|
|
I've read a lot of posts where people write that you can prove everything etc...
and that god is outdated, well here's a quick question, I am anxious to read your answer 
I myself am an atheist, but even I can't answer this one..
ok so I believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, but there is one thing that can't be explained energy to start this process...
first of all, you need to know that there are two energy laws :
1 : energy can't be created or destroyed it can only be reformed
2 : you always loose a bit of energy.
Knowing that, how can you explain the origin of the big bang ( which needed a massive amount of energy)
how did that energy existed...
OK....good question.
The simple answer is that we can't answer it.
We simply don't know about what happened 'before' the BB. One explanation is that nothing happened before the BB - since time itself did not exist before BB, therefore we cannot talk sensibly about 'before'.That is, I would admit, not a very satisfying answer, but it is the best we have for the moment.
There are hypotheses which would explain what happened 'before' - such as M-Theory, but as far as I know there is no 'theory' for what you are looking for - the first 'thing' (be it energy or matter).
The problem is that physical theories are quite difficult to understand when we are talking about the extremes of physics, like we are here. There are no easy comparisons and common-sense does not apply. I could go into detail about vacuum energy, virtual particles and so on, but it would not help. The most honest answer I can give is that - we understand there was a Big Bang and we can't say what, if anything, there was before that.
Some may wish to say there was some Deity which 'caused' it to happen. To my mind that solves nothing and only creates more questions...
you pays your money, you makes your choice....
PS - the second 'energy law' is wrong. You don't 'loose' energy, it just gets converted from one form into another...
| Bikerman wrote: | OK....good question.
The simple answer is that we can't answer it. |
Unfortuanetly, it is this one thing that most theists and atheists would argue over. The big bang theory itself, and the later stages, I think both religion and athiests would agree on. Similarly, evolution would not deny God.
Then again, proving (or disproving) the existence of God is an irrational statement/question. So not everything can be proven.
Some say the big bangs are the breathe of god...
Hm, before the first big bang -> that's when scientists have to stop beeing scientists! That's when they need to be philosophic!
hm, god beeing outdated! - Of course - that's why God changes all the time! To not be outdated 
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | OK....good question.
The simple answer is that we can't answer it. |
Unfortuanetly, it is this one thing that most theists and atheists would argue over. The big bang theory itself, and the later stages, I think both religion and athiests would agree on. Similarly, evolution would not deny God.
Then again, proving (or disproving) the existence of God is an irrational statement/question. So not everything can be proven. |
One can, however, make a logical, rational conclusion based on deductive reasoning. I think a giant, invisible green pizza revolves around Earth and I plan on writing a book about it. Now surely we cannot prove this is true/untrue, but let's be real here...seriously.
| liljp617 wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | OK....good question.
The simple answer is that we can't answer it. |
Unfortuanetly, it is this one thing that most theists and atheists would argue over. The big bang theory itself, and the later stages, I think both religion and athiests would agree on. Similarly, evolution would not deny God.
Then again, proving (or disproving) the existence of God is an irrational statement/question. So not everything can be proven. |
One can, however, make a logical, rational conclusion based on deductive reasoning. I think a giant, invisible green pizza revolves around Earth and I plan on writing a book about it. Now surely we cannot prove this is true/untrue, but let's be real here...seriously. |
There are many things that science has yet to prove, especially with the unseen. For instance, we know that black magic and voodoo dolls exists. But can science provide an explanation? or rather will science ever provide an explanation?
Now with relation to God, what we really are talking about is about afterlife, not necessarily on Earth, or in our universe.
The existence of God in this life would have little impact on our lives, perhaps as much as the invisible green pizza revolving around Earth. This would never undermine Gods ability,as one would could argue that the laws of the universe were created by God and to be self-governed. Perhaps this is a vague comparison (but only one I can think of now), but maybe like an operating system (Earth) provides life of programs (creatures). The operating system won't depend on the programmer (God) -providing he programmed it right. Will the programs inside the OS ever tell what came before the OS (Earth - note: muliple OS permissible), or before the boot screen (big bang)? And will they ever know that there is a programmer that created them, or see this programmer? or would they say it was due to the neural networks and the intelligent AI present in the OS?
And like you said, we can "make a logical, rational conclusion based on deductive reasoning". One side is stating that there was "absolutely nothing" prior to the big bang, and the other side is saying there was God (who is the first and last and independant of time) prior to the big bang.
By a Christian standpoint the entire theory is flawed. If you look at how complex our solar system is, how is it even remotely possible that a big bang could create a set of plates in a perfect gravitational orbit, and plant life onto the only planet capable of supporting it. You notice by studying other planets that not a single one of them would sustain any kind of life, so by random chance earth was created with a perfect eco system while every other planets eco system was worthless. Look at the sun, it is the perfect distance from earth. Just far enough that we receive nourishment from it's rays, but we don't get burnt and charred like the planets in front of us. How could that big bang possibly have created a perfect solar system like this? Why do we even have a sun at all if the big bang is just totally random.
| KHO wrote: | | By a Christian standpoint the entire theory is flawed. If you look at how complex our solar system is, how is it even remotely possible that a big bang could create a set of plates in a perfect gravitational orbit, and plant life onto the only planet capable of supporting it. You notice by studying other planets that not a single one of them would sustain any kind of life, so by random chance earth was created with a perfect eco system while every other planets eco system was worthless. Look at the sun, it is the perfect distance from earth. Just far enough that we receive nourishment from it's rays, but we don't get burnt and charred like the planets in front of us. How could that big bang possibly have created a perfect solar system like this? Why do we even have a sun at all if the big bang is just totally random. |
You do not speak for Christians - you speak for a small minority of Christians. Many Christians have no problem at all with the Big Bang.
Your objections are based on faulty logic and poor understanding. Earth was not 'created' hospitable to human life - that took many millions of years. When earth first formed the atmosphere was incapable of supporting life. The eco system took a long time to establish.
