Seculars presuppose that science is the main (perhaps only) methodology towards attaining truth. Fine then, when science tells me what happened at the first instant and why, I'll believe that. Until then, we cannot be certain. Moreover, insofar that we can't be certain that we will be certain (due to the nature of science as you yourself said), we can never be certain that we will be certain about the creation of the universe.

2. I know we don't have to claim "god didn't do it either", which is precisely why I said "we can remain in a neutral position on "creation" - we don't automatically have to claim "god did it". Also, atheists don't have to say "god didn't do it" if that's what you're going for.
I personally know of few atheists who lack a belief in God yet still think the supernatural played a part in creation. Do you? Even more irrational would be a lack of belief in God while believing He made the universe. If we remain in a neutral position, we must still be open to the idea of a God because science can't prove it's own position on the first instant of time and we don't know that it ever will. When a materialistic explanation that doesn't violate the laws of reality comes about it'll be possible as well as rational to disbelieve in God and believe he played no part in creation with relative certainty. Until then, neutral positions. I suppose you can lack a belief in God and still be rational about it, but the truth is that we don't know. Not knowing does not equate to disbelief.
And as you yourself said, we must take neutral positions and be sure of one thing: that we don't know and don't know if we ever will know.

3. Inserting a supernatural force is definitely not as rational as the Big Bang. The Big Bang has vast amounts of evidence supporting it. Everything we've observed so far has been natural, thus we have a pretty reasonable expectation that things we've been trying to explain in the future will also be natural.
I was referring to the first moment of time, nobody's going to deny the Big Bang, we can only argue over how the singularity got there and why it changed the way it did. Your paragraph again only discusses the nature of science. We can say with almost complete certainty that the future will follow the laws of physics. But who gives a damn about the future when we haven't a clue about the past. Your argument goes: "the present is natural, thus the future must be rational". However, the past can be both natural and supernatural and we'd still have a natural present.

I know. What I was trying to say was that Science does not claim the Big Bang was the very first thing ever. Thus, aligning "material creation" with it, is iffy. That's it. I'm trying to get the actual Scientific position across, not saying that the Big Bang isn't a naturalistic explanation.

Because of science's a priori commitment to naturalistic materialism, the official scientific position is that the first instant of time was still natural and materialistic. If it wasn't then we're not really doing science anymore. That's all that really matters, the rest is semantics.

Your whole reply is full of strawman arguments to the point that I don't see how I can reply....


1. You keep asking me questions about things that don't represent my position, even though you apparently know they don't!

For example...

"Exactly, so why should we rule out the supernatural (God, whatever) at least at the beginning of time? You might not but certainly others are."

How does it concern me what "others" believe? I don't have to answer for them. That's a question for them, not me.

2. You keep arguing as if I'm saying we can be absolutely sure of a scientific explanation of "creation", when I've said nothing of the sort.

3. You say I haven't addressed your points, yet you don't explain which ones. That doesn't help anybody here.

---

Please, post a concise version of what you're trying to say, and please don't ask me questions that don't have anything to do with my position. My position, in case there is confusion, is:

a. That we can't be sure if our current mathematical models hold at time zero.

b. Saying point a is not equivalent to what creationists say to back up a 6-day Creation.

c. Atheists don't have to claim humans will be able to understand everything in the world through Science.

d. Atheists can hold a neutral position on "creation".

e. Since the present is natural, it is rational to assume things we will try to explain will be natural Everything we've observed so far has been natural, thus we have a pretty reasonable expectation that things we've been trying to explain in the future will also be natural." I didn't mean explaining future events, but any explanation we come (came) across in the future of past, present or future events. In other words I'm saying "Since everything we've observed has been natural, it is rational assume what we study, past, present or future, is natural and to use natural explanations"]

Not to mention Natural Explanations are the best explanations. Any first year ancient history student will tell you the numerous and sometimes devastating consequences that arise from applying supernatural explanations to the unknown.

1. You keep asking me questions about things that don't represent my position, even though you apparently know they don't!

For example...

"Exactly, so why should we rule out the supernatural (God, whatever) at least at the beginning of time? You might not but certainly others are."

How does it concern me what "others" believe? I don't have to answer for them. That's a question for them, not me. [/quote]
Fine then, do you yourself believe the supernatural was involved in the big bang and/or before it?

2. You keep arguing as if I'm saying we can be absolutely sure of a scientific explanation of "creation", when I've said nothing of the sort.

I said "science [as we know it today] doesn't apply to the first instant of time.
You said "that doesn't mean science can't apply."
I said "we must be uncertain of that until it happens"

And as you yourself said, we must take neutral positions and be sure of one thing: that we don't know and don't know if we ever will know.

This doesn't say anything about science's ability to eventually be able to say something definitive about the first moment.

Fine then, when science tells me what happened at the first instant and why, I'll believe that. Until then, we cannot be certain. Moreover, insofar that we can't be certain that we will be certain (due to the nature of science as you yourself said), we can never be certain that we will be certain about the creation of the universe.


My emphasis on the last paragraph. This quote is the exact opposite of what you said. I say multiple times that we can't be sure of a scientific explanation, you honestly must not have read because I made a conscious directed effort to mention that several times.

