Science and Religion questions (3 Viewers)

[magnifier661]

It seems to me there are a few important components to the Big Bang timeline. First was the instance of the singularity, and at that moment, laws break down and even the best theoretical physicists don't know what was going on. All the forces are intertwined and part of the same. The next important moment is when quantum theory takes over. At this moments, the physicists have a decent grip on what was going on since their models can be built around actual equations that have definitive laws. Following that moment, still just a tiny fraction of the first second, Classical Physics takes root along with quantum physics.

Is there matter at the big bang? depends on which of my previous moments you are talking about. The first one, most likely not in the form that we understand it. The second moment, there is matter, but it is still coupled with energy. sometime during the second moment but before the third, matter as we understand it comes into play and matter is uncoupled from energy.

This is all just my breaking it down, I could be bat-shit crazy.

it's a very logical reasoning and I respect it. But it's no different than a theist believing that a creator started it all. You even said yourself that in the beginning physicist don't know what was in singularity; which is about as empirical as the bible saying God created the universe.

 

[Further]

it's a very logical reasoning and I respect it. But it's no different than a theist believing that a creator started it all. You even said yourself that in the beginning physicist don't know what was in singularity; which is about as empirical as the bible saying God created the universe.

I don't disagree. I put my faith in science, and that means that I can only believe as far as science can explain. right now, science has a pretty good grasp on what happened after .000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,43 seconds post big bang. before that, I don't know. Before that, I don't think anyone knows. Difference is, the religious person will insert their own deity into that instance.

Now I could be wrong, and perhaps scientists have a better understanding than I give them credit for, but I am not aware of that information so I can only rely on what I know.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't disagree. I put my faith in science, and that means that I can only believe as far as science can explain. right now, science has a pretty good grasp on what happened after .000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,43 seconds post big bang. before that, I don't know. Before that, I don't think anyone knows. Difference is, the religious person will insert their own deity into that instance.

Now I could be wrong, and perhaps scientists have a better understanding than I give them credit for, but I am not aware of that information so I can only rely on what I know.

My problem is that I yearn to know about creation. Most atheists don't really care.

 

[crowTrobot]

Now I could be wrong, and perhaps scientists have a better understanding than I give them credit for

nope, they still have no clue at this point. only speculative theories with no means to test.

key is they generally don't pretend to know what the big bang was, unlike theists.

 

[magnifier661]

nope, they still have no clue at this point. only speculative theories with no means to test.

key is they generally don't pretend to know what the big bang was, unlike theists.

And for the atheist; they are fine ignoring creation because it doesn't suit their beliefs.

 

[crowTrobot]

My problem is that I yearn to know about creation.

this is an odd yearning for a theist to have.

if god is responsible for the origin of the universe it would have to be through means that are intrinsically beyond our ability to comprehend - it would seem like magic to us no matter how we though about it. this is because if it were to have happened through physical processes within our ability to comprehend, the universe could always be responsible for its own existence and god would not be necessary.

mags, you seem to be a closet agnostic

 

[crowTrobot]

And for the atheist; they are fine ignoring creation because it doesn't suit their beliefs.

if by creation you mean the big bang and related subjects such as quantum gravity, they are currently among the most studied subjects in all of science.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

My problem is that I yearn to know about creation. Most atheists don't really care.

This has got to be a joke. Every single atheist I have ever talked to would love to know exactly how everything began. For the most part, the religious don't give a fuck, cause they already have their made up answer. I don't know how you believe the things you type, it's ridiculous.

 

[magnifier661]

mags, you seem to be a closet agnostic

Lol!!!!

 

[magnifier661]

This has got to be a joke. Every single atheist I have ever talked to would love to know exactly how everything began. For the most part, the religious don't give a fuck, cause they already have their made up answer. I don't know how you believe the things you type, it's ridiculous.

Made up? And what empirical evidence do you have that supports its made up? As for creation; they would just assume to say "I don't know, therefor I leave it at that". They may want to know about creation; but if it comes with god being the author; they would rather ignore it.

 

[magnifier661]

if by creation you mean the big bang and related subjects such as quantum gravity, they are currently among the most studied subjects in all of science.