As for other planets - there is every possibility that Mars could have supported life at some point in its history (before the atmosphere was largely lost to space).
The development of Solar Systems such as ours is now pretty well understood, so if you want to learn about it then there are plenty of available materials:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/nebular.html
http://www.nineplanets.org/origin.html
I'm afraid it would take too long to explain the Big Bang theory in detail but suffice it to say that there are plenty of useful resources on the web if you really want to learn about it.
Here's a little paper I wrote on the subject:
http://bikerman.info/resources//mywork/universe-guide/universe-guide.htm
Here's some more useful info:
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html
| liljp617 wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | OK....good question.
The simple answer is that we can't answer it. |
Unfortuanetly, it is this one thing that most theists and atheists would argue over. The big bang theory itself, and the later stages, I think both religion and athiests would agree on. Similarly, evolution would not deny God.
Then again, proving (or disproving) the existence of God is an irrational statement/question. So not everything can be proven. |
One can, however, make a logical, rational conclusion based on deductive reasoning. I think a giant, invisible green pizza revolves around Earth and I plan on writing a book about it. Now surely we cannot prove this is true/untrue, but let's be real here...seriously. |
How do you know it's green? Maybe it is pretending to be green and infact it is blue!  !
| KHO wrote: | | By a Christian standpoint the entire theory is flawed. |
First it's creationist. And it is flawed by the ridiculous standards and demands creationists want.
| KHO wrote: | | If you look at how complex our solar system is, how is it even remotely possible that a big bang could create a set of plates in a perfect gravitational orbit, and plant life onto the only planet capable of supporting it. |
Cause there aren't many planets in our solar system and we have "seen" only 1 or 2 with our honkin' radio telescopes or other equipment. There are a awfull lot of stars out there ever counted them? Yes? and those are the ones we can count.
| KHO wrote: | | You notice by studying other planets that not a single one of them would sustain any kind of life, so by random chance earth was created with a perfect eco system while every other planets eco system was worthless. |
You think our eco system is perfect? Not even close to perfect. There are many flaws everywhere if god designed everything he would have been kicked of the project by his supervisor.
| KHO wrote: | | Look at the sun, it is the perfect distance from earth. Just far enough that we receive nourishment from it's rays, but we don't get burnt and charred like the planets in front of us. How could that big bang possibly have created a perfect solar system like this? Why do we even have a sun at all if the big bang is just totally random. |
Yes and the with "just" far enough is actually meant that the earth could have been "close" neighbours mars and the planet on the other side, venus.
[MOD - tag added to clean up quote : Bikerman]
? What did i do wrong? and congrats on the mod status 
[MOD - Thanks. You simply messed-up one of the quote tags which meant the quote was not appearing as such - I just fixed it (there was a ] missing) - no big deal . ]
| Bikerman wrote: | There are hypotheses which would explain what happened 'before' - such as M-Theory, but as far as I know there is no 'theory' for what you are looking for - the first 'thing' (be it energy or matter).
The problem is that physical theories are quite difficult to understand when we are talking about the extremes of physics, like we are here. There are no easy comparisons and common-sense does not apply. I could go into detail about vacuum energy, virtual particles and so on, but it would not help. The most honest answer I can give is that - we understand there was a Big Bang and we can't say what, if anything, there was before that. |
Eh, i'd go a bit further, rather than giving more ammunition to the clueless. i understand what you mean when you say "we don't know". But someone who has no clue about the whole topic and is looking for an excuse to not believe it will interpret "we don't know" to mean "we're just absolutely clueless - don't have the foggiest - not even a preliminary guess". i'd recommend preferring "we're not sure" over "we don't know".
Because, as you point out, we do know quite a bit. We're not sure, but we do know - by virtue of the theories we have now - how it could have happened. Without a more advanced theory - maybe based on M-theory or QLG - we aren't sure... but we do know quite a bit. It is very likely, given what we know now, that the Big Bang was a vacuum fluctuation. Caused by what... we don't know that - but there is no question whatsoever any more that fluctuations exist, so it's not like we're appealing to ghosts. We know fluctuations exist, we know they're not bound by causality... seems to me we have a winner. Until we have a next-generation theory, we can't explain why vacuum fluctuations exist... but the fact that they exist is not in debate, and we know they don't obey causality.
Yes, i know as a scientist, you have a natural tendency toward epistemological humility, which is laudable in science... but sometimes that can be misleading to a layperson. And unfortunately we live in a time where the climate is such that there are schmucks around every corner who are eagerly waiting for a sign of weakness to pounce, and are not above using miscommunications between scientists and laypersons to their advantage (*cough*just-a-theory*cough*). It's not dishonest to say we know what caused the Big Bang (and that - by its nature as we understand it and observe it - a vacuum fluctuation has no cause), but that we're not sure. Sure, we might be wrong, and it might not be a vacuum fluctuation... but at this point we have enough evidence for at least a civil court, if not a criminal one. That ain't bad, but most importantly, it completely eliminates the need for a god (unless God's the one causing the vacuum fluctuations) - not just renders it unnecessary, renders it superfluous.
One other bit of advice i can offer you that might help - it's true that common-sense breaks down when causality breaks down, but we can use a linguistic metaphor to point out the silliness of asking what came before the Big Bang. Next time someone asks that, ask them: "What's north of the North Pole?"
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | There are many things that science has yet to prove, especially with the unseen. For instance, we know that black magic and voodoo dolls exists. But can science provide an explanation? or rather will science ever provide an explanation? |
Gibbidywha?
Sure voodoo dolls exist... but they don't do anything.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | This would never undermine Gods ability,as one would could argue that the laws of the universe were created by God and to be self-governed. |
That is actually a very old - medieval - idea that is still reflected in the language of modern science. Once upon a time, scientific laws were literally taken to be the laws God made to command the physical universe's motions. The purpose of science (natural philosophy back in those days) was explicitly to determine the laws God had given the universe. The assumption was explicit that God exists.