3. You say I haven't addressed your points, yet you don't explain which ones. That doesn't help anybody here.
I quote the paragraphs that you wrote which in turn quoted my point. Overly simplified, it goes kinda like this:

Me: 1+1=2
You: I had cereal for breakfast
Me: That doesn't answer my point
You: What point? You don't specify!

If you go back in the quotes you'll see my points.


a. That we can't be sure if our current mathematical models hold at time zero.
Correct. Thus, until we find some new ones that do, we must remain neutral about the supernatural and thus God.

b. Saying point a is not equivalent to what creationists say to back up a 6-day Creation.
Nowhere in my previous two posts did I mention Christianity or a 6-day creation; nor do I believe in one personally.

c. Atheists don't have to claim humans will be able to understand everything in the world through Science. I'd like to meet these supernatural atheists because surely there couldn't be many of them; and they wouldn't likely describe their disbelief in God as atheism per se. If they do believe in the supernatural, where does it come from?

d. Atheists can hold a neutral position on "creation". Atheists don't hold a belief in God. Thus, they don't believe He could have created the universe (or at least brought about a change that caused it to "create itself") since existence is necessary in order to create. In addition to this, I know of no self-proclaimed atheist who also believes in a supernatural entity, force, whatever that could cause "creation" to occur; mostly because that would be a form of deism/pantheism. Thus, materialism is the only viewpoint that atheists can have, making them unable to hold a neutral position.

e. Since the present is natural, it is rational to assume things we will try to explain will be natural Everything we've observed so far has been natural, thus we have a pretty reasonable expectation that things we've been trying to explain in the future will also be natural." I didn't mean explaining future events, but any explanation we come (came) across in the future of past, present or future events. In other words I'm saying "Since everything we've observed has been natural, it is rational assume what we study, past, present or future, is natural and to use natural explanations"]

"Things we've been trying to explain in the future"? :confused: I think I understand your point anyway...

While it certainly is convenient to use natural explanations, as I've said several times before: natural explanations just don't hold up at the beginning of time, and we have no idea if we'll be able to discover why they don't or adjust/discover laws that make sense out of the first instants of the big bang. We may assume the past is natural, but in reality, who knows?

The point I've been trying to make since we got into this is:

Current laws of nature don't apply to the first instants of time, and we don't know if there will ever be laws that will. Thus, assuming the supernatural at least in the first moments of time is not irrational.

Not to mention Natural Explanations are the best explanations. Any first year ancient history student will tell you the numerous and sometimes devastating consequences that arise from applying supernatural explanations to the unknown.

Explain what happened in the first 10^-40 of a second. Where's your naturalism there?

Fine then, do you yourself believe the supernatural was involved in the big bang and/or before it?

I'm not sure if one was or was not. I believe that as of now, there is absolutely no reason to assume one was.


My emphasis on the last paragraph. This quote is the exact opposite of what you said. I say multiple times that we can't be sure of a scientific explanation, you honestly must not have read because I made a conscious directed effort to mention that several times.What? I said":

"You keep arguing as if I'm saying we can be absolutely sure of a scientific explanation of "creation", when I've said nothing of the sort."

I know full well you've said multiple times that we can't be sure of a scientific explanation. My problem was that it seemed you kept assuming I believed differently, by asking me question that had nothing to do with what I believed and hammering that point (i.e. that we can't be certain) incessantly.


I quote the paragraphs that you wrote which in turn quoted my point. Overly simplified, it goes kinda like this:

Me: 1+1=2
You: I had cereal for breakfast
Me: That doesn't answer my point
You: What point? You don't specify!

If you go back in the quotes you'll see my points. Do you really think I haven't gone back to your posts? I have. I'm not doing this on purpose. I simply do not get what you mean because it seems to me, after having read what you wrote various times, that I've answered everything one of your relevant points.

In the time it took you to write that, you could have easily told me what I needed to answer...



Correct. Thus, until we find some new ones that do, we must remain neutral about the supernatural and thus God. No, we must remain neutral on the subject of "creation". That's it.


Nowhere in my previous two posts did I mention Christianity or a 6-day creation; nor do I believe in one personally.Yet you did mention it at the start of this whole thing. You compared what I said with what creationists supposedly say.


I'd like to meet these supernatural atheists because surely there couldn't be many of them; and they wouldn't likely describe their disbelief in God as atheism per se. If they do believe in the supernatural, where does it come from?Who said anything about the supernatural? It's a non-sequitor to claim that simply because we humans may be unable to explain absolutely everything with Science, that there must be something supernatural. That does not follow. It could simply be impossible for us to understand for some reason.

For example, it could require us to travel to a far out galaxy. Currently, the increasing rate of expansion of the universe is making it so that at one point in time we will be unable to reach certain parts of the universe since they will be expanding at a rate faster than we can travel (some already are). Thats completely natural, and if reaching those areas is key to explaining X phenomenon, then what I said holds true. That's just one scenario.

It could also be that humans simply die out or revert back to some dark ages for some reason. Humans failing at understanding everything through Science does not mean something supernatural must exist,


Atheists don't hold a belief in God. Thus, they don't believe He could have created the universe (or at least brought about a change that caused it to "create itself") since existence is necessary in order to create. .That's not true. A weak atheists admits the possibility of a god existing. So they can say that a god could have created the universe. They simply lack a belief in one. In other words, they currently do not believe in one but are open to the possibility.


