ChatterBank2 mins ago
religious belief and science
First off, I'm an atheist.
I see no good reason to believe in some 'higher' power.
Religion to me is goblydegook, superstition and nothing more.
However,
I cannot wrap my head around the idea that nothing created nothing and that nothing (that was not created) became something.And that something, (that came from nothing) became something. (IE, the universe).
What am I missing?
Maybe its faith? (only half kidding here)
Just cant get it.
I see no good reason to believe in some 'higher' power.
Religion to me is goblydegook, superstition and nothing more.
However,
I cannot wrap my head around the idea that nothing created nothing and that nothing (that was not created) became something.And that something, (that came from nothing) became something. (IE, the universe).
What am I missing?
Maybe its faith? (only half kidding here)
Just cant get it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kryptic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
you have to black box it, your head cannot conceive because we are tied up in concepts that are irrelevant. All time and space where created at the BB. So words like "Before" are always going to be out of place. I find it easier to concentrate on the 99.9999% that fits with observation and theory and I stick the other bit in a mental "black box". It's a useful technique to get past what is impossible to visualise.
"believers say God did it; scientists don't"
That implies if you are a scientist then you can not also be a believer in one of the religions, which is demonstrably untrue. One can study science and hold the view that it is only giving information about one aspect of reality.
The concepts are difficult to get to grips with. First it is thought that time only starts when there is space and matter, so there would be no time before the big bang. Unless of course you believe in an oscillating universe that contracts then expands again.
And what of the thought that event s in an existing universe can create others ? In the new universe time has just started, but in the universe that kicked them off, time has been running for quite a while.
But this doesn't really explain why such things as the uncertainty principle exists to kick a universe off in the first place. Even if time started for that universe as it came into existence what causes the maths to exist to allow it ?
I think it is reasonable to believe there must be a first cause for it all, and one is entitled to consider this cause 'God' if they wish. But at least part of the way back is the idea that you can not apply cause & effect to the quantum domain so trying & failing to avoid references to time and position, it is inevitable the at some point something comes into existence, no matter how long the odds against it., and then all you need is for that to trigger a big bang type scenario.
That implies if you are a scientist then you can not also be a believer in one of the religions, which is demonstrably untrue. One can study science and hold the view that it is only giving information about one aspect of reality.
The concepts are difficult to get to grips with. First it is thought that time only starts when there is space and matter, so there would be no time before the big bang. Unless of course you believe in an oscillating universe that contracts then expands again.
And what of the thought that event s in an existing universe can create others ? In the new universe time has just started, but in the universe that kicked them off, time has been running for quite a while.
But this doesn't really explain why such things as the uncertainty principle exists to kick a universe off in the first place. Even if time started for that universe as it came into existence what causes the maths to exist to allow it ?
I think it is reasonable to believe there must be a first cause for it all, and one is entitled to consider this cause 'God' if they wish. But at least part of the way back is the idea that you can not apply cause & effect to the quantum domain so trying & failing to avoid references to time and position, it is inevitable the at some point something comes into existence, no matter how long the odds against it., and then all you need is for that to trigger a big bang type scenario.
If God was there to create the 'big bang' then how did he get there? You can not get something out of nothing still applies.
There are some things that we just don't understand but more scientific advances might give us the answer one day.
To me, religion make no sense. It is so full of contradiction that overall it is a paradox in itself.
There are some things that we just don't understand but more scientific advances might give us the answer one day.
To me, religion make no sense. It is so full of contradiction that overall it is a paradox in itself.
You have heard of the Big Bang, but have you heard of the Big Crunch ? The theory goes like this
1) the universe expands until it can't expand any more,
2)then it starts shrinking
3) it shrinks until the Big Crunch happens, when everything smashes together again.
4)|There is so much energy in the Big Crunch that there is another Big Bang.
5) Then the Universe starts expanding again
repeat stages 1,2,3,4,5 again and again and again and again and again. . . .
1) the universe expands until it can't expand any more,
2)then it starts shrinking
3) it shrinks until the Big Crunch happens, when everything smashes together again.
4)|There is so much energy in the Big Crunch that there is another Big Bang.
5) Then the Universe starts expanding again
repeat stages 1,2,3,4,5 again and again and again and again and again. . . .
Rov: wrote: "You have to ask yourself that a human can never have more knowledge than nature itself. Although scientists are discovering life research will always continue because they can never surpass what is already here."
What you have written doesn't make any sense to me, Rov. Can you or anyone else explain it to me?
What you have written doesn't make any sense to me, Rov. Can you or anyone else explain it to me?
I don't see how it points to an intelligence Rov. We can always be of the view that things happen because they obey certain rules that are unknown to all and not enforced by an intelligence. But yes we can not know everything to perfect accuracy. We don't even have a perfect value for pi yet, and probably never will. But I restate that if you believe in a first cause you can opt to call it God if you wish, and if you'd like to think of it as being an intelligent entity then that is your prerogative.
As for the question about how God got there first, well all that indicates is that we don't have a complete grasp of these issues, but since such an entity would exist outside of time, the how did it get there before, wouldn't really apply. It's at least if not more relevant to ask how it could not always be there.
Time is probably an illusion anyway. I suspect it exists at the same instant, we are just perceiving the illusion of passing through it on one possible path ;-)
As for the question about how God got there first, well all that indicates is that we don't have a complete grasp of these issues, but since such an entity would exist outside of time, the how did it get there before, wouldn't really apply. It's at least if not more relevant to ask how it could not always be there.
Time is probably an illusion anyway. I suspect it exists at the same instant, we are just perceiving the illusion of passing through it on one possible path ;-)
The one lesson from history is that most scientific theories are wrong or incomplete. The Big Bang is an obvious fudge, as is the dark matter theory.
I don't think our brains are capable of understanding our universe as yet, just as a beetle can't understand the actions of the solar system.
So carry on theorising, and leave our descendants more intelligent, and in a few milion years, someone, probably a machine intelligence, will come up with the grand unified theory of everything.
I don't think our brains are capable of understanding our universe as yet, just as a beetle can't understand the actions of the solar system.
So carry on theorising, and leave our descendants more intelligent, and in a few milion years, someone, probably a machine intelligence, will come up with the grand unified theory of everything.
Mmm. Whilst agreeing that calling something a fudge without saying why they believe that is so, isn't ideal, but I don't believe it's as bad as you make out. Throughout the ages one explanation has fallen, or at the very least gets modified, when another is suggested that predicts reality more accurately. And a regular read of magazines such as New Scientist or Scientific American will show that not everyone in the science field agrees with every presently most accepted theory. It wouldn't do if they did.
"creation" is a religious concept implying a creator or creators, all we can say is that there is something and try to make sense of that, you could try going to youtube and watching "a universe from nothing" for the science, but I think it's ok to not know, better to admit that than claim some imaginary friend poofed it into existence by magic.
