Go Back   AFA Forums > Science, Logic and Reason > Ask a scientist

Ask a scientist Not up to speed with science jargon but have a sciency question?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 15th August 2016, 12:10 AM
Old Existentialist's Avatar
Old Existentialist Old Existentialist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 103
Default Re: intelligent creator

The last refuge of the "god of the gaps" what caused the big bang? What tuned the universe so perfectly? As for the physics of the physical universe we observe, science has already explained that away. So now we are just left with the very beginning. Science can't explain that, therefore God did it (sic). But the best argument theists can muster up is some kind of "deist" god. This god created the universe, liked what he saw and then pissed off.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15th August 2016, 12:59 AM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,576
Default Re: intelligent creator

Science can't even categorically state that there was a beginning. Theists will often cite 'the big bang theory', overlooking the fact that there's currently no such thing. The big bang is the name we have for the fact that the cosmos is expanding, and all cosmological models contain it.

Some further reading:

http://reciprocity-giving-something-...beginning.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-...ng-part-i.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-...g-part-ii.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-...certainty.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
Like odd liked this post
  #23  
Old 15th August 2016, 01:19 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 842
Default Re: intelligent creator

Quote:
what caused the big bang?
As Hackensalsh pointed out, there are plausible theories which suggest that there was no "beginning". and when you look at the quantum world, the notion of cause and effect take a form very different to what we normally think, and "effect" can sometimes precede "cause"

Quote:
What tuned the universe so perfectly?
again, there are good arguments here: the anthropic principle and the multiverse are the two top candidates. but the deeper problem is that this question implies that there was some sort of intention to support life. but there does not seem to be any evidence for this. the universe is by and large totally inhospitable to life. not to mention that in the far future - due to the accelerating expansion of the universe - life, as we know it, will not even be possible. so this argument can at best be described as "temporary fine tuning". then you have to contend with describing what life is and to prove that these conditions are the only conditions which could support life. while we may have some understanding of what life is, we have zero idea regarding the totality of pre requisites for all conceivable forms of life.

bottom line, as Neil Degrasse Tyson so eloquently said: "it is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance". https://youtu.be/xRx6f8lv6qc?t=1300

last but not least, this may be of interest: Sean Carroll on why god is not a good theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15th August 2016, 01:26 PM
Old Existentialist's Avatar
Old Existentialist Old Existentialist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 103
Default Re: intelligent creator

I have often felt the term "big bang" is way outdated because A it was not big (smaller than a Planck unit) and B did not bang like giant fire cracker going off in a pre-existing void. Instead call it the reeeally big expansion.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15th August 2016, 02:19 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,198
Default Re: intelligent creator

"Big Bang" was originally used derisively by Fred Hoyle in relation to the idea that the universe had expanded from a very small point.

It was a catchy name so it stuck. Even though it was never a very good description of what happened.

(So hard to google "Big Bang Theory" these days for historical or scientific references, when about 90% of hits are in relation to a certain popular TV show with the same name).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15th August 2016, 03:48 PM
Old Existentialist's Avatar
Old Existentialist Old Existentialist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 103
Default Re: intelligent creator

I think a version of the "big bang" was first coined as the "primordial atom theory" by a Belgian Catholic priest George Lemaitre. Hoyle clearly did not like it, because it was at odds with his "steady state theory" which was later discredited in the 1960's with the accidental discovery of the microwave background radiation.

Last edited by Old Existentialist; 15th August 2016 at 03:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15th August 2016, 06:32 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 842
Default Re: intelligent creator

Quote:
Old Existentialist said View Post
I think a version of the "big bang" was first coined as the "primordial atom theory" by a Belgian Catholic priest George Lemaitre. Hoyle clearly did not like it, because it was at odds with his "steady state theory" which was later discredited in the 1960's with the accidental discovery of the microwave background radiation.
The steady state went out the window as soon as Hubble discovered the universe was expanding in 1929. Lemaitre then put 1+1 and showed that when you combine GR and the expansion and roll it back in time the universe had to have started from a singularity. He also told the pope to piss off after the latter suggested that he could make "big bang proves god" a church doctrine.

in 1965 Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR by chance and it was evidence that the BB happened.

however, we don't know what happens when you roll back the time to t=0. we don't have quantum gravity and we have no model for the physics of a singularity. in fact, we don't know if singularities even happen. there are theories, like inflation, which attempt to explain how and why the BB "banged". they make some pretty specific predictions and some of them have been validated but no "smoking gun" yet. but it is widely accepted as the most likely idea.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15th August 2016, 09:09 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: intelligent creator

Quote:
hackenslash said View Post
Science can't even categorically state that there was a beginning.
Can we even really be sure that the notion of 'cause' is relevant?
Reply With Quote
Like wolty liked this post
  #29  
Old 15th August 2016, 10:05 PM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,576
Default Re: intelligent creator

No, and I talk at length about that in the first of those posts. We shouldn't be giving any credence to Aristotelian notions of causation in cosmology any more than we should give credence to his notion of sexual dimorphism in dentition.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 16th August 2016, 10:14 AM
Old Existentialist's Avatar
Old Existentialist Old Existentialist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 103
Default Re: intelligent creator

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
The steady state went out the window as soon as Hubble discovered the universe was expanding in 1929. Lemaitre then put 1+1 and showed that when you combine GR and the expansion and roll it back in time the universe had to have started from a singularity. He also told the pope to piss off after the latter suggested that he could make "big bang proves god" a church doctrine.

in 1965 Wilson and Penzias discovered the CMBR by chance and it was evidence that the BB happened.
The steady state theory did not quite go out the window, because Fred Hoyle for example accepted the expanding universe in his model of a steady state universe. He got around it with his theory that matter was continuously created in unknown regions the universe and was searching for evidence to confirm his theories, which never turned up. I wasn't until that chance discovery by Penzias and Wilson in the 1960's, the steady state theory was dead and buried.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.