Nowadays, science is different. It starts from the bare minimum assumptions it can get away with. The assumption of a god is unnecessary, so science doesn't make that assumption. If you want - and many Christians do - you can believe (by faith) that maybe some day we will come to a point where the assumption of a god is necessary... which is effectively science proving that a god exists. Or you can believe, as i do, that science will never come to that point - that science will never be able to prove a god exists - and you will always need faith to believe in a god. Either way is compatible with modern science.
But no matter which way you go, "necessary" is not based on opinion. Today, it is not necessary to assume a god in science. We're not "stuck" in science today with the only way out being assuming a god. Science is moving along at a heady clip, without assuming gods. We just don't need them (yet). So today, you're not going to find any help in science to help you believe in a god. You're going to have to use faith.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | And like you said, we can "make a logical, rational conclusion based on deductive reasoning". One side is stating that there was "absolutely nothing" prior to the big bang, and the other side is saying there was God (who is the first and last and independant of time) prior to the big bang. |
No, that's not true. No one says there was absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang... they say there was no prior. The Big Bang created time. You need time to have a before. There was no time before the Big Bang, so there was no before. As i mentioned to Bikerman: "What's north of the North Pole?" It's a silly question, same as "what was before the Big Bang". Even more interesting is that we have discovered things in science that don't obey the rules of time. Bikerman mentioned virtual particles, that exist before they exist (i know it sounds strange, but it's true), and continue to exist after they are gone. It's a weird universe at the Planck scale, but as weird as it is, we've seen it, and we know it's real. The same is not true for a god.
The other side has a lot of problems. They're trying to eat their cake and have it too. They are trying to say that the Big Bang has to obey causality... oh, but God doesn't. So, naturally i ask: if God is outside of causality, why can't the Big Bang be outside of causality? This other side can't answer that question.
So you see, it's not simply a matter of two sides offering opinions, with neither side being preferable over the other. One side has real evidence, and a logical explanation. The other has... nothing. They have a theoretical entity that isn't necessary (violating parsimony), and a logical loop that falls apart under inspection.
| Indi wrote: | | (*cough*just-a-theory*cough*) |
Wow! What a nice reference to me. Since you're talking about science, I'll mention again what I already said in the original topic: that had nothing to do with science and everything to do with English. I was just being very literal with my English. Didn't I go over that? When I first said that, I didn't realize that I was giving a scientific theory a bad connotation (which is why I called it 'just a theory,' figuring that it's literally 'just a theory'), until someone pointed that out to me. Before I had a chance to respond to that acknowledging that I now realized that it was a poor choice of words, Klaw had jumped all over me telling me that I don't understand science. But whatever, I won't spend anymore time defending myself over this nonsense. Seriously Indi, I usually respect what you have to say and I usually feel enlightened after reading what you have to say but that was uncalled for.
Anyways.... answering the question... I'm not an expert on this subject and I don't have a lot of information on it, but from my understanding, there are several possibilities. One is called the Big Crunch followed by the Big Bounce. If I remember correctly, it had to do with there being a universe before ours that was getting hotter and collapsing (which would be 'the crunch') and then when it got extremely dense, it bounced back out. That isn't a very good explanation, but it's about as best as I can do. This of course leaves us with the same problem: what was before the first universe and how was it formed?
I've heard ideas about a "twin universe," but I'm not too up-to-date with that. Some of this I read a long time ago, so I'm not sure if it's still current. I'm sorry I didn't have a lot of information.
| Indi wrote: |
Gibbidywha?
Sure voodoo dolls exist... but they don't do anything.
|
They sure do. You never seen pins poking dolls which make that affect on the human?
| Indi wrote: |
Nowadays, science is different. It starts from the bare minimum assumptions it can get away with. The assumption of a god is unnecessary, so science doesn't make that assumption. If you want - and many Christians do - you can believe (by faith) that maybe some day we will come to a point where the assumption of a god is necessary... which is effectively science proving that a god exists. Or you can believe, as i do, that science will never come to that point - that science will never be able to prove a god exists - and you will always need faith to believe in a god. Either way is compatible with modern science.
But no matter which way you go, "necessary" is not based on opinion. Today, it is not necessary to assume a god in science. We're not "stuck" in science today with the only way out being assuming a god. Science is moving along at a heady clip, without assuming gods. We just don't need them (yet). So today, you're not going to find any help in science to help you believe in a god. You're going to have to use faith.
|
Of course science will never be able to prove the existence of God. but so too will science never be able to prove the absense of God.
And the way science is heading, it won't need to. There is no reason for it.
Going back to my previous example, the world is becoming automated through use of computers. The role of the programmer is becoming less and less. In the enterprise world of computing, we have programs such as SAP, IBM WebSphere and MS Messaging Queing that aid sending messages, and servers to communicate with each other. Of course, there requires human maintainance to some degree, but even with databases over the years, and now we have programs that are able to maintain the database. We ourselves, are creating automated programs that communicate with other programs to lessen the need of the programmer or human intervention.
When a computer gets hot, it is no longer the job of the human to switch it off. Intelligent computers would automatically increase fan speed, lessen critical tasks, or switch computer off in severe cases. Does this mean that there was never a creator? Of course not.
Now, you talk about science without the need to assume God. Of course you are right. No matter how deep we go in Science, God will never come to mind -- and probably never will. Similarly, no matter how deep we go into the technologies I jus described, the initial programmer will never be called into question. Why? Simply because we just don't need them.
