Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2006, 05:00 AM   #1
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have this dude posting on my blog that the he has proof that God exists because God is the only answer for the time prior to the Big Bang.
Here is his comments on my blog (he starts with his philosophy April 21st as Anonymous: http://www.blogger.com/publish-comme...k&isPopup=true

Here is his argument:

[It is popular to think of the Big Bang Theory [BBT] to explain the creation of the universe. Is it a fact, theory or hypothesis? It is 99.99% fact and 0.01% hypothesis. Why the 0.001% doubt? It is because at this moment there are several unverified theories on the first micro second at the Big Bang [BB].

So what is the BBT about? It explains that after the BB, there is hot dense point that contains all the matter and energy that we now see in the universe, and that space expands and thus the universe expands to what we see today with galaxies and stars.

All matter today in the universe came from the one hot dense point immediately after the BB. In other words, scientifically and philosophically, we are one, at that point of time, 13.7 billion years ago, and we are one even now.

Between 1905-1915, Einstein discovered the theory of relativity and mathematically found that the universe was either expanding or decreasing; that it was not static. In 1922, the American astronomer Hubble was able to show that other galaxies were moving away from our galaxy, that is, the universe was expanding. With that, in 1930, Lemaitre [Jesuit] discovered the BBT.

Since then and more particularly in 1965, evidences for BB has been obtained. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#evidence . The discovery of the uniform long wavelength background radiation in 1965, proved the BBT. There could be no other explanation for this sort of background radiation but for the BBT.

So the development of the universe from the hot dense point, 13.7 billion years ago to today, is proven, and known, but the process of what happened at the BB is still unknown and subject to competing theories.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr...open_questions

******************

You have very kindly and skillfully focused our attention to the zero point, the hot topic of scientific debate. The micro second before the BB, where scientists are still hypothesizing what happened at zero point. Scientists know all about 13.7 billion years development of the universe less the ‘zero point’.

The zero point question is the ‘origin of the universe’ question. The BBT has focused on the development of the universe after the zero point. The BBT has no proof or evidence for the zero point, that micro second. The BBT has ample proof and evidence for the 13.7 bi years developments that took place beyond the zero point.

I will read your referenced “A Brief History of Time”, but mean while, you mentioned “Hawking points out that if all of the matter in the universe were collected in one place, the gravity produced would produce an event horizon — a region from which no matter or energy could escape. Thus, it’s impossible for us to ever retrieve any data from that “time.”
This re-emphasizes the point that at that “singularity” as some call it [Scientific American: The Myth of the Beginning of Time] and ‘event horizon’ as Hawkings appears to call it, all matter was together WITHOUT any space between them. Thus if our body is part of the matter that came from the singularity or event horizon, then all matter from all our bodies, are packed tightly together without any space between our matter, for all matter are ONE at that zero point, and thus, we are scientifically and philosophically one at point zero, 13.7 billion years ago, and thus we are also one now, even when we appear to have separate selves, just that we are now separated by time and space.

The above cited Scientific American article “The Myth of the Beginning of Time” deals with String theory and suggests that the BB was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state. As talk origins web site had clarified, there are currently three competing theories for the point zero, which is basically a micro second before the BB. The BBT covers the development of the universe from that micro second after the BB for 13.7 billion years. It is at the singularity, the event horizon or the point zero, that, scientists cannot agree on. But it is agreed that all matter was at one point together without space and time separating them. This scientific agreement confirms philosophically that we are one at point zero.

Time: To add to your definition, here is another cite, “Time is only a MEASURE of the transformation of the universe. Time has no existence by itself, it is only a measure. When I say that I am x years old, that means since my birth the earth has gone x times around the sun. And we know that a person of x has aged (transformed) so much that the person can now be a parent/ grand parent. The earth a 4.5 billion years since it was born and has changed (transformed) considerably during that time. The universe has 13.7 billion years and it has gone (transformed) from a point to what it is today.”
*************************
#

Other poster: As to what happened before the Big Bang, the fact is that there was no “before.” There was no time, and there was no space. Time and space, as you’ve said, are just ways of measuring a relationship between at least two objects.

His reply: I would have failed you as well as myself, if I did not try to clarify what I meant. Science is agreed that that about 0.000000000001 second after the Big Bang [BB] there was matter energy at a hot dense point. The universe expanded from that hot dense point. The transformation through time and movement through space from this hot dense point to the universe now, is the “development of the universe” This “development of the universe from the hot dense point is the BBT. This is found at the talk origins link. I have just put it in lay fashion.

Therefore the BBT is NOT about the origin of the universe at point zero. Thus the BBT is about the development of the universe the micro second after the BB to what it is today. BBT does not cover the origin of the universe. There are hypothesis to cover the point zero or the origin of the universe.

[a] origin of the universe = something or nothing , not capable of proof
[b] micro second after the origin of the universe = hot dense point

# BBT = micro second after origin of universe for next 13.7 billion years to today.
# BBT = NOT origin of universe

The origin of the universe can EITHER be ‘nothing’ or ‘something’. You are also right to assume it is probably ‘nothing’. You draw that assumption from the Relativity Theory. If Einstein who lived from 1879 to 1955 were alive, he might have been able to take his Relativity theory further and demonstrate it was ‘nothing’ at point zero.

Point Zero is thus ‘fair game’ at this moment, with different mathematical models. The recent models seem to indicate, there was ‘something’ at point zero. These are models invented by physicists who take a view point that something cannot come out of nothing and that something must come out of something. With this view in mind, they invent the model to suit their view. These models are not capable of proof.

Likewise, if we take the relativity theory we can say, something can come out of nothing. We also cannot prove it, too.

But we can make a hypothesis that something did come out of nothing, and thus it must come from God. Just as the atheists can make a hypothesis that something came out of something and thus it can be infinite and thus it was not caused by God. Thus God does NOT exist. It is their hypothesis.

Which hypothesis is a better hypothesis would depend on our everyday observation.

A philosopher friend suggested to me, that if we can measure and calculate the universe in its parts, then we can measure and calculate the universe in all its totality. For if we can measure and calculate the universe in its parts but not in its totality, then it is like we would have a human who is half human subject to law of physics and other half as angel not subject to laws of physic. That would be impossible. Thus a universe that can measured and calculated in all its parts would be measurable and calculable in all its totality and would therefore be a finite universe.

I am pretty sure, gordo, if you had to choose your career again, and if you understood all this, you would have chosen to be a physicist to invent a mathematical model that coincides with your view that something came out of nothing, and just looking at the depth of your learning here, where I have to run hettle skettle to understand, verify cross check or determine what you say, you would have been able to come up with a wonderful mathematical model that shows that something did come out of nothing.

Einstein would have been real glad of the way you made use of his relativity theory at point zero. It would have been likely given your inclination for you to invent a mathematical model that something comes out of nothing. This shows the human predisposition in choosing the type of models depending on one’s perception of life or rather of God. If you can be an example it is possible for the physicist to be another converse example.

Thus at the level of hypothesis, each of these models not capable of proof, should not conclusively determine our determination of existence of God or otherwise.

I have an additional way of looking at it. One is that, it is still an uncontested scientific fact that the micro second 0.000000000000000001 second after the BB, there was this hot dense point of matter and energy. From this hot dense point, we have the ‘same’ matter and energy in the universe. The matter and energy in the universe at this point is the SAME as the matter and energy at the hot dense point. If we are made of matter and energy, then, at the historical time of 13.7 billion years ago, we are ALL one.

For me this is very profound that WE ARE ONE, because then if I hurt you, I am hurting myself. If I malign you, I am maligning myself. If I kill you, I am killing myself. The moral implications of ‘we are one’ are very intense and far reaching for me. Thus I am humbled and awed by the scientific fact that all of us came TOGETHER from that tiny little grain of sand at high temperature, ‘the hot dense point’ some 13.7 billion years ago.

This awareness alone would have tremendous impact on our life if properly understood, for even without religion, or belief in God, this itself will make us realize why we treat others as ourselves and also prompt us to treat others as ourselves because the truth is ‘we are one’. : -)))))

what to you would be the moral implications of ‘we are one’?

Thanks to anyone who helps me here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 05:44 AM   #2
Rocketman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
No real moral implication unless the we are one concept comes with a significant dose of self respect and awareness. People harm themselves more than they ever have harmed others.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 07:05 AM   #3
solidsquid
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
baconeatingatheistjew wrote
I have this dude posting on my blog that the he has proof that God exists because God is the only answer for the time prior to the Big Bang.
He is mistaken.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 07:28 AM   #4
a different tim
Obsessed Member
 
a different tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
baconeatingatheistjew wrote
I have this dude posting on my blog that the he has proof that God exists because God is the only answer for the time prior to the Big Bang....(cut bunch of theist horseshit from BEAJ's poster)
What time prior to the Big Bang? There wasn't any. That's the point.
No time prior, no need for or possibility of causal agent. See?

<braces ass for possible reaming from Choobus, but I think I'm right in this - certainly according to Hawking>

"You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family"
a different tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 08:12 AM   #5
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
You are right, Tim. No intrinsic time. Time and space are one and the same; if the expansion of the universe created space, it also created time.

The guy would do better to argue that photons prove God's existence.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 08:31 AM   #6
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
So basically, his argument is "I don't know what happened before or during the 'big bang', therefore god exists."

That argument doesn't carry. I don't know what heppened before or during the big bang either, all that means is that I don't know what happened before or during the big bang.

It doesn't matter if time didn't exist, it doesn't matter if you can explain big bang cosmology. You don't have to. "I don't know" is a perfectly good response. It's important to stop the 'what if' or 'could be' arguments right away.

One possible response to that is " You don't know what caused the big bang or if it even happened either. So by assuming a deity caused it, you're making yourself look superstitious. You're not superstitious, are you?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 09:26 AM   #7
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
He's definitely a Christian. Here is another post he made:

"I received an email reply [ some years ago] from a Jesuit [Catholic priest] who is a cosmologist [ at the Vatican Observatory, in USA, Arizona] and his reply to somewhat similar question I asked is this ":

I now have a few minutes to answer your questions about cosmology and about multiple Big Bangs. We really do not know if there were other Big Bangs before the one that took place about 15 billion years ago. The reason we do not know, is because there is absolute no possibility of detecting any signals which would give us information about times earlier than the Big Bang from which our observable universe issued. All information about other Big Bangs earlier (if indeed there were any) was wiped out before our Big Bang, and information about possible Big Bangs elsewhere in reality — outside our universe — is simply not accessible.

Most cosmologists and specialists in this area of science, however, do now feel that it is somewhat unlikely that our observable universe suffered Big Bangs before the one we know happened. This because the entropy density, or measure of disorder, in our observable universe would probably be higher than it actually is, if other Big Bangs had been part of our history; and even more because it now seems that our universe will expand for ever and not collapse. Evidence is emerging that it does not possess enough matter to slow the expansion rate and induce collapse… in fact the expansion may be gently accelerating! That means it is very hard to imagine how there could have been enough matter and energy have earlier Big Bangs and collapses, if there is not enough now. Finally, we really do not know how the Big Bang itself was initiated — it could not have been just a single explosion as we normally think of that, and it could not have occurred within a pre-existing space. It itself generated space and time — and in a sense was a manifold of many events taking place simultaneously.

From this you can see that there is not likely to be an evidence any time soon for earlier Big Bangs. If there is, it would create a real revolution in cosmology. At present it is very difficult to imagine what evidence would demonstrate this — what to look for.

From a theoretical point of view, it is easy to see that Big Bangs in completely different observable universes could occur. However, it is clear that if they did, there is no scientific possibility — as we presently understand that — of every detecting them, or detecting the universes in which they occurred.

What I have given you here is the standard answer most in the cosmological community would give you. I hope it helps a little bit!

Again, all the very best — and my prayers, especially at the Eucharist!

