Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

[Kermos]

Kermos:

You can pretend all you like, but the thread has a record of all the posts made in it, not just the ones you've caught up with so far.

Still, if you're satisfied and think you've done a good job here, I guess you can call it quits now. Readers of this thread will make their own judgments.

You believe I'm pretending, yet you have absolutely no observation of a natural phenomena that you term the Big Bang - a violation of the very first phase of the scientific method called the hypothesis (see 3.a., 3.b., 3.d., 3.e., 3.g., 4.a., 4.c., 8.e., in post #549).

"Leap of faith" is a subset of "belief".

The big bang theory is a scientific theory, not a belief or a leap of faith.

A theory for an umwitnessed historically purported event is a conjecture of the human mind. So, The big bang theory is not a scientific theory, but is a belief or a leap of faith. (see theory definition in post #362 with devise definition in post #437).

I explained the science behind Cepheid variable stars to you, in an earlier post to this thread. You have not acknowledged that post, replied to it, nor - apparently - have you even read it. Either that, or you're just pretending you didn't read it.

"You can lead a horse to water...", as they say.

Catch up, Kermos.

You exceedingly expressed dissatisfaction toward me with your tentative "Either that, or you're just pretending you didn't read it" here or your 2nd post's opening of "I don't believe you" or your 3rd post's direct "Please don't tell lies, Kermos" (I reviewed your 3 posts as a group because I'm treating the group as a unified post), so I'm not going to skip around, now. Will you please respond to this post, which I already specially designated as it's own exchange for me to break sequence, with your Cepheid variable explanation?

Look. You're obviously all at sea when it comes to knowledge of even the most basic concepts in astronomy. Yet you apparently believe that you're qualified to debunk the big bang theory. It's almost funny. Almost. What makes it not funny is that there is a clear pattern to what you omit to address, which is evidence that you're not an honest interlocutor in this discussion.

The rest of your post #632 is just one more repetition of claims you made previously, which I have rebutted in posts to which you have not responded. It's pointless going into any of that again, unless and until you reply to my original comments on those matters.

Mindless repetition doesn't do anything to strengthen your arguments, Kermos.

Catch up.

Will you give me your explanation about Cepheid variable? I provided the link to my post #155 about Cepheid variable that shows your Big Bang Conjecture is not scientific fact but really just human faith. I am asking you again to promote your Cepheid variable position into the spotlight in this thread for me to review and respond.

 

[Kermos]

Kermos:

I don't believe you. Besides, there's no evidence that your God has any power.

But you already admit that your belief in God is a leap of faith.

It seems to me that there's no longer much point in trying to address your errors about God and the bible at length in this thread, but I will make a few comments while I wait for you to come up with something new about the big bang, since your previous arguments have all been debunked. We can talk about the whole religion thing in more detail later, once you understand the difference between faith and evidence.

Your disbelief is between you and the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Hard to look for things that are unseeable.

You must be referring to the Big Bang which no person has seen.

The writer of the Gospel of John was not the Apostle John. I already told you that. This is news to you, I assume.

I am familiar with the critical error of people disbelieving that the Gospel of John was composed by the Apostle John.

I believe John authored the Gospel of John by the Power of God.

To which work of God are you referring?

The answer is in “he who practices the Truth comes to the Light, that his works may be revealed, that they are having been worked in God” (John 3:21).

That's okay. You can clarify it for me now.

Have you personally had any direct communication from God? Or is your knowledge of God entirely based on a 2000+ year old text?

That's OK, not now, either.

I get it. You know that God was involved because the bible says so. And you know that what the bible says is accurate because it contains the Word of God. And you know that it contains the Word of God because it says so in the bible.

Yep. Nothing circular about that!

You believe there was a Big Bang because your star bible says so. And you believe that what your star bible says is accurate because it contains ground for belief. And you believe that it contains ground for belief because it says so in your star bible.

It hasn't happened yet. I guess we'll find out whether Peter was right. Oh, and, did you know that the epistles of Peter were not written by the apostle Peter?

I am familiar with the critical error of people disbelieving that Peter's Letters were composed by the Apostle Peter.

I believe Peter authored Peter's Letters by the Power of God.

It's highly amusing to me that you obviously don't have a clue what the term "heat death of the universe" refers to. Please look it up.

Would that be when your star bible says the Universe collapses into a dot in intense heat as per cyclically oscillating Universe or your star bible's other mutually exclusive conclusion of distributed heat?

 

[Kermos]

(continued...)


Oh. I'm quaking in my boots! Please ask your god to be nice to me when the Day of Judgment comes. It's not my fault I don't believe in him, after all. It's his (if he exists).

Hmmm, no, it's your fault because disbelieving people are daringly self-willed according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:9-10).

It's interesting to me that you think there are things in your bible that can demolish science.

But tell me: why are you afraid of science, Kermos?

Hahaha, thanks for the laugh, James R. I applaud the scientific method.

My mistake, then. I will look at your dictionary definition of proof. I assume that, going forward, that's the definition you want to use? Please confirm.

Not really. Evidence can provide grounds for belief, as I have explained to you on many occasions (all of which you have ignored). But it isn't identical to "grounds for belief or disbelief".

DaveC helpfully gave you a much better definition of "evidence" in a post just a few posts above this one. You ought to use that one when you're talking about science.

Please see my response post #652 to DaveC426913 regarding the normal usage of the word evidence and the self-incriminating error of his definition for historical conjecture.

The first couple of definitions will be sufficient for our purposes in this discussion. Do you agree?

Specifically, in relation to the scientific big bang theory, there is a sequence of procedures that we call "the scientific method" that establishes and demonstrates the truth and validity of the theory - within its stated bounds of statistical uncertainty, of course.

Definition 2 also applies because, of course, the big bang theory is established with reference to experiments and scientific analysis.

I'm glad we're now on the same page about what "proof" entails, in the context of the big bang theory. This is in line with what DaveC and I have consistently told you throughout this thread: that the truth of the theory rests on experimental results and scientific analysis, both of which demonstrate the truth of and validity of the theory, to the satisfaction of the vast majority of experts in the relevant scientific disciplines.

Since the Big Bang Theory fails to adhere to the scientific method as demonstrated in post #269 and post #469, then the Big Bang Theory is not qualified as scientific thus the Big Bang Theory does not fall under definitions #1 nor #2.

Statistics are a belief when applied to umwitnessed things, such as the Big Bang Theory.

You have no experiments that reproduced the unseen Big Bang of yours, so definition #2 doesn't apply to the Big Bang after the ", esp".

Definition #5 is the applicable definition of "to be found or shown (to be)" or the first five words of definition #2 "to establish the quality of".

No. It's consistent with my previous looser usage of the word. You can compare the more strict, mathematical definition that I have mentioned and contrasted in previous posts (that you haven't replied to or - apparently - read, yet).

Catch up, Kermos.

The explanation above proves the validity of 'The definition #1 established the failure of your definition of the word "prove"'.

I knew you couldn't do it! What a clown you are. You do make me laugh!

The big bang theory is scientific theory that is accepted, to a greater or lesser extent, by the expert scientists in the relevant fields.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that it is a "leap of faith", not for the experts to prove your silly claim wrong. You're just an amateur whose brain has been addled by too much religion and who is clearly way out of his depth when it comes to trying to talk knowledgeably about science (specifically the science of astronomy and more specifically, the science of the big bang theory).

You're really, really bad at this, Kermos. Are you aware? Or do you still think you're doing well here? The reality is that, at this point in this discussion, you're looking more like a dishonest, clueless clown with every post you make.

