does Big Bang = no God?

[Dinsdale]

Glad to see you’re still hanging in there Mega. Just wanted to refer back to my previous mention of “faith” in science. Tho you said you appreciated the irony, I was in fact kinda jokingly setting a trap. See, even tho “I” could not prove various scientific things, I have good reason to accept that other people can, and perhaps even that if I wished to apply myself to that field of study, I could master the math and science necessary to - in effect - see it for myself.

Folks often make a similar argument concerning far off lands. How do you KNOW there is a China? Maybe it is all an elaborate ruse set on the same Hollywood soundstage where they faked the moon landing or somesuch. Well, I’ve got what I consider reliable reasons for accepting what I consider “proof.”

Same can’t be said of God or heaven. No one has ever reliably claimed testable evidence oof them. By believers’ own admission, in the end it has to come down to faith, not demonstrable proof.

Just wanted to suggest to you that a whole lot of this type of arguments are really really fun for a while, but for me at least, they kinda tend to lose interest. Because they basically don’t go anywhere. You often find people on either side of the fence seem dismissive or insulting towards honest basic questions. That is because there are a pretty small finite number of common issues/arguments. And none that is capable of converting all opponents.

So, personally, once I did a good bit of thinking and talking about this, it kinda faded in the background for me. Just not all that important to my day-to-day life.

Personally, I consider myself a Humanist. Tho I believe there is no God, I realize I cannot prove it. I prefer not to consider myself an atheist, because I have no desire to define myself by something I reject. If pressed, I would call myself a nontheist, as I consider the issue irrelevant. Humanism, on the other hand, represents a set of values that I consider relevant and meaningful.

Enjoy the ride, tho. I also feel it is important for parents to be open to this type of discussion, whatever conclusions they ultimately reach, as I consider it vital to encourage critical thinking in children.

You’ll want to pay special attention to vocabulary. In these discussions, specific words can carry tons of baggage with them. So by using a certain word or phrase, someone may think you are intentionally referring a whole line of thought you may not even be familiar with.

Moreover, many experienced participants in such discussions are very familiar with most of the major arguments on both sides. And they tend to discuss them in shorthand. For example, I can say intelligent design, and suggest at least 10 major issues/discussions. Which would be a bar to effective communication with someone unfamiliar with the very term and its history.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *Enlighten me.

compatible:

1*Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others: compatible family relationships.

2*Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other elements in a system with no modification or conversion required.

3*Capable of forming a chemically or biochemically stable system.

4*Of or relating to a television system in which color broadcasts can be received in black and white by sets incapable of color reception.

5*Medicine. Capable of being grafted, transfused, or transplanted from one individual to another without rejection: compatible blood.

Definitions 2 and 3 aren’t appropriate for this discussion; definition 5 is actually quite appropriate if we accept a certain level of metaphor.

**Maybe he changed the properties of water. Maybe he changed the properties of air. Maybe he changed the properties of light. This is God we’re talking about. And who, at the time, would have noticed?

** It’s not as if the properties of water, air, or light are mere entries in a database that can be altered without changing anything else. Changing the properties of a thing requires changing the underlying laws that produce those properties, there inevitably everything must be changed.

**What does this have to do with anything? It’s uninteresting and irrelevant to the discussion. This is an argument you should use against Bible literalists, not against a couple of agnostics who happen to be more open-minded than you are.

** I’m reminded of the saying about what happens to people who keep their minds too open.

Being willing to consider any possibility is open-mindedness, it’s a minor and generally non-threatening form of insanity.

[dylan_73]

*Originally posted by blowero *
Have you ever considered that “purpose” may be solely a human concept?

Yes, but you say it as though that’s a bad thing! Mathematics is also a human concept but it has groundings in reality. I think “purpose” is more a concept of intelligent beings though this is difficult to prove pre-first-contact.

**
Things fall to the ground because the fabric of space is warped by very large objects, in this case, the Earth…To me, that’s a much more interesting answer than “God did it”. What you find dissatisfying, I find eminently satisfying.

**Well, I didn’t want my physics teacher to say “God did it.” I wanted that explanation (well, of course I knew that, but as example), not “it just does”.

**
Interesting. I’ve always found it facile to simply say “God did it”. To each his own. **

Perhaps my example was a poor one. I meant, “why anything at all?”. I suspect it’s a question that simply can’t be addressed scientifically but I still want an answer so I find it as best I can.

Of course, this isn’t the only reason for my theism but the others are pretty subjective and so rather irrelevant to this topic.

Anyway, have a good weekend and I’ll check back on Monday.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by dylan_73 *
quote:

Originally posted by blowero
Have you ever considered that “purpose” may be solely a human concept?

Yes, but you say it as though that’s a bad thing!

Not at all, my friend. Our lives would be awfully dull if we had no desire to accomplish anything, don’t you think?

Mathematics is also a human concept but it has groundings in reality. I think “purpose” is more a concept of intelligent beings though this is difficult to prove pre-first-contact.

For that matter, I have no doubt that other animal species have a sense of purpose as well, although I’m guessing it wouldn’t be as sophisticated as ours.

Well, I didn’t want my physics teacher to say “God did it.” I wanted that explanation (well, of course I knew that, but as example), not “it just does”.

Now you lost me. Do you think that being an atheist means you are a robot, with no emotions, and unable to experience the wonder of the universe? That’s certainly not the case. If you are attaching those connotations to the word, try “non-theist” instead, or just “don’t believe in God”. The point I’m trying to get across is that the universe is a fascinating place all by itself. There are so many secrets to unlock, and we have barely scratched the surface as far as knowledge goes. I don’t NEED to posit a God in order to make it interesting. In fact, to me, saying “God did it” makes it less interesting, because if God isn’t defined in any reasonable way, saying “God did it” adds nothing to my understanding.

Of course, none of that has any bearing on the ultimate truth of the matter. Until proven otherwise, I assume there is an ultimate reality, and our personal feelings have no bearing on that reality. I don’t like the taste of liver & onions, yet it still exists.

Perhaps my example was a poor one. I meant, “why anything at all?”. I suspect it’s a question that simply can’t be addressed scientifically but I still want an answer so I find it as best I can.

It’s a good question. But answering the question “why anything?” with “God made it”, still leaves the question “why God?” It really doesn’t help at all. Perhaps a better question would be “why NOT anything?” Why should nothing be the default state of existence, rather than something? No matter how many Gods you posit, you still ultimately get to the point where you have to just accept that the universe exists. I think one of the failings (or perhaps a strength?) of the human race is our resistance to ever saying “I don’t know”. And I have a hard time understanding how people are unable to accept that the universe “just exists”, when we can clearly see that it does, yet they have no problem accepting that God “just exists”, when there is no direct evidence.

Standard disclaimer: This is all how I feel about the subject. If you are content with your beliefs, then more power to you. To each his own.

[TVAA]

Here’s the important bit:

Do you understand what you mean by the word ‘exist’?

[blowero]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**Here’s the important bit:

Do you understand what you mean by the word ‘exist’? **

Probably not.

I suppose I am a materialist at heart. Such philosophical ruminations don’t interest me too much. I mean, I thought The Matrix was cool and all, but I’m not really going to spend the rest of my life wondering if I’m a head in a box.

So don’t tease us - tell us your thoughts on what ‘exist’ means.

[TVAA]

Something exists relative to a thing if it interacts with it.

That’s all it means.

[Dunderman]

Look, TVAA, if we’re going to take the Bible at face value (and if we’re not, there’s no point in discussing the rainbow story from this angle in the first place), we’re talking about a transcendent, omnipotent being whose powers and reasons for using them are so far beyond us that it’s pointless to say “he wouldn’t have done it because…” or “he couldn’t have done it because…”.

As for the word “compatible”, your definitions are pretty much my definitions, and I don’t see how they invalidate what I’ve said in any way.

[TVAA]

The Genesis explanation for rainbows requires either that the entire natural order of the universe was altered at the whim of God or that God for some reason prevented light from refracting through atmospheric droplets of water and entering the eyes of human beings.

Apply scientific standards of logic and evidence to this hypothesis, Priceguy, and you’ll understand why the Bible (taken as a factual account) is utterly incompatible with science.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**The Genesis explanation for rainbows requires either that the entire natural order of the universe was altered at the whim of God or that God for some reason prevented light from refracting through atmospheric droplets of water and entering the eyes of human beings.

Apply scientific standards of logic and evidence to this hypothesis, Priceguy, and you’ll understand why the Bible (taken as a factual account) is utterly incompatible with science. **

Time to argue that the Pope is Catholic, it seems. TVAA, read the posts I’ve made until you understand them. I’ve never said I believe in anything the Bible says. I’ve never said the Bible is a scientifically useful historical document. The only thing I’ve said is that the Genesis explanation of rainbows and the scientific one aren’t incompatible, which they aren’t. I can’t be bothered to explain any more.

[TVAA]

The Genesis explanation has no evidence behind it, historical or empirical.

The Genesis explanation requires accepting that the laws of the entire universe were changed in order to create a fairly simple and straightforward phenomenon that we have no reason to believe didn’t exist before that time anyway.

The Genesis explanation cannot be experimentally tested or verified in any manner.

The Genesis explanation is incompatible with scientific thought and current knowledge. I’m sorry that I don’t understand what causes you to repeatedly assert that Genesis is compatible with science, but I can see no way to justify that claim.

[TVAA]

(Oh, and by the way: confirmed Popes often behaved in ways inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. Perhaps the best example involves the three possible claimants to the Papacy waging war on one another’s holdings and armies while excommunicating the others…

So it’s not at all clear that all Popes have actually been Catholic.)

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
The Genesis explanation has no evidence behind it, historical or empirical.

Correct.

The Genesis explanation requires accepting that the laws of the entire universe were changed in order to create a fairly simple and straightforward phenomenon that we have no reason to believe didn’t exist before that time anyway.

Correct.

The Genesis explanation cannot be experimentally tested or verified in any manner.

Correct.

**The Genesis explanation is incompatible with scientific thought and current knowledge. **

Incorrect, as you have been shown.

**I’m sorry that I don’t understand what causes you to repeatedly assert that Genesis is compatible with science, but I can see no way to justify that claim. **

I think you keep seeing words I never wrote. I’m saying it’s possible that the Genesis explanation is correct. I’m not saying it’s likely. I’m not saying belief in the Genesis explanation is scientifically justified. I’m just saying it’s possible. Get it now?

[TVAA]

It’s possible that the planets actually are guided in their paths by angels, in the sense that the possibility of any event is non-zero.

Such a claim is still not compatible with science – the hypothesis doesn’t stand up to rudimentary analysis.

I’m finished with you, Priceguy. Go take a look at the “Spiritus Mundi” Pit thread, please.

[Irving]

Sorry to intefere, i just couldn’t help it

It’s possible that the planets actually are guided in their paths by angels, in the sense that the possibility of any event is non-zero.

TVAA, Priceguy has been saying this ALL ALONG. If God is omnipotent, anything is possible. Maybe it’s hard for you to relate this to your understanding of the world, but it’s a pretty simple concept.

Such a claim is still not compatible with science – the hypothesis doesn’t stand up to rudimentary analysis.

'Course it’s not compatible with science. If God is omnipotent and can do all these things, he’s clearly outside the constraints of science and the laws of the universe. That doesn’t make it untrue - It just means it’s unverifiable or might conflict with current science.

I’m finished with you, Priceguy. Go take a look at the “Spiritus Mundi” Pit thread, please.

Would someone mind directing me to the “Pit”? I’m new here.

[TVAA]

Ah. Go to the general menu of the Straight Dope Message Boards (the breadcrumb trail is at the top of every thread and message board page) and look at the last board in the list. It’s the BBQ Pit: the place for flames, uncontrolled ranting, and insults of all types.

And I agree that Priceguy has been saying all along that God is omnipotent. His mistake is in making both that claim and the claim that traditional conceptualizations of God and His works are compatible with science. As you pointed out, they’re not. (They might be true – although I highly doubt it – but that’s not what was being debated.)

[Irving]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Ah. Go to the general menu of the Straight Dope Message Boards (the breadcrumb trail is at the top of every thread and message board page) and look at the last board in the list. It’s the BBQ Pit: the place for flames, uncontrolled ranting, and insults of all types.

Oh - thanks
On second thoughts i might avoid the pit for the time being.

**And I agree that Priceguy has been saying all along that God is omnipotent. His mistake is in making both that claim and the claim that traditional conceptualizations of God and His works are compatible with science. As you pointed out, they’re not. (They might be true – although I highly doubt it – but that’s not what was being debated.) **

I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this. I’m pretty sure Priceguy was simply saying that God could rewrite the laws of the universe to create rainbows and such, on a whim, seeing he’s omnipotent and all. I somehow doubt he was saying that God doing such things was compatible with science as it doesn’t really make sense to say that changing the laws of the universe (what science is based on) is compatible with science.

Anyway let’s not get too hung up on it. Personally I think it’s unlikely God would ‘recreate the universe’ for such a relatively insignificant occasion. I reckon the idea that the rainbow was simply given symbolic significance is more plausible.

As an aside, i wonder what kind of scientific evidence it would take to ‘disprove’ Christianity. It seems to have been pretty adaptable to scientific discoveries so far. Pardon my cynicism.

[JS_Princeton]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**No reason why the Big Bang cosmology and the poetic description of Creation in Genesis 1 cannot coexist – one tells How and the other Why, in a nutshell. Also, it’s important to me that the overwhelming majority of what existed in the early stages of the Big Bang was photons – at 6x10[sup]12[/sup]degrees, electrons and nucleons cannot exist, only high-energy photons.

This really isn’t exactly true. While there were a lot of photons in the early universe, there are, in fact, more today then back before it all settled out. High energy physics yields higher energy particles that are more unstable. Photons are very stable and in fact are what exist at LOWER temperatures (after so-called “recombination”).