TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Big bang is out!,

Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.


Closing Statement from Dave McManus

Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 12 2013: I ve just been reading the latest comments.Of course,there can be no evidence about the hypothesesI put forward.I wouldn t be here sweating blood to snag arguments that hold water! But joking apart ,my line of reasoning is as follows 1) there is something 2) this something hasn t existed for ever because it s a spacetime one so that,however distant in the past,it might have occured,it had to begin or you could always push back its birth so that it would never reach its destination.Moreover,we do have proof of this beginning : THE BIG BANG,14.8 light years ago that gave rise to matter,space and time +very stringent laws as the recipe to govern this universe.We now know that these laws finetuning the universe for an ever increasing complexity and the emergence of life ,are so precise that the slightest change would have produced a short lived universe and wouldn t have spawn life Therefore,the nagging question is now:What or Who caused the BIG BANG ? I discount out of hand the answer NOTHING! How the heck,can something emerge from nothing.By definition,nothing will always engender nothing!...So that there has to have a CAUSE and this Cause has to be endowed with supernatural powers. It s omniscient,omnipotent and totally good but i won t expatiate on this third attribute which is very controvertial.This cause is not subject to the constraints of space and time though it created them for our universe.This cause is supernatural in the sense that it transcends everything! If you refuse such an entity for the creation of our world,who or what do you suggest instead? chance? but chance means it can t be defined and doesn t obey laws.It isn t a creative entity and once again the world has to have a beginning as it can t be eternal.
    • Nov 12 2013: Michel,

      Two comments:
      - 'that has to happen' involves a violation of free will determination. Why does it have to happen?
      - BTW 'chance' could lead to this particular case when every possible possibility be considered

      I hold to believe that this particular case happen because of an initial free will determination that involved additional free will determinations.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2013: The comment around chance is interesting. Do we know. with confidence that any other universe in terms of physical constants, is possible?

        It's impossible to talk meaningfully about probabilities is we know. nothing about the set of possibilities.

        Also when it comes to nature there are almost incomprehensible odds. The oddsthat one sperm and egg result in us is very low. Your parents have a million children and none would be identical genetically. Yet here we are.

        The probably the sandwich I'm reading contains these particular combination of atoms is astronomically small. Yet here it is.

        so to ask what is the chance the united would look like this without agency involved is perplexing.

        then again I could ask what is the chance a magical being or committee design a universe exactly this way.
        • Nov 13 2013: "It's impossible to talk meaningfully about probabilities if we know. nothing about the set of possibilities."

          The again when one knows nothing one assigns equal probabilities to each possibility ... and with infinite upon infinite possibilities the chances of one of them happening are nil, yet here we are and every day many coincidences do happen that further make this reality less and less likely while evidently still being
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: I note you say the physical constants are fine tuned for life. It may just semantics, but the wording implies some purposeful fine tuning with objective of being suitable for life. It does come across as having some bias towards assuming design for life.

      I suggest the physical constants are such that we have a relatively long lived universe. Life has managed to evolve in this universe at least on one planet.

      to assume this is a universe perfectly designed for life is a big call. Try living in the 99.999999999% that would kill you almost instantly. Also no life we know of in the first few billion years. And unlikely to have much life for the trillion or so as the universe approaches heat death.

      I don't know why the constants are the way they are. I cause an all powerful creator could have made the universe more hospital to life.

      when it comes to what caused the bb, that is where we differ. You seem to have some assumptionsabout what is possible and what isn't. I suggest that it is a big call to rule out an explanation that doesn't involve agency.

      before space time energy and matter does my head in. Does before mean anything then. does cause apply before time.

      the universe wasn't always this way. I suggest it's a bit early to assume agency is the only valid explanation.

      what is supernatural. and what is natural before the physical constants, before time and space is also stretching the meaning of words.

      I don't know if the universe could have formed without agency any other way. You don't know if a creator could have created the universe any other way too I guess.

      in the end I find the leap to agency may be due in part to our evolutionary tendency to assume agency even where there is nine as far as we know. You believe it necessary. I can see how you get there but don't agree your assumptions are necessary.

      I suggest we don't know enough to make a call.

      And again resorting to magic to answer questions is usually found to be unreliable.
      • Nov 12 2013: Obey,

        You in sort of said : It may just be semantics, but notice what the wording implies...

        my friend, that cuts both ways.. why did you choose to call it 'magic' rather than 'divine intervention'?

        you sort of asked : Does before mean anything then... (before space time energy and matter does my head in).

        Well if you mean before space time energy and matter does before mean anything? Well that's sort of asking something along the lines of does the meaning of before exist before the existence of before...

        If by (before space time energy and matter does my head in) you mean before you die then sure before one dies there is a before which connotes one's life from conception to finality...
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: I understand magic in general or general supernatural propositions are option people consider.

          a divine intervention by gods is a subset of this.

          no evidence, of magic, let alone magical gods, let alone one god , let alone a particular theistic god.

          I say magic to back things up to the first point of difference rather than jumping to a more specific form of magic, or supernatural force.

          also saying magic reinforces that the actions of s are essentially magical. Unexplained. impossible for us mere mortals

          in fantasy fiction there is elemental magic and clerical magic calling upon the magical powers of deities.

          if seem to be invoking gods with magical powers.

          also on not assuming creation or some process with agency is conclusively the case. Just insufficient evidence or reason to assume magic of any variety including magical gods,

          in other areas I try to be neutral. Universe or cosmos is more neural than creation. And does not exclude the possibility of creators.
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: Regarding , does become the big bang have meaning etc I'm just pointing out we are at the limits of our language and comprehension. To talk about casual agents become time began is odd . Then to presume agency is the only possibility seems a bold assertion given the subject matter
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: if you want to call everything outside our before time space supernatural, fine.

      however you have not demonstrate your premise that the bb must be the result of agency outside time space.

      in fact you have no evidence, of a God, let alone evidence that shows a god created the universe. You just seem to assert this is the only possible explanation. Perhaps you have god like knowledge the test of us don't. This is probably a key point of difference we are not going to close.

      you must know more about what is possible and what isn't before space time, better than our leading physicists.

