(October 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Again with the "Atheistic Origin Science"? Here's a fun fact:

The Big Bang model was initially proposed by Georges Lemaître - Belgian astronomer, professor of physics and ... Catholic priest!

Not a true Christian, though, naturally.

he got his arse kicked by the pope for it

(October 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm)Faith No More Wrote: No, not a scientific principle, and I'm sure.

E(initial) = 0
E(final) = total energy of universe
change in E does not equal zero

Nothing is the cause of the effect of the Big Bang.

You know?... I recently watched a few videos by a guy called.... hmmm, what was it?... Krauss!... that's the man.... It hinted at a friend of his which got a nobel prize for his work... on... virtual particles...
Well, he claims that he calculated the total energy of the Universe and it is..... ZERO!

(October 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Not a true Christian, though, naturally.

Yeah, because "Catholics aren't Christians at all"

It'll be an interesting definition of "atheist", though.

Yeah, Pocaracas beat me to that one. Krauss has widely publicised his work "A Universe from Nothing", with the YouTube video kindly linked above; his book by the same name is absolutely riveting and very accessible. Maybe, Grace, you should read it?

You seem not yet to understand that Goddiddit is not the default position, nor could it ever be. Whether it's that you're not intelligent enough to understand this, or whether you're simply blinded by faith (whatever that is...), or maybe you're just in denial, I don't know. But it doesn't change that as a fact.

So even if there weren't extraordinarily well thought out theorems explaining very plausibly how the universe may have come into being while remaining perfectly in line with the most scientifically robust and best tested branch of science ever developed (quantum mechanics), your Goddiddit position would be in trouble. But the fact that there are such theorems leaves you with a lot of explaining to do.

Good luck with that one.

(October 10, 2013 at 5:23 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 10:37 am)Tonus Wrote: Theistic origin science

What would that be?

Are you mocking the branch of science that deals with discovery via the time-honored traditions of making shit up and ignoring reality? That's why you're going to burn in hell, sonny.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:34 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: E(initial) = 0
E(final) = total energy of universe
change in E does not equal zero

Nothing is the cause of the effect of the Big Bang.

You know?... I recently watched a few videos by a guy called.... hmmm, what was it?... Krauss!... that's the man.... It hinted at a friend of his which got a nobel prize for his work... on... virtual particles...
Well, he claims that he calculated the total energy of the Universe and it is..... ZERO!

he calculated the energy of the whole universe and got exactly 0.

So if the energy of the universe is not exactly 0, the Big Bang is false then. Else why bring it up.

But he could not have calculated the energy of the universe, since not all of the universe is even observable.

Besides all observations show the universe does have a mass-energy that is not 0, so the Big Bang is falsified until we get an exact 0.

(October 11, 2013 at 6:24 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: he calculated the energy of the whole universe and got exactly 0.

So if the energy of the universe is not exactly 0, the Big Bang is false then. Else why bring it up.

But he could not have calculated the energy of the universe, since not all of the universe is even observable.

Besides all observations show the universe does have a mass-energy that is not 0, so the Big Bang is falsified until we get an exact 0.

No, if the total energy of the universe is non-zero, then it counts as evidence against his theory, nothing more. The big bang is a separate theory, explaining a different phenomena. At present, it's not entirely clear whether the sum total is zero, but there is substantial evidence that it is zero or close to zero. That makes his theory potentially correct. However, as there are other theories that accord with the evidence, as well as theories as yet unknown, it doesn't make his theory necessarily true, nor does it make his theory a conclusion based on an assumption of atheism, or to atheism.

(October 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:09 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK, pray tell, what scientific laws and principles does the Big Bang theory violate?

cause and effect
conservation of mass-energy

We don't yet know the cause, so your first statement is premature.
Since the total mass-energy of the universe is zero, there is no violation.

(October 11, 2013 at 11:33 am)Chas Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: cause and effect
conservation of mass-energy

We don't yet know the cause, so your first statement is premature.
Since the total mass-energy of the universe is zero, there is no violation.

If you do not know the cause then you have not answered the origin question at all.
If there was something else, what was it, and where did that come from?
If there was nothing then it violates cause and effect.