It may not be ultimately “provable”, but at the least the big bang does require a model of the universe that is consistent (as in, the math and observed data all line up correctly). To the extent we increase the information we have about the universe, we also paint the origins more and more into a corner, eliminating possibilities that aren’t consistent. But proving God doesn’t have this same feature, so they really aren’t identical.
Fair enough, I suppose. You have complied with my request, to the letter.
May I now request that you contextualize that, and give me an example of an article of [religious] faith that is viewed as something that can be discarded in the same way that a postulate can be, when evidence that is found that is incompatible with that postulate actually being valid?
In other words - and I wish I’d said this first because it’s shorter - to postulate something usually means to assume it for the sake of argument. It’s not a word that magically lets you convert beliefs and guesses into science. It’s not like Wilson and Penzies were sitting around one day, trying and failing to prove the Big Bang happened, and then they realized if they called it a postulate they’d get away with it.
It is an observed fact–not a postulate or a hypothesis or an article of faith or anything like that–that when we measure the distance to far-away galaxies, and then look at the light they emit, we see that they have a red shift proportional to their distance. We know from experiments on Earth (and basic physics) that a red shift can be caused by something receding from the observer.
That is the evidence, to start with. Later on, they detected radio waves from space–in all directions, any direction you look–called the cosmic background radiation–which was predicted to exist, before anyone actually detected it. It’s considered a very good sign for a hypothesis if it predicts that evidence will be found, and then that evidence is, in fact, found. (“My theory is that John Doe, having beaten the victim to death with a five iron–which is the only weapon that would make exactly the pattern of marks found on the victim’s skull–must have thrown the murder weapon into the garbage shute in the moments before the janitor, alerted by the victim’s cries for help, arrived at the scene. So, let’s all go down to the basement and look in the bottom of the garbage shaft…Aha! A five iron! With the victim’s blood and John Doe’s fingerprints on it!”)
So astronomy doesn’t look at things that are “observable”? Also, no one is claiming that the galaxy is expanding. I realize you think all this is just pointy-headed liberal secular humanist nonsense, but you really should brush up on it before you get into debates about it. Otherwise, you look like an atheist who says he doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ because he read the Iliad and there was a bunch of stuff in there that obviously isn’t true.
I said the fact is that we observe redshifts in galaxies. The amount of redshift we observe correlates with the distances we measure. The common explanation for this is that the universe is expanding. Again, if you want to dispute the interpretation of the evidence, that’s totally different than disputing the very existence of the evidence.
I suggest you read up on the cosmic microwave background. There’s pretty much no way to explain why it’s there without concluding that the universe is expanding. Unless you have a better idea.
Have you read up on the history of the big bang theory? Even after Hubble discovered his redshift law and declared that the universe was expanding, there were still cosmologists who disagreed with Hubble’s interpretation for decades afterward.
The universe expanding IS the big bang. Let me clear up one common misconception: the Big Bang Theory, despite the name, has little to do with anything going “bang”. The theory describes how the universe evolves with time. It doesn’t say anything about what caused the expansion in the beginning.
So this isn’t Cafe Society and Trinity has been on “Chuck,” not “The Big Bang Theory?”
And, FTR (though it should be obvious by now) the “BBT” and “expansion” both make my brain turn inside out and I default to my position when I was 15: “If the speed of light is X, the age of the universe is Y, and the unexceedable speed of light is C, shouldn’t the size of the universe be considerably less than it is?” I was dismissed as a smug 15-yr-old in 1969. Which I, apparently, was. Just glad that the science has caught up. 
Though it still doesn’t make much sense. 
Am I the only one to read the title and think: Friedmann, Lemaître, and Hubble?
“Science adjusts it’s views based on what is observed, Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” - Tim Minchin
Disprove the big bang and you are a hero, point out how the trinity is a clumsy way to maintain consistency with monotheistic laws in Deuteronomy and no one will care.
No, but it is evidence. And not the only piece.
You are too hung up on the word “proof”. Science doesn’t do that. It accumulates evidence, and the expansion is one - of many - pieces of*** evidence***. Other things include the Hubble Deep Field photos (where we can see what the universe actually looked like billions of years ago), or the CMB; there are numerous lines of evidence pointing towards the Big Bang.
Just like in a court of law, we’re talking “beyond reasonable doubt” based on a preponderance of evidence.
Nobody, nobody, nobody - no scientist, no physicist, no astronomer - states unequivocally that the Big Bang has been proved, and your attempts to portray them as doing so is disingenuous. They say that they have multiple lines of evidence which strongly support the theory.
There will never be proof of anything. There will merely be theories based on observation and evidence. Some theories are stronger than others - and the Big Bang is a pretty strong one.
Evidence for a deity, on the other hand - nobody has ever, in the history of mankind, produced a single item of evidence. That leaves faith - which is fine; I have no issue with people having a faith - but willfully denying actual evidence is not going to be conducive to any type of reasonable discussion.
Why is this a ‘trinity’? It’s just three things you picked for some reason. Could have included the Higgs Boson, extra dimensions, magnetic monopoles, FTL Neutrinos, etc.
There are loads of unresolved questions in science/cosmology. I can’t see any reason for picking these three and calling them a ‘trinity’, unless it’s a work up to some sort of equivalency argument.
A commonly given, faulty argument is that one must be present at an event in order to prove it happened. The truth of the matter is that one must merely be present at the evidence of an event in order to prove it happened.
Turns out, we are present at the evidence. We can, TODAY, observe the CMBR. We can measure the Doppler shift of a galaxy at this very moment. We can calculate the Hubble constant right here, right now.
Your claim that “nobody was there” is false when you consider that the only important “there” is where the evidence is.
So let me ask you what IntelliQ dodged- what has your research told you? If the Big Bang isn’t true, then how do you explain Hubble’s Law? Where did the CMBR come from? Those things are present and observed, so “nobody was there” isn’t going to fly.
Nothing is experienced firsthand and immediately by anyone, ever, anyway. The “you weren’t there” argument is based on a false premise.
When you watch an event happen in the same room, you’re experiencing it second or third hand, and after it occurs. Observing other parts of the universe is different only by degree.
I already clarified that up-thread.
Take a look at definition 2 you quoted. When used as a basis for reasoning, we examine the logical implications of a postulate. If they turn out to be contradictory, the postulate is falsified. If they turn out not to be, it is not falsified - but not proven either.
The Big Bang theory is an excellent example. Based on it, Gamow predicted the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation at a given frequency. Penzias and Wilson, while trying to figure out the source of noise in the microwave communications AT&T used for long distance, found that it came from all over the sky, and consultation with some people at Princeton indicated it confirmed Gamow’s predictions. Similarly, Hubble was not trying to prove the universe expanded - the data said that. When he started to work, the existence of galaxies outside our own was controversial.
I invite you to give a prediction based on the existence of God.
As I just mentioned, Penzias and Wilson weren’t even thinking about the Big Bang or even astronomy. They were just finding the source of noise. Hawking appears to thingk their Nobel Prize was less than justified. I gave some talks to Penzias when he war running Bell Labs - I think he is right.
But the bigger point is that when a hypothesis is good at matching reality, you find evidence for it everywhere, even when you aren’t looking.
Related concept: Maybe it’s better to compare God to whatever created the conditions for the big bang.
That pretty much invalidates the usual definitions of God. Why not compare God to whatever drives capillary action? Or the Will of Thor?
Might be better to work backwards to the “beginning”, no?
Is there a better explanation than God to explain what set the conditions for the big bang?
I think using that reference point the score remains 0-0 for both camps, and effectively ends this thread. :smack:
Actually it doesn’t, at least not the way you think. There is no need to postulate an external entity; you’re busy adding an unnecessary player.
But if you want to make “God” into anything we don’t fully understand yet, feel free. It’s a losing proposition in the long run.