Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

[Brigit Bara]

"If there is a loss of energy in the universe, where does the energy go?"

The electricity which powers the galaxies is delivered in the form of Birkeland currents, where the galaxies are loads on a wire. There is loss as the Birkeland current transmits the electricity; these are not frozen in fields, but an electric current flow.

Each of the galaxies do the following work with the electrical energy input:
rotational motion
shine in the visible light spectrum
radiate in the radio and infra-red wavelengths
radiate in uv, euv, x- and sometimes gamma
and some galaxies have active centers that release quasars along the axis of the galaxy, in pairs

That is the work the electrical energy does. Is it not reasonable to say that if all of this work is done with the electricity supplied to each galaxy (which do occur in strings), then the input of energy must be greater than the expenditures at all points in the system?

I appreciate the talks about finite and infinite universes. But we are just talking about a circuit. And not very much of it is even visible: "The[Birkeland currents] flow in a cosmic circuit that comes into our field of view and then back out into the void, with long-range attraction between them."

[Brigit Bara]

Now I know I oversimplified.

But I think those are all fine upstanding scientific claims, and they are supported by the data from the telescopes in those frequencies.

What is not a rational or scientific claim to make is that the circuit continues to run for eternity, because there are substantial parts of the circuit which cannot be detected.

[webolife]

The reason it is difficult to answer a question like <where does the energy go?> is that energy isn't a thing, it is a happening, Force operating across space, Work. When we measure energy, we measure an action, not an object.
If there is an answer it is found in the second law of thermodynamics, which reminds us that the net result of every energy transaction is condensation, aggregation, a potential drop, often associated with heat, always an increase in entropy. The BB is not possible under thermodynamics, hence the ad hoc assertions of DE, DM, BHs, WIMPS and the like. On the other hand the prevalence of natural pattern(s) in the universe, what we observe as the "physical laws", the minutely narrow range of variance of the physical constants, and the pervasive equilibrium that led Sir Fred Hoyle to propose the Steady State, all attest to and agree with the action of an ID. Atheists say this is merely the "appearance" of design, something created in the mind of humans... hardly a scientifically tenable claim considering their wholesale disbelief in the necessity of our race. That order exists only in our mind is a huge pile of denial.
IMHO

[Brigit Bara]

Actually I am not trying to disturb the Steady State Universe (:

I am just trying to show that the criticism of the BB is valid, but by the same measure (thermodynamics) the Steady State model requires a bit of special pleading because it is entropy-free.

It does not mean that the heat death of the universe is certain, or that there are not finely tuned conditions and less entropy than we might expect as webolife has pointed out, but that there is still a rational problem with the model. Would it be too much to ask that the critics of the BB stop foisting the failures of the materialistic scientists to respect known physics on people who believe Genesis? After all, between the BB singularity and the Perpetual State model, you just trade one conundrum for another.

My objection is that to say that the BB is "a religion" is just wild analogizing, because materialistic scientists do not believe that there are spirits, spiritual law, an afterlife, angels, or God, while at minimum a religion does affirm all of them. So to call the BB, evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest (and its nasty corollaries), or the horrors of historicism in Communism -- all of which are materialistic science -- "a religion" when they fail is totally inaccurate, a denial of history, and a failure to accept bad results in science.

[webolife]

Since this is topic about an interplay of science and religion, I don't mind disputing spurious scientific claims on the basis of religion, for this reason, which I have spelled out repeated before:

For a post-modern atheist scientist to exclude the supernatural as an a priori condition for doing science, this is a religious exclusion; ie. to assert there is no operative Designer is a religious belief, to be included in the list of things which constitute religion. On a different path, if there is a scientist who is 1) agnostic and 2)works from a materialistic framework, but 3) admits (perhaps to her or himself, without believing one way or the other) that there are scientific unanswerables in the universe that may be attributable to non-materialistic causes, then maybe I would allow that this is an un-religious scientist. However that allowance does seem inconsistent with my highlighted statement...

[Brigit Bara]

One moment.
Correction: "My objection is that to say that the BB is "a religion" is just wild analogizing, because materialistic scientists do not believe that there are spirits, spiritual law, an afterlife, angels, or God, while at minimum a religion does affirm [some or] all of them."
Thank you.

[Brigit Bara]

[Brigit Bara]

[Brigit Bara]

[Brigit Bara]

[webolife]

Brigit P. Bara,
I think we agree in concept almost entirely. Application of the words "religion" and "faith" is tricky at best, since there are many connotations of the two. For now, I will use "religion" in referring to an organized system of belief that attracts many adherents, and "faith" as an individual choice [not necessarily conscious or openly avowed] that guides one's perspective, the "colored lenses" through which one sees the universe, and interprets that data collected thereby.
Thus some adherents of the system may yet have individual viewpoints that "stray" from the system. Hence, lumping all "materialists" together in their religion of the non-supernatural may not take into account the spectrum of agnosticism among the adherents. Choice is a key factor in these distinctions, but I would distinguish choice based on deeply entrenched personal value, from decisions made after careful [or not] consideration of divergent sides of an issue. These conscious constructs, while touted as "beliefs" or perhaps "philosophies", sometimes cover closeted presuppositions that prevent the scientist, writer or speaker from recognizing the underlying driver[s] of their scientific pursuit. In other words, they are unacknowledging of the underlying reasons they have come to the conclusions they have, and may be quite insistent that their claims are based strictly on the evidence. I was watching some Bill Nye interviews recently, and he seems to be a prime case of this position. They are quick to point out the a priori positions of their opponents, but either don't realize their own "faith base", or simply are arrogant that their beliefs are superior to their opponent. This works both ways of course, hence my signature statement, which I have persisted to use since joining this forum years ago.

[Brigit Bara]

[webolife]

Those are great questions.
But I am proposing (perhaps contrary to your 2nd point of acquiescence?) that materialists believe that as long as their presuppositions [beliefs] are material, this sufficiently qualifies them as scientific vs. religious. Their presumption is that any ridiculous claim, provided it does not invoke the supernatural, is valid for scientific pursuit. I am challenging that.
I further propose that the claim of "NO FAITH" is a denial, which at this time I will set forth as a "null belief", ergo a belief to the contrary.
Am I overstepping the bounds of the topic?

[Brigit Bara]

No of course not!

Actually, when you discuss "materialists" in "their religion of the non-supernatural" and "the spectrum of agnosticism among the adherents", no one will bat an eye. Coming from you, that is simply a factual statement. In fact, it's axiomatic! (:
Again, if you personally refer to the "faith base" making up the implicit assumptions underlying a scientist's world view, there is not much to argue against, because you are making an observation about the sociology of science that we have all experienced.

But the problem is that the actual scientists and scientific materialists do not ever refer to their beliefs as religion or faith going in. They only recatagorize failed materialistic science as religion after the damage has been done. And I object, based on the wreckage. Bad science is bad science. And the adherents of almost every modern ideology tend to insist that their ideological revolutions are as scientific as the periodic table of elements, when in fact the century is littered with the dead from such intellectual conceit.

You can't change bad science to religion. That's alchemy.

[Brigit Bara]

Materialism

ref: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17000&start=30#p125762