That's what I mean. I have a deep level of respect for cosmology. I think it's important for the future to discover everything they can about the past.

And then you have the wannabe's that think plasma is not matter or energy isn't matter.

 

[crowTrobot]

As for creation; they would just assume to say "I don't know, therefor I leave it at that". They may want to know about creation; but if it comes with god being the author; they would rather ignore it.

not sure what you're saying, but if there was any evidence for an intelligent creator scientists certainly would not ignore it. on the contrary many would be all over it since proving ID would mean certain nobel prizes.

 

[crowTrobot]

And then you have the wannabe's that think plasma is not matter or energy isn't matter.

i don't think the particulars of your exchange with denny are important, since the point you were trying to make reduces to "something can't come from nothing", and you are correct that the big bang, whatever it was, was something.

what is important is that scientists generally don't agree with your assertion that the big bang, or the multiverse, or "the matter/energy that exists" (or whatever you want to specify) must necessarily have had a beginning and necessarily be finite.

 

[mook]

Made up? And what empirical evidence do you have that supports its made up? As for creation; they would just assume to say "I don't know, therefor I leave it at that". They may want to know about creation; but if it comes with god being the author; they would rather ignore it.

You really think atheists would rather be wrong than admit that God really did create everything?

I guess I've met a few atheists like that. But that's pretty rare. Most of them (my wife included) seem to just want the no-bullshit answer. They don't find "god did it because so-and-so 3000 years ago said so" very convincing. And for pretty good reason. There's a pretty remarkable track record of those people 3000 years ago (and the countless interpretations of them ever since) being wrong.

 

[Further]

I have a vague memory from high school, learning about the Big Bang, and the teacher saying we have a good understanding after the first two seconds. Now we have a good understanding up to the tiniest fraction of a second. Never has so much effort been made by so many brilliant people to understand less than two seconds.

Of course athiests are interested in how it all began, but can only go so far as science takes us, or if we really want to stretch it, as far as logic can take us. But where science and logic break down, we can't just make stuff up.

However, I do think that if you are going to be religious, it is best if the beliefs don't contradict nature. You saying that god exists where there is no time or space, and set the Big Bang ablaze is not something that I see any evidence for, but at least it could possibly be true. So this is the best possible version of religion in my mind, one that can harmonize with science.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Made up? And what empirical evidence do you have that supports its made up? As for creation; they would just assume to say "I don't know, therefor I leave it at that". They may want to know about creation; but if it comes with god being the author; they would rather ignore it.

I don't need to prove something is made up unless it has proof it's not made up.

You have absolutely no idea what atheists want to know, because we want to know everything that can be known. Again, not one single atheist I have ever met would ignore evidence for an intelligent creator. Not one single atheist I have ever known has voiced anything to the tune of "I don't want God to exist." In fact, many say they hope he does. I fear the opinions you have of atheists are the ones driven at society by the religious.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

However, I do think that if you are going to be religious, it is best if the beliefs don't contradict nature. You saying that god exists where there is no time or space, and set the Big Bang ablaze is not something that I see any evidence for, but at least it could possibly be true. So this is the best possible version of religion in my mind, one that can harmonize with science.

The religious constantly change their beliefs as they become incompatible with science.. Just so their beliefs could possibly be true. It's not good to encourage.

 

[Further]

The religious constantly change their beliefs as they become incompatible with science.. Just so their beliefs could possibly be true. It's not good to encourage.

I've had this exact debate on here recently. My only question to you is, if we could get all the religious people to adjust their beliefs to pair with science, do you think the world would be better off?

 

[Denny Crane]

I have a vague memory from high school, learning about the Big Bang, and the teacher saying we have a good understanding after the first two seconds. Now we have a good understanding up to the tiniest fraction of a second. Never has so much effort been made by so many brilliant people to understand less than two seconds.

Of course athiests are interested in how it all began, but can only go so far as science takes us, or if we really want to stretch it, as far as logic can take us. But where science and logic break down, we can't just make stuff up.

