The big bang.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...You are poisoning the well of discussion with sophomoric name calling. Jastrow and Sandage are respested in their fields. ...”

is the supernatural part of their “field”? Answer, no. Even some scientists can talk crap esp when they talk about something that is outside their field (a common error) let alone when they start talking about something that is not even part of science!

=================================
is the supernatural part of their “field”? Answer, no. Even some scientists can talk crap esp when they talk about something that is outside their field (a common error) let alone when they start talking about something that is not even part of science!
=================================

You have not authority to dictate that Jastrow or Sandage cannot use the word "supernatural". As human beings and scientists they have every right to consider what truth is.

If they come up against the limits of what the can learn by thier methods, who are you to tell them to hush up and not give an opinion about their search for truth ?

Do you have a similar feeling when a biologist goes out of his field and writes a best seller called "The God Delusion" ? Did you tell Richard Dawkins that he's talking "crap" outside of his field yet ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...I don't understand how he can argue that T1 to T2 (a period) can be traversed but T0 to T1 was not. ...”

it was also you who said this but I disagreed with your conclusion that it means there cannot be time with no beginning.

If “T1 to T2” is a finite period of time and “T0 to T1” is an infinite period of time then, with my current understa ...[text shortened]... ersed” does not equate with “T0 to T1 cannot exist” hence my disagreement with your conclusion.

===================================
If “T1 to T2” is a finite period of time and “T0 to T1” is an infinite period of time then, with my current understanding of the meaning of “traversed” in this context, “T1 to T2” can be “traversed” but “T0 to T1” cannot be “traversed” (although perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of “traversed” ? ) .
but note that “T0 to T1 cannot be traversed” does not equate with “T0 to T1 cannot exist” hence my disagreement with your conclusion.
=====================================[/b]

Your last statement I don't agree with.
If we are talking about infinity of time then T0 in fact does not exist. I had no other way to express infinity past but as T0. The nomenclature was not good.

So infinity past to the arbitrary start of some period cannot be traversed, then the infinity of past to ANY Tn cannot exist.

A "period" that cannot be traversed = a "period" that cannot exist.
That's the problem with Time having no beginning.

And that is why a lot of so called "morons" by you, (if not all), with scientific credentials suggest that something transcending nature as we know it must be at work. The term "supernatural" will do to discribe that matter.

According to science historian Frederic B. Burnham, after the discovery of backround radiation, the community of scientists were prepared to consider the idea that God create the universe "a more repespectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years" [Associated Press, U.S. Find a 'Holy Grail': Ripples at Edge of the Universe, International Herald Tribune (London), 24 April 1992, pg 1]

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
is the supernatural part of their “field”? Answer, no. Even some scientists can talk crap esp when they talk about something that is outside their field (a common error) let alone when they start talking about something that is not even part of science!
=================================

You have not auth ...[text shortened]... sion" ? Did you tell Richard Dawkins that he's talking "crap" outside of his field yet ?[/b]

Do you have a similar feeling when a biologist goes out of his field and writes a best seller called "The God Delusion" ?

If you'd read the book you would find Dawkins doesn't stray out of his field that often during the book. Who do you think would be better to write about religion and Darwinism?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Do you have a similar feeling when a biologist goes out of his field and writes a best seller called "The God Delusion" ?

If you'd read the book you would find Dawkins doesn't stray out of his field that often during the book. Who do you think would be better to write about religion and Darwinism?[/b]

The Sunday Book Review included these comments about "The God Delusion" which suggest tto me that some thinking secularists thought he did not do that great of a job.

It should be quite evident that neither of these reviewers is an evangelical Christian in case you suspect so.

