Large Hadron Collider

[Manzcar]

I didn't say the Big Bang came from nothing ... or at least that isn't what I meant to imply. I thought I stated that the matter came from nothing. I state this because the big bang assumes the matter was already there.

In fact even the article you gave says that Albert Einstein had to make assumptions to how the matter in the universe was distributed. Assumptions do not sound very scientific to me.

Your article also states that matter in the univers is homogenous and isotropic when averaged over the large scale. It appears roughly the same and evenly distributed as if laid out. To assume just like Albert did for a moment, almost as if it was placed there or laid out by hand.

Hrae you know me. And you know that I respect you and your views, but what I find funny is that when a creationist says they believe in the creation theory they are touted by big bang theorists as being simpletons who can't think for themselves and are just plain stupid. You yourself have inferred in this thread that I need to go to library and actually study up on this subject. While on the other had Big Bang Theorists are intelligent and far superior to creationists because they put their faith in the assumptions of others considered smart.

What you have shown me I already know. I in fact could have earned a minor in physics if I took one more course in college (yeah 11 year college plan). Einsteins assumptions do not disprove the creation theory.

The big bang theory doesn't even disprove the creation theory. I can respect someone elses views and beliefs, but I don't seem to be able to get the same respect from others.

Yes I put my faith in God and in the Bible, and because of this I am considered to be a sheep following others and not being able to think for myself. It's funny how people state that men and women of faith are narrow-minded and unable to accept the views of others, but those same people that state that don't seem to be able to simply state that the creation theory is a possiblity.

So tell me then who is truly closed-minded the person who lives on faith and allows the views and beliefs of others even if they don't agree or the person who states that your views have no basis because I say so?

[Hraesvelg]

I never meant to imply you were a simpleton or were in any other way intellectually inferior. It seemed you were ignorant of the subject by how you were phrasing things.

Assumptions are a part of any human endeavour. We have an idea, we have assumptions of how that idea will pan out, then we test it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

In flowchart form:


I've said several times before that if you wish people to believe in your particular cosmology, provide evidence. I've never said "THERE IS NO GOD AND HE DIDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE." I've merely said present your evidence. Trust me, if you're sitting on enough credible evidence to support that theory you'll win a Nobel prize. If one makes extraordinary claims, one must have extraordinary evidence.

For all I know, our Big Bang started when another universe turned on their LHC. The fact of the matter is, anything that happenen(d)(s) (this word isn't really applicable, since it doesn't affect our plane of existence, thus doesn't happen as far as our own causality...but I can't think of a better one) outside our own space/time is currently outside of what we can test since it doesn't affect us in any way we can measure at this time. Perhaps its your God. Perhaps its Odin. Perhaps its turtles all the way down. This is a matter for philosophers currently, not scientists.

[Manzcar]

Creationists and big bang theorists all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we interpret the facts. We interpret facts differently because we each start from different places with different presuppositions. These are the things we assume to be true without the ability to prove them. These assumptions become the basis for our conclusions.

You want me to give you evidence I give you the same evidence that you already have. I choose to interpret that evidence as proof that there is a God and that he created the universe.

Since theories are based on assumptions and interpretations of data we use our own beliefs to form the data to fit our presuppositions.

I can't disprove the big bang theory... and in turn you can not disprove creation.

The data you use to support the big bang theory is actually the same data I use to support creation.

[Hraesvelg]

That is where you are wrong. I don't start off with a presupposition. I start off with a blank slate, view the avaliable evidence, and then draw conclusions based off of that evidence. That is one of the fundamental flaws of having conclusions made before you seek evidence. I see the universe and am awed and amazed by it. I want to learn about it. I don't write off the currently unexplained by saying "Oh, I don't know, so God did it." That's just intellectually lazy.

[Loveless]

If big metal machines could destroy the world... it would've been long dead.

I didn't read your discussion but I do agree with Hrae where I find the Big Bang much more probable than the big guy creating the universe story.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

Before I make my post:

Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless.

- http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

That is where you are wrong. I don't start off with a presupposition. I start off with a blank slate, view the avaliable evidence, and then draw conclusions based off of that evidence. That is one of the fundamental flaws of having conclusions made before you seek evidence. I see the universe and am awed and amazed by it. I want to learn about it. I don't write off the currently unexplained by saying "Oh, I don't know, so God did it." That's just intellectually lazy.

