“That definition of the big bang theory is fine but for one point. The evidence suggests that in the past the universe was smaller, everything was closer together and the energy density was much larger. Whether or not this corresponds to the origin of the universe is still an open question.
Many common claims based on the big bang theory, such as "the universe came into existence out of nothing", "before the big bang, space and time did not exist" and so on are completely unscientific.”
I realize that there is a line that is drawn where science can go no further, and in my past responses I have been partly wrong for blurring this line. It is quite interesting to see how one may believe that something has certain implications where as others don’t see it like that. Often times when I have discussions with people it’s often frustrating when they don’t see what you see, but to be fair I’m quite sure atheists think the same about theists.
“By introducing the creator, you are not addressing the problem, but simply moving it. In fact you're not just moving it, you're making it worse, because now you not only need to explain the origin of the creator, but you also have to demonstrate that the creator exists.”
I see what you’re saying, but I’ll stop at just a creator for right now. I see no reason to believe that we can or will ever know the origins of the creator. In fact I don’t know how we could be so sure that the creator does have origins (in the case that it’s eternal). I would have to disagree on the point that you have to demonstrate that the creator exists. Sometimes we can infer that something exists without actually demonstrating that it does. Looking back in history we see that people used to have all these crazy explanations of how you got sick. Somewhere along the lines some people began to infer that something else must be going on. Without the proper technology they couldn’t demonstrate that there was something else causing people to get sick but they could infer it. Then as technology improved they were in fact able to demonstrate this. So I can’t demonstrate that a creator exists, but I infer that one does and for me that’s enough (for right now anyways).
“The lack of a competing explanation does not promote a poor explanation to a satisfactory one.”
You are very right on this point. It’s just so tempting sometimes isn’t it?
Thanks lilphil1989 for the very insightful discussion.
“Certainly. They are fair questions. Believers, it seems, often think that there are some questions or issues that unbelievers haven't mulled over in great or enough detail. As if we unbelievers haven't really worked out the implications of the finite universe claim or how something came from nothing. Of course, some unbelievers are just as ignorant on why they disbelieve as believers on these questions. It's good to see you are at least thinking about these issues. You have gotten farther than many of your fellow theists, including nearly all of my believing family and friends.”
Thanks, well I’ll admit that I don’t claim most theists, as I’m sure you don’t claim a lot of atheists. It is very interesting to think that when presented with the same evidence often times people can come to different conflicting conclusions.
Thanks everyone for answering some of my questions. Most of the answers were somewhat expected, but I was a little surprised on one of them. I have heard countless atheists claim that the TOE proves that God doesn’t exists. I’m glad that no one argued this, but I was a little surprised that not one of you took that side. So that’s at least one good thing I got from this.
Many common claims based on the big bang theory, such as "the universe came into existence out of nothing", "before the big bang, space and time did not exist" and so on are completely unscientific.”
I realize that there is a line that is drawn where science can go no further, and in my past responses I have been partly wrong for blurring this line. It is quite interesting to see how one may believe that something has certain implications where as others don’t see it like that. Often times when I have discussions with people it’s often frustrating when they don’t see what you see, but to be fair I’m quite sure atheists think the same about theists.
“By introducing the creator, you are not addressing the problem, but simply moving it. In fact you're not just moving it, you're making it worse, because now you not only need to explain the origin of the creator, but you also have to demonstrate that the creator exists.”
I see what you’re saying, but I’ll stop at just a creator for right now. I see no reason to believe that we can or will ever know the origins of the creator. In fact I don’t know how we could be so sure that the creator does have origins (in the case that it’s eternal). I would have to disagree on the point that you have to demonstrate that the creator exists. Sometimes we can infer that something exists without actually demonstrating that it does. Looking back in history we see that people used to have all these crazy explanations of how you got sick. Somewhere along the lines some people began to infer that something else must be going on. Without the proper technology they couldn’t demonstrate that there was something else causing people to get sick but they could infer it. Then as technology improved they were in fact able to demonstrate this. So I can’t demonstrate that a creator exists, but I infer that one does and for me that’s enough (for right now anyways).
“The lack of a competing explanation does not promote a poor explanation to a satisfactory one.”
You are very right on this point. It’s just so tempting sometimes isn’t it?
Thanks lilphil1989 for the very insightful discussion.
“Certainly. They are fair questions. Believers, it seems, often think that there are some questions or issues that unbelievers haven't mulled over in great or enough detail. As if we unbelievers haven't really worked out the implications of the finite universe claim or how something came from nothing. Of course, some unbelievers are just as ignorant on why they disbelieve as believers on these questions. It's good to see you are at least thinking about these issues. You have gotten farther than many of your fellow theists, including nearly all of my believing family and friends.”
Thanks, well I’ll admit that I don’t claim most theists, as I’m sure you don’t claim a lot of atheists. It is very interesting to think that when presented with the same evidence often times people can come to different conflicting conclusions.
Thanks everyone for answering some of my questions. Most of the answers were somewhat expected, but I was a little surprised on one of them. I have heard countless atheists claim that the TOE proves that God doesn’t exists. I’m glad that no one argued this, but I was a little surprised that not one of you took that side. So that’s at least one good thing I got from this.