That is why I said in my initial post, God comes only into question regarding the afterlife. Humans can rely on science to govern this world in the same way, computer programs can rely on the intelligent AI and neural networks to govern theirs. This will never eliminate God or the programmer. And like you said, exploring science won't give you the answer to God, just like the AI alogrithms won't give you the answer to the initial progammer (the compiler doesn't compile comments ).
| Indi wrote: |
No, that's not true. No one says there was absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang... they say there was no prior. The Big Bang created time. You need time to have a before. There was no time before the Big Bang, so there was no before.
|
Okay, I am not sure, but I am pretty sure I read an article a few years back where Stephen Hawkings stated that the universe was created from "absolutely nothing".
| Indi wrote: |
The other side has a lot of problems. They're trying to eat their cake and have it too. They are trying to say that the Big Bang has to obey causality... oh, but God doesn't. So, naturally i ask: if God is outside of causality, why can't the Big Bang be outside of causality? This other side can't answer that question.
|
Like I said, the question is what came before the Big bang. God is independant of time, He would be the first and the last. AFAIK, religion agrees with the big bang. And probably evolution too -- it certainly won't go against it.
| Indi wrote: |
So you see, it's not simply a matter of two sides offering opinions, with neither side being preferable over the other. One side has real evidence, and a logical explanation. The other has... nothing. They have a theoretical entity that isn't necessary (violating parsimony), and a logical loop that falls apart under inspection.
|
For religion to be true, it must conform to science. Religion and science go, or rather should go, hand in hand. What part of science is against religion?
Found this interesting quote:
The Now is inseparable from who you are at the deepest level! (Eckhart Tolle.)
| Indi wrote: | | Eh, i'd go a bit further, rather than giving more ammunition to the clueless. i understand what you mean when you say "we don't know". But someone who has no clue about the whole topic and is looking for an excuse to not believe it will interpret "we don't know" to mean "we're just absolutely clueless - don't have the foggiest - not even a preliminary guess". i'd recommend preferring "we're not sure" over "we don't know". |
Good point well made.
I do tend to try and be scientifically 'cautious' in these answers and you are quite right to point out that this is often misinterpreted (sometimes deliberately so) to give the impression that science is clueless on this issue, when it clearly isn't, as you explain.
PS - I like the metaphor, that has set me to thinking-up some more
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | (*cough*just-a-theory*cough*) |
Wow! What a nice reference to me. |
Oh, get over yourself. ^_^; What i said was: "... there are schmucks around every corner who are eagerly waiting for a sign of weakness to pounce, and are not above using miscommunications between scientists and laypersons to their advantage (*cough*just-a-theory*cough*)." Does that sound like you? "You're so vain you probably think this song is about you." ^_^;
No, obviously i was talking about the anti-science crowd (as should have been evident from the whole damn paragraph, and the surrounding paragraphs). There's not a single creationist site or book that doesn't mention that "evolution is just a theory", as if that helps their case. And people who want to advocate all kinds of nonsense just love to point out that despite what science says about the infinitesimal probability of their pet monster existing, it can never say with certainty that it does not ("sure, science doesn't say ghosts exist... but it can't prove they don't!").
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Gibbidywha?
Sure voodoo dolls exist... but they don't do anything.
|
They sure do. You never seen pins poking dolls which make that affect on the human? |
i say again: "Sure voodoo dolls exist... but they don't do anything."
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
No, that's not true. No one says there was absolutely nothing prior to the Big Bang... they say there was no prior. The Big Bang created time. You need time to have a before. There was no time before the Big Bang, so there was no before.
|
Okay, I am not sure, but I am pretty sure I read an article a few years back where Stephen Hawkings stated that the universe was created from "absolutely nothing". |
And he's right.
No matter how many times i say this, it never seems to sink in... but let me try it again: common sense breaks down in uncommon situations. Your common sense does not work at the Big Bang. Both of the following statements are true:
- There is no "before", before the universe was created.
- The universe came from nothing.
There is no contradiction there. It only seems like it because your common sense requires causality to structure everything, and causality begins with the Big Bang. Part of the problem is that our language requires causality, too. We don't actually have words or grammar to meaningfully discuss a timeless state. We have to use mathematics and analogy to understand it.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
The other side has a lot of problems. They're trying to eat their cake and have it too. They are trying to say that the Big Bang has to obey causality... oh, but God doesn't. So, naturally i ask: if God is outside of causality, why can't the Big Bang be outside of causality? This other side can't answer that question.
|
Like I said, the question is what came before the Big bang. God is independant of time, He would be the first and the last. AFAIK, religion agrees with the big bang. And probably evolution too -- it certainly won't go against it. |
And like i said, there is no "before the Big Bang", so there is no question that needs answering. If God can exist outside of time, why can't the Big Bang? You're saying the Big Bang has to obey the laws of causality, but God doesn't.
(Incidentally, here's another example of common sense ideas breaking down in uncommon situations: If God really is independent of time, then he can't be first or last. The words require time to have meaning. It's like two astronauts floating in deep space, and one looking at the other and saying: "i'm west of you." It makes no sense because the words don't apply in deep space.)
As for religion, that depends on which religion you're talking about, because there are many. Some don't have a problem with the Big Bang or evolution. Some do.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | For religion to be true, it must conform to science. Religion and science go, or rather should go, hand in hand. What part of science is against religion? |
That question is backwards.
As you say, for a religion's claims to be probably true, they would have to agree with the evidence of science. The reverse, however, is not true. No part of science gives a crap about the claims of any religion. Science marches on, no matter what they claim or how vigorously they claim it. If religion and science disagree, science doesn't care... but religion goes on the warpath.
So what part of science is against religion? None. What part of science is for religion? None. What part of science has any interest at all in whatever any religion has to say? None.
However! What part of religion is against science? Answer: Any part that has anything to do with the physical universe. Any time a religion makes claims about the physical universe, it is intruding into science's territory. Now, science doesn't care... it will just continue doing its thing. Eventually, however, it will start poking into the areas that the religion made claims about. When that happens - still, science doesn't care at all about the religion or its claims - but the religion is in trouble. Oh, if it's really lucky, science will turn up answers that agree with the religion's claims... but the chance of that is extremely low. Most likely science will start turning up answers that contradict the religion, and show its claims to be false. Now, again, science won't care in the least. But the religion will have a problem. Either it will have to admit it was wrong and change its claims... or... fight. Which do you think happens more often?
