Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

[BCSpace]

Here is an interesting perspective that seems to accept all science, accepts Theism, and questions Atheism.  Pretty much my own world view except I haven't defended it this way:

 

 

I don't accept a 'God of the Gaps' dismisal of this because I don't believe that God acts or exists only in the 'gaps'.

Edited August 2, 2014 by BCSpace

[MormonFreeThinker]

Here is an interesting perspective that seems to accept all science, accepts Theism, and questions Atheism.  Pretty much my own world view except I haven't defended it this way

 

The Big Bang 

 

The Big Bang was an expansion event, we do not know if it was a natural event or if God caused it, but we as Mormons do not believe that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of everything, we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. If the universe is infinite, Big Bangs happen all the time. 

 

The fine tuning argument is the only good argument (that uses physics) for the existence of God, it is better than the First Cause argument. The fine tuning argument is a good argument, but it doesn't prove the existence of God. 

 

Abiogenesis

 

If abiogenesis was not a natural process, then the fine tuning argument doesn't work. You need a natural abiognesis for the fine tuning argument to work, you can't have it both ways. Either our known universe is fine-tuned to allow life, or life is fine tuned for the universe.  

 

For me, it is better to believe that God created life using natural processes, but abiognesis can also happen completely naturally, for example, there could be meaningless life in one of the moons of Jupiter.  If the universe is infinite, Abiogenesis and Evolution happen all the time.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Here is an interesting perspective that seems to accept all science, accepts Theism, and questions Atheism.  Pretty much my own world view except I haven't defended it this way:

 

 

I don't accept a 'God of the Gaps' dismisal of this becasue I don't believe that God acts or exists only in the 'gaps'.

 

Question Begging.

 

PS; Still a God of the Gaps argument.

Edited August 1, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[rodheadlee]

Life's Big Bang?   Cambrian Explosion

“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column.  The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old.  What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it.  The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man.  Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer.  No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.  

 

Layers Above and Below

Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens.  The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms.  So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything.  But wait, it gets even more interesting.  To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer.  Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct.  Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct?  This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact.  A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.  It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence.  In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief.  Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.

Darwin Knew

Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time.  Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory.  They were wrong!  Exactly the opposite happened.  After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better.  Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story.  The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all.  

 

 

Is this true?

 

source:http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html

 

Sorry have to go to work, I don't have time to search for a more acceptable source.

[wenglund]

Question Begging.

 

PS; Still a God of the Gaps argument.

 

Pointing out God-of-the-gaps arguments is not, itself, a valid counter-argument.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Pointing out God-of-the-gaps arguments is not, itself, a valid counter-argument.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Actually it works quite well.

SEE

[thesometimesaint]

Life's Big Bang?   Cambrian Explosion

“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column.  The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old.  What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it.  The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man.  Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer.  No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.  

 

Layers Above and Below

Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens.  The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms.  So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything.  But wait, it gets even more interesting.  To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer.  Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct.  Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct?  This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact.  A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.  It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence.  In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief.  Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.

Darwin Knew

Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time.  Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory.  They were wrong!  Exactly the opposite happened.  After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better.  Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story.  The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all.  

 

 

Is this true?

 

source:http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html

 

Sorry have to go to work, I don't have time to search for a more acceptable source.

 

 

No. http://www.pnas.org/content/95/21/12386.full

[wenglund]

Actually it works quite well.

SEE 

 

It doesn't logically work as a valid counter-argument but as a caution against dogmatism and closed mindedness on either side.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

It doesn't logically work as a valid counter-argument but as a caution against dogmatism and closed mindedness on either side.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The logic is simple. The argument is that the Christian Bible is a prooftext against the science of evolution. Of course we should be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out.

[wenglund]

The logic is simple. The argument is that the Christian Bible is a prooftext against the science of evolution. 

 

No. The argument in the OP video is that science has no answers for certain gaps, thus allowing God to reasonably fill those gaps. 

 

The video you posted doesn't deny or argue against this, but cautions against over-extending the argument to the point that it prevents beneficial scientific exploration.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

No. The argument in the OP video is that science has no answers for certain gaps, thus allowing God to reasonably fill those gaps. 

 

The video you posted doesn't deny or argue against this, but cautions against over-extending the argument to the point that it prevents beneficial scientific exploration.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

That is a God of the Gaps argument. Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. That isn't an argument for or against any God. Just that God is not allowed into science.

 

What Dr. Tyson is saying is that you can believe anything you want, but that belief has no evidentiary value in science. We don't know before hand what will turn out to be beneficial or not in any science. I seriously doubt Ben Franklin had the slightest clue as to what we can do with electricity. When he decided to fly a kite in a lightning storm.

[Rob Osborn]

That is a God of the Gaps argument. Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. That isn't an argument for or against any God. Just that God is not allowed into science.

 

What Dr. Tyson is saying is that you can believe anything you want, but that belief has no evidentiary value in science. We don't know before hand what will turn out to be beneficial or not in any science. I seriously doubt Ben Franklin had the slightest clue as to what we can do with electricity. When he decided to fly a kite in a lightning storm.

When i go out and see things like Mt. Rushmore I dont look for ways that nature could have made it- it shows a design and is clearly man-made. That isnt a god of the gaps argument. Its sound logic at work. But yet, we can take something in nature which is far more complex, has way more features and is alive and think it is just the product of nature. Thats just complete ignorance at work. If we cant see that nature is the product of an intelligent designer then we are doomed to fail as a society.

[Ahab]

Here is an interesting perspective that seems to accept all science, accepts Theism, and questions Atheism. Pretty much my own world view except I haven't defended it this way:

I don't accept a 'God of the Gaps' dismisal of this becasue I don't believe that God acts or exists only in the 'gaps'.

More in line with what is called the quasi-static state theory, which is more in line with my ideas than what is called the big bang theory. And if were not for us, with our Father in heaven, the chaos theory would be more in line with my views.

[wenglund]

That is a God of the Gaps argument. Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. That isn't an argument for or against any God. Just that God is not allowed into science.

 

What Dr. Tyson is saying is that you can believe anything you want, but that belief has no evidentiary value in science. We don't know before hand what will turn out to be beneficial or not in any science. I seriously doubt Ben Franklin had the slightest clue as to what we can do with electricity. When he decided to fly a kite in a lightning storm.

 

The gaps, by their very nature, lend no evidentiary or explanatory value to science one way or the other (that is why they are called "gaps"), thereby rendering science relatively moot on those matters, thus leaving God or other surmisings to reasonably fill the gap.  

 

In short, the gaps are realms of faith (secular or religious), not science. Nothing is scientifically confirmed or denied by the gaps--though they can be confirmed or denied through the exercise of faith. For all intents and purposes, science is not pertinent to the gaps.

 

People, then, are free to fill the gaps as they seem fit. Religionist do so by evoking God. Secularist do so through shrugging their shoulders or by evoking doubt..Neither response is necessarily problematic except where they prevent beneficial exploration either way.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2014 by wenglund

[Ahab]

The gaps, by their very nature, lend no evidentiary or explanatory value to science one way or the other (that is why they are called "gaps"), thereby rendering science relatively moot on those matters, thus leaving God or other surmisings to reasonably fill the gap.

In short, the gaps are realms of faith (secular or religious), not science. Nothing is scientifically confirmed or denied by the gaps--though they can be confirmed or denied through the exercise of faith. For all intents and purposes, science is not pertinent to the gaps.

People, then, are free to fill the gaps as they seem fit. Religionist do so by evoking God. Secularist do so through shrugging their shoulders or by evoking doubt..Neither response is necessarily problematic except where they prevent beneficial exploration either way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Better said than before, but the gaps are only part of the problem when what we can see isn't understood correctly, and the big bang theory just doesn't jive with what our Father has told us.

That's why I prefer the static or quasi-static state theory, because even though there are still gaps and misinterpretations of the things we can observe there is more truth there than in the idea that there was ever a beginning to the universe.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is an interesting perspective that seems to accept all science, accepts Theism, and questions Atheism.  Pretty much my own world view except I haven't defended it this way:

 

..................................................  

 

I don't accept a 'God of the Gaps' dismisal of this becasue I don't believe that God acts or exists only in the 'gaps'.

Very entertaining, but I don't think that unanswered questions are a way to prove or infer the existence of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

Better said than before, but the gaps are only part of the problem when what we can see isn't understood correctly, and the big bang theory just doesn't jive with what our Father has told us.

That's why I prefer the static or quasi-static state theory, because even though there are still gaps and misinterpretations of the things we can observe there is more truth there than in the idea that there was ever a beginning to the universe.

I've never understood the approach in which the cosmological Big Bang is considered incompatible with Genesis 1:1-3, and a claimed religious preference for the bankrupt Steady State Theory.  After all, if God is the First Cause (Prime Mover) and Creator of all that exists, why couldn't the Big Bang be his method for bringing it all into existence.  By divine fiat, as in Gen 1, and in John 1.