In Christ,
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2006, 09:40 AM   #8
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
a different tim wrote
Quote:
baconeatingatheistjew wrote
I have this dude posting on my blog that the he has proof that God exists because God is the only answer for the time prior to the Big Bang....(cut bunch of theist horseshit from BEAJ's poster)
What time prior to the Big Bang? There wasn't any. That's the point.
No time prior, no need for or possibility of causal agent. See?

<braces ass for possible reaming from Choobus, but I think I'm right in this - certainly according to Hawking>
No, you're spot on.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 05:15 AM   #9
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Apparently this guy is a Buddhist. Does this change anything that he is trying to say?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 03:44 PM   #10
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
So our conclusion, as I get it, is that the universe both began at the Big Bang and, because of the BB, had no beginning. Does that pretty much sum it up?

If so, I can go back to counting time from creation and I have quit looking for a creator.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 04:15 PM   #11
Down21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Focus on probability. What's more likely?

The bigbang happened, but is not entirely understood to date. From this expansion, an entire universe of simple molecules exist. These simple molecules over billions of years of bumping around became replicators. From here natural selection can explain the origins of all the rest of life on earth.

OR


An unidentifiable god (with many of man's characteristics, and sharing many traits of known "false" gods) existed before time. He was already intelligent, but there is no decent explanation as to his origins. He then decided to direct the bigbang. After creation of the universe he got bored and created all the life we see, from scratch, around us (the ability to guide evolution is as unlikely as being able to create an animal from scratch). He created all the animals for our pleasure ...including species living in darkness miles below the waves (he must have known we would invent submarines). As far as we know he only put life on one of the billions of planets he created...seems like a waste...and why the black holes, they're so ugly. Nowadays god keeps busy by guiding the evolution of viruses and bugs that kill newborn children on his favourite planet....just for kicks.


Now let's look at both options. The bigbang happened, and there is credible evidence to support it as outlined in your post. Evolution, happens and there is even more evidence in support of that. How did simple molecules form replicators? What were these replicators? These are questions that need to be answered, but given billions of years and billions of planets it is not completely ridiculous to assume that this happened given what we know of evolution.

The religious option, aside from taking away from the wonder of our being, is HIGHLY unlikely to the point of being impossible. If you believe god was there to start the bigbang, it is groundless faith flying in the face of scientific evidence and reason. If you believe that god created all life in its current state 6000 years ago...please kill yourself now and be sure to tell your family to write "I am an ignorant cunt" as an epitaph. If you believe that god was a) there before the bigbang AND b) guided evolution with the intent of making humans, again you are flying in the face of logic,science and reason and you worship a child killing freak.

Apologies for the rant.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 04:21 PM   #12
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
So our conclusion, as I get it, is that the universe both began at the Big Bang and, because of the BB, had no beginning. Does that pretty much sum it up?

If so, I can go back to counting time from creation and I have quit looking for a creator.
Yes, the BB, in its infancy, contained not only all the matter and energy in the universe, but also all the space and time in the universe.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 04:23 PM   #13
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
baconeatingatheistjew wrote
Apparently this guy is a Buddhist. Does this change anything that he is trying to say?
Other than imagining a different accent in my head when reading his words, no.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 04:38 PM   #14
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Mister Space, Ihave a pretty comfortable handle on half-life as applied to millions of atoms, but I am not real clear what that would say about the expected life of a single radioactive atom after 80 or so half-lives.

Did I learn incorrectly that fusion of lighter elements could create elements up to Iron and that fission of very heavy elements could break down only as far as Iron so that a star could not fuse heavy elements into, say, Uranium nor fission Helium into two Hydrogen atoms?

A diferent form of the same question, what is the stellar fusion and/or fission chain that leads to Uranium?

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2006, 04:43 PM   #15
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Uranium and other heavy elements are not produced by any known nuclear chain reaction. They are formed in violent events like a supernova in which the neutron flux is so high that nuclei can capture many neutrons before they can decay, and thus form stable nuclei.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational