Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

I don't quite understand why Big Bang cosmology is qualified to be a scientific theory.  Sure, there is some evidence which supports it, and some math.  But it seems rather sparse, at least when compared to common (and robust) scientific theories such as germ theory, atomic theory, accretion theory or biological evolution theory.  It seems to be a scientific hypothesis at best.

Yes and no.  There are degrees of empiricism.  The best kind is a controlled experiment, here and now.  You won't find that in most of astrophysics, and not at all in cosmology.  The second best kind is a controlled observation (of something that is currently happening, say a comet).  These can be very stable, so that the observation is easy to reproduce (phases of the Moon), or hard (such as a particular supernova).  But with the supernova example, we can look out into the sky, far enough, that supernovas somewhere (usually outside the Milky Way) are happening at least once a year.  What can we do with something that only happens once, and there aren't going to be any second, third ... examples?  Not much.

On the Big Bang.  There is a part of it, that can be observed anytime ... it is stable, the 3.5 K radiation.  And we know something of nucleosynthesis and high energy physics, due to experiments we can do on Earth.  So there are some good things (ration of H to He) and some bad things (dark matter, dark energy).  At this point it gets dicey.  On a very small scale, we know what happens to mass-energy in very small amounts.  We then assume, that the phenomena that happen on the small scale, are true on a much larger scale (but we have no way of checking this, it isn't necessarily true).  This allows us to go back to less than a second after the Big Bang, but it isn't cross-check-able ... like other astrophysics is (say Solar physics).  It has been attempted to try to see before the 3.5K radiation barrier (it is a barrier, because until the universe cooled to less than 14.5 ev per electron (very hot) the universe was a plasma, which is electrically conductive, like the Sun below the photosphere.  The polarization of the 3.5k radiation can be analyzed, in the same way that the turbulence below the photosphere can be analyzed.  In this case, they were hoping to see the effects of reverberating gravitational waves, just before the 3.5K radiation event (critical cooling, think of it as glass solidifying) ... but it turned out that the polarization observed, is due to the effect of intergalactic dust scattering the 3.5K radiation (think of why the sky is blue).  The initial calculation (observation by calculation) left out that effect.  Then the embarrassed calculators had to retract.  This is similar to the guys who had to retract the recent experimental example that the speed of light had been exceeded.  Neither of these is the result of fraud, just non-obvious mistakes in the experimental setup or in the calculation formula.  Of course there is actual fraud, see Cold Fusion.

And of course the other reasons for accepting the conventional model (there are many other models) of the Big Bang are the usual suspects ... authority of Nobel Prize physicists ... and TINOA ... there is no other alternative.  TINOA is the excuse that Superstring theory makes ... that and the math is really hard, so it must be true, because I can't check your braniac analysis.  So far Superstring theory is math masturbation, hasn't explained anything, not already explained by the Standard Theory.  Big Bang constitutes its own "standard theory" ... so it gets taught everywhere including grad schools.  But then colleges are derived from Medieval scholasticism.  Peer review is better than nothing, but only just.  The best review is controlled experiment on Earth.

[SGOS]

I don't quite understand why Big Bang cosmology is qualified to be a scientific theory.  Sure, there is some evidence which supports it, and some math.  But it seems rather sparse, at least when compared to common (and robust) scientific theories such as germ theory, atomic theory, accretion theory or biological evolution theory.  It seems to be a scientific hypothesis at best.

I agree, and I argued with a scientist (as it turned out), on what often seems to be a rather slapdash application of the term, not only among theists (think of the common complaint against evolution:  "Oh, that's just a theory."), but also with scientific theories that have very little data to back them up.  His position was that such scientific theories were, in fact, theories, and went on to note that he actually works with theories in the lab, where no current data is available.

Of course this was a semantic debate, the kind of debate I promise to myself never to get into, yet continually find myself in anyway.  It's probably because I'm overly fond of my own definitions, and have this urge to defend them, but whatever.  After reading and discoursing with knowledgeable resources, I've settled on the definition of theory as "An explanation that that accounts for all the known observations."  But I won't argue that with you or anyone else, as I'm not exactly swooned by it myself because of the leeway it provides, even for guys like Drew, who will latch on and run off into fantasy with it.  But it is something like the common consensus in the community, give or take a tweak here and there.  I can work with it.

As for the Big Bang qualifying as theory, I guess it explains the known observations well, although as fascinated as I am by the theory, and from what I understand of the basics, I would guess there are many observations I'm not aware of, so I'm not knowledgeable enough to settle the debate once and for all.  I'll leave that to the guys at Cal Tech.  But it seems like a theory with good possibilities.

As for whether it was caused by God or "naturalistic forces," there is nothing flawed about the Big Bang Theory's response, because the theory only explains the bang.  What happened before are not part of the theory.  Enter: <Ta Da> "the gap." ... followed by... Enter: <Ta Da> "Religion;"> happily supplying the answers to the unknowable, and well, bla, bla, bla.

Evolution is a stronger theory in my mind, not because it explains anything better, but because it has been continually cross verified, and all new data since it was first presented serves to validate what was at one time, somewhat more speculative.

[trdsf]

Big Bang cosmology does pretty well considering that we're trying to explain an event that not only happened some 13.8 billion years ago, but that we currently cannot observe directly because of the cosmic microwave background -- ironic, maybe, since the CMB is itself the strongest direct observational evidence that there was a Big Bang in the first place.

And the CMB may not remain an observational wall -- the recent confirmation of gravitational waves opens up the possibility of directly observing events dating all the way back to the Bang itself, since pre-CMB space is not opaque to them as it is to electromagnetic radiation.  We're a long way from that, but it becomes possible at least, and if/when that day comes, one hopes it will provide the evidence for what banged and why.

But as a theory, the Big Bang is just fine.  It does exactly what a theory is supposed to do: explain a set of observations and make predictions that can be falsified.  And while it's not as solid a theory as evolution or general relativity, there is as yet nothing to definitively reject it either.

As with any theory, it is provisional, and that's why we keep observing and measuring.  Until then, it may or may not fit one's idea of elegant, but it does the job.

[Baruch]

CMB vs gravitational waves ... is what I was alluding to.  And unfortunately, the analysis was a bust, because of intergalactic/galactic dust.  Both the Big Bang and gravitational waves, both violate another known law.  Conservation of mass-energy.  This is part of the reason why evidence for gravitational waves is so dodgy.  And using the Big Bang and gravitational waves together, is double dodgy.

[Mike Cl]

  It's probably because I'm overly fond of my own definitions, and have this urge to defend them, but whatever.  After reading and discoursing with knowledgeable resources, I've settled on the definition of theory as "An explanation that that accounts for all the known observations." 

I hear you there--sounds like you are describing me.

[SGOS]

I hear you there--sounds like you are describing me.

I don't know how many people wouldn't admit that.

[Baruch]

I hear you there--sounds like you are describing me.

What is observed, isn't independent of theory, it is a dialectic.  Without the notion of voltage, there was no reason for anyone to measure it.  Once we had the notion, and measurement confirmed its usefulness, and we were ready to roll.  But the definition of voltage continued to be refined ... thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  So does a theory account for all known observations?  The Big Bang and friends can't account for Dark Energy nor Dark Matter ... so I guess they aren't theories, just hypotheses.  And where do we stop with "all known observations"?  Should we include consciousness?  Does GR explain consciousness?

[Mike Cl]

What is observed, isn't independent of theory, it is a dialectic.  Without the notion of voltage, there was no reason for anyone to measure it.  Once we had the notion, and measurement confirmed its usefulness, and we were ready to roll.  But the definition of voltage continued to be refined ... thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  So does a theory account for all known observations?  The Big Bang and friends can't account for Dark Energy nor Dark Matter ... so I guess they aren't theories, just hypotheses.  And where do we stop with "all known observations"?  Should we include consciousness?  Does GR explain consciousness?

I think there are theories.  At one time, the earth was round was a hypothesis.  After centuries, it was demonstrated that it was round.  I think it safe to say that the earth is round is now a theory.  (But then again, there are the flat-earthers, so theories are meaningful to some, but not all)  I do think the term 'theory' gets misused too often.  For me, a theory is an hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true.  And I also think there are many more hypothesis in science than theories.

[Drew_2017]

There is no need to point out the obvious when it is obvious. YOU are the one arguing the incredible when the obvious is ....obvious. The fault lay in your argument, not mine. YOU seek the incredible, Sherlock would tell you so, should you be wise enough to listen.

How do you explain how what is obvious to you is only obvious to 15% of the population. Among that 15% many call themselves weak atheists meaning even they don't deny God exists they simply don't subscribe to that belief. If its so obvious how can there be any 'weak' atheists. Its obvious to most people a Creator was involved. If there was any conclusive evidence in favor of naturalistic causes only people would slowly abandon belief in God. As of now its just a faith claim. Why should they abandon one faith claim for another?

You say I seek the incredible yet scientists, engineers and computer programmers created a realistic virtual universe using the theistic method to cause it to exist.

[TrueStory]

How do you explain how what is obvious to you is only obvious to 15% of the population. Among that 15% many call themselves weak atheists meaning even they don't deny God exists they simply don't subscribe to that belief. If its so obvious how can there be any 'weak' atheists. Its obvious to most people a Creator was involved. If there was any conclusive evidence in favor of naturalistic causes only people would slowly abandon belief in God. As of now its just a faith claim. Why should they abandon one faith claim for another?

You say I seek the incredible yet scientists, engineers and computer programmers created a realistic virtual universe using the theistic method to cause it to exist.

argumentum ad populum    I hope people search for that term and randomly stumble across this page.  To you I say read the quoted bit here from drew and this is the perfect example of that fallacy.

It's almost too perfect.  I call poe a lot but that's the fun part about it I suppose.

[Cavebear]

Your wish may be granted. I read today on a 'super earth' planet a atmosphere has been detected.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/04/07/scientists-discover-atmosphere-around-distant-earth-like-planet.html

Its the first detected around an earth like planet and it only 6 trillion miles away. That can't be too far away after all we are $20 trillion in debt and no one seems worried about that. Oh I forgot I was recently told I'm anti science so actually I hope we don't discover anything and return to the dark ages as soon as possible.

6 trillion miles would be 1 light year away.  There are no stars 1 light year away.  Check your facts.

[Drew_2017]

argumentum ad populum    I hope people search for that term and randomly stumble across this page.  To you I say read the quoted bit here from drew and this is the perfect example of that fallacy.

It's almost too perfect.  I call poe a lot but that's the fun part about it I suppose.

Except there is no fallacy to be had. I'm not making an argument God exists because more people believe we owe our existence to God. The argument was about which is obvious that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or we owe our existence to a Creator and it appears to more people the former is more obvious. This is because regardless of how much trust and belief some have in naturalism there is no smoking gun evidence its true. If there was you'd be blasting me out of the water with facts and data instead of argumentums.

[aitm]

How do you explain how what is obvious to you is only obvious to 15% of the population. 
 

What the hell are you yapping about? The question is very simple and the answer very obvious. Humanity has had tens of thousands of god they have worshipped.
Question one. Where did they come from?
Question two.  Humanity has shown the propensity to invent thousands of gods, why does the god your parents convinced you to believe in...be a real god when there is not one iota of evidence your god has been better than any of the other thousands?

Not hard kiddo.

[aitm]

The argument was about which is obvious that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or we owe our existence to a Creator....

that is your argument but it is not based on anything other than superstition. People are not arguing about god using science and logic, the vast are not arguing at all, they are bowing to culture and fear. The vast majority of humanity has no interest in understanding anything other than that there may be a way out of a living hell and that is to prostrate yourself and/or murder others in order to escape the fucked up world "your" god delivered them into.

You make up shit faster than elephants can dump it.

[Hydra009]

Among that 15% many call themselves weak atheists meaning even they don't deny God exists they simply don't subscribe to that belief. If its so obvious how can there be any 'weak' atheists.

"weak" atheism exists primarily because of the reluctance of atheists (including myself) to put forward the positive claim that no gods exist because they're immediately dogpiled by theists demanding that they substantiate their claim.  And yes, the irony of theists of all people playing the skeptic is downright hilarious.

Rest assured that "weak" atheists are every bit as dismissive of theistic ravings as any other sane person.

You say I seek the incredible yet scientists, engineers and computer programmers created a realistic virtual universe using the theistic method to cause it to exist.

"the theistic method"  LOL!