[Trinidad]

32519, on 2013-October-10, 21:46, said:

How do scientists explain the BIG BANG? What caused it?
Can you or any other scientist demonstrate in a laboratory how you create a BIG BANG out of nothing?
For your demonstration you have at your disposal -
1. No light
2. No air
3. No wind
4. No water
5. No material of any kind whatsoever
6. No gravity
From that, how do you produce a BIG BANG?

You are suggesting that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang?

But OK, Let me ask you the equivalent counter question:
We assume for a fact that, a long time ago, God created the universe: the Earth, the stars, the planets, etc. as well as all life on Earth. That leaves the question: But how did God come about out of nothing?

Rik

[gwnn]

Rik, you are far more charitable than you need to be, since he leaves open other questions as well, like:

1) what is God?
2) how did he create the Universe?
3) how can he impregnate a woman and which DNA did he use?
4) etc.

Hint: 'it just does' or 'magic' are not adequate answers, at least not until you apparently proudly profess how much your worldview explains and you criticise other worldviews for leaving open questions.

For 32519: the answer to your question is possibly 'just wait.' The total energy of the universe might be zero (gravitational energy is negative, perhaps sufficiently so to compensate for all the mass and kinetic energy) so it may come into being from literally nothing. This I read in Hawking's recent book although it was overall rather disappointing.

32519, one last thing: I know mikeh's posts can get wordy and maybe you give up half way or maybe much earlier, but could you at least pretend to have read them? Or is this one of these 'the fool says in his heart there is no God' things or 'the wisdom of the world' vs 'the wisdom of God' where ignoring what we say gives you more self-satisfaction?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-10, 16:45, said:

I was serious, though. Sure, Jehovah's Witnesses go round from door to door, and so do Mormons (but only for two years). These two groups form a very small minority of those who believe that non-believers will go to Hell.

I was serious too.

Though I don't share the worldview of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have a lot of respect for the fact that they go through a lot of trouble to try and save me. And while Jehovah's Witnesses may be a little bit extreme, there is -as far as I know- no Christian faith that doesn't welcome new souls, so that they can be saved from the Hell these Christians believe in.

Rik

[Scarabin]

My personal view is that the only problem with religious moderation is there is not enough of it. Moderation, by believers or sceptics, is better than extremism, and certainly more intelligent. I wonder if only two posters really enjoy these debates, one spewing pop science, the other pop religion?

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 11:11, said:

Get rid of religion, and one of the most pernicious tools for the inspiration of hate will disappear. I don't, for a moment, think that this would be a panacea, but so what? Should we cling to this barbaric view of humanity only because it isn't the only barbaric view?

Or get rid of the wrong religious beliefs that inspire hate, and keep only the important beliefs that inspire love. And the world would be a much better place even better than one with only atheists.

[32519]

mikeh, on 2013-October-10, 22:22, said:

Do you have ANY clue as to how silly you sound?

There is nothing wrong with the questions, other than the fact that you obviously aren't at all interested in finding answers to them or accepting, as so many of us have tried to tell you, that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH NOT KNOWING ALL THE ANSWERS!!!!!!!!

Do you accept that the earth orbits the sun?

Do you have any idea how that was worked out, despite thousands of years of cultural certainty that the sun revolved around the earth?

Copernicus proposed it.

Galileo did observations that persuaded him this was so

Kepler observed and assumed that all planetary orbits were circular

None of these had any idea WHY planets orbited

Newton saw that the orbits were eliptical and came up with the theory of gravity, and I assume you believe in gravity?

Hold your arm out to one side: does it feel heavy? You probably think that you are using your muscles to resist the 'force' of gravity.

You're wrong.

You're actually using your muscles to accelerate your arm in relation to curved space-time: that was one of Einstein's discoveries: what we experience as gravity is curvature in space-time.

How much of this did you already know? How much of this do you think you understand?

Unless you already knew this, you are a scientific illiterate.

Being scientifically illiterate means you aren't equipped to even try to understand the 'answers' to your questions. Indeed, the manner of posing your questions demonstrates that you really are almost completely ignorant of basic facts about the world and the universe.

'Debating' with you is a waste of time. The topics that you think, no doubt with utter assurance, you grasp (such that you think you have 'scored points' with these ever-so-smart questions) are so far beyond your imagination that the answers would be meaningless if described in the short space of even a long post.