You still don't get it. The thread title dictates for you to show me how the Big Bang is not a leap of faith a.k.a. belief.

And your historical conjecture is demonstrably not the scientific method.

Your "to a greater or lesser extent" is not unanimous nor scientific consensus, but that's not the point. The point is that you "Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith".

Your redefinition of normal words makes you look more like a person who is dishonest and clueless in linguistics. You disrespectfully calling me a clown establishes the quality of The Pharmakeia Principle post #179.

No. Red shift of light is basic physics. Verified to occur beyond any reasonable doubt.

I know that you don't know what it is or how it works. I know you reject science to try to prop up your religion. It does your religion a disservice, you know. You can be Christian and not have to be a silly science denier. Lots of people manage that just fine. What's your problem?

I think you have the potential to learn some science if you're willing to try. Are you willing to try, Kermos?

If you are willing, please read through ALL of my posts in this thread. Catch up.

Then we can talk about this some more. You might even think of something new to say, rather than just regurgitating the same debunked claims over and over.

Post #469 does not contain the text you have put in quotes here. Not in a "dot" or anywhere else.

Please don't tell lies, Kermos.

If you have an actual link to a relevant paper, why don't you just post that now, instead of pretending that you posted it before. If you do post it, please provide a proper citation, not like the half-arsed one you have invented here. The purpose of citing sources, you see, is to provide enough information so that other people can go and read them. If you haven't done that, then you've failed to cite appropriately.

Well, now, with your accusation of lies and pretending, I need to prove the publisher, author, and date are in the dot (period) at the end of the paragraph by showing you the quality of that dot.

In the seventh paragraph after the "red-shift in the light of the scientific method" table of post #469, go to the last sentence (Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified) to inspect (ie right click or hold a tap to inspect using a context menu option) that dot aka period of that precise sentence.

I don't know which website among the search results that you might consider authoritative, so I defer the search to you (note: searching by clicking on the dot (period) as a link does not return proper results, so copying and pasting of the publisher and title and year month operates optimally). It's not too far to a "respected" journal of astrophysicists, thereafter.

Your findings might dissuade you from reprising your rebuttal to my redshift conquest post #469 for which I am about to ask from you. Will you please reply with your said rebuttal about red-shift?

 

[James R]

Kermos:

You believe I'm pretending, yet you have absolutely no observation of a natural phenomena that you term the Big Bang - a violation of the very first phase of the scientific method called the hypothesis (see 3.a., 3.b., 3.d., 3.e., 3.g., 4.a., 4.c., 8.e., in post #549).

That's not true. For instance, can observe the CMBR. We can measure the relative abundances of the light elements in the universe. We can confirm the Hubble law by making observations. We can use all this data, and more, to compare with what the big bang theory predicts we ought to see when we make observations here and now.

Your denying that observations exist that are consistent with the big bang theory's predictions is just that: denial. Easily proven wrong.

A theory for an umwitnessed historically purported event is a conjecture of the human mind.

Yes. I have explain at length to you why this objection falls flat. Catch up.

Will you give me your explanation about Cepheid variable?

Already did, long ago. Catch up, Kermos!

Read posts #164, #165 and #381, for instance. Then read post #479.

Grapple with the science, if you can.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

I am familiar with the critical error of people disbelieving that the Gospel of John was composed by the Apostle John.

I believe John authored the Gospel of John by the Power of God.

If you want to show that biblical experts (including Christian experts, by the way) have made a "critical error" about this, you'll have to do better than merely proclaiming your belief, I'm afraid.

The scholarly consensus is against you on this, just as it is against you on the science of the big bang.

The answer is in “he who practices the Truth comes to the Light, that his works may be revealed, that they are having been worked in God” (John 3:21).

You're begging the question. You have yet to show that the Gospel of John is a work of God. But you can't do that, of course.

That's OK, not now, either.

Are you embarrassed to admit to your personal communications with God, or haven't you had any?

You believe there was a Big Bang because your star bible says so.

No. I believe there was a big bang because there's a whole heap of evidence that supports the theory. It's not a belief based on authority or on a "leap of faith".

And you believe that what your star bible says is accurate because it contains ground for belief.

What is this "star bible" you keep referring to? Be specific. Your usage of the term is nebulous and keeps shifting around.

And you believe that it contains ground for belief because it says so in your star bible.

If you think there's some document akin to your religious bible that says "Thou scientist shalt believe that the big bang theory is true", then you're more deluded than I thought.

Science isn't a dogma, Kermos, unlike your religion.

I am familiar with the critical error of people disbelieving that Peter's Letters were composed by the Apostle Peter.

I believe Peter authored Peter's Letters by the Power of God.

Again, if you're going to go up against the consensus position of Christian scholars on this, you'll need to come up with something better than your own personal belief.

Would that be when your star bible says the Universe collapses into a dot in intense heat as per cyclically oscillating Universe or your star bible's other mutually exclusive conclusion of distributed heat?

You didn't look it up?

Here, let me help you.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Hmmm, no, it's your fault because disbelieving people are daringly self-willed according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Oh dear! We can't have people thinking for themselves, can we? God forbid!

I applaud the scientific method.

Without knowing what it is, or how it works, or whether it works? Interesting, but consistent.

Please see my response post #652 to DaveC426913 regarding the normal usage of the word evidence and the self-incriminating error of his definition for historical conjecture.

Please see my post #676.

Since the Big Bang Theory fails to adhere to the scientific method...

It's a scientific theory. Scientists (who are the experts on this) accept that it adheres to the scientific method.

Apart from that (which is an unnecessary appeal to authority), I have already shown you in this thread why the big bang theory adheres to the scientific method. Your continuing to deny this, without addressing any of the points I have made on the matter, is unproductive.

Statistics are a belief...

No. Statistics are derived from data by well-tested methods. They can be a form of evidence, which - as you know - provides grounds for belief.

You have no experiments that reproduced the unseen Big Bang of yours...

It doesn't matter. It's not necessary to reproduce the big bang. I explained why to you, previously.

You still don't get it. The thread title dictates for you to show me how the Big Bang is not a leap of faith a.k.a. belief.

I won't be dictated to by you, Kermos.

Regardless of that, however, I have more than satisfactorily shown you that the big bang is not a leap of faith.

All your counter-arguments have been demolished, while none of my arguments have been.

Your "to a greater or lesser extent" is not unanimous nor scientific consensus...

Yes it is.

Your redefinition of normal words makes you look more like a person who is dishonest and clueless in linguistics.

Where did I redefine normal words? Please document one instance.

You disrespectfully calling me a clown establishes the quality of The Pharmakeia Principle post #179.

There has been no mention of the use of potions, drugs or enchantments in this thread. (What was it you were saying about redefining words?)

Well, now, with your accusation of lies and pretending, I need to prove the publisher, author, and date are in the dot (period) at the end of the paragraph by showing you the quality of that dot.

I wrote "If you have an actual link to a relevant paper, why don't you just post that now, instead of pretending that you posted it before. If you do post it, please provide a proper citation, not like the half-arsed one you have invented here."

That's what you need to do.

In the seventh paragraph after the "red-shift in the light of the scientific method" table of post #469, go to the last sentence (Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified) to inspect (ie right click or hold a tap to inspect using a context menu option) that dot aka period of that precise sentence.

Are you saying you hid a link in your post? Why would you do that? Or was it just a mistake that came from cutting and pasting from elsewhere?

Anyway, I checked through the html, as you suggested, and the hyperlink in your post doesn't lead to any web page.

Nevertheless, despite your incompetence, I found the article you were probably referencing and I posted about it in post #644. Please reply to that post.

Catch up, Kermos!

 

[Pinball1970]

Not wanting to deflect the thread or anything but I just had to jump in with some Cosmology news. Results from DES have been published and there is a neat little summary here from phys dot.

"From 2013 to 2019, the DES Collaboration carried out a deep, wide-area survey of the sky using the 570-megapixel DOE-fabricated Dark Energy Camera (DECam), mounted on the NSF Víctor M. Blanco 4-meter Telescope at NSF Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile. For 758 nights over six years, the DES Collaboration recorded information from 669 million galaxies that are billions of light-years from Earth, covering an eighth of the sky.

Today, the DES Collaboration is releasing results that, for the first time, combine all six years of data from weak lensing and galaxy clustering probes—two techniques for measuring the universe's expansion history. The collaboration also presents the first results found by combining all four methods of measuring the expansion history of the universe—baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), Type-Ia supernovae, galaxy clusters, and weak gravitational lensing—as proposed at the inception of DES 25 years ago."

You read it correctly, 669 Million galaxies measured over six years. That kind of data is going to tell us an awful lot how our beautiful 13.7 billion year old universe grew up.
We have the DESI data also which gives astonishing accuracy via spectroscopy and I will give some break downs in the science sub forums on both.
I need to read both studies properly so I can give you the best synopsis.
The science and technology is quite involved because the researchers are well trained, highly qualified individuals who spend their whole careers on these projects. Science. Actually doing science.
Not pretending to understand concepts or what words really mean.

 

[Kermos]

You have this backwards. You are the one misusing words.

The title of this thread is centered on semantics, DaveC426913. I believe that the Big Bang Theory is a leap of belief, and I believe this because Big Bang Theory adherents use the language of belief/faith; furthermore, Big Bang Theory adherents distort normal language in order to create the ambiance of scientific fact instead of faith.

You use the language of belief, and you deny that the word "disbelief" means "not belief" despite the scientific fact that you were shown the dictionary definition for the prefix "dis" meaning "not" a mere two posts ago in this exchange.

You established the quality of abnormal word usage; in other words, you proved your faulty linguistics.

Actually it's Google. It is pulled from the common knowledge of people, in particular, the technical definition of evidence.

A star bible is something you've made up. It is a strawman. You have erected it because you can't attack the actual case.

You are telling me that Google regurgitated your star bible definition for your input of "technical definition of evidence", and we are corresponding about the definition of "evidence", yet you added extra to your computer input, so you acted not in good faith for debate. GIGO.

Nevertheless, your star bible definition of "evidence" includes the language of faith (belief).

Interesting. "Historical evidence" you say?

Yes, I wrote "You produced your star bible definition of scientific evidence, not historical evidence" because you try to shoehorn the "scientific" discipline into the "historical" investigation, and the following paragraph shows your failure to shoehorn scientific into historical:

​

You do not have scientific facts of the Big Bang Theory as demonstrated with (1) the Zenith Model (temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan, post #111), (2) the Episcopic Model (spatial limitations, too vast a visage, post #113), (3) Red-shift is truly Red-spectral (post #469), (4) you need to walk the Planck satellite to see the disformed (not uniform) cold zone (see post #459), and (5) failure to adhere to the scientific method as demonstrated in (A) William and Valdemar confirmation of error unrecognized by them (post #269), (B) the distinguishing factors of science and evidence (post #137), (C) an unobserved natural phenomenon fails to qualify as a scientific theory (post #362), (D) assumptions are a faulty foundation (post #235), and (E) consideration of Cepheid variable true luminosity parallax (post #155).​

​

You have no observation of the historical birth of your grandfather.

There is no proof that the Big Bang is not a leap of faith in your statement.

You see how you accept unseen things when it suits you but you reject them when it doesn't suit you? That is called hypocrisy.

I remember when a guy that I know was born, and the guy had a son, and the son had a son. I am witness to grandfather, father, and son. People propagate.

You did not witness your Big Bang, in fact, no human witnessed your purported Big Bang.

This is a science forum. We are normal, and we will be using the scientific definition.

When you use abnormal word definitions, then your abnormal word definitions are not scientific.

You asked us to show you. We are showing you. We are showing you science. If you choose not to see it, that's your problem, but we have done what you have asked.

The language of science builds on normal language words, not redefined words into abnormal language words.

If you want to go make your argument among non-science people, knock yourself out. But you have come here. And here, the langauge is science.

I have shown you that this is false. Repeating yourself changes nothing.

I use normal language upon which science leverages, not your redefined words into abnormal language words. For example, the computer science term GIGO which means garbage in, garbage out (see your Google GIGO above).

You use languishing linguistics instead of legitimate linguistics.

I do not see sufficient evidence that God exists, therefore I do not grant his existence. That is not the same as saying I believe God does not exist.

Here is simpler example:

You assert that there is a big red ball in the box you are trying to sell me.
I do not see sufficient evidence that the box contains a big red ball, so I will assure myself by checking.
That is not the same thing as saying "I believe there is no big red ball in there." I am simply saying i'm bnot convinced there is.


In both cases:
- a belief that God does not exist, and
- a belief that box does not contain a red ball
are both unwarranted conclusions.

I can't draw a valid conclusion about something I have no evidence nothing about either way. That is why I collect evidence.

I have shown you that this is false. Repeating yourself changes nothing.

You do not have the authority to "grant his existence",

A currently existing red ball that you (by proxy or personally) can see (observe) in a box is not the same thing as your (by proxy or personally) unobserved ancient Big Bang.

You draw a conclusion about your (by proxy or personally) unobserved ancient Big Bang, and you do such based on your "ground for belief".

You need to realize that the word "belief" prefixed by "dis", of which I provided the definition, results in the following being factual in it's entirely:

​

You believe not in God; therefore, you disbelieve in God. You exhibit lack of belief. You have an absence of belief in God. You have disbelief in God.​

​

Your abuse of "dis" is apparent.

It is not a side-track. You are stuck in a track of thinking you can't break out of because the word "God" means something different to you than it does to me.
So let's use "normal" terms: baby, box, big read ball.

A baby can't disbelieve in something it knows nothnig about.

Again who cares about the semantics. Just say what you mean without the labels. Or have you given up on any science discussion and are just interested in semantics now? I'll accept that as a concession.

Don't get sidetracked by your disbelieving in God (absence of belief in God) baby example.

You do not "Just say what you mean without the labels" because you abnormally redefine words like "evidence" and "disbelief".

Your abuse of "dis" is apparent.

I wrote nothing of the sort.

It doesn't even make any sense (a strong clue that it's your words and not mine).



It is not.

Those are your words, not mine.

Let us know when you want to argue what we actually say, instead of what words you try to put in our mouths.




No it isn't. We'll add that to the list of things you are ignorant of.


It is not 'also known as', no.

You have been reduced putting words in other people's mouths. This is a certain sign that you are unable to argue against what we actually say.

There is little point in the rest of us getting involved when you argue with yourself. When you are ready to engage with what we actually say, just let us know. But I, for one, won't hold my breath.

Yes, you did write something of the sort, and here is the explanation.

​

You wrote the equivalent of "evidence equals proof without belief" when you wrote "rigorous, scientific, technical definition of evidence" (proof post #571) which is the same as writing "rigorous, scientific, technical definition of ground for belief" hence your leap of belief in the Big Bang Theory.​

​

You include "scientific" fact which is proof.​

​

You compounded "scientific" with the word "rigorous" to further drive home the fact that you are referring to "scientific" fact, a.k.a. proof.​

​

Therefore, you are forcing the concept of "evidence equals proof without belief".​

​

I paraphrased your words in context. And, your posts contribute to the context.

 

[billvon]

The title of this thread is centered on semantics, DaveC426913. I believe that the Big Bang Theory is a leap of belief, and I believe this because Big Bang Theory adherents use the language of belief/faith; furthermore, Big Bang Theory adherents distort normal language in order to create the ambiance of scientific fact instead of faith.

Big Bang scientists use the language of science. You may not understand it. That does not mean it is the "language of belief" or that it is "distorted." It just means you don't comprehend what they are saying.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

Which part or parts of the following definition of evidence are incorrect, according to you?

In science, evidence is objective information, facts, or data gathered through systematic observation and experimentation (the scientific method) that supports or refutes a hypothesis or theory, acting as a neutral arbiter for scientific claims and theories. It must be reliable, reproducible, and public, forming the basis for rational belief and testing scientific ideas, moving beyond mere personal experience or anecdote.

Don't forget to explain why it's wrong.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

You seem to be having a lot of trouble distinguishing disbelief from a mere lack of belief.

Let's walk you through DaveC's red-ball-in-a-box example one more time, slowly, so you can understand.

Let's say you have an opaque box. Inside the box there is a red ball, nicely wrapped in material to make sure it doesn't rattle or bounce around inside. The box is closed. I can't see inside it. I didn't see you put the red ball into the box.

You show me the box (which, remember, I can't see into) and say to me "There's a red ball in this box".

Now, consider three statements I might make in this situation.

The issue of Belief​

First, let us consider whether each statement refers to a true belief or a false belief.

1. "I believe there's a red ball in that box."

This is a true belief, because the belief corresponds to the facts of the matter - that there really is a red ball in the box.

2. "I believe there's no red ball in that box."

This is a false belief, because the belief does not correspond to the facts of the matter. I have made a factual error and I believe something that is not true.

3. "I don't believe there's a red ball in that box."

This is a statement of careful skepticism. I have not asserted that the box contains a red ball. But I have also not asserted that the box does not contain a red ball. I have merely stated that I am not yet convinced - I do not believe the claim or I do not accept the claim - that the box contains a red ball.

Note that statement 3 does not commit me to a position on whether there's a red ball in the box. Given suitable evidence (e.g. opening box so I can look inside), I might discover at some later time that the box contains the red ball, in fact. Then I would happily concede, no doubt, that "I now believe that there is a red ball in the box." Why the change in my belief? Evidence made the difference. You presented evidence; I used the evidence to develop a justified belief. Prior to your opening the box, the only thing I had to go on was your word that there was a red ball in the box. Clearly, that on its own was not enough to convince me. I needed more.

The issue of Honesty​

Now, let's also briefly consider the issue of my honesty, in relation to each of the three statements considered above.

1. "I believe there's a red ball in that box."

This is an honest statement from me if I am actually convinced that there's a red ball in the box. For instance, I might consider you such a trustworthy and honest person that I know you'd never lie to me about such a thing. So, your claim that there's a red ball in the box is all I need to convince me.

In this particular example, my trust would be well placed, because there is, in fact, a red ball in the box. I ended up believing in a claim that is actually true (corresponds to the facts of the matter).

2. "I believe there's no red ball in that box."

This is also an honest statement from me, provided I am actually convinced that there's no red ball in the box. For instance, suppose you hand me the box and I shake it, and I figure "If there was a red ball in the box, I'd surely hear it rattling around, but I don't."

In this particular example, I would be honest, but also wrong about the facts of the situation. I would have a false but honest belief.

3. "I don't believe there's a red ball in that box."

This is also an honest statement from me, provided that I'm not convinced that there's a red ball in the box. And, since in this particular example, I have no reason other than your say-so to become convinced that what you asserted is true, it's reasonable for me to express skepticism about your claim.

In this particular example, I would be honest and not wrong. There is a red ball in the box, as it happens. But in my reasonable opinion there is no reason for me to be convinced that there is a red ball in the box, before you open the box and show me the ball.

The issue of Justification​

Let us consider the issue of justification of my belief now.

1. "I believe there's a red ball in that box."

Hypothetically, I might have justification for this belief, before you open the box. Perhaps I was hiding nearby when you put the ball into the box, and I saw it go in. In that case, I have evidence that there's a red ball in the box that is independent of your claim.

Alternatively, I might know that you've never told a lie about balls in boxes before - or maybe more specifically about this particular box and ball. This one is a bit of a stretch. But suppose you'd shown your box to 1000 other people in past tests of the same kind and you always told the truth about its contents. It would not be unreasonable for me to infer that you're probably not going to break the truth-telling cycle on the 1001st iteration. It's not airtight reasoning, but it's pretty good.

2. "I believe there's no red ball in that box."

I cannot have justification for believing this, because there is, in fact, a red ball in the box. False claims can't be evidenced.

Of course, I can be mistaken about thinking I have justification, when really I don't. Maybe I saw the empty box a short time ago, but in the meantime - when I wasn't looking - you put the red ball in the box. So, I'm convinced the box is empty when really it isn't. My belief is not justified, even though I think (mistakenly) that it is.

3. "I don't believe there's a red ball in that box."

No justification is needed to make this statement. All I'm saying is that I'm not currently convinced one way or the other. Maybe I want more data. Maybe I think the proposition is undecidable without more information. Maybe I'm cautious about just taking your word for it, regardless of whether you're usually honest.

Notice that, in this case, I'm still willing to become convinced that there's a red ball in the box. I'm not making the claim that there's not a red ball in the box.

The issue of Knowledge​

Finally, let us consider the issue of my knowledge.

1. "I believe there's a red ball in that box."
2. "I believe there's no red ball in that box."
3. "I don't believe there's a red ball in that box."

When I make any of these statements, before the box is opened to reveal the red ball, I don't know that there's a red ball in the box. These statements are therefore not claims to knowledge, either way. They are merely telling you what I am convinced about - or what I'm not convinced about.

It would be entirely appropriate to read these statements as:

1. "I don't know there's a red ball in that box, but I have faith that there is one."
2. "I don't know there's no red ball in the box, but I have faith that the box is empty."
3. "I don't know whether there's a red ball in the box or not. I'm not convinced either way."

 

[James R]

(continued...)

With that under our belt, Kermos, let us discuss three common positons on the existence of God:

The issue of beliefs about God's existence​

1. "I believe that God is a real being/force/entity".
2 "I believe that God is not a real being/force/entity."
3. "I don't believe that God is a real being/force/entity".

Hopefully, by comparing the ball-in-a-box example, you can see that statements 1 and 2 both show the speaker is convinced of one claim or other about God - namely either that God is real, or that God is not real.

Statement 3, on the other hand, is a statement of careful skepticism. It tells you that the speaker is not convinced that the claim "God is a real being/force/entity" is true. It might be true, or it might be false.

Statements 1 and 2 are both statements of "faith", if there is no evidence ("justification") for the claims. Faith is believing a claim in the absence of sufficient evidence to reasonably justify accepting that the claim is true.

Statement 3 is not a statement of faith. It asserts nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. It merely asserts something about the mindset of the person making the statement.

What is disbelief?​

Let us consider the prefix "dis-", when applied to the word "believe". Consider:

1. "I believe that God is a real being/force/entity".
2. "I disbelieve that God is a real being/force/entity".
3. "I lack the belief that God is a real being/force/entity".

These three statements exactly parallel the three previous statements listed in the current post. They have exactly the same meanings and implications.

Notice that, in statement 3, one cannot use the term "disbelief" or "disbelieve". The word "disbelieve" literally means "reject as false".

Statement 2 rejected the claim "God is a real being/force/entity" as false.
Statement 3 does not reject the claim. It merely provides information about a person's reaction to the claim - namely that they are not yet convinced of the truth of the claim.

I hope this rather lengthy lesson has helped clarify your understanding of these matters, Kermos. Please feel free to ask questions if you have some.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

Apologies to DaveC for jumping in, by I'd like to comment on a few things you wrote in your most recent reply to him.

The title of this thread is centered on semantics,

You are asking for a demonstration that the big bang theory is scientific.

There is a consensus understanding about usages of the words "science" and "scientific". If you're interested in what science is, a good approach is to go to the source and ask the scientists what they mean when they say "science" or "scientific". They are the experts on the topic, after all.

DaveC426913. I believe that the Big Bang Theory is a leap of belief, and I believe this because Big Bang Theory adherents use the language of belief/faith...

Not very often. Occasionally, they talk about belief - almost never about faith, which is belief without evidence. Scientists talk a lot about evidence - much more than they talk about belief.

Evidence, you see, provides justification for belief. Faith does not.

You use the language of belief, and you deny that the word "disbelief" means "not belief"...

Read my helpful 'red ball in a box' posts above. They should help you to disentangle your confusion. Let me know how you go.

Nevertheless, your star bible definition of "evidence" includes the language of faith (belief).

Please cite a source of the "star bible definition" you are referring to. Quote it and site your source. I'd be surprised if the word "faith" appears in any definition of "evidence" - other than confused religiously-motivated ones. You want to talk about science, don't you?

You do not have scientific facts of the Big Bang Theory as demonstrated with (1) the Zenith Model (temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan, post #111), (2) the Episcopic Model (spatial limitations, too vast a visage, post #113), (3) Red-shift is truly Red-spectral (post #469), (4) you need to walk the Planck satellite to see the disformed (not uniform) cold zone (see post #459), and (5) failure to adhere to the scientific method as demonstrated in (A) William and Valdemar confirmation of error unrecognized by them (post #269), (B) the distinguishing factors of science and evidence (post #137), (C) an unobserved natural phenomenon fails to qualify as a scientific theory (post #362), (D) assumptions are a faulty foundation (post #235), and (E) consideration of Cepheid variable true luminosity parallax (post #155).

You need to address my point-by-point debunkings of all your claims on these matters. When will you get around to doing that?

I remember when a guy that I know was born, and the guy had a son, and the son had a son. I am witness to grandfather, father, and son. People propagate.

Were you an eyewitness at the birth of the guy, the guy's son and the guy's son's son?

Only eyewitness evidence counts, you told us. But here it looks like you're relying on hearsay. Or - god forbid - inference.

Why are you breaking your own (silly) rules?

You did not witness your Big Bang, in fact, no human witnessed your purported Big Bang.

It doesn't matter. It is inferred from theory and the evidence we have.

Just like you infer that the guy who looks like the other guy's son was probably born after the other guy had sex with a woman, who then became pregnant and carried a baby to term, etc.

I'm guessing you weren't an eyewitness to the sex, or the birth. You made a logical inference from the data you have.

When you use abnormal word definitions, then your abnormal word definitions are not scientific.

Please cite where an "abnormal" definition has been used. Clearly explain why it is "abnormal".

The language of science builds on normal language words, not redefined words into abnormal language words.

What does "builds on" mean? Adds to? Refines the meaning of? Makes the meaning more technical in a context-appropriate way?

I use normal language upon which science leverages, not your redefined words into abnormal language words.

Are you saying you refuse to use the context-specific scientific terminology of science and instead fall back on general dictionary definitions?

Is that because you don't understand the technical definitions? Or are you ideologically opposed to using them, for religious reasons maybe?

You use languishing linguistics instead of legitimate linguistics.

What is "languishing linguistics"?

Are you a linguistics expert, Kermos? That sounds interesting. Tell us more about linguistics, please.

You do not have the authority to "grant his existence",

DaveC meant merely that he does not agree that your assertion that your god is real has been established to be true.

Did you not understand? Good to clear that up this latest confusion of yours, then.

For a linguistic expert, you do seem to be tying yourself in knots over the meanings of words, Kermos. Are all linguists as confused as you are?

You draw a conclusion about your (by proxy or personally) unobserved ancient Big Bang, and you do such based on your "ground for belief".

Yes. Justified conclusions can be drawn based on evidence. That's how rationality works.

You believe not in God; therefore, you disbelieve in God.

This is muddled. Please review my posts about the red ball in the box, above. Then try again.

You exhibit lack of belief.

In the existence of God. Yes. Correct.

You have an absence of belief in God.

Yes. Correct.

You have disbelief in God.

No. See the meaning of "disbelieve" explained in my post above.

Your abuse of "dis" is apparent.

I can't speak for DaveC on this, but you - expert linguist that you are - must agree with me on what "dis-" means in the word "disbelieve". See my post above and get back to me.

Don't get sidetracked by your disbelieving in God (absence of belief in God) baby example.

It looks very much like it is you who got sidetracked and needed a bit of lesson.

Now that we've cleared up your confusion about the meanings of words, can you please reply to my debunkings of your pseudoscientific claims about the big bang theory, Cepheid variables, red shift and such?

 

[Pinball1970]

Big Bang Theory adherents distort normal language in order to create the ambiance of scientific fact instead of faith.

No, you do not understand what words mean let alone the scientific facts.

 

[Kermos]

Kermos:

That's not true.

You are "starting at 0" (zero). I plan to use this term frequently to indicate your lack of scientific fact for your Big Bang up to the moments before man's recorded history.

You nor any person saw your Big Bang, yet you tell me "That's not true".

James R, what did you write in your post #164 (a post which you enjoined to your current post, below)? Oh, yes, you wrote "Science doesn't claim to have an ultimate truth, though. That's more something that religions claim", so your use of the word "true" is a "religions claim".

I told you, you have an evolution religion.

For instance, can observe the CMBR.

You observing the CMBR is not you observing your Big Bang, so you remain "starting at 0" thus you are in a leap of faith for your Big Bang.

We can measure the relative abundances of the light elements in the universe.

The only valid scientific conclusion you can draw is "the relative abundances of the light elements in the universe" at the time of "measurement", so you remain "starting at 0" thus you are in a leap of faith for your Big Bang.

You referred to light which you believe is a constant of 186,000 miles per second represented as C in E=MC[sup]2[/sup]. Your light varied significantly in excess of 186K during your Big Bang explosion.

We can confirm the Hubble law by making observations.

Your "confirm" is an "ultimate truth" issued by you in your post when you wrote "We can confirm the Hubble law by making observations", yet you had written "Science doesn't claim to have an ultimate truth, though. That's more something that religions claim" in your post #164! Those are conflicted thoughts, James R.

The "Hubble Law",,, would that be your Big Bang "ultimate truth" equation of v=H[sub]0[/sub]D with H[sub]0[/sub] being the exalted Hubble Constant?

That's the same variable constant, er, constant variable, er, high priestly astronomer astrologer guesswork number (Hubble Constant) which is uncertain but believed to be between 50 and 100. When H=50, then the time scale is about 20 billion years. When H=100, then the astronomer astrologers arrive at 10 billion years.

