I will prove god's existence if....

xris, even if there were no alternative theories to the Big Bang, the nature of theoretical astrophysics is such that there ARE many revisions that have happened and continue to happen. Studying the Big Bang is kind of like studying dinosaur behavior -- large theories are deduced from broken and scant evidence. It's no wonder that a small new bit of data can grossly change the theory -- it's a big pendulum but it changes direction with a hair trigger.

So the Big Bang, in general, is accepted within scientific communities. But there is a lot that is NOT universally held about the Big Bang, and what's clear is that the evidence is imperfect and subject to interpretation -- and always subject to change. This includes theories about what (if anything) preceded it.

Which leads me to ask how you can feel so secure in one particular interpretation of theoretical astrophysics that you would go on to generate a complex metaphysical theory from it? I mean if the entire scientific concensus revises itself in a couple years, will that destroy your hypothesis?

To repeat my point... You seem to be advocating certain theories (the Big Bang, the theory that life was predictable at the event of the Big Bang, the theory that a designer is plausable because life was predictable at the Big Bang - all theories) but dismissing others (the universe is one of many, there was a Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang - also theories).

If for nothing more than consistency why not either accept that theories are valid in an of themselves provided some degree of credibility is attached to them - or dismiss all theory unless is it backed up by a great deal of evidence.

Otherwise it seems like you operate under a "one rule for me, another rule for you" standard (ie: your theory of life being preditable at the event of the Big Bang leads to the plausibility of an engineer strikes you as kosher - but multiple universes does not).At least once I asked you to reclarify - you didn't - what am i supposed to do? Either explain why I am mistaken or accept that I will probably continue to see the debate my way.I'm not sure where I have done this - if I have i apologise. Can you explain why i have given you this impression and I will attempt to clarify the matter.I do think the two theories I have already given are credible in that they remain subjects of excited scientific speculation - I even pointed to a page in this week's New Scientist magazine that offers further speculation on multiverses.

Again - one rule for you and another for me - you are happy to accept the theory of the Big Bang but not Big Crunch or multiverse - despite the fact that the three are, to varying degrees, subjects of debate within the scientific community.

As I think Aedes said - there is no peculiar need for it - it's just that some are comfortable with the idea that there may be a cycle - others fancy a first cause.

Calling that first cause God or the Big bang satisfies many - others like to acknowledge theories that suggest other things.

I'm personally happy enough not to know (I don't think one can 'know') and am prepared to live and let live on the issue - but when others claim a distinct preference for one or the other I would rather understand why.

My only real beef is summed up nicely in Aedes' last point - it seems a common tactic to misrepresent science when using it to back up a position of faith. I would rather science and religious belief were kept seperate spheres. One is (as a trend) commentary on observables, the other (as a trend) is musing on the unknowable.

Because religion tends to stake out the unknowable I feel it sometimes suffers a threat from science - because science gradually eats into the unknowable. However, whenever religion tries to justify it's stances through science I tend to get rather protective - because I feel it tends to pervert or belittle scientific thought. Creationism in particular is guilty of this, I feel.

How very much different is it to speculate on multiverses that hang on an unproved theory than it is to speculate on the mass of coincidental occurences ?..

It smacks of blinkered scientific reasoning.. how can you say philosophising about an event that resulted in everthing is not permitted..

It isn't really, my point was to ask why you prefer to speculate on a mass of coincidental occurences (which hang on unproven theory) than aknowledge other theories that are backed up by plenty of other avenues of scientific thought?

What reason do you attach such import to your own theorising - beyond that it is merely your own?I never did - you are misrepresenting things - again. It strikes me as - at worst - as blinkered as your own. Multiverse theories are far from being 'flavour of the week' - they have been a hot topic of conversation for a long time - I first heard of them as a child in the late 80's. It's hardly a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer.

i do say it is speculative with no observable evidence..

That's a difficult point to support if you are clear what you mean by "observable" and "evidence". Some would argue that all the observable evidence points to that hypothesis so long as its interpreted correctly.

Therein, again, is the issue. Raw data do not a theory make. There is always an interpretation that connects data to its context. I mean the evidence that supported Darwin's theory were (among other things) the unique niche-adapted finches in the Galapagos. The raw data were the birds themselves. The derived data were Darwin's descriptions and observations. The theory was his interpretation of what he observed.

In the case of multiverses or whatever, I again implore you to think back to Ptolemy versus Newton. They all could see the sun and the planets. The raw data were the same (with the relatively unimportant caveat that they had telescopes later on). But Ptolemy interpreted these data much differently than his successors. Yet the idea that the earth was the center of the universe persisted for a looooong time until the data were reinterpreted.

Same is true of controversies in astrophysics -- the raw data are the same, but people examine them in different ways. The truth, if ever we can know it, is a work in progress.

Firstly i never need accomplices to have a point of view but it is not just me that states the big bang theory opens up many avenues of thought scientific and philosophical...I have not given a conclusion only a premise that appears to bring out the witch hunter in you..I never did say the multiverse had no supporters or it was a recent theory but i do say it is speculative with no observable evidence..

