Scientists said the big bang was contradicting...

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Scientists said the big bang was contradicting...

YOU RESPOND:

Quote:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: eric cartman
Date: Dec 2 2006 8:09 PM

I believe in god and I have the right to believe in anything I want. How else was the universe created? the big bang? ha give me a break even scientists have said it is contradicting. matter cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang is just as rediculous in believeing in God if you want to call that rediculous. where did the big bang come from? everything had to start somewhere. A super natural being. also there is life after death. consiousness exists out side the body. It's been proven at Priceton University. The monroe institute proved it also. Please educate yourself for the sake of me, I don't want to have to live with stupid people.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
When exactly and how exactly

When exactly and how exactly was it proven consciousness exists outside the body? And when did scientists ever say the big bang was "contradicting" when the vast majority of scientists agree it really happened? If everything had to start somewhere, where did god start? And finally, where did your non-sequitor about life after death come from? wtf

Oh, yeah, you do have the right to believe whatever you want. You have the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, that cat is spelled "K-A-T" or that pouring ice cream into computers makes them work better. Of course if you believe that you are wrong, and if you go around saying it I'm going to think you're a moron and tell you so.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: You have

MattShizzle wrote:
You have the right to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, that cat is spelled "K-A-T" or that pouring ice cream into computers makes them work better. Of course if you believe that you are wrong, and if you go around saying it I'm going to think you're a moron and tell you so.

Sometimes cat is spelled kat. *grin*
Anyway, I have no use for Eric Cartman's god of the gap.... wait.... Eric freakin' Cartman? LOL
WTF, we're supposed to take this guy seriously? ROTF


un0
ModeratorRational VIP!
un0's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-11-05
User is offlineOffline
1. No scientist I'm aware of

1. No scientist I'm aware of has ever described the big bang as a contradiction, and if he did, I suspect his motives would not be scientific.
2. There is no question in the scientific community concerning WHETHER the universe began with an explosion, the only questions that remain concern how.
3. There are many different opinions over what caused the big bang and where the matter in the universe came from and all of them have one thing in common:

Parsimony: preference for the least complex explanation for an observation.

When scientists say "least complex" they don't mean easiest to understand, in fact, it usually ends up being the opposite.

Theories are refined and usually made more difficult to understand, explaining complex phenomena down to simpler origins. Natural selection, for example, explains how an extremely complex phenomena, like the human being, came from extremely simple beginnings, like primordial ooze. That is parsimony.

Scientists have deduced, beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is the result of a massive explosion caused by a gravitational singularity. Now, a massive singularity of sufficient density to produce all the stars, galaxies, and planets in the universe is, needless to say, unlikely to occur without cause.

However, in the absence of an exact explanation, all we have is the simplest explanation. "Introducing a creative intelligence," says Richard Dawkins, "only pushes the explanation problem under the rug, and creates a bigger problem, where did the intelligent designer come from? A being capable of creating a complex universe would have to be at least as complex as that which he creates, so we are left with a more complex explanation than we started."

--------------------------------------------------------------
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

http://unpleasantcharacters.blogspot.com


TheSarge
BloggerHigh Level Donor
TheSarge's picture
Posts: 60
Joined: 2006-12-13
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
YOU RESPOND:

Quote:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: eric cartman
Date: Dec 2 2006 8:09 PM

I believe in god and I have the right to believe in anything I want. How else was the universe created? the big bang? ha give me a break even scientists have said it is contradicting. matter cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang is just as rediculous in believeing in God if you want to call that rediculous. where did the big bang come from? everything had to start somewhere. A super natural being. also there is life after death. consiousness exists out side the body. It's been proven at Priceton University. The monroe institute proved it also. Please educate yourself for the sake of me, I don't want to have to live with stupid people.

Easy. Matter was always there. You believe that your god has always existed and will never cease to exist, correct? However, using your own logic, everything had to start somewhere. Where did your god come from?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, how long have I been

Yeah, how long have I been talking about this shit?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/debunking_creationism

Check show #9 as well. I have better versions of this response/essay floating around other places as well. It sickens me how often I have to repost this shit.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I thought the "Big Bang" was

I thought the "Big Bang" was when the Holy Spirit had Mary bent over.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
YOU RESPOND:

Quote:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: eric cartman
Date: Dec 2 2006 8:09 PM

I believe in god and I have the right to believe in anything I want. .

and damn the reality!

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
This mail is one big

This mail is one big non-sequitor and strawman:
So in this case, I will return the favor.

