Seems to be a new crowd of atheists, so?

Question

Science and religion are equally inconclusive in terms of explaining the genesis of our universe, at least as we know it. Proof, you say? Go back to the big bang, a singularity holding all the matter that is now the universe in a point of infinite mass and negligible volume. My Q: what held the singularity? Could the universe have held itself PRIOR TO its own creation? If it was another universe, what held that universe and where did it begin?

Not digging for belief in God necessarily, just playing Devil's advocate here. All I am suggesting is that there's as many unanswerable Qs in science as there is in theology and both require a degree of faith.

Both the science and religion route seem to rely on a permanence of some sort. God? Another universe (or multiples)? Who knows? Do you know?

Do you ever sleep, Acid Zebra? Sweet Jesus (no pun intended).

And it's NOT a false Q anyways. Nobody knows, just like nobody knows how to prove God exists. Moreover, the conditions needed to replicate an inquiry into the matter are next to impossible, let alone drawing from such an experiment any credible results. Point blank, what was happening BEFORE the metric was all screwy and the universe started to expand? NO ONE KNOWS.

If the universe has always been, doesn't this lend creedence to the idea that there is indeed a permanence? We don't need to call it God, but SOMETHING has always been.

Answer 1

I'm not an atheist ... but here's my answer:

> "Science and religion are equally inconclusive in terms of explaining the genesis of our universe"

I don't know if you would say they are *equally* inconclusive. Depending on your point of view one is always more confident than the other of its methods. And in either case 'inconclusive' can be misinterpreted to mean "no earthly idea"

Science has a very good idea backed by a good deal of evidence ... and science always has to be logical ... however, science is *always* willing to concede uncertainty, no matter how small.

Religion is not burdened by the need for evidence or logic, or the need to concede uncertainty. So in one sense it is far more conclusive (people accept its teaching with total certainty), but in other ways it is far less conclusive (it doesn't really *explain* anything).

As for both requiring a degree of faith, this is true. But religion is *entirely* dependent on faith ... while science requires faith in only one thing: the scientific method. That's a significant difference.

That doesn't mean that either is better than the other ... only that they are different.

They are two compatible, and equally valuable, paths to truth.

To pit them in opposition to each other is a tragedy. People who feel forced to choose either religion OR science, in either case, end up poorer.

One last point. The Big Bang was originally rejected by a lot of scientists because it replaced the Steady State theory (an infinitely old universe) with what sounded a lot like religious Creationism (a specific moment of Beginning). However, the evidence won out, and the idea of a specific moment of Beginning is looking stronger and stronger scientifically. But rather than celebrate this finding, the creationists instead turn on it! Why? Because the date of this moment of beginning (12 billion years ago) doesn't match their literalist readings of Genesis 5 (the chronology of generations from Adam to Noah), and Genesis 11 (the generations from Noah to Abraham). That's it. These generations produce an age of the earth of only 6,000 years (!), which violates so many laws of physics and chemistry that there is not much of science left. Now THAT is what I mean by pitting religion ... to the point of irrationality ... against science. Science isn't doing this. And religion doesn't have to do this (the Catholic church has officially recognized that faith in Christ and acceptance of the results of modern science are not incompatible). But still the fundamentalists insist that Genesis 5 and 11 must be accepted literally, that that this trumps all of science.

And it's tragic.

Answer 2

I suppose it is a little of each. The instances are exchanging, while you had been my age (20) there have been hardly ever any books approximately atheism and the media didn't consciousness on it. So maybe you had been hesitant to talk approximately it. But now society has come to be extra open and inclined to hear distinct evaluations. There is not a stigma like there used to earlier than. In my tradition & faith elegance, we used to talk about faith and I used the identical tone and identical phrases I use right here. Everyone in that elegance knew I was once atheist and no person stressed me for it. This different lady was once much more vocal. I additionally realize of this man who once we first met had no quandary telling me he was once atheist or even did a presentation at the violence that is going on in Buddhism (supposedly a peaceable faith). He had no qualms together with his non-ideals. I additionally suppose the web makes even probably the most meek very imply. Since it is an nameless discussion board and none folks are ever going to satisfy. We can say what we real think and suppose with out repercussions or worry that we might get stares. But I do not suppose it is just us the more youthful ones, I suppose the older ones too are competitive or much more.

