A
AgnosTheist
Guest
At least there are observable evidences to the big bang. But what observable objective evidences are there for god?
- Status
D
Doug50
Guest
what observable evidence is there for T=0?
J
jimmy85
Guest
Stephen Hawking based himself in the no boundary proposal he think the universe is infinite without a beginning and wihout an end.
He did that in order to calculate how the universe evolved from a big bang, since the laws of einstein break in singularitys such as the one in the big bang. Hawking is using the no boundary proposal in order to avoid using math into singularities.
Therefore he is saying that from a mathematical perspective avoiding singularities, and avoiding teh big bang itself.
The reason to do this is because the theory of the big bang is real however it cant explain how the universe evolved from the big bang to form galaxies. that is why many theories of inflation are been proposed, in order to explain how the unvierse evolved.
J
jimmy85
Guest
Every atheist scientist will tell you that the theory of the big bang made by Georges Lemaître will clearly opens the way for a God.
That is why many atheists tried to modify the theory, or to invent new ones unfortunately they didnt match the obervation , their theories were more fiction than reality.
Even Fred Hoyle the devout atheist that was against the big bang said that the big bang opened the way for a God, so he was against the theory of the big bang, proposing his Steady State theory, that later was rejected by everyone and at the end the theory was throwed to the garbagecan because it didnt matched the observations. lol
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
the fact that time flows.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
i want to hear that directly from atheist scientists. got a link?
J
jimmy85
Guest
The thing about Hawking is that he has a poor theological knowledge, his ex wife was a devout protestant and he used to read the bible in a literal way.
Hawking believe that if there are laws in the universe that govern everything then God would be trapped without freedom.
He has the same wrong udnerstanding that Ockham had about the freedom of God, restrinting the freedom of God within the natural laws.
Hawking believe that if there are laws in the universe that govern everything then God would be trapped without freedom.
He has the same wrong udnerstanding that Ockham had about the freedom of God, restrinting the freedom of God within the natural laws.
D
Doug50
Guest
J
jimmy85
Guest
first get yourself informed about the big bang and its history. you cant talk about something you dunno about pal
try to rent documentaries or soemthing about it I advice you “the universe of stephen hawking”.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
As we have seen the atheist thought the big bang put God in the equation. Those who here decry the Big Bang, do so as so much atheistic nonsense designed to take God OUT of the equation. It’s too funny. But what is truly sad is to see so many folks which such a very limited science knowledge. But again, that is reflected in the numbers worldwide wherein the US lags sadly behind much of the the world in turning out first class scientists.
I have always heard that Hawking was a believer, same with Einstein. In fact it was in a book on cosmologiy that I first read, “Of course, science will never be able in all probability to determine what came before the big bang. And many would argue that there is plenty of room for God here.” That’s paraphrased, and I have no idea what book it was, but I do know one thing. I became almost an instant believer at that point, because God made sense. When I found out the Catholic church didn’t teach a literal creationism, I signed up. Scarey that some of you, had you known me then, would have not only turned me away from the RCC but away from God as well…
But I guess, for some its worth it to lose a ferw converts if their strange world view remains comfy.
D
Doug50
Guest
and Hawkings’ influence is more popular outside the physics profession then by those inside it. In a recent Discovery Channel program I don’t think they ranked in the top 20.
C
Crumpy
Guest
Well, we should say “the natural laws” in quotes. Those who are looking for the totally unified theory of everything posit that the laws we know of came into being just after the big bang.
For example, the speed of light is not a barrier, in the ultimate. There was no light in the big bang anyway, but things were moving faster than that for some time, however briefly.
aside: I’m let down, that with all the college math I studied, they never hinted at the math involved in planetary motion. This must be in some level of astronomy coursework, which I never took. How much astronomy does one need to get into that kind of math? What does the math look like?
Gee, some astronomers hundreds of years ago were predicting eclipses quite accurately, even without calculators or computers. What was involved?
For example, the speed of light is not a barrier, in the ultimate. There was no light in the big bang anyway, but things were moving faster than that for some time, however briefly.
aside: I’m let down, that with all the college math I studied, they never hinted at the math involved in planetary motion. This must be in some level of astronomy coursework, which I never took. How much astronomy does one need to get into that kind of math? What does the math look like?
Gee, some astronomers hundreds of years ago were predicting eclipses quite accurately, even without calculators or computers. What was involved?
R
ricmat
Guest
I haven’t seen any Catholic posters decry the Big Bang (in this thread anyway). Are you talking about creationists?
In any case, as Catholics we are free to believe in the Big Bang, or young earth creationism for that matter. So long as we believe that God was behind it all.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
and so we have also seen theists who have removed God from the equation.
I’m only trying to explain that for many non-religious folks out there the Big Bang itself is the unmoved mover. Why not? Eh?
R
ricmat
Guest
A semi-related note: I read someplace that planetary motion is essentially chaotic - it is impossible to predict the future motion of the planets because it is impossible to get exact “initial conditions”. And an extremely small change in initial conditions makes for a huge change in the future.
The article went on to say that there is actually no guarantee that planets will remain in what we currently accept as stable orbits. The math involving the motion of many interacting gravitational bodies is extremely complex (beyond our ability to do anything except approximations).
J
jimmy85
Guest
Some people make a mistake in been influenciated by nearby religious people. they thinkg that if they give a bad example, then they reflect the religion. but that is not the case. in every religion there are sinners and saints. and the sinners and the people that give a bad example of a religion shoudlnt influenciate you at all, simply becuase they are not practicing what the religion is all about.
J
jimmy85
Guest
What atheists peopel are trying to do now is to argue that there has always been an hypotetical energy that caused the big bang. however that dosetn match any observation at all.
The scietifical approach is that the big bang singularity came ex nihilo , as Alan Guth stated the Big bang premideal atom was billion of billions of time smaller than a proton.
The scietifical approach is that the big bang singularity came ex nihilo , as Alan Guth stated the Big bang premideal atom was billion of billions of time smaller than a proton.
B
bobzills
Guest
Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion are proven (from Newton’s laws of motion) in many college level calculus courses:
The orbits of planets are ellipses with the son at one focus.
A ray from the sun to a planet sweeps aout equal areas in equal times.
The square of the period of the planetary orbit is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis.
D
Doug50
Guest
How about from an agnostic?
“There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgements to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, there is no first cause…”
“This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control…”
“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions”.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” – Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers”
udel.edu/physics/scen344/overheads.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow
The Yale Book of Quotations
P
Petergee
Guest
Sounds like an enormous beat-up. Astronomers (even those working on the theory that the Earth is the centre of the universe)have predicted the dates of eclipses hundreds, even thousands of years in advance, which have proved to be correct.
- Status