Is There a God?

[Typhlochactas]

Your question is pointless. I could verify 0% of what my teacher says for the entire semester, and that would have no bearing on the fact that trusting somebody on their authority alone is faith.

Telling yourself that this information is accurate based simply on their authority and knowledge is not logical, however. If you come out of your biology class and your friend disagrees with the teacher, simply citing his academic qualifications would not be a logical statement. It would be a fallacy of argumentation called an appeal to authority. So, it is faithful to believe in an expert for the sake of him being an expert.

And your final sentence is a really stupid. You cannot make a universal claim based off of an anecdote.

Wow. You just distorted everything I said.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be nice.

Where's that Serb guy? I liked him better.

Mind providing specific examples of this alleged distortion?

[Tlaceceyaya]

I, as a devoted Christian, do believe there is a god, for several reasons, some, being purely logical, others being faith, upbringing, and tradition.
The first major reason is Pascal's Wager. This was a theory made in the 17th or so century made by a scientist and psychologist who was also a member of the Catholic clergy. It is basically summed up as so:
-If you believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win everything.
-If you believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose nothing
OR
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win nothing.
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose everything.

Logically, the best odds are, therefore, believing that there is a God- if nothing else, for the devoted Atheists and Agnostics, its simply a hedge bet, which you cannot lose. From a simply logical and statistical standpoint, it stands to reason that the rewards for believing there is a God is greater than the rewards/consequences of not believing there is a God.
If you really need more explanation, fire away- I'm open to any theories or questions, and will answer them to the best of my abilities.

I take it you lack any respect for your god and don't think it could see through the shit that is pascal's wager.

[Salandriagado]

I, as a devoted Christian, do believe there is a god, for several reasons, some, being purely logical, others being faith, upbringing, and tradition.
The first major reason is Pascal's Wager. This was a theory made in the 17th or so century made by a scientist and psychologist who was also a member of the Catholic clergy. It is basically summed up as so:
-If you believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win everything.
-If you believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose nothing
OR
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win nothing.
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose everything.

Logically, the best odds are, therefore, believing that there is a God- if nothing else, for the devoted Atheists and Agnostics, its simply a hedge bet, which you cannot lose. From a simply logical and statistical standpoint, it stands to reason that the rewards for believing there is a God is greater than the rewards/consequences of not believing there is a God.
If you really need more explanation, fire away- I'm open to any theories or questions, and will answer them to the best of my abilities.

Blaise Pascal should have stuck to triangles. He was good at triangles. He was, however, remarkably shit at philosophy. You are assuming:
1) That you can choose to believe in a god
2) That you can fool said god into thinking that you believe in it for non-selfish reasons
3) That you pick the right god
4) That said god gives a damn about what you believe in
5) That said god wants you to believe in it
6) That there is zero impact on your life from choosing to believe in said god

And a whole host of others. Here's a less shit version:

1) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god cares about this, and thinks that it's a good thing, and you don't lose anything during your life, then you win.
2) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god cares about this, and thinks that it's a good thing, and you lose something during your life, then you win less.
3) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god cares about this, and thinks that it's a bad thing, then you lose.
4) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god doesn't care, and you don't lose anything in life from believing in said god, then you tie.
5) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god doesn't care, but you lose out from believing in that god, then you lose.
6) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and said god sees through the pretence, and likes people pretending to believe in it, you win.
7) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and said god sees through the pretence, and doesn't like people pretending to believe in it, you lose.
8) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it wrong, and there is another god, you lose.
9) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it wrong, and there is no god, and you lose out in life, you lose.
10) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it wrong, and there is no god, and you don't lose out in life, you tie.
11) If you choose not to pretend to believe in a god, and there is a god, and said god cares about this, and thinks that it's a bad thing, then you lose.
12) If you choose notto pretend to believe in a god, and there is a god, and said god cares about this, and thinks that it's a good thing, then you win.
13) If you choose not to pretend to believe in a god, and there is a god, and the god doesn't care, then you tie.
14) If you choose not to pretend to believe in a god, and there is no god, you tie.