I discussed the Hubble Constant as per my post #549 summary of your 8 critical posts, and I explained your error in general in "the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error (William and Valdemar)" in my post #269.

You remain "starting at 0" thus you are in a leap of faith for your Big Bang.

We can use all this data, and more, to compare with what the big bang theory predicts we ought to see when we make observations here and now.

Such as you believe the age of the universe is 10 billion years or 13.8 billion years or 20 billion years based on the high Hubble reverse prophecy (your Hubble law).

Your denying that observations exist that are consistent with the big bang theory's predictions is just that: denial. Easily proven wrong.

Whoops, you still don't get it, James R. The thread title dictates for you to show me how the Big Bang is not a leap of faith a.k.a. belief.

I proved that the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith. Even by billions of years (see H=50 and H=100 above).

You failed to prove the Big Bang Theory is not a leap of faith.

Yes. I have explain at length to you why this objection falls flat. Catch up.

Already did, long ago. Catch up, Kermos!

Read posts #164, #165 and #381, for instance. Then read post #479.

Grapple with the science, if you can.

Your post #164 doesn't mention Cepheid variable, but I noticed this accepted without proof (assumption) Big Bang gem that is worth addressing because you misunderstood my meaning:

When it comes to light, it mostly travels in straight lines (with a few important caveats), so it does arrive at Earth with some information about the path travelled. The direction that light comes from also often gives us important hints as to its likely origin.

You have no way of knowing whether conditions exist that cause light to travel in a non-straight line (excluding your caveats), so you expressed a belief (assumption).

Particles arrive at Earth from a particular direction, but you do not know that the particle always traveled in a straight line, yet you believe the particle traveled in a straight line, so you have a leap of faith.

I refer to a particle's origin per the emitting object's X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis position at the time the particle is emitted. Alpha Centauri appears to us on Earth as Alpha Centauri was 4 years ago, but you also believe the universe is expanding, so the point of origin shifted for particles you believe came from Alpha Centauri; furthermore, you do not know whether the particular particle was emitted by Alpha Centauri or a different star in the distance behind Alpha Centauri.

So, now I direct to you, James R, "I don't need to name a book, James R, because intelligent humans recognize that Interstellar particles arrive to Earth with no discernable timestamp of production nor path traveled nor origin signature".
​

Continued to post #696

 

[Kermos]

Continued from post #695

Your post #165 also mentioned accepted without proof (assumption) Big Bang gems:

That's incorrect. The temperatures of stars are easily measured using spectroscopic techniques.

That is you believing without proof (an assumption). You never took a temperature at any star. I am saying your interpretation of data is a leap of faith.

Knowing the distance to Polaris and its apparent magnitude allows astronomers to calculate its absolute magnitude.

You believe without proof (assume) that you know the distance to Polaris, but your calculations are based upon more believing without proof (assumptions) because no person has been to Polaris to determine absolute magnitude.

Assumptions built on assumptions is not science.

Assumptions built on assumptions is faith.

That's incorrect. Astronomers can use both the parallax method and the fact that it is a Cepheid variable to measure the distance of Polaris from Earth.

The results of both measurements agree with one another, which means we can be confident that we have determined the distance correctly.

More specifically, the Hipparcos and Gaia satellites have both made precise parallax measurements for Polaris, both resulting in a distance of 446.1 plus or minus 1.1 light years.

Will you now acknowledge your error and agree that the parallax method can be used for Polaris, Kermos? Or are you going to stick your head in the sand and keep insisting that it can't be done?

You are incorrect because I demonstrated your cosmic ladder of assumptions above.

Suddenly, the parallax method is in vogue with you, James R. I told you that you scientists that you use parallax way back in this thread - even when you scientists mocked me about parallax!

You believe the people who use the Hipparcos and Gaia satellites, but the results are not scientific fact.

You are confusing that I am saying your 446.1+/- Polaris distance from Earth is a leap of faith, not scientific fact.

Will you now acknowledge your error and agree that your distance is based on faith?

That is an assertion that needs support.

That's a reasonable belief without proof (assumption) that astronomer astrologers do not collect sufficient, complete, and accurate data at 2,673,000,000,000,000 miles (2.6 quadrillion miles) from Polaris, the nearest Cepheid variable star, nor any other Cepheid which astronomers believe are more distant from Earth in order to conclusively declare said star's distance from Earth.

You're conflating the two methods there. In fact, the parallax method and Cepheid method complement each other, and allow astronomers to cross-check the accuracy of the cosmic distance ladder.

No, I did not conflate. My explanation included the complimentary role of Cepheid and parallax that astronomer astrologers use.

We can identify Cepheid variable stars in some galaxies external to the Milky Way. So you are correct: they can be used to measure the distances to some galaxies that are millions of light years away. I'd have to check your billions claim.

You have written with words as if you have scientific fact with your "you are correct: they can be used to measure the distances to some galaxies that are millions of light years away" as part of your star bible ladder. I have interpreted your star bible properly according to you. Now, I explain to you that your "distances to some galaxies that are millions of light years away" are beliefs without proof (assume) built upon beliefs without proof (assume) built upon beliefs without proof (assume).

No. Cepheid variable stars are useful precisely because there is an observed correlation between the period of variation of a Cepheid star and its absolute magnitude.

So, astronomers can determine the absolute magnitude of a Cepheid star, by measuring the period of its brightening and dimming.

Study up, Kermos. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say.

You have unsafely believed without proof (assumed) that "astronomers can determine the absolute magnitude of a Cepheid star, by measuring the period of its brightening and dimming" to determine the luminosity at the Cepheid star without visiting the Cepheid star to obtain the luminosity and use the Cepheid star in a hopscotch of stellar distances using parallax.

Nobody made that claim - not DaveC and not me. What are you talking about?

Let me translate what I wrote for you:

Your ground for belief (evidence) of the Cepheid variable demonstrated the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.
​

DaveC426913 used the term evidence which means "ground for belief or disbelief" in normal language (see post #137 for the dictionary definition of evidence).
​

Your post #381 tries to reverse visibility:

Not visions. Measurements. She measured the apparent luminosity of distant stars. She then deduced their distances by working out that all Cepheid variables have an absolute luminosity that is related to their period of brightening and darkening. The result of this is that by observing both the apparent luminosity of a Cepheid variable star and its period, the distance to the star can be calculated.

This is not a matter of visions or faith. It is science. I don't believe you know how to tell the difference between the two. You should try to find out what the difference is. Pay attention to what I've taught you, for instance. That would be a good start.

You do realize that you wrote "observing" mid-paragraph of which you started the paragraph with "Not visions". That's your contradictory faith.

A star's "luminosity" is the measure of the star's light at the star; meanwhile, the star's "brightness" is the measure of the star's light at the Earth.

Essentially, this means your star bible seer Henrietta Swan Leavitt had visions of the luminosity at distant stars while never leaving Earth, and this foundational rung on the star bible cosmic distance ladder is the foundation for massive Interstellar distance measurements.

In other words, your Cepheid variable is a leap of faith.
​

Your post #479 tries to impose your evolution religion as scientific fact:

The speed of light in space never exceeds 186,000 miles per second (3 x 10^8 metres per second). The speed of light in space is restricted by the theory of relativity. This is not a postulate, understand; it is a derived result.

No "speed limit" on the rate of expansion of space(time) itself can be derived from the same theory of relativity, however.

You wrote "the speed of light in space never exceeds 186,000 miles per second" as a scientific fact, but you do not know that - you only believe that. Then you flip back to the language of faith when you wrote "theory of relativity" because theory in the context of umwitnessed historical ancient past means "conjecture of the human mind" (see theory definition at post #362 and devise definition at post #437).

It does not. I explained the method to you in a previous post. Catch up.

Yes, it does. I included, in my explanations such as in post #155, the complimentary role of Cepheid and parallax that astronomer astrologers use.

No. The conclusion that the absolute magnitude of a Cepheid variable star is related to its period of oscillation is an empirical finding, not an assumption. That is, it is testable and it has been confirmed to be the case.

You never empiricallly visited a Cepheid star firsthand to validate the luminosity related to its period of oscillation, so you along with your fellow star bible adherents have a belief without proof (assumption), not a "confirmed" scientific fact, but only a humanistic assumption.

As I said, the distance ladder is cross-checked by using different (and independent) methods to measure the distance to a star (for example). That the Cepheid method is valid is confirmed independently by other methods (including the parallax method).

Parallax works with Cepheid in a complimentary fashion, specifically, astronomer astrologers use "scientific fact" Cepheid known distances with parallax to determine "astrologicallly massive" distances to a third stellar object. Quoted phrases are intended ironically.

Your Cepheid ladder rung is broken. Your parallax ladder rung is broken.

Your star bible "distance ladder is cross-checked" is not just broken, but it is a leap of faith.

​

Grapple with your religion which is not real science, if you can.

 

[Kermos]

Kermos:

If you want to show that biblical experts (including Christian experts, by the way) have made a "critical error" about this, you'll have to do better than merely proclaiming your belief, I'm afraid.

The scholarly consensus is against you on this, just as it is against you on the science of the big bang.

We Christians believe the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

Your belief without proof (assumption) is part of your evolution religion - it's certainly not Christian.

You're begging the question. You have yet to show that the Gospel of John is a work of God. But you can't do that, of course.

John is one of His disciples reclining in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus was loving (John 13:23), and this one wrote the Book of John because he further identified himself with "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). The book bears John's name.

John is “he who practices the Truth comes to the Light, that his works may be revealed, that they are having been worked in God” (John 3:21). You like or not changes not that John wrote the Book bearing his name.

Are you embarrassed to admit to your personal communications with God, or haven't you had any?

I'm not answering your question.

No. I believe there was a big bang because there's a whole heap of evidence that supports the theory. It's not a belief based on authority or on a "leap of faith".

In essence, you just wrote that "you believe there was a Big Bang because your star bible says so".

What is this "star bible" you keep referring to? Be specific. Your usage of the term is nebulous and keeps shifting around.

Your star bible includes your cosmic distance ladder and you star bible glossary and your star maps. I could go on.

If you think there's some document akin to your religious bible that says "Thou scientist shalt believe that the big bang theory is true", then you're more deluded than I thought.

In effect, you keep repeating that your star bible is your ground for belief (evidence) for your star bible's Big Bang Theory, so I can accurately write "you believe that it contains ground for belief because it says so in your star bible".

Science isn't a dogma, Kermos, unlike your religion.

The scientific method is not dogma. Historically umwitnessed conjecture is dogma.

The Big Bang Theory is historically umwitnessed conjecture.

Again, if you're going to go up against the consensus position of Christian scholars on this, you'll need to come up with something better than your own personal belief.

If you think your going to use nonchristian consensus to prove me wrong, then you've got another thing coming.

You didn't look it up?

I didn't need to.

Here, let me help you.

Your star bible link corroborates "distributed heat" in the following rhetorical question which I directed to you, but it also corroborated the return to a dot!

Would that be when your star bible says the Universe collapses into a dot in intense heat as per cyclically oscillating Universe or your star bible's other mutually exclusive conclusion of distributed heat?
​

It is a matter of faith which way you lean.

 

[Kermos]

(continued...)

Oh dear! We can't have people thinking for themselves, can we? God forbid!

The Apostle Peter wrote self-willed (2 Peter 2:9-10), so you writing of "We can't have people thinking for themselves" contradicts that which was presented to you.

Without knowing what it is, or how it works, or whether it works? Interesting, but consistent.

On the contrary, I detailed the scientific method according to one of the scientific community's respected websites, livescience.com, in the original post as well as post #269 and post #469.

I know and employed the scientific method. You employ historical conjecture instead of the scientific method for your Big Bang Theory.

Please see my post #676.

Your post #676 was an extensive slanderous character malignment and misrepresentation against me. I carefully detailed the difference between believing testimony of others regarding human recorded history versus speculative events that precede human recorded history.

It's a scientific theory. Scientists (who are the experts on this) accept that it adheres to the scientific method.

Apart from that (which is an unnecessary appeal to authority), I have already shown you in this thread why the big bang theory adheres to the scientific method. Your continuing to deny this, without addressing any of the points I have made on the matter, is unproductive.

Your Big Bang Theory is your speculative event that precedes human recorded history. No human saw the Big Bang, so your Big Bang Conjecture fails to qualify for the scientific method's initial phase of hypothesis/theory which requires a natural phenomena be observed.

You failed to demonstrate that a human observed a natural phenomena you call the Big Bang according to the scientific method, so you have a leap of faith that the Big Bang occurred.

No. Statistics are derived from data by well-tested methods. They can be a form of evidence, which - as you know - provides grounds for belief.

First, you told me no. Second, you explained that which I wrote to you in the affirmative. That is fighting without a cause.

It doesn't matter. It's not necessary to reproduce the big bang. I explained why to you, previously.

First, you told me that your Big Bang Conjecture adheres to the scientific method. Second, you explained that you can abandon the scientific method's second phase of experimentation for your Big Bang Conjecture. That abandonment makes your Big Bang Theory a leap of faith.

I won't be dictated to by you, Kermos.

Well, that's rather hypocritical considering that you have written "Catch up" to me over and over and over again. I suppose that doesn't matter much in a relativistic worldview.

Regardless of that, however, I have more than satisfactorily shown you that the big bang is not a leap of faith.

All your counter-arguments have been demolished, while none of my arguments have been.

You resorted to the Pharmakeia Principle (post #179) in your post #676 character assassination against me. That is not the sign of a person winning a debate.

Yes it is.

Where did I redefine normal words? Please document one instance.

Scientific consensus cannot exist as a "lesser extent" because that is not "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" (the definition of "consensus" in American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Obtained from www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus).

There is the documentation of one instance where you redefine normal words.

There has been no mention of the use of potions, drugs or enchantments in this thread. (What was it you were saying about redefining words?)

You chant that your Big Bang Theory adheres to the scientific method, so there are enchantments.

Besides that, I defined the Pharmakeia Principle in post #179. You may have missed the content, so here it is:

The Pharmakeia Principle holds that certain persons merge "scientific" model (illusion) and "scientific" theory (opinion) and "scientific" fact (observation and repeatability) with a potential for financial gain into what the philosophers Illegitimately call science (knowledge of Truth (John 14:6)). Illusion and opinion spoil that which those philosophers call science; in fact, the philosophers defend their position with a religious zeal, yet they disclaim any religious affiliation for their belief structures. The philosophers speak in an authoritative manner. When the philosopher's deeply held religious beliefs are exposed as fallacious in a systematic manner, then the philosophers engage in condescension, even on some occasions progressing into violent tactics toward the people who itemize the philosophers' errors.
​

I wrote "If you have an actual link to a relevant paper, why don't you just post that now, instead of pretending that you posted it before. If you do post it, please provide a proper citation, not like the half-arsed one you have invented here."

That's what you need to do.

I arrived at the spot I eagerly worked toward! Well, almost. This needs addressing.

You also wtote:

Post #469 does not contain the text you have put in quotes here. Not in a "dot" or anywhere else.

Please don't tell lies, Kermos.
​

You falsely accused me, James R.

Are you saying you hid a link in your post? Why would you do that? Or was it just a mistake that came from cutting and pasting from elsewhere?

As a matter of fact, I explained the purpose of embedding the source citation the way I did for such a time as this:

You missed the citation illuminating your scientific error about your red-shift analysis because it's in the dot - you heard about a dot that's not even the size of a period that astrologer astronomers claim to see some 13.8 billion years ago at an unknown somewhere - the citation was in the period (dot) at the end of the paragraph with the text of "University of California San Diego Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy 2005-01-20 or 2005-01-30" (publisher title dates) recorded in post #469. And you believe that you see a dot a long long time ago and far far away or maybe very very close which blew up into everything!
​

You had the visible citation dot right in front of you in the here and now, yet you missed the citation dot, even calling me a liar about the citation dot.

Will you flare up in anger at me or will you concede that fallible man has a leap of faith about a dot that blew up into everything about 13.8 billion years ago?

Anyway, I checked through the html, as you suggested, and the hyperlink in your post doesn't lead to any web page.

Nevertheless, despite your incompetence, I found the article you were probably referencing and I posted about it in post #644. Please reply to that post.

I am incorporating post #699 at this point which is the response to your post #644 about continuing the Red-shift ... Red-spectral (post #469) correspondence.

People just hate when they are proven wrong. They lash out in tirades in support of their false way. They cause civil unrest. Some receive correction and enter the true way.

A historical record of similar activity is (Acts 19:23-41).

Catch up, Kermos!

I am Kermos, and I am sent here by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I am sufficiently caught up with every post that God has me make. All glory and honor and dominion is the Lord God Almighty's.

Do realize, James R, the way the red-shift citation account transpired was ordained by God. Yes, even your role in the sequence of events.

 

[Kermos]

A follow-up on the 20 year old article that Kermos referred to about astronomers "finding" a large-redshift quasar in a galaxy that is much closer to us. Despite Kermos's poor referencing, I managed to find some information on this.

Here's the short summary:

• The UCSD discovery is 20 years old. (Submitted for peer-reviewed publication in 2005.)
• No follow‑up studies have confirmed the anomaly.
• Errors in interpretation of the data are considered the most likely explanation of the apparent anomaly.
• The standard cosmological model (i.e. big bang theory) remains intact.

I securely socked sufficient hot detail in the dot during this current year in a public post directed to you, but you wrote that I lied about the existence of the hot dot detail, yet you found the hot dot detail after I provided specific instructions to you for finding the hot dot which you can observe in the here and now (0 years ago) unlike your Big Bang hot dot of 13.8 billion (13,800,000,000) years ago that you do not observe - a purported natural phenomena that no person has seen - not even with a telescope.

The authors of the original paper have apparently published nothing more regarding this particular quasar/galaxy pairing.

You sound like you believe the authors of The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal eloquently summarised at Discovery by astronomers poses a cosmic puzzle: Can a 'distant' quasar lie within a nearby galaxy? are required to have produced 20 annual updates or some arbitrary interval per your personal belief system which states "yep, said QSO is still very close to the nucleus of NGC 7319", yet you do not believe the Zenith Model (post #111) nor the Episcopic Model (post #113; therefore, your religious zeal is apparent.

When a result threatens a foundational cosmological assumption (like redshift is a reliable means of determining distance), the astronomy community typically responds quickly unless the anomaly is judged to be a misinterpretation, a statistical fluke or otherwise not sufficient compelling to challenge the standard model.

Or, your exalted "astronomy community" fears the threat of red-shift loss to their prestigious lucrative lifestyle career with expensive accoutrements (observatories and satellites and space missions), so that makes it easier to just relegate the redshift article to "security through obscurity" (just look the other way and don't give the authors the time of day and maybe the people holding the purse strings won't notice resulting in them cutting the funding to the pile of money and toys (See The Pharmakeia Principle post #179)).

The literature since 2005 contains many new quasar discoveries, but none revisiting or confirming this specific UCSD case.

This robust scientific evidence has been in publication for 20 years without your exalted "astronomy community" "responds quickly" nor responding slowly with opposing robust scientific evidence (of which I am aware and it appears you are aware); therefore, this robust scientific evidence for red-shift's inapplicability remains intact!

Why might the original authors have made a mistake? Here are a few possibilities:

You believe without proof (assume) the authoring team as part of the "astronomy community" made a scientific blunder. How very scientific of you, James R, with your speculations to override science!

1. They calculated the redshift incorrectly, possibly by mistaken identification of spectral lines or - more likely - because the spectrum was contaminated by other elements in the host galaxy. It could be the case that the signal to noise ratio of the spectral data was low, making it hard to accurately analyse the spectrum.

The article content is right there for you to prove the astronomer'a interpretations false. Don't toss out guesses and hope something sticks, do the science, man!

2. It is possible that the quasar in question is actually in the background and that the foreground galaxy is just coincidentally aligned in such a way to make it appear like the quasar is located at the centre of the foreground galaxy. It is also possible that the quasar image seen on Earth has been gravitationally lensed by an intermediate galaxy (maybe the one that it appeared to be part of).

So, the international team of astronomers must be wrong or your whole religious system collapses. Don't inject guesswork and pretend you produced science, do the science, man!

3. The background quasar might have been mistakenly identified as embedded in the galaxy due to dust obscuring the galaxy's actual nucleus, the quasar outshining the galaxy's core or because the resolution of the imaging instruments used was insufficient to distinguish between light from the quasar and light from the galactic core.

You lauded your advanced scientific technical instrumentation as accurate par excellence to me, but now you degrade your own instrumentation. Don't present speculation to tarnish the reputation of more than one noted astrophysicist and professor of science, do the science, scientist man!

Finally, it should be noted that a great many other galaxies and quasars have been imaged and measured in the past 20 years. The preponderance of the data adds to the overall robustness of the redshift technique used to measure distances to very distance objects, rather than bringing it into question or decreasing confidence.

You sound rather uneducated about the quasar and red-shift situation, so let me try to help bring you up to speed by presenting you with a quote from one of the above referenced links:

Astronomers have used redshifts and the known brightness of stars as fundamental yardsticks to measure the distances to stars and galaxies. However, Burbidge said they have been unable to account for the growing number of quasi-stellar objects, or quasars--intense concentrations of energy believed to be produced by the swirling gas and dust surrounding massive black holes--with high redshifts that have been closely associated with nearby galaxies.
​

Roughly translated, the quasar and NGC 7319 pairing are not a unique phenomenon - in fact an expanding field of such has been observed - according to the astronomy of astronomers.

This is a single rigorous scientific piece of evidence among a multitude of rigorous scientific pieces of evidence, and you are trying to write off a single rigorous scientific piece of evidence.

Make no mistake, Geoffrey Burbidge was a noted professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego's Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and a member of the team of international astronomers on the quasar and NGC 7319 project.

Red-shift is inappropriate and inapplicable to determine stellar distances and/or stellar direction of travel.

The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith. Now back to post #698.

 

[Pinball1970]

You never empiricallly visited a Cepheid star firsthand to validate the luminosity

Ha ha! This guy just keeps giving.

Hey genius, can you tell me who went back to check in with Adam and Eve?