Answer 3

just imagine for a second that religion hadn't stuck it's nose in science's business. The Bible never mentions creation at all. It just talks about morality and some history of humanity. Is absense of scientific fact on the origin of the universe proof of anything? No. So someone just says some magic thing did it, and all of a sudden science has to immediately counter the claim or risk getting pushed out of the way?

Of course there are as many unanswerED questions in science as religion, the difference is that science makes progress, tries to answer those questions, whilst religion, in its own words, is static, saying the Bible is the Word and nothing else matters.

Now if you want to say that God exists, fine. Even to say that there is proof because we don't know how it could have happened otherwise, is acceptable. The problem comes when you start doing specific things in the name of your "proof", like preventing stem cell research and acceptance of homosexuality.

Answer 4

When I think about these things, I usually come to my own conclusion that the universe is always contracting then expanding. Before this universe was another universe which imploded then exploded (big bang) into the one we know. Before that was another one, etc.. Eventually, I think this universe will shrink and compress down to nothing then there will be another 'big bang' and a new universe. That's just something I think sometimes but I obviously don't know!

If you are talking about astrophysics, I thought the singularity held itself. It's own gravitational pull is enough. I don't see what else would need to hold it because it would be all there was.

I agree there are a lot of unanswered questions. Unfortunately, a lot of scientific questions are answerable but most of us don't understand the 'lingo' and it's difficult for us to understand when it's explained to us. I certainly didn't get a degree in this.

Answer 5

my question also you just wrote yours better i have an idea i have used a bit this may prove unsatifactory to you as well but here it is my idea universe built by ordinay people also ordinary people after a time could make people once all the right technology is in place it looks to me like this is starting now all that is required is more advances in medicine ,cloning, and research in to how to create a human out of cells and this can be applied to create animals as well also if you look at the evidence of ages of people you can see people are living longer my thought is there is nothing magical in this so is it any stretch that people could live longer yet this is placed in the realm of science fiction and fantasy and people go around saying things like magic is impossible why not all it is is solar power drawn from the ground another thing people say with giving their evidence people want to beleive in elves my point is if so could people through science bring them into existance if so why not is a change in ear structure hard to come by if people were to have a different ear structure we not elves would not exist we would be the fairy tales so no one should be so sure until all explanations are explored and all avenues explored and explained before saying elves do not exist another one of my thoughts is this well an elf is just a human dressed up in pointy ears so then why are the ears of people shaped like they are and can it be possible to use genetic manipulation to make them pointy for instance and how different is a human from an elf anyway only in appearence and without the long age you have a pointy eared human then as i have written you go full circle medical advances nothing fantastic are humans magical i do not think of mtself as particularly magical but i would be to someone if things were different i would be in a fairytale book speaking of which tech could account for universe but iam assured this is prepostourus almost as submarines,aircraft, space craft, radio and everything else i wonder

Answer 6

the universe wasn't created. it just was. the amount of matter in the world never changes, it only shifts. so says the 1st law of thermodynamics.

to say that god created the world implies that it came from nothing, which denies this principle.


if christians can choose to accept that god always was, then my choice to accept that the universe just always was is equally valid.

Answer 7

Hallelujah! Although what have I got to lose by believing in a creator who promises eternal life on a perfect paradise earth as opposed to a big bang that does zilch for me? and who couldn't care less what I believe! Not to mention the fact that science has now proven the fact that prayer itself helps everyone in their recovery process... faith itself moves mountains! at least problems as big as mountains and it has done this for me so much that it has left not one iota of any doubt whatsoever in my mind anymore that there is a God... And like I said, if not, if it proved to be just the power of my own mind that has allowed me such happiness and inner peace in spite of any imaginable crap this world has ever thrown my way, what have I really got to lose??? Except perhaps a sense of utter hopelessness in nothingness in just a few years??? I believe in God! and always will! Walk a mile in my shoes and I guarantee you would too!

Answer 8

It still makes more sense than a God that was always there and then thaught the universe into existence.

Answer 9

"My Q: what held the singularity"

FALSE QUESTION.

The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them.

Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.

Answer 10

Oh who cares? what are you doing with your life is what's important, and if all your doing is arguing about something that happened umpety-trillion years ago, you've completely missed the point!