So, totting up:

Not pretending: 1 win, 2 ties, 1 loss.
Pretending: 3 wins, 2 ties, 5 losses.

So, that'll be not pretending then.

[Xathranaar]

Wow. You just distorted everything I said.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be nice.

Where's that Serb guy? I liked him better.

Mind providing specific examples of this alleged distortion?

"Your question is pointless. I could verify 0% of what my teacher says for the entire semester, and that would have no bearing on the fact that trusting somebody on their authority alone is faith.

Telling yourself that this information is accurate based simply on their authority and knowledge is not logical, however. If you come out of your biology class and your friend disagrees with the teacher, simply citing his academic qualifications would not be a logical statement. It would be a fallacy of argumentation called an appeal to authority. So, it is faithful to believe in an expert for the sake of him being an expert.

And your final sentence is a really stupid. You cannot make a universal claim based off of an anecdote."

Not authority alone, and I said as much.

I Didn't say it was a universal claim, and implied as much. As well as that this seems a silly objection to an obvious point. Do you really think that the majority of religious people don't want their beliefs to be true? And do you really think it is accurate to apply the term "hope" to beliefs which one does not want to be true?

And I'm not going to leave that alone, because that is the core of the ridiculousness here. I do not "hope" that a mole equals 6.02214179(30)×10^23.

[Typhlochactas]

I Didn't say it was a universal claim, and implied as much. As well as that this seems a silly objection to an obvious point. Do you really think that the majority of religious people don't want their beliefs to be true? And do you really think it is accurate to apply the term "hope" to beliefs which one does not want to be true?

There's such a thing as implications. You said that you had never met a religious person who said X, and therefore, we can understand that religious faith is a different monster'. In that, you take a personal anecdote and then use it to make a claim about an entire thing like religious faith. Yes, you used your own experiences to make claims about a universal thing. I don't care if you did not say that verbatim. It is the logical conclusion of what you are saying.

Note that being religious is not having religious faith. I am addressing a certain defense of religion that people use. I wouldn't act as if I'm making statements about religious people as an entire group, because I'm only addressing those who have nothing more than 'faith' to justify their beliefs.

When did I even imply that I thought most of the faithful didn't want their beliefs to be true? I offered two criteria for something to be a belief: it must be held to logic and argumentation, and the person who thinks it must believe that it accurately represents reality. Religious faith does not fit the former of the two. I'm interested in why this criteria must mean that I ''think the majority of religious people don't want their beliefs to be true'' and ''beliefs one does not want to be true are hopes''.

And I'm not going to leave that alone, because that is the core of the ridiculousness here. I do not "hope" that a mole equals 6.02214179(30)×10^23.

There are not any accurate mathematical statements that would prove it to be the case, so it's a hope, as it falls into the former.

I am only using the term 'hope' to describe religious faith. Things like 'I hope for the afterlife', 'I hope not to go to hell', 'I hope that Jesus comes back'. There are a myriad of more accurate words one can use when we get into irrational claims about mathematics.

[Salamanstrom]

Actually, I feel it fits both criteria. I mean, the big bang has been proven wrong many times over and yet people still call it "logical". Isn't it more logical that a creator made us and made all our emotions that we can't even understand. Big bang and evolution have only hurt us in the long run. Evolution the worst since it teaches us that some people are more evolved than others. Don't believe me, the full title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.". Favored races? Think about it when African people were just being discovered. They have to be inferior. If their inferior, they are taking up space. They might as well be killed. Natural selection got a new name. Genocide. You questioning it? Hitler and the nazis took heavily from evolution. Hitler even said once ‘we [the Nazis] must understand, and cooperate with science’. Now with good religion it has never been that way. Let me say that again. GOOD religion. Everyone is so intent to look at the catholic church when it had become corrupt. When the prophets of the bible were going against them. So don't use them as an example, their not good religion.

