Evolution, Big bang religion; no cause= no theory = religion

[EarthScienceguy]

One the cornerstones of physics is the idea of causality, every event has a cause. And yet all naturalistic religions like the Big Bang religion and the evolutionary religion has its origins in uncaused events.

For example

The big bang theory does not explain how the universe was created out of nothing it simply explains what happen after that the creation event.

The evolutionary religion does not describe how life began here on earth it simply explains what happen after life already began here on earth.

And then when pressed on the issue the response is simply that they have faith that science will eventually come up with the solution. That is by definition faith. They are believing something happen that did not actually happen.

Thesis

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics. Every event in this universe must have a cause, if they do not have a cause they are simply a believe or a religion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 10 by Diagoras]

Radioactive decay apparently doesn’t.

Yes, it does and it is well known and fairly well understood. Decay is caused by an incorrect balance between protons and neutrons. A nucleus of an atom can actually have many combinations of protons and neutrons but only a few are actually somewhat stable. If we were to graph this stability it would fall in what is called the valley of stability.

I will not charge you for that one.

No - a particular observation, and one which can be independently tested and verified as having happened. No faith required.

The Big Bang religion has been observed? Really.

No gravity waves, no inflation, no inflation, no Big Bang.

No supernovas no stars. No stars no supernovas. No stars No Big Bang.

Much faith required for the Big Bang religion.

Quote:
Worship is defined as: "to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion." Scientists have shown very extravagant respect and devotion to these theories. Even with castestraphic problems with the theories.

I’m sure that this directly contradicts your own previous position - I’m not going to trawl through hundreds of posts to find an example - but the defining strength of science is its willingness to immediately discard old theories when better ones (i.e. more accurately explain phenomena) are produced. Scientists do not worship theories at all.

They have not yet with BB or Evolution so much even though both have huge problems.

Quote:
If people want to believe in some sort of uncaused event they are free to do that.

That’s a relief. The alternative would be some form of suppression of thought - a bit like Galileo might have experienced at the hands of the Church, I imagine. So clearly we’ve moved on from those dark days of having to believe just what the priests told us.

Actually it was the church following the theories of science. Aristotle was the one who first proposed the flat earth theory. The whole idea in physics of an object at rest is Aristotelian which was a result of Aristotle's belief that that the earth is flat. He believed that when an object hit the ground it was in its lowest state of energy, so he said it was at rest.

In fact Galileo, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage: "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

The Churches persecution of Galileo was more a result of the reformation then Galileo's belief in a heliocentric belief. Galileo believed like the reformers believed that truth came from Scripture and how God revealed Himself in nature not in any degree from a pope.

Quote:
The eternality of God is a belief that is over 4000 years old.

Argument from Tradition. A fairly common logical fallacy.

This is not an argument it is a fact statement. Simply meant to show that Christianity has never had a different belief. Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

Quote:
Today physicist are in search of something eternal because it is understood that only something eternal could have created our universe.

Perhaps you can provide a cite for your claim that physicists are in search of something eternal.

Sean Carroll's book "from eternity to here". I read his earlier papers before he wrote his book.

Quote:
The problem is entropy. For something to exist forever means the object cannot have any change in entropy. For over 3 millennia it has been believed that God is unchanging. God does not change.


You appear to be committing the same logical fallacy: ‘argument from tradition’. Here’s an explanation for you:

This is simply a fact statement about the Christian belief system. Again to show that Christianity has not changed its belief system in order to align itself with a naturalistic belief system.

But with the above being said, science is not like philosophy. In scientific debates an age old tested theory carries much more weight than other theories that are not tested as much.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 11 by EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 10 by Diagoras]

Radioactive decay apparently doesn’t.

Yes, it does and it is well known and fairly well understood. Decay is caused by an incorrect balance between protons and neutrons. A nucleus of an atom can actually have many combinations of protons and neutrons but only a few are actually somewhat stable. If we were to graph this stability it would fall in what is called the valley of stability.

I will not charge you for that one.

Based on the value of the information offered, I’d say that was reasonable.

Radioactive decay is a random process, which means that it is impossible to predict when a particular radioactive nucleus will decay. It is also spontaneous, meaning that you cannot cause or influence the time of a decay by any means. However, with large numbers of nuclei it is possibly to statistically predict the behaviour of the entire group. The randomness of nuclear decay is due to the quantum mechanical probabilistic underpinning, given the small size of a nucleus
A nucleus does not "age" or “destabilise� with the passage of time. Thus, the probability of its breaking down does not increase with time, but stays constant no matter how long the nucleus has existed.

Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

Thanks. I’m stealing that

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

One (of) the cornerstones of physics is the idea of causality, every event has a cause. And yet all naturalistic [strike]religions[/strike] theories like the Big Bang [strike]religion[/strike] theory and the evolutionary [strike]religion[/strike] theory [strike]has its[/strike] have their origins in uncaused events.

(corrections mine ... I won't charge you for those)

Tell us then ... what is the cause for the god that you believe exists? This being must have its origin in a cause, correct? What was that cause?

This is a clear difference between religion and science. Religion (in your view) does not have to explain itself, or have a cause, or be subject to any external scrutiny like you pretend to demand of science. You can't have it both ways. Tell us how your particular god came into existence, and what caused that to happen.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

(corrections mine ... I won't charge you for those)

Whew!!! thanks

Tell us then ... what is the cause for the god that you believe exists? This being must have its origin in a cause, correct? What was that cause?

This is a clear difference between religion and science. Religion (in your view) does not have to explain itself, or have a cause, or be subject to any external scrutiny like you pretend to demand of science. You can't have it both ways. Tell us how your particular god came into existence, and what caused that to happen.

I am following scientific principles. Something can exist eternally if there is no change in entropy.

In Sean Carroll's case, he perceives that our universe is part of a large mother universe. This mother universe has entropy that can move in either direction so that it has an entropy of 0. This entropy could exist for eternity if it had an unchanging entropy.

God has an unchanging entropy. God is unchanging. God has always existed and will always exists.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 14 by EarthScienceguy]

I am following scientific principles.

God has always existed and will always exists.

You have complained that science entertains hypotheses and theories with (according to you) no cause and that this is not compatible with how science works. Your examples are the usual ones related to origins (of the universe, or life on Earth).

Then here you claim to be following scientific principles (which, according to you, means something without a cause cannot happen), but in response to my question about what caused the existence of your favorite god your answer is "God has always existed, and will always exist."

So you are proposing the existence of something (a god) that has no cause, while claiming to follow scientific principles where you require every event to have a cause. I'll take this as an admission that you don't have an answer to the question.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 15 by DrNoGods]

You have complained that science entertains hypotheses and theories with (according to you) no cause and that this is not compatible with how science works. Your examples are the usual ones related to origins (of the universe, or life on Earth).

Then here you claim to be following scientific principles (which, according to you, means something without a cause cannot happen), but in response to my question about what caused the existence of your favorite god your answer is "God has always existed, and will always exist."

So you are proposing the existence of something (a god) that has no cause, while claiming to follow scientific principles where you require every event to have a cause. I'll take this as an admission that you don't have an answer to the question.

As defended above it is within the laws of physics for something to be eternal. So saying that God is eternal does not break any physical laws.

[Divine Insight]

Thesis

Creation theory is a much more robust theory because it does not break the laws of physics. Every event in this universe must have a cause, if they do not have a cause they are simply a believe or a religion.

Creation theory breaks every law of rational intelligence.

How do you explain where the God came from? Proposing that some God created the universe doesn't solve anything. All it does is create the problem of where this God supposedly came from.

You say:

One the cornerstones of physics is the idea of causality, every event has a cause. And yet all naturalistic religions like the Big Bang religion and the evolutionary religion has its origins in uncaused events.

Did you God have a cause? If not, then you just shot yourself in your own foot.

Face it, there is no rational argument for your favorite religion. Moreover you are apparently well aware of this since you obviously cannot defend your religion based on its own mythological tales.

How do we know this?

Simple. If you could make a compelling argument for your God based on ancient Hebrew mythology you would just do that. But since you have abandoned that fruitless effort and have turned instead to trying to make absurd arguments against science this reveals that even you are fully aware that there is no rational support for Hebrew mythology.

And your arguments against science fail continually. If you demand that everything must have a cause, then your God would also need to have a cause in order to exist. So your argument doesn't even make any sense. And if you allow that things can exist that haven't been caused, then you can't argue against a Big Bang that may not have had a cause.

[Diagoras]

I am following scientific principles. Something can exist eternally if there is no change in entropy.

In Sean Carroll's case, he perceives that our universe is part of a large mother universe. This mother universe has entropy that can move in either direction so that it has an entropy of 0. This entropy could exist for eternity if it had an unchanging entropy.

God has an unchanging entropy. God is unchanging. God has always existed and will always exists.

Well, I don’t know about anyone else but if Sean Carroll has perceived a mother universe (and a large one, at that), plus has studied it carefully enough to establish that its entropy can move in either direction, then that should certainly be very convincing to the majority of physicists, I would have thought.

I’m staggered that this hasn’t been picked up on by at least one reputable scientific joirnal - there must be some dark conspiracy going on!

Please, enlighten us with more science from the mother universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

I am following scientific principles. Something can exist eternally if there is no change in entropy.

In Sean Carroll's case, he perceives that our universe is part of a large mother universe. This mother universe has entropy that can move in either direction so that it has an entropy of 0. This entropy could exist for eternity if it had an unchanging entropy.

God has an unchanging entropy. God is unchanging. God has always existed and will always exists.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 18 by Diagoras]

Sean Carroll is an atheist. An it is one of the most popular theory of origins in cosmology.