Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By our finite wisdom, it APPEARS to be 14 billion years old. But we don't really know.
Well, actually, there are seven different, independent observational tests that all confirm the 14 billion year figure, with a small margin of error. Here's some good reading: The Birth of Time: How Astronomers Measure the Age of the Universe [2001] -- John Gribbin
Well, actually, there are seven different, independent observational tests that all confirm the 14 billion year figure, with a small margin of error. Here's some good reading: The Birth of Time: How Astronomers Measure the Age of the Universe [2001] -- John Gribbin
I get that. And they all make assumptions.
Even then...so what? So what if the universe is 100 TRILLION years old? Does that change the fact that it needed to be caused/created?
...logic requires that SOMETHING started it.... What fired that off. Until you can explain that, I'll go with the idea of a Creator.
As I said, science currently has no answer for "what fired that off" due to a lack of evidence. So you are free to fill that gap with whatever you like. But of course, you'll have no evidence to back up whatever you put there.
As I said, science currently has no answer for "what fired that off" due to a lack of evidence. So you are free to fill that gap with whatever you like. But of course, you'll have no evidence to back up whatever you put there.
Unless we come up with a better answer, a Creator is the most likely answer. Not sure why you and others can't seem to really grasp that, or are willing to go with that.
Unless we come up with a better answer, a Creator is the most likely answer. Not sure why you and others can't seem to really grasp that, or are willing to go with that.
Because it is false. An intelligent creator is the least likely explanation.
As I said, science currently has no answer for "what fired that off" due to a lack of evidence. So you are free to fill that gap with whatever you like. But of course, you'll have no evidence to back up whatever you put there.
Doesn’t the same apply to those who fill in that blank by believing that a creator does not exist?, i.e, “Believe without evidence”.
Unless we come up with a better answer, a Creator is the most likely answer. Not sure why you and others can't seem to really grasp that, or are willing to go with that.
Because it has logical holes you could drive a truck through. Neither I nor you have any concrete evidence, although I have some scientifically valid hypotheses.
You'd like it to be a capital-C Creator, and you assume it's YOUR (understanding of that) Creator, which is not based on anything but asserted truth without evidence, which in your belief-system, is actually a virtue (aka religious faith). I'd say that's as good an assumption as any, except that it isn't.
100% of everything we can document and observe is entirely explicable as a result of natural, undirected, impersonal processes, aka natural laws. It is therefore much more likely that natural processes brought forth the universe we now find ourselves in, than for an entirely different and essentially magical process to uniquely be true there.
It is of course a very human thing to want to relate what we see to what is familiar to our scope. It is an appealing, if not actually powerful, analogy that if you encounter a watch, there's a watch-maker, and then to apply that to everything in sight, including the origin of this universe (which BTW may not even be singular or unusual in any way).
Doesn’t the same apply to those who fill in that blank by believing that a creator does not exist?, i.e, “Believe without evidence”.
Not really. Because even without a settled explanatory framework, there are scientifically valid hypothesis that are far more likely to bear fruit than a magical explanation. So it is not "faith" in the religious sense but faith in the colloquial sense, that is, a reasonable belief based on past experience and existing patterns.
This subtlety is apt to be lost on a lot of people, though, because they doggedly assert that although many words have multiple definitions, this word "faith" has only one: theirs. In fact, in this case, the two definitions are almost opposites.
Unless we come up with a better answer, a Creator is the most likely answer. Not sure why you and others can't seem to really grasp that, or are willing to go with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Because it is false. An intelligent creator is the least likely explanation.
I agree with Harry. Or at least, we have nothing to go on to determine what is "likely" and what is not, so it's up for grabs. But as Fundie said earlier, "So what?" Is a sure answer to "What started the Big Bang" a real necessity to our current lives? As scientists are well aware, there is nothing wrong with the answer "We don't know."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
