Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Here's the most accepted theory of modern sciences understanding of the creation of the universe:

1. A void without time, space or er exists.

2. Big bang followed by cosmic inflation creates the universe.

3. A sustained light of luminous fog appears.

4. Clear space and dark appears.

5. First elements created.

6. Hydrogen and helium gas forms galaxies and stars.

7. Stars create planets and 89 elements.

What you can see here is that, If you look back to Genesis, they closely resemble each other. This must mean that what the bible said about Genesis had to have been true, based off of modern science.

You say the two prominent theories, (The Big Bang, The Genesisian(?) Account) most closely resemble each other. What you fail to mention, or notice, is that in the Bible, events are claimed to have occurred due to divine force. This is not supported by science.

Furthermore, the Bible claims that plants were created before the sun. http://errancy.org/plants-sun.html (Yes, light was allegedly created first, but in the Book of Genesis, light is differentiated form the sun). We know today that plants cannot live without energy from the sun. The Bible also dictates: 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV
I believe the "lesser light" is Earth's moon. We know also that the moon does not produce its own light but merely reflects the sun's rays.

*Yanoda might already have addressed this post, but I have not yet read his response(s) as I felt the need to respond to Hobo immediately.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

man I guess its time to chip back in. you guys keep saying about how we cannot prove that God exists, but you cannot PROVE that he doesn't, you just believe that he doesn't, just as some of us believe that he does. you also can not PROVE the big bang theory and since that is the case it makes since to believe that a God made everything. I personally think it is funny how scientist make a "leap" to the big bang theory simply because they refuse to believe that they were created and are basically sinful creatures.
all that being said I think that "Big Bang Theory" is a great show.

This is nonsense. It is never the duty of one to negate the existence of something in which he does not believe and in which their is no concrete evidence. It is the duty of the person who consistently claims something to be true without viable arguments to prove his/her point.

For example, if an individual consistently insists upon the existence of alien life forms disguised on Earth as humans, it is neither my duty nor obligation to smash his argument to dust. It is solely his responsibility to prove his point by finding an example of that life form disguised as a human.

If your logic (and sorry Quan, this is not only addressed to you, but to Panama, etc. as well) was taken into account and the applied, our entire court system would have to be overhauled. If a woman was accused of assault, and then was subsequently told she had to prove her innocence, she would have a tough time, would she not? She would have to find solid evidence against the plaintiff who insists that he was attacked but has no proof whatsoever. She would be considered "guilty until proven innocent," something that was recognized as fallacy even by the authors of the Magna Carta in the early thirteenth century.

Scientists do not deny that humans make mistakes, at least as far as I am aware. They do not believe we are infallible, but I see your point, they do not believe that humans are naturally sinful (as the Bible states) But again, your logic is flawed. Muslims believe in a deity, yet some adhering to that faith do NOT believe that humans are inherently sinful, rather that they are born pure, and later succumb to sin. Islam and Christianity both claim the existence of God, yet their philosophies contradict in several ways.

[Yanoda]

The infamous ad ignorantiam fallacy again. I have a feeling many don't even read half the posts... and just state their argument without background. The ad ignorantiam fallacy seems to be a favorite, it is no basis for argument, since it is the individual's job/duty, that claims that something exists, to be able prove it. If it cannot be proved, then there is no reason to believe it exists. Science considers something valid when it can be researched, tested and observed. That is the difference between religion and science, also the reason why they can not be compatible.
We see evidence of the concept of the Big Bang, that is why it is considered the best explanation so far, better than just claiming God(s) created it (which we have no direct evidence/observance yet).

Your statement is contradictory. You say that science requires something to be proved to be true, yet the "Big Bang Theory" has not yet been proved. By your logic and the dictum of Prima facie the previously accepted explanation "God did it" would hold sway or else you would have to say "I don't know." Science only considers something valid when a majority in power give it its blessing (peer review), though i would agree that the primary requirement of observation is generally necessary for peer acceptance. Wait. I take that back. Too much accepted science is not observable to make that statement true. Anyway, your last statement is a PERFECT summary for this entire thread. "Better than just claiming God(s) created it" reveals the true nature of the conflict and reduces it down to a difference of opinion.

