real life wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:real life wrote:mesquite wrote:real life wrote:So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.
So where did that matter and energy come from?
Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....
Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?
I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.
The Big Bang carries far more validity, since it has been arrived at by centuries of physics, as opposed to the Biblical story of creation, which is merely stated in an ancient text written by our pre-scientific ancestors.
The two aren't even comparable. I remind you that you have little knowledge of or competency with physical cosmology, or even its basic underpinnings, so be careful in criticizing something that you truly do not understand. You do know, however, that physics generally is developed using the scientific method, which has worked well enough to result in PCs and the Internet, not to mention human civilization.
Hi Brandon,
When I asked you if the matter/energy that were involved in the Big Bang had themselves been created or were eternally pre-existent,
you did not offer a definitive answer, but allowed how scientists were still studying the matter to come to a conclusion.
I guess if we just continually give that answer to all questions of science, then by your criteria the scientific argument could never be subject to criticism because the comeback would be that we can't criticize it if it isn't fully understood.
Pretty neat. Just be vague and tentative and thus avoid criticism. Kind of the 'agnostic view of science' isn't it? Clever, but unacceptable.
Even with two degrees in physics, cosmology is a little over my head. I don't know precisely what they believe, although I have a general feeling for what sorts of things they say about it, having heard some of it. I know that it's very sophisticated and involves the creation of time itself, the number of dimensions in the universe, and involves regions of spacetime where Euclidean geometry doesn't apply.
I know enough about the topic to know that the what they know now is a heck of a lot more than nothing. I believe that they are presently engaged in activiely discussing which of rival models comes closest to fitting observation.
What I have said on this topic is that even when some very complex things are not yet totally worked out by science and reason, or even if it should turn out ultimately that it is too difficult for man to understand, that would hardly be a reason to turn to a model determined by superstition. If you are so enamored of superstition over science, use superstition to make your next post on the forum instead of your PC.
