[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Stripe

You think that in the beginning the universe went through rapid inflation.

What I believe about inflation is a red herring. Your scriptures do not qualify as a scientific theory dealing with dark matter and energy.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

What I believe about inflation is a red herring. Your scriptures do not qualify as a scientific theory dealing with dark matter and energy.

I never claimed them as a theory. I claimed them as an idea, an alternate explanation. I'm allowed to have ideas and to test them. And you show your bigotry for trying to dismiss them based on their source.

And DM&E are not a necessary part of a cosmology and have no place in mine. They are ad hoc additions to stabilise your theory.

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

I agree. The term "God" has too many connotations attached to it -- stereotypes that atheists pick up and try to apply in all cases; e.g., the Shermer article I linked to and every other atheist who asks "who made God?"

They aren't really stereotypes, though. They're concepts and descriptions asserted by theists. We can't respond to all possible ideas at once.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

The term does, however, rightly denote something more than accident or the permutations of blind law and mechanical forces at work.

I think I can accept that usage.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

• It was a Catholic priest who first proposed the idea
• "Big Bang" came form a derogatory remark: "You expect us to believe it all began with a big bang?" or something to that effect.

Yes, I know that.

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. The point was that we could have just changed the definition of "steady state" to encompass the new evidence of a Big Bang, in the same way that you seem to be suggesting we do with "God".

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

• Scientists didn't like it because it implies a First Cause

They didn't like it because it posed new questions that they thought they could avoid with a steady state Universe. Occum's Razor: As long as they didn't have a reason to believe that there was a beginning to the Universe, they didn't want to invent one. And this largely included the religious scientists.

And, of course, a Big Bang doesn't imply a First Cause.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

• They initially disliked the anthropic principle for the same reason

The anthropic principle has a few forms, and only the strong anthropic principle even potentially implies that a creator.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

• Ever since, scientists have been working to circumvent those implications with various ideas

And evidence. So?

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

• The "steady state" may be untenable http://www.technologyreview.com/blog...nld=2012-04-25

It wouldn't surprise me. But, of course, the idea of an unmoved mover is an immediate contradiction. So I think we need some better ideas, which have been in the works for quite a while.

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

In any event, my theology is unaffected by whatever science may find.

Interesting. How do you manage that?

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Stripe

I never claimed them as a theory. I claimed them as an idea, an alternate explanation.

Lies flow so easily out of you. When I asked why you had issues with dark matter and dark energy, you replied:

Originally Posted by Stripe

We just have a better theory.

I asked specifically what is this “better theory”:

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

Early in this thread you said you had a “better theory”. … What is that “better theory” you laid claim to? Remember a theory provides an explanation for an array of data, and allows one to make new predictions. State your “better theory” in clear terms.

Your response was:

Originally Posted by Stripe

Try my third post.

And here is your third post:

Originally Posted by Stripe

…
Bible References to the 'Stretching Out of the Heavens':
Job 9:8 “[God] stretches out the heavens”
Ps 104:2 “stretching out heaven like a tent curtain”
Is 40:22 “He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent”
Is 42:5 “... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out”
Is 44:24 “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself”
Is 45:12 “It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands”
Is 48:13 “Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.”
Is 51:13 “the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth”
Jer 10:12 “He has stretched out the heavens”
Jer 51:15 “He stretched out the heavens”
Zech 12:1 “the Lord who stretches out the heavens”

References to 'the beginning':
Genesis 1:1 [ The History of Creation ] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.
Ephesians 3:9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

Stacking lies upon lies is not becoming, even for you.

[Stripe]

Sorry, I misspoke.

"We" might. "I" don't...

[Lost Comet]

Originally Posted by rexlunae

They aren't really stereotypes, though. They're concepts and descriptions asserted by theists. We can't respond to all possible ideas at once.

By some theists, but by no means all. The fact that you can't respond to all concepts at once is your problem. If I made a blanket statement about atheism similar to what Shermer said in the article I linked to I'd be, as one comment said, "nailed to a wall and stoned."

I think I can accept that usage.

I dunno. I have problems with it, mostly for the reason I cited. I'm thinking of adopting Plotinus' term: "the One."

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. The point was that we could have just changed the definition of "steady state" to encompass the new evidence of a Big Bang, in the same way that you seem to be suggesting we do with "God".

I got you point. My point is that while the term "God" can still be appropriate, "steady state" may not.

They didn't like it because it posed new questions that they thought they could avoid with a steady state Universe. Occum's Razor: As long as they didn't have a reason to believe that there was a beginning to the Universe, they didn't want to invent one. And this largely included the religious scientists.

And, of course, a Big Bang doesn't imply a First Cause.

Logically, anything with a beginning has a cause -- is contingent. And don't make the same mistake most atheists make: "First" in "First Cause" does not mean first in a long sequence of events, but rather first in the hierarchical sense, like "First Lady."

The anthropic principle has a few forms, and only the strong anthropic principle even potentially implies that a creator.

Agreed.

And evidence.

Go to the link.

So?

Avoidance isn't science.

It wouldn't surprise me. But, of course, the idea of an unmoved mover is an immediate contradiction. So I think we need some better ideas, which have been in the works for quite a while.

Like what? Something from nothing? (Please say yes. ) To qualify as a "better idea," it has to do more than just take things another step.

Interesting. How do you manage that?

I explained that in a previous post (and its why I said "please say yes" above). Besides, Plotinus managed to do it over 1600 years ago. Maybe it's you that should keep up with the times?

[bigbang123]

Originally Posted by bigbang123

OP restated - How can Scientists know so little while Atheist know so much?

A short list of those who disbelieve in anything outside the natural

http://youtu.be/s47ArcQL-XQ

1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

[Hedshaker]

Not sure, even after all this time, what this, "A Question for Atheist" actually is but I have to say..... theism! I'm not buying it. Like most searchers I really, really would like to know the truth, but.....

Isn't there this voice in your head screaming... but what about this and what about that, and how come the scientific method is making all these great advances that have long left theological ideas for dead?

Science is the only true magic.

[Hedshaker]

.......

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by bigbang123

A short list of those who disbelieve in anything outside the natural

And the point of that laundry list was...what?

Science is concerned only with "the natural" because that is all that is detectable.

What compelling reason is there to accept the existence of that which is undetectable?

[Hedshaker]

Originally Posted by Gerald

And the point of that laundry list was...what?

Science is concerned only with "the natural" because that is all that is detectable.

What compelling reason is there to accept the existence of that which is undetectable?

Because that's how they want it? Compelling reason for some I guess.

[Cleekster]

Originally Posted by Gerald

And the point of that laundry list was...what?

Science is concerned only with "the natural" because that is all that is detectable.

What compelling reason is there to accept the existence of that which is undetectable?

i think one should keep an open mind about the possibility of that which we cannot yet detect......besides, you'll never find something you aren't looking for, never mind something you've already decided doesn't exist.

[Hedshaker]

Originally Posted by Cleekster

i think one should keep an open mind about the possibility of that which we cannot yet detect......

Which is what science is all about. Discovery.

besides, you'll never find something you aren't looking for, never mind something you've already decided doesn't exist.

But more so for that which you have already decided does exist.

[Cleekster]

Originally Posted by Hedshaker

Which is what science is all about. Discovery.



But more so for that which you have already decided does exist.

in certain theological circles that does seem to be the case....i'll give you that much.

[Quincy]

Only one of you was supposed to answer. I'm so disappoint. Reading comprehension fellas.



I couldn't resist.