Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken

You assert that as if this was a proven fact Ken.

What did I assert as if it was a proven fact? That the Big Bang theory starts with a singularity? Or that the theory does not include God? Or something else.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken

You assert that as if this was a proven fact Ken.

What did I assert as if it was a proven fact? That the Big Bang theory starts with a singularity? Or that the theory does not include God? Or something else.

Ken

Any of that, all of that, BUT in particular that the big band started with a singularity.
That is the hypothesis, not a proven fact.
At best what we can say is that the current view is that what we all the big bang probably started with/from a singularity.
Not, what caused that singularity to A) come about or B) expand, we do NOT know.

And, again, if you understood the Christian view of God then you would know that the statement of "not God" and "doesn't even include God" is simply wrong.
Better to say that the big bang theory does not need YOUR understanding of what YOU think God MAY be.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

The Big Bang theory starts with a singularity; not God. The theory doesn’t even include God. You inserting God is another example of you using the God of the gaps argument. That may work for you, but not for me.

Ken

You assert that as if this was a proven fact Ken.

What did I assert as if it was a proven fact? That the Big Bang theory starts with a singularity? Or that the theory does not include God? Or something else.

Ken

Any of that, all of that, BUT in particular that the big band started with a singularity.
That is the hypothesis, not a proven fact.
At best what we can say is that the current view is that what we all the big bang probably started with/from a singularity.
Not, what caused that singularity to A) come about or B) expand, we do NOT know.

And, again, if you understood the Christian view of God then you would know that the statement of "not God" and "doesn't even include God" is simply wrong.
Better to say that the big bang theory does not need YOUR understanding of what YOU think God MAY be.

You appear to be confusing what the Big Bang theory says, vs whether that theory is accurate or not. I was not speaking on its accuracy; I was speaking on what the theory actually says. If you are familiar with what the theory says, you will know it says nothing about God.

Ken

The Big Bang is usually considered to be a theory of the birth of the universe, although technically it does not exactly describe the origin of the universe, but rather attempts to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It is just a model to convey what happened and not a description of an actual explosion, and the Big Bang was neither Big (in the beginning the universe was incomparably smaller than the size of a single proton), nor a Bang (it was more of a snap or a sudden inflation).

In fact, “explosion” is really just an often-used analogy and is slightly misleading in that it conveys the image that the Big Bang was triggered in some way at some particular centre. In reality, however, the same pattern of expansion would be observed from anywhere in the universe, so there is no particular location in our present universe which could claim to be the origin.

It really describes a very rapid expansion or stretching of space itself rather than an explosion in pre-existing space. Perhaps a better analogy sometimes used to describe the even expansion of galaxies throughout the universe is that of raisins baked in a cake becoming more distant from each other as the cake rises and expands, or alternatively of a balloon inflating.

Neither does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the Big Bang, or even what lies outside the universe. All of this is generally considered to be outside the remit of physics, and more the concern of philosophy.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
You assert that as if this was a proven fact Ken.

What did I assert as if it was a proven fact? That the Big Bang theory starts with a singularity? Or that the theory does not include God? Or something else.

Ken

Any of that, all of that, BUT in particular that the big band started with a singularity.
That is the hypothesis, not a proven fact.
At best what we can say is that the current view is that what we all the big bang probably started with/from a singularity.
Not, what caused that singularity to A) come about or B) expand, we do NOT know.

And, again, if you understood the Christian view of God then you would know that the statement of "not God" and "doesn't even include God" is simply wrong.
Better to say that the big bang theory does not need YOUR understanding of what YOU think God MAY be.

You appear to be confusing what the Big Bang theory says, vs whether that theory is accurate or not. I was not speaking on its accuracy; I was speaking on what the theory actually says. If you are familiar with what the theory says, you will know it says nothing about God.

Ken

Correct, the theory doesn't say anything about God.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Or more likely a choice to misrepresent the CA

Ah so, now the "i am rubber" play. How diabolical.

See above.

I have said nothing to misrepresent it. I dont need to. It has flaws enough all on its own;
look where it has led you, if you cant see any others.


Try to restrict your comments to things that you dont need to misrepresent, and you, like ab if he could manage the same, would not present
your "faith" in such shady light. Not that I care, you yeccers and gappers can hold it up to as much
derision as you like.

Look at how defensive you're getting Audie. Clearly when you said, "the "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad," you were meaning it was pretty bad for you and others like yourself who don't believe in God. I identify by your defensiveness that it is more the case you are not quite sure how to respond to such arguments.

It's like a thorn you'd prefer to not have to deal with in any logical fashion. Which is possibly why you also let your prejudice and diatribe also often spill out against philosophy, that field pursuing knowledge via logic and reason. Science without logic and reason isn't really science at all.

Why you choose to make up nonsense about me rather than look at an idea, I dunno. Do you?

I'm all ears, if you wish to refute the cosmological argument. What logical reasons do you have for just swiping it aside like nothing? I'm open to hear your reasons, rather than rhetoric that claims it's just some creationist nonsensical argument.

Audie wrote:If you assume the premises of cosmo, which I dont, the logical is no doubt unassailable.

PaulSacramento wrote: In short, what was Before the BB, what caused the BB and what caused the singularity is NOT of this natural universe but "outside it".

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:If you assume the premises of cosmo, which I dont, the logical is no doubt unassailable.

What are the premises of the cosmological argument, Audie, that need assuming? I thought the idea that some things are in motion was relatively uncontroversial. Could you elaborate, please?

Jac3510 wrote:I truly don't. I want to know what you are thinking of. I honestly can't imagine. I know every premise of the argument(s) and don't know any that are objectionable on any level. So I really want to know what you have in mind.

PaulSacramento wrote:And it wouldn't Ken since science does NOT address anything outside its field, which is what God is.
That is also why science does NOT address what was BEFORE the Big Bang or what may have CAUSED it or the singularity since everything in physics breaks down in a singularity.
In short, what was Before the BB, what caused the BB and what caused the singularity is NOT of this natural universe but "outside it".

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:
Ah so, now the "i am rubber" play. How diabolical.

See above.

I have said nothing to misrepresent it. I dont need to. It has flaws enough all on its own;
look where it has led you, if you cant see any others.


Try to restrict your comments to things that you dont need to misrepresent, and you, like ab if he could manage the same, would not present
your "faith" in such shady light. Not that I care, you yeccers and gappers can hold it up to as much
derision as you like.

Look at how defensive you're getting Audie. Clearly when you said, "the "uncaused cause" thing is pretty bad," you were meaning it was pretty bad for you and others like yourself who don't believe in God. I identify by your defensiveness that it is more the case you are not quite sure how to respond to such arguments.

It's like a thorn you'd prefer to not have to deal with in any logical fashion. Which is possibly why you also let your prejudice and diatribe also often spill out against philosophy, that field pursuing knowledge via logic and reason. Science without logic and reason isn't really science at all.

Why you choose to make up nonsense about me rather than look at an idea, I dunno. Do you?

I'm all ears, if you wish to refute the cosmological argument. What logical reasons do you have for just swiping it aside like nothing? I'm open to hear your reasons, rather than rhetoric that claims it's just some creationist nonsensical argument.

I asked, but your response has nothing of course about why you prefer to make things up (and go for rhetorical cheap shots) rather than look at any ideas I may have. You know which ones are the cheap shots, I wont id them for you.

You are nothing faintly resembling "all ears". You completely ignore everything I say, make up nonsense, as noted, and then make up more. See in bold.

I said the cosmo argument is a bad one, which you chose to interpret as the opposite of what I intended. I said that one can readily find counter arguments; you ignored that. If that is "swiping aside' from me, then it is, to you.

If you assume the premises of cosmo, which I dont, the logical is no doubt unassailable.

I thought, clearly incorrectly, that you actually were curious about what others may think of the most / least convincing.

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I truly don't. I want to know what you are thinking of. I honestly can't imagine. I know every premise of the argument(s) and don't know any that are objectionable on any level. So I really want to know what you have in mind.

I appreciate hearing that you cannot imagine (how or what I think). Having what I supposedly think concocted for me and presented as fact is annoying.

But regarding said premises as cosmo is based on. I dont have original thoughts on the
subject.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I truly don't. I want to know what you are thinking of. I honestly can't imagine. I know every premise of the argument(s) and don't know any that are objectionable on any level. So I really want to know what you have in mind.

I appreciate hearing that you cannot imagine (how or what I think). Having what I supposedly think concocted for me and presented as fact is annoying.

But regarding said premises as cosmo is based on. I dont have original thoughts on the
subject.

Well that's a shame. You fuss at us (me) for telling you what you think, what you say. You dismiss an argument out of hand. And then when someone actually asks you for the basis of your critique, you decide not to tell us after all.

Whatever. I don't know why I keep trying with you at all.