In order to be safe, a religion would have to make no claims whatsoever about the physical universe. But how to do that? Easy:
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | That is why I said in my initial post, God comes only into question regarding the afterlife. |
Bam! That's the trick! Since the physical universe is off-limits (unless you want to risk eventually being caught in a lie by science), the trick is to make up something outside of the bounds of the physical universe... and then claim that that's the domain of religion. The afterlife is a perfect example.
Think about it this way. Science has absolutely no need for gods. If you start talking about gods just out of the blue, people will shrug and say, "Who cares? Whether they exist or not doesn't matter if they have no effect on the physical universe where we live." But if you say, "But there's something else outside of the physical universe that does matter to you... and gods matter there", all of a sudden gods become important.
It's a very recent trick - a handy way to sidestep the problem of science's advance undermining the religion. In the past, religions boldly made claims about the physical universe... no more. Now they talk about spiritual realms.
But how long will it last? ^_^; i wonder. Not too long ago they thought moral realms were also safe from science. No more. How long will it be until science makes questions of "afterlives" meaningless, too?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Religion and science go, or rather should go, hand in hand. |
Absolutely not.
Science should not go hand in hand with anything. Not religion, not politics, not economics, not morality, not popular opinion, nothing. Science is, and should remain, an independent tool to find truth.
If religion (or politics, or whatever else) wants to tag along with science as science does its job, fine... it just better not attempt to get in the way of what science has to do. (Obviously, politics, economics, morality, etc. can have a say in what experimental practices are allowed in the pursuit of scientific answers, but they cannot have a say in what questions science asks, or in the answers it gets.)
| Indi wrote: |
i say again: "Sure voodoo dolls exist... but they don't do anything."
|
Watching television programmes on them and seeing it in real life are two seperate issues.
| Indi wrote: |
- There is no "before", before the universe was created.
|
You are assuming that there was and is only one universe.
| Indi wrote: |
The universe came from nothing.There is no contradiction there. It only seems like it because your common sense requires causality to structure everything, and causality begins with the Big Bang. Part of the problem is that our language requires causality, too. We don't actually have words or grammar to meaningfully discuss a timeless state. We have to use mathematics and analogy to understand it.
|
Indeed, this universe came from nothing. In the same way, God says he created Man from nothing.
| Indi wrote: |
And like i said, there is no "before the Big Bang", so there is no question that needs answering. If God can exist outside of time, why can't the Big Bang? You're saying the Big Bang has to obey the laws of causality, but God doesn't.
(Incidentally, here's another example of common sense ideas breaking down in uncommon situations: If God really is independent of time, then he can't be first or last. The words require time to have meaning. It's like two astronauts floating in deep space, and one looking at the other and saying: "i'm west of you." It makes no sense because the words don't apply in deep space.)
|
The Big Bang was a stage in history, in the same way the Ice Age was a stage in history.
Time is not universal, God is. Time is relative.
| Indi wrote: |
As for religion, that depends on which religion you're talking about, because there are many. Some don't have a problem with the Big Bang or evolution. Some do.
|
Religion does not exist to prove science. It is books of signs, not science.
| Indi wrote: |
That question is backwards.
As you say, for a religion's claims to be probably true, they would have to agree with the evidence of science. The reverse, however, is not true. No part of science gives a crap about the claims of any religion. Science marches on, no matter what they claim or how vigorously they claim it. If religion and science disagree, science doesn't care... but religion goes on the warpath.
|
Science is mathematical. Religion is literature based. There is no maths in religious text (unless it has hidden meanings, which I would abstain from). Religion is based primarily on signs.
It would be very foolish to you to draw such a comparson, which seems you are constantly trying to do in you posts. Can't you understand that comparing science and religion (the way you are) is like comparing apples and oranges. They have an entirely different language.
| Indi wrote: |
So what part of science is against religion? None. What part of science is for religion? None. What part of science has any interest at all in whatever any religion has to say? None.
|
Well religion poses the questions. Science answers them.
| Indi wrote: |
However! What part of religion is against science? Answer: Any part that has anything to do with the physical universe. Any time a religion makes claims about the physical universe, it is intruding into science's territory. Now, science doesn't care... it will just continue doing its thing. Eventually, however, it will start poking into the areas that the religion made claims about. When that happens - still, science doesn't care at all about the religion or its claims - but the religion is in trouble. Oh, if it's really lucky, science will turn up answers that agree with the religion's claims... but the chance of that is extremely low. Most likely science will start turning up answers that contradict the religion, and show its claims to be false. Now, again, science won't care in the least. But the religion will have a problem. Either it will have to admit it was wrong and change its claims... or... fight. Which do you think happens more often?
|
Like I said before, science agrees with religion when it comes to the big bang theory. I would say it agrees with it when it comes to evolution to. Your mind may be too primitive or too biased to actually understand what religion has to say.
| Indi wrote: |
In order to be safe, a religion would have to make no claims whatsoever about the physical universe. But how to do that? Easy:
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | That is why I said in my initial post, God comes only into question regarding the afterlife. |
Bam! That's the trick! Since the physical universe is off-limits (unless you want to risk eventually being caught in a lie by science), the trick is to make up something outside of the bounds of the physical universe... and then claim that that's the domain of religion. The afterlife is a perfect example.
|
Now this is stupidity on your part. Religion is a set of ideologies, not simply the belief in God. It encompasses morals, ethics, politics, commerce and much much more.
No part of religion would go against Science. Science can never prove God, as much as science can never disprove God.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Think about it this way. Science has absolutely no need for gods. If you start talking about gods just out of the blue, people will shrug and say, "Who cares? Whether they exist or not doesn't matter if they have no effect on the physical universe where we live." But if you say, "But there's something else outside of the physical universe that does matter to you... and gods matter there", all of a sudden gods become important.
|
Precisely. Science has no need for Gods. You are absolutely right. Afterall, religion is a belief system for man. Science can never provide the same belief system. The "closest", if at all closest, match in governing world affairs Science has is in economics - capitalism - i.e. the survival of the fittest - man eat man. The American health system, or US govt foreign policy is your best example on this matter .