I never stated that the Big Bang Theory is absolute truth, I stated the Big Bang Theory is the best explanation due to the evidence we currently have. A scientific law is when it is guarantied to be true (Law of Gravity, Law of Thermodynamics etc.). The Big Bang Theory, isn't considered 100% true but a viable explanation and is open to modification when new evidence/data arises (like any scientific study).
The process of peer review is more complicated that what you let on, other scientists/researchers analyse the paper and will perform similar experiments to see if they get the same results. Papers that are contradictory to other well accepted theories, laws etc. undergo a longer process to see if it is valid or not. It can take several months up to several years until the study gets published. It is not (as you imply) that several scientists read a paper and when they like it, they consider it valid; that is far from the truth. Being a scientist/researcher, means you have to deal with criticism on a constant basis as it is how the scientific process works. Please give examples for what accepted science is not observable/tested/researched.
You left out a big part of my statement Dread which implies a different meaning than originally intended (aka quote mining). "better than just claiming God(s) created it (which we have no direct evidence/observance yet)". This is the full quote and as stated, we have no direct evidence yet to validate the existence of God(s). Which breaks down/disproves your next statement "reveals the true nature of the conflict and reduces it down to a difference of opinion". There is no direct evidence of the existence of God(s), therefore I do not have to hold the existence of God(s) as true. That is (by definition) not an opinion.

Cheers

Yanoda

PS. Recent report/news show that there was a loose cable in the LHC that gave false readings on Neutrinos moving faster than light. The mistake is acknowledged and fixes are being made, next experiment to see if neutrinos are faster/slower than light is planned to occur in May. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/scien ... -says.html

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Yanoda, what you are are trying to do is replace what IS historically accepted as truth. Without disproving the existence of God(s) you are promoting a theory you (and many others) believe is better. It is supported by many pieces of evidence and mathematical formulae, but is still conjecture because Creation was neither directly observed, nor reproduced scientifically (no one has yet succeeded in creating a new universe from nothing).

BTW your definition of a Scientific Law is misleading/incorrect. I went and looked it up to be certain and found my memory to be proved right.

Scientific Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

This demonstrates the principle of "Something is until it isn't" and demonstrates the fallibility of definitively declaring something in an infinitely complex and ever changing universe.

Non-observable science: the existence of multiple universes, the state of er and energy within a singularity and one germane to our conversation, the origin of background microwave radiation in our galaxy. Research and test all you like, it is missing the crucial piece of evidence called observation. Without observation all the inductive reason used to reach a conclusion or theory must rely on Faith to be claimed true.

This is where the hypocrisy rises. You have your own non-observable theory based on inductive logic and the religious have a different competing theory based upon their own inductive reasoning which you reject. "There is no direct evidence of the existence of God(s)" is an opinion. You have rejected the evidence others hold as Truth and possible first-person experience (many people have personally observed God's influence in their life-repeated observation). Fine, that is your right as a free-thinking man in our society. However, if you accept the notion that we know far less than we don't know and that which we know is ever changing it is unreasonable to equivocally deny the possibility of a Creator.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Sorry for the double post, but the topic of each reply is so VASTLY different. I don't want to sully the conversation so well written and thought out by Yanoda and myself by addressing this issue in the same post.

This is nonsense. It is never the duty of one to negate the existence of something in which he does not believe and in which their is no concrete evidence. It is the duty of the person who consistently claims something to be true without viable arguments to prove his/her point.

For example, if an individual consistently insists upon the existence of alien life forms disguised on Earth as humans, it is neither my duty nor obligation to smash his argument to dust. It is solely his responsibility to prove his point by finding an example of that life form disguised as a human.

If your logic (and sorry Quan, this is not only addressed to you, but to Panama, etc. as well) was taken into account and the applied, our entire court system would have to be overhauled. If a woman was accused of assault, and then was subsequently told she had to prove her innocence, she would have a tough time, would she not? She would have to find solid evidence against the plaintiff who insists that he was attacked but has no proof whatsoever. She would be considered "guilty until proven innocent," something that was recognized as fallacy even by the authors of the Magna Carta in the early thirteenth century.

Scientists do not deny that humans make mistakes, at least as far as I am aware. They do not believe we are infallible, but I see your point, they do not believe that humans are naturally sinful (as the Bible states) But again, your logic is flawed. Muslims believe in a deity, yet some adhering to that faith do NOT believe that humans are inherently sinful, rather that they are born pure, and later succumb to sin. Islam and Christianity both claim the existence of God, yet their philosophies contradict in several ways.

(SWGO)SirPepsi
Community Member

Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:53 am
Xfire: sirpepsi

Your assumption is that the status quo is that God didn't create the universe when it is the precise opposite. The Big Bang Theory is less than a century old. It does NOT disprove the existence of God in ANY way. It is actually incumbent upon you to prove the established theory wrong in some fashion for your opposing theory to be accepted. Just "Saying" its wrong doesn't make it so.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Sorry for the double post, but the topic of each reply is so VASTLY different. I don't want to sully the conversation so well written and thought out by Yanoda and myself by addressing this issue in the same post.

This is nonsense. It is never the duty of one to negate the existence of something in which he does not believe and in which their is no concrete evidence. It is the duty of the person who consistently claims something to be true without viable arguments to prove his/her point.

For example, if an individual consistently insists upon the existence of alien life forms disguised on Earth as humans, it is neither my duty nor obligation to smash his argument to dust. It is solely his responsibility to prove his point by finding an example of that life form disguised as a human.

If your logic (and sorry Quan, this is not only addressed to you, but to Panama, etc. as well) was taken into account and the applied, our entire court system would have to be overhauled. If a woman was accused of assault, and then was subsequently told she had to prove her innocence, she would have a tough time, would she not? She would have to find solid evidence against the plaintiff who insists that he was attacked but has no proof whatsoever. She would be considered "guilty until proven innocent," something that was recognized as fallacy even by the authors of the Magna Carta in the early thirteenth century.

Scientists do not deny that humans make mistakes, at least as far as I am aware. They do not believe we are infallible, but I see your point, they do not believe that humans are naturally sinful (as the Bible states) But again, your logic is flawed. Muslims believe in a deity, yet some adhering to that faith do NOT believe that humans are inherently sinful, rather that they are born pure, and later succumb to sin. Islam and Christianity both claim the existence of God, yet their philosophies contradict in several ways.

(SWGO)SirPepsi
Community Member

Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:53 am
Xfire: sirpepsi

Your assumption is that the status quo is that God didn't create the universe when it is the precise opposite. The Big Bang Theory is less than a century old. It does NOT disprove the existence of God in ANY way. It is actually incumbent upon you to prove the established theory wrong in some fashion for your opposing theory to be accepted. Just "Saying" its wrong doesn't make it so.

Again, your argument has no basis. I have NEVER stated that I believe the Big Bang Theory to be without flaw nor did I state that the Big Bang Theory nulled/disproved the existence of a God. I do, however, believe that it is the most viable explantion we have as to the roots of our existence.

I never made the assumption that creation of the universe by a deity was not common belief. Did you even read what I wrote? I do not mention the Big Bang even once in the post you quoted. Your belief that I must first deride the existing theory in order to put faith in the scientific one is hypocritical. Using your logic, you would first have to disprove the creation theories of hundreds of civilizations before the Bible even came about.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Again, your argument has no basis. I have NEVER stated that I believe the Big Bang Theory to be without flaw nor did I state that the Big Bang Theory nulled/disproved the existence of a God. I do, however, believe that it is the most viable explantion we have as to the roots of our existence.