Current laws of nature don't apply to the first instants of time, and we don't know if there will ever be laws that will. Thus, assuming the supernatural at least in the first moments of time is not irrational.You don't know if they apply or not. That's the point. You can't say that they don't.

Moreover, assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and superfluous, and contradicts everything else in the observable universe. It arguably requires much more evidence to claim that suddenly something supernatural exists, yet has avoided detection since the beginning of time. Possible? Sure. In equal ground with natural explanations? No.

I'm going to remove the superfulous comments about who said what and just get to the heart of the issue (code for I need to study):

No, we must remain neutral on the subject of "creation". That's it.
How would you define neutrality on such a subject? I'd define it as not knowing one way or the other. We must remain neutral on the subject of creation and hence the supernatural at that time. What if a supernatural force exists only in the singularity and is what caused the first phase of the big bang? The point is that the supernatural doesn't necessarily exist today, but in order to have a neutral discussion on creation, it must be included as a possibility because at this moment, we just don't know.

Yet you did mention it at the start of this whole thing. You compared what I said with what creationists supposedly say.
"Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed."--From Wiki: Creationism. I compared what you said to what theists said, and even if I did say creationists, the definition is broad enough to include it.

Who said anything about the supernatural? It's a non-sequitor to claim that simply because we humans may be unable to explain absolutely everything with Science, that there must be something supernatural. That does not follow. It could simply be impossible for us to understand for some reason.
You misunderestimate me; I'm not claiming that the supernatural played a part in the big bang. I'm just claiming that it could have, and that a purely material view of creation is just as ridiculous as a purely theistic one. Why would it be impossible for us to understand? Though even if you don't give it a good reason that's no reason to not give that idea a chance. Again, we just don't know so presupposing a material creation is a shot in the dark at best.

That's not true. A weak atheists admits the possibility of a god existing. So they can say that a god could have created the universe. They simply lack a belief in one. In other words, they currently do not believe in one but are open to the possibility.
The weak atheist you mention is merely an atheistic agnostic (there is a sizeable difference). If the atheist says that God may have created the universe then he must expand on that thought and thus believe in him, and vice versa. How can one believe God created the universe and not believe in him himself? You're just proposing an atheist that says that there's perhaps an 80% chance that there is no God, but the possibility is still out there. Thus, an agnostic that can change their perspective. To be a true atheist you must lack (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+lack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) a belief in any God. If you follow that link, lack clearly is defined as having nothing. Not even a possibility.

You don't know if they apply or not. That's the point. You can't say that they don't.
Of course I know they don't apply. How can anything escape a singularity if light can't escape a black hole? The singularity can't escape its own gravity, and this is just one of the countless (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=wT&q=big+bang+paradox&btnG=Search) numbers of inapplicability of current laws to the Big Bang. Unless science wants to go back on itself and tell that the laws of nature do apply to the first instant of time, the laws remain inapplicable.

Moreover, assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and superfluous, and contradicts everything else in the observable universe. It arguably requires much more evidence to claim that suddenly something supernatural exists, yet has avoided detection since the beginning of time. Possible? Sure. In equal ground with natural explanations? No.

A supernatural force becomes quite plausible if you imagine that it was only around long enough to initiate the big bang. It would take more evidence to show that science is applicable to the first moment of time than to show that a singularity overcame itself because of a supernatural force. Over time, the laws of physics stay constant and unbroken, while improbable things get more and more probable. Think about that.

Why are we here? The Big Bang.
What caused the Big Bang? We don't know.
How was the Big Bang able to violate the laws of physics? We don't know.
I'm comfortable in saying that I don't know how or why the laws of physics were broken, but if forced to give an answer, it would be that supernatural force. Or just that science will find out later.

How would you define neutrality on such a subject? I'd define it as not knowing one way or the other. We must remain neutral on the subject of creation and hence the supernatural at that time.

Then you support exactly what I said: neutrality in terms of "creation".

The "supernatural at that time " (i.e. a supernatural explanation of "creation") is included in the statement "neutrality concerning 'creation' ".


I compared what you said to what theists said, and even if I did say creationists, the definition is broad enough to include it.

You said theist, but you were talking about creationists:

"Many theists use it to back a 6-day creation. "

The point is, what I said is not what "many theists use to back a 6-day creation". That is just plain false.


You misunderestimate me; I'm not claiming that the supernatural played a part in the big bang. I'm just claiming that it could have, and that a purely material view of creation is just as ridiculous as a purely theistic one. Why would it be impossible for us to understand? Though even if you don't give it a good reason that's no reason to not give that idea a chance. Again, we just don't know so presupposing a material creation is a shot in the dark at best.

No, go back and read the progression of what was said.

I said:

" Atheists don't have to claim humans will be able to understand everything in the world through Science."

To which you replied:

"I'd like to meet these supernatural atheists because surely there couldn't be many of them; and they wouldn't likely describe their disbelief in God as atheism per se. If they do believe in the supernatural, where does it come from?"

That's a non-sequitor as I explained. Nothing in my initial statement requires "supernatural atheists" or "atheist that believe in the supernatural" as you're implying there. That's the point of what I said.


The weak atheist you mention is merely an atheistic agnostic (there is a sizeable difference). If the atheist says that God may have created the universe then he must expand on that thought and thus believe in him, and vice versa. How can one believe God created the universe and not believe in him himself? You're just proposing an atheist that says that there's perhaps an 80% chance that there is no God, but the possibility is still out there. Thus, an agnostic that can change their perspective. To be a true atheist you must lack (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+lack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) a belief in any God. If you follow that link, lack clearly is defined as having nothing. Not even a possibility.

1. That's not true. The weak atheist doesn't have to be agnostic, however I'd agree that most are. In any case, he is still an atheist, which is the relevant point. Why he's an atheist would be another point altogether.

2. Using the word "lack" to force in your view of atheism is not going to work. Look at any credible definition of atheism and you'll see that "weak atheists" allow for the possibility of the existence of a god.


Of course I know they don't apply. How can anything escape a singularity if light can't escape a black hole? The singularity can't escape its own gravity, and this is just one of the countless (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=wT&q=big+bang+paradox&btnG=Search) numbers of inapplicability of current laws to the Big Bang. Unless science wants to go back on itself and tell that the laws of nature do apply to the first instant of time, the laws remain inapplicable.

I already responded to this initially, and you ignored it. The Big Bang was not a black hole, so using the fact that light cannot escape a Black hole to somehow refute the Big Bang doesn't really make sense.

Light cannot escape the Black Holes event horizon because of the immense gravitational pull (analogous to a rocket trying to escape the Earth's pull and failing). That is not what happened in the Big Bang, because in the Big Bang, nothing was traveling through space (like a rocket or light). Space-time itself expanded.

Not to mention that light doesn't escape because it's not fast enough. That's it. Big Bang theory states that the space-time expanded much faster than the speed of light - which is possible because relativity theory doesn't apply when space-time is concentrated as it was in the Big Bang.



Why are we here? The Big Bang.
What caused the Big Bang? We don't know.
How was the Big Bang able to violate the laws of physics? We don't know.
I'm comfortable in saying that I don't know how or why the laws of physics were broken, but if forced to give an answer, it would be that supernatural force. Or just that science will find out later.

I'm comfortable saying that I don't know, but if I'm forced to give an answer, it would be a natural force since that's the only thing we've ever observed (thus know that it is possible and existent) and not something we've never observed, can't really describe and don't know if it is even possible.

Then you support exactly what I said: neutrality in terms of "creation".
I also believe in neutrality towards the beginning of time in virtually all matters, including the supernatural.

The "supernatural at that time " (i.e. a supernatural explanation of "creation") is included in the statement "neutrality concerning 'creation' ".
Me:"Correct. Thus, until we find some new [laws] ones that do, we must remain neutral about the supernatural and thus God."

You:"No, we must remain neutral on the subject of "creation". That's it."

That's what got me confused--you saying only creation. But now that you say otherwise:

Why do you oppose neutrality in God but not in the supernatural when you talk about having "neutrality in terms of 'creation'"?


You said theist, but you were talking about creationists:

"Many theists use it to back a 6-day creation. "

The point is, what I said is not what "many theists use to back a 6-day creation". That is just plain false.

Alright, you got me. But exactly what you said certainly isn't what they use. The do use a version of it thought, which is why I included something about changing words around. It's the concept and the general argument that you used. Besides, that's not important.

No, go back and read the progression of what was said.

I said:

" Atheists don't have to claim humans will be able to understand everything in the world through Science."

To which you replied:

"I'd like to meet these supernatural atheists because surely there couldn't be many of them; and they wouldn't likely describe their disbelief in God as atheism per se. If they do believe in the supernatural, where does it come from?"

That's a non-sequitor as I explained. Nothing in my initial statement requires "supernatural atheists" or "atheist that believe in the supernatural" as you're implying there. That's the point of what I said.
Where else should they get their knowledge besides from science and (I suppose) introspection? If you're not 'understanding the world' through science, from what perspective do you understand it besides a supernatural one? Revelations, visions, astral projection, etc. are the usually cited alternative ways of understanding the world. Can any of them function without the supernatural?

1. That's not true. The weak atheist doesn't have to be agnostic, however I'd agree that most are. In any case, he is still an atheist, which is the relevant point. Why he's an atheist would be another point altogether.

2. Using the word "lack" to force in your view of atheism is not going to work. Look at any credible definition of atheism and you'll see that "weak atheists" allow for the possibility of the existence of a god.
"Lacking belief in a god or gods" is the traditional definition used; especially in this forum. The Wiki is even more restrictive: :"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities".

It all boils down to semantics anyway, it's like arguing over the concept of rights, your definition is different from mine.

I already responded to this initially, and you ignored it. The Big Bang was not a black hole, so using the fact that light cannot escape a Black hole to somehow refute the Big Bang doesn't really make sense.

Light cannot escape the Black Holes event horizon because of the immense gravitational pull (analogous to a rocket trying to escape the Earth's pull and failing). That is not what happened in the Big Bang, because in the Big Bang, nothing was traveling through space (like a rocket or light). Space-time itself expanded.

Not to mention that light doesn't escape because it's not fast enough. That's it. Big Bang theory states that the space-time expanded much faster than the speed of light - which is possible because relativity theory doesn't apply when space-time is concentrated as it was in the Big Bang.
I responded to you initially, you merely propounded one set of the laws of physics while I demonstrated another. It is a known fact that anything dense piece of matter (stars mostly) over (appx.) 4.3 Solar masses will (eventually) be so heavy that gravity will pull itself and everything within the horizon into it. Stars larger than 4.3 solar masses will never overcome their own gravity. After a certain point, everything in that mass pulls into itself and literally cannot stop the attraction. It wouldn't matter if space expanded to the diameter of a thousand suns, the mass in the singularity would still be so dense that it would still be compressing into itself.

Besides, your response begs the question "why did this expansion occur"? Especially when all the gravitational energy would practically force the universe to stay put.

I'm comfortable saying that I don't know, but if I'm forced to give an answer, it would be a natural force since that's the only thing we've ever observed (thus know that it is possible and existent) and not something we've never observed, can't really describe and don't know if it is even possible.

What natural force? Have we observed the expansion of space-time at faster-than-light speeds? Have we observed anything escape the death grip of gravity at >4.3 solar masses even though we know space is constantly expanding?

I responded to you initially, you merely propounded one set of the laws of physics while I demonstrated another. It is a known fact that anything dense piece of matter (stars mostly) over (appx.) 4.3 Solar masses will (eventually) be so heavy that gravity will pull itself and everything within the horizon into it. Stars larger than 4.3 solar masses will never overcome their own gravity. After a certain point, everything in that mass pulls into itself and literally cannot stop the attraction. It wouldn't matter if space expanded to the diameter of a thousand suns, the mass in the singularity would still be so dense that it would still be compressing into itself.

It's nothing magical; it's for the same reason at light can't escape a black hole - you can't go faster than light. To accelerate anything out of a collapsing star it would need to. If space-time expanded faster than light, then it wouldn't be a problem. And since space-time is not an object being accelerated > c, I don't think it violates any physical laws.

Why do you oppose neutrality in God but not in the supernatural when you talk about having "neutrality in terms of 'creation'"?

Oppose neutrality in god when? I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god but to not claim a god can't exist. I'm open to the possibility of a god existing just fine.


Alright, you got me. But exactly what you said certainly isn't what they use. The do use a version of it thought, which is why I included something about changing words around. It's the concept and the general argument that you used. Besides, that's not important.

I already explained this.

"There's a humongous difference between saying that a mathematical model (which the Laws of Physics and cosmological models essential are) might have limitations in very extreme circumstances (like the Big Bang) and what a theist usually says."


Where else should they get their knowledge besides from science and (I suppose) introspection? If you're not 'understanding the world' through science, from what perspective do you understand it besides a supernatural one? Revelations, visions, astral projection, etc. are the usually cited alternative ways of understanding the world. Can any of them function without the supernatural?

You're misunderstanding everything. I am not saying they would not try to get their understanding through Science. They probably would. I said that "Atheists don't have to claim humans will be able to understand everything in the world through Science."

That is, there might be things Science cannot explain. An atheist can say that just fine. Science not being able to explain X phenomena does not mean X is supernatural.



"Lacking belief in a god or gods" is the traditional definition used; especially in this forum. The Wiki is even more restrictive: :"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities".

It all boils down to semantics anyway, it's like arguing over the concept of rights, your definition is different from mine.

Those two definitions support my interpretation just fine. I have an absence of belief in deities, because I don't believe in deities. Not believing in deities in no way means that I believe deities are impossible.


I responded to you initially, you merely propounded one set of the laws of physics while I demonstrated another. It is a known fact that anything dense piece of matter (stars mostly) over (appx.) 4.3 Solar masses will (eventually) be so heavy that gravity will pull itself and everything within the horizon into it. Stars larger than 4.3 solar masses will never overcome their own gravity. After a certain point, everything in that mass pulls into itself and literally cannot stop the attraction. It wouldn't matter if space expanded to the diameter of a thousand suns, the mass in the singularity would still be so dense that it would still be compressing into itself.

Besides, your response begs the question "why did this expansion occur"? Especially when all the gravitational energy would practically force the universe to stay put.

No, you responded with the very same things you're responding now, I then refuted them, and you concentrated solely on my third comment (that the laws of Physics might not apply at time zero), ignoring the first two.

Again, comparing to the singularity in a Black Hole is wrong. That is not a valid comparison.

a. There is space surrounding the black hole, where things can move. If they happen to fall within the even horizon, the Black Hole's gravity is too strong and they can't escape. To view this in a simple manner, imagine a rocket trying to escape Earth's gravity but failing because the gravitational pull is too strong.

This is not analogous to the Big Bang, because there wasn't any space for something else to move through. Get it? All space was concentrated in one point. That is not the same as with a Black Hole.

b. The inflationary period was much faster than the speed of light. Again, further refuting the analogy of light not being able to escape a Black hole.


What natural force? Have we observed the expansion of space-time at faster-than-light speeds? Have we observed anything escape the death grip of gravity at >4.3 solar masses even though we know space is constantly expanding?

We've observed other natural forces. We have not observed any supernatural forces. That's the point.

Here's a analogy. Consider this list:

X, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10...

What goes in spot X? I'd argue the most rational response, if we have to give a response, would be 1. If not 1, then another number. The most rational response wouldn't be "Zebra" even though it is a possibility.

