your theory for the beginning of the world?
- Thread starter gravitate
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, one day God and his roommate Steve were playing the Xbox 360, and then God let out a massive fart.
And then was the universe.
/joke
And then was the universe.
/joke
Yeah, they are. Scientists who claim otherwise are at best attempting to avoid religion's ire and at worst intellectually dishonest religious apologists.believer258 said:
Science is the most widely accepted version of empiricism. It is (or at least derived from) a doctrine that states that the only things that provably exist are those things which are hypothetically directly observable. God cannot be directly observed and ergo does not exist within an empirical framework such as science. To claim otherwise is to lack understanding of what is meant by empiricism.
Well, it's about the early development of the universe, where this big explosion occurred.ZeZZZZevy said:
There have been other explosions, such as stars going supernova, after it, creating new elements and spreading them around, though. But they are a bit separate thing, even if the Big Bang model was wrong (as far as I know, it's currently the best theory about the early development of the universe) there are still these other explosions and formations of planets and such, and their existence wouldn't come into question even if there was no Big Bang.
This is not my field at all, either, geology and biology is.
Im not a militant atheist or anything, i'd probably describe myself as an agnostic atheist. Unconvinced by any religeous doctrine although i dont 100% rule out the possibility of a "god" as it is a theory unable to be disproved but believe its existence to be highely unlikely.believer258 said:
But your saying the universe began as the bible (genesis specifically) describes yet, say science and god arent mutually exclusive.
God apparently created light before any source of light (stars ect) this in itself is a complete contradiction to the scientific laws of light.
Electrons dropping energy levels (as observed in decomposing/radioactive atoms) emit photons which as you well know are light, why would god create random photons before deciding screw it, i cant be bothered continuing to make these i'll get stars and other substances to continue light production.
Now i could go on and give multiple examples of how genesis scientifically doesnt make sense but you get the general idea.
tl;dr you cant have your cake and eat it too.
I know a bit about that, I've just never really looked into it. Space/creation never really interested me, because it's all in the past. Sure it's important, but nothing I really need to worry about, I'm far more interested in where our universe is heading, i.e. will it continually grow farther and farther apart until all the suns burn out and everything else freezes? Or will some other result occur?Lieju said:
Also sometimes I don't think at all before I post, I didn't expect to be pulled into a scientific discussion. (and yes I believe the big bang is still the most widely accepted theory, the only problem being what caused it. Whether or not that was ever explained escapes me)
"First God made heaven & earth The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."madwarper said:
Three days later
"And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also"
Three days after making light he makes stars. Ok.
Makes perfect scientific sense.
As i already said light doesnt come from nowhere it needs a source. Unless god bends his own physical laws for the first 3 "days" and then decides to make light come from the stars and other sources.
There are various reasons why the big bang is the going theory e.g all the residual radiation in the universe, It fits with other anomaly's e.g our ever expanding universe ect.believer258 said:
Tbh nobody can claim yip big bang defo, but to say god did it with his MIND is supported by virtually no evidence so cant be used as a scientific theory. And the only evidence backing up his existance is a book so full of scientific impossibility's and outright errors it cant be taken seriously as evidence
Actually we can see the big bang theory by observing its effects, like background radiation. All science is testable prediction, including theoretical physics. In physics those predictions tend to focus on the minutiae of equations and how artefacts like background radiation prove or disprove a theory.believer258 said:
The reason soft-sciences, like evolutionary psychology, are laughed at by real scientists is because they offer no way for the data presented by the world to disprove them.
God is incompatible with science as its existence cannot be disproved, it's really the ability to disprove a thing through observation that qualifies it for entry into science. It's called falsificationism.
I believe in a circle of universes in which one ends with a cosmic implosion that sounds a lot like someone shouting "SHIT!" and a new one begins with a cosmic explosion that sounds a lot like someone shouting "FUCK!"
here is the problem. you are using a wrong word. Theory, in regards to the beginning of the world, is the term given to "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:" (Oxford dictionary) so any person's ASSUMPTION is not a THEORY.gravitate said:
also, you said big band and evolution in regard to the origin of life, which inform me that more than likely you have little to no understanding of either of these scientific theories. Big Bang is an expansion event explaining the expansion of space time from a singularity (or something like that, anyway.) Evolution in general, means decent with modification, that parents give offspring various genetics, and the offspring is more or less able toy live in an environment (or something similar to that, anyway.) neither of the events explain the origins of life. and Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the earth. Big Bang also do not really explain the origins of the earth.
I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that scientists agree that the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago from clumps of matter being attracted to each other.
I think the world is full of mystery. my life itself and the people i know are full of mystery. once i die, i might maybe know a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a percent of the universe's mysteries. While this might be one of them that i know one day, it's probably doomed to forever be a mystery to mankind.
Until we science it hard enough, of course.
Until we science it hard enough, of course.
They actually are. Science is fact based, religion is faith based. Science describes how something occurs, religion can describe why something occurs. They are completely exclusive to eachother in a way that they should never conflict.believer258 said: