Re: OT Welcome to the New Middle Ages

GOP in 2008 wrote:

In article <od2ai.34$IJ2.0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johnny <apterix@xxxxxxx>
wrote:


GOP in 2008 wrote:


In article <46677DDC.7696@xxxxxxx>, Larry Coon <lmcoon_nospam@xxxxxxx>
wrote:



GOP in 2008 wrote:



I tend to believe in evolution over creation as well. But there's
one question that leaves at least the possibility of a higher being
open to me:

What was happening 10 seconds before the Big Bang (or whatever you
consider to be the beginning of time)?

It's hard to believe that the billions of stars in the universe
all started from nothing, as the Big Bang suggests.

I'm not sure why you shifted gears from evolution
(which has nothing to do with the big bang) to
cosmology (which does), but...okay, whatever.

The Big Bang theory is not about the origin of the
universe, but rather its development with time. Any
statement about the appearance of the universe ex
nihlio has nothing to do with what the theory actually
addresses. Also, since time is an integral part of
our universe ("spacetime") it makes no sense to talk
about "10 seconds before the big bang." While it's
possible that another universe existed "before" this
one, we have no frame of reference with which we can
refer to anything "before" the big bang. A
complementary argument can be constructed with
creationism -- "If God decided to create time and space, where and when did he make the decision?"

That said, there's plenty of objective evidence FOR
the big bang. And like any theory (note: I'm using
the term "theory" in its scientific context, not in
its colloquial context) it makes testable predictions.
Note that I'm not just talking about observations we
make that are consistent with the theory -- rather,
the theory actually predicts these things. For
example:

-- The theory predicts microwave background radiation
should appear in all directions, with a blackbody
spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe
an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73
degrees K.

-- The theory predicts the observed abundances of
primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium.

-- The theory predicts ways that the universe changes
through time. Since looking at large distances allows us
to look into the past, we observe that quasars were more
common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger,
as the theory predicts.

Here are a couple of references if you are interested
on reading more about what the theory actually says.
The first is lighter reading:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

And the second is much more daunting, but wonderful in
its detail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Finally, when you say "it's hard to believe that the
billions of starts in the universe all started from
nothing," you're using a classical logical fallacy
called Argument from Personal Incredulity. Here's an
article:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=12



So to summarize, I'm afraid that:

1) The big bang theory is independent of evolution.


You're right. I shouldn't have mixed evolution with The Big Bang.
When I did, I was simply looking at the larger issue of science vs.
religion. Science can explain evolution, but it currently can't explain
what happened before the Big Bang. This is where, for me, the
possibility (albeit slight) of religion exists.




2) The big bang theory isn't what you think it is.


Whatever the Big Bang is, is irrelevant. Again, until science can
explain the beginning of time, regardless of what they want to call it,
I choose to leave the possibility of religion open.




3) There's plenty of evidence that the big bang
actually occurred.


I don't doubt that the Big Bang did occur. But again, that's
irrelevant. It's what happened *before* the Big Bang that I'm
interested in.




4) Your reasoning about it is logically fallacious.


Regarding the article you posted about "Argument from Personal
Incredulity," it seems to me that the only one(s) being "logically
fallacious" are atheists like yourself (assuming you're an atheist).
Here's the definition of "an argument from incredulity" as quoted from
the article:

"An argument from incredulity essentially works by taking the fact that
one can't believe or imagine that something is true (or false) to be a
good reason for thinking it isn't true (or false)."

That sounds more like you than it does me (again, assuming you're
an atheist). You're using the fact that you can't believe or imagine
that religion is true to be a good reason for thinking it isn't true.
I, on the other hand, am doing the exact opposite. Since both science
and religion offer nothing but speculation as to the beginning of the
universe, I'm keeping my mind open to both.




GOP, you missed every point and showed either an incredible inability or stubborn refusal to understand either the gist or the details of Larry's scholarly and authoritative explanations - which, I might add, he took the time and trouble to elucidate not to demean you but to educate you. I suspect that your emotional investment in religion is hampering your ability to approach such matters with intellectual objectivity.


As I said in an earlier post, I certainly did not intend on
demeaning Larry for his post. First of all, he and I got off on the
wrong foot because he misunderstood the meaning of my original post
from the beginning. My fault, because I wasn't very clear, as I've
already mentioned to him.
If you look at the summary of his four points, the first three are
irrelevant to my original question (again, my fault for not being
clear). The only point that was relevant was the fourth point, in which
he labeled my reasoning to be "logically fallacious." He then provided
a link that demonstrates why. All I did was use the words from that
text to demonstrate how it sounds more like atheist thought than my
own. You assume that I think "atheist" is a bad word. I do not.



Moreover, the rank nonsense in your final paragraph not only puts words in Larry's post which he did not write but falsely claims that you are keeping an open mind when both the tenor and the specifics of your observations in this entire thread mark you as a true believer who is struggling with doubt, but you just can't bring yourself to admit that your faith in the supernatural on the issue in question is at best mistaken.


LOL! See my response to $Bill as to your assertion that I am a
"true believer" in any religion. As for your assertion that I am
"struggling with doubt," you might be right. I struggling with the
decision of whether or not to switch from agnostic to atheist. That's
my whole reason for challenging his post. It's called "debate."
Apparently you don't believe in debate, because if I challenge his
position, you automatically assume that I'm trying to insult him,
insist that my mind is already made up, and insist that I am something
that I am not. Remember that discussion we had a long time ago about how you
hated when people generalize and jump to conclusions about others? I
remember that conversation well. For someone who claims to hate people
making assumptions about others, you sure do that a lot.



The man was simply trying to help your understanding of cosmology and all you can do is say, "Yes, but but but but,"


As I've already explained, his first three points were based on a
misunderstanding of my original question, so his answers were basically
irrelevant (for a third time, my fault).



and call him an atheist - a name that is considered an insult among bible thumpers - when he made no representations as to his religious beliefs, whatever they might be, but confined his points to the scientific and logical aspects of the issues.


The word "atheist" may be considered an insult among bible
thumpers, but since I'm not religious, I certainly didn't mean it as an
insult. That's just you jumping to conclusions, as usual. Note that I
specifically mentioned (twice) that I was assuming he was an atheist,
since I wasn't sure.



You claim to keep an open mind, but everything you say suggests that your mind is made up.


Everything I say? Really? How about my original post, where I
specifically stated that I tend to believe in evolution over creation?
Only in your paranoid, generalizing mind is my mind already made up.

--

You want it both ways and are trying to back away from your fallacious logic and false premise without it appearing that you are backing away. Also, your explanation of your take on calling someone an atheist is pure and transparent spin. You challenged science on the theory of the Big Bang, Larry met that challenge with plain logic without saying a single word about religion, and you replied by calling him an atheist. That labels you.

The bottom line in all this is really that the supernatural exists only in the human imagination, there is no evidence that it exists in Nature, and there is more than enough evidence that Nature is perfectly explainable without resorting to supernatural explanations. Your position that you "tend" to prefer scientific "over" supernatural explanations of the Universe admits that you think the supernatural has at least some scientific validity in the natural world. The Universe does not need God to explain or justify its existence or its processes, but God needs the Universe to justify and explain His existence as something more than merely the creation of the human imagination.

Religion was invented to supernaturally explain the Universe in terms of superstition before Science was sufficiently understood as the natural explanation. Science has since moved human understanding beyond supernatural explanations, but religion refuses to keep up as an an act of pure self preservation. Explanations of the Universe do not have to resort to explanations beyond Nature, Nature explains itself naturally through Science. Superstition is outside Nature, Science is natural.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Welcome to the New Middle Ages
    ... What was happening 10 seconds before the Big Bang (or whatever you ... It's hard to believe that the billions of stars in the universe ... possibility of religion exists. ... fallacious" are atheists like yourself. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT Welcome to the New Middle Ages
    ... What was happening 10 seconds before the Big Bang (or whatever you ... It's hard to believe that the billions of stars in the universe ... I was simply looking at the larger issue of science vs. ... possibility of religion exists. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT Welcome to the New Middle Ages
    ... What was happening 10 seconds before the Big Bang (or whatever you ... It's hard to believe that the billions of stars in the universe ... I was simply looking at the larger issue of science vs. ... possibility of religion exists. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... Steady State and Big Bang. ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... That's not dogma, or religion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Znalezione w sieci - Ten myths about atheism
    ... Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods ... Myth -1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless. ... Myth- 4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance. ... And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. ...
    (soc.culture.polish)