Explain what happened in the first 10^-40 of a second. Where's your naturalism there?

You tell me what happened? I cannot say for sure what happened or why it did. Ready for the fun part.....nobody can.

I can tell you God's written word is wrong in so many cases, why should it be trusted in this one?

This Big Bang natural vs. supernatural argument CLEARLY represents the God of the Gaps. God has shrunk in the face of the science and the only realm ALLOWED to God is gaps in scientific knowledge. He will shrink further as SCIENCE advances and crushes more and more of the surviving primitive supernaturalistic beliefs.

You tell me what happened? I cannot say for sure what happened or why it did. Ready for the fun part.....nobody can.
*facepalm* that was exactly the point!

I can tell you God's written word is wrong in so many cases, why should it be trusted in this one? [/quote]
Which one? Surely not the Bhagavad Gita?! Who told you that God even had a Word?

This Big Bang natural vs. supernatural argument CLEARLY represents the God of the Gaps. God has shrunk in the face of the science and the only realm ALLOWED to God is gaps in scientific knowledge. He will shrink further as SCIENCE advances and crushes more and more of the surviving primitive supernaturalistic beliefs.

God of the Gaps is merely an observation, not an argument. Yes God is shrinking, but until he has disappeared, we won't know.

Rust, I'm going to wait a little to respond to you in the (probably vain) hope that you'll think about my argument. I'll be thinking about yours in the meantime.

Rust, I'm going to wait a little to respond to you in the (probably vain) hope that you'll think about my argument. I'll be thinking about yours in the meantime.

Veiled insults about things you know nothing about, is how you "think" about my arguments? Please leave your childishness for somewhere else.

My point is still that a natural explanation is the best explanation. If we cannot find a natural explanation right away the exact wrong thing to do is suppose a supernatural explanation.

Nobody knows what happened in the first moment before and after the bang....we don't even know if that was the beginning. To suggest the supernatural without evidence is a waste of breath, time and neurons.

Rust will argue with you no matter how shitty his case may be. Trust in that he will not think on anything you have said. Have not seen him think on what someone has said yet. Don't hold your breath.

My point is still that a natural explanation is the best explanation. If we cannot find a natural explanation right away the exact wrong thing to do is suppose a supernatural explanation.

Nobody knows what happened in the first moment before and after the bang....we don't even know if that was the beginning. To suggest the supernatural without evidence is a waste of breath, time and neurons.
Why do you suggest the natural? Because it's been shown to work currently? Because it's made accurate predictions about the future? Because your whole belief system would crash if it wasn't? Since we don't know, we must be about the past, we must be open to all possibilities. We can close most of those off when discussing the present and the future.

Rust will argue with you no matter how shitty his case may be. Trust in that he will not think on anything you have said. Have not seen him think on what someone has said yet. Don't hold your breath.
Yeah, that's why I'm just letting it go. 'Twas a vain hope in the first place.

Veiled insults about things you know nothing about, is how you "think" about my arguments? Please leave your childishness for somewhere else.

As you please. Not like anybody's beliefs have been changed in My God anyway.

If following me around to insult me is what you've been reduced to, please let me know so I can prepare myself for the laughs!

Funny shit!

Yeah, that's why I'm just letting it go. 'Twas a vain hope in the first place.

Oh, please spare me your bullshit. You can disagree with me all you want, but agreeing with an idiot that is following me around to insult me is a new low.

How have I not thought of your argument? Please let me know what you believe shows some lack of thought on my part. Because I've read what you've said, considered it, and disagreed with it (some parts I've even agreed with you... is that me not thinking about what you've said also?).

Oh, please spare me your bullshit. You can disagree with me all you want, but agreeing with an idiot that is following me around to insult me is a new low.

How have I not thought of your argument? Please let me know what you believe shows some lack of thought on my part. Because I've read what you've said, considered it, and disagreed with it (some parts I've even agreed with you... is that me not thinking about what you've said also?).

I was agreeing to mostly the first part. I'm sure you think, but these post probably haven't made you think outside of responding to me. I think of every post I make outside the general forums when I'm not on totse because it's much more enriching to think for yourself than to think as a response to an opponent. Would you rather duel for pleasure or because you had to?

Even if BP was an idiot (he's not stupid, just a radical), his following you around would have nothing to do with anything and you guys can carry on that shit yourselves.

You haven't thought of my argument outside of just responding because nobody in MGCBTSOOYG does that. You just sat back with a satisfied grin, "I totally pwned him", and went off to reply to another thread. That's not thought, that's defense.

You do think "outside of responding", but nobody else does? The fact that you just made a ridiculous allegation about things you know absolutely nothing about - is you thinking about the argument? How about the veiled insults? That's part of your thinking process?

If I were incapable of "thinking outside of trying to 'pwn' someone", I wouldn't have agreed with you on one of the major points in the whole argument. Your accusation has no merit. I simply disagree that if I'm forced to give a answer about the "creation" of the universe, I should go with a supernatural explanation. I've "thought about it outside of disagreeing" and I still believe that the more rational answer is to go with the natural explanation. I even gave a analogy so that you could see where my thoughts are coming from.

P.S. The BrokeProphet comment was to show disappointment at you jumping at the chance to insult me when someone else, who was brining up issues from another thread into this one, was insulting me.

