Evidence for or against a creator?

[sookster]

When I take a break from reading about economic theory, I dive into theoretical physics. I've been reading about physics since I was a freshman in high school. As it was typical for me, I would skip class to read about the oddities as well as complexities of our universe.

I am currently reading a book that in my opinion is a first of its kind. The usual structure of a book on physics coincides with television documentaries. It starts with thinkers during The Enlightenment (Capernicus, Galileo) and works its way through their concepts to modern day thinkers like Einstein and Stephen Hawking. However, this book is taking a whole new approach.

This book travels to the various remote areas of the world that have been given the task of providing experimental data of our universe. Experiments range from detecting dark matter to lightning fast murons.

I wanted to share with you an excerpt from this book.

[Source
Ananthaswamy, Anil. The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth's Extremes to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. 88-89. Print. ]

"The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) cemented the notion of a big bang. But for all its elegance, that theory had thrown up some intractable problems. Soon after the CMB was discovered, Dicke went to Cornell to talk about an aspect of the big bang that was seriously bothering theorists: the flatness problem. According to measurements at the time, the density of matter seemed almost equal to the so-called critical density - the density that was needed to make the curvature of the universe flat. (A flat universe is one in which two parallel lines remain parallel all the way to infinity, whereas in a "closed" universe the line will converge. In an "open" universe, two parallel lines will eventually diverge. The two-dimensional surface of Earth is closed: Two lines that start off parallel at the equator will touch at the poles. A saddle provides an example of an open surface on which two parallel lines will diverge.)
As Dicke pointed out in his talk, if the matter density had been greater, then the universe's curvature would be closed, and if it had been lower, the universe would be open. But the universe seemed to be flat, meaning that the ratio of the actual matter density to the critical density, which is denoted by a parameter called Omega, was very close to 1. And for today's universe to have Omega anywhere near 1, its value just one second after the big bang would have had to be exactly 1 to a precision of about fourteen decimal places."

And so I ask, how do you perceive this? Is this evidence for or against a Creator?

For me, when I read that about thirty minutes ago for the first time, I had chills throughout my body, with tears welling up in my eyes. For me, this is undoubtedly evidence that we coexist with an all powerful being.

 

[DarkWizard12]

When I take a break from reading about economic theory, I dive into theoretical physics. I've been reading about physics since I was a freshman in high school. As it was typical for me, I would skip class to read about the oddities as well as complexities of our universe.

I am currently reading a book that in my opinion is a first of its kind. The usual structure of a book on physics coincides with television documentaries. It starts with thinkers during The Enlightenment (Capernicus, Galileo) and works its way through their concepts to modern day thinkers like Einstein and Stephen Hawking. However, this book is taking a whole new approach.

This book travels to the various remote areas of the world that have been given the task of providing experimental data of our universe. Experiments range from detecting dark matter to lightning fast murons.

I wanted to share with you an excerpt from this book.

[Source
Ananthaswamy, Anil. The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth's Extremes to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. 88-89. Print. ]

"The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) cemented the notion of a big bang. But for all its elegance, that theory had thrown up some intractable problems. Soon after the CMB was discovered, Dicke went to Cornell to talk about an aspect of the big bang that was seriously bothering theorists: the flatness problem. According to measurements at the time, the density of matter seemed almost equal to the so-called critical density - the density that was needed to make the curvature of the universe flat. (A flat universe is one in which two parallel lines remain parallel all the way to infinity, whereas in a "closed" universe the line will converge. In an "open" universe, two parallel lines will eventually diverge. The two-dimensional surface of Earth is closed: Two lines that start off parallel at the equator will touch at the poles. A saddle provides an example of an open surface on which two parallel lines will diverge.)
As Dicke pointed out in his talk, if the matter density had been greater, then the universe's curvature would be closed, and if it had been lower, the universe would be open. But the universe seemed to be flat, meaning that the ratio of the actual matter density to the critical density, which is denoted by a parameter called Omega, was very close to 1. And for today's universe to have Omega anywhere near 1, its value just one second after the big bang would have had to be exactly 1 to a precision of about fourteen decimal places."

And so I ask, how do you perceive this? Is this evidence for or against a Creator?

For me, when I read that about thirty minutes ago for the first time, I had chills throughout my body, with tears welling up in my eyes. For me, this is undoubtedly evidence that we coexist with an all powerful being.

Civilization seems to have lost the meaning behind "There is 1 God". The creation of the universe speaks to this principle

 

[Aderleth]

It is neither proof for nor proof against. It is neutral on the God issue.

 

[marduc]

Examining the odds of something occurring after it already has occurred is nonsense.

As stated above, this is neither proof (or evidence) for or against God. Thinking it is evidence for God is just another instance of the God of the gaps, we do not know, this does not mean we can say it was God, it means we can say "We do not know"

 

[sookster]

Examining the odds of something occurring after it already has occurred is nonsense.

Why? Need characters to post.

 

[roughdraft274]

Why? Need characters to post.

Take for instance the lottery.

The chances of winning are (random number but a very conservative estimate) 1 in a million. Lets say every week for a whole year, someone wins the lottery. The odd's of winning are 1 in a million, and it happened 52 times in a row. The chances of that equal 1/million^52 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

PS, that's not just alot of zeros, that's the actual number of zero's to figure out this probability. 312 zero's.

So, just because a certain set of 52 people won the lottery, and the chances of it happening just like that are extremely improbable, it still happened and happens all over the place.

 

[marduc]

Why? Need characters to post.

Because each of the possibilities have an equal chance of existing, once one of them exists afterwards. After the fact the odds of that occurring become 1:1.

For example, if I roll 17 dice, the odds of any specific combination of dice coming up will be 1:6^17 (two dice have 36 possible outcomes or 6^2, three dice have 6 times as many possible outcomes, 216 or 6^3. 4 dice 6^4 and so on.) 1:6^17 would be to the "precision" of 1 to 14 decimal places. After the dice are thrown, one of these 6^17 combinations will be there, looking at the exact combination and thinking "wow.. how incredible! the odds of that specific combination are 1 with 14 zeros after it!!" is preposterous, it has occurred, after the fact the odds of this happening are 1:1.

Taking this a step further, you cannot look at the specific combination of dice and say, "wow! the odds of that are unbelievably small, this is evidence that there was an unseen guiding hand that caused this specific outcome."

Edit: btw what is up with "exactly 1 to a precision of about..."?

 

[Verthaine]

When I take a break from reading about economic theory, I dive into theoretical physics. I've been reading about physics since I was a freshman in high school. As it was typical for me, I would skip class to read about the oddities as well as complexities of our universe.

I am currently reading a book that in my opinion is a first of its kind. The usual structure of a book on physics coincides with television documentaries. It starts with thinkers during The Enlightenment (Capernicus, Galileo) and works its way through their concepts to modern day thinkers like Einstein and Stephen Hawking. However, this book is taking a whole new approach.

This book travels to the various remote areas of the world that have been given the task of providing experimental data of our universe. Experiments range from detecting dark matter to lightning fast murons.

I wanted to share with you an excerpt from this book.

[Source
Ananthaswamy, Anil. The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth's Extremes to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. 88-89. Print. ]

"The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) cemented the notion of a big bang. But for all its elegance, that theory had thrown up some intractable problems. Soon after the CMB was discovered, Dicke went to Cornell to talk about an aspect of the big bang that was seriously bothering theorists: the flatness problem. According to measurements at the time, the density of matter seemed almost equal to the so-called critical density - the density that was needed to make the curvature of the universe flat. (A flat universe is one in which two parallel lines remain parallel all the way to infinity, whereas in a "closed" universe the line will converge. In an "open" universe, two parallel lines will eventually diverge. The two-dimensional surface of Earth is closed: Two lines that start off parallel at the equator will touch at the poles. A saddle provides an example of an open surface on which two parallel lines will diverge.)
As Dicke pointed out in his talk, if the matter density had been greater, then the universe's curvature would be closed, and if it had been lower, the universe would be open. But the universe seemed to be flat, meaning that the ratio of the actual matter density to the critical density, which is denoted by a parameter called Omega, was very close to 1. And for today's universe to have Omega anywhere near 1, its value just one second after the big bang would have had to be exactly 1 to a precision of about fourteen decimal places."

And so I ask, how do you perceive this? Is this evidence for or against a Creator?

For me, when I read that about thirty minutes ago for the first time, I had chills throughout my body, with tears welling up in my eyes. For me, this is undoubtedly evidence that we coexist with an all powerful being.

You would think a book written in 2010 about theoretical physics would at least mention Cosmological Inflation the Anthropic Principle or the Multiverse Model as three possible answers to the flatness problem.

Here are a number of books I personally own which covers the exact same subject as Mr Ananthaswamy's book:

Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1997).

Kaku, Michio, Parallel Worlds: A Journey through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos (Doubleday, Random House, 2005).

