'not really a Christian'

[Bravus]

I, on the other hand, have a different perspective on the origin of the universe.

First, Mark, you are playing on the good old slippery space between the lay and the scientific use of the word 'theory'. In science 'theory' does not mean 'wild, speculative guess'. It means 'best possible current understanding of the problem that is supported by all the evidence and contradicted by none'. Gravity is a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. I assume you don't go everywhere with a safety rope in case gravity switches off, and that you take antibiotics when you get sick.

And there is not a wide variety of theories about the origin of the universe, there is essentially very strong consensus on the Big Bang model. And that consensus is based on *evidence*, very large amounts of very strong evidence. From the Cosmic Background Radiation to the current evidence from distant stars to what we know about gravity and space-time from General Relativity, it all lines up. So not random guesses at all: carefully developed, massively supported explanations.

You can hardly shoot down something you clearly know almost nothing about.

[LifeHiscost]

My mother of course was praying.As she started to go into the lake the wind suddenly shifted and blew back over the burned prairie.

Can anyone prove to you that it was the result of prayer and faith? Nope.Could I be convinced that it just happened? Nope.

That is something personal.No one can be convinced by the experience of others if there is doubt.

That is for them to come to terms with.

Conviction is something the Holy Spirit has taken responsibility for. However when one has seen the death of Jesus on the cross, and read that He did it for any and all who would entrust their lives to Him, yet deny that the Father gave His Son so they might live, has no other or greater sign that could be given that will convince them of His love and power to save them in His kingdom.

""This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him. "

John 3:16-18 MSG

Blessings!

[Twilight]

I, on the other hand, have a different perspective on the origin of the universe.

First, Mark, you are playing on the good old slippery space between the lay and the scientific use of the word 'theory'. In science 'theory' does not mean 'wild, speculative guess'. It means 'best possible current understanding of the problem that is supported by all the evidence and contradicted by none'. Gravity is a theory. Germs causing disease is a theory. I assume you don't go everywhere with a safety rope in case gravity switches off, and that you take antibiotics when you get sick.

[Twilight]

You can hardly shoot down something you clearly know almost nothing about.

But I can shoot down things that are clearly illogical and rely on reasoning devoid of logic...

[Bravus]

Go ahead

[Twilight]

Go ahead

We have no basis for trying to state that the big bang happened.

We have no basis for claiming a singularity ever existed.

We have no basis for supposing that singularity had all the energy of the universe tied up in it.

We have no basis for that singularity to then break free of its own gravitional pull and form the universe.

All we have is a leap of "faith" in mans finite ideas.

To believe in a naturalistic origin of the universe, is illogical as it is not observable and it is not testable.

[Bravus]

Every statement you have made on this topic is fundamentally wrong. The Big Bang obeys all of the laws of physics as they presently exist, right from the instant, extremely early in the Big Bang, when the laws of physics themselves are formed.

Please note also that I've said nothing about the First Cause of the Big Bang. This view of the origin of the universe is *not* inevitably naturalistic, and is consistent with theism.

I listed three forms of evidence, which you completely ignored in favor of uninformed blanket statements.

[Bravus]

A dictionary definition lists all the different ways in which a term is used. Definition 1 in the list you gave is the scientific way of using the term, but you were pretending that Definition 7 is used in science, which is either ill-informed or dishonest.

As cardw rightly said, 'incontrovertible' doesn't exist in the philosophy of science, because science is modest enough and experienced enough to know there's always more to learn. If 'incontrovertible' is your standard, science can *never* satisfy it, and doesn't try to. But if that's the case you ought not to make statements in the realm of science at all, because you are applying inappropriate standards.

[Twilight]

The Big Bang obeys all of the laws of physics as they presently exist, right from the instant, extremely early in the Big Bang, when the laws of physics themselves are formed.

This statement is untrue.

The "theoretical" singularity at the centre of the big bang would have created such gravitational mass that light itself could not have escaped its pull.

For that singularity to "explode" so that the energy in the singularity could escape would require that that "law of gravity" (not theory) had to be suspended.

Gravity has to be "done away with", in the manner of a Victorian murderer down a dark London backstreet, so that the naturalisticly biased proponent can strut his stuff...

Gravity has to be ignored for a brief period of time.

Which is a scientific impossibility according to all the known laws of physics.

No sir, it is your representation here that is scientifically incorrect.

You have to murder the law of gravity to give your big bang life...

:-)

[Twilight]

A dictionary definition lists all the different ways in which a term is used. Definition 1 in the list you gave is the scientific way of using the term, but you were pretending that Definition 7 is used in science, which is either ill-informed or dishonest.

[Bravus]

I'll let him answer for himself, but no, it was you who raised the 'incontrovertible' issue. His demands for evidence and the claims he makes have been very modest indeed.

It's not, for me, about incontrovertible evidence at all. That's an obsession of yours.

But there *is* evidence like the cosmic background (which you're still studiously avoiding) for the Big Bang, where I'm not seeing evidence for the existence of a God with the characteristics Christians ascribe to him. Not looking for incontrovertible, just looking for some...

[Twilight]

I'll let him answer for himself, but no, it was you who raised the 'incontrovertible' issue. His demands for evidence and claims have been very modest indeed.

It's not, for me, about incontrovertible evidence at all. That's an obsession of yours.

But there *is* evidence like the cosmic background (which you're still studiously avoiding), where I'm not seeing evidence for the existence of a God with the characteristics Christians ascribe too him. Not looking for incontrovertible, just looking for some...

But sir...

Your murdered innocent bystander "Gravity" is still peeking out from behind your coat, which your deft movement to background radiation has not really hidden.

What pray tell, should we do with that body?

Is this a case of piling up corpses and moving on to the next discussion?

I am really concerned that you show such little concern for the death of gravity with your espousal of the big bang theory!

Seeming as how you hold to such noble high minded scientific morals?

Should we just ignore the death of "Gravity"?

What do I do, do I just step over the body?

Should I bury it?

It really is rather unsightly...

As you have condoned the murder of gravity, I am not sure that I can trust that your scientifically moral position, is actually all that moral...

[Bravus]

Will post a bit later with a full explanation.

[Twilight]

Will post a bit later with a full explanation.

*Stares at the dead body of "Gravity" with a little concern as Bravus wanders off for a cup of tea...*

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

As far as saying he was right about the time of some imaginary event in heaven has no basis in anything we can verify.

You verify the veracity of the bible by the prophetic reality it contains.

The old testament is a prophetic module that establishes Christ as God.

Upon that basis, the rest of the bible is verifiable.

Upon that basis, absolute truth is determined.

Upon that basis only can true logical thought arise.

Any other form of "logical thought", is merely mans imagination manipulated by satan...

Really?

Well on what basis other than your own imagination do you base all this on? LOL

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I am simply admitting the limitations of the human ability to solve certain mysteries. I have no beliefs about the origin of the universe. It is simply one of many unanswered questions.

So you do not have "incontrovertible evidence" how the universe was formed, but a few opinions of men that have some general observations pinned to them like a rabid badge collector?

I am pleased you have admitted that.

So the very basis for the existance of the universe has no rational explanation for you.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

You verify the veracity of the bible by the prophetic reality it contains.

The old testament is a prophetic module that establishes Christ as God.

Upon that basis, the rest of the bible is verifiable.

Upon that basis, absolute truth is determined.

Upon that basis only can true logical thought arise.

Any other form of "logical thought", is merely mans imagination manipulated by satan...

Really?

Well on what basis other than your own imagination do you base all this on? LOL

Oh the internally consistent prophetic message of the bible.

That prophetic message that is so consistent the only argument you could possibly come up with is:

"Its a fake."

Its the only argument you can present...

Because the Old Testament was fundamentally a prophecy of Christ.

A prophetic logical evidence, irrefutable by all rational free thinking humans, that is so compelling and convincing that to deny it, one has to "burn the bible".

So deeply convicting that the choice to worship self or God is plainly laid open.

But the worship of self involves lying to oneself and all others...

So there are two choices when confronted with the prophetic message.

1. Bow down before God, the Creator of the Heavens and Earth.

2. Desperately search around for kindling to destroy the evidence.

So how are you going to "burn the bible" this time?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

At this point, I actually would only require some tangible evidence that the god described in the Bible exists at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by incontrovertible since that is your term, not mine.

Surely as an "agnostic" you would require some tangible evidence that God did not exist?

As you claim there is no evidence for God and therefore reveal your true bias, you are not really agnostic, but an athiest pretending to hold the middle ground.

I have seen this argument many times...

It goes something like this:

"Let me pretend I am on neutral ground, then I can pretend I am more open minded than you, because you are biased, whilst I just try to pretend I do not have a bias..."

[Twilight]

Wolf in sheeps clothing is the biblical analogy for this type of behaviour...

[John317]

You are arguing numbers here.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Please explain this and give illustrations of how this is the case. How do "numbers" invalidate the evidence and the argument I'm making? Show your reasoning.

Originally Posted By: cardw

I have explained this before. Numbers are not evidence because the majority is often wrong.

Numbers doesn't have anything to do with it. What I'm arguing is that the prophecy was fulfilled. The Gospels record that Jesus said that the story about the woman would be told all over the world, and this is exactly what is happening. The point is that when Jesus said this, or when it was written, there didn't appear to be any reason to think this woman's story would be proclaimed all over the world.

Forget whether the story is true. That is not my point. My point is that Jesus' prediction is being fulfilled even now. The story is being told in hundreds of languages and in every country on the face of the globe.

[Bravus]

Not a cup of tea, the trip in to the office: remember, it's morning here.

My thought was that the majority of the expansion happened *before* the force of gravity, or the other three fundamental forces, existed at all, but I wanted to check my facts before posting. Apologies for the length of the following quote, but here's Wikipedia's description:

Quote:

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10^-37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[32] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.[33]

The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[34] After about 10^-11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10^-6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 10^10 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

The expansion phase occurs *before* the existence of gravity. To run with your metaphor, gravity was not murdered, it had simply not been born yet.

The physics of the very, very early universe (the first trillionth of a second or so) is difficult to intuitively understand even for the scientists who work with it and know the maths, let alone for lay people. But an argument from personal ignorance or personal incredulity is not an argument.

[Bravus]

Note: I did include that first sentence in the quote, didn't edit it out. No-one here is pretending that science is incontrovertible. It represents our best understanding of things that are hard to understand.

[Twilight]

Not a cup of tea, the trip in to the office: remember, it's morning here.

My thought was that the majority of the expansion happened *before* the force of gravity, or the other three fundamental forces, existed at all, but I wanted to check my facts before posting. Apologies for the length of the following quote, but here's Wikipedia's description:

Quote:

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10^-37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[32] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.[33]

The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form.[34] After about 10^-11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10^-6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 10^10 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

The expansion phase occurs *before* the existence of gravity. To run with your metaphor, gravity was not murdered, it had simply not been born yet.

The physics of the very, very early universe (the first trillionth of a second or so) is difficult to intuitively understand even for the scientists who work with it and know the maths, let alone for lay people. But an argument from personal ignorance or personal incredulity is not an argument.

[Twilight]

Note: I did include that first sentence in the quote, didn't edit it out. No-one here is pretending that science is incontrovertible. It represents our best understanding of things that are hard to understand.

There it is again Bravus!

The "kidnapping" of science...

The manic pitchfork waving evolutionary response to any attack on its credibility.

"We are holding SCIENCE against its wishes and we will not release it until you accept that we are right because we say so...!"

[Bravus]

Um, I think it's you with the fundamental misunderstanding. Gravity was not 'holding all the energy together'. Perhaps you're confusing the 'singularity' with a Black Hole. It is not the same thing at all. Space and time themselves arose during the Big Bang, so it's nonsensical to talk about places and times 'before' the Big Bang, at least in terms of this universe. (God is eternal and timeless, none of these laws apply to God.)

Look, you're not critiquing the science of the Big Bang, you're critiquing your own incorrect mental construct. It proves nothing about the science, just a lot about you. Do some reading with understanding and it might be useful to talk. In the mean time, feel free to believe you've 'won' the argument: I can't contradict your model, because there's no science to either support or challenge your model. It's a pure fantasy in your own mind.