1:1 In the beginning God created the heaves and the earth.

Originally posted by finnegan
The Christian God is the Abrahamic God is the Muslim God.

I know that. What I don't know is why you find relevant to point that out.

Einstein said he didn't like the primordial egg conclusion because it reminded him of God (this God being the Abrahamic God). That's why he introduced the cosmologic constant: so that he could have an eternal Universe that needed not to account for any kind of Creation.

That is then. Nowadays people that are scientific somehow think that the Big Bang refutes God, when it is perfectly clear that it does not.

Originally posted by adam warlock
The Big Bang neither is a theory nor an hypothesis. It is a result from a theory. The theory being General Relativity.
Saying that the Big Bang prevents the existence of God is just a mistake.

Just like any other result in physics The Big Bang has its share of successes and mishaps. If you only want to concede the existence of the sucesses than that ...[text shortened]... o be relevant: do you know what Newton thought about gravity and his theory of gravitation?

Not a mistake.

If I am told that God created the World and that this was in a manner described in the Bible, then I am entitled to ask how that proposal might be tested. At a minimum, I would suggest we ought to find some aspect of the World that is surprising, in that it does not conform to the laws of physics, or it cannot be accounted for and described rationally using physics or the appropriate scientific enquiry. But in examining the history of the universe from the Big Bang,including the Big Bang, we find that everything is very well described in scientific terms - there is no evidence of a miracle, there is no surprise of that type.

If everything can be described and accounted for scientifically then the proposal that all or some of this was a miracle is falsified.

What you are obliged to do is retreat to the God-of-the-Gaps by arguing there remains some uncertainty or some wrinkle that has not yet been accounted for, but the available gaps are shrinking very fast and besides, in this way you are obliged on the way to abandon the Christian / Biblical description let alone the accounts of theology.

Sorry - that's how it works. You suggest a theory (God, say). You consider how to test the theory by making a prediction. You test it. It fails the test. You abandon the theory.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

Well tested model? Are you high? Do you actually believe that the Big Bang is testable, let alone well tested? What a crock.

Yes it is testable and has been tested. Read a book other than the Bible written by someone other than a fundamentalist for purposes other than protecting your version of the world from examination.

Your other comments are bigotry and not interesting.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I know that. What I don't know is why you find relevant to point that out.

Einstein said he didn't like the primordial egg conclusion because it reminded him of God (this God being the Abrahamic God). That's why he introduced the cosmologic constant: so that he could have an eternal Universe that needed not to account for any kind of Creation.

Tha ...[text shortened]... fic somehow think that the Big Bang refutes God, when it is perfectly clear that it does not.

He regretted his cosmological constant. You cannot have the universe you want - you have to explain the one you've got. But I concede that I have followed a red herring. Sorry.

Originally posted by finnegan
Not a mistake.

If I am told that God created the World and that this was in a manner described in the Bible, then I am entitled to ask how that proposal might be tested. At a minimum, I would suggest we ought to find some aspect of the World that is surprising, in that it does not conform to the laws of physics, or it cannot be accounted for and describ est the theory by making a prediction. You test it. It fails the test. You abandon the theory.

The notion of a test already assumes that the Bible account is a scientific one. And it isn't.

At a minimum, I would suggest we ought to find some aspect of the World that is surprising, in that it does not conform to the laws of physics, or it cannot be accounted for and described rationally using physics or the appropriate scientific enquiry. But in examining the history of the universe from the Big Bang,including the Big Bang, we find that everything is very well described in scientific terms - there is no evidence of a miracle, there is no surprise of that type.

Here you're just making the same mistake Hitchens makes. You're actually quoting him almost verbatim as fas as I can remember. But that's just wrong. The one miracle needed is at the moment of creation. It can be said that God created the Universe and the Laws of Physics and made the universe evolve from then on according to the laws of Physics. Is this likely? No! Is this known to be false with certainty? No!
More explicitly: scientifically speaking you no reason whatsoever to find anything that deviates from the laws of physics during the evolution of the Universe if there was a creator in the first place.


I'm all up for science and I really think that rational inquiry is the way to go if one wants to understand a good part of the world around us. But rational inquiry has to be applied in a rational way. Saying that from the Big Bang it follows that God doesn't exist isn't rational nor logical.

The man who proposed the primordial egg conclusion was a priest.
Most scientists refused to acknowledge that conclusion because they saw it as metaphysics/religion rather than science.

The fact nowadays positions have reversed by 180º really tells me a lot about the world we live in.

Do you know about any shortcoming when it comes to the Big Bang "theory"?

Edit:

You test it. It fails the test. You abandon the theory.

Not even scientists do that! This Popper model of how science should work is clearly very out of phase with reality of scientific work and the fact that people keep on bringing it up is rather surprising to me.

Originally posted by adam warlock
The notion of a test already assumes that the Bible account is a scientific one. And it isn't.

[quote]At a minimum, I would suggest we ought to find some aspect of the World that is surprising, in that it does not conform to the laws of physics, or it cannot be accounted for and described rationally using physics or the appropriate scientific enquiry ...[text shortened]... ntific work and the fact that people keep on bringing it up is rather surprising to me.

