What constitutes adequate proof?

What is the big bang then?

You tell me. It's not my absurd unfalsifiable theory.

 

[aznguy94]

You tell me. It's not my absurd unfalsifiable theory.

You don't believe in the big bang? There is sufficient evidence for it, although the causes of it I'm not sure of.

 

You don't believe in the big bang? There is sufficient evidence for it, although the causes of it I'm not sure of.

What is the evidence then?

First lets establish what sort of thing the "theory" is.

1. Is it falsifiable? If so, what test can I do to falsify it?

 

[aznguy94]

What is the evidence then?

First lets establish what sort of thing the "theory" is.

1. Is it falsifiable? If so, what test can I do to falsify it?

Well, I'm no expert scientist, so I'm not really claiming anything too assertive about the big bang, I'm just saying it does have credibility and the scientific community behind it. I really don't know too much on the matter but I know the fact that the universe is expanding means that it would converge at a point if you "rewound" time and that background radiation is a result of the big bang.

As for falsifiability, if someone found an observation inconsistent with the big bang, like if the universe was contracting or there was no background radiation (again, I don't know much on the matter so I don't have many examples), then the big bang could be proven false. To my knowledge, there are no such examples that prove the big bang wrong, therefore it's still an adequate theory.

The big bang may not be entirely correct, but it's the most accurate theory we have for the beginning of the universe we have today. Science is always correcting itself and making its explanations better, so I'd have to say the big bang theory is definitely a work in progress right now. This is not to say that it is definitely right or wrong, but that it's a viable explanation.

 

Well, I'm no expert scientist, so I'm not really claiming anything too assertive about the big bang, I'm just saying it does have credibility and the scientific community behind it.

In other-words you're (personally) taking it on faith; something which is not necessarily bad in all cases, but in this particular case we are talking about cosmology. -- Which, I hate to break it to you, has been the most epically wrong category of theory in the history of the world. And I don't just mean a little bit wrong. I mean completely entirely absolutely wrong.

I really don't know too much on the matter but I know the fact that the universe is expanding means that it would converge at a point if you "rewound" time and that background radiation is a result of the big bang.

Let's cut to the chase. The two key pieces of evidence that they cite in favour of the big bang is the cosmic redshift and the microwave background. Microwave background does not constitute evidence in favour of their position, frankly, and regardless could be attributed to almost anything. We don't even know if its local to our planet or not.

Cosmic redshift is not necessarily caused by doppler. In fact attributing it to doppler leads to an absurd conclusion: that the universe is expanding and accelerating at multiple times the speed of light. Relativists try to get around this by claiming that "space itself is expanding," but I call Reductio ad absurdum.

So given that you have two pieces of evidence for this grand fantastic theory of the universal origin, and one could be attributable to most anything, and the other leads to a logical absurdity, I don't see where this strong foundation you speak of rests.

It seems very much to me that the big bang is the creation-story of Atheists, with a capital A. Real atheists (little a) who are a subspecies of rational skeptics, are quite happy to say "you know what, I don't know, and of what consequence is it anyway?"

Incidentally, back about a page in this thread you can see a more reasoned approach to universal origins, from first principles. Although by no means a complete set of arguments; More along the lines of just dispelling bad ideas.

As for falsifiability, if someone found an observation inconsistent with the big bang, like if the universe was contracting or there was no background radiation (again, I don't know much on the matter so I don't have many examples), then the big bang could be proven false.

Untrue. Plenty of contradictions and anomalies have been found. The entire history of the big bang theory is just readjustment of premises to match the available data.

To my knowledge, there are no such examples that prove the big bang wrong, therefore it's still an adequate theory.

And this again shows that it is a creationist story; Think about Russell's teapot.

 

[farmer093]

"The Master"'s teachings: Until the races become highly intelligent and more fully civilized, there will persist many of those childlike and superstitious ceremonies which are so characteristic of the evolutionary religious practices of primitive and backward peoples. Until the human race progresses to the level of a higher and more general recognition of the realities of spiritual experience, large numbers of men and women will continue to show a personal preference for those religions of authority which require only intellectual assent, in contrast to the religion of the spirit, which entails active participation of mind and soul in the faith adventure of grappling with the rigorous realities of progressive human experience.

He believes that religion evolved in this order.
1. primitive religion (The seminatural and instinctive urge to fear mysterious energies and worship superior forces, chiefly a religion of the physical nature, the religion of fear.)
2. religion of civilization (the religion of the mind -- the intellectual theology of the authority of established religious tradition.)
3. the religion of revelation (The revelation of supernatural values, a partial insight into eternal realities, a glimpse of the goodness and beauty of the infinite character of the Father in heaven -- the religion of the spirit as demonstrated in human experience.)

Therefore if following this pattern of religios evolution, the religion of revelation is not the final step and theerefore a belief in God stems from a belief in fear, proving that God does not actually exist except for in the mind and eventually another form or more "advanced" beliefs will surpass.

and even so, throughout time religious leaders insist on monopolies and resorted to using civil powers to enforce their views. People of faith have just as often used that faith to resist false authority, bad law, and social injustice imposed by equally ideological secularly-led forces. In any case, the voices of concience, morality, justice, mercy , and ethics are too blended and too interdependent for either party to be silenced.

 

He believes that religion evolved in this order.
1. primitive religion (The seminatural and instinctive urge to fear mysterious energies and worship superior forces, chiefly a religion of the physical nature, the religion of fear.)
2. religion of civilization (the religion of the mind -- the intellectual theology of the authority of established religious tradition.)
3. the religion of revelation (The revelation of supernatural values, a partial insight into eternal realities, a glimpse of the goodness and beauty of the infinite character of the Father in heaven -- the religion of the spirit as demonstrated in human experience.)

And I believe your head contains magic pink unicorns. What is your criteria for proof, or are you just quoting yet another form of scripture at us?

and even so, throughout time religious leaders insist on monopolies and resorted to using civil powers to enforce their views. People of faith have just as often used that faith to resist false authority, bad law, and social injustice imposed by equally ideological secularly-led forces. In any case, the voices of concience, morality, justice, mercy , and ethics are too blended and too interdependent for either party to be silenced.

Religious authority is almost always used as a means of control. There there exist a few instances where people threw off the centralized religious mantel and replaced it erroneously with a decentralized religion does not make it less the case. And it is not so that ethics and justice are caught up in religion, but rather than religion has destroyed the fundamentals of philosophy in the minds of the young via forced indoctrination and child abuse.

 

[farmer093]

@Sythe
Urantia book page 155, section 5...urantiabook.org/newbook/

"The Master"'s teachings: Until the races become highly intelligent and more fully civilized, there will persist many of those childlike and superstitious ceremonies which are so characteristic of the evolutionary religious practices of primitive and backward peoples. Until the human race progresses to the level of a higher and more general recognition of the realities of spiritual experience, large numbers of men and women will continue to show a personal preference for those religions of authority which require only intellectual assent, in contrast to the religion of the spirit, which entails active participation of mind and soul in the faith adventure of grappling with the rigorous realities of progressive human experience.

He believes that religion evolved in this order.
1. primitive religion (The seminatural and instinctive urge to fear mysterious energies and worship superior forces, chiefly a religion of the physical nature, the religion of fear.)
2. religion of civilization (the religion of the mind -- the intellectual theology of the authority of established religious tradition.)
3. the religion of revelation (The revelation of supernatural values, a partial insight into eternal realities, a glimpse of the goodness and beauty of the infinite character of the Father in heaven -- the religion of the spirit as demonstrated in human experience.)

Therefore if following this pattern of religios evolution, the religion of revelation is not the final step and theerefore a belief in God stems from a belief in fear, proving that God does not actually exist except for in the mind and eventually another form or more "advanced" beliefs will surpass.

and even so, throughout time religious leaders insist on monopolies and resorted to using civil powers to enforce their views. People of faith have just as often used that faith to resist false authority, bad law, and social injustice imposed by equally ideological secularly-led forces. In any case, the voices of concience, morality, justice, mercy , and ethics are too blended and too interdependent for either party to be silenced.

 

@Sythe
Urantia book page 155, section 5...urantiabook.org/newbook/

I know which book it comes from. What of it?

Where is the evidence?

 

[farmer093]

It is saying that religions were created because of fear, then logic, and now spirit...would not an advancement be complete certainty about afterlife? Who are we to say that a religion like that will never take form that does not involve god in any way? Such a religion may be aided with the advancement of science technology.

 

It is saying that religions were created because of fear, then logic, and now spirit...would not an advancement be complete certainty about afterlife?

No, an advancement would be to stop believing in fairy tales and grow up.

Who are we to say that a religion like that will never take form that does not involve god in any way?

Scientists.

Such a religion may be aided with the advancement of science technology.

There can be no union between irrationality and rationality.

 

[farmer093]

How is it irrational? The time that modern religion has been around and been popular has been a small period of time compared to primitive religion and naturally occuring evolution.

 

How is it irrational? The time that modern religion has been around and been popular has been a small period of time compared to primitive religion and naturally occuring evolution.

Ok you're going to have to define religion.

The key tenant of religion "is belief (particularly in some super-powerful being) without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary."

If religion were rational then it would not be called religion. It would be called science (with a little s).

 

[Angelmax]

2. As stated, I don't believe in God, nor do I believe he created the world in seven days, and also, I stated it's a theory, not a fact.

Theory

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

 

[PieAndChips]

Where did gravity come from? where did the big bang come from? where did the stars come from? the sun? moon? The perfect earth? look at how complex this world is , and everything on it. look at us, how complez we are. we have everything we need in us. surely not all of the stuff in us was made out of nothing. i remember hearing some scientifical theory that we evolved from fish. wtf? do we have fins? gills? what made the fish? what made the earth? what made the oil? to be honest, i beleive there must be a maker, and this maker made the world for us, and us for the world. and everything on this world was made for us. the sun and moon was made for us, and placed in the exact right place. if they had been even the tiniest bit further away or closer, the world wouldnt be like it is today. so think about this friends. What could have possibly made every single thing on this earth? even gravity?

 

[PieAndChips]

Theory

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

remember that gravity was there before it was discovered. some person just had the lightbulb moment and started researching into it.

 

[Angelmax]

surely not all of the stuff in us was made out of nothing. i remember hearing some scientifical theory that we evolved from fish. wtf? do we have fins? gills? what made the fish?

Hopefully this is easy enough for you to understand.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/evolution1.htm

remember that gravity was there before it was discovered. some person just had the lightbulb moment and started researching into it.

What the hell is your point? Nobody is suggesting gravity came into existence the moment it was discovered.

 

[PieAndChips]

The point i'm trying to say is ...
There must have been something to start everything in this universe, and all the other universes.

a question that tests me is:
Right, i think god made everything, but what made god?
The bible says that god is Eternity, he has always been.
i feel god inside me, you don't know how it feels obviously, but i can feel him. it feels so real i think hes right next to me always.

surely i guess you have never read the bible, so maybe before you flame me again, would you please read just a few paragraphs or chapters, maybe you might see what im on about.
I'm not saying that all scienctific theory is wrong. scientists have realised alot of the things in this world, and made it so we can understand it, so i appreciate your point of view.

 

[Angelmax]

The point i'm trying to say is ...
There must have been something to start everything in this universe, and all the other universes.

As of when is there any verification to the multiverse hypothesis?

i feel god inside me, you don't know how it feels obviously, but i can feel him. it feels so real i think hes right next to me always.

Don't delude yourself. 'He' is a product of your self delusion and childhood indoctrination.

surely i guess you have never read the bible, so maybe before you flame me again, would you please read just a few paragraphs or chapters, maybe you might see what im on about.

Why do you automatically assume I haven't read the bible? Unlike you, I read the source material before I attempt to refute it.

I'm not saying that all scienctific theory is wrong. scientists have realised alot of the things in this world, and made it so we can understand it, so i appreciate your point of view.

No, what you're saying is that science is by wrong by default when it conflicts with your fabricated beliefs.

 

[PieAndChips]

As of when is there any verification to the multiverse hypothesis?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse