outgonecya@yahoo.com (setrux) wrote in message news:<89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com>...

The Big Bang Theory provided an atheistic explanation for the
origin of the universe, but its obvious simplicity was subject to
multiple attacks. As a result, the original theory is no longer the
dominant scientific explanation for the atheistic origin of the
universe.

There was nothing atheistic about the Big Bang Theory. While atheists
believe in variations of the Big Bang Theory, so do many religious
people. In fact, if you couple the Big Bang Theory with Quark theory
and String Theory and many new scientific theories, you find that they
are all quite consistent with the ancient writings of the Kaballah,
and do not go against the notion of God at all. Indeed, what made the
Kaballah so unfathomable to so many people a few centuries ago was the
lack of all these modern scientific theories.

outgonecya@yahoo.com (setrux) wrote in message news:<89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com>...

Is there a God? Nice question.

I'm not going to follow down the path of your Science vs. Deism
article, instead taking a different track on this question:

Is there a God?

Well, if you can unequivocally say "no", then you have access to
information that neither your parents, or parents parents, or their
grandparents had. Deism in some form has existed as long as man. And
so has science. Orbital mechanics was no secret 600 years ago; the
atom was not news 2000 years ago; if archaeology is correct, neither
was brain surgery. Not even 4000 years ago did man not live with the
same technological capacity as much of the non-industrialized world
(and some might say, parts of the industrialized world).

But perhaps the inertia argument isn't satisfying enough. It might not
be enough to say there is a God simply because everyone else has.

How about the consistency argument? I will use Christian text since
it's the one with which I'm most familiar. It's remarkably consistent
in theme and character throughout. Especially given that it was
written and passed through countless hands and oral traditions, and
survived politics, the falls of empires, natural disasters, and
attempts at genocide.

You will find in this text foreshadowing (Gen 12:3, Gen 18:18) of the
new testament. This at least 14 centuries before the actual occurance!
With additional supporting works cropping up during the passing time
(Isaiah, Jeremiah).

Documentation may also not satisfy. If that is the case, however,
you'll be hard pressed then to believe -- I'd gather -- in any written
history occuring before your birth. Perhaps there is a higher bar for
proving God. Certainly there should be so.

In the end, Deist or not, you will have faith in something....

Best regards,

James

still trying to understand after all these years...

First off I would like to say that I am by no means a religious
fanatic. I think God himself dislikes "religion". People twist and
distort religion to make excuses for their actions. You can argue
until you're blue in the face as to who's religion is "right" and
nobody would get anywhere. I also am not biased to others opinions or
thoughts. I will respect everyones opinions equally no matter if its a
satan worshipper, atheist, religious fanatic etc etc. I am simply
going to argue the question of "is there a God?", nothing more,
nothing less.

"Is there a God?" This question is answered by asking another, "how
did we get here?" 20th century science has demonstrated, with
certainty, that the universe is not eternal; the universe had a
beginning. Actually, mankind has contemplated this issue for
millennia, long before science proved a beginning. In all that time,
man has conceived of only two possible solutions -- either Someone
made the world, or the world made itself. Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default. The
incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer.
Natural laws (cause and effect, thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a
Lawgiver. Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator. Since
everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have
been a First Cause. Unless we are able to explain satisfactorily how
each of these things exist, without resorting to a supernatural force,
and find empirical evidence to support our conclusion, a Creator is
default. Furthermore, any derived conclusion must be within the bounds
of natural law, as natural law is a part of the universe and remains
unbroken within the universe. Is there a God, or isn't there a God,
depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon
atheism to validate its position. Currently, the common alternative to
Special Creation via a Personal Creator is the Big Bang Model of
Origins. This is the accepted theory today.

The Big Bang Theory is today's dominant scientific theory about the
origin of the universe. According to the theory, the universe was
created between 10 and 20 billion years ago from the random, cosmic
explosion of a subatomic ball that hurled matter and energy in all
directions. Over a period of approximately 10 billion years, this
newly created matter and energy coagulated into stars, galaxies and
planets, including our earth.

The Big Bang Theory finds its mathematical roots in Albert Einstein
and his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and his General Theory of
Relativity in 1915. In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre was
the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a
subatomic atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in
distant nebulas and comparing it to a model of the universe based on
Einstein's theories. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered evidence to help
justify Lemaire's theory. Hubble observed that distant galaxies in
every direction are going away from us at speeds proportional to their
distance. The big bang concept was initially suggested because it
explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great
speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background
radiation (the heat left over from the explosion itself). In 1964, the
big bang theory received a major boost when this radiation was
observed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel
Prize for their discovery.

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems however. First of
all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where
did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This is contrary to
the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).
Where did Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Information come from?
Next, how did this explosion (or "expansion") cause order while every
explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history caused only
disorder and disarray? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What
organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics,
the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular
Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain
"Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the
backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of
Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies,
etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet
spinning (Inertia). To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory
claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was
spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as
it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning
backwards (Retrograde Motion). Why is this a problem? If something
spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning
clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). How can the
Big Bang explain Retrograde Motion? Some have suggested that cosmic
impacts upon these planets have stopped and then reversed the spin.
This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely
self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse
the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would
certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the
planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a
retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some moons have
a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and
Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can
Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of
Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Finally, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For
example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution
of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and
"clumps". If the Big Bang was true, shouldn't all the matter be
(roughly) evenly distributed? Why are there incredibly vast voids of
empty space between the clumps of matter? It is true there is the
Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electro Magnetic Force, and
Gravity. The problem is not so much, "How did all the matter clump?"
The question is, "Why has the clumping agent allowed these voids after
such an extended period of influence?" James Trefil writes, "There
shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." (James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, 1988, pg.3)

The Big Bang Theory provided an atheistic explanation for the
origin of the universe, but its obvious simplicity was subject to
multiple attacks. As a result, the original theory is no longer the
dominant scientific explanation for the atheistic origin of the
universe. While the original Big Bang Theory is now "dead," from its
ashes have emerged the various Inflationary Universe Theories (IUTs).
Starting with Alan Guth in the late 1990's (The Inflationary Universe:
The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific
community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants.
Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate
reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally
acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It
seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model
is to make assumptions that are poorly justified.

The IUTs are essentially no better an attempt to explain the origin
of the universe without God than the Big Bang. The primary differences
between the IUTs and the original Big Bang Theory are really pre-Bang
explanations. What happened just prior to the explosion? What happened
during the first millisecond of the explosion? For instance, some of
the IUTs have included a concept called the 'epoch of inflation' to
explain the dynamic first millisecond after the Bang. However, the
basic premise of all these theory variants is the same -- the universe
was compacted into a little cosmic ball that subsequently exploded
with a big bang into everything that exists today. Thus, the IUTs
share the same post-Bang problems which we have discussed that plague
the original Big Bang Theory.

In addition, the Big Bang/IUTs are unable to explain a limitless
list of other issues related to cosmological, chemical, stellar,
planetary and biological causation, order and design. Where did all
that matter and energy come from in the first place? What caused its
initial release? How did this explosion of everything (from nothing)
order itself? How can simplicity become complexity? Where did the
chemical elements come from? Where did the mathematical laws and
physical properties come from? Where did the first rock come from? How
did life come from a rock? Where did the information code for all
biologic forms come from? Where did the language convention that
interprets that code come from?

Attempts to exclude a Creator from the "origin of the universe
equation" have been long on theoretical calculations and short on
common sense. The various models merely move the questions of where,
why and how did everything get here to "long ago and far away." But as
Aldous Huxley put it so eloquently, "Facts do not cease to exist
because they are ignored."

In conclusion, I am uncertain as to how anyone can completely
exclude the existence of God. It seems ridiculous to me that some
argue that it is far more inane to believe in God than all these
scientific theories of how we came into existence. Once again I must
reiterate that I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone, just
trying to simply argue my case intelligently, and without bias. I ALSO
must reiterate, I am only giving my views on the existence of God and
creation, not the Bible or any of its stories, or beliefs on different
religions, or on evolution etc etc. I'll debate on those topics later.
:) I could have said alot more but it would lead into different
topics. I would like to discuss this one before moving on to something
else. All retorts, comments, and opinions are welcome. Insults will be
ignored because if you cant respond even semi-intelligently and with
respect, then you shouldnt be reading this in the first place.

outgonecya@yahoo.com (setrux) wrote:

=First off I would like to say that I am by no means a religious
=fanatic. I think God himself dislikes "religion".
--snip--

You not only presume there's a god, but you also
presume to know what he/it likes? Wow.
Does he have a preference in brand of jeans?

__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"This generation shall not pass away, till all be
fulfilled." - Luke 21:32

I am an agnostic. Now that that's out of the way, I do not believe that
the God portrayed in Christian mythology or any other religion is real or
even close. Prayer and worship is just a waste of time because no God is
listening. I thought God was all powerful and perfect. Well this place
(Earth) is a disaster. I am not impressed with his work if that is the
case.

Either God doesn't care about us or he
doesn't exist. Begging for opinions/responses
please.

In a message sent 'round the world, setrux poured fuel on the fire with
the following:


...

20th century science has demonstrated, with
certainty, that the universe is not eternal; the universe had a
beginning.

Incorrect. An eternal universe is still a possibility.

Actually, mankind has contemplated this issue for
millennia, long before science proved a beginning. In all that time,
man has conceived of only two possible solutions -- either Someone
made the world, or the world made itself.

False Dichotomy.

Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.

LOL !!

The
incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer.

Please demonstrate that there is "incredible design".

Natural laws (cause and effect, thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a
Lawgiver.

Argument by Assertion.

Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator.

No reason to think so.

Since
everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have
been a First Cause.

Argument by Assertion.


[ snip the rest of this silliness ]

I would like to discuss this one before moving on to something
else. All retorts, comments, and opinions are welcome. Insults will be
ignored because if you cant respond even semi-intelligently and with
respect, then you shouldnt be reading this in the first place.

If you're only going to be insulting our intelligence then you should
not be posting this stuff in the first place.

In a message sent 'round the world, setrux poured fuel on the fire with
the following:


...

20th century science has demonstrated, with
certainty, that the universe is not eternal; the universe had a
beginning.

Incorrect. An eternal universe is still a possibility.

Actually, mankind has contemplated this issue for
millennia, long before science proved a beginning. In all that time,
man has conceived of only two possible solutions -- either Someone
made the world, or the world made itself.

False Dichotomy.

Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.

LOL !!

The
incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer.

Please demonstrate that there is "incredible design".

Natural laws (cause and effect, thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a
Lawgiver.

Argument by Assertion.

Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator.

No reason to think so.

Since
everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have
been a First Cause.

Argument by Assertion.


[ snip the rest of this silliness ]

I would like to discuss this one before moving on to something
else. All retorts, comments, and opinions are welcome. Insults will be
ignored because if you cant respond even semi-intelligently and with
respect, then you shouldnt be reading this in the first place.

If you're only going to be insulting our intelligence then you should
not be posting this stuff in the first place.