 |
| Athiests and The big bang theory |
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Last Post |
  | Archive through August 14, 2004 | Jim Armstrong (Njaeo | 10 | 08-14-04 06:53 am |
| Archive through August 15, 2004 | Jim Armstrong (Njaeo | 10 | 08-15-04 11:48 am |
| Archive through August 16, 2004 | Christopher Rene Mon | 10 | 08-16-04 09:28 pm |
| Archive through December 02, 2004 | CEEJ (Carljohn) | 10 | 12-02-04 05:02 pm |
| Archive through December 03, 2004 | CEEJ (Carljohn) | 10 | 12-03-04 12:34 pm |
| Archive through February 10, 2005 | Carl-John X. Veraja | 10 | 02-10-05 10:10 am |
| Archive through August 23, 2005 | ALIANNE OUSSAMEUR (A | 10 | 08-23-05 07:22 pm |
| Archive through September 03, 2005 | cath (Catscanfly) | 10 | 09-03-05 05:47 am |
| Archive through November 09, 2005 | Trophy Boy (Soundpro | 10 | 11-09-05 05:56 pm |
| Archive through November 14, 2005 | Michael .P (Mik3y) | 10 | 11-14-05 07:09 am |
| Archive through November 23, 2005 | Potpher C. Mbulo (Pm | 10 | 11-23-05 12:18 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jessica Decker
Starlite Member
Username: Jadtwirler
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 06:57 pm: | 
|
Well i'm new on here, but i'm going to jump in on this anyway. First of all, one thing many athiests and non-believers always 'forget' to mention, is that evolution and the big bang theory are THEORIES! that means they have found some evidence to support it. but they also have found evidence supporting the theory of intelligent design. In my opinion, there are also too many holes in the big bang theory for it to even be a legitamate theory, such as what created this big bang, and all this 'dust' we are made out of? Also, scientists are biased whether they say they are or not. we're human, we can't help having our own opinions about everything. if scientist x finds information supporting his beliefs, he is most likely going to accept that over info telling him he is wrong. there is no telling how many facts and possibilities have been thrown out the window, because the finder refused to accept it. If several thousand years ago, every philosopher, scientists of sort, ext, recorded everything, no matter of their beliefs, and did so until present, there is no telling how different we would think. There are endless posibilities to every side of an arguement, do to the fact that we honestly do not know everything. but the fact remains that everything we do is based on the belief that what we 'know' today will carry us through tomarrow.faith, in other words. As a Christian i know that God created the earth, Jesus died for our sins, and i've accepted that. I have faith that God is the 'real-deal' and I believe in that, which carries me through today and on to tomarrow. There is no if, and, or but about it. If you did extensive research, you would probably find more facts supporting the God-factor, since its only 'logical' that there would be more facts supporting the truth. |
Potpher C. Mbulo (Pmbulo)
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:53 am: |
|
TROPHY BOY: Potpher, your argues are completely baseless. evolution requires the second law of thermodynamics to operate as the tendency towards entropy is what produces mutation in the first place.
POTPHER: Evolution says order originated from disorder. On the contrary, the Law Of thermodynamics says order degenerates into disorder. Mutations are harmful. Kindly present a beneficial mutation in nature please and then we can talk science. That is a challenge and I expect you to pick it up and leave up to your expectation unless you are ignorant.
TROPHY BOY: The theory of evolution has allowed understanding of diseases and behavior and has benefited mankind.
POTPHER: Diseases and treatment of the same has always been around before arrival of the weird hypothesis of evolution (evil elusion). It does not even have any correlation with medication. Tell me what the association or relationship is between disease treatment and the hypothesis of evil elusion?
TROPHY BOY: There is no active debate in the scientific community about whether evolution is a valid scientific theory (it is).
POTPHER: I’m the scientific community and what is your problem? Hahahahaha. Haven’t I described to you the definition of scientific theory? Your hypothesis of evil elusion fails to pass the litmus test. Please tell me what you definition of scientific theory is.
TROPHY BOY: There is a lot of debate in the pseudo-scientific community which has political designs on science. Apparently, you think politics benefits mankind more than science (it doesn't).}
POTPHER: First we benefit immediately more from science than from politics. But politics avail us the opportunity to progress in science. It’s like politics is management and where as science is operations. That is how they are knitted together but I don’t see how your hypothesis of evil elusion fits in all this. I guess distorting science?
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 01:55 pm: |
|
What that article has to do with Jesus and how he'd react i have no idea trophy boy. I presume your'e just stirring 
Michael william James
|
Trophy Boy (Soundproof)
Starlite Member
Username: Soundproof
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 09:09 am: |
|
What Jesus would do if someone disagreed with him...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html |
Trophy Boy (Soundproof)
Starlite Member
Username: Soundproof
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:53 pm: |
|
as to the question of free will, disputing facts via free will is called "denial" |
Trophy Boy (Soundproof)
Starlite Member
Username: Soundproof
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:46 pm: |
|
potpher, your argues are completely baseless. evolution requires the second law of thermodynamics to operate as the tendency towards entropy is what produces mutation in the first place. the theory of evolution has allowed understanding of diseases and behavior and has benefited mankind. there is no active debate in the scientific community about whether evolution is a valid scientific theory (it is). there is a lot of debate in the pseudo-scientific community which has political designs on science.
apparently, you think politics benefits mankind more than science (it doesn't).
|
Trophy Boy (Soundproof)
Starlite Member
Username: Soundproof
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 05:38 pm: |
|
that's funny jim, I am making reasoned replies whereas you are making sloppy ad hominem attacks. the scientific community happens to agree with me. |
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 05:21 pm: |
|
Thats the beauty some see in humanity while others crawl over and cry out WHY? What a horrible world it would be if we had no free will.
Michael william James
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:10 pm: |
|
No Michael my reference was to the last post of TB who obviously isn't really interested in logic or science. I suspect it requires a lot more intellectual discpline then he is willing to exert. I don't really know if that is true. I can only see that he is willing to make a lot of pontifications as though he were an authority but unwilling to answer any challenge to his authority with reasoned replies.
That is OK the creator gave us free moral choice and he can choose any faith he wants.
Jimbo
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 05:38 pm: |
|
Not saying you were but if you were Jim you have me all wrong. I am open to the theory of evolution as is the whole Catholic Church. The church never has made claim to know how God created us or the earth..they simply just give him credit for being the creator. Its a fairly logical statement to make that no man made this earth. I am very open to the theory of evolution..but im also very sus of it. IF new evidence is brought forward i'd see a little more light into the theory. It seems your either extreme on your approach to science or extreme on your approach to religion..it puts such a negative light on both. I'd like to consider myself in neither. Its a battle thats not worth fighting because it does not even exist.
Michael william James
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 05:31 pm: |
|
It is hopeless Potpher.
Those folks filled with dogma be it religlious or secular simply do not hear any presentation of fact that dosen't support their dogma. They just resort to bumper sticker logic and close their ears. Its a pity but trie none the less.
Jimbo
|
Trophy Boy (Soundproof)
Starlite Member
Username: Soundproof
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 03:00 pm: |
|
Amen to being illogical. LOL.
That pretty much sums up religion.
Religion: based on conjecture.
Science: based on rigorous examination of the facts.
A 747, a result of applied science.
A flat dude: a result of somebody jumping off a roof thinking God would miracle his safety.
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 05:57 pm: |
|
The only thing im sure of is that i was created by God the means is unknown and at this present time probably not really that important. It's said he created us from nothing.. God must know all about nothing because i do not know of it. Thankyou for discovering the truth about this theory and taking it apart scientificaly. While i agree we could never say as an absolute it never happend, but at least by sciences standards discredit it of been a valid theory in some sense as to the people i see so self assured that they came from monkeys yet know hardly anything about evolution.
Michael william James
|
Potpher C. Mbulo (Pmbulo)
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 02:54 pm: |
|
Someone wrote: “Sorry, but this is a laughably illogical statement. You can't compare a scientific theory, based on massive amounts of evidence, testing, and critical analysis to Christian dogma which is based on faith.”
What better way to respond than to say that in the first place evolution is not a science and doesn't even qualify to be classified as a scientific theory. Allow me to clarify:
According to die hard evolutionist - Mark Isaak,
"A theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena."
We know that a phenomenon is observed behavior of matter or energy. But what class of phenomena is evolution aimed at explaining? Well you might say speciation. If indeed since the time of the ancient Greek up to date nowhere has speciation been observed in nature then it means that there is no observable phenomenon. If there is no observable phenomena, then it follows that there must be no theory. A scientific theory only is demanded and indeed arises to explain for that which is observed. What can you explain for that which does not exist? So you see that evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a religion of speculation and conjecture accounting for that which is not observed. It aims at nothing and achieves nothing other than corrupt the morals of society. True science betters living standards of people. Tell me, has evolution benefited humanity in anyway? Absolutely nothing!!!
The much talked about fruit fly experiments is nothing more that just deceit. It should be pointed out that an example of a laboratory-induced physiological change in a specimen—even though it involves genetic change—can hardly be considered proof that NATURAL evolution occurs, since the change did not take place without the deliberate, intelligence-driven activity of man. Secondly, examples put forward so far as acclaimed observation of natural speciation is not even an arising of new species but "new" species that are "new" to man. It's just a discovery of species that have always been there from time immemorial.
Let's talk about violation of natural laws:
Evolution Violates The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics
It is well understood by not only creationists, but by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Notice that we are talking about closed systems. I will only quote an evolutionist in this respect so that I'm not accused of referring to cheap sources. A highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist Isaac Asimov has this to say:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about." [Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Now evolutionists would want us believe that life is not a closed system. The basis of their claim is the fact that the sun supplies energy to the earth. But the truth can not be further than from to know that the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a "closed" (isolated) system. Therefore the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing meaning that things are breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This indeed is a scientifically observed phenomenon - fact, not theory. Even if the sun light energy was added to the earth's energy, the fact is that simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). Think about this: if evolutionist claims were true regarding the sunlight energy, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone layer, since more raw solar energy would only amount to a much needed increase in organized complexity thereby enhancing the alleged evolutionary process. But you and me know that UV from the sun is detrimental to life. Infact solar energy increases decomposition processes.
Furthermore, increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a "program" (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Life being the earth’s living systems have both of these essential elements. A "program" is contained in each living organism’s DNA where as a mechanism can be in the form of built-in mechanism such as photosynthesis in plants and metabolism in animals. So we can see that living things do not in fact "violate" the 2nd Law. But they actually have built-in programs and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures "in spite of" the 2nd Law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). If evolution claims were to hold any water, the program and the mechanism would have to simultaneously and spontaneously evolve at one location randomly from the dictates of tiniest chance. But the organism's life would be short-lived because of the prevailing harsh conditions arising from UV and oxygen. Now let us look at chance itself. I mean the probability of spontaneous generation of a working system. Do you tell me that if parts of a mechanical watch were all isolated (disassemble the mechanical Watch) and put in one tin, and it's top well closed and the tin given a shake or shakes and later the tin opened, one would find a ticking well assemble Mechanical Watch? Good friends let it be known unto you that life is more complex than a mechanical watch and thus is not a product of accidental combinations. Even if the process of evolution were to be very slow it wouldn't be probable because it does not matter how long you shake the tin nor how you thoroughly do it, the parts can't and will not just assemble. Indeed just as Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms,
"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
Evolution being a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things are hypothesized to have arisen from a single living source which itself assumably arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world, is a religion that violets the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics.
Order Vs Organised Complexity
Evolutionists argue that Creationists claiming that only living things are capable of creating order from disorder is erroneous because order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Evolutionists cite lame examples such as snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, pebble shuffling experiment and lightning of order coming from disorder in nature that requires no intelligent program to achieve that order.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby propose that such Evolutionists should be educated that there is a big difference between Order and Organised Complexity.
Like earlier pointed out organised complexity in living things is achieved against 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics through programs and in-built systems. On the other hand order in non-living things is achieved naturally by the dictates of 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics.
Simple "order" such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution - Abiogenesis), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of geometric patterns of molecules or atoms in snowflakes or crystals is a reflection of movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level (high thermal entropy), and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and with no function as dictated by 2nd Law. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels. Living things work against 2nd Law by the help of coded information in DNA and by way of functions of in-built systems.
Some evolutionist like Jeffrey Wicken do recognize the difference between order and organized complexity recognize the difference and has this to say:
"‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’" [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]
Again Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine knows the difference and even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:
"The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small." [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
The same clear distinction is made by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen:
"As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers my polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement." [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
}
Indeed organized complexity can not be equated to order resulting from reduction in thermal agitation as a consequence of 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics.
Having read my argument above, one would conclude that those that advocate for Evolution do so not basing their claims upon facts but upon what they want to believe. They have a preconceived conclusion that all living things ultimately evolved from micro-organisms (unicellular organisms) that in turn evolved from non-living matter and then they embark on a vigorous campaign to make up backup of their premature hypothesis. Unfortunately, there is no proof in nature to support them other than that the natural laws speak against the construed hypothesis. Thus it is true to say that evolution is based on fiction and thrives on fiction. Evolution is not a scientific theory but well grilled fiction. It's a religion of speculation and conjecture accounting for that which is not observed. It aims at nothing and achieves nothing other than corrupt the morals of society. True science betters living standards of people. Has evolution benefited society in anyway? Absolutely not other than offer employment and revenue to a few corrupt beneficiaries that perpetuate the hypothesis and seek recognition in the scientific arena. Those that foster their pattern of hypotheses as gospel truth use questionable sources and random statistics to support their PREDETERMINED conclusion through self-serving views usually with a commercial intent or personal publicity. That is the way so called men of knowledge eat any package of superstitions and pass their ideological dung they purport as science to all those whose minds have never yet gathered enough momentum to objectively take an independent view of facts. These men are so optimistic about believing in impossible positive mutations and slimmest occurrences that they consider both those that are pessimistic and those that are objective or evenly balanced as uneducated and unscientific.
Simply because we are here today doesn't mean we must have evolved from lower forms. Note that A fools logic says eating potatoes will make you fat because fat people admit they ate potatoes without considering the tons of cakes, pies and burgers they gluttered. Because he is so hungry for backup to the premature hypothesis's and ideas that surround his dead end, he picks up any rubbish that seemingly supports his preconceived conclusion hence drifting from science eventually to pseudo-science without knowing it himself at first. Unfortunately, after he knows of the error, he decides to remain with it for obvious reason: financial gain and self-publicity outweigh truth and dignity as per his perception.
My personal conclusion of this thesis is that one ancient Greek "scientist" placed meat in a jar and sealed it. After a number of days had passed, he opened the jar and discovered that the meat had developed into maggots. Oh, how he exclaimed, "Behold, maggots evolve form dead animals!" Suffice it to mention that the Greek died at his appointed time, but unfortunately fathered many generations of modern superstitions - evolution being the prime heir. Tortuous evolution of history has forged many old traditions to be abandoned while others have survived. It's ironic and sad to realize modern western world rejects using tealeaves to plan her day yet many pore over an astrology column in a newspaper each morning. Old traditions die-hard if ever they do! Thus Evolution is subtly snaring and satirizing - a comedic exaggeration intended exclusively by the powers that be as an authorized compendium of misleading information. It's a hypnotizing hypothesis that has no harm intended to the one craft for except that it is a hellish heft harpoon of little solace. All in all, what else is it? Nothing, but only that it's a hysterical hell in a hullabaloo hauling a hungry hyena to unhovering hen.
Finally allow me to dispel the allegations that Creationists are lazy and that that's the more reason why they opt to believe that an intelligent being designed things. Searching for answers is good and cohabits at the very core of science. Nature as it were in terms of organized complexity amidst the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that it is a product of design and not a consequence of designoid occurrence. Thus through science we are driven to understand that things were created. Though this appears to be a relatively simple answer as compared to the complex explanation offered by Evolution, it can not justify to be declared null and void on the basis of simplicity alone. A simple explanation can be a true answer. There is no scientific law that denies simple answers to be true. The bible says that the foolishness of God is the beginning of wisdom. Again it says that God uses the foolish things to confound the wise.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving,
Potpher
}
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
heh Amen to that jim
Michael william James
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 08:18 pm: |
|
Well now TB---
You go ahead and laugh and declare I can't do it. I'll just keep on doing it.
Jimbo
|
Trophy Boy (Soundproof)
Starlite Member
Username: Soundproof
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Jimbo-"I do have objections to people making a religion out of evolution and trying to indoctorinate my children and grandchildren with that dogma. We have enough dogma with which to contend with now. We don't need anymore."
Sorry, but this is a laughably illogical statement. You can't compare a scientific theory, based on massive amounts of evidence, testing, and critical analysis to Christian dogma which is based on faith. The only indoctrination occurs when someone is forced to stop challenging an idea, which never happens in science. In fact, the exact opposite happens. Which is why science leads to the creation of planes and religion leads to the creation of nothing.
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Yes Michael I believe it does matter which is which. It appears to me that if the nonphysical reality is the solid reality and the physical reality is the shadow of reality then most of our conscious notions of existance are backwards and physical matter is a temperarory holigram on the face of existance.
Jimbo
|
Michael .P (Mik3y)
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 06:09 am: |
|
But would it really matter which is which if each are always present somewhere in the midst. Can the beginning be the end?
Michael william James
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 02:46 pm: |
|
Potpher ---
I like your logic. I'm having a difficult time verifing your premiss'. Logic can only postulate infinities, never can it demonstrate infinities. That requires faith that somewhere down the line nothing has jiggled the trajectory.
I find that for me it is more fruitful to turn preception over and view them from an opposite conceptual direction. We intuitively precieve the non-physical such as physical principles as arising from the physical in a cause and effect process. Approaching it the other way eaisly solves some very knotty problems.
It is not always so, an object and a light source always is the cause of the shadow. However the principle of association exists without the invention of mathmatics. (There is a precise association between the position of the light source, the height of an objecr and the length of it's shadow.) The object rises and falls, the shadow waxs and wanes as light sources come and go but the associative principle is absolutely solid and unchanging. So what is the cause and what is the effect?
Jimbo
|
Potpher C. Mbulo (Pmbulo)
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
On one of the discussion forus somenoe by the name of D. C. James once wrote:
"I forgot to mention: Many scientists claim that the Big Bang did not require God to exist.
Here's the question:
What existed before the "Big Bang" and what caused it?"
In answer to your enquiry, I would like to propose that the apex of conceptualization or fathoming of an object or its phenomenon humbly begins with a “how” question which is deeply followed by a “why” question. To realize the answers, one has to employ the cause and effect concept.
According to Aristotle, wisdom begins with a sense of wonder about the world. He is on record to state that most profound question a man can ask concerns the origin of the universe.
There is no reason atheists can deem fit to give for failing to be compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing. Frantically, an atheist Russell claimed, "The universe is just there!!!” Does that therefore leave us in a rational impasse? If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, would I not win the argument?
O.K fasten your sit belts here we go. To every effect there is a cause. Now, it is not just a matter of belief but of fact that to every change there is a cause. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the object. In this respect, every objective mind cannot afford delude nor dilute the immense significance of the fact that the object in question being the universe, there must exist a cause to the birth of the universe.
Let me move a step further: The cause and effect can be viewed at another angle projected by a simple but deep question: Why does something exist instead of nothing? A popular philosopher by the name of Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being. It follows then that there must exist a being before the existence of the universe and that that being conceived the cause to affect the birth of the universe.
A perfect total perpetual oscillating universe is not mathematically plausible because of loss of planetary objects in its outer expanding regions and losses through radiation in the same regions. Even at our observable universe, we witness flying stars that are evident of looses in other minute systems. If it can happen at sub systems, why could it fail at the edges of the expanding universe? An object continues in its state of motion with a constant velocity in a straight line unless compelled by an external force otherwise. Imbalance in gravity and motion causes escapes. Imperfect balances will insure a none perfect total perpetual oscillating universe
Many scientists believe that the universe has a beginning. In fact many hold this view:
Quote:
The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere. [Richard J. Gott, et.al., "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American (March 1976), p. 65.]
Never mind about Richard J. Gott confusion in restricting enquiry. So far I have presented what is termed as a “factual necessity" underlining the existence of a being behind a cause of an effect. The “factual necessity” clearly shows that non- existence of a necessary being is logically impossible.
Now I would want to focus on the “necessary being”. A necessary being is an eternal because that being existed prior to existence of the universe and thus before time. I use the word eternal to mean outside the time domain. A change, and for that matter every change, is detectable because of time lapse. Existence outside time domain is uncaused. Then I conclude that the necessary being is uncaused and thus undetectable by our instruments of observation. If that necessary being is uncaused then undoubtedly that being is indestructible and incorruptible being. You cannot diminish or refute existence of a being on mere assumption that you could not detect it. There is a whole big world outside your kitchen.
Let’s go back to the preamble of my presentation. I stated that there is no reason atheists can deem fit to give for failing to be compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing. Frantically, an atheist Russell claimed, "The universe is just there!!!” Does that therefore leave us in a rational impasse? If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, would I not win the argument?
Now listen, to argue as Russel did that the universe itself is eternal is objectively denying the cause and effect principal. It is that simple, I therefore win the argument. Moreover, there is no such a thing as a hotel with infinite rooms and there is no such thing as infinite past events. A series of past events must be finite and have a beginning. Since the universe is not distinct from the series of events, it follows that the universe began to exist. And if it began to exist, then it follows that there was a cause of its existence. And if there was a cause to that existence, it follows too that the “necessary being” conceived the universe. What is wrong in identifying “necessary being” as the designer or as the one who causes things to become? Actually the Hebrew word YHWH (Yahweh) rendered Jehovah in English means the one who causes things to become. Again I ask, what is wrong in identifying the “necessary being” as God. The denial is just merely founded on pure arrogance combined with assertive dogma and intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards the viewpoint and the presenter of the viewpoint. And honesty speaking, that doesn’t amuse me at all. On the contrary, I’m impressed that even nature speaks volumes of the “designer” and no one can deny having been compelled to believe the existence of the “necessary being” and so everyone is held accountable to the truth of the revelation of YHWH.
It has not been the purpose of this writer to needlessly disparage those who believe evolution to be a scientific possibility. The facts of science are hard-pressed to provide unequivocal support to such a belief, however, and it is only reasonable that the truth of the matter be published and accessible to all. All I did was analyze the Cause And Effect in reflection of Genesis of Universe.
Now D.C. James's question: the answer to his enquiry “What existed before the "Big Bang" and what caused it?” is that the “factual necessity" dictates that the cause to effect the Big Bang invokes the Designer.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving,
Potpher
|
|
|  |