You will no doubt think, triumphantly, that I am ducking your questions because you have 'nailed me'. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already told you of 3 books, by title and author, that will give you a good overview of what intelligent, informed experts think of the general topic of the origin of the universe. And as you ahve been repeatedly told, but obviously can't begin to understand, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH NOT AS YET KNOWING!!!


Far more to the point: you are guilty of an astounding fallacy. You think the fact that experts can't answer the ultimate question entitles you to assert, with plausibility, that 'god did it'.

While many people far more intelligent than you have written to similar effect (refuting the underlying argument), I specifically refer you to the Deutsch book I identified in my last post.

Let me know when you have read it (btw, don't take offence if I gently quiz you if, withing the next week, you claim you read it).

Until then, please try to avoid further exposing your profound ignorance. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, but when one learns that one is, or probably is, ignorant, and you are offered an easy way out of ignorance, then a refusal to do so isn't an act of ignorance anymore....it is an act of stupidity.

So which is it? Are you merely ignorant or are you also stupid? You can demonstrate which it is very easily.

I know where the smart money would bet

This reaction of yours to an innocent question surprised even me. But I am starting to take a more profound interest in this subject. Before I go out and buy my first book, so far you have only given me the BIG BANG theory. What other theories are there? To help me make a choice, give them to me in tabular form as follows -
Author / Book Title / Theory (e.g. BIG BANG)

[RSClyde]

Scarabin, on 2013-October-11, 00:48, said:

My personal view is that the only problem with religious moderation is there is not enough of it. Moderation, by believers or sceptics, is better than extremism, and certainly more intelligent. I wonder if only two posters really enjoy these debates, one spewing pop science, the other pop religion?

Moderation is not more intelligent than anything, it's just more comfortable. The bible either is the inspired word of an omnipotent being or it isn't. But at no point does this god say, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me... unless you actually do worship a different god or follow a different faith tradition, I'm going to totally respect that."

[RSClyde]

32519, on 2013-October-11, 04:22, said:

This reaction of yours to an innocent question surprised even me. But I am starting to take a more profound interest in this subject. Before I go out and buy my first book, so far you have only given me the BIG BANG theory. What other theories are there? To help me make a choice, give them to me in tabular form as follows -
Author / Book Title / Theory (e.g. BIG BANG)

I'm no scientist. But I think you are misusing the word "theory" and it is causing confusion. I studied mathematics. One course I took was called "group theory". This didn't mean, "some stuff that we think may be true." The content of group theory was as mathematically sound as basic arithmetic, it was just a title that referred to a broad area of study. In common language a theory is an unsubstantiated proposition, in areas of scholarly study, the word has a different meaning. That the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory.

[ArtK78]

RSClyde, on 2013-October-11, 05:26, said:

I'm no scientist.

That the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory.

Your first statement is clearly accurate.

The second, not so much. Try scientific fact.

[RSClyde]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-11, 06:28, said:

Your first statement is clearly accurate.

The second, not so much. Try scientific fact.

That the earth revolves around the sun is part of heliocentric theory. The very point of my post was that the word "theory" in a scientific context, can include things which we accept as facts. Thus "it's a scientific fact and not a theory" is a false dichotomy.

[billw55]

32519, on 2013-October-10, 21:46, said:

How do scientists explain the BIG BANG? What caused it?
Can you or any other scientist demonstrate in a laboratory how you create a BIG BANG out of nothing?
For your demonstration you have at your disposal -
1. No light
2. No air
3. No wind
4. No water
5. No material of any kind whatsoever
6. No gravity
From that, how do you produce a BIG BANG?

Scientists don't know. There are some ideas, but nothing conclusive. In a sense, it does not matter, because events before the big bang (if any) can have no observable consequences after the big bang. All information is crushed out of existence in the near-infinite densities. I would also point out, that your assumed points 5 and 6 are not necessarily correct.

Of course, there are also religious ideas about the origin of the universe. Many of them, in fact. If you believe in one, I would ask you: why that one in particular?

32519, on 2013-October-11, 04:22, said:

This reaction of yours to an innocent question surprised even me. But I am starting to take a more profound interest in this subject. Before I go out and buy my first book, so far you have only given me the BIG BANG theory. What other theories are there? To help me make a choice, give them to me in tabular form as follows -
Author / Book Title / Theory (e.g. BIG BANG)

Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is a good start, although the level is somewhat high for a popularization. Of course, it endorses the big bang. You won't find much scientific material about other theories, because the scientific consensus on the big bang is virtually 100%. For substantially different ideas, you may have to consult various religious texts.

[Winstonm]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-11, 06:28, said:

Your first statement is clearly accurate.

The second, not so much. Try scientific fact.

Science is not in the business of providing facts - it is everyday language that applies the "fact" label to science. The difference being that facts do not change, but scientific explanations do change.

[Winstonm]

32519, on 2013-October-10, 21:46, said:

How do scientists explain the BIG BANG? What caused it?
Can you or any other scientist demonstrate in a laboratory how you create a BIG BANG out of nothing?
For your demonstration you have at your disposal -
1. No light
2. No air
3. No wind
4. No water
5. No material of any kind whatsoever
6. No gravity
From that, how do you produce a BIG BANG?

First you build a god...using nothing but your own imagination...

[kenberg]

32519, on 2013-October-10, 21:46, said:

How do scientists explain the BIG BANG? What caused it?
Can you or any other scientist demonstrate in a laboratory how you create a BIG BANG out of nothing?
For your demonstration you have at your disposal -
1. No light
2. No air
3. No wind
4. No water
5. No material of any kind whatsoever
6. No gravity
From that, how do you produce a BIG BANG?

I have no expectation of changing your mind, I trust that you have no expectation of changing mine, or anyone else's for that matter. For whatever interest it may hold for you, I look at it like this:

I see that the Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded for successful work on the Higg's boson. There were papers in 1964, there was much discussion, there was work with a giant collider, and although success was not assured it seemed possible and in fact occurred. I cannot imagine how a similar project would go to ascertain whether God did or did not create the Universe .It would take me years of study before I could have a worthwhile opinion on the Higg's boson, but I can imagine that with work I could achieve this. With God creating the Universe? I could read all the Biblical texts in existence and I would expect it to still come down to "I believe it" or "I don't believe it". I'll save myself the time by just saying "I don't believe it" right now.

As I say, I am not expecting you to change your mind. I can't recall anyone ever who listened to my thoughts on religion and then changed his or her views as a result of what I said. The non-existence of God has been a settled matter for me for a long time. Some agree., some don't.

[32519]

kenberg, on 2013-October-11, 08:00, said:

For whatever interest it may hold for you, I look at it like this:

I see that the Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded for successful work on the Higg's boson. There were papers in 1964, there was much discussion, there was work with a giant collider, and although success was not assured it seemed possible and in fact occurred. I cannot imagine how a similar project would go to ascertain whether God did or did not create the Universe.

Tell me a bit more about this giant collider.

[kenberg]

32519, on 2013-October-11, 08:12, said:

Tell me a bit more about this giant collider.

I am hardly the best source of info. Others on the forum could probably do so, or read some of the articles about the recent Nobel Prize. I am areasonable source of information about some aspects of mathematics but I wouldn't trust my summary of physics.

[mikeh]

32519, on 2013-October-11, 08:12, said:

Tell me a bit more about this giant collider.

You have access to a computer and the internet. Use it. Hint: ever heard of google or wikipedia?

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2013-October-10, 04:54, said:

What about the creator of the universe? Well I don't think much about cosmology so it isn't an issue that I would think about if you asked me to write an essay about my world view. As for what, if anything, predates the Big Bang, I have no clue. And the question doesn't give me sleepless nights.

Interesting that Creationists think that the creation of the universe requires an "explanation", but they don't need one for the creation of the creator.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2013-October-08, 10:08, said:

Imagine a traveller who, unbeknownst to him or her, become infected with a virus. It is contagious before it is symptomatic. The traveller boards a plane and, during the flight, unknowingly infects a dozen others, two of whom subsequently die.

In one sense, the traveller was 'responsible' for those deaths, in that had he or she not taken the flight, they wouldn't have occurred. However, I don't think many of us would 'blame' the traveller. What did he or she do that was morally offensive?

Having thought this over, I now conclude that Harris is not holding the "believer" culpable but the "belief" itself - and the point he may be making is that moderates should take the next step and abandon the belief altogether in order to move mankind as a whole toward a reason-based approach to problem-solving.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-October-11, 06:38, said:

Of course, it endorses the big bang. You won't find much scientific material about other theories, because the scientific consensus on the big bang is virtually 100%. For substantially different ideas, you may have to consult various religious texts.

I was working on a histogram, showing how many authors support different theories for the start of the universe. It was a nice graph, though it looked rather boring.



Rik