Sorry but even though people hypothesize on multiverses there is no evidence apart from certain cold spots in space that even hint that they could exist. Theories need evidence to support them not other theories that themselves need evidence...Multiverses may exist but so to could a creative force with an intelligence beyond our comprehension..

Witch Hunter? I thought I was contributing to a debate. I reckon I've been somewhat less bellicose in my tone than I think you have (accusing me of "fudging" issues, claiming I am "blinkered", calling me a "witch hunter"). I have no problem with people producing a premise - but I don't see why such premises should go unchallenged on a forum dedicated to discussion regarding philosophy. You accused me of saying that philosophising on something is not permitted - I would like to know where I did so - can you quote me? If I have done so I will recant of it - because I think dialogue is necessary on a forum like this - but in order for it to be honest dialogue counter points must be acknoweldged as well.

Anyway, I'm not taking it too personally - nor do I think anything should really be done about people who think differently than I do. I'm really just seeking a clarification of your position that stands by the standards it sets for other contributions.

You did say, just a few posts back, in response to a post of mine, that "these theories there is new one every month i could mention more than you have but none of them have convinced the scientific community, as you a have mentioned, as much as the bb.It is the accepted event by observation". So I feel well within my rights to point out that some of the theories I have been discussing have a significant weight of there own and remain hot topics of debate.

Which again illustrates the crux of my problem with your form of arguement - you dismiss one theoretical supposition for being so, but propose another with your next breath. Why should you be the only participant in a debate who is allowed to provide theories and premises?

You're taking a picayune point to dwell on and missing the overall message. The message is that the science of the Big Bang is far from any universal consensus, it's filled with great controversies among leading scientists, and there are many gaps that have been filled with new hypotheses -- SOME of which may supplant current understanding in the future.

I mean there are far more concrete and well-founded sciences that have huge controversies and there are major discoveries all the time. One science I know better, molecular biology, keeps surprising with brand new discoveries that change paradigms.

The point is that we don't know enough about the Big Bang (certainly all as laypeople here) to base philosophical projects on it and certainly not to bicker about it.

I'm not one who thinks much about god and purpose, because it doesn't seem all that important in issue to me and I lean atheistic -- but if I did think that way, I would see the science as something that teaches me about god, and if the science changes then obviously it has allowed us to learn something else about god's universe.

Well give me some of this evidence of the multiverse.. if you have ever considered my premise which i dont think you have ide be only to willing to debate multiverse and its evidence..The multiverse theory does not dilute my attempt at asking about coincidences we see occurring it may even strengthen it but if you see my idea being nullified by a multiverse please inform me..

As I recall your theory - correct me if I am wrong by all means - you said that:

a) Scientists say the Big Bang was the first ever event.
b) Life was a predictable result of the Big Bang.
c) Therefore considering that the universe was engineered might be worthwhile.

Righto chap?

I only mentioned the multiverse in the first place to demonstrate that point a is untrue - scientists hold many and competing views about what the first event is - the multiverse being an example.

Is that understood and can we move on from this now? I'm not a peculiar advocate of multiverse theory - as I said a few pages ago now - I simply refer to it as an example of a competing theory to the idea that the Big bang was the 'first ever event' that is held by many scientists.

As to point b I believe considering chaos theory has a lot to say about how complex systems do not always resolve themselves in the same way even under the same circumstances.

And as to point c my point at the time - which you still haven't answered - is even if we took points a and b as true (which I do not for the reasons stated above) why would that lead one to ponder design over accident?

As a further point you accuse me of not considering your premise. If I hadn't considered your premise why would I have made the points above or asked the questions I asked? You do seem unduly fond of the occasional personal attack - I don't mind a bit of cut and thrust - but why not just try and keep it civil?

I dont see where i made a personal attack well no more than you have..if i have i apologize..

Im not going to continue to ask you where you get your evidence of a multiverse as it appears you either wont or cant.

Chaos theory does not rule out the inevitability that given certain circumstances or should i say complex chemical conditions, life will not evolve.

You are going against the accepted views of science and cosmology at every turn but will not give reference to your claims..

I could give you the theory of a torus universe and in many respects it fulfills the evidence but nowhere near as much as the BB theory nor does the multiverse nor any other theory..

As for life do you consider it an accident or an EVENTUAL outcome of complex chemical condition?? I cant comment on my premise till we have resolved these questions.

I don't understand this insatiable need for everything to have a reason or a purpose-- I mean get over it, things can be without having a reason.

the 'insatiable need for everything to have a reason or a purpose' is surely the eccence of the scientific and phisolophical spirt.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Reason and purpose, quite simply, are unscientific values. To inquire about them is something that cannot be achieved by ANY scientific methodology and they cannot answer any scientific question.

I will have to watch my words as you appear to be of a sensitive nature if you think these terms are abusive..

Give me the cosmologists who deny the BB as the most credible event that created the universe and or how the other theories go against my premise? please..

Could you explain to me why you think if the formula for life is exactly the same for one experience of life why it should not occur again under the same identical circumstances ? please..