Quote:
The scientific theory is that the Universe started as a fluctuation of the vacuum. Such vacuum fluctuations make appear a small amount of energy, for a small time. This phenomenon is responsible for the existence of forces, that hold the Universe and matter together.
Normally the bigger the energy fluctuation, the smaller the time it is in existence.
Not so the Big Bang. That was a HUGE fluctuation. So big that a lot of energy came to appearance in the form of mass, elementary particles. These particles started expanding, before the vacuum could reclaim the energy.
And it is still expanding today. 14 billion years later.
End Quote
My comment: I believe in science, and the universe is 14 Billion year old, etc. However, the creation or start of the universe is a mystery. It seems unreasonable to say it was uncaused, or, to speculate without data or any evidence, as a science fiction writer would. Caveat Emptor.
2006-10-19 07:22:38 · 6 answers · asked by Cogito Sum 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The write-up was in a factual voice, not speculative.
In the scientific method, when I speculated, I said, the data suggests, etc.
So I firmly disagree.
2006-10-19 07:31:34 · update #1
a_delphic_oracle:
I know we will not know the answers to this. However, the naturalist answers, which sound so factual, lead us away from being able to justify, philosphically, and intellectually, there is room for a creator.
I would rather based philosophy on the fact a creator likely exists, and he created us for a reason, and that life is meaningful.
The unavoidable conclusion if life is soles materialsitic is that in the grand scheme of nature, our lives are meaningless. That's likely a bad conclusion, thus, there is a flaw in materialism.
2006-10-19 07:38:38 · update #2
Perry L.: Wish more people thought like you.
2006-10-19 07:40:20 · update #3
craig, you missed the point. Since it is not clear one way or the other, then, a creator is still on option. Also, I beg to differ, the scientific evidence is pointing away from materialistic answers. It is science fiction to determine a cause for the universe. The origins of life get harder and harder to explain. Consciousness cannot be related to matter, it seems to be independent of matter.
I wish you all the best, but, do not that certain of highly unproven hypothesis.
2006-10-19 09:52:36 · update #4
I don't believe we will know the details of how it all began. I am comfortable with that and enjoy the Earth just as it is.
I tend to believe in a Divine power having something to do with creation. I am not positive of this.
I DO believe life is meaningful and that there are no coincidences.
2006-10-19 07:29:59 · answer #1 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with you. The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know what 90% of the universe is "made" of and will probably never be able to see it. Our most advanced theories such as super-string may also be ultimately unprovable. It seems this physical existence is in fact locked into something that is really on a sliver of reality which by deduction tells us there is in fact a high probability of there being something else...to put it scientifically. In other words there is a God.
I personally believe in the Qu'ran and try to follow Islam and be a good Muslim. I have found no conflict between science and Islam except where science and knowledge are used to destroy humans and the environment.
2006-10-19 14:37:54 · answer #2 · answered by Perry L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You said:
"I would rather based philosophy on the fact a creator likely exists, and he created us for a reason, and that life is meaningful."
While this notion may be very comforting to you, it is scientifically untenable. The whole point of science is to avoid preconceptions and let the evidence speak for itself- and speak it does, whether you listen or not. At the moment, all available evidence seems to be biased against the existence of god(s). Sorry about that, but that's how science works.
2006-10-19 15:07:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it's reasonable to speculate without any evidence, the author is merely speculating and not trying to present a definitive answer, scientists do this constantly, it's actually part of the scientific method.
It's not a "factual voice", the author is obviously speculating.
2006-10-19 14:28:36 · answer #4 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's big talk from a little cat.
Good points though.
2006-10-19 14:26:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe in an "old" earth. An old earth belief takes a lot of faith.
2006-10-19 14:25:16 · answer #6 · answered by aarondarling 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