These, in a nutshell, are the Big Three arguments. To Dawkins, they are simply ridiculous. He dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic, and he is baffled that a philosopher like Russell — “no fool” — could take it seriously. He seems unaware that this argument, though medieval in origin, comes in sophisticated modern versions that are not at all easy to refute. Shirking the intellectual hard work, Dawkins prefers to move on to parodic “proofs” that he has found on the Internet, like the “Argument From Emotional Blackmail: God loves you. How could you be so heartless as not to believe in him? Therefore God exists.” (For those who want to understand the weaknesses in the standard arguments for God’s existence, the best source I know remains the atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie’s 1982 book “The Miracle of Theism.&rdquo😉


Another secular book reviewer said this"

Dawkins' description of cosmological evolution reminded me of the old image of a flat earth being carried on the back of a giant turtle standing on the back of an infinitely high stack of turtles. Each turtle gets slightly smaller as you go down the stack. The difference in size between consecutive turtles is too insignificant to require an explanation. At the bottom of the stack, the turtles are so small that they may as well no longer exist.

Dawkins' claim about differing probabilities appears very naive. Whatever explanation you give for the existence of our universe, whether you believe that the ultimate source of all reality is a mindless cosmic machine, an infinite cosmic chaos, or a purposeful creative force; they are all logically impossible.

Without a shred of evidence to support it, the only difference between cosmological evolution and any other kind of creation myth is that it is cleverly shrouded in scientific words. Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy. Intelligent design theorists use the same tactic.

Dawkins' dodgy introduction to metaphysics ends with chapter four and the next six chapters deal primarily with the reason why religion exists and the impact it has on society. These chapters are not so much a defense of atheism as they are a continuation of his venomous attack on religious irrationality.

Stay tuned for the second part of my review, covering the last six chapters of The God Delusion.

Maybe he wasn't as qualified as you think. And he refuses to a public debate with William Lane Craig saying that he is too busy. He only would debate a high cleric like a cardinal or a bishop.

Originally posted by mikelom
I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

-m. 🙂

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to comment that this is a good OP. Better than most in recent months.


I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

Believe it or not I'm of the opinion that all matter was at once concentrated in one location.(Of course no one knows that for sure since none of us was there) As far as quantifying it mentally, well, we can only imagine!

The material universe can be 5 billion years old. But what is that compared to time? Mere moments? The age of the universe is irrelevant. It proves nothing. It just is.


However, we also know an apple falls from a tree, due to gravity. Proven. We know the speed of light. Proven.

Yes but, doesn't the speed of light vary?


We know energy cannot be created or destroyed. Proven.

We know we cannot create or destroy energy.


But, and a "BIG" but, is if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how on earth did the big bang happen? There must have been an energy input, from a source that we don't know about? Yes, or no?

Yes but, we don't even know how energy came into existence much less what or who cause the "bang".


Where did that energy source come from?

That's easy. The answer is GOD. Every other explanation is pure speculation.


As to the rest of your post I say this; If there be a God, then the answers to your questions, and all others, will be found in Him. It is only logical.

Originally posted by jaywill
The Sunday Book Review included these comments about "The God Delusion" which suggest tto me that some thinking secularists thought he did not do that great of a job.

It should be quite evident that neither of these reviewers is an evangelical Christian in case you suspect so.

These, in a nutshell, are the Big Three arguments. To Dawkins, t ing that he is too busy. He only would debate a high cleric like a cardinal or a bishop.

Firstly, i'm well aware the book didn't recieve widespread critical acclaim, even among secularists, but's that's nethier 'here nor there'. I was pointing out that your analogy wasn't a very good one. The book has chapters looking at religion from a Darwinian perspective. I would hardly call that topic outside of Dawkins field.

Originally posted by josephw
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to comment that this is a good OP. Better than most in recent months.


[b]I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our develope answers to your questions, and all others, will be found in Him. It is only logical.

Question"Where did that energy source come from?"
Answer: "That's easy. The answer is GOD. Every other explanation is pure speculation."

Why not: "the energy source itself is God" or " there must exist another reality, obeying to unknown laws".
Speculative? For sure. But why is you answer less speculative?

We don't know which, if any, answer is right and that gives us optimal freedom. Without knowing what the whole event really is, we may agree we better treat our Umwelt and Universe with awe and respect. That seems to me more urgently needed than believing or rejecting the existence of God 'before' the Big Bang.

Originally posted by jaywill
And that is why a lot of so called "morons" by you, (if not all), with scientific credentials suggest that something transcending nature as we know it must be at work. The term "supernatural" will do to discribe that matter.

If I follow your argument correctly, you are making a logical argument, not an argument based on the laws of physics. If so, then the issue is not of something transcending nature, but rather something transcending logic.
So surely "superlogical" (or rather 'illogical'😉 would be a much better term.

Of course I have always argued that 'supernatural' is an illogical term as it is essentially a claim that something that is not part of nature exists and is part of nature (a self contradictory claim).

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I follow your argument correctly, you are making a logical argument, not an argument based on the laws of physics. If so, then the issue is not of something transcending nature, but rather something transcending logic.
So surely "superlogical" (or rather 'illogical'😉 would be a much better term.

Of course I have always argued that 'supernatural' is ...[text shortened]... hing that is not part of nature exists and is part of nature (a self contradictory claim).

=============================
If I follow your argument correctly, you are making a logical argument, not an argument based on the laws of physics.
=================================

The problem of an infinity of anything has been pointed out by mathematicians. For example, German mathematician David Hilbert (1862-1943).

Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox was suggested by him to show an actual real life infinite amount of any finite thing leads to mathematical contradictions.

There are some Quantum mechanical "laws" of quantum physics, which I understand are doing some very counter intuitive things logically. And some scientists are looking for some of these paradoxes which could now be signs of supernatural effects, to be explained someday.

That doesn't both me as a theist. I think that the most essential truths of this universe have been made accesible to all people. Namely, that an all powerful Creator created this universe somehow.

I do not believe that this vital truth of why the universe exists, is the property of really super smart people as an elite class of geniuses. I think it is there for the grasping of extremely educated people and average people and below average people in IQ or education.

I think that this essential origin of the world is as reasonable 2,000 years ago as it is 1,000 years ago. I think it is reasonable today. And should science advance for another 1,000 years, I think it will still be accessible to the most reasonable people that a Creator of unlimited power and knowledge is probably the Cause of the existence of the universe.

I don't believe "multiple universes" will change that in many people's minds.
I don't believe that Quantum mechanics will altar that realization, in most of mankind's minds.

Rather then imagine an elite few people alone can figure out where the universe came from, I think God has made this natural revelation accessible to the most number of people, young, old, "civilized" or "uncivilized", educated or extra- educated.

I am eager to see what science will diascover in the future. I am poised to see the whole Big Bang theory possibly replaced someday by something else. Regardless of this I think eventually a supreme Creator of some identity, will be reasoned by the most people, as the Cause of the world's existence.

Details may vary. Details may greatly vary. I don't think the creatorship of a Supremee Being will ever be calculated or observed away.

I don't think Science will ever, ever make suspicion of a Supreme Creator Being (whose idendity may be up for argument), become obsolete.


If so, then the issue is not of something transcending nature, but rather something transcending logic.
So surely "superlogical" (or rather 'illogical'😉 would be a much better term.

Of course I have always argued that 'supernatural' is an illogical term as it is essentially a claim that something that is not part of nature exists and is part of nature (a self contradictory claim).

I don't believe that greatly expanding and enlarging the scope of what we call Natural, will ever make the belief of a Supreme powerful Will, causing the universe/s to come into existence, obsolete and superstitious.

I think people on this Forum like yourself and others, are eagerly awaiting the day that Science makes belief in God obsolete. And for you that day may have come and gone.

Some of us do not believe that day has come. And I think we are reasonable and realistic to hold that opinion.

The "Laws of Physics", I think require a Legislator. Laws, I think, nessecitate a Law Maker. Laws that just exist on thier own with no origin just do not make any sense to me.

Try as they might, and complain as they might (even if some complaints have a social foundation in truth) unbelievers are not going to make Theism a thing of the past, for a lot of us.

Anyone interested ?

"Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete ?" 4 part video by J. P. Moreland

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
is the supernatural part of their “field”? Answer, no. Even some scientists can talk crap esp when they talk about something that is outside their field (a common error) let alone when they start talking about something that is not even part of science!
=================================

You have not auth ...[text shortened]... sion" ? Did you tell Richard Dawkins that he's talking "crap" outside of his field yet ?[/b]

“...You have not authority to dictate that Jastrow or Sandage cannot USE the word "supernatural". ...” (my emphasis)

I did not say nor imply nor believe they couldn't USE the word "supernatural". I USE the word "supernatural".
Scientific method (if not just plain old-fashioned common sense) has the 'authority' to dictate that nobody (including scientists) can rationally conclude that there exists a supernatural from the Big Bang.

“...If they come up against the limits of what the can learn by their methods, who are you to tell them to hush up and not give an opinion about their search for truth ? ...”

coming up against the limits of what the can learn by their methods (scientific method) is no excuse to start using illogic to form conclusions.

“...Do you have a similar feeling when a biologist goes out of his field and writes a best seller called "The God Delusion" ? Did you tell Richard Dawkins that he's talking "crap" outside of his field yet ? ...”

as I have already said, I did not say nor imply nor believe they couldn't USE the word "supernatural".

Originally posted by souverein
Question[b]"Where did that energy source come from?"
Answer: "That's easy. The answer is GOD. Every other explanation is pure speculation."

Why not: "the energy source itself is God" or " there must exist another reality, obeying to unknown laws".
Speculative? For sure. But why is you answer less speculative?

We don't know which, if any, ...[text shortened]... ently needed than believing or rejecting the existence of God 'before' the Big Bang.[/b]

"We don't know which, if any, answer is right and that gives us optimal freedom."

Ignorance is freedom? I don't think so.

You think you're free because you don't know how creation came into existence.

Can't you see how irrational that is?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
If “T1 to T2” is a finite period of time and “T0 to T1” is an infinite period of time then, with my current understanding of the meaning of “traversed” in this context, “T1 to T2” can be “traversed” but “T0 to T1” cannot be “traversed” (although perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of “traversed” ? ) .
bu Edge of the Universe, International Herald Tribune (London), 24 April 1992, pg 1][/b]

“...Your last statement I don't agree with.
If we are talking about infinity of time then T0 in fact does not exist. ...”

yes, that is what I said: reminder: “if time had no beginning then …...you cannot talk about a specific point in time infinite period in the past from the present only a specific point in time that is finite period in the past from the present ”

but that does not mean my conclusion is false.

OK, just thought of a way to prove this to you using a truly perfect analogy! :

would you agree that there is an infinite number of integers? (integers are whole numbers i.e. -infinity …..-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ….+infinity although, strictly speaking, “infinity” is not a number! )

if yes, then according to your logic, there cannot be 'no beginning' to the positive integer sequence! That's because you can make “-infinity” analogies to infinite time in the past and “+infinity” analogous to to infinite time in the future and “0” analogous to the present point in time (would you agree that that is a very good analogy! ? If not, why not? )
Now, using this analogy and using your own logic, there cannot be 'no beginning' to the integer sequence! (which is a false conclusion because it has no beginning) Because we can use the same premise here that you cannot specify a particular number that is infinitely negative i.e. infinitely to the left of that “0” ! (which is true ) and even if we could, that infinitely negative number cannot ever be reached from counting from it to “0” ! (which is true ) but then, using your own erroneous logic, you would conclude that this fact means there could not be 'no beginning' to the integer sequence! (which is a false conclusion because it has no beginning)

so is there a beginning to the integer sequence? If not, then were is the logical flaw in saying that time has no beginning? (and I am NOT saying time has no beginning, I am just saying there is no logical flaw with the concept)

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"We don't know which, if any, answer is right and that gives us optimal freedom."

Ignorance is freedom? I don't think so.

You think you're free because you don't know how creation came into existence.

Can't you see how irrational that is?[/b]

It think it is better to know what you don't know than to pretend to know. For me it was extremely liberating to acknowledge that I don't know about the ultimate. If you want to label that as ignorance, be my guest.

Originally posted by souverein
It think it is better to know what you don't know than to pretend to know. For me it was extremely [b]liberating to acknowledge that I don't know about the ultimate. If you want to label that as ignorance, be my guest.[/b]

"It think it is better to know what you don't know than to pretend to know."

Do you mean to say that it is better to know that you don't know than to pretend to know what you don't know?


We know we don't know everything. But I know the one who does.

That gripes you doesn't it?