The Existence of God

I'm not aloud out of the house at 12:30am and I'm attempting to not wake my family up.

At the same time, I'm attempting to learn more about God, beliefs etc by actually doing this debate.

edit: some would say that I love you all so much that I'm attempting to save you from damnation.

 

This is still within the topic. People choose to believe the big bang theory over god, this proves the big bang theory wrong, therefor we win, god exist unless you come up with a different theory, that hasn't been proved wrong.
And no, god hasn't been proven wrong, this has. And now not argument from ignorance, its how the world works.

Let me refresh your memory, why this has been proven wrong.

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.

But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space.

For one thing, there is the "Horizon Problem". At present, the known universe spans 28 billion light years and is assumed to be 14 billion years old. (Obviously unless we actually ARE the center of the universe, it may be assumed that the universe probably extends even further in at least one direction). Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have traveled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.

Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.

So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-consistent "Big Bang" that when William G. Tifft submitted his first article on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the Journal published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still felt compelled to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions.

The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Edwin Hubble (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed.

But they aren't.

The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative velocity.

Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on.

UPDATE: PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.

Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.

From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.

This works out to an event horizon light years across!

In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.

UPDATE: ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume the Big Bang, and that "somehow" the universe escaped from it's own gravity well. With the entire 2.6*1060 mass/energy of the universe confined to that small region, the temperatures and pressures amount to a super-supernova. We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created. That is where all the heavy elements in your body were created; inside an exploding star. Therefore, in that moment of super-creation called the Bug Bang, as the universe started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding universe should be creating all the known heavy elements.

So, how to explain the Population II stars?

Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When they explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are created. These are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating Population I stars, usually with planets around them. Population I stars have heavy elements. Population II stars do not.

If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with heavy elements created in those first few moments the universe started to operate under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be any stars in existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there are.

The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.

 

Proving that the Big Bang was impossible does not prove that God exists.

Actually, the burden of proof is upon the one who asserts a positive. In this case, it's you.

 

False dichotomy; "Between A and B, if A is wrong, B is right".

5 + 7 = ???
If that were the question as to the meaning of life, and group 1 said "11", group said "13", if the second group proves the first group's theory wrong, the second group don't "win".

So this makes the rest of your argument irrelevant, as this is a discussion of the existence of a God or Gods. Also, even if you, somehow, prove that it must be a God, which one is it? The Christian God, Muslim, or is it one of the many Gods of Greek Mythology or Hinduism?



By the way, copy/paste from a debunked website = bad.

Your copy/paste: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.html
Debunked: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=18193 (read the entire topic, it starts out as if the Big Bang were debunked, but then people show the many errors in the article)
One of the links in the topic: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html (for the book "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner which is linked by the "big bang debunked" page)

 

The burden of proof is not upon me, but upon you. You keep telling everyone in this thread, that the burden of proof is upon us, your to arrogant, when someone asks you to proof, because you can't in anyway.

The big bang theory failed.
The evolution theory failed.

Just to let you know, The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. It has been proven that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

Not many choices left for you, when both theories fail now is there?

We proved that those theories fail, prove to is that god fails.

You know there is one problem with people like you.

Humans would rather believe an error for the rest of their lives than admit they had been wrong.

The FACT is that The big bang and evolution is impossible to happen.
This doesn't prove that god Exist, but this proved you wrong.


"Children believe the theory of evolution because of brainwashing in the school education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually would type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, if given enough time. This is nonsense. These government educated kids actually believe this nonsense, just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26 letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odd that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations, all in the correct places? Never in eternity. Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense."

 

The standard position is disbelief. If I assert a divine entity, it is a positive belief, and thus the burden of proof is upon me. If I assert a belief in aliens, it is a positive belief, and thus the burden of proof is upon me.

My position is one of disbelief. I lack belief in a God. You have a positive belief in a God, thus the burden of proof is upon you.

How so?

This is why it's called a theory as opposed to a law.

Also, what errors?

Leave the psychoanalysis in the history books, thanks, and don't use the God of the Gaps logic (I don't know how this came to be, therefore, by default, God did it).

You clearly don't understand the process of evolution. Nobody is asserting that life sprang up from nowhere, in one single, unlikely bound. Life sprang up bit by bit, by degrees, through natural selection. The extreme unlikeliness was broken up into chunks.

 

The big bang has been proven wrong, you can do your research and find out by yourself, its impossible with the conditions of today.

Evolution has been proven wrong, if your not lazy enough do your research and find out. Otherwise i'll copy and past it to you, so that you can read it, and decide for yourself whether the information is valid.

I'm going to eat now, i'll post back with how evolution fails.

 

You're making the claim, you provide the evidence. Thanks.

 

You fail to view the links that I posted where your little copy/paste article was debunked. The burden of proof has been met, and this little "Big Bang debunked" thing has been, for lack of a better term, destroyed. Read the links that I posted.

Please, don't look like an ass without even looking at the links that I've posted. Another hint, stay awake in Science class and you'll learn the definition of a Scientific Theory and learn how you're wrong.


Here's a fun little website for you to view all of your ideas as to how you debunk hundreds of years of scientific observation, experimentation, and scrutiny, with an explanation as to why they're wrong.


http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html


EDIT: OOPS That last quote was a mistake.

 

Power of lies, do your research before posting bullshit.

The universe is not expanding, do some science revision and you'll find out.
The big bang, could not have happend, and no, why should the laws of physics, be (stopped) for a few moments, just so that the big bang theory could have happend, its impossible.
Again do your research, there isn't just one website, there are many.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

For your information, I'm not Christian.

 

Another one who does not understand evolution. The evolution of birds began with feathered reptiles in trees. One reptile with stronger arms, or more feathers, or anything that would resemble more of a wing than a limb, would be able to survive a fall from a tree where having a normal arm would let you die.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

1). Argument ad ignoratum.
2). Cells evolved by stages, just as life did.

This is fucking rubbish. I'll deal with the rest of it later.
​

 

The universe is expanding.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/expansion.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

Now, are you a physics graduate? If not, are your sources from Physicists? If not, then your posts are bullshit. If they are from Physicists, are these statements peer-reviewed? If not, then they hold no water in a scientific debate.

I'm not a Physics graduate, I'm still studying physics, however, my sources are from Physicists. Everything I post are from PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH.

 

You seriously want people to believe that because it says its moving, thats it we got to take their word for it? I gave you proof why this couldn't be possible, not just the expansion but the whole big bang itself.

READ THIS http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.html which you and shredderbeam didn't read, then argue back the points covered in that link. If the big bang is true, then show me the facts, which in that link, proves that it can't happen, just answer it.

Do some research about cosmic background radiation ,Horizon Problem, heavy elements, red shift.

And its not of your business.

Shredder seriously if you can't take it serious, dont answer at all. The whole of evolution is just a joke, read everything, and your answers are nothing, you say argument ignoarant or all that bullshit, but its a fact that not everything is possible, you base your theory on something that is impossible, to happen and then say give it enough chances to happen and it will.
It simply wont, end off.

Yet again

"Children believe the theory of evolution because of brainwashing in the school education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually would type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, if given enough time. This is nonsense. These government educated kids actually believe this nonsense, just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26 letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odd that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations, all in the correct places? Never in eternity. Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense."

Infinite chances, doesn't work with impossible.
You also neglected that you used this method (in the Attack on Evolution ism), that they use on children to brainwash them, to prove how The cell theory, is "flexible" giving enough chances, a cell can exist.
This is simply impossible, by the example given above.

Don't tell me what you think happend, show me fact.

 

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/

To help you started, there are many other sources.

 

Post arguments instead of links. I don't feel like risking my computer for a virus, spyware or keylogger attack. This is, afterall, a RuneScape-related website...

 

I guess you can't understand the numbers behind it AS WELL AS IMAGES SHOWING IT.

Also, that "complex single cell organism" argument shows that you don't even have a HIGH SCHOOL understanding of Chemistry.

Finish High School before you start trying to be a scientist.

That explains a lot.

 

You must be joking.

Mind explaining? I dont see anything wrong with his argument, you say that something with infinite chances will one day happen, this isn't true.
If you throw a dice infinte times, it wont turn into a circle, same thing with humans, with infinite chances, a cell/organism wont come from nothing.

 

Well actually, a cell suddenly erupting from nothing is possible, just highly unlikely (to the degree that it can be safely discarded).

Yet nobody is arguing that a cell erupted from nothing. A cell can evolve from much simpler forms:

A hypothetical "first cell", compared with a modern prokaryote:



Can you see the difference in complexity?

 

Yes i do believe in god

This user has been temporarily banned from SFA.
​

 

Your still basing your believes into a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"

Thats just a theory, its what they think they don't have any evidence on it.

Furthermore, if a very simple cell somehow came, there is no actual prove that the cell evolved into much more complexity and then into fish and the fish jumped out of the water into land, where they would die anyway, but somehow by "training" to breath outside of the water, and then all these paths evolved, all different types of species etc.

I don't believe in evolution and it has many errors, i checked that website Sn0wflake gave, and there were very good points out there.
You should give it a look.