I never made the assumption that creation of the universe by a deity was not common belief. Did you even read what I wrote? I do not mention the Big Bang even once in the post you quoted. Your belief that I must first deride the existing theory in order to put faith in the scientific one is hypocritical. Using your logic, you would first have to disprove the creation theories of hundreds of civilizations before the Bible even came about.

My post to you had nothing to do with flaws in the Big Bang or its ability to disprove God. Your post was about the burden of proof. I was pointing out to you that if burden of proof is as you say, science would be required to disprove a Creator before it's own theories could be accepted.

I am NOT being hypocritical. I accept that I don't know and that ANY explanation could be right. Hopefully, (if I read your second to last sentence right) you will possibly understand my point of view and open your shut tight noggin long enough to accept that the theory you espouse is NO MORE valid than a creationist one and is opinion based upon the concepts and observations of others. Your theory too relies on Faith which is the cornerstone of the religious beliefs you seem to deride.

Try to keep an open mind, if you could be wrong, someone else could be right.

[Darth Crater]

Not much time to fully address all of your posts, Dread, but I object to the centerpoint of your argument. Creation of the universe by the Christian god was never the established scientific theory for the creation of the universe. By the time we had sufficient evidence to favor one theory over another, a nonzero portion of the scientists working on the problem were non-Christian. Even if it had been established at one point, we certainly have enough evidence for the Big Bang to favor it over any religious creation story I've heard. The cosmic microwave background is certainly observable, and that we can't directly observe anything before that point is actually in agreement with the theory.

Okay, above is actual scientific stuff, below is religious stuff, opinions, etc.

If people have repeatedly observed God's influence in their lives, why is there no accepted scientific evidence of his manipulation of reality? I'm not really trying to attack your beliefs with this; I'm curious whether you have a rational explanation. All I can think of is that the influence is mental only (which even then should be electromagnetic, and thus still detectable), or is hiding from us for some reason (not exactly suggesting a benevolent being, but then don't get me started on benevolence or lack thereof).

[Yanoda]

Yanoda, what you are are trying to do is replace what IS historically accepted as truth. Without disproving the existence of God(s) you are promoting a theory you (and many others) believe is better. It is supported by many pieces of evidence and mathematical formulae, but is still conjecture because Creation was neither directly observed, nor reproduced scientifically (no one has yet succeeded in creating a new universe from nothing).

Is the existence of God(s) a historic truth? No. It is a belief that has persisted and evolved (changed) over the millennia. Again, it is not my job or anyone to disprove the existence of God(s), it the ones claiming that they exists to provide evidence of God(s) (stop repeating this same fallacy). I (and many scientists and individuals) consider the Big Bang Theory a better explanation (thus far) as to how the Universe occurred. Creation has many meanings, from what I gather you're referring to the 'creation' of the Universe. That is why the Big Bang Theory is still a scientific theory, we have observations/evidence that back up/verify the process/theory.
- Galaxies moving away from one another, observance of redshift. The process of redshift has been verified by tests.
- Cosmic Background Radiation has been observed to be everywhere in the Universe and is not associated with any Star, Galaxy or any other object. It is considered a valid indication that the Universe had more energy in the beginning and cooled over time.
- Several regions of the Universe seem to be homogeneous (ie. Cosmic Background Radiation) yet those regions are at the opposite points of the observable Universe, the accepted explanation is that the early Universe was much smaller (originated from a single point) and expanded, which we still see the effects of.

BTW your definition of a Scientific Law is misleading/incorrect. I went and looked it up to be certain and found my memory to be proved right.

Scientific Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

This demonstrates the principle of "Something is until it isn't" and demonstrates the fallibility of definitively declaring something in an infinitely complex and ever changing universe.

Scientific Law:
Dictionary.reference - a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon.
Merriam Webster - a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions
There is no contradiction to a Scientific Law by its definition as you claim. Again, I never stated it is absolute truth. It is known that Laws do not apply to everything, don't make it seem otherwise.

