Big Bang Myth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AntiTheist said:
I agree with this. But the surest way to get people to stop asking questions is to pretend like we have answers already.
Click to expand...
Your rejection of theism presupposes that you know something about the answer - that it is an alternative to theism.
One of the problems with the “god did it” response is that it pretends to be knowledge.
Click to expand...
False! Theism is a belief and so is atheism.
It’s not an answer at all, but it pretends to be.
Click to expand...
It answers many questions that physicalism cannot answer: the origin of persons, rationality, free will and purposeful activity.
To try to make that the equivalent of, “A magic man waved his hand and made everything – magic!” is the height of intellectual dishonesty, and it’s actually a little sickening to me.
Click to expand...
A distortion of theism. It is intellectually dishonest to reduce the intellect to a set of electrical impulses.
If you want to be that dishonest, go right ahead, but it tells the rest of us a lot about your values.
Click to expand...
You exhibit your lack of them in your lack of respect for others and your lack of insight into the immense value of existence.
Chances are good that the distant future will have access to so much more evidence that several of our theories may be overturned. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t accept them now, as the best explanations based on the best evidence, nor does it mean that we should declare them to be the equivalent of fables invented by a nomad tribe thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
The fable that science can explain everything has been overturned already. You take the values of Christianity for granted but you would be the first to complain if you were attacked and robbed by a thug… Science tells us nothing about moral integrity and human rights…
 
Jim_Baur said:
This a huge point: I have asked many actual scientists and mathematicans about the nature and relationship of math and the laws of science. I have asked many mathematican about the existence of math, many make the same quick joke about extra-mental nature of math. They have never did any research or serious thinking about the issue. That is fine. They do not have to do that. But the issue still exists. There are no uniform answers. Actually, the majority have not even addressed the actual nature of math in any detail. It is huge. Scientists do not address the nature of the physical laws, that is not their job.
Click to expand...
Many mathematicians, myself included, like mathematics because it has definite right and wrong answers that you can check to see if you got them right. Thus, it isn’t surprising to me that these mathematicians don’t spend a lot of their productive time pondering philosophical questions that can’t be checked, and for which little to no progress has been made in thousands of years.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Many mathematicians, myself included, like mathematics because it has definite right and wrong answers that you can check to see if you got them right. Thus, it isn’t surprising to me that these mathematicians don’t spend a lot of their productive time pondering philosophical questions that can’t be checked, and for which little to no progress has been made in thousands of years.
Click to expand...
Unless they have a superficial approach to their subject mathematicians are divided on the issue of what mathematics is. Is it based on logic, does it reflect reality or is it an entirely arbitrary set of rules? You cannot evade the philosophy of mathematics - or science or any other important discipline - whether you like it or not! 🙂
 
Jim_Baur said:
I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.

As I said, it is an opinion.

I hold that this myth is based on fallacies.

First, the personification of nature.

Second, the personification of natural physical laws.

Third, the personification of evolution.

One could even hold that these are gods to some philosophers and scientists.

The most fallacious, I believe, is the combination of evolution and physical laws.

At the time of the Big Bang Myth, the physcial laws did not exist.

I could add more, but family life calls me to other duties.
Click to expand...
Do you even know what the word “personification” means???
 
Rsiewell

Yes.

There are many text books, scientists, philosophers, theologians (of many religions) and lay people who have anthropomorphized nature, evolution, math and sceince–Mother Nature or Father Time.

Actually, they have attributed divine qualities to nature and evolution. They have made them the cause of all.

These attributions are implied by some and explicit by others.
 
Maybe the scientists were French… Grravity!!.. she is wonderfuullll !..
 
The Big Bang theory is just that: a theory. It’s called a theory because no one can prove it. No one was there when it supposedly happened. All the efforts to prove this theory are just flimsy attempts to create a foundation for atheism.
 
Isnt it possible that evolution and the big bang do not disprove god but instead are his methods?
 
Jim_Baur said:
I had to stop, and I never said the principle fallacies.

In the early 1900 they assumed that the physcial laws that they observed actually existed outside of the human mind. They don’t. They are a picture we drew to help us understand the world in which we live. It is like a drawing of a tree. It is not real. It helps us to understand the tree, but it is not real. The picture does not explain the existence of the tree.

They also assumed that the were perfectly correct. They were not perfectly correct and the world knows it. They were and still are incomplete, and the world knows it.

They assumed that the currect laws always existed, all the back to 15,000,000,000 years ago. That is the biggest part of the myth.

The laws didn’t exist even in the myth.

The laws would have had to evolve. In other words, the laws changed over the 15,000,000,000 years.

The laws, even in the myth, had to be different now then 15,000,000,000 years ago.

To add to the difficulties in this myth, each step in the evolution of the physical laws adds to the levels of difficulties. They are all shrouded in noumenon/noumena.

How many steps in the evolution is unknown!

As they evolved, in the myth, they had to be different and change.

The changes cannot be known.

It is a nice myth, but it is merely a myth.

Pythagorus, Plato, Augustine, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton held the opinion that mathematics exist outside of the human intellect. Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo believed that math ran or animated the physical laws. They are incorrect. They are incorrect on both points. There is no empirical data to support either one of the just mentioned points.

I still do not have enough time to continue, family life calls me back to work.

God bless!!!
Click to expand...
The invention of telescopes, computers, etc. showed that the universe is expanding. Tracing the expansion back, showed that the universe had a beginning - the Big Bang.
Your reasoning goes around in circles, and says nothing. It is an expression of your unwillingness to admit the existence of God. It has been said that many are unwilling to give to God the honor and glory they crave for themselves.
 
JEANNIEMAC

I do believe in God.

I am a practicing Catholic.

And let me be a little silly, I practice because Mom told me" Boy, you need a lot of practice."

Others on this thread have said I use God as a drug.
 
Personify: To think of or represent (an inanimate object or abstraction) as having a personality or the qualities, thoughts, or movements of a living being.

Nature is often attributed the qualities of being in charge, as a human is in charge of things.
 
sgt1133 said:
The Big Bang theory is just that: a theory. It’s called a theory because no one can prove it. No one was there when it supposedly happened. All the efforts to prove this theory are just flimsy attempts to create a foundation for atheism.
Click to expand...
Have you bothered to read this thread? Theories are scientific hypotheses supported by facts. Theories can be proven by research, and parts of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly proven true. The Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic priest! Efforts to prove the theory go directly toward proving that God created the universe just as Genesis says he did: Out of nothing in a short period of time.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I hold the OPINION that the Big Bang is a myth.

As I said, it is an opinion.

I hold that this myth is based on fallacies.

First, the personification of nature.

Second, the personification of natural physical laws.

Third, the personification of evolution.

One could even hold that these are gods to some philosophers and scientists.

The most fallacious, I believe, is the combination of evolution and physical laws.

At the time of the Big Bang Myth, the physcial laws did not exist.

I could add more, but family life calls me to other duties.
Click to expand...
Some things to think about:

Evolution requires matter to work. Before there was evolution, there had to have been matter.

E=mc^2, therefore, m=E/c^2, which is a way of saying it takes energy to create matter. If there was no matter before, where did the energy to create it come from?

Physical laws do exist. The mathematical formulas that describe them are what is in our minds. Long before man existed to observe them, the planets orbited the sun in much the same manner as today. The idea that physical laws are in our minds is a kind of scientific relativism.

Then there is entropy. In a closed system, heat will move from hot objects to cold objects, and in the end, the total amount of heat energy will be less than there was originally. If the system * is closed, the loss is accounted for by the increase in entropy; IOW, entropy always increases [Second Law of Thermodynamics]. How did the universe get into a reduced state of entropy to begin with? Answer: “Let there be light!”*
 
sgt1133 said:
The Big Bang theory is just that: a theory. It’s called a theory because no one can prove it. No one was there when it supposedly happened. All the efforts to prove this theory are just flimsy attempts to create a foundation for atheism.
Click to expand...
Gravity is just a theory. It’s called a theory because no one can prove it. All the efforts to prove this theory are just flimsy attempts to create a foundation for atheism.
 
This is probably a very old thread, but I’m a very old cleric - so I guess it is permissible for me to speak my humble opinion. Forgive me, please, my English is not very good. The words Big Bang were never used by Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre, who first propounded this cosmological idea based on logical conclusions from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Monseigneur Lemaitre was on the faculty of the University of Louvain, and in 1931 published an article on “The Theory of the Primeval Atom” – which proposed the logic of an original ‘creative event’ based on Einstein’s theory and certain confirming astronomical observations in the real world. Pope Pius XII was interested in these opinions of Lemaitre and had lively discussions with him about them.

The Monseigneur was always the soul of humility, and traced all back to God’s generous love for creation. He held that these theories and concepts were all part of mankind’s desire to truly be in “God’s image and likeness” - we have a desire to know all things, just as our Heavenly Father knows all things. This is only ‘natural’ for His sons and daughters! These concepts are not a determiner of salvation, nor even perhaps ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ . . . like our Father, they just ‘are’ . . . and we will all see the Truth when we see him face to face, rather than ‘through a glass darkly’ as we do now. I will now attempt to attach a photo or two from Monseigneur Lemaitre . . . if this machine permits me. Frater_Alcuin, Sayn Abbey, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany.

No, this machine got the better of me! If you would like to see them, then someone will need to explain how to do this on the machine! I have (1) a photo of him with Einstein (I believe in the USA, perhaps Princeton), (2) a photo of him taken in the late 1950s at Louvain, and (3) a photo of him with Pope Pius. In any case, I am sure they are also somewhere out in the electronic equivalent of the ‘Cosmos’ he was so intrigued by. F_A
 
Frater_Al said:
No, this machine got the better of me! If you would like to see them, then someone will need to explain how to do this on the machine! I have (1) a photo of him with Einstein (I believe in the USA, perhaps Princeton), (2) a photo of him taken in the late 1950s at Louvain, and (3) a photo of him with Pope Pius. In any case, I am sure they are also somewhere out in the electronic equivalent of the ‘Cosmos’ he was so intrigued by. F_A
Click to expand...
Thank you, Frater Al. Here is one of them:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top