You do think "outside of responding", but nobody else does? The fact that you just made a ridiculous allegation about things you know absolutely nothing about - is you thinking about the argument? How about the veiled insults? That's part of your thinking process?
Nobody else IN THIS FORUM. Learn to read.

If I were incapable of "thinking outside of trying to 'pwn' someone", I wouldn't have agreed with you on one of the major points in the whole argument. Your accusation has no merit.
You have your own opinion. If parts of it coincide with mine, why would you try to argue against it?

P.S. The BrokeProphet comment was to show disappointment at you jumping at the chance to insult me.

If I wanted to insult you I'd do a bit more than a vague insult in a short post. And like I said, nobody in this forum thinks about others' points outside of responding to them. Unless they're exceptionally profound, of course.

Nobody else IN THIS FORUM. Learn to read.

That's what I meant. I'm sorry I didn't include your caveat. Is implying that I don't know how to read, when it could have been a simple mistake of omitting that part because I thought it was implied, part of you "thinking outside of disagreeing" with me?


You have your own opinion. If parts of it coincide with mine, why would you try to argue against it?Well if I were simply thinking about an argument just to "pwn" someone like you said, one would think I wouldn't hold common ground with you, no matter if I actually believed that...



If I wanted to insult you I'd do a bit more than a vague insult in a short post. And like I said, nobody in this forum thinks about others' points outside of responding to them. Unless they're exceptionally profound, of course.So then, did you not think it was insulting, or you did you not want to insult me but did it anyway? Take implying I don't know how to read for example. Where would that fall into?

I'm going to let this one go.

I'm going to let this one go.

pussy...

I'm going to let this one go.

You're not going to think about what I said, and then provide me with feedback?

You're not going to even answer my questions, so that I can then understand what you believe in and thus be able to consider what you say outside of disagreeing with you?

You're not going to think about what I said, and then provide me with feedback?
Oh I'll think about what you said. If it's more important for you to feel like you've won the argument than to let somebody change their way of thinking then fine, you win. You're completely right about everything.

You're not going to even answer my questions, so that I can then understand what you believe in and thus be able to consider what you say outside of disagreeing with you?

Man I don't even know myself what I believe in, just throwin some thoughts out there. If you've ever read Kierkegaard you'd know; you don't need to reveal your position (or even take one) to make an influence on an opponent.

Oh I'll think about what you said. If it's more important for you to feel like you've won the argument than to let somebody change their way of thinking then fine, you win. You're completely right about everything.

Who said anything about winning? I haven't mentioned "winning" at any time. In fact, I'm pretty sure you've been the first person to mention it in this whole thread. If you think that because I think I'm replying it means this has anything to do with winning, you're sorely mistaken.

This isn't about winning, it's about considering what you have said, seeing if it has merit, and if it doesn't expressing my disagreement. This was going quite fine until you started lobing insults and making accusations about things you know nothing about.



Man I don't even know myself what I believe in, just throwin some thoughts out there. If you've ever read Kierkegaard you'd know; you don't need to reveal your position (or even take one) to make an influence on an opponent.Yet you want me to consider those thoughts, when you're not even going to explain them! You chastise me, and everyone "IN THIS FORUM", for not "considering things outside of disagreeing" but then you don't provide the necessary feedback or explanation for us to be able do this.

---

If you want to stop the discussion, fine. Just don't make the ridiculous allegations you keep making while you're trying to remove yourself from the discussion.

Funny stuff.

Just because science can't prove what happened in the trillionth of a second after the big bang does not make it OK to assume that something supernatural made the big bang occur.

Just because science can't prove what happened in the trillionth of a second after the big bang does not make it OK to assume that something supernatural made the big bang occur.

Do you have proof that it's not ok, or are you just making this up also?

It's logic.

saying that "since science cannot prove what happened during the first trillionth of a second it MUST mean that something supernatural must have caused it." Is ultimately a fallacy.

Look it up, it's called "Appeal to Ignorance."

Here is an example from "source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill"

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Just because science can't prove what happened in the trillionth of a second after the big bang does not make it OK to assume that something supernatural made the big bang occur.

Nobody's saying it HAS to occur, just that we should leave open the possibility.

I, for one, leave the possibility open, but if pressed to give an answer other than that, I'd rather choose a natural explanation.

If I were to show you the following list, and ask you what goes in the spot X, what would you answer?

X, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10...

I'd argue the most rational response, if I had to give one, would be "1", or another number. Definitely not "Zebra" even though it's a possibility.

^ Sadly it's not that easy.

What's not that easy? I'm assuming you mean the analogy, but how does it fail? Please tell me how you would answer first, though; honestly, outside of wanting to disagree with me. :)

What's not that easy? I'm assuming you mean the analogy, but how does it fail? Please tell me how you would answer first, though; honestly, outside of wanting to disagree with me. :)

Done. :) :rolleyes:

It isn't just a mathematical equation like Y-1, it's several VERY complicated equations that contradict several others. If two equations say Y+3=4 and Y*2=8, which one are you to believe? Now imagine them a thousand times more complex; so complex that quantum physicists spend YEARS trying to simplify ONE TERM of the equations, yet in the end they still contradict.

Finding Y in Y-1=0 isn't as isn't as easy as discovering what happened at the beginning of the universe.