 

Is opposition to scientific theory sometimes merely knee-jerk?

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. That isn't an argument for or against any God. Just that God is not allowed into science.

Of course that depends heavily on what you define as "godlike."  Certainly, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have always maintained that the existence of very advanced beings elsewhere in the universe is quite likely.  So, although they deny the existence of the traditional God (even thoughtful Mormons agree there), they do accept the existence of godlike beings.  Indeed, even on the question of the origin of life, deGrasse Tyson skipped over abiogenesis in his recent "Cosmos" series with nary a theoretical construct -- instead opting for the transmission theory of life, which he treated at length (and which thoughtful Mormons accept).

 

Richard Dawkins:  "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures."  http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence .

 

What Dr. Tyson is saying is that you can believe anything you want, but that belief has no evidentiary value in science. We don't know before hand what will turn out to be beneficial or not in any science. .......................................................................................

Correct.

[mfbukowski]

Very entertaining, but I don't think that unanswered questions are a way to prove or infer the existence of God.

Agree.

 

Sigh.

 

We are still presuming that science actually has something to do with religion.

 

It doesn't.  Baseball and Impressionist Painting.   It's like arguing about the painterly characteristics of a home run.

 

God exists because he made baseball?  I don't think so.

[MormonFreeThinker]

It doesn't.  Baseball 

 

Our observable universe was smaller than a baseball and smaller than a atom.  

 

Mormon astrophysicist Joseph Smidt wrote, 

"In fact, there is substantial experimental evidence that, about 13.7 billion years ago, the entire observable universe was smaller than a baseball and inflated into what we see today" 

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction.html

 

Mormon astrophysicist  Ron Hellings said, 

"Everything began at one point in time and at one point in space, and it was right here in this room. In fact it was smaller than the room– in fact it was smaller than this, in fact it was much smaller than this. Okay? So everything comes from a single point."

Edited August 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[The Nehor]

When i go out and see things like Mt. Rushmore I dont look for ways that nature could have made it- it shows a design and is clearly man-made. That isnt a god of the gaps argument. Its sound logic at work. But yet, we can take something in nature which is far more complex, has way more features and is alive and think it is just the product of nature. Thats just complete ignorance at work. If we cant see that nature is the product of an intelligent designer then we are doomed to fail as a society.

There is a difference there. We can tell Mt Rushmore is almost certainly man made because we have seen other rock formations and have a rough idea of what the average one looks like. We do not have that as a control when it comes to the Universe. We do not have a bunch of "natural" universes for comparison to pick out the Rushmore nor do we have a lot of God-created universes to look at to see what they all look like.

We are like someone who has seen one dog and are trying to figure out if it is domesticated or wild with no basis for comparison.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Of course that depends heavily on what you define as "godlike."  Certainly, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have always maintained that the existence of very advanced beings elsewhere in the universe is quite likely. 

 

and some say that it is possible that aliens created our observable universe, Paul Davies imagines that in the far future humans will create universes too,  see  39:00 - 40:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dNm6K1h9F8

Edited August 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

I've never understood the approach in which the cosmological Big Bang is considered incompatible with Genesis 1:1-3, and a claimed religious preference for the bankrupt Steady State Theory. After all, if God is the First Cause (Prime Mover) and Creator of all that exists, why couldn't the Big Bang be his method for bringing it all into existence. By divine fiat, as in Gen 1, and in John 1.

I've never understood why some people want to presume that the beginning referred to in Genesis 1 and John 1 refers to the beginning of the universe or the place, itself, where all things in it exist, instead of just the beginning when this planet was created for us from elements that already existed. It's as if some people think the word beginning refers to an ultimate beginning for ALL things, except for maybe God, instead of just the beginning of one particular thing or event which itself is just another event of the same kind that has been going on forever with no ultimate beginning, and which will have no ultimate end.

Is opposition to scientific theory sometimes merely knee-jerk?

Not for me. I reject ideas only when I know they don't agree with what I know is true when my knowledge is based on what God has told me is true.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Not for me. I reject ideas only when I know they don't agree with what I know is true when my knowledge is based on what God has told me is true.

 

The Big Bang theory is not about the ultimate beginning of everything, but it did happen, whether it makes sense to you or not. 

Edited August 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Robert F. Smith]

and some say that it is possible that aliens created our observable universe, Paul Davies imagines that in the far future humans will create universes too,  see  

..............................

Wunderbar!!