Probality of God

[eatenbyagrue]

The notion of an intelligent designer also introduces the notion of a beginning.
Without a beginning or an end, the requirement for an intelligent designer dwindles.
In an eternal universe, without beginning or end, the possibilities for spontaneous self organization becomes infinite. Interestingly, the notion of an omnipotent god evolving from an eternal universe where all things are numerically possible, must also be considered equally as possible as the notion of an omnipotent god creating the universe.

Chicken or egg anybody?

But evidence does point to a beginning.  The universe as we know it began with the big bang.  So something not having a beginning runs counter to every single piece of evidence we have.

Now maybe there was something before the big bang, and maybe there wasn't.  But based on what we have observed, whatever there was before the big bang probably had a beginning too.

So seeing as everything we have observed has a beginning, it is hard to make an exception for the creator.  It would be pure conjecture, and we cannot assign any substantial probability to that.

[hoptoad]

But evidence does point to a beginning.  The universe as we know it began with the big bang.  So something not having a beginning runs counter to every single piece of evidence we have.

Now maybe there was something before the big bang, and maybe there wasn't.  But based on what we have observed, whatever there was before the big bang probably had a beginning too.

So seeing as everything we have observed has a beginning, it is hard to make an exception for the creator.  It would be pure conjecture, and we cannot assign any substantial probability to that.

The problem with "the big bang" is that it's entire premise lies on the single piece of "evidence" of redshift. A premise that even Hubble was not prepared to attribute to the doppler effect of an expanding space. The redshift dilemna is compounded by the fact that not only is redshift quantized, but that it also shows different quantized shifts depending on which direction you look in the sky.

Couple that with the fact that big bang theory needs a plethora of add on theories such as inflation and re-ionization, and the invention of unproven particles and energies such as dark matter/energy to make it work.

The big bang theory defies the basic tenets of occams razor, and any other theory in physics that required so many ad-hoc adjustments would simply be laid to rest.

The big bang theory was introduced by a roman catholic priest (Georges Lamaitre) and was quickly adopted by christian elements of the scientific world because they thought (like Lamaitre), that the big bang theory was a great way to rationalize modern observation of the universe with their notion of creation.

Cheers

P.S I'm not proposing the big bang is a lie or just plain wrong, but I do think that it has become accepted like dogma in the same way religion has been accepted by many.

This is an interesting letter written in 2004.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Since then other research and data has surfaced with evidence contradicting the big bang model.

[eatenbyagrue]

The problem with "the big bang" is that it's entire premise lies on the single piece of "evidence" of redshift. A premise that even Hubble was not prepared to attribute to the doppler effect of an expanding space. The redshift dilemna is compounded by the fact that not only is redshift quantized, but that it also shows different quantized shifts depending on which direction you look in the sky.

Couple that with the fact that big bang theory needs a plethora of add on theories such as inflation and re-ionization, and the invention of unproven particles and energies such as dark matter/energy to make it work.

The big bang theory defies the basic tenets of occams razor, and any other theory in physics that required so many ad-hoc adjustments would simply be laid to rest.

The big bang theory was introduced by a roman catholic priest (Georges Lamaitre) and was quickly adopted by christian elements of the scientific world because they thought (like Lamaitre), that the big bang theory was a great way to rationalize modern observation of the universe with their notion of creation.

Cheers

So what is your opinion as to where the evidence points?  Do you think the universe is expanding, shrinking, staying the same?

Also bear in mind that the General Theory of Relativity, which there is tons of confirming evidence for, predicts an expanding universe.  Also, apparently the background radiation levels also point to a big bang, but I am not well versed in why.

I agree that the need for dark energy, or something equivalent that we have not been able to measure, is an issue.  But this is separate from whether or not galaxies are moving apart or not.  Dark energy is not evidence for the theory, but rather a byproduct.

[hoptoad]

So what is your opinion as to where the evidence points?  Do you think the universe is expanding, shrinking, staying the same?

Also bear in mind that the General Theory of Relativity, which there is tons of confirming evidence for, predicts an expanding universe.  Also, apparently the background radiation levels also point to a big bang, but I am not well versed in why.

I agree that the need for dark energy, or something equivalent that we have not been able to measure, is an issue.  But this is separate from whether or not galaxies are moving apart or not.  Dark energy is not evidence for the theory, but rather a byproduct.

You wrote this just before I put my P.S. in the previous post.

Given the discovery of the "great attractor", a region in space where a massive number of galaxial clusters appear to be heading toward, it would be suffice to say that even if the whole universe were not expanding, this doesn't rule out that some parts of the universe are expanding while other areas are contracting. Much like the way some parts of the earths atmoshere are heated and expand as a result, while other parts cool and contract.

Einstein formulated his theory of relativity whilst holding a belief of a static universe, and was actually quite consternated at the thought of an expanding universe.

Cheers

[Cap-Z-ro]

I'm must be way outta the loop, I thot the big bang theory had to do with Tiger Woods.