Posted on 02/08/2017 8:35:56 AM PST by fishtank
If the Universe expanded from a single point,in the Big Bang theory, and everything is spreading from that point, then surely we must know exactly where in the Universe that point is.
Do we ?
“Then a Miracle Occurred.” All I need to know about our existence, except perhaps we are going to need another miracle to survive islam...Amen all say a prayer for our continued free existence. Amen
He thought God’s language was hidden in mathematical algorithms. That when we find all the answers we would find him. Really.
Whereas 7 days of Creation, now that’s a FACT, no B.S. “theories” for you, just cold hard reality. I like it! Good going.
I have read that Aristotle at least used a form of the Contingency Cosmological Argument to conclude there were either “unmoved movers” or an “unmoved mover” beyond the Greek gods (who were themselves contigent, just vastly more powerful than mortals on his view).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aquinas, being a scholar in Greek philosophy, simplified and formalized the argument for Catholicism.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thefont/2014/10/aquinas-and-the-unmoved-mover/
Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.
Consciousness being the biggie. They’ve tried all sorts of explanations that were not really explanations, like it’s an emergent property, etc., but all they can see is brain tissue that doesn’t do enough per se to cause all of the effects they observe.
So in my opinion, the Steady State (or Static State) is unworkable from a scientific viewpoint, and Robert Jastrow was on the money:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
“Possibly, but there is a lot of phenomena that is outside of the realm of science that we must assume is true from a scientific standpoint.”
Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism. So if they assumed that, then they would have two basic contradictory assumptions, and would be building a house on a foundation of sand.
Sure, but naturalism is the primary assumption of naturalistic science. To assume “God caused the inflation” is a direct contradiction of naturalism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No it’s not, that’s the point.
The Big Bang supports a proposed entity outside the universe that somehow initiated cosmic inflation.
Hence my previous statement:
“In short, Big Bang needed an unexplained period of inflation (which was an EXTREMELY brief period of time - a 32-position decimal fraction of one second), which needed an entity outside of the universe to initiate - an entity that we have known for millennia as God.”
Nothing I wrote was untrue. What you call an entity that is external to the universe doesn’t matter, just like whatever theology you attribute to it doesn’t matter.
It’s science that claims the entity exists. So does Judaism, Christianity, and every other monotheistic religion.
The big deal is that science has claimed this for only 60 years. Monotheism has claimed it for millennia.
Hence Robert Jastrow’s somewhat humorous quote.
Sorry, but your argument is just not logical. Science cannot on the one hand hold to the assumption of naturalism and on the other hand attribute things to supernatural causes. That’s an obvious and direct contradiction.
If science holds to strict naturalism, then a hypothesis like the Big Bang that requires intervention from outside the universe has basically falsified itself. Alternatively, they could hold to that hypothesis and instead declared naturalism to be falsified, but that would undermine everything else they have based on the presumption of naturalism. There’s no alternative third option where they can hold both and be consistent.
Strange as it sounds, science assumes there is no center of the universe. This is called the “cosmological principle”.
The different shapes of galaxies can be easily explained if you understand the major component of galaxies is plasma, which is a charged conductor of electromagnetism.
All of the observed shapes of galaxies can be produced on a miniature scale simply by manipulating electrical currents running through plasma in a laboratory. The three main factors that determine what shape will result are a) the number of electrical current filaments passing through the plasma, b) the plasma density of the regions that the currents pass through, and c) the passage of time.
so why do most of them look like water spiraling down a drain?
The Decreasing Speed of Light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTlOVTDbNU
When two current filaments passing through plasma (at the galactic scale, these are known as “birkeland currents”) get close enough to each other, they will be attracted to each other and begin to orbit around each other, much like the stars in a binary star system orbit each other. This traps and begins to condense a volume of plasma between the orbiting currents, and this trapped plasma becomes nucleus of a new galaxy.
At the same time, the rotational movement of the filaments creates a secondary current flow axial to their motion, which pulls plasma from the surrounding area towards the nucleus. This plasma that is being pulled inward becomes the arms of the spiral galaxy. They end up looking like “water spiraling down a drain” because both the plasma and the water are rotating around a central point while at the same time being pulled toward the central point axially.
So is the electromagnetic force of a galaxy affecting it’s shape more than the gravitational force?
My, my, my.... how convenient.
You do realize my comment about the EM spectrum was sarcasm, don’t you ?
What controls the shape of the orbits of electrons around the nucleus, and what force keeps them in orbit about the nucleus... gravity or EM force ?
If science holds to strict naturalism, then a hypothesis like the Big Bang that requires intervention from outside the universe has basically falsified itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you hold to the Steady State model and that the Big Bang is unscientific?
That means that the Creation Ministries International article has a good point. Why are scientists pursuing any work that is not based on science?
By the way, if you have any evidence besides simple assertion that the Big Bang theory and cosmic inflation are invalid (what did you call it? “fudging the numbers”?), you can get a Nobel Prize in Physics. Just write it up and send it in. Like all math classes, though, they’ll ask you to show your work. Hope you did it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.