Big Bang Evidence for God

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by arauca, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    When I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens recently, one of the eight arguments I offered for God’s existence was the creation of this supremely fine-tuned universe out of nothing. I spoke of the five main lines of scientific evidence—denoted by the acronym SURGE—that point to the definite beginning of the space-time continuum. They are: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Expanding Universe, the Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion, the Great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow, and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

    While I don’t have space to unpack this evidence here (see I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist), it all points to the fact that the universe began from literally nothing physical or temporal. Once there was no time, no space, and no matter and then it all banged into existence out of nothing with great precision.

    The evidence led astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow—who until his recent death was the director of the Mount Wilson observatory once led by Edwin Hubble—to author a book called God and the Astronomers. Despite revealing in the first line of chapter 1 that he was personally agnostic about ‘religious matters,” Jastrow reviewed some of the SURGE evidence and concluded, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

    In an interview, Jastrow went even further, admitting that “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

    Jastrow was not alone in evoking the supernatural to explain the beginning. Athough he found it personally “repugnant,” General Relativity expert Arthur Eddington admitted the same when he said, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”

    Now why would scientists such as Jastrow and Eddington admit, despite their personal misgivings, that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang—nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:

    · spaceless because it created space

    · timeless because it created time

    · immaterial because it created matter

    · powerful because it created out of nothing

    · intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed

    · personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).

    Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible (which is one reason I believe in a the God of the Bible and not a god of mythology like Zeus).

    I mentioned in the debate that other scientists who made Big-Bang-related discoveries also conclude that the evidence is consistent with the Biblical account. Robert Wilson—co-discoverer of the Radiation Afterglow, which won him a Noble Prize in Physics— observed, “Certainly there was something that set it off. Certainly, if you’re religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.” George Smoot—co-discoverer of the Great Galaxy Seeds which won him a Nobel Prize as well—echoed Wilson’s assessment by saying, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

    How did Hitchens respond to this evidence? Predictably, he said that I was “speculating”—that no one can get behind the Big Bang event. I say “predictably” because that’s exactly the response Dr. Jastrow said is common for atheists who have their own religion—the religion of science.

    Jastrow wrote, “There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as “refusing to speculate.”

    Hitchens admits the evidence but ignores its implications in order to blindly maintain his own religious faith (watch the entire debate at CrossExamined.org here). How is it speculation to say that since all space, time, and matter were created that the cause must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial? That’s not speculation, but following the evidence where it leads.

    Dr. Jastrow, despite his agnosticism, told us where the evidence leads. He ended his book this way: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god/page/full/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The Biblical account has many flaws. As does this essay. There is no religion of causes in science, which acknowledges events that have no apparent cause. What can also form out of nothing with great order? Snowflakes. I think the Big Bang was a similar process to phase changes in nature that occur spontaneously. The attributes of God as described above are meaningless and mutually exclusive.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    The Big Bang does not discuss the cause of the event, only that this is the starting point that resulted in our observable universe. Perhaps if you picked one of the many speculative theories of the origin of the Big Bang.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Wrong. We are something. If we were nothing, then these words. We hath been perplexed from our greatness!

    I believe to be here, that is something. If you claim "nothing," you are messing with real men and women.

    Nothing would suggest this conversation did not occur. It is, as you and I both agree to. Physicality must have evolved.

    The nature of In Love contains all under his wing.

    Time, and rhythm would be present before sound, or cataclysm.
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    The cosmological argument for a god, especially the Christian one, is so easy to demolish its laughable you're putting it forth. Clearly you haven't bothered to look up as to whether anyone has responses for it. It is an example of how theists do a post-hoc rationalisation. No one is ever convinced by it, ie it is never the primary reason for someone's faith, rather it is a way for believers to built up their faith.

    The beginning of time and space as we know it was the big bang but that doesn't mean nothing existed before. We could be a universe in a much larger construct. Therefore the universe wouldn't need a creator. Or the universe could have created itself, such consistent models exist within general relativity. Fine tuning is laughable, since the universe clearly isn't fine tuned for life, 99.99999999% of the universe is not only lifeless but utterly hostile to any type of life we know about.

    As for the Christian account it is at odds with biology and physics, saying plants existed before the Sun or that first there was the heavens and the Earth, given the Sun formed before the Earth and the Sun was formed from previously exploded stars. What superficial similarities exist between the BB model and Genesis are just as coincidental as the similarities between the BB model and many other creation myths.

    The only people who accept that stuff are people ignorant of science and who already believe. By putting it forth, especially in the main science section of this forum, shows how little of science you actually understand.
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    Question: to you . Do we know Who is older the sun or the earth ?
    Do we know if our earth comes from a different place were there was light ? if it was so could it be that plant existed ,
    Do we know if later in time the earth was captured by the present solar system ?
    Do we know If our solar system was not part of a supernova and as the pieces condensed our earth snd the solar system which formed for a period of time had the luminescent from the supernova and so the plants could grow and live from Photosynthesis ?
     
  10. Saturnine Pariah Hell is other people Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Do you?
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Shouldn't this be in the religious forum?

    There's nothing scientific here to be pseudo about.
     
  12. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564

    There is no religion involved . Are they proper questions ?

    I assume the earth is older then the sun , because we have heavier elements then the sun . Would that be correct ? Sense we have heavier elements then is possible that the earth is a product of previous supernova ? Would it be possible that in a supernowa there will be intense burst of light ?
     
  13. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    I know nothing I see nothing , I just attempt to follow current understanding my own way
     
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Fine-tuning arguments always presuppose some measure of probability. What is the probability that a universe will begin with a certain value for a certain physical constant? Only of one can answer this question in a non-question begging way can a fine-tuning argument go forward. )Note: this requires some demonstration that the values of these physical constants could have been otherwise than they are.)
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Incorrect.
     
  16. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    Why ? does the sun have Bismuth, or uranium Lead and other heavy elements . What is your explanation ?
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The sun and the earth are both the same age, 4.5 billion years old. All heavy elements are produced and broadcast into the universe by supernova. These elements end up in the gas clouds from which the solar system formed, after drifting through space for millions of years. So ,no, let there be light doesn't apply

    The sun
    element percent by weight

    Hydrogen 71.0
    Helium 27.1
    Oxygen 0.97
    Carbon 0.40
    Nitrogen 0.096
    Silicon 0.099
    Magnesium 0.076
    Neon 0.058
    Iron 0.014
    Sulfur 0.040
     
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Does the heavy element not provide you with that your explanation is misleading ?
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Not at all. But I see no point in trying to explain nucleosynthesis to someone with no scientific background or understanding at all.
     
  20. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Don't be so stuck up and hide yourself . You are just ignorant and have no capability to answer the challenge. A person with knowledge have capability to explain but you are hiding yourself behind the word scientist as if it becomes untouchable .
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    No, it's just that he sees you're not going to understand it, so why bother.
     
  22. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    You can tell this ignorant snub I have a Master in chemistry , and hes post on element in the sun are irrelevant for discussion about questioning the age of the earth and of the sun, . Perhaps he should read about how heavy element are formed and to get to the atomic weight like Bismuth , probably is necessary to go through two supernova . Our sun so far have not collapsed to form Iron. What probably your friend . Never mind, Let him and you have a merry Christmas
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    If you really had a masters in Chemistry, you wouldn't be under such obvious misapprehensions. Either that, or you got your "masters" from some school in the Bahamas.
     

Share This Page