[Farnhamia]

Actually, I feel it fits both criteria. I mean, the big bang has been proven wrong many times over and yet people still call it "logical". Isn't it more logical that a creator made us and made all our emotions that we can't even understand. Big bang and evolution have only hurt us in the long run. Evolution the worst since it teaches us that some people are more evolved than others. Don't believe me, the full title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.". Favored races? Think about it when African people were just being discovered. They have to be inferior. If their inferior, they are taking up space. They might as well be killed. Natural selection got a new name. Genocide. You questioning it? Hitler and the nazis took heavily from evolution. Hitler even said once ‘we [the Nazis] must understand, and cooperate with science’. Now with good religion it has never been that way. Let me say that again. GOOD religion. Everyone is so intent to look at the catholic church when it had become corrupt. When the prophets of the bible were going against them. So don't use them as an example, their not good religion.

So much bullshit, so little time.

Show how the Big Bang has been proven wrong many times over.

Show how a creator is more logical than an undirected origin of the universe (preferably without resorting to "we don't know everything" or "we weren't there").

Charles Darwin was a man of the 19th century. Racism was implicit in a great many writings. I like to think we've advanced beyond any racism in Darwin's work, but then you come along and lie about it. You're the one saying "inferior races" should be eliminated, not Charles Darwin.

Show how the Nazis "took heavily from evolution." Show also, please, how Hitler's remark is one about evolution and not just science in general.

And your defense of religion amounts to little more than a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[Avenio]

Evolution the worst since it teaches us that some people are more evolved than others.

Not in the least. Evolutionary biology has taught us that there is so little difference between individuals that calling specific persons 'more evolved' is utterly incorrect.

Don't believe me, the full title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.".

'Races' in this case referring to different groups above the level of species, many of which hadn't been formally named yet.

Favored races? Think about it when African people were just being discovered. They have to be inferior. If their inferior, they are taking up space. They might as well be killed. Natural selection got a new name. Genocide.

Africans are not inferior. Evolutionary biology has taught us that there is so little difference between the 'races' that such categorizations are pointless.

You questioning it? Hitler and the nazis took heavily from evolution. Hitler even said once ‘we [the Nazis] must understand, and cooperate with science’.

The Nazis used science, yes. They also used religion. Both became tools of the state.

[Salamanstrom]

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.




Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.

Hitler

natural selection

[Shnercropolis]

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.




Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.

Hitler

natural selection

Visualize something you have never seen and will never see in your lifetime, nor will it ever be explained to you by anyone. You have no knowledge of this thing, besides that it definitely exists.
That is essentially everything having to do with this discussion.

[North America and the Great Lakes]

Yes He does exist. I am Christian Darwinist, meaning I believe in both sides of the argument.

I believe that God created the Universe and the Heavens not in seven days, but through the millions upon thousands upon billions upon trillions of years that we know theorize to be the history of Creation.

He created the tight ball of matter than became the Big Bang and spawned everything in the Universe and He guided the creation of our Earth and the human race as we know it.

I believe, in a nutshell, most of the Bible, but Genesis is a load of malarkey. In the words of Joe Biden of course.

I believe that God only guided through the creation of His religion and the establishment of it in the world in the early days, but ultimately gave us the ultimate gift of free will and decision making, to let us lead our own lives. While He has been silent for many years, He still speaks to us through our dreams and guides our lives with a nudge here and a decision there.

I believe in God, my God, the only God. Amen.

Prove it.

It's my belief. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone on the planet. Freedom of spiritual belief is a basic right of every human being. I'm not going to waste time on someone who is trying to berate my religious beliefs just for the sake of having an argument.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

Yes, his name is glorp glorp.

[Xathranaar]

Prove it.