I disagree that people who came up with the belief that God "created" the world are "intellectually lazy". I am not religious myself, but I do imagine how some people may find that offensive.

I am more of a neutral when it comes to Big Bang theory/God's existence. At the moment, I side with the Big Bang theory, but if one day we realise that God may perhaps exist (perhaps science may tell us?) then I am more than happy to accept it.

As for now, I don't believe in God's existence, but I can see what Manzcar is getting to. In the maths I do for science, many of the problems we were required complete were to have started with "Assume etcetc" and we work out the problem like that.

Sometimes I wonder myself what happens if our assumptions were wrong. If our assumptions are wrong, that means our solution is wrong altogether.

In the article you posted, assumptions were made (as Manzcar said) for the theory to be proposed. Yes, "this assumption is being tested continuously as we actually observe the distribution of galaxies on ever larger scales", but if it's still an assumption then it means there are not enough concrete evidence for it to become a fact.

Also from the same site:

The Big Bang model is based on the Cosmological Principle which assumes that matter in the universe is uniformly distributed on all scales - large and small.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo.html


-----------------



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I can quote things from there but there are way too many quotes so I'll let people read it themselves.

Point of that article: it clearly explains the theory and all the strong evidence, but it does make an emphasis on the fact that assumptions were made. They even have a bit at the bottom about whether God exists. It links to the first site at the beginning of my post as well.

To me, if you want to think from a "science" perspective, believing in one and only one possibly theory for the beginning of the universe is rather pointless. I believe it's kind of silly to only put our faith into one theory, which hasn't even been proven yet. It's often nice to think outside the box. I'm not saying we should believe in all theories, but it's always good to have a small part of ourselves to have a bit of faith in the other theories out there.

Of course, I respect if anyone only wants to believe in the Big Bang theory, or only believe the idea of God creating the universe. Their beliefs, their faith, their life. If it makes them happy believing what they wanna, then so be it, just as long as they don't look down on me for my views as I wouldn't look down on them for theirs.

[Manzcar]

If you really do start off with a blank slate how did you come up with the Big Bang Theory. If you truly believe that presuppositions should not be used then you must first throw out the possibility of the Big Bang Theory all together because it started out with assumptions and presuppositions and then the evidence is used to support the theory. But if I then start off with the presupposition and assumption that God created everything and then the use the same evidence to support my presupposition, I am told not to start off with presuppositions. Which is it?

I in no way wrote off science or the evidence that you state shows that the Big Bang Theory as correct. I simply state that if you start with the presupposition that God created everything that the evidence supports it. If you don’t agree with me than show me the evidence that disproves that God created everything.

I am not simply saying I don’t know. I am using the current known evidence and than using your diagram above to formulate my beliefs. I did this long ago. I moved from Big Bang / Evolution to God creation. All evidence that I have seen can support Creation as well as Big Bang. Even the articles that Blaaaaaaahs linked show that scientists don’t know.

This is taken from the article and I am unsure how to quote it properly

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

So hey we don’t know guess it was the Big Bang. Huh

And once again you do show the intolerance that I spoke of before. Because I believe in God and creation I am as you put it intellectually lazy. Wow name calling seems like a good response.

I think Blaaaaaaaah put it correctly My belief, My faith, My life, but the only problem is that I am looked down at because of My belief, My faith, My life and then called intellectually lazy, even though no evidence is out there that can disprove that God created everything. Even scientists say that many models exist and none can be proven, but we can’t have one of those being God or creation can we. That would just be intellectually lazy and stupid.

[koager]

I am more of a neutral when it comes to Big Bang theory/God's existence. At the moment, I side with the Big Bang theory, but if one day we realise that God may perhaps exist (perhaps science may tell us?) then I am more than happy to accept it.

same here.
but more of I see that big bang and the existence of God can go hand in hand.
Who is to say that it was not God's method to create the universe by causing the big bang?

I also hate it when people say evolution doesn't exit. Evolution is change over time.
PEOPLE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM PRIMATES, THAT WAS SAID BY THE CHURCH TO DISCREDIT DARWIN.

[lamchopz]

I transformed from an atheist to an agnostic. The reason was, believe it or not, physics. The more I learnt, the more it struck me that there are something / many things out there that we don't quite know or, perhaps, ever will: the dark matter that surrounds astro-bodies, the black hole which supposedly occupies the centre of our galaxy... Dark matter is "dark" because it does not interact with "our" matter - it's undetectable directly by our devices. We found and now knew it was there because the physics and maths did not add up if we assumed it weren't. This alone changed my belief in "No God" completely.

As for Creationism, I still maintain that it is not a scientific theory. Its latest reincarnation (Intelligent Design) was no good, either. It failed many criteria which constitute a scientific theory. The most obviously violated criterion is Occam's Razor which states that the invocation of a supernatural being in forming the basis of the claim must not be employed. I'm not saying that believing in a Creator is intellectually lazy but science must be separated from religion because if we stop asking questions, we will not advance. Creationism and its cousins, in effect, attribute everything we see, think, know, etc. to the doings of an almighty being. Recall that Galileo was forced to deny his newly found and correct heliocentrism because of the enormous influence of the church which taught that our universe was geocentric. This, among various other examples, was precisely why a religiously motivated teaching would hinder progress.

That said, there is a higher being, I'm sure, but perhaps He didn't do everything. Like an inventor, you make a product, which continues producing other things. You yourself haven't made the products that your creation produces. Given this series of arguments, we can reasonably say that God, perhaps, created something (perhaps certain laws of nature) that governed the flow of life which was and is and will be responsible for everything around us. Now that's a new fork of Creationism I just spontaneously devised.

About the Big Bang, we now know and can explain EVERYTHING that happened about 10^(- 49) seconds after its conception (if it did happen). The mystery lies in that 10^-49s interval, which is now thought to be exisitng in a totally different environment in which our current knowledge of maths and physics did not apply (in short, things behaved in an odd manner at that time, which ceased soon afterwards). You, too, might want to ask if 1 plus 1 was actually 2 during that mysterious period.

And finally, the LHC. Great news!

Let me assure you that it may malfunction (uh oh...) but rigorous assessments indicated that even if a problem arises (let's hope it won't), the duration will be so short that a black hole won't have time to form. This is the word from the CERN scientists, so take it or leave it.

have a nice day. ^^

EDIT: No, koager, we did not evolve from monkeys. We came from apes. lol... they aren't the same so if you say monkeys, they will have reasons to argue back.

[Hraesvelg]

Come down off your cross, somebody needs the wood. I have a differing opinion and you play the martyr card, how very typical. I grow tired of your backwards assumption that I, making no claims about God whatsoever, somehow must disprove the existence of such a being. You expect me to prove a negative? This is very telling in how you approach rational thought and proof. I've said one must present evidence for a claim and you say you've seen the same evidence I have and draw different conclusions. This is akin to saying I dopped a pencil and instead of gravity acting upon it, it was lifted by a legion of angels. I know you aren't a fool, but that statement is foolish.

I do assert that it is intellectually lazy to ascribe the unkown to a deity. Its merely a cop-out. There would be no point in trying to accomplish ANY sort of scientific progress if there is some sort of supernatural force behind the scenes mucking about. I'd be absolutely terrified of getting on an airplane because some cosmic trickster decided to change the laws of physics on a whim. Why bother to learn about rain, or space, or the natural world? Its much easier to say "God did it!" than apply critical thinking.

If overwhelming evidence would be produced that shows evidence of a deity, I would be swayed. I am always open to the evidence. The same with elves, unicorns, fairies, and Russell's teapot.

As for other cosmological models, yes, they exist, and yes, some of them do have some merit for further study. As for now, the "Big Bang" is the best one that fits the observations. I've never claimed it was the only one. Yes, "best" is a bit subjective, I admit. Again, that's the beauty of science. No one claims to be absolutely right on every matter. We leave that up to the religious demagogues.

Edit to lamz:
Finally, someone reasonable. I hate to burst your bubble about that particular hands-off creator model, though. Its called deism and was very influential in the thinkers behind the American Revolution. I thought about bringing Occam's Razor into this, but figured I'd sound even more pretentious than I'm sure I already am.

Edit to koager: You are correct. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We share a very, very distant ancestor as with other primates. We're actually apes, as lamz said.