[De Maria]

If it is true, the Theory of the Big Bang proves the existence of God.

1. The theory of the Big Bang corresponds very well with Scripture. First there was nothing then God brought the universe into existence. This is the only logical conclusion we can derive from the evidence.

2. Since only more nothing can come from nothing, the Big Bang is completely illogical without the existence of God to cause it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Curlyben]

Interesting idea there.
Point 1 has some merit, but point 2 is a leap too far.
After all WHAT came before the Big Bang.
There are a number of theories, but obviously none can be proven, as yet.

Of course there are alternate theories to the Big Bang: Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Capuchin]

Big Bang Theory does not say that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Big Bang Theory does not deal with what was before the Big Bang. It only deals with the moments at the Big Bang (a state of singularity or near-singularity) and afterwards.

Anything before about seconds after the Big Bang is almost pure speculation.

[De Maria]

Interesting idea there.
Point 1 has some merit, but point 2 is a leap too far.
After all WHAT came before the Big Bang.
There are a number of theories, but obviously none can be proven, as yet.

Correct. The theory which is considered to have the most merit and which is almost universally accepted in the scientific community is the Big Bang.

And that begs the questions.

Why did the Big Bang bang?
After the Big Bang banged, how did we obtain order in the universe?
After the Big Bang banged, how did we get life in the universe?
After the Big Bang banged, how did we get intelligence in the universe?

Obviously, in order for any of these things to happen, an intelligent Creator had to put it all in motion. Otherwise there is absolutely no chance that anything would have happened.

Of course there are alternate theories to the Big Bang: Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, you are replacing an intelligent God with an unintelligent universe. But an unintelligent universe can't produce either intelligence or order.

And besides, according to science, the evidence points to the creation of the Universe in an event such as the Big Bang. According to Science, the universe had a beginning. And the theory that most makes sense is the Big Bang.

But the Big Bang could not have happened if an Intelligent Creator did not produce it. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why any singularity would appear out of nothing. And there is absolutely no reason why any singularity would have simply exploded for no reason.

Nothing from nothing brings nothing.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Big Bang Theory does not say that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Big Bang Theory does not deal with what was before the Big Bang. It only deals with the moments at the Big Bang (a state of singularity or near-singularity) and afterwards.

Anything before about seconds after the Big Bang is almost pure speculation.

Yes, actually it does. Unless it has been amended, the Big Bang theory always has stated that a state of singularity appeared in the nothingness. Before the singularity banged, there was neither space nor time. Even if you claim there was infinite density, density exists only in space. Therefore, by definition, before the Big Bang, there was nothing.

But even if you ignore that part of the Big Bang, there is still no reason why a singularity would suddenly explode if there is nothing to make it explode. The evidence still points to a Creator.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Capuchin]

Yes, actually it does. Unless it has been amended, the Big Bang theory always has stated that a state of singularity appeared in the nothingness. Before the singularity banged, there was neither space nor time. Even if you claim there was infinite density, density exists only in space. Therefore, by definition, before the Big Bang, there was nothing.

But even if you ignore that part of the Big Bang, there is still no reason why a singularity would suddenly explode if there is nothing to make it explode. The evidence still points to a Creator.

Sincerely,

De Maria

We have no evidence that indicates that there was a state of nothingness... unless you wish to make me aware of that evidence, I would be happy to hear it.

What makes you believe that the singularity just sat there and then one day decided to bang? Why could the singularity not be in a bigger space? Why could the singularity not be just one step in an ongoing process?

[Credendovidis]

If it is true, the Theory of the Big Bang proves the existence of God.

Whatever it is you refer to here is unclear. Besides that : even if you could (note : COULD) prove anything about that ("If it is true"), that does not mean that automatically that proves the second part of your claim , the one of "the Theory of the Big Bang proves the existence of God." Get a training course on logical thinking and argumentation, please.

1. The theory of the Big Bang corresponds very well with Scripture. First there was nothing then God brought the universe into existence. This is the only logical conclusion we can derive from the evidence.

A - The theory of the Big Bang does NOT correspond at all with Scripture.
Scripture claims there was an always existing entity that created the universe. The BB Theory does not do that at all. It does not claim anything prior to the BB. Certainly not an always existing entity.
B - This is NOT a logical conclusion we can derive from the evidence.
C - There is NO evidence for God's existence, nor for God's creation.

2. Since only more nothing can come from nothing, the Big Bang is completely illogical without the existence of God to cause it.

A - The BB Theory does NOT suggest anything about before the BB. The BB Theory starts with the BB.
B - You mentioned "nothing" . Please define what you mean with "nothing".
C - Accordingly to your "logic" something can only come from nothing if God exists and caused it. This means that - as God existed prior to the BB, there never was nothing. That is a claim. Please support that claim with OSE.
D - This also means that God existed prior to the BB. That is a claim. Please support that claim with OSE.

You draw incorrect conclusions from your own wild claims about the BB Theory based on the existence and powers of a deity of whom neither the existence nor the powers have ever been proved.

That is what I call totally I L L O G I C A L!!

:D

[De Maria]

We have no evidence that indicates that there was a state of nothingness... unless you wish to make me aware of that evidence, I would be happy to hear it.

Doesn't the Big Bang theory say that before the Big Bang there was no time or space?

What makes you believe that the singularity just sat there and then one day decided to bang?

Are you saying that the singularity did not bang?

Why could the singularity not be in a bigger space?

Because according to the Big Bang theory, space was created in the Big Bang. Do you have evidence that there was a bigger space or are you just speculating without evidence?

Why could the singularity not be just one step in an ongoing process?

Do you have evidence of such a process? And doesn't the very word process suggest an orderly development by a Creator?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

Whatever it is you refer to here is unclear. Besides that : even if you could (note : COULD) prove anything about that ("If it is true"), that does not mean that automatically that proves the second part of your claim , the one of "the Theory of the Big Bang proves the existence of God." Get a training course on logical thinking and argumentation, please.

Sure it does. Follow this logic.

1. In this world, the evidence shows that everything that has a beginning is made by someone or something.
2. The Big Bang theory says that the universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the Universe was made by someone or something.

A - The theory of the Big Bang does NOT correspond at all with Scripture.

Yes it does. The Big Bang theory says that before the Big Bang there was no time or space. Then suddenly, there was an explosion and the universe was created.

The Bible says:

Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

Psalms 32 9 For he spoke and they were made: he commanded and they were created.

Isaias 42 5 Thus saith the Lord God that created the heavens, and stretched them out:

Scripture claims there was an always existing entity that created the universe.

Correct.

The BB Theory does not do that at all.

Correct. And that is where the Big Bang fails in logic. Nothing can be created by nothing. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, something could never exist.

Therefore, something or someone had to exist before all time.

It does not claim anything prior to the BB. Certainly not an always existing entity.
B - This is NOT a logical conclusion we can derive from the evidence.

It certainly is. Our experience on this earth shows us that everything that had a beginning was made by something or someone. Therefore, since the universe had a beginning, something or someone had to make it.

C - There is NO evidence for God's existence, nor for God's creation.

Sure is. There is more evidence for God's existence than for His not existing.

A - The BB Theory does NOT suggest anything about before the BB. The BB Theory starts with the BB.

No, the theory starts with the idea that time and space did not exist. Then the theory says that a singularity appeared in this absence of time and space. Then the theory says that this singularity blew up and the time and space came into existence.

Since there is no evidence of things just coming into being from nothing and the only evidence is that things come into being from other things, then the evidence points to a pre existent being.

B - You mentioned "nothing" . Please define what you mean with "nothing".

The absence of time and space.

C - Accordingly to your "logic" something can only come from nothing if God exists and caused it.

Correct.

This means that - as God existed prior to the BB, there never was nothing. That is a claim. Please support that claim with OSE.

I have supported that claim with the objective evidence that we can observe right now. We see things being created by other things and by people all the time. We never see anything simply appearing out of nothing.

Therefore, the evidence shows that the universe could not have sprung from nothing.

On the other hand, you are not providing any evidence that something can be created by nothing. Please show your evidence.

D - This also means that God existed prior to the BB. That is a claim. Please support that claim with OSE.

Already did above.

You draw incorrect conclusions from your own wild claims about the BB Theory based on the existence and powers of a deity of whom neither the existence nor the powers have ever been proved.

But the evidence points to His existence. Where as you have never provided any evidence that He does not exist.

That is what I call totally I L L O G I C A L!!

:D

So far I'm the only one providing any evidence. All you are doing is making denials without any evidence to support your denials.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Capuchin]

Doesn't the Big Bang theory say that before the Big Bang there was no time or space?

No, it does not. We have no evidence to suggest such a thing. Or do you?

Are you saying that the singularity did not bang?

It expanded in some way. It did not "explode".

Because according to the Big Bang theory, space was created in the Big Bang. Do you have evidence that there was a bigger space or are you just speculating without evidence?

I am speculating.

Do you have evidence of such a process? And doesn't the very word process suggest an orderly development by a Creator?

No. I'm speculating. That's all we can do for any times before the big bang, because we have no evidence. My speculations are as valid as yours. A rock rolling down a hill is a process, nothing intelligent involved.

[De Maria]

No, it does not. We have no evidence to suggest such a thing. Or do you?

Obviously, I wasn't there at the beginning of the universe. However, the theory is said to explain that:

Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[5]

In 1931, Lemaitre went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist.
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the theory as I have heard it postulated.

It expanded in some way. It did not "explode".

Explosion is a violent expansion. But if you weren't there, you don't know whether it exploded or not.

am speculating.

Thanks for the admission.

No. I'm speculating. That's all we can do for any times before the big bang, because we have no evidence. My speculations are as valid as yours. A rock rolling down a hill is a process, nothing intelligent involved.

A rock rolling down a hill is an unintelligent incident. A process is something undertaken with a result in mind.

Define: process
# subject to a process or treatment, with the aim of readying for some purpose, improving, or remedying a condition; "process cheese"; "process hair ...
# deal with in a routine way; "I'll handle that one"; "process a loan"; "process the applicants"
# procedure: a particular course of action intended to achieve a result; "the procedure of obtaining a driver's license"; "it was a process of trial and error"
# perform mathematical and logical operations on (data) according to programmed instructions in order to obtain the required information; "The results of the elections were still being processed when he gave his acceptance speech"
# (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents; "the process of thinking"; "the cognitive operation of remembering"
# action: institute legal proceedings against; file a suit against; "He was warned that the district attorney would process him"; "She actioned the company for discrimination"
# summons: a writ issued by authority of law; usually compels the defendant's attendance in a civil suit; failure to appear results in a default judgment against the defendant
# a mental process that you are not directly aware of; "the process of denial"
# march: march in a procession; "They processed into the dining room"
# a natural prolongation or projection from a part of an organism either animal or plant; "a bony process"
# work: shape, form, or improve a material; "work stone into tools"; "process iron"; "work the metal"
# a sustained phenomenon or one marked by gradual changes through a series of states; "events now in process"; "the process of calcification begins later for boys than for girls"
# serve: deliver a warrant or summons to someone; "He was processed by the sheriff"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Capuchin]

Obviously, I wasnt there at the beginning of the universe. However, the theory is said to explain that:

Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[5]

In 1931, Lemaitre went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist.
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the theory as I have heard it postulated.

The last part is speculation. And of course the Theory and the evidence it is based on has changed and grown since 1931. Many famous scientists and mathematicians have put forward hypotheses (still speculation) of what was before the big bang and what caused it. This is, of course, in the hopes that we might be able to find an avenue through which to predict and find evidence. You know. Science.

Explosion is a violent expansion. But if you weren't there, you don't know whether it exploded or not.

I try to clarify this because an "explosion" is a very dangerous way to look at the big bang. An explosion happens at a single point. However the Big Bang expansion happened at every single point in the universe.

A rock rolling down a hill is an unintelligent incident. A process is something undertaken with a result in mind.

Process: "a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner"

For example, in physics we say that radioactive decay is a process. It is not intelligent. This is the meaning of process that I was using. Apologies for any mix up.

I should probably clarify my position here. The Big Bang theory does not say anything about God. God could well have made the Big Bang happen. But that's speculation. The Theory doesn't say one way or the other. It doesn't need to. That's not why we use the Theory.

[Fr_Chuck]

Just the fact that we exist shows there is a God, the balance of gravity, the way all planets are held together in perfect balance. The oceans tide rise and fall with the moon, I just can't image anyone looking at the greatness of creation and not seeing the hand of God in it.

