Science fundies?

Question

Ok, ok. Re. a Q askin g about the Big Bang and what caused it...

I know and understand science pretty well. I took several college courses in both astronomy and physics (both cornerstones in understanding the most elemental nature of the universe and "its" creation, and did pretty good in them, too!) I offer a few points to everyone who cites science as an ultimate explanation for the genesis of the universe we exist in and are learning about.
1. We don't know how much there is to "know", to learn about the universe. How will we even "know" when we know all we need to know? I further contend that there will always be questions to be answered and, moreover, that new discoveries spawn more Q's.
2. Our knowledge of the universe will be lost in two areas of basic human understanding; time-space and physics. OUR universe exists in "time" we are still grasping, trying to understand, but the forces that existed and possibly generated our uni did not necessarily obey the same laws of

either time or physics. We can't test "alternate" laws of either, and even if we could, which would we decide on?

My thought is that both faith and science end in the same place: uncertainty. Respectful opinions are appreciated.

I am merely stating that, in my mind, science and faith end in the same place and further asking for opinions on this idea. So, you asked for a Q??? Here it is: what do you think of this, have to say on the matter I propose?

Again, tawaen-

I am saying you are putting a measure of blind faith in science, that it too leads to a stalemate. I suggest this respectfully and hope you will respond to this allegation with equal respect.

Answer 1

well now, you wouldn't claim to know that there will always be more questions would you? certainly if the past is anything to go by, new discoveries will indeed spawn more questions. some may hope for a grand unified theory in physics but physics has felt itself on the brink of such things before... right before the discovery of radioactivity and quantum mechanics. and physics is not all of science.

"but the forces that existed and possibly generated our uni did not necessarily obey the same laws of either time or physics. We can't test "alternate" laws of either, and even if we could, which would we decide on?"

i partly agree here, this is why i think that arguments equating biblical creation with the big bang are far from conclusive. but the way to test alternate laws has always been comparison with observation - more definitive observations are required. detecting gravity waves for instance may be just over the horizon, and there's the LHC about to turn on which may shed some light on physics at the energies likely to occur near the big bang.

meanwhile, when has the proposition that god is responsible for some phenomena EVER lead to an advancement in knowledge? at best, it comforts some people about their lack of knowledge, and maybe comfort isn't what we need anyway.

Answer 2

Try this:

"1. We don't know how much there is to "know", to learn about the universe. How will we even "know" when we know all we need to know?"

When travelling down an unfamiliar road, you don't know where it leads, however, when the road ends, you are aware that you have reached its conclusion.

"2. Our knowledge of the universe will be lost in two areas of basic human understanding; time-space and physics. OUR universe exists in "time" we are still grasping, trying to understand, but the forces that existed and possibly generated our uni did not necessarily obey the same laws of either time or physics. We can't test "alternate" laws of either, and even if we could, which would we decide on?"

If these laws exist today and are true, they also existed in the beginning. If, on the other hand, they are false, science will show the way through yet another law.

You want faith? Have faith in science.

Answer 3

Science can only be certain of things that are testable and repeatable.

I know there are those who have been on this forum who disagree, but I earned much of my living working in the area of science as an engineer. My ministry was a second career.

I also know that there is nothing that is linear, everything is in constant change. If we have observed for 100 years a substance that has a life span greater than 100 years, we can only guess as to the declining rate of that substance. It is not an absolute. We might think it is, but it is not.

Prior to the mid 1800's science was not so absolute over what they seem to be absolute over today. I might add that the pronouncements of science on a single subject seem to change almost every decade.

Fred L, Even Einstein believed that we only know about 2% of all there is to know about the universe, and that there is still 98% to be explored.

grace2u

Answer 4

1.) The difference between faith and science is that science doesn't set up arbitrary limits as to what humanity should be allowed to know or ask questions about.

2.) As Stephen Hawking rightly pointed out, what the universe was like before the Big Bang is completely irrelevant, because we can never get back there to experience it even if we wanted to; so it's pretty pointless to waste too much time speculating about it.

Answer 5

1. Science is dynamic. If a theory is falsified, they work around it or start a new theory. We learn more and more about the universe this way. It's true that we may not know everything, but we're working on it as hard as we can.
2. Also true, and is a great consideration while pondering the big bang theory. It happened about 23 billion years ago (according to our perception of time) and created the universe. We still don't know what sparked it, but there is significant evidence indicating that it did in fact happen.

Answer 6

There's supposed to be a question... Maybe it's hiding somewhere!

Ah, ok, it's a "Why can't we all just get along" thing.

Yes, we may never know our origins. I can accept that. But I can't accept something that offers no proof and relies on blind submission to dogma, regardless of fact or sensibility. So, regardless of whether science is ever capable of answering the hard questions, I cannot accept the easy answer. Sorry.

Answer 7

Yes, indeed there are - I've met quite a few, and I've found their complete insistence that there is nothing of value in religion, and that all those with religious beliefs, no matter how liberal, are stupid/evil, quite offensive. I'd just ignore the fundamental atheists. Their views are just as harsh and uncompromising as the fundamentalists they claim to oppose, and they're just a different side of the same coin.

Answer 8

For me it is quiet simple..

Religious explanations to things does not nor will ever hold water.

Science does hold water, YES! There are things that we still do not know the answer to; but science does not simply give up it continues to study and seek answers; unlike religion that simply throws it hands in the air and say GOD DID IT to every type of question.

Answer 9

So, something is very difficult to understand, and perhaps we will never truly undertand it. So soes this mean there has to be a god? That I must belive in a god because I can't figure out an answer to every question? No.

Life is all about dealing with stuff with too little information. It is not about refusing to ask questions because we know we might not like the answers or there may not even be any answers.

Answer 10

I thought fundies were those two people underware they sold in novelty shops in the 80's?