God vs. Science

[David88vert]

There's actually pretty well demonstrated science behind both. You can study, test and reproduce scientific theory.

Its difficult for astronomical physicists as time and space are of unimaginable scope and as such its difficult for humans, after really only 100 years of real modern astronomical physics, to pin down with absolute certainty the origin of the universe and all of its nuances there of. However, science's underststanding of matter in a pre big bang state is increasingly good. More over, evolutionary science is very well understood and (evolutions) its affects are easily observable/reproducable. The only people that evolutionary science is in hot water with is creationist idiots (who coincidentally aren't biologists and hate science), there's no debate within the scientific community. NONE.

In addition, if you just want to go a philosopher's route and apply logic, you can look at the universe and determine that the big bang is a more reasonable explanation for the current state of the universe than that an omnipresent and omnipotent superbeing created it.

The universe is constantly expanding outwards from a central point (consistent with an explosion), looking into the past (YES, THE NATURE OF TIME AND SPACE ALLOWS ONE TO DO THIS, SHOCKING I KNOW THAT SCIENCE AFFORDS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT) reveals strong evidence of an explosion due to dramatically increased temperatures and concentration/organization of matter in the distant past. Background EMR from the big bang can be picked up on an ordinary radio. A small percentage of the static you hear on your radio is from the big bang. This "ghost" background EMR exists, is from one source and has no explanation unless you think its coming from god ( and if god gives off EMR I think you could find him with a telescope imo).

I liked your comment about the 10 to the 38th power probability. Theologians love to use scientific evidence in an incorrect context to lend credence to their argument. The problem with you using this to downplay the credibility of the big bang is this - on a long enough time line and with enough individual opportunities the probability of everything reaches 100%. Time as we understand it is infinite, space as we understand it is also infinite, existing not only in an infinite amount of "space" as we know it but an infinite number of distinct but similar universes. Basically, the probability could be 10 the 156398th power and it would still happen eventually. In short, you wanted to use one facet of scientific understanding but conveniently forget the others which don't help your case, cute try.

More over, the idea that the western abrahamic god exists and created the universe is logically inconsistent (there's really no way to scientifically disprove a transcendent being exists so you kind of have to go the logic route exclusively here). Arguments that the universe displays evidence of design are flawed - such as that the universe displays evidence of tremendous order inexplicable by science, theologians often like to say that the order of the universe is like clockwork and this is evidence of intelligent design. This is however erroneous from the start, as the universe in fact displays tremendous disorder. Galaxies collide with one another, planets destroy one another, asteroids forever alter the orbits of other celestial bodies, supernovae destroy entire solar systems, supermassive blackholes tear galaxies asunder, etc.

More over, the idea of the western conceptualization of god existing at all is foolish because the nature of our own world contradicts the western model of god. Abrahamic god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly merciful. This however contradicts the existence of evil in the world both natural and manmade, bringing untold suffering to god's children (man). This is logically inconsistent with the existence of a god of the above description, as he could prevent all suffering.

Synopsized, science is incomplete but constantly evolving and becoming more accurate. Theological explanations for <x> <y> and <z> are supernatural in origin and therefor can only be argued by merit of logic, they don't even do well in that arena as evidenced above.

In short, you're a moron who didn't really understand what he was talking about AT ALL.

Actually, you just showed that you ned to go back to high school and learn basic mathematics. You obviously do not understand mathematics or physics and definately do not have a degree in either. Probability is not the same as possibility.

Again, let's see.
Law of Conservation of Mass: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Formula Page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html

Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. That's a LAW - not theory.
Formula Page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html

Basic problem: Where did the matter come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? The same amount of matter needed to exist before the Big Bang. Something cannot come from nothing. That's a LAW - not theory.

If you believe in the Big Bang Hypothesis, you need to be able to explain this question in detail, or you are taking it on faith - nothing more. And that makes it the same as a religion - based on faith. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Now if you want to discuss the Big Bang Guess, you had better come prepared to discuss these points:
1) Singularity
2) Smoothness
3) Horizon
4) Flatness
5) Inflation Theory
6) Missing Mass
7) The Age of the Universe
8) Radiation from the "Decoupling"
9) The Big Bang Timeline
10) The Abundance of Light Elements
11) Red Shift Anomalies
12) Curved Space
13) The Decelerating Expansion of the Universe


The ratio of the number of electrons to protons must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 10_37 (10 to the 37th power); otherwise electromagnetic forces would have been stronger than gravitational forces and thus no galaxies, stars, or planets would have ever formed.

Is it possible that the universe and the physical laws could exist by evolution - YES. Is it probable - NO. The odds? 1 in 10_10000(10 to the 10000th power - much more unlikely than simple protons/electrons). Better odds would be that your car's engine would freeze solid instead of warm up - every single time you started it. Do you think that maybe there might be some sort of intelligence behind the universe's design, rather than random chance?


Additionally, if any 1 of the 47 things listed in the attachment went wrong, we would not be here. Some light reading for your high school educated brain.

Now, do you really want to try to have an educated discussion? Go back to playing your video games if you aren't prepared.