[De Maria]

The last part is speculation. And of course the Theory and the evidence it is based on has changed and grown since 1931. Many famous scientists and mathematicians have put forward hypotheses (still speculation) of what was before the big bang and what caused it. This is, of course, in the hopes that we might be able to find an avenue through which to predict and find evidence. You know. Science.

Correct. In other words, they realize that there had to be a cause and they have not found it.

And that is precisely my point. The one cause that fits all the evidence is the existence of God.

I try to clarify this because an "explosion" is a very dangerous way to look at the big bang. An explosion happens at a single point. However the Big Bang expansion happened at every single point in the universe.

More speculation?

Do you know of any other expansion that takes place at every point in the affected space?

No, the closest approximation we have is an explosion. Therefore, you are speculating against the evidence.

That is not science. That is essentially blind faith. Myth building.

In essence, you discard a reasonable assumption based on evidence you can logically infer. And subsitute an explanation which fits no evidence but which you prefer simply because you prefer it.

Process: "a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner"

For example, in physics we say that radioactive decay is a process. It is not intelligent. This is the meaning of process that I was using. Apologies for any mix up.

How can something be happening in a "definite manner" without intelligence. Obviously, radioactive decay is following some law of physics. A law by definition is a decree. These decrees are the backdrop of all science. As are logic and mathematics. Without them, science would be impossible.

And these all require intelligence not only to discover but to use. And these laws all beg the question, who created them? Who put them there that we could use them as tools to discover the truths of the universe?

I should probably clarify my position here. The Big Bang theory does not say anything about God. God could well have made the Big Bang happen. But that's speculation. The Theory doesn't say one way or the other. It doesn't need to. That's not why we use the Theory.

In other words, you choose not to see the evidence for the existence of God which is revealed by the Big Bang.

Certainly, many things which we do take a little bit of faith. But which takes more faith to believe, that the Big Bang occurred all by itself without the guiding hand of God?

Or that God put caused the Big Bang and the Creation of the Universe?

Obviously, since there is no evidence that anything was ever caused by nothing, then it takes more faith to believe that the Big Band occurred without a Creator.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Credendovidis]

The Big Bang theory says that before the Big Bang there was no time or space. Then suddenly, there was an explosion and the universe was created.

The BB Theory does not state that there was no time nor space prior to the BB.
It states that OUR time and OUR universe started with the BB. That is fundamentally different from what you state.

The Bible says: Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

The bible also state that God always existed. That is completely opposite to what science states : nothing that exists in our Universe can be older than the origin of the BB.
So the bible and science are NOT supportive of each other.

Note : the BB theory is not about an explosion at all. It describes a sudden and extremely fast expansion of space-time. And "cross support" from various different scientific fields confirm that this happened.

I really wonder if you even understand the basics of the BB Theory.
What is sure is that all your claims on God and his capacities remain unsupported, also in your reply. You ASSUME that is "true", you BELIEVE that is "true". But where is the OSE for that?

The rest of your reaction is too long to react to. I warned you for that several times before.

:rolleyes:

·

Just the fact that we exist shows there is a God

With all respect : just stating and believing that does not make that correct !
Just the fact that we exist shows... that we exist, but not that there is a God !

... the balance of gravity, the way all planets are held together in perfect balance. The oceans tide rise and fall with the moon, ...

All what that supports is that gravity exists. But nothing more.

I just can't image anyone looking at the greatness of creation and not seeing the hand of God in it.

I can and I do. I just can't image anyone looking at the total lack of OSE for religious claims insists on the existence of deities and/or seeing the hand of God in everything they fail to understand themselves.

:rolleyes:
·

[De Maria]

The BB Theory does not state that there was no time nor space prior to the BB.
It states that OUR time and OUR universe started with the BB. That is fundamentally different from what you state.

Good. It seems as though you recognize that something or someone existed before the Big Bang. I agree that the evidence leads to that conclusion.

Now, if we continue on that line of thinking, we also see that every action has a cause. Therefore, that which existed before the Big Bang must have caused it.

And since the Big Bang resulted in an orderly universe, then that which caused the Big Bang must have been an intelligent being. Because the order which we see in our world is always caused by intelligent beings.

The evidence is overwhelming for the existence of God.

The bible also state that God always existed. That is completely opposite to what science states : nothing that exists in our Universe can be older than the origin of the BB.
So the bible and science are NOT supportive of each other.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding you have of Scripture. Let me ask you. Does the Bible say that God created the universe?

If so, then the Bible is also saying that God existed before the Universe. And that conforms to what you said above. The Big Bang says that "our time and our space" started with the BB. And we know from experience in this world that the BB must have existed in something because everything that we see exists in something. Therefore, the evidence for the existence of God exceeds the evidence .

Note : the BB theory is not about an explosion at all. It describes a sudden and extremely fast expansion of space-time.

That essentially describes an explosion.

An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases (e.g. Such as the rapid burning proccess of fuel in a engine to create the cylinder movement). An explosion creates a shock wave.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion

And "cross support" from various different scientific fields confirm that this happened.

No. They confirm that this has a high probability of having occurred with today's evidence. Science proves nothing. See Capuchin's carefully worded messages in which he explains that it is all speculation from the evidence. Essentially, we all speculate. Those speculations which have the most evidential support are considered more likely to be true.

I really wonder if you even understand the basics of the BB Theory.

Apparently I understand better than you since you provide no support for your ideas but simply denial.

What is sure is that all your claims on God and his capacities remain unsupported, also in your reply.

It is your claims that God doesn't exist are unsupported. However, my claims that the existence of God is supported by more evidence than your supposition that He doesn't exist by far has more evidence.

You ASSUME that is "true", you BELIEVE that is "true". But where is the OSE for that?

See above.

The rest of your reaction is too long to react to. I warned you for that several times before.

I know. You can't respond because the evidence against your suppositions is overwhelming.

:rolleyes:

·
With all respect : just stating and believing that does not make that correct !
Just the fact that we exist shows... that we exist, but not that there is a God !

Sure it does. We are beautifully and wonderfully made. The evidence shows that accidents result in chaos. We aren't the product of accidents. We are the product of intelligence.

All what that supports is that gravity exists. But nothing more.

Gravity is described as a law. Obviously, then, some One established the law in order to give order to the universe. A law does not come without a lawgiver. That is the evidence we have in this world. So, if you follow the evidence, you will discover the existence of God.

But if you speculate against the evidence, then you are simply acting on blind faith in the myths and stories that you are creating to substantiate your baseless opinions.

I can and I do.

You see the evidence for the existence of God?

I just can't image anyone looking at the total lack of OSE for religious claims insists on the existence of deities and/or seeing the hand of God in everything they fail to understand themselves.

As noted. It is you who has no evidence for your belief in the absence of God. The evidence of this universe points to a Creator.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

And since the Big Bang resulted in an orderly universe, then that which caused the Big Bang must have been an intelligent being. Because the order which we see in our world is always caused by intelligent beings.

First of all the universe is almost complete randomness. Here and there exist tiny, tiny (very tiny) pockets of order, like one would expect in a constantly expanding universe. But the universe, for the most part, is cold and chaotic and almost completely random. The order we do see is caused by gravity, attraction and repulsion of matter. No beings are required. We could die off and the same laws of gravity will still exist. Your god and other religious gods can fade away and the universe will unfold the same way.

[De Maria]

First of all the universe is almost complete randomness.

"Almost" is the key word.

Here and there exist tiny, tiny (very tiny) pockets of order,

Exactly. And in this world, evidence shows that complete chaos results in chaos. Complete randomness results in randomness. But if any order exists at all, then it resulted from intelligent intervention.

That is the evidence so far with 99.9 degree of certainty. There is no evidence of any order appearing from complete disorder.

like one would expect in a constantly expanding universe.

Like one would expect a constantly expanding universe with an intelligent cause. Order does not result from a absolute lack of intelligence. At least, the evidence of this world shows no examples of such, thus far.

But the universe, for the most part, is cold and chaotic and almost completely random.

"Almost" is correct.

1. "Cold" does not provide evidence for or against order since intelligent beings cause cold environments for several reasons. To kill germs, to maintain freshness, to alleviate heat. Therefore if we don't know the reason why something is cold, we can't say for certain that it is a result of random, disordered events.

2. "For the most part" reveals that not all is cold and chaotic. Therefore, by inverse reasoning, there is some order in the universe. Order than connotes intelligence as noted before. But more, since there is order, than that which we describe as "chaos" may be a part of that order. The chaos may be there by intelligent design. But since we don't know the purpose of that chaos, we deem it disordered. But intelligent beings sometimes cause disorder in their environment in order to bring order from it. Human beings blow up buildings and put new ones in their place. They cut down to build up.

The order we do see is caused by gravity, attraction and repulsion of matter.

Which is more evidence for the existence of an intelligent being who placed these laws in the universe for that purpose. The evidence of this world shows that laws are proclaimed by intelligent being in order to create, cause, sustain and maintain order. Therefore the evidence of this world points to an intelligent law giver.

No beings are required. We could die off and the same laws of gravity will still exist. Your god and other religious gods can fade away and the universe will unfold the same way.

Yours is a statement made against the evidence. Science has shown that the universe will eventually die as the energy of the universe is not eternal, but finite. The evidence of this world shows that things which have a beginning in time have a finite lifetime.

This corresponds to Scripture which also says that all creatures die and that the universe will come to an end.

Therefore you are reasoning against the evidence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

"Almost" is the key word.

Yes that's why I wrote the sentence that followed it. Reading comprehension is important, isn't taking portion of sentences out of context a problem that many christians lambaste non-christians for doing when quoting bible verses?

Exactly.

Thank you, I knew you'd see the light (so to speak).

And in this world, evidence shows that complete chaos results in chaos. Complete randomness results in randomness. But if any order exists at all, then it resulted from intelligent intervention.

False. Randomness and order can so-exist, we see it every day. Prove that they cannot co-exist since your assertion is the opposite of what we observe daily.

That is the evidence so far with 99.9 degree of certainty. There is no evidence of any order appearing from complete disorder.

Throw marbles on the ground randomly, there will roll into a certain pattern however random it appears to you. That's a good analogy for the big bang.

Like one would expect a constantly expanding universe with an intelligent cause.

Nope, re-read my post.

Order does not result from a absolute lack of intelligence. At least, the evidence of this world shows no examples of such, thus far.

Order does NOT need intelligence. Does a comet require a god to set its course around a solar system? Of course not. It follows the path dictated by the gravitional attraction of the bodies in its vicinity.

1. "Cold" does not provide evidence for or against order since intelligent beings cause cold environments for several reasons. To kill germs, to maintain freshness, to alleviate heat. Therefore if we don't know the reason why something is cold, we can't say for certain that it is a result of random, disordered events.

Why must you add the fact that an intelligent being made something cold? Cold is the absence of heat.

2. "For the most part" reveals that not all is cold and chaotic. Therefore, by inverse reasoning, there is some order in the universe.

Yes, that is what I wrote. :rolleyes:

Order than connotes intelligence as noted before.

Refuted.

But more, since there is order, than that which we describe as "chaos" may be a part of that order.

Agreed.

The chaos may be there by intelligent design.

You keep stressing this but we are talking about a science here (your original topic). You can inject the 'intelligent creator' aspect in a discussion about biblical creation if you wish.

But intelligent beings sometimes cause disorder in their environment in order to bring order from it. Human beings blow up buildings and put new ones in their place. They cut down to build up.

We must be gods then.

Which is more evidence for the existence of an intelligent being who placed these laws in the universe for that purpose. The evidence of this world shows that laws are proclaimed by intelligent being in order to create, cause, sustain and maintain order. Therefore the evidence of this world points to an intelligent law giver.

You offer no evidence in the scientific fashion. You merely state it to be so.

Yours is a statement made against the evidence.

No it's not. See I can play that game too.

Science has shown that the universe will eventually die as the energy of the universe is not eternal, but finite. The evidence of this world shows that things which have a beginning in time have a finite lifetime.

This corresponds to Scripture which also says that all creatures die and that the universe will come to an end.

Many books say that the world will end, most don't believe them either. Saying something will end with absolutely no timeframe is a lazy man's way of doing science.

Therefore you are reasoning against the evidence.

You have offered none scientifically.

This bit of quoting little bits of text is fun! :)

Sincerely,

NK

edit to add: here is some good reading for you: FAQs about the origin of the universe - The Astronomy Cafe - Ask the Astronomer

[De Maria]

Yes that's why I wrote the sentence that followed it. Reading comprehension is important, isn't taking portion of sentences out of context a problem that many christians lambaste non-christians for doing when quoting bible verses?

Besides the point. We aren't discussing why Christians and nonChristians lambaste each other.

False. Randomness and order can so-exist, we see it every day.

I didn't say that they didn't so-exist. And if you meant to say "co-exist', I didn't say that they didn't co-exist either.

Prove that they cannot co-exist since your assertion is the opposite of what we observe daily.

Why should I prove that since I didn't say that they don't co-exist.

Throw marbles on the ground randomly, there will roll into a certain pattern however random it appears to you. That's a good analogy for the big bang.

First, if a person throws marbles on the ground, then it is an intelligence causing an action and obtaining a result.

Second, the evidence shows that randomness can result from intelligence. We see that everyday in Casinos.

Third, the evidence shows that order and intelligence result from order and intelligence.

Four, there is no evidence which shows that order and intelligence result from complete chaos.

Nope, re-read my post.

Don't need to. Apparently you didn't understand that I simply reworded your say so statement to correctly reflect the evidence. There is no evidence that any order results from disorder.

Order does NOT need intelligence.

Sure does. There is no evidence of order resulting from disorder.

Does a comet require a god to set its course around a solar system?

The evidence points to that conclusion. It is certainly a more realistic conclusion than that the comet is thinking on its own and making its own decisions what course to follow.

Of course not. It follows the path dictated by the gravitional attraction of the bodies in its vicinity.

In other words, it is obeying the law of gravity. The law of gravity is more evidence of an ordered universe.

Why must you add the fact that an intelligent being made something cold? Cold is the absence of heat.

The evidence points to the fact that intelligent beings sometimes prefer to eliminate heat for various reasons. Therefore, the evidence points to the intervention of an intelligent being wherever cold exists.

Yes, that is what I wrote. :rolleyes:

Glad you agree.

Refuted.

In order to refute it you would have to show order coming from disorder. Which you haven't done.

Agreed.

Great.

You keep stressing this but we are talking about a science here (your original topic). You can inject the 'intelligent creator' aspect in a discussion about biblical creation if you wish.

It is a false dichotomy which you are making. Science uses evidence to discover truth. Usually, these proofs are not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, we can compare the evidence to see which possible truths are more probable. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the absence of an intelligent creator. We simply do not have any evidence of any ordered systems simply appearing as a result of unintelligent random occurrences.

We must be gods then.

We have frequently been described as such.

You offer no evidence in the scientific fashion. You merely state it to be so.

Sure I do. Here is the null hypothesis. Chaos creates order.

Ok, lets take some granules of dirt, randomise them and toss them on the ground and wait. Hm? No order appears.

We can do that experiment 100 times and find that order never appears from disorder.

What is our confidence level? We are confident with a 99.9999 infinity level that the null hypothesis is false.

We can do the same for the null hypothesis "order creates chaos". Get some granules of dirt, randomize them and toss them on the ground. Do that 100 times.

We can be 99.999 confident that the null hypothesis is true.

And the null hypothesis that "order creates order". Find an ordered system. A watch, a car, a sink, find 100 of them and you find that they were all created by intelligent beings.

We can be 99.999 confident that order comes from order.

Therefore, the evidence of this world shows that the order in the universe probably comes from an intelligent being.

No it's not. See I can play that game too.

Sure, you can play that game. But that doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence to present in support of your denial.

Many books say that the world will end, most don't believe them either. Saying something will end with absolutely no timeframe is a lazy man's way of doing science.

Then you are again speculating against the evidence. Everything comes to an end. Even the Universe will run out of energy. This is supported by empirical evidence we see all around us.

You have offered none scientifically.

I think I have offered much both scientifically and logically.

This bit of quoting little bits of text is fun! :)

I like it too. It affords me the opportunity to evaluate every idea presented.

Sincerely,

NK

edit to add: here is some good reading for you: FAQs about the origin of the universe - The Astronomy Cafe - Ask the Astronomer

Thanks.

Sincerely,

De Maria