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
It's a very recent trick - a handy way to sidestep the problem of science's advance undermining the religion. In the past, religions boldly made claims about the physical universe... no more. Now they talk about spiritual realms.
|
Really? what sort of stuff did religion state in the past about the physical universe, that they don't say today?
| Indi wrote: |
But how long will it last? ^_^; i wonder. Not too long ago they thought moral realms were also safe from science. No more. How long will it be until science makes questions of "afterlives" meaningless, too?
|
Define what you mean by "moral realms"?
| Indi wrote: |
Science should not go hand in hand with anything. Not religion, not politics, not economics, not morality, not popular opinion, nothing. Science is, and should remain, an independent tool to find truth.
If religion (or politics, or whatever else) wants to tag along with science as science does its job, fine... it just better not attempt to get in the way of what science has to do. (Obviously, politics, economics, morality, etc. can have a say in what experimental practices are allowed in the pursuit of scientific answers, but they cannot have a say in what questions science asks, or in the answers it gets.) |
Did I ever disagree with you on this point?
Seems like i'm repeating myself, but science is mathematical. Religion is not. You cannot compare them on this level.
Politics is about how best a minority can rule a majority. Whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, it is all the same. The only difference is being able to choose your dictator. There has always been, and always will be, an elite (not neccessarily the govt) in which the nations interests are geared towards this elite, rather than the interests of the people. There is no science in this.
Ecnomics I would say is sciences closest ally, but still far off.
Anything to do with human choice, Science cannot answer. But that is not its purpose. That is why we have religion.
God is outdated ha ha ha that is so funny. Considering that the big bang (if there was a big bang, lets say there was one ok!) happened a long time ago, I would think that outdating anything would be simply stinky pants.
Science - from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "to know") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of the physical world.
How can any scientist be so vain as to even consider that this starts and ends in the twenty-first century or so narrow minded to include only certain kinds of knowledge? Certainly not a intelligent scientist!
For example, I am all for saying religion is a pew pew but the bible is a historical, research manual, spiritually intensive, and yes even scientific journal all wrapped up into one. To ignore it would be unscientific regarding any early ‘knowledge’.
A scientist does well to prove something but also remembers that not all science is that cut and dry. Theories always come before proven lab work.
Yes the start of the universe does raise an interesting question. Where did the energy come from for the big bang? So how does anything get started be it energy (pure light) or matter (physical universe)? Where did it come from? Ponder on a theory . . .
In the beginning . . .
| Bluedoll wrote: | God is outdated ha ha ha that is so funny. Considering that the big bang (if there was a big bang, lets say there was one ok!) happened a long time ago, I would think that outdating anything would be simply stinky pants.
Science - from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "to know") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of the physical world. |
Yes, very good - we can all read wiki. I suppose leaving out two words can be classed as paraphrasing, so we'll let it go without the quote tags. Shame you forgot to remove the bracket. | Quote: | | How can any scientist be so vain as to even consider that this starts and ends in the twenty-first century or so narrow minded to include only certain kinds of knowledge? Certainly not a intelligent scientist! |
Who made such a suggestion (other than you)? That's what we call a straw-man fallacy. | Quote: | | For example, I am all for saying religion is a pew pew but the bible is a historical, research manual, spiritually intensive, and yes even scientific journal all wrapped up into one. To ignore it would be unscientific regarding any early ‘knowledge’. |
The bible is neither a historical manual nor a scientific journal. It contains some episodes which may be historical, and much that certainly isn't. Sorting out which is which is up to bible scholars and work goes on.
Any historian who bases his/her time-lines on the Bible will quickly get themselves tied in knots.
Science requires empirical data which can be relied on as being accurate. You will not get that from the bible. You may get some interesting notions for areas of research - flood events, plague events etc, but you are not going to get any new, or even interesting, science. | Quote: | | A scientist does well to prove something but also remembers that not all science is that cut and dry. Theories always come before proven lab work. |
It is sometimes the other way around. Sometimes experiment throws up data which requires new theory. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though, since the creation myth in the bible is already comprehensively refuted and, in science, when a theory is refuted you throw it away. | Quote: | Yes the start of the universe does raise an interesting question. Where did the energy come from for the big bang? So how does anything get started be it energy (pure light) or matter (physical universe)? Where did it come from? Ponder on a theory . . .
In the beginning . . . |
And how does the notion of a Deity address this issue? It doesn't, of course, it merely puts it back one step and pretends that solves the problem when of course it does nothing of the sort. The notion of a Deity 'before' the BB simple throws up the same question - where did the Deity come from? The difference is that the scientific explanation doesn't require an infinitely complex entity (a Deity) which cannot (by definition) be explained. There are several possible scientific explanations for where the original 'stuff' came from (it wasn't 'light', by the way - that came much later) - quantum fluctuations is a good candidate.
What is the religious explanation for where God came from? (Oh yes, that's right, we just have to accept that he didn't come from anywhere...I remember).
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
i say again: "Sure voodoo dolls exist... but they don't do anything."
|
Watching television programmes on them and seeing it in real life are two seperate issues. |
No kidding.
If voodoo dolls (and other kinds of sympathetic magic) really work, then why don't we use them for real purposes? Found a killer's hair at the murder scene? Forget expensive and slow DNA testing, just bring in the witch doctor and have them make a voodoo doll with the hair, then bring in the suspects and poke the doll... and you'll know right away who the guilty party is. Hell, why bother hunting Osama bin Laden... all we need is some of his toenail clippings from one of his old hideouts, then we can make a doll and poke it and burn it until he comes running out of hiding begging for mercy.
Only of course, we can't do any of those things, because voodoo dolls don't work.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
[list][*]There is no "before", before the universe was created.
|
You are assuming that there was and is only one universe. |
Er... no. i wasn't talking about other universes, i was only talking about this one. Whether or not other universes existed, i haven't said a word about. Whether other universes exist or not, this universe still did not exist before time, time was created along with the universe, so there is no "before", before the universe was created.