Duncan, Todd & Craig Tyler,Observational Cosmology:Your Cosmic Context
(Pearson Addison Wesley, San Francisco, 2010).Cambridge University Press

Stephen W. Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow The Grand Design
Random House Digital, Inc., 2010 - Science - 198 pages

All of which mention Cosmological Inflation,The Anthropic Principle,and The Multiverse Model as possible answers to the "flatness problem.

Which leads me to three possible scenarios:

1- Anil Ananthaswamy is a very sloppy researcher.
But given the fact that he is respected scientific news reporter, contributing editor to The New Scientist Magazine (a highly respected scientific news magazine) and a contributor to National Geographic News (another very highly respected scientific news organization).
And given the fact that I am very familiar with his work,in my opinion I find this scenario highly unlikely.
Are any of those three possible solutions to the flatness I mentioned above in Mr Ananthaswamy book? I'm betting they are.

2-You didn't read the entire book all the way through.

3-You are a Evangelical Christian with an hidden agenda who is engaging in deliberate deception,misdirection,and back door proselytizing.

 

[Tucker Case]

For me, this is undoubtedly evidence that we coexist with an all powerful being.

Why?











.

 

[sookster]

I haven't read the entire book. His writing style is very good in a sense that he doesn't keep on one subject for a very long time. I am only done with chapter five, so I have a good portion of the book to continue reading.

I want to play with the concept that I am trying to grasp. Something isn't clicking. First to the lottery scenario...

Are you suggesting that around the world, a person wins the lottery once a week? If you aren't, I'm sorry but I wasn't able to connect the dots. If you could elaborate on your point, I would appreciate it.

To the dice problem. "After the dice are thrown, one of these 6^17 combinations will be there, looking at the exact combination and thinking "wow.. how incredible! the odds of that specific combination are 1 with 14 zeros after it!!" is preposterous, it has occurred, after the fact the odds of this happening are 1:1."

Can you please elaborate further. I am not understanding it completely. I am just trying to understand the counter arguments as best I can.

 

[SlackMaster]

Applying odds after the fact is like a lottery winner saying, "The odds of me winning the lottery are so small that I must not have won."

 

[sookster]

I feel that the mentality you just quoted, is misinterpreting the definition of a mathematical odd. It is my understanding, that odds is a measure of likelihood, which therefore means intrinsically that no matter how large or small the odds, everything is possible. Is this statement incorrect, or correct?

This therefore suggests the quantitative value of an odd, is simply a measurement of a possibility. You can interpret it in a multitude of ways. If you have a 60% success rate, that means if you were to perform the event in question, out of 100 tries about 60 give or take some will go through as a success. It must be noted, that it is always implied that success is possible, even if you had an actual 80 successful trials with a theoretical 60. I hope that makes sense.

 

[roughdraft274]

I haven't read the entire book. His writing style is very good in a sense that he doesn't keep on one subject for a very long time. I am only done with chapter five, so I have a good portion of the book to continue reading.

I want to play with the concept that I am trying to grasp. Something isn't clicking. First to the lottery scenario...

Are you suggesting that around the world, a person wins the lottery once a week? If you aren't, I'm sorry but I wasn't able to connect the dots. If you could elaborate on your point, I would appreciate it.

To the dice problem. "After the dice are thrown, one of these 6^17 combinations will be there, looking at the exact combination and thinking "wow.. how incredible! the odds of that specific combination are 1 with 14 zeros after it!!" is preposterous, it has occurred, after the fact the odds of this happening are 1:1."

Can you please elaborate further. I am not understanding it completely. I am just trying to understand the counter arguments as best I can.

With the lottery.

There are hundreds of them around the world and I am proposing a hypothetical one that is made up so that we have easier numbers to go by. It's not actually meant to depict an actual lottery ticket that you buy at the store.

Lets say the chances of you winning the lottery with a ticket you just purchased is 1 in 1 million. Odds are that any particular person buying a ticket for the lottery winning is 1 in 1 million. Needless to say, your chances of winning are pretty low.

Now lets look at the lottery a year from now. Over the past 52 weeks, every week a random person has won. Each time one of those people won the chances of them winning were 1 in 1 million. So, when we figure out "what were the chances of each of those 52 people winning the lottery in that exact order" we come to the actual probability of this happening. 1 in 10^312. Odd's so low that it would be absolutely crazy to consider that it actually happened, yet it did happen. This is essentially the same thing that your guy is doing. He is saying that the odds of everything on earth working out exactly as they did are incredibly low, yet that really doesn't mean much to us because we know it happened already. It's no reason to bring in God into the scenario simply because the odds are low of it happening.

