The existence of God

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Lucy doesn't say that Hawking criticises it. She says that some scientists do, and refers us to Hawking's book for further information on that point.

Why would you recommend a book to learn about a flaw in something if the book does not reveal its flaws.

And I am aware that Lucy post is so full of clitche that I did look up previous posts to check if it was sarcasm.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Why would you recommend a book to learn about a flaw in something if the book does not reveal its flaws.

I didn't. She did.

[lucy7]

Originally Posted by Chris

Lucy doesn't say that Hawking criticises it. She says that some scientists do, and refers us to Hawking's book for further information on that point.

Let's face it, the Big Bang is the creation myth of Hawking's religion, he's not about to start dissing it ...

You put the words in to my mouth Chris, it must of been while you were kissing me!!

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

I didn't. She did.

Well I would appreciate if she answered.

[lucy7]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Why would you recommend a book to learn about a flaw in something if the book does not reveal its flaws.

And I am aware that Lucy post is so full of clitche that I did look up previous posts to check if it was sarcasm.

Sarcastic.....me?
Never!

---------- Post added at 10:10 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well I would appreciate if she answered.

Do not bait me man.
What answer are you wanting from me, the book makes good reading, that was what I was stating.

By the way, I do not hang out on my lap top all day looking at responses to threads!!!

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by lucy7

Do not bait me man.
What answer are you wanting from me, the book makes good reading, that was what I was stating.

By the way, I do not hang out on my lap top all day looking at responses to threads!!!

I want a source for this statement

Even scientists are now going against the big bang therory.

I may learn something by reading it.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I prefer the "Let there be noise" theory. it's more convincing

I thought that in space no one can hear you scream..or explode?

Is it possible to have noise if there is nothing there to begin with and there won't be until after the big bang?

Thinking like this can only make my headache worse...

Originally Posted by Gary L

It might have been quiet from down here, but you would have heard it up there.

a) There is no sound in space, as there is no medium for sound to travel through
b) There wasn't a "down here", as up there was just being created.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I don't know if he was even around at the event. but surely something colossal as the earth being created it would mean that anything outside/within/around it wouldn't survive?

The universe came into being 13 billion years ago (approx), whilst our Solar System formed approx 5 billion years ago - two different events.

And you appear to be confusing physics with metaphysics.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

I want a source for this statement

I may learn something by reading it.

Not a book, but a link

And this

"Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. "

[downquark1]

That second website has discovery and " Christian Research " institutes finger prints all over it.

The first website sounds like the typical whining when someone is denied funding. I really don't get this idea that scientists resent new ideas. New ideas when proven correct make a scientist rich and famous, it also opens up new areas of avenue to get your name into the books, you can work out a constant or an equation and get your name stuck on it, old ideas tend to be already saturated.

This is not to say that the big bang theory is definitely correct. But merely there is a lacking of alternatives at the moment.

Second site, fair enough - didn't see the links at the bottom (although surely we shouldn't deny potential validity just because there are religious links?).

First site, it would appear (imho) that you are "smearing", rather than addressing the original point that there were other points of view which disagreed with "Big Bang".

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Second site, fair enough - didn't see the links at the bottom (although surely we shouldn't deny potential validity just because there are religious links?).

First site, it would appear (imho) that you are "smearing", rather than addressing the original point that there were other points of view which disagreed with "Big Bang".

Actually he's smearing both sites by questioning their motives rather than addressing the substantive issues raised. You just seem more willing to let him get away with smearing the ones who happen to be Christians.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually he's smearing both sites by questioning their motives rather than addressing the substantive issues raised. You just seem more willing to let him get away with smearing the ones who happen to be Christians.

Which issues are of substance? I see some philosophical spinning and an accusation of political bias.

The first is no secret just not often discussed and the second is inherently immoral but no evidence has been put forward it's true.

The big bang is an incomplete theory and has some fudging in the mechanics. However the evidence that something of it's like happened has not been refuted.

Originally Posted by downquark1

The big bang is an incomplete theory and has some fudging in the mechanics. However the evidence that something of it's like happened has not been refuted.

Neither site tried to refute the evidence. They simply pointed out that the same evidence could be used to construct a different theory.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Neither site tried to refute the evidence. They simply pointed out that the same evidence could be used to construct a different theory.

Yes of course, you can construct a theory to fit anything. This is an issue for physicists, I'm failing to see how god comes into it.

You make me smile sometimes.