      I suggest we as a species may not know enough about the physics pre big bang to make a call that agency was required .

      secondly if you allow for other dimensions where agency exists there are infinite options not just one god
      • Nov 12 2013: Obey,

        I like to say there are infinite possibilities with one best alternative to choose...

        I will also like to point out that you are making a call when you suggest we should not make a call.
        Its a bit like holding that choosing not to choose isn't a choice
        Not responding is actually a kind of response...
        To respond or not to respond isn't the question, the question be how to respond!
        Each be responsible for what they do (and not do).
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2013: To put it another way there is nothing that indicates gods involved in the origin of the universe. Etc
          there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that gods were involved.

          that is why I suggest it is too early to make a call.

          the origins of the universe is one of the cutting edge parts of science I'm more open to supernatural possibilities compared to say lightening or disease.

          I think we can have more confidence that gods are not active in the weather or disease because we understand more. Not100% but closer to it.
      • Nov 13 2013: Obey,

        To put it another way some currently believe and claim that there is nothing that indicates God involved in the origin of the universe.

        How do you actually know as a fact that there is nothing?
        There might be something out there that indicates God involved in the origin of the universe which we have not found.

        you walked around the issue of the calls you made somehow not being calls
        • thumb
          Nov 14 2013: There is no evidence I'm aware of that demonstrates gods created the universe..

          if there is I'm not aware any being found.

          perhaps I should say sufficient or reasonable evidence as some may refer to this or that book, or personal revelations, that indicate this or that god of goddess or supernatural story is evidence. Although these methods contradict each purge and don't seem to be reliable methods.

          I'm not saying we will never find evidence. If the creators of the universe. wanted us to be aware of them on a reliable way they could have.

          Personally a diestic approach seems a better fit with reality than a theistic one, although there is insufficient evidence asset this time of any gods of any generic type being involved.
      • Nov 14 2013: Obey,

        My intent was to point something out in your statements for you to consider as evidence.
        I realize that you hold the position you expressed with "There is no evidence I'm aware of ..."
        Evidently that is different from the expression "there is nothing that indicates..."

        I trust that the following statement will be graciously perceived in the humorous tone I intend and will provide food for thought. --- the following is intended as a humorous punt ----
        perhaps a more accurate statement would be along the lines that there isn't sufficient or reasonable evidence to satisfy you.
        Back to the response...

        Of course perhaps this reality involves an exercise/experiment of individual freedom that certain being employes to let us learn about making choices under the influence of apparently equal choices, a bit of uncertainty infinite good and bad possibilities ... and just one right answer

        Chose right: get it right, think right is right,
        chose wrong: get it wrong, think right is wrong and wrong is right,

        Everyone ends up in the right place... some see it as 'it is' and love it in joy... some see it as 'it is not' and hate it in disgust... everyone states its a wonderful place because it is a wonderful place (it is just some think what is and some think what it is not)

        The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"... to choose under uncertainty between apparently equal choices involves always making the right choice regardless of knowing it right or knowing it wrong. Remember Its not about who be right or who be wrong, its about what be right. Its not about who tell the truth and who lies nor if the lie is about the road or the answer is about knowing with certainty the direction to take and taking it with confidence... Friend or foe either way get them to actually help you learn the way to go and go... in dew time each will know the truth some will embrace it and some may delay a bit more (ok maybe an eternity or two). Their choice
        • thumb
          Nov 14 2013: Hi et

          we may be starting to go soon circles.

          I guess you consider you chain of thought regarding the origin of the universe as evidence or at least an argument for a supernatural god. Whereas I don't accept some of your premises.

          Sure absence of evidence is not proof something does not exist. But it's a very weak position compared to having positive evidence.

          Zeus, Bacchus, maduk, thor and the invisible pink unicorn are in the same position as Yahweh, Allah, vishnu, Mormon Jesus, christain heaven, Muslim paradise, nivrvana, vahalla, Isis, etc. The lack of evidence that they exist is not proof they don't but it doesnt really help prove they do exist
      • Nov 14 2013: Obey,

        You guessed wrong :-) (That was me basically providing you some factual information ).

        I realize that you choose not to accept certain of my premises and choose to maintain some of your premises. Also note that neither premises have positive definitive evidence. Note how you insist on proof something to hold while lacking proof of what you choose to hold. Employing an association fallacy reflects a very weak position, though I am certain you hold that it helps your argumentation.

        That was me basically providing you some factual information :-).
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: 1) Apparently in quantum physics, creation ex nihillo is possible, hence no cause would be needed nor would there have to be something before the universe came into being.
      2) the universe is about 14.8 billion years old not 14.8 light years as you mentioned in your post.
      3) "We now know that these laws finetuning"
      This seems to be a logical fallacy to me. Just because it seems that everything is fine tuned doesn't mean it is. It's much more likely that the particles we have are just the survivors. All other particles that might have been created during the big bang got eventually eradicated It's like life on earth. Some organisms made it others not.......for a number of reasons.
    • thumb
      Nov 13 2013: Aren't you proposing a god made something from nothing also.

      by the way +1 -1 =0

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.