It's my belief. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone on the planet. Freedom of spiritual belief is a basic right of every human being. I'm not going to waste time on someone who is trying to berate my religious beliefs just for the sake of having an argument.

You're conflating the right to do something with it being a good idea.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Prove it.

It's my belief. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone on the planet. Freedom of spiritual belief is a basic right of every human being. I'm not going to waste time on someone who is trying to berate my religious beliefs just for the sake of having an argument.

If you hold that belief, though, you must either have a good reason or be somewhat confused.

[Farnhamia]

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

1st Law: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html
2nd Law: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Retrograde motion: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
Angular momentum: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.

Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.

Hitler

natural selection

I haven't the time to add much more, but I'm sure someone will. A couple of things, though:

- "Favored races" in Darwin's writing does not refer to human races.
- That Hitler based his views or borrowed heavily from Darwin is a lie.

And the other points in this section of talkorigins.

I care not a wit how or what you worship, but I care very much that you do not lie about science, things you do not understand.

[Salamanstrom]

let me understand this. i give good, proven evidence against the big bang and one person answers in one sentence having nothing to do with it.

[Farnhamia]

:eyebrow: let me understand this. i give good, proven evidence against the big bang and one person answers in one sentence having nothing to do with it.

Welcome to NSG. You gave nothing. Source your claims or retire from the field.

[Xathranaar]

:eyebrow: let me understand this. i give good, proven evidence against the big bang and one person answers in one sentence having nothing to do with it.

You would have to know what the big bang was first. Which you clearly don't.

Evolution either.

But by all means, prove me wrong. Dazzle me with your academic credentials, your Ph.Ds in biology and physics, or even just define either term accurately.

[Evraim]

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

The Big Bang does not necessarily explain the creation of the universe but rather the manner in which it developed and expanded into its current state. To fault the theory due to problems it fails to address when the theory is otherwise the most consistent and simple model available for elucidating a given natural phenomena is relatively fallacious. Besides, it does not violate the three laws of thermodynamics.

Also, more information.

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

As stated previously, the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Laws of Thermodynamics. It does not violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum either - as Farn's sources demonstrate. May I inquire why precisely you are posing questions regarding the Big Bang Theory on a forum where the majority of posters lack sufficient knowledge to readily provide an answer when numerous websites could comprehensively and efficiently provide the desired information?

[Sentinel XV]

Prove it.

It's my belief. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone on the planet. Freedom of spiritual belief is a basic right of every human being. I'm not going to waste time on someone who is trying to berate my religious beliefs just for the sake of having an argument.

Then, pray tell, why did you come here to a thread whose title is obviously a loaded question? I might add, if you're insecure in your beliefs as to the point where you abhor those who question them, are you sure that is a belief that you can put your faith in? But you're right. Human beings do have the right to freedom of religion. However, they also have the right to freedom of speech. And, contrary to popular belief, your views are not above questioning: there is no such thing as freedom from critique.

[Tlaceceyaya]

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.




Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.

Hitler

natural selection

1: The big bang does not need to answer that. It does not deal with the origin of that matter, just as evolution does not concern abiogenesis.
2: Bang is the wrong word. It was just an expansion.
3: It doesn't violate the second law.

4:

This can be explained by noting that stars and their planets do not form in isolation but in star clusters and when the protoplanetary disk from one star collides with or steals material from another star's disk this can result in retrograde motion of a disk and the resulting planets.

5: Matter has gravitational pull. Things exerting gravitational force on each other tend to clump together.

6: Care to explain why there isn't enough time for galaxies to have formed?

7: Ah, godwin. And a misunderstanding of natural selection.

