OUG,

One should not think of the Big Bang as a “bang” or even an expansion. It is the dis-unification of the strong and weak forces and probably gravity too. Space-time is not well differentiated until Planck time. The COBE photography shows the 300,000 year old universe cooled down adequately, to better illustrate today’s physics.

Particle accelerators can replicate the very early universe and test theories.

An observer in the Andromeda galaxy would also measure, via light spectra, themselves at the centre of the universe. The universe inflates faster than the speed of light: The universe “is” space-time, it doesn’t inflate* into anything. (* Maybe George has a better verb). Even “centre” is an unfortunate word. Our relation to the BB is in “space” and “time” intertwined. Here, celestial mechanics become complex: e.g., the Earthis orbit around the Sun is a spiral.

Did you see my reply on the recent thread your started. Here, I made a comment relying on Edwin Schrodinger’s paper, “What is Life?”?
Herein, I posit organic life “does” contain elements from the
Periodic Table.

The Big Bang and Metabolism have thermodynamics and the manifestations of entropy in common.

O.

david f you make some good points in relation to the existence of a creator.

Dan I will have to bow to your knowledge of probability, I thought that probability could be used in other contexts than pure maths eg. the probability of certain numbers coming up in Lotto.

For example the probability of an elephant in my bedroom would be low because it would not get through my door in the first place but there could be a low chance that someone removed the roof to place the elephant therein. Although I could not produce actual figures to demonstrate the low possibility.

Perhaps I should have used the term likelihood or possibility.

George, I will rethink my use of the word superstition if it is offensive. I do not take it as offensive or negative but if the audience does, point taken.

Pelican,
I fear you have missed my point totally, so I’ll try and explain myself again.

All I am saying is that it is not particularly useful to talk about the existence of God in terms of probabilities.

The same could be said for other past events. For example, I heard a rumour that a distant relative died yesterday and left me ten million dollars from his estate. Today I am either a millionaire or I am not.

God either created the world or he didn’t. God is either sentient to our discussion or he is not.

When talking about the existence of God, if you like, you can continue to discuss it in terms of probabilities, likelihoods, or possibility (the particular word is not important). What I’m saying is that that doesn’t get us anywhere. It doesn’t move the discussion forward.

Grim,
You raise the problem of evil (why should a God who is supposed to care allowing kids to suffer?). It’s a thorny one that philosophers and theologians have discussed at length for thousands of years, and is also discussed within the Bible.

I don’t think we are going to solve it here. But could I offer a thought or a question?

From where do you arrive at your sense of moral outrage? If there is a God in heaven then we are right to be morally outraged that he is apparently sitting around doing nothing about the kids suffering. But if there is no God in heaven, and we all arrived here by evolution and natural processes, then all that apparently passes on earth will happen in natural course. Why should we then be surprised? Where is the problem of evil? Why should you be outraged at all?

Sancho,
You talk about addressing one’s anxiety. You also speak of a masochist god, sexual preferences and adolescents masturbating. These are your words, not mine. These are your anxieties, not mine.

its hard to tak you serious oliver,quote<<The universe inflates faster than the speed of light:>>that seems definitive, but then you follow that difinitive up with a lunicy buzzword[as well as an inversion of your previpous statement..<<The universe“is”space-time,it doesn’t inflate* into anything.>>

so lets see we have a faster than light inflation,..but some how because the universe is space time[lol]it dosnt inflate into anything

mate you should be teaching children evolution[because you dont have any idea what your trying to say here]...but lets egsamine space time, as i recall it is that some how two clocks[and one goes off into space, the other stays her] that the clock that blasted off gained time[so there is your space time]lol

but lets pretend sapace time is a measure of distance as measured by the speed of light, or the time light would take to travel over the distances of space[again an abbsurdity, because a measure cant definitivly 'be' the universe[it may be some wacky lunatic hypothetical measure of the universe[but enough of this absurdit

<<Did you see my reply on the recent thread your[you?]started.>>not i

<<I made a comment relying on Edwin Schrodinger’s paper,“What is Life?”?Herein,I posit organic life“does”contain elements from the
Periodic Table.>>...no sssh-it?,..i would be suprised if life didnt contain eliments from the periodic table..[but if you recall,one of you [agromist]..postulated''ALL LIFE IS CHEMICAL'...lol[or some other such nonsense]..which i did rebut.. forgive me for not rebutting your other absurdity's[and our one agreement]...in my 350 word reply..[there,then,..so i will agree to it now]..i believe i rebutted your other points there

<<The Big Bang and Metabolism have thermodynamics and the manifestations of entropy in common.>>oh dear i ran out of letters to correct this obvious error[i can feel a black hole forming in my gut...lol]as my dinner entrophies, causing the space time expansion..[i will just losen my belt]...ahh thats better

Dan, you asked of Grim:

<< From where do you arrive at your sense of moral outrage? If there is a God in heaven then we are right to be morally outraged that he is apparently sitting around doing nothing about the kids suffering. But if there is no God in heaven, and we all arrived here by evolution and natural processes, then all that apparently passes on earth will happen in natural course. Why should we then be surprised? Where is the problem of evil? Why should you be outraged at all? >>

You infer the brain is incapable of evolution by "natural causes" – into a thinking, sentient life form, devoid of emotion. How would you know it is not?

Therefore, what has evil and outrage got to do with it?

Dan
I have not missed your point. Perhaps you are missing mine. Firstly I stated that I would bow to your better knowledge of probabilities and my explanation was to explain the way my brain was thinking in the earlier post, albeit as it turns out, badly.

You are right either God exists or he does not. We are in agreement.