God is a giant pie, that told me the cookie moster like my liver with flava beans. Did you hear of the catholic and protastent fighting? There fore no god, for how can you explain garden hoses?!

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


memesinconflict
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Response

We have taken your comments and, if you wish, will promptly forward them to John Mather and George  Smoot, who this year jointly won a Nobel Prize in Physics for providing more evidence for the  Big Bang.

 While your appeal to the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) is quite interesting, we would like to note that they set out to prove that a collective conscious, not the afterlife, existed. It should also be noted that, although the results appeared significant, later meta-analyses showed that the results obtained were not significant and had a high probability of occuring by chance.

 Secondly, although we thank you for invoking the Monroe Institute, Robert Monroe, leading "researcher," is a business man who wrote several books after experiencing what he believed to be an out of body experience. He has never done actual research nor does he refer to anything past anecdotal evidence. However, we believe that Mr. Monroe agrees with us when we highly suggest that you buy any of his CDs at $19.95 that will use the trademarked Hemi-Synch method to induce out of body experiences or relaxation. 

 Gauging by your last comment, we finally suggest seeking immediate psychiatric help for your obvious diagnosis of self-hatred.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
eric cartma wrote:  I

eric cartma wrote:
 I believe in god and I have the right to believe in anything I want. How else was the universe created? the big bang? ha give me a break even scientists have said it is contradicting. matter cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang is just as rediculous in believeing in God if you want to call that rediculous.

 

Theists tend to project their flaws onto others, but I don't know if I can call this a projection, seeing as 'eric' is practically conscious of his projection: He's able to come right out and admit that 'the big bang is just as ridiculous as believing in god'.  And seeing that his conceptualization of the big bang is a childish strawman, he's right....  both views are ridiculous. Kudos to eric. He's revealed exactly how most theists deal with science: through trying to tear it down and turn it into something just as ridiculous as their religious beliefs.... his ignorance frees him to say whatever he likes

 

It is also interesting how he states his belief in his rights to believe whatever he wants, while also trying to question the beliefs of others... he seems to grasp the importance of justifying beliefs... as long as no one expects him to follow the very same creed he demands others follow....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Dawkins makes a great point

Dawkins makes a great point simply in terms of likelihood. Which is more likely: a universe that began with a complex intelligent designer or one that began with simple things that gradually increased in complexity over long periods of time? From a logic point of view, it seems like a no-brainer to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
'god' is a non solution for

'god' is a non solution for at least two other reasons

1) 'god' is an incohernt term, a reference to something 'supernatural'. But we can't refer to 'things' beyond nature.

2) even if 'god' were a comprehensible term, appealing to complexity to solve the problem of complexity is a non answer!

It should be clear from these two points alone that saying 'goddidit' is precisely the same as saying "I don't know."

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Lefank
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm new to this site, so I

I'm new to this site, so I hope someone can give me some answers to the Big Bang Theory.  I am a Christian, and I have a limited knowledge of what this theory is. 

I believe that God never had a beginning because he is outside of time.  Since time and causality are related, then I don't think that God needs to have a creator.   It doesn't matter how complex God is because I believe He was never created.

I do not believe that the universe is eternal because it is constantly running out of usable energy due to entropy.  The Big Bang theory would agree that the universe had a point of beginning, and this seems to be the general concensus. 

With the above paragraph in mind, "Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else.  If something did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence."  I believe that this is very logical, and it therefore requires the universe to have something that brought it into existence.  Why can't God be a possibility?  

That is a summary of my belief.  I came here to get some answers, so I hope someone can help me out with this issue.  Thanks.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Lefank. I am

Welcome Lefank. I am curious as to why you posted in here, as this thread appears to be a year out of date. Why not introduce yourself in the Introductions forum.

Your question is the topic of a thread I recently started to which I will paste the link below. Due to one of the comments made by Kelly in the debate about the universe, there has been a flurry of talk about the universe, most of it from people who have no idea. I hope this thread will help to answer your question. Here it is:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/6990

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Lefank
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, I came across this

Thanks, I came across this thread directly from Google.


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
YOU RESPOND:
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: eric  everything had to start somewhere. 

 

Where did  God start?