[Dustistan]

1) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god cares about this, and thinks that it's a good thing, and you don't lose anything during your life, then you win.
2) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god cares about this, and thinks that it's a good thing, and you lose something during your life, then you win less.
3) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god cares about this, and thinks that it's a bad thing, then you lose.
4) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god doesn't care, and you don't lose anything in life from believing in said god, then you tie.
5) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and fool said god into thinking that you genuinely believe in it, and the god doesn't care, but you lose out from believing in that god, then you lose.
6) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and said god sees through the pretence, and likes people pretending to believe in it, you win.
7) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it right, and said god sees through the pretence, and doesn't like people pretending to believe in it, you lose.
If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it wrong, and there is another god, you lose.
9) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it wrong, and there is no god, and you lose out in life, you lose.
10) If you choose to pretend to believe in a god, and get it wrong, and there is no god, and you don't lose out in life, you tie.
11) If you choose not to pretend to believe in a god, and there is a god, and said god cares about this, and thinks that it's a bad thing, then you lose.
12) If you choose notto pretend to believe in a god, and there is a god, and said god cares about this, and thinks that it's a good thing, then you win.
13) If you choose not to pretend to believe in a god, and there is a god, and the god doesn't care, then you tie.
14) If you choose not to pretend to believe in a god, and there is no god, you tie.


So, totting up:

Not pretending: 1 win, 2 ties, 1 loss.
Pretending: 3 wins, 2 ties, 5 losses.

So, that'll be not pretending then.

*sigh*

The first time I read your post, I figured you didn't know that decision theory requires analysis of probabilities and the values of each outcome, not just counting pros and cons. The second time I read it, I realised you aren't even counting pros and cons properly. After all, the total of the wins/ties/losses for each decision should be equal, and equal to the number of scenarios.

work it out again properly, or get an F on this assignment.

[Salandriagado]

Actually, I feel it fits both criteria. I mean, the big bang has been proven wrong many times over and yet people still call it "logical".

No it fucking hasn't.

Isn't it more logical that a creator made us

Nope.

and made all our emotions that we can't even understand.

We understand themp retty well, actually.

Big bang and evolution have only hurt us in the long run.

So I take it you've never utilised any form of modern medicine then?

Evolution the worst since it teaches us that some people are more evolved than others.

No it doesn't.

Don't believe me, the full title of Darwin's book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.". Favored races?

Yup. Favoured races like "the human race", for example.

Think about it when African people were just being discovered.

I'm not entirely sure when you think this happened, but Europe and Africa have been in contact for millennia.

They have to be inferior. If their inferior, they are taking up space. They might as well be killed. Natural selection got a new name. Genocide.

Source? I'm aware of several religious genocides in Africa, but not any based on evolution.

You questioning it? Hitler and the nazis took heavily from evolution.

No they didn't. A warped version of Catholicism and the genocide of the Cathars provide some of the more obvious influences.

Hitler even said once ‘we [the Nazis] must understand, and cooperate with science’.

Well, yes. That kind of makes sense if you want to succeed at doing anything at all. He also said the following:

The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...

Now with good religion it has never been that way. Let me say that again. GOOD religion. Everyone is so intent to look at the catholic church when it had become corrupt. When the prophets of the bible were going against them. So don't use them as an example, their not good religion.

Name one ""good"" religion. We'll start by defining that as one that has never killed anybody.

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems.

Peer reviewed source. Now.

First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?"

Yes it does.

Can nothing explode?

Yes. But the big bang theory doesn't claim that it does.

This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Not if you also have negative energy produced.

(the Law of Conservation of Matter).

That isn't what the first law of thermydynamics is.

Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from?

Space: metric expansion
Time: somewhat debatable, I'd suggest something like the Hartle-Hawking, brane, or chaotic inflation models.
Matter: see energy, they're the same thing
Energy: it is well established that energy can be produced if negative energy is also produced.

Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order

It didn't.

while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

It isn't an explosion.

Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy).

Not at all. The universe went from perfectly ordered (single point/very small volume with everything in it) to imperfectly ordered (stuff spread out at random all over the place).

What organized the universe after the singularity?

Gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear strong force and nuclear weak force.

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Very easily. Providing that the total angular momentum of the system is conserved, you can do what you like within it. In all of the cases where such planets have been discovered, there have also been other, nearby stars, close enough for acretion-disk interference to change the orbital direction of some parts of the disk of the star in question.

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning.

Not really. You only need a very small amount of initial movement to end up with a lot of final movement in an acretion situation.

To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out.

That is one possibility, yes.

The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum).

Not true in any way, shape or form. The total net spin of the entire system will be clockwise. That does not mean that there will not be anti-clockwise parts to it.

The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin.

That works in some situations, yes.

This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

You don't need to stop it all at once. You've had billions of years to go at it.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Only the total net angular momentum of the system (read: universe) as a whole must be conserved. Within it, you can do whatever you damn well please. If you want to check this for yourself, take the following steps:
1) Sit on office chair
2) Spin said office chair clockwise
3) Grab something, and spin self anticlockwise.

Congratuations, you just converted from clockwise to anti-clockwise spin by exchanging spin with something else.

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps".

Not even slightly true.

If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

Nope. Chaos is a thing.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory.

Bullshit.

Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory.

No they fucking don't.

Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.

So the religions are wrong. Your point?

It's my belief. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone on the planet. Freedom of spiritual belief is a basic right of every human being. I'm not going to waste time on someone who is trying to berate my religious beliefs just for the sake of having an argument.

So don't post it on a debate forum? What exactly did you expect?

let me understand this. i give good, proven evidence against the big bang and one person answers in one sentence having nothing to do with it.

Provide a fucking source. Also learning what the word "proven" means would help you make slightly less ridiculous claims.

*sigh*

The first time I read your post, I figured you didn't know that decision theory requires analysis of probabilities and the values of each outcome, not just counting pros and cons. The second time I read it, I realised you aren't even counting pros and cons properly. After all, the total of the wins/ties/losses for each decision should be equal, and equal to the number of scenarios.

work it out again properly, or get an F on this assignment.

I thought it was quite obvious that I was taking the piss.

[Sociobiology]

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?"

yes it does, look up virtual particles

Can nothing explode?

define explode because there is no explosion in the big bang theory.

This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).

nope again see question one.

Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from?

see question one, again

Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

what explosion?

Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy).

that's not the second law.

What organized the universe after the singularity?

the same thing organizing it now fundamental interactions, Or do you think crystals need a crystal fairy to form?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics,

nope just showed it didn't

the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

impact, you can do the same thing with billiard balls. Only the NET momentum must be preserved.

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin.

why ask if you already know the answer?
Ah I see because you don't understand what it means.

This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating,

who said anything about many small impacts? Large impact occur, all that has to happen for them to occur off center, and they can induce backwards spin from forward momentum.

and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark

like mercury?

-- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet!

like the earth and moon?

At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

because if you hit it hard enough to change its spin you also liquefy the planet.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

the way I just pointed out. Also you just proved that your interpretation MUST be wrong because it conflicts on multiple scales, so the question is why did you not reexamine how you think angular momentum works to see if you are correct, the answer of course is none of this is your own its all blind copy/paste.

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

no because gravity is inherently destabilizing to an even distribution, , this painfully simple to demonstrate, so I can only assume you have no idea what gravity is.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory.

I love the quotes proving even you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory.

source, because no they don't

Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions.

which means the religions are wrong,, because it is the one NOT backed by evidence.
there is also contradictions between all religions AND within all religions.

Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.

”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.

thus proving he had no idea what natural selection was.
I do love the hypocrisy.
"these idiots did not understand evolution and they did bad stuff because of it, which is evolution's fault."
"but you can't blame the crusades, holocaust, or inquisition on religion because these people did not understand their religion. "

Hitler

was a catholic and thought he was carrying out gods will, even said so.

More research less copy pasta.

[Benburger]

Okay, it is believed there is a god, but if there is a god he or she won't let racists, rapists and facists around but at the same time we do not know, but many people are undecided including me.