However, I do think that if you are going to be religious, it is best if the beliefs don't contradict nature. You saying that god exists where there is no time or space, and set the Big Bang ablaze is not something that I see any evidence for, but at least it could possibly be true. So this is the best possible version of religion in my mind, one that can harmonize with science.

There's as much evidence of that as there is of some smurf setting the big bang ablaze.

 

[Further]

There's as much evidence of that as there is of some smurf setting the big bang ablaze.

I'm not disagreeing with you ( fucking smurfs ) but all I'm saying is that there is not all the baggage with that belief as there is with creationism or other strict religious beliefs that don't allow for the freedom of science to search, explore and grow. Bad shit comes from zealots, denial of science bad policy with all its consequences, but if someone believes a smurf kicked this house party into effect, no bad consequences as long as they don't deny what science demonstrates.

 

[magnifier661]

i don't think the particulars of your exchange with denny are important, since the point you were trying to make reduces to "something can't come from nothing", and you are correct that the big bang, whatever it was, was something.

what is important is that scientists generally don't agree with your assertion that the big bang, or the multiverse, or "the matter/energy that exists" (or whatever you want to specify) must necessarily have had a beginning and necessarily be finite.

Finite? No it's really quite simple. You and the others in here say they want no bullshit. You and many in here say they base their opinions on the facts associated with science.

Well guess what? Science say that matter cannot be made from non matter. That means the beginning; with current science; something or someone put that matter there that is outside of matter.

I bring up Denny and his inability to associate plasma not being matter; cause many "atheists" don't get the simple rule. Matter cannot exist without matter creating it. The funny thing is Denny even said that all the matter in the universe always existed; which is a total contradiction to the science we know now.

Then the vanilla gorilla tells me I have made up stories; but he ignores what science says is impossible. Matter cannot exist unless it is created by matter. It's a scientific law. It can't be proven otherwise.

And all of you claim that you welcome any idea of a creator; yet you ignore the scientific law? Lol

 

[magnifier661]

There's as much evidence of that as there is of some smurf setting the big bang ablaze.

Just like the evidence that supports your claim that plasma isn't matter? Lmao

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This cracked me up

 

[magnifier661]

This cracked me up

There is historical evidence that there was a Jesus of Nazareth that existed. So yeah it's really funny of its ignorance.

 

[ABM]

There is historical evidence that there was a Jesus of Nazareth that existed. So yeah it's really funny of its ignorance.

I've heard Sly was a lousy swimmer.

 

[crowTrobot]

That means the beginning; with current science;

there is no scientific evidence there was a beginning at all in the sense you mean.

you have to accept that nobody knows what the situation was at the big bang, knobody knows what caused it or if our notion of causality is applicable, nobody knows what can or does exist external to our local spacetime that emerged from the big bang (assuming it actually did), and nobody knows what properties something external could have including anything related to finiteness. as far as we know a multiverse if one exists could be causally and/or spatially infinite.

for that matter we don't even know for sure if our local spacetime is finite or not. the expansion we see could just be part of a much larger hidden structure.

this subject is almost entirely speculative, and scientists readily admit that.

theists do not. they are the ones who claim to know what happened. a theist who admits he is speculating is an agnostic.

 

[blazerboy30]

This has got to be a joke. Every single atheist I have ever talked to would love to know exactly how everything began. For the most part, the religious don't give a fuck, cause they already have their made up answer. I don't know how you believe the things you type, it's ridiculous.

Oh dear, you're back at it trying to call yourself an atheist as long as you can change the definition of atheist to suit your needs.

The funny thing here is that you you want to ridicule the religious about already having their minds made up, even though you already have your mind made up. If you don't have your mind made up, you aren't an atheist.

Further, if you're an atheist, then your position is a pretty difficult one since it is impossible to prove the lack of existence of something.

 

[blazerboy30]

theists do not. they are the ones who claim to know what happened. a theist who admits he is speculating is an agnostic.

And atheists who admit they are speculating are agnostic.

 

[crowTrobot]

And atheists who admit they are speculating are agnostic.

most atheists ARE agnostics.

 

[SlyPokerDog]