Huh? What does that have to do with anything I said? I didn't attempt to say that explaining the beginning of the universe was the same thing as a simple set of equations (I didn't even use equations). I understand that explaining the beginning of the universe is not that simple. I was using the analogy in the hopes that you would understand on which side of the "natural vs supernatural" argument would the most rational answer fall into.

I was using the example of the list to show that if we are forced to answer, the most rational answer would be based on what we've observed. We've observed only natural phenomenon, so it more rational to use a natural explanation, and not to suddenly use a super natural explanation, just as it is most rational to use a number, and not to suddenly say "Zebra".

Equations were used to show how the numbers count down and it's pretty easy to deduce the next one. However, when we're dealing with such extremes, who the fuck knows what could happen.

Just because we've seen natural explanations work our entire lives doesn't mean the most extreme situation the universe could ever be in has to be explained that way (especially since we don't know if it can be and our equations that explain it are so far contradictory).

Shit doesn't function at the extreme level the same as it does on the everyday. We're not simply going back in time using convenient little algebraic variables, it's going to an extreme where nobody knows how things work, thus even natural explanations are questioned.

Would you say that a parallel universe HAS to have the same laws as ours does? Another universe is an example of extremes, just like the Big Bang.

Point: natural explanations may cease to function in extreme situations.

Done. :) :rolleyes:

It isn't just a mathematical equation like Y-1, it's several VERY complicated equations that contradict several others. If two equations say Y+3=4 and Y*2=8, which one are you to believe? Now imagine them a thousand times more complex; so complex that quantum physicists spend YEARS trying to simplify ONE TERM of the equations, yet in the end they still contradict.
But we've never seen an equation saying Y*2=8, so to speak. It's more like: If one equation says Y+3=4 and everything so far tried using this value for Y works, and another equation says Y*2=8 but was just written down in an old book someone found, which one are you to believe?

Equations were used to show how the numbers count down and it's pretty easy to deduce the next one. However, when we're dealing with such extremes, who the fuck knows what could happen.

Actually they were not, as equations already imply that a number system is in place in order to use the equations. Number's were simply defined that way.

In any case, that's not really important because nowhere did I say that X had to be less or more than the other numbers. It could have been anything. A number, a color, an animal, food, anything; yet clearly you based yourself on what you had seen before, which supports what I said.


Just because we've seen natural explanations work our entire lives doesn't mean the most extreme situation the universe could ever be in has to be explained that wayWho said it had to be that way? I certainly didn't. 'I know that just because we've seen natural explanations work our entire lives doesn't mean the most extreme situation the universe could ever be in has to be explained that way'.


Point: natural explanations may cease to function in extreme situations.I agree. That means that we shouldn't close ourselves off from other explanations. That does not mean that supernatural explanations are more rational than natural explanations.

To continue my example, Zebra is a possibly answer for "X". But to say that "Zebra" is just as good an answer as 1 seems silly, and apparently you agree. We've seen and used natural explanations all our lives, even under extreme circumstances, so if pressed to give an answer (i.e. if I can't remain neutral) then a natural explanation is best until proven otherwise.

The supernatural isn't more rational, but it is equally rational, which was my point. You just like to argue so you try to take down each of my individual points, always one step away from the ultimate conclusion. I've already shown how that analogy is illogical because science has admitted that it might not apply in such extremes.

TW, you're the perfect example of the stereotypical poster of this forum. I haven't mentioned the Bible in at least 5 posts.

TW, you're the perfect example of the stereotypical poster of this forum. I haven't mentioned the Bible in at least 5 posts.
Neither have I. :)

The supernatural isn't more rational, but it is equally rational, which was my point. You just like to argue so you try to take down each of my individual points, always one step away from the ultimate conclusion. I've already shown how that analogy is illogical because science has admitted that it might not apply in such extremes.


It's quite easy to say that I just like to argue, but that's a cop out. Whether I like to argue or not is irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether what I've been saying is true or reasonable, or whether what you've been saying is true or reasonable. Not to mention that you don't know this! You have no clue. But of course, if I reply you can conveniently say that I've proven you right, not matter what, so apparently I can't post when I want to for fear of proving your ignorant insult true in your eyes.

I posted because I considered what you said, and disagreed. Apparently you can make statements such as: "Just because we've seen natural explanations work our entire lives doesn't mean the most extreme situation the universe could ever be in has to be explained that way" implying I believe that, when I don't and I've made it clear that I don't, and I can't point it out because you'll throw a fit an make wild accusations...


---

To say that the supernatural, which has never been observed, which we couldn't really explain, and which we don't know if it is possible iatll, is as rational as a natural phenomenon is silly and you know it. And no, that analogy doesn't fail because the natural might not apply in extremes, because the supernatural might not apply ever! It's in a much worse boat.

Neither have I. :)

You mentioned 'a book', which begs the question, is that book truly the word of God, and why does God even need a book?

You mentioned 'a book', which begs the question, is that book truly the word of God, and why does God even need a book?
You assume I was thinking of the Bible and God, just as I assumed your talk of "supernatural origins" involved God. It doesn't matter if we're right in these assumptions, though, because either one is supernatural, and the points (on both sides) stand. I was only attempting to clarify my example: I could easily have said "that someone made up" instead of "written down in a book."