Non-observable science: the existence of multiple universes, the state of er and energy within a singularity and one germane to our conversation, the origin of background microwave radiation in our galaxy. Research and test all you like, it is missing the crucial piece of evidence called observation. Without observation all the inductive reason used to reach a conclusion or theory must rely on Faith to be claimed true.

Existence of multiple Universes is still not considered scientifically valid, since it cannot be directly observed. You made a false assumption.
Background Radiation is observable, it indicates (as well as the near uniformity within the Universe) that the Universe originated from a single (very small point) and expanded (which we can observe due to redshift).
Scientists (astronomers) collect data/research/observation and try to put them together (like a jigsaw puzzle). We may not have directly observed the 'Big Bang' but we still observe the after effects based on the evidence we have now.

This is where the hypocrisy rises. You have your own non-observable theory based on inductive logic and the religious have a different competing theory based upon their own inductive reasoning which you reject. "There is no direct evidence of the existence of God(s)" is an opinion. You have rejected the evidence others hold as Truth and possible first-person experience (many people have personally observed God's influence in their life-repeated observation). Fine, that is your right as a free-thinking man in our society. However, if you accept the notion that we know far less than we don't know and that which we know is ever changing it is unreasonable to equivocally deny the possibility of a Creator.

I have addressed your false assumption that I (or science) is based on hypocrisy. Religion base their views on faith and belief, no one (ie. creationists) were able to provide evidence of the existence of God(s), the majority just question the current scientific studies and try to mold it into their form of belief.
The individuals' personal experience 'with God(s) cannot be replicated to be accurately studied. What are the experiences of God(s)?
Light/visions during death-experience for example? Neurologists and other scientists are studying this process since 2008.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422744,00.html
http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-p ... arnia.html
Some scientists' explanation of NDE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... brain.html
This implies that it is a natural phenomenon and nothing to do with God(s) or supernatural beings.

Please provide the 'observations' so that I can address it accordingly.

My post to you had nothing to do with flaws in the Big Bang or its ability to disprove God. Your post was about the burden of proof. I was pointing out to you that if burden of proof is as you say, science would be required to disprove a Creator before it's own theories could be accepted.

Scientific research/data/observations provide evidence validating their Hypothesis and/or Theories. You or any creationist has provide proof/evidence that validates the existence of God(s). Don't push the burden on those (as you claim) that have to disprove it. Discussions and argumentation does not work like that, otherwise everyone can make claims that another individual has to disprove (it does not work that way).

I am NOT being hypocritical. I accept that I don't know and that ANY explanation could be right.

You mean regardless of evidence that contradicts your assumptions?

Hopefully, (if I read your second to last sentence right) you will possibly understand my point of view and open your shut tight noggin long enough to accept that the theory you espouse is NO MORE valid than a creationist one and is opinion based upon the concepts and observations of others. Your theory too relies on Faith which is the cornerstone of the religious beliefs you seem to deride.

Using insults now, eh? For one that claims for the other having to be open minded, you're being quite closed minded... (ie. keep repeating the same fallacy).
I have provided explanations/evidences/observations that provide the validity of the scientific theories. Unlike you, who keeps questioning them and claiming it is the scientists' job to disprove your assumption. The theory would rely on faith if there was no evidence, which is quite the contrary as I gave several examples.

So, what are the evidences that prove God(s) exist? Tell me which God(s) is the right one as well based on the evidence. It is your burden to provide the proof/evidence/observations to validate your argument.

Cheers

Yanoda

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Yanoda, you have evidence that I dismiss. I have evidence that you dismiss. The reason we dismiss each other's evidence is because it was not directly observed. Using inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion does NOT yield definitive results. This is why we don't agree.

(I'd post something larger, but I don't have the time today and I want the topics original author to have the honor of being the Page 50 post. Have at it MT.)