Jem, just wanted to let you know that i read your response. If we agree that if the big bang hypothesis turns out to be true, or should we say becomes widely accepted as correct, and we also agree that it does not encompass the idea of something coming from nothing, which we seem to, then there is still a problem. If we argue that a "Creator", was responsible for the big band which was the beginning of the Universe, we would surely want to argue that the Creator was also responsible for the extremely dense hypermatter that was origin the big bang. But then we get to the problem of who or what created the Creator. Did it Create itself? Or is the answer that the "Creator" did not have a beginning but always existed, just as some hypothesize that matter and /or energy, which are interconvertible, always existed and therefore had no beginning. This is entirely conjecture at this point, and you can see that there is no need at all to add the additional complication of introducing a "Creator" into the mix. The idea is strictly a construct of religion. In any case, it seems rather pointless to interject the idea of a "Creator" into discussions of the big bang hypothesis, and the only reason I can think of for wanting to do this would be to rationalize one's religious faith. I find the argument that the "Creator" always existed and was responsible for the creation of matter and energy even less satisfactory than having to acknowledge that we just don't know where matter and energy came from in the first place. I seems that it is best to just accept that religion can not provide logical answers to questions regarding the physical Universe, and leave it at that.
Regarding questions about the origin of energy and the universe, science currently has nothing to offer. Religion is as good a place to look as science, or better, for answers to those questions.
Morning guys, I'm not trying to rub anyone up the wrong way here... On the religious side, it really doesn't bode well that in the 21st century there are still people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, as per the OP (did I read something about humans coexisting with dragons???). The science that we do understand shows pretty much categorically that this isn't the case. When the Bible was written they didn't have the scienctific knowledge or experience to carbon date (for example). There was much, much less evidence around - or at least understood - to build a world view upon. The people who wrote the Bible believed what they were writing to be true - 6 days etc - because it was consistent with their interpretaton of all the evidence around them (i.e. existing). Now that science has progressed, we have to re-examine the claims in the Bible and realise that - though in the best of intentions - some of them are just impossible. We have the science to prove this. Of course, the argument swings both ways. Some scientists are just too arrogant to acknowledge that there are some thing that science can't ever explain - Science is not all things to all men. For people who belive in the creationist / whatever is written in the Bible is absolutley the truth, you have to account for the context in which the Bible was written - in a time without carbon dating, where everyone believed in God - in some cases because they didn't know anything else to believe in. Now we have the technology and understanding, it is time to let go of the beliefs of people a few thousand years ago. However, that does not mean to say that "God" doesn't exist - just that the people who wrote the Bible made some misjudgements about the world around them. And scientists should realise that belief in "God" is much more than signing up to the Adam and Eve story - matters of personal faith can never be fully explained by science. Science won't stop people asking 'why?', and for some people the need to have an answer to the problem of 'why?' is more important than being able to categorically prove it. Thats just my view - I don't post often, but this was in interesting thread.
There you go again , predictable as ever. "Hawking, Hoyle, cosmologists, physicists. Nobel Prize winners - for the 50th time" - - as if name dropping will give you some credibility . Your religious beliefs hanging onto the coat tails of science, hoping to steal some of the reflected glow. Even then you don't quote scientists , you misquote them and misrepresent them, or you will pretend they are saying something even they themselves make clear they are not. Delusory contradiction allows you in one sentence to say science has no dog in 'the Creator' argument and at the same time you try to place science in the argument saying science cannot rule out 'the Creator'. On top of all that , you talk of the Creator in your delusional state as a definite article when your Creator is just about as far from anything definite as it gets. I don't argue how or where virtual particles come from , science shows the how and the where. If Science cannot rule out a Creator, then science cannot rule out a Leprechaun either. Science does not rule in 'the Leprechaun' or 'the Creator' because both have no scientific evidence to test for their existence. Goblins, fairies and unicorns have the same problem. And because I call you out on those and other of your similar psychotic beliefs , in frustration of the facts you call me a zealot. Trying to coin more silly contrary phrases like 'your faith is atheism' , as if there can be a faith where there is no such faith, won't work any more than wrongly quoting cosmologists and physicists in the way you do. So jem, when are you going to join "every thinking person on the planet" and start to think?
As I wrote in my earlier post (Pg. 11): "It is a curious fact that even educated humans are capable of profoundly believing in the most absurd supernatural phenomena and will go to almost any length in attempting to rationalize the irrational."
Nice rhetorical tricks. Sure if you discount the fact that my arguments are supported by Nobel prize winners... I then become a zealous fool like you.
Your argument? Donât make me laugh. Your argument is what ? ....that science cannot prove there is not a mischievous little Elf called God wot created a Big Bang. There's no science in it. So what's the point in "quoting" Nobel Prize winners jem? You should realize there are no Priests in science. I know you are probably used to being led by the nose all the time in Church, but that's not how it works in Science. A Nobel Prize winner has no more science to offer for or against on religious Creator Elf ideas than I or any other commentator does. So yeah then , if you say so, you are a zealot.
Out of 809 Nobel Laureates since 1901 only 50 are listed as being associated with religion. That includes those whose association is simply being Jewish! Non of course were awarded the nobel prize for anything whatsoever to do with religion /Creator / God. Using your own childlike comparisons , 94% of Nobel Prize Winner faculty members are not sane and "pick stu".
Quote from Badoit: On the religious side, it really doesn't bode well that in the 21st century there are still people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, as per the OP (did I read something about humans coexisting with dragons???). The science that we do understand shows pretty much categorically that this isn't the case. When the Bible was written they didn't have the scienctific knowledge or experience to carbon date (for example). There was much, much less evidence around - or at least understood - to build a world view upon. The people who wrote the Bible believed what they were writing to be true - 6 days etc - because it was consistent with their interpretaton of all the evidence around them (i.e. existing). Now that science has progressed, we have to re-examine the claims in the Bible and realise that - though in the best of intentions - some of them are just impossible. We have the science to prove this. People who believe the Bible do not particularly agree to "The people who wrote the Bible believed what they were writing to be true" Either God was the author through prophets & apostles, or it really doesn't matter. But you also need to realize, "we have the science to prove this" is a gross overstatement of current scientific knowledge. And "believers" who give dates for the origin of the earth via Creationism are giving their view. Many of us are theistic evolutionists who have no probelm with a 4.6 billion year old Earth. For people who belive in the creationist / whatever is written in the Bible is absolutley the truth, you have to account for the context in which the Bible was written - in a time without carbon dating, where everyone believed in God - in some cases because they didn't know anything else to believe in. Now we have the technology and understanding, it is time to let go of the beliefs of people a few thousand years ago. It has nothing to do with human beliefs. If the book was written by just "people" then it is relatively worthless. If it was written by God, then the feeble methods of modern scientists compared to God is not an issue. 1,000 years from now, scientists will consider our current science as almost alchemy. (note: stu & vhehn are on ignore as academic maladroits, so will be seeing only responses from others)