Well said.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well said.

Nonsense. The Biblical account includes countless statements about the way the World was created and how things developed from there. Apart from the creation, the popular one which is often argued is about Noah, the Flood, the "dispersion" and that is used to support all sort of stuff. So the Bible makes statements about this physical universe in which we live and those are testable.

Furthermore, the Bible is used frequently to challenge claims made by scientists. So in that case, its advocates are very definitely entering into debate with science about this physical material world. Again for example it is used to challenge evolutionary theory. So how come, if it has nothing to do with science and it is not scientific, it gets to be used in scientific arguments?

You can't have your cake and eat it. What you really mean is that some people cannot tolerate having their bible questioned. There is only one truth and you own it. Well - I will not serve.

Originally posted by finnegan
Nonsense. The Biblical account includes countless statements about the way the World was created and how things developed from there. Apart from the creation, the popular one which is often argued is about Noah, the Flood, the "dispersion" and that is used to support all sort of stuff. So the Bible makes statements about this physical universe in which we ...[text shortened]... ving their bible questioned. There is only one truth and you own it. Well - I will not serve.

If you go to the debates forum you'll see that I question the Bible a lot. I also think that we agree a lot more than what may transpire. But the fact just is that the Big Bang doesn't prevent God from existing.

And just because some Christian fools make the mistake of mixing things that shouldn't be mixed it doesn't men you should do it too. In my view that's losing the debate from the get go.

If you wan to go on Bible "bashing" I can assure that I'll be one of your best Generals. 😉

But once again: Big Bang and God aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by adam warlock
If you go to the debates forum you'll see that I question the Bible a lot. I also think that we agree a lot more than what may transpire. But the fact just is that the Big Bang doesn't prevent God from existing.

And just because some Christian fools make the mistake of mixing things that shouldn't be mixed it doesn't men you should do it too. In my v ...[text shortened]... f your best Generals. 😉

But once again: Big Bang and God aren't mutually exclusive.

Sorry but you're wrong. Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive if you are going to present God in terms of the Bible. Now, if you prefer Spinoza's notion of God, or even Einstein's, that is different but it is not possible to reconcile the Bible with science and it is about time we recognised this.

You may want to avoid the fight but they don't. They are seriously working to undermine science. Creationists are messing up English education now, importing their brand of intolerant gobbledygook from our American cousins. Their bizarre ideas are directly influencing political decisions in ways that I find dangerous and unacceptable. I am absolutely sick of watching major gains from two centuries of democratic progress being threatened by something that I see as comparable to fascism.

Originally posted by finnegan
Sorry but you're wrong. Big Bang and God are mutually exclusive if you are going to present God in terms of the Bible. Now, if you prefer Spinoza's notion of God, or even Einstein's, that is different but it is not possible to reconcile the Bible with science and it is about time we recognised this.

You may want to avoid the fight but they don't. They a ...[text shortened]... es of democratic progress being threatened by something that I see as comparable to fascism.

I happen to think that morality and God are mutually exclusive if you present the Biblical God, so I won't be arguing with you. The thing is that deciding on the non existence of God because of the Big Bang isn't doing any justice to rational inquiry.

Who says I want to avoid the fight? There you go making assumptions about me. Even today I got on a discussion about the meaning of Fátima and the so called miracle that happened. I just happen to disagree with the idea that Big Bang implies the non existence of God.

You used a very similar argument from one I've see from Hitchens but that argument is just a non sequitur wrapped with wishful thinking.

As for the nonsense that comes out of creationists mouths: once again I totally agree with you. They're bizarre and very dangerous.

Originally posted by finnegan
If God created the World then it ought to be the product of miraculous intervention and there must be something we can see that falls outside the laws of physics. However, there is nothing outside the laws of physics in the history of this universe having looked with great care and intensity. If there is, kindly point it out. Hence, the proposition that God ...[text shortened]... By contrast, the laws of physics have been incredibly successful and as such merit our support.

===============================
If God created the World then it ought to be the product of miraculous intervention and there must be something we can see that falls outside the laws of physics.
==================================

Why does that necessarily follow ?

=============================
However, there is nothing outside the laws of physics in the history of this universe having looked with great care and intensity.
===============================

I think no matter how you subdivide the universe, no matter how small you slice and dice all known energy and matter, the cause of the existence of the universe lies outside of itself.

Its cause, I think, must have unlimited power, be very intelligent, deciding to bring it into existence (will), and outside of space and time.

======================
If there is, kindly point it out. Hence, the proposition that God made the World fails to predict correctly what we observe in our universe. By contrast, the laws of physics have been incredibly successful and as such merit our support.
===========================

I think you should visit the lectures of Dr. Hugh Ross on A Testable Model of Creation. His model of a divinely created universe predicts that evidence for the fine tuning of the universe for life and man's existence will encrease more and more. So far he is right on schedule.

A testable model of a divinely created universe should predict that the evidence for the unverses highly improbable tuning that life and intelligent man should be able to exist in it, should accumulate as we learn more and more about the universe.

Check it out, why don't you?

YouTube

If God created the World then it ought to be the product of miraculous intervention and there must be something we can see that falls outside the laws of physics.
==================================

Why does that necessarily follow ?

Well there are two options: 1. The laws of physics describe what we encounter. 2. They don't. If they do there is no necessary basis for God intervening. If God intervened and did anything by an act of pure creation, then it would not be explained by physics. It would be a miracle. In other words, you predict that there have been miracles, so by definition you predict that something lies outside the laws of physics. The evidence is against your prediction. It has been shown to be false.

I think no matter how you subdivide the universe, no matter how small you slice and dice all known energy and matter, the cause of the existence of the universe lies outside of itself. Its cause, I think, must have unlimited power, be very intelligent, deciding to bring it into existence (will), and outside of space and time.

The key term is ""must have." Must , you assume, of necessity. So if we can show that it need not be the case, your argument fails. And fail it does because there are better alternatives that work very well. They are called - well, for simplicity "physics." And since there is an alternative, your claim does not have the status "of necessity." It is not at all necessary. It is not even terribly interesting, in retrospect, except as part of the detritus of history.

Originally posted by jaywill
======================
If there is, kindly point it out. Hence, the proposition that God made the World fails to predict correctly what we observe in our universe. By contrast, the laws of physics have been incredibly successful and as such merit our support.
===========================

I think you should visit the lectures of Dr. Hugh Ross on [b] A Testable Model of Creation. His model of a divinely created universe predicts that evidence for the fine tuning of the universe for life and man's existence will encrease more and more. So far he is right on schedule.

A testable model of a divinely created universe should predict that the evidence for the universe's highly improbable tuning that life and intelligent man should be able to exist in it, should accumulate as we learn more and more about the universe.
[/b]

Oh dear. I will check it tomorrow but it is not news. And it is rubbish. And it has been argued and answered many times. But out of politeness I will but just now I'm going to sleep.

Originally posted by finnegan
[b] If God created the World then it ought to be the product of miraculous intervention and there must be something we can see that falls outside the laws of physics.
==================================

Why does that necessarily follow ?

Well there are two options: 1. The laws of physics describe what we encounter. 2. They don't ...[text shortened]... nd answered many times. But out of politeness I will but just now I'm going to sleep.[/b]

====================================
Oh dear. I will check it tomorrow but it is not news. And it is rubbish. And it has been argued and answered many times. But out of politeness I will but just now I'm going to sleep.
============================

Never mind. Don't visit the lectures.
I'm not begging you. Continue with your "options".

Originally posted by finnegan
Nonsense. The Biblical account includes countless statements about the way the World was created and how things developed from there. Apart from the creation, the popular one which is often argued is about Noah, the Flood, the "dispersion" and that is used to support all sort of stuff. So the Bible makes statements about this physical universe in which we ...[text shortened]... ving their bible questioned. There is only one truth and you own it. Well - I will not serve.

"Furthermore, the Bible is used frequently to challenge claims made by scientists."

I'd actually think that challenging the Bible is used by scientists to prop up their
views is done more often than people actually using the Bible to challenge science.
At least I believe that is the case here, I know that is the case with people who
debate me, they bring it up more often than I do.
Kelly

Originally posted by finnegan
If God created the World then it ought to be the product of miraculous intervention and there must be something we can see that falls outside the laws of physics.
==================================

Why does that necessarily follow ?

Well there are two options: 1. The laws of physics describe what we encounter. 2. They don't. I ...[text shortened]... nd answered many times. But out of politeness I will but just now I'm going to sleep.[/b]

Holy cow, it's hard to believe what comes out of the mouth of the God naysayers, innit?

Accusatory and defamatory, Christians get branded as anti-science, anti-thought, anti-reason, anti-freedom--- in complete rejection of the historical record, as though no one will call you on it. Well, you've been called. The overwhelming majority of the founding fathers of the USA were Christians. The overwhelming majority of the founding fathers of science were Christians. Now, that doesn't mean they entered stage right, said their piece, changed their minds and exited stage left changed. When they exited this world, they did so as Christians, regardless of the events of their lives, their actions or discoveries.

The way you describe it, any thoughtful person who considers the world around them will come to the conclusion of the atheist. Guess what? There are many reputable scientists who say otherwise. Of course, you will do everything you can to dismiss them and their views, but the reality remains: while God is dead to the hearts of some, He is alive and well in the minds and hearts of others, quite heartily withstanding all considerations thereof.

If anyone is guilty of anti-reason and anti-thought, it is you with this:

So if we can show that it need not be the case, your argument fails. And fail it does because there are better alternatives that work very well. They are called - well, for simplicity "physics." And since there is an alternative, your claim does not have the status "of necessity." It is not at all necessary. It is not even terribly interesting, in retrospect, except as part of the detritus of history.
One smallish catch to your better alternative. Physics refers to the natural universe. When we view the natural universe and work backward, we have determined that there was a moment from which the entire thing emanated. Prior to that moment, nothing. The laws of physics apply to the natural universe. They certainly do not apply to nothing.