ProfessionalWidow
ProfessionalWidow's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
YOU RESPOND:
Quote:
----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: eric cartman Date: Dec 2 2006 8:09 PM I believe in god and I have the right to believe in anything I want. How else was the universe created? the big bang? ha give me a break even scientists have said it is contradicting. matter cannot be created or destroyed. The big bang is just as rediculous in believeing in God if you want to call that rediculous. where did the big bang come from? everything had to start somewhere. A super natural being. also there is life after death. consiousness exists out side the body. It's been proven at Priceton University. The monroe institute proved it also. Please educate yourself for the sake of me, I don't want to have to live with stupid people.

OK, you state that you have the right to believe in anything YOU want, but apparently that doesn't apply to everyone else. We probably should believe in the exact same thing that you believe in or else we're, as you say, "stupid." This is just a pathetic attempt at trying to goad us into your way of thinking.  Well, it didn't work. It just sounded silly.

PW

"Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought."
~Graham Greene


curl
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-07-30
User is offlineOffline
there has been some

there has been some contradiction about the big bang.  i took an astornomy class and the professor told use that they have another theory on the creation of the universe.  i can't remember off the top of my head the name theory, but some how that there are galaxies movie closer together.  and according to the big bang, the universe is spreading.  so that kind of leaves doubt to the big bang theory.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Lefank wrote: I believe

Lefank wrote:

I believe that God never had a beginning because he is outside of time.



How long did it take god to created time?

How can you refer to creation or creating without refering to time?

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Lefank
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Who Created God?

Who created God?  The short answer is that God doesn't have a cause.  You may ask why I'm even allowed to say that, so let me try to explain this as clear as I can.  Much scientific evidence points to an initial point at which our entire universe began.  This is known as the big bang.  Gravitational time dilation is the theory that says time slows down as gravity increases.  This has been proven by using atomic clocks at different altitudes.  Now the definition of a point is something that represents a single place in space yet has no volume.  This is how our universe started, as a point.  Now if all of our universe was compacted into a single point, then gravity would reach such an extremely high value (infinity) that time would completely not advance.  Hence, time would not exist.  Assuming that God put our universe into existence, then he would not need a cause, because he would be completely independent of time.  When you have no time, then no cause is needed.  And that is why no one created God.  Time is merely a part of this universe, so the question of where God comes from is completely meaningless as we are incapable of understanding what lies beyond this universe.  So atheists need to stop asking this question, and besides, an infinite regression of causes will go nowhere.


Lefank
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Simultaneous Causation

Additionally, the same moment at which the universe was caused, was the exact same moment of the effect of the universe coming to be.  This is known as simultaneous causation.  An example would be the pressing of a cushion and the simultaneous effect of the cushion being depressed.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Lefank

Lefank wrote:

Additionally, the same moment at which the universe was caused, was the exact same moment of the effect of the universe coming to be.  This is known as simultaneous causation.  An example would be the pressing of a cushion and the simultaneous effect of the cushion being depressed.

Excuse me? That's completely ridiculous. That thought experiment (I bet it was Leibniz who came up with it) was created before the invention of ultra-sensitive time measurment devices. There are loads of these so-called "simultaneous causation" analogies floating around which still have a temporal gap between them. A runner and a starting gun, a child and a trampoline. Etc. All have been smashed by integral calculus and the concept of limits and fine-tuned measuring devices.

The only possible "simultaneous causation" is the quantum effect called entanglement, and even that is not precisely temporally aligned, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Who created God? The short answer is that God doesn't have a cause.

Then we have a stolen concept fallacy in employ.

Quote:

uch scientific evidence points to an initial point at which our entire universe began. This is known as the big bang. Gravitational time dilation is the theory that says time slows down as gravity increases. This has been proven by using atomic clocks at different altitudes. Now the definition of a point is something that represents a single place in space yet has no volume. This is how our universe started, as a point. Now if all of our universe was compacted into a single point, then gravity would reach such an extremely high value (infinity) that time would completely not advance. Hence, time would not exist.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that, however, inflationary cosmology dictates that natural causes brought about the universe, as shown:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_r...

And btw, you ought reword that. Gravity is nothing more than the distortion caused by material acting on the spatiotemporal continuum, hence, to make reference to gravity without time (hence, without space, being that the two are not indepedent) is complete nonsense.

Quote:

so the question of where God comes from is completely meaningless as we are incapable of understanding what lies beyond this universe.

Special pleading fallacy. The notion which you are attempting to put forth refutes itself, as I have shown:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/all_a_posteriori_arguments_for_the_existence_of_god_are_intellectually_bankrupt

You are invoking an entity whose attributes presuppose the concepts which you are attempting to explain via the invocation of said entity, making it an utterly shameful stolen concept fallacy. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism