Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
photon here is a part of an article by Eric Lerner in the NewScience from May 2004:
Bucking the big bang- 22 May 2004
- Eric Lerner
- Magazine issue 2448
BIG bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities - things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
Unfortunately the rest of the article requires a subscription but, as of May 2004 the background radiation was smooth. I wish you could read the whole article because Dr. Lerner speaks in length about the difficulty of being heard within the scientific community if you dare question the big bang theory. He also identifies why there is so much resistance. Two thing I've been trying to tell you for a while now but, you keep denying the problem. I'm confident that if Dr. Lerner was a Creationist the difficulty he finds today would turn into an impossibilty.
By the way, if the link I provided was unscientific because it started with "a presumption of truth" do you think your post passes as scientific using the same standard?
|
First Cause Argument.1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false.