Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[Sri Lumpa]

So in short, STOP believing everything you see on BBC just because its made by someone with a PhD, and for heaven's sake LEAVE people alone who believe in a divine creator - ESPECIALLY if they aren't fanatic.

 

Dr.Grass said:

1) The big-bang theory arose out of necessety, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPORTED BY DATA. The red-shift observed in light is NOT fully understood.

Sure, but it is true of all theories. They arise out of the necessity to explain new data either not explained by old theories or that contradict old theories.

Saying that the big bang is supported by the red-shift is circular as the red-shift was part of the reason the big bang was formulated but saying that the big bang is supported by the cosmic background is not as it was predicted by the big bang.

2) There are unsolvable problems in the model including; Singularity, origin of "Lumpiness", high-energy interactions etc.

I don't claim that the big bang (or evolution) is the be all end all of scientific theories and will never be replaced so I don't see it as a problem. I only see it as the current best explanation for a wide number of phenomenon.

I might even be wrong as theories are constantly formulated and there might be one that explains things better but isn't on my radar as I mostly have a layman's interest in the subject but I am confident that given enough time* such a theory will gain support. Meanwhile I am content to accept the big bang as the best explanation that I know of and let scientists do their thing.

* because of the "science advances one funeral at a time" observation and the need to accumulate evidence to challenge theories

3) THERE IS NO THEORY OF THE NUCLEUS. Read those words. There exists NO theory for the interaction between sub-nuclear particles. Models are built with data. We know next to nothing.

Well, we drifted from the big bang to evolution but I think we mostly stayed away from quantum mechanics so I am not sure the relevance of this on the debate. If it is to point out that science doesn't explain everything I personally claim no such thing, just that it explains the most about the physical world.

If you think I am wrong with that then I would welcome learning about a discipline that does it better.

4) Modern Cosmology has WAY more assumptions and approximations than any of you seem to believe. The current model of the universe is certainly on shaky ground, and while it may prove to represent reality to some extent, it is not taken very seriously by many of the world's biggest brains.

The question in the debate (at least between padib and me) is not so much whether the big bang is perfect as whether it is better theory than creationism to explain what we know of the universe.

So in short, STOP believing everything you see on BBC just because its made by someone with a PhD

Yeah, argument from authority doesn't work in science any more than in religion, you have to look at the theories and what support them and what doesn't.

for heaven's sake LEAVE people alone who believe in a divine creator - ESPECIALLY if they aren't fanatic.

I disagree. If padib was all fire and brimstone and "you're gonna go to hell if you believe in the big bang" in his argumentation then it would be futile. If my aim was to convert him into believing it then it would be futile too.

As my aim is to both further my understanding and his and to try to make him understand why most scientists see creationism as pseudo-science I think I have some small chance of success in at least the first two aims.