If you want to assume other time-axes exist (in other universes, or in some meta-universe that our universe was created in), you'd have to explain why. You have no rational justification for assuming that, after all. It's kinda like this:
"Time was created with the Big Bang, so we don't need to explain what came before."
"But i want to believe there was time before."
"Why?"
"Just because."
"But you have no reason to believe that."
"But it's not impossible, and i want to believe it."
"Ok, fine, whatever. Believe what you want."
"Good. Now. Since there was a before, that means we now need to explain what created the universe, so we need God."
"Wait... what? You made up the idea of a before with no reason. You can't make up a fact and then try to base a logical argument on it."
"Yes i can, nyah."
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indeed, this universe came from nothing. In the same way, God says he created Man from nothing. |
Er... no. The way "God says" he created man from nothing requires time. There was a before - where God intended to create man - a during - where a God did the actual creating - and an after - where man then existed. That means before man or the universe was created, according to the God-model, time must have existed in some form. In the case of the universe, this contradicts physics, and creates new questions. Because God existed before the universe, where did God come from; because time existed before the universe, where did time come from. God offers no answers to these questions; God makes no sense at all.
The Big Bang is totally different. There was nothing. No anything. Not even intention. Then a spontaneous burp, and badoom, time and space emerged and unfurled. There are no loose ends. We don't even need to ask where the burp came from, because we already know that these burps happen all the time, without obeying the rules of time or causality. Thus the Big Bang model has reasonable answers for every question we know to ask so far, and while those answers may not make sense to our common sense, they do make perfect sense mathematically, and by means of analogy to help us wrap our minds around the ideas.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | The Big Bang was a stage in history, in the same way the Ice Age was a stage in history. |
^_^; There is no way that makes any sense at all. i can be just as meaningless too - wanna see? "The Big Bang was person in history, in the same way that Bertrand Russell was a person in history."
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Time is not universal, God is. Time is relative. |
If you're just going to preach random "facts" without any logic or evidence to back them up, how do you expect anyone to take them seriously?
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | It would be very foolish to you to draw such a comparson, which seems you are constantly trying to do in you posts. Can't you understand that comparing science and religion (the way you are) is like comparing apples and oranges. They have an entirely different language. |
i am not comparing them. i wouldn't even put them in the same sentence if i had the choice. As far as i'm concerned, the relationship between science and religion is about the same as the relationship between science and fart jokes, except no one's ever died for a fart joke. But the faithful are always claiming that their religion explains or can explain the universe at least as well as science, if not better. Thus, i show that religion fails. That's as far as the comparison goes.
But for the record, it doesn't matter that science (sometimes!) uses the language of mathematics and religion uses... to use your phrase... the "language of signs". Irrelevant. Because whatever language each discipline (and i use the term loosely in the case of religion) uses to attempt to explain the universe, they both make that attempt. So all we have to do is look at what they say - however they say it - and see if it makes sense. Does it match what we observe? Is it internally consistent? Religion fails both tests, science fails neither.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Well religion poses the questions. Science answers them. |
Nonsense. Religion makes up problems, and then offers answers to those problems. We wouldn't need to worry about where our soul was going in the afterlife if religion hadn't made up the soul, the afterlife and a petulant god who doles out horrible suffering or wonderful happiness according to its own whims.
Science doesn't need religion to pose it questions. In fact, most of the questions religion brings up are red herrings that just waste science's time. "Where does the universe come from?" is not a religious question, it's a pragmatic question that many religions just happened to ask... but secular concerns were just as keen to know, and still are. Other questions, like what our purpose for existing is, are as much philosophical questions as they are religious questions. We don't need religion to bring up any of those questions.
As a matter of fact, as i've mentioned religion brings up questions and then answers them. This makes for some amusement when religion brings up and answers questions that science also brings up and eventually answers... because inevitably religion fails to answer them as well as science does. This kind of thing goes back thousands of years, and is happening more and more today.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Like I said before, science agrees with religion when it comes to the big bang theory. I would say it agrees with it when it comes to evolution to. Your mind may be too primitive or too biased to actually understand what religion has to say. |
You're living in a fantasy world. The real world evidence is all around, clearly visible, showing that not all religions agree with the Big Bang Theory, or the Theory of Evolution. My mind may be too primitive or biased to understand what religion has to say, but it's at least functional enough to hear what it blatantly is saying:
Christian Courier: The Big Bang Theory vs. God’s Word
ChristianAnswers.net: Was there a big bang?
Creationist.org: Warnings from God about evolutionism in the last days
Bible Life Ministries: Evolution is Dead
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: | In order to be safe, a religion would have to make no claims whatsoever about the physical universe. But how to do that? Easy:
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | That is why I said in my initial post, God comes only into question regarding the afterlife. |
Bam! That's the trick! Since the physical universe is off-limits (unless you want to risk eventually being caught in a lie by science), the trick is to make up something outside of the bounds of the physical universe... and then claim that that's the domain of religion. The afterlife is a perfect example. |
Now this is stupidity on your part. Religion is a set of ideologies, not simply the belief in God. It encompasses morals, ethics, politics, commerce and much much more.
No part of religion would go against Science. Science can never prove God, as much as science can never disprove God. |
Oh, really? Let's take this step-by-step... slowly.
First, religion is not a "set of ideologies". There are many religions, and each religion is an ideology.
Second, i never said religion was simply the belief in God... obviously it's not because some religions don't have gods. You were talking about God, so i used God as an example.
Third, as you point out, religious ideologies encompass numerous different practical disciplines. You mention morality, politics and economics and "much much more". Now, and think carefully now!, doesn't that also include beliefs about the physical universe? Hm? Before you come up with a poorly thought up denial, think about it long and hard. Pick a religion, any religion. Does that religion make no claims whatsoever about the physical universe? Or does it make some? Does it maybe talk about where the universe came from, where people came from, what makes the stars shine... anything at all? i think you'll find that every religion makes some claims about the physical universe. And if a religion makes any claims about the physical universe - which all do - then it will eventually come up against science... because science's only job is to discover every nook and cranny of the physical universe.
Still stupidity on my part? Or do you seriously believe that no religion anywhere makes claims about the physical universe?
Fourth, you just finish chastising me for talking about God as if it's the only important aspect of religion... and then you do it? Sure science can probably never disprove God, but so what? Religions make tons of claims about the physical universe that we can test. After all "religion is not simply the belief in God".
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Precisely. Science has no need for Gods. You are absolutely right. Afterall, religion is a belief system for man. Science can never provide the same belief system. The "closest", if at all closest, match in governing world affairs Science has is in economics - capitalism - i.e. the survival of the fittest - man eat man. The American health system, or US govt foreign policy is your best example on this matter . |
Now you're just getting weird. What the hell does capitalism have to do with science? What the hell does the American health system or US foreign policy have to do with science?
Do you seriously want to apply science to economics, health care policy or foreign policy? It can be done, but not as ignorantly as you seem to think. Do you understand how science works? Science basically makes a hypothesis, then checks the evidence to see if that hypothesis works, then repeats with a better hypothesis if it doesn't. Let's take health care as an example to teach you how science would really work: let's say you want to start with the hypothesis that the American health care system is the best example of a health care system... now go out and check the evidence... what's this? they have worse infant mortality rates and the lower age expectancies than comparable countries with other systems? well, then it obviously doesn't work as well those other countries' systems. So our two-second scientific test shows that it's clearly not the best system. QED.
Religious types try to characterize science as "blind", as if science were unable to pick up on obvious facts that they can see without the benefit of science. It's hard to say just how stupid that notion is without resorting to the language of the streets. Science is an experimental discipline. It works by observing, collecting facts, and then improving hypotheses based on those facts. That is the fundamental nature of what science is. If you can see evidence that something works or doesn't work, so can science. If you can see the evidence that capitalism, US health care or their foreign policy works or doesn't work, so can science.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | ThePolemistis wrote: |
It's a very recent trick - a handy way to sidestep the problem of science's advance undermining the religion. In the past, religions boldly made claims about the physical universe... no more. Now they talk about spiritual realms.
|
Really? what sort of stuff did religion state in the past about the physical universe, that they don't say today? |
Are you serious?
No, like, really... are you serious? Because this has to be the single dumbest thing i've seen written in 2008 - i can't believe you can't think of any examples, i can only believe that you're too lazy to try and just felt like being a pain in the ass and goading me to do the leg work. Are you really, really serious? You can't think of anything religion has said about the physical universe in the past? Nothing at all? Just in the time it took me to type the previous sentence i thought of half a dozen.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
But how long will it last? ^_^; i wonder. Not too long ago they thought moral realms were also safe from science. No more. How long will it be until science makes questions of "afterlives" meaningless, too?
|
Define what you mean by "moral realms"? |
Aside from the ridiculously obvious metaphorical use of "realms", i think a dictionary would help you more than i could.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Science should not go hand in hand with anything. Not religion, not politics, not economics, not morality, not popular opinion, nothing. Science is, and should remain, an independent tool to find truth.
If religion (or politics, or whatever else) wants to tag along with science as science does its job, fine... it just better not attempt to get in the way of what science has to do. (Obviously, politics, economics, morality, etc. can have a say in what experimental practices are allowed in the pursuit of scientific answers, but they cannot have a say in what questions science asks, or in the answers it gets.) |
Did I ever disagree with you on this point? |
Er... yes? You disagreed with me on the point that religion and science should not go hand in hand when you said: "Religion and science go, or rather should go, hand in hand."
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | Seems like i'm repeating myself, but science is mathematical. Religion is not. You cannot compare them on this level. |
And to repeat myself, i'm not comparing them, and you don't have to. Both make claims about the physical universe. What language they make those claims in is irrelevant. The fact is, they both make claims. The claims of both can be tested. We can compare how successful their claims are, and compare that... without ever knowing what language either science or religion uses.
It's like two kids trying to determine how many marbles are in a jar. Both kids can go about it using entirely different methods - one can check the volume of the jar and the volume of the marbles and do a mathematical calculation, while the other consults bones and entrails for signs - but eventually both come back with an answer. Without knowing how either kid got their answer, we can see how right they are, and compare that. Then we can say which one had the better method without even knowing what those methods are.
So you keep repeating that science uses math (which is not really true) and religion uses signs (which is also not really true) until you get tired of it... the fact doesn't change that both make claims about the physical universe, and those claims can be compared, even if science and religion cannot be compared directly.
| ThePolemistis wrote: | Politics is about how best a minority can rule a majority. Whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, it is all the same. The only difference is being able to choose your dictator. There has always been, and always will be, an elite (not neccessarily the govt) in which the nations interests are geared towards this elite, rather than the interests of the people. There is no science in this.
Ecnomics I would say is sciences closest ally, but still far off.
Anything to do with human choice, Science cannot answer. But that is not its purpose. That is why we have religion. |
Toward the end of your post, you really started to get into crazy country, and you're still there now. i don't see what politics, economics or any thing else has to do with science or religion. (And by the way, your definition of politics is wrong - politics is about how groups or societies manage themselves, which may (for example, a democracy or anarchy) or may not (for example, a republic or a dictatorship) involve the ruling of many by a few. And economics... science's ally!?!? ^_^; You clearly don't work in the sciences.)
The claim that science can't answer anything to do with human choice is hogwash. Pretty much every human choice can practically be made or supplemented by science today... and in theory, all choices - human or otherwise - can be made by appealing to scientific data and methods, once science advances enough. What decisions can science not make or help make today?
And if you're right and science can't answer questions involving human choice (and, no, you're not right about that), are you seriously implying religion can!?!?
|