 

[marduc]

I haven't read the entire book. His writing style is very good in a sense that he doesn't keep on one subject for a very long time. I am only done with chapter five, so I have a good portion of the book to continue reading.

I want to play with the concept that I am trying to grasp. Something isn't clicking. First to the lottery scenario...

Are you suggesting that around the world, a person wins the lottery once a week? If you aren't, I'm sorry but I wasn't able to connect the dots. If you could elaborate on your point, I would appreciate it.

To the dice problem. "After the dice are thrown, one of these 6^17 combinations will be there, looking at the exact combination and thinking "wow.. how incredible! the odds of that specific combination are 1 with 14 zeros after it!!" is preposterous, it has occurred, after the fact the odds of this happening are 1:1."

Can you please elaborate further. I am not understanding it completely. I am just trying to understand the counter arguments as best I can.

To be frank without reiterating what I have already posted, and what others have posted I do not know if I can explain it in such a way that will make it clearer for you, all I could do is provide another analogy similar to the ones already used.

 

[sookster]

Thank you.

I agree. I feel if you create a faulty math problem, the results will be faulty. I think I understand what you are saying finally.

As you go more and more specific in your conditions of your problem, the probability logically decreases. However, the conditions of the problem in the first place is probably unrealistic. So to keep with your lottery scenario, you calculated the probability of those lottery tickets winning in that exact order. I feel that I am unable to put words into what I am going to try and convey. I think simply, what is the point of knowing the probability of the specific order? Why know that? Who cares if one person won before the other?

And so I believe that mathematical probabilities are heavily dependent on how specific you are going to get. Now I will share with you some of my personal views from reading this book.

It is assumed that there is no God when conducting science. That is readily apparent. Because, once these scientist calculated that there had to be a Omega ratio of 1 precise to fourteen decimal places, they realized what that might imply. So they worked diligently to solve that problem, either with inflationary theory or multiple universes, and so forth. These calculations may hold a model that is pleasing to the non-believer, but as with any theory, there has to be some sort of evidence to back it up.

And so as this book has touched based on, there are definitely experiments that are being done that will either confirm or shatter current theories. So in these theoretical model they work out various consequences, and this book focuses on particle physics. Certain models require certain particles to exist. And so scientist at the particle accelerator work passionately every day, to try and find these particles. All of this work, to keep a model assuming that there is no God.

To shed more light on what I am trying to say, is scientists, according to this book, in Russia are operating what is called a Neutrino Telescope. This telescope is put in place to find evidence of Dark Matter. It's complicated on how the whole system works, but theoretically when Dark Matter collides with itself, it creates high energy neutrinos. They know through their experiments as well as others, that there is a phenomenon called neutrino oscillation. As I understand it, if you think a neutrino as a small string vibrating at various frequencies, the spectrum of frequencies is basically neutrino oscillation. In order for the neutrino to be able to do this, it has to have mass. And so, this adds more pressure for the particle physicists to find right now the theoretical particle of mass, the Hons Boson.

As you can see, the theories drive the experiments, and it is a never ending cycle of confirmation or refutation, which is a healthy cycle of science.

My point is this. Inflationary, multiverse, or other theories are only there to keep the model from showing there is no Creator. It simply has nothing to do if whether or not it is reality. They calculate first, and ask later, on the blind assumption that there is no Creator. Simply because, these scientists reject this notion, practicing faith in science just as much as someone who practices faith in a Creator.

If our discussion permits, I think a very good discussion would be in that of faith. But that is for another post.

It is in my view, since I believe that there is a Creator, that science and religion (this term can include religions that have not been published) should go hand in hand, instead of fist on fist.

 

[roughdraft274]

Thank you.

I agree. I feel if you create a faulty math problem, the results will be faulty. I think I understand what you are saying finally.

As you go more and more specific in your conditions of your problem, the probability logically decreases. However, the conditions of the problem in the first place is probably unrealistic. So to keep with your lottery scenario, you calculated the probability of those lottery tickets winning in that exact order. I feel that I am unable to put words into what I am going to try and convey. I think simply, what is the point of knowing the probability of the specific order? Why know that? Who cares if one person won before the other?

And so I believe that mathematical probabilities are heavily dependent on how specific you are going to get. Now I will share with you some of my personal views from reading this book.

It is assumed that there is no God when conducting science. That is readily apparent. Because, once these scientist calculated that there had to be a Omega ratio of 1 precise to fourteen decimal places, they realized what that might imply. So they worked diligently to solve that problem, either with inflationary theory or multiple universes, and so forth. These calculations may hold a model that is pleasing to the non-believer, but as with any theory, there has to be some sort of evidence to back it up.

And so as this book has touched based on, there are definitely experiments that are being done that will either confirm or shatter current theories. So in these theoretical model they work out various consequences, and this book focuses on particle physics. Certain models require certain particles to exist. And so scientist at the particle accelerator work passionately every day, to try and find these particles. All of this work, to keep a model assuming that there is no God.

To shed more light on what I am trying to say, is scientists, according to this book, in Russia are operating what is called a Neutrino Telescope. This telescope is put in place to find evidence of Dark Matter. It's complicated on how the whole system works, but theoretically when Dark Matter collides with itself, it creates high energy neutrinos. They know through their experiments as well as others, that there is a phenomenon called neutrino oscillation. As I understand it, if you think a neutrino as a small string vibrating at various frequencies, the spectrum of frequencies is basically neutrino oscillation. In order for the neutrino to be able to do this, it has to have mass. And so, this adds more pressure for the particle physicists to find right now the theoretical particle of mass, the Hons Boson.

As you can see, the theories drive the experiments, and it is a never ending cycle of confirmation or refutation, which is a healthy cycle of science.

My point is this. Inflationary, multiverse, or other theories are only there to keep the model from showing there is a Creator. Simply because, these scientists reject this notion, practicing faith in science just as much as someone who practices faith in a Creator.

I understand where you are coming from but I have to disagree. Scientists don't start up theories and experiments just to work around admitting that there is a god. Maybe what I'm about to say is a far too simplistic way of generalizing what you are arguing, but it seems to me that you're hang up with science is that at no point do they just give up and say "well this stuff is getting complicated... everyone here wanna say that God did it and go home and drink some beer?".

If our discussion permits, I think a very good discussion would be in that of faith. But that is for another post.

It is in my view, since I believe that there is a Creator, that science and religion (this term can include religions that have not been published) should go hand in hand, instead of fist on fist.

I commend you for for not acting like science is some ugly stepchild that is hostile to any notion of God, but as long as religion incorporates the concept of faith over evidence and as long as science depends on verifiable, testable data, the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[sookster]

First, it depends on how you interpret the data. I will give you a clip of what I am trying to say. It has to do with our Educational System, but I want you to focus on the data about ADHD. It really sheds light on how interpreting of data is hugely important. (‪RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms‬‏ - YouTube)

What you said is a big perception of people who believe, but unfortunately I feel this is inaccurate. Our Creator created the reality that we see today, which means he is confined to the reality that he created. Which means, that science not only shows how He did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality He created. Yes, I completely agree with you, there have been people in the past who has seen a problem and said "God did it, let's go drink some beer." What I am saying, is that isn't me. Does that make sense?

 

[Verthaine]

First, it depends on how you interpret the data. I will give you a clip of what I am trying to say. It has to do with our Educational System, but I want you to focus on the data about ADHD. It really sheds light on how interpreting of data is hugely important. (‪RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms‬‏ - YouTube)

What you said is a big perception of people who believe, but unfortunately I feel this is inaccurate. Our Creator created the reality that we see today, which means he is confined to the reality that he created. Which means, that science not only shows how He did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality He created. Yes, I completely agree with you, there have been people in the past who has seen a problem and said "God did it, let's go drink some beer." What I am saying, is that isn't me. Does that make sense?

To forestall any accusations that you are here to actually proselytize Christian beliefs,rather then setting up premise for actual debate I am going to take the liberty of writing your posts in alternate ways that in my opinion are all equally valid ways that could have been written as not to offend anyone who is non-christian.

1- ...it is my opinion that Our Creator created the reality that we see today, which means that in my opinion he is confined to the reality that he created. Which means, in my opinion that science not only shows how I believeHe did it, but it in my opinion drives us to the very fabric of the reality He created.

2-...The Goddess created the reality that we see today, which means she is confined to the reality that he created. Which means, that science not only shows how She did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality She created.

3-...The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the reality that we see today, which means the Flying Spaghetti Monster is confined to the reality that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created. Which means, that science not only shows how the did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality the Flying Spaghetti Monster created.

4-...The Gods and Goddesses created the reality that we see today, which means {i] the Gods and Goddesses are confined to the reality that the Gods and Goddesses created. Which means, that science not only shows how the Gods and Goddess did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality the Gods and Goddesses created.

5-... The Tao manifested the reality that we see today, which means the Taois confined to the reality that the Tao manifested. Which means, that science not only shows how the Tao did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality the Tao manifested.

I would like to point out (and as I've shown) above that there are many "Concepts of God", not just one.
And All are equally valid ways of "viewing God".

Now I fully agree with Sir Ken Robinson's video,but I hope this isn't a back door attempt to suggest we teach Creationism or in our schools.

No offense Sookser,but since you yourself admitted you haven't read the entire book,the quote you gave from the book only indicates that you where premature in writing your post.

 

[Goshin]

Those who earnestly wish to find God, will.


Those who don't, won't.

 

[sookster]

Not necessarily. You don't really understand the concepts I was protraying in my posts. The whole purpose of inflationary theory as well as multiverse and others, is just the sole purpose to create a model that is workable to non-believeers to a creator.

Just as I have an opinion, you have opinions in your statements, for a lot of these theories are purely theoretical. Sure, there is a logical defense to them, but a lot of these theories lack any sort of physical evidence. Therefore, it is opinion.

I can tell from your harsh tone that you seem angered. Anger can sometimes be a re-infestation of fear. This is one of the reasons why I think most people do not believe in a Creator, or a range of Creators, is simply because they fear them. This doesn't pertain to all persons, but I am sure some. Rather than dealing with this fear, it is much easier to dismiss our Creator(s) entirely. Your brain is also dealing with the pain that maybe, just maybe, your assumption that there isn't a Creator and there is absolutely nothing that can change that, is being shaken just a tiny bit. To avoid this intellectual pain, you brashly attack not only the contents of what I said, but my credibility as well.

I am just letting you know, I could not care less about the content of your previous post, for what applies to me applies to you as well.

 

[Verthaine]

Excuse me,but who exactly are you referring to?

Not necessarily. You don't really understand the concepts I was protraying in my posts. The whole purpose of inflationary theory as well as multiverse and others, is just the sole purpose to create a model that is workable to non-believeers to a creator.

No it isn't.
The purpose of a scientific model of how our universe came to exist is an attempt to explain "how" the universe came to exist,not "who" created it or "why".
Nothing more,nothing less.
A model is not the same thing as a theory, it is a hypothesis.

Explaining "who" created the universe is the job of religion,not science.

Just as I have an opinion, you have opinions in your statements, for a lot of these theories are purely theoretical.

A hypothesis is an opinion looking for evidence to back it up.
A theory is a hypothesis that has some evidence that seems to back it up.

May I point that a theory by it's very definition is theoretical.
Hypothetical is not the same thing as theoretical.

As I have stated,a theory and a hypothesis(a hypothetical situation) are two different things.

If you notice that that on post #8 I never state that Cosmological Inflation,the Anthropic Principle, or the Multiverse Model, are in fact theories, (nor did I even call them that) just three possible answers to the flatness problem.
Three different hypothesis'.

Sure, there is a logical defense to them, but a lot of these theories lack any sort of physical evidence.Therefore, it is opinion.

Again,a theory that has no evidence that seems to back it up it is not a theory,it is a hypothesis.

I can tell from your harsh tone that you seem angered. Anger can sometimes be a re-infestation of fear.

Again who are you referring to?
As far as I can tell,no one on this thread has used words or emoticons to express their emotional state.
This is a tactic that I have witnessed Evangelical Christian use when they are proselytizing and trying to convert others.

This is one of the reasons why I think most people do not believe in a Creator, or a range of Creators, is simply because they fear them. This doesn't pertain to all persons, but I am sure some.

That of course is your opinion.
You have that right to have one.

Rather than dealing with this fear, it is much easier to dismiss our Creator(s) entirely.

Who on this thread has done that?
Please state the persons name,the post it was said on,and an exact quote.

Your brain is also dealing with the pain that maybe, just maybe, your assumption that there isn't a Creator and there is absolutely nothing that can change that, is being shaken just a tiny bit. To avoid this intellectual pain, you brashly attack not only the contents of what I said, but my credibility as well.

1- Are you a mind reader.
Can you explain to me how do you know the mental or emotional state of any of the people on this thread.

2- You are outright lying.
No one on this thread has either made an assumption that there isn't a Creator,brashly attacked the contents of your post,or your credibility,prior to writing your above post(what happens after I press the submit button I couldn't know,I cannot tell the future.

These are the posts in which the subject of God is broached.

On post #3 Aderleth wrote:

It is neither proof for nor proof against. It is neutral on the God issue.

On post #4 Marduc wrote:

Examining the odds of something occurring after it already has occurred is nonsense.

As stated above, this is neither proof (or evidence) for or against God. Thinking it is evidence for God is just another instance of the God of the gaps, we do not know, this does not mean we can say it was God, it means we can say "We do not know"

On post 16 Roughdraft274 wrote:

I understand where you are coming from but I have to disagree. Scientists don't start up theories and experiments just to work around admitting that there is a god. Maybe what I'm about to say is a far too simplistic way of generalizing what you are arguing, but it seems to me that you're hang up with science is that at no point do they just give up and say "well this stuff is getting complicated... everyone here wanna say that God did it and go home and drink some beer?".


I commend you for for not acting like science is some ugly stepchild that is hostile to any notion of God, but as long as religion incorporates the concept of faith over evidence and as long as science depends on verifiable, testable data, the two are mutually exclusive.

Please provide the name of the person who "brashly attacked not only the contents of what you said, but your credibility as well.", the number of the post it was said on,and the exact quote of what was said.

On post # 8 I wrote:

...Which leads me to three possible scenarios:

1- Anil Ananthaswamy is a very sloppy researcher.
But given the fact that he is respected scientific news reporter, contributing editor to The New Scientist Magazine (a highly respected scientific news magazine) and a contributor to National Geographic News (another very highly respected scientific news organization).
And given the fact that I am very familiar with his work,in my opinion I find this scenario highly unlikely.
Are any of those three possible solutions to the flatness I mentioned above in Mr Ananthaswamy book? I'm betting they are.

2-You didn't read the entire book all the way through.

3-You are a Evangelical Christian with an hidden agenda who is engaging in deliberate deception,misdirection,and back door proselytizing.

You yourself have admitted to number 2.

And I am now beginning to suspect number 3
But that is just my suspicious nature.
Whether you are or you are not only you and "God" knows for sure.


On post #18 I wrote

To forestall any accusations that you are here to actually proselytize Christian beliefs,rather then setting up a premise for actual debate I am going to take the liberty of writing your posts in alternate ways that in my opinion are all equally valid ways that could have been written as not to offend anyone who is non-christian.

I would like to point out (and as I've shown) above that there are many "Concepts of God", not just one.
And All are equally valid ways of "viewing God"....

....Now I fully agree with Sir Ken Robinson's video,but I hope this isn't a back door attempt to suggest we teach Creationism or in our schools.

No offense Sookser,but since you yourself admitted you haven't read the entire book,the quote you gave from the book only indicates that you where premature in writing your post.

Surely you are not referring to my posts.
All I was doing was just telling it like I see it and stating my opinions.
I didn't falsely accuse you of anything nor did I attack you or your credibility.
So lets get that straight between us mmmmkay?

 

[atrasicarius]

When you're talking about the beginning of the universe, speculation is really the best we can do, since we don't have any evidence for anything before the universe existed. With that said, there are a few logical steps we can take. So, we have two alternatives here: a divinely created universe, or a universe arising from natural principles. Let's assume there's a creator. That brings up an immediate problem: Who created the creator? If the creator has an origin, then it itself requires a creator, which leads to an infinite regress. Alternatively, you can say the creator is infinite, and has no beginning. But if that's acceptable, why is an infinite natural universe not acceptable? Since the creator is naturally more complex than the creation, an infinite natural universe is the simpler explanation, and therefore preferable. Either way, the only possible type of god justified by that argument is a deistic god, which is irrelevant to this universe anyway.

 

[sookster]

Just because a universe is infinite doesn't mean there isn't a creator. The creator can sill exist outside of the system he created. You or I do not have the technological advancements to prove or disprove his existence.

No it isn't.
The purpose of a scientific model of how our universe came to exist is an attempt to explain "how" the universe came to exist,not "who" created it or "why".
Nothing more,nothing less.
A model is not the same thing as a theory, it is a hypothesis.

Explaining "who" created the universe is the job of religion,not science.

It's funny how when we are debating the purpose of these theories, these theories are just theories of how, even though the Omega correctness of 1 of 14 decimal places in your mind had absolutely no influence on the creation of these theories. This Omega ratio was looked upon as a problem between theorists, which hereby motivated them to come up with those theories.

A hypothesis is an opinion looking for evidence to back it up.
A theory is a hypothesis that has some evidence that seems to back it up.

May I point that a theory by it's very definition is theoretical.
Hypothetical is not the same thing as theoretical.

As I have stated,a theory and a hypothesis(a hypothetical situation) are two different things.

If you notice that that on post #8 I never state that Cosmological Inflation,the Anthropic Principle, or the Multiverse Model, are in fact theories, (nor did I even call them that) just three possible answers to the flatness problem.
Three different hypothesis'.

Now you are just nit picking. I'm using a wrong definition of a word in your mind. Great, move on.

Again who are you referring to?
As far as I can tell,no one on this thread has used words or emoticons to express their emotional state.
This is a tactic that I have witnessed Evangelical Christian use when they are proselytizing and trying to convert others.

So you aren't able to deduce about my emotional state? The sheer volume of this thread is more evidence I sparked some emotional response.

1- Are you a mind reader.
Can you explain to me how do you know the mental or emotional state of any of the people on this thread.

2- You are outright lying.
No one on this thread has either made an assumption that there isn't a Creator,brashly attacked the contents of your post,or your credibility,prior to writing your above post(what happens after I press the submit button I couldn't know,I cannot tell the future.

These are the posts in which the subject of God is broached.

Really? You have not assumed that there is no God. Are you serious?

Surely you are not referring to my posts.
All I was doing was just telling it like I see it and stating my opinions.
I didn't falsely accuse you of anything nor did I attack you or your credibility.
So lets get that straight between us mmmmkay?

What makes you think that I was focusing on you? Why do you think that I was talking solely to you? I will work on the others momentarily.

 

[sookster]

To forestall any accusations that you are here to actually proselytize Christian beliefs,rather then setting up premise for actual debate I am going to take the liberty of writing your posts in alternate ways that in my opinion are all equally valid ways that could have been written as not to offend anyone who is non-christian.

1- ...it is my opinion that Our Creator created the reality that we see today, which means that in my opinion he is confined to the reality that he created. Which means, in my opinion that science not only shows how I believeHe did it, but it in my opinion drives us to the very fabric of the reality He created.

2-...The Goddess created the reality that we see today, which means she is confined to the reality that he created. Which means, that science not only shows how She did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality She created.

3-...The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the reality that we see today, which means the Flying Spaghetti Monster is confined to the reality that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created. Which means, that science not only shows how the did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality the Flying Spaghetti Monster created.

4-...The Gods and Goddesses created the reality that we see today, which means {i] the Gods and Goddesses are confined to the reality that the Gods and Goddesses created. Which means, that science not only shows how the Gods and Goddess did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality the Gods and Goddesses created.

5-... The Tao manifested the reality that we see today, which means the Taois confined to the reality that the Tao manifested. Which means, that science not only shows how the Tao did it, but it drives us to the very fabric of the reality the Tao manifested.

I would like to point out (and as I've shown) above that there are many "Concepts of God", not just one.
And All are equally valid ways of "viewing God".

Now I fully agree with Sir Ken Robinson's video,but I hope this isn't a back door attempt to suggest we teach Creationism or in our schools.

No offense Sookser,but since you yourself admitted you haven't read the entire book,the quote you gave from the book only indicates that you where premature in writing your post.

This is a thread that I stated before, that as it applies to me, it applies to you. Whether you call something a hypothesis or theory, and the definition between them really is irrelevant. These hypothesis, in order to make you feel better, are what they are, they do not have any evidence except for a theoretical defense. So, really it is an opinion.

What makes you so sure that I am Christian? What in my posts suggest that I follow The Holy Bible?

It seems to me that just because I have made the vulnerable leap of faith saying that there is a Creator, this justifies in your mind the hostility that you present.

 

[sookster]

When you're talking about the beginning of the universe, speculation is really the best we can do, since we don't have any evidence for anything before the universe existed. With that said, there are a few logical steps we can take. So, we have two alternatives here: a divinely created universe, or a universe arising from natural principles. Let's assume there's a creator. That brings up an immediate problem: Who created the creator? If the creator has an origin, then it itself requires a creator, which leads to an infinite regress. Alternatively, you can say the creator is infinite, and has no beginning. But if that's acceptable, why is an infinite natural universe not acceptable? Since the creator is naturally more complex than the creation, an infinite natural universe is the simpler explanation, and therefore preferable. Either way, the only possible type of god justified by that argument is a deistic god, which is irrelevant to this universe anyway.

This is a question that I am sure our Creator struggles with as well. Maybe he knows, maybe he doesn't. Maybe just as much as we theorize about the origins of His creation, He theorizes about His creation.