The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

Hello ATS,
Though this is my first post I have been visiting and reading for a while now. I must say I'm a bit baffled by these "science vs religion" type threads lately. My personal belief is that someday, perhaps not likely in my lifetime, the two will intersect. While this may be widening the scope of the op consider the following: recently a thread appeared arguing that the theory of evolution was bunk and that the chances of life appearing from the primordial soup was so low that it was utterly impossible. Next we get into a discussion about the singularity. Isn't it possible that an all powerful being/god was responsible for all of this? That said being created the universe and that said being started life out of the primordial soup knowing that it would one day evolve into man? Is it not possible that evolution was part of that plan? Do we hold ourselves in such high regard that we must have literally and directly have been created through divine intervention? What if there are higher and more intelligent life forms than us? Couldn't they also be part of gods plan, and while I have a bone to pick with most organized religion even the Vatican acknowledges that "aliens" could very well exist and be part of gods creation.

I should point out that while I oppose most organized religion I am spiritual and do believe in a higher being. My personal beliefs extend from the known gnostic teachings, eastern spirituality and the like. I honestly feel that when one takes scripture literally it can be very negative and damaging in some cases. Why is it that science cannot simply explain the mechanisms through which creation works? IE: physics, evolution, etc. I really feel that in the case of the bible, for example, as with most scripture, the reader is presented with allegory and allusion. As its been said; it was written for those with eyes to see and with ears to hear. That's just my two cents but from my point of view both spirituality and science can easily coexist. Spirituality can provide a great philosophy for life and allegory to illustrate creation and reality. Science can explain the workings of said creation and reality.

reply to post by s3cz0ne

I must say I'm a bit baffled by these "science vs religion" type threads lately. My personal belief is that someday, perhaps not likely in my lifetime, the two will intersect.

Intersect and fuse, or intersect and fracture?

reply to post by s3cz0ne


Wonderful 1st post. Welcome to ATS!

I am in complete agreement. There is a lot of bickering amongst both camps (theist vs atheist). I am much like you in that I tend to view science and spirituality as co-existing naturally. I am not a materialist (obviously) so I fundamentally disagree with the materialist point of view and personally find it to be just as dogmatic as the religious views on origins and creation.

I often think of the natural laws which govern the universe (science, if you will) as the modus operandi of the divine. To me there is no conflict, as it seems reasonable that a created universe would still need to operate under laws much like a spontaneously occurring universe would. There is no reason why evolution could not be the mechanism by which "God" developed life in the universe. To claim otherwise is to limit God, who is by definition limitless.

Ultimately the question of evolution (cosmological or otherwise) is irrelevant to me in a spiritual sense, as regardless of the way in which the universe unfolded, it's source is ultimately the crux of spiritual issues, while its methods of operation remains the substance of science. Both camps claim to know where and how it all began but neither can prove it to the other.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by s3cz0ne

 

I must say I'm a bit baffled by these "science vs religion" type threads lately. My personal belief is that someday, perhaps not likely in my lifetime, the two will intersect.

Intersect and fuse, or intersect and fracture?

See? Here's the semantics thing again..."religion" is as 'loaded' (and in most cases mind closing) a word as "God" is....
If you read the rest of the post carefully, you can see that the intended meaning is that 'science and [spirituality] will intersect.'
This is actually beginning to happen btw...Scientists studying quantum consciousness see body, mind, and 'spirit' correlations...

reply to post by lostgirl

Originally posted by lostgirl

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by s3cz0ne

 

I must say I'm a bit baffled by these "science vs religion" type threads lately. My personal belief is that someday, perhaps not likely in my lifetime, the two will intersect.

Intersect and fuse, or intersect and fracture?

See? Here's the semantics thing again..."religion" is as 'loaded' (and in most cases mind closing) a word as "God" is....
If you read the rest of the post carefully, you can see that the intended meaning is that 'science and [spirituality] will intersect.'
This is actually beginning to happen btw...Scientists studying quantum consciousness see body, mind, and 'spirit' correlations...

All you did was repeat yourself without actually answering my question. You said science and spirituality will intersect. Here is my question again:

Intersect and fuse, or intersect and fracture?

Originally posted by rhinoceros
So all things considered, the Big Bang theory and belief of an omnipotent God are in no way equal. You know, the Christian God was actually tested scientifically. Maybe you've heard of the great prayer experiment? Conclusion? It appears that praying to the Christian God has no effect whatsoever. Note, there's more than likely some placebo effect, but the experimental setting didn't allow it..

I've not heard of the great prayer experiment. A book (loaned out, lost, title forgotten) about medical/spiritual effects described what appeared to be a well-constructed prayer experiment with the assistance of Carmelite nuns, a contemplative order whose members spend much of their lives meditating and praying. It used double-blind techniques.

The particularly interesting result was that the only positive experimental outcome came when the nuns prayed for a group of individuals who were anonymous to them (hospital patients). Combined with other studies, this seemed to show the absence of a personal God, since those who prayed for themselves, friends, or loved ones obtained no statistically significant positive outcomes.

Yet, making your point, if all prayer experiments came up with a 90% positive outcome, this would not validate the belief in an omnipotent God. It would merely validate the vast number of experiments showing the value of "spiritual" healing. Such results would but weakly address theories about the mechanisms for spiritual healing. I do not believe that the reality of an omnipotent God could be supported by prayer experiments with 100% positive outcome.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
You can't read? Omnipotent God is based solely on belief. The Big Bang theory on the other hand is based on cold hard facts. Omnipotent God is not testable. Omnipotent God can't be falsified. The Big Bang theory is testable. The Big Bang theory can be falsified. Omnipotent God is a worthless idea. We might just as well say that a purple 3.21m high elm tree farted the Universe into existence. This idea has exactly as much support as omnipotent God, i.e., NONE

edit on 15-8-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

While I understand your point, you might have exaggerated it a bit. The God concept is defined to be untestable via physical mechanisms (a logically absurd definition, BTW). IMO the omnipotent God concept is easily invalided without performing a single experiment, via logic alone. I do that in my writings, freely available on my website.

I do not think that Big Bang theory is easily invalidated. It has become a religious sort of theory, much like Darwinism. Its followers react to invalidations much like Muslims react to anyone who insults Allah, albeit without the head-severing implements. (Thomas Kuhn provides excellent insights into this human property in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.)

The supporting data for the Big Bang is inferential, like the supporting data for God. But my issue is about the core ideas behind both God and the Big Bang.

The hypothetical 100% successful results of a prayer experiment would show that something interesting is going on at an apparently non-physical level, but would not prove the existence of an omnipotent God. Likewise, the WMAP results and following experiments show evidence of an expanding universe, just like redshift observations, but do not prove that this expansion came from a "physical singularity."

Upon examination, the core theories of religionists and scientists are equally suspect. It is therefore time for a different paradigm.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by s3cz0ne

 

Wonderful 1st post. Welcome to ATS!

I am in complete agreement. There is a lot of bickering amongst both camps (theist vs atheist). I am much like you in that I tend to view science and spirituality as co-existing naturally. I am not a materialist (obviously) so I fundamentally disagree with the materialist point of view and personally find it to be just as dogmatic as the religious views on origins and creation.

I often think of the natural laws which govern the universe (science, if you will) as the modus operandi of the divine. To me there is no conflict, as it seems reasonable that a created universe would still need to operate under laws much like a spontaneously occurring universe would. There is no reason why evolution could not be the mechanism by which "God" developed life in the universe. To claim otherwise is to limit God, who is by definition limitless.

Ultimately the question of evolution (cosmological or otherwise) is irrelevant to me in a spiritual sense, as regardless of the way in which the universe unfolded, it's source is ultimately the crux of spiritual issues, while its methods of operation remains the substance of science. Both camps claim to know where and how it all began but neither can prove it to the other.

edit on 16-8-2013 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

I'm so glad you posted this...now all I have to do is write, "What DeadSeraph said!", as far as my own spiritual philosophy and appreciation of s3cz0ne's first post!

Originally posted by CB328

but how did those branes come into existence in the first place?

Because branes have always existed and always will? (assuming that they exist at all). I believe that non-existence is impossible, therefore universes have always existed and always will exist, but maybe individual ones have and end and a beginning. If I am right, then there is not need to believe in god.

Nor is there a need to believe in God if you are wrong. Therefore, your post would appear to be irrelevant.

reply to post by Greylorn


OH DANG>>> get your flame suit on

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lostgirl

 

Originally posted by lostgirl

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by s3cz0ne

 

I must say I'm a bit baffled by these "science vs religion" type threads lately. My personal belief is that someday, perhaps not likely in my lifetime, the two will intersect.

Intersect and fuse, or intersect and fracture?

See? Here's the semantics thing again..."religion" is as 'loaded' (and in most cases mind closing) a word as "God" is....
If you read the rest of the post carefully, you can see that the intended meaning is that 'science and [spirituality] will intersect.'
This is actually beginning to happen btw...Scientists studying quantum consciousness see body, mind, and 'spirit' correlations...

All you did was repeat yourself without actually answering my question. You said science and spirituality will intersect. Here is my question again:

Intersect and fuse, or intersect and fracture?

I'm sorry, AfterInfinity (honestly), I assumed you were being sardonic and expressing your opinion that such an intersection would be negative (fracturing), because the OP seemed, clearly to me, to intend a positive meaning - that science and 'spirituality' would intersect and fuse (perhaps even enhancing each other)...
Sorry again, it was wrong to make assumption based on my understanding...

This thread has some good thinking going on so I have to jump back in.

Religions and Science show me A LOT in common. One that stands out the most however is they both keep us boxed in. We on the outside of both have to think for our self. I will not discredit science where I am naive nor would I discredit a religion unless I have studied it through and through. My judgments are not based on heresy.

By coming together like the days of antiquity I think we would be further ahead. We just stay nice and cozy in out own little box... well some of us do.... and some of us do not!

For me my journey says there is both greatness in God and ALL that has been created thus far which does include Science. ;-) I think Science is dead on when they say there was a bang that set everything in motion, I just so happen to believe there was a force called energy to do so. This energy lights the Unverse's. Whatever the light shines on is what is revealed, and not before.

Science keeps us boxed in with old theories they are unwilling to let go of and the same can be said for Religions especially the ones who teach we have one life ONLY to grow up. Come on already! We have many lives we live and this is gift that is given to each and every one of us that have not perfected to our own standards!

Another thing I have noticed is a layer found when reading the Bible. Why just the Bible? I have NO IDEA! I do know I find it to be layered with a literal and metaphysical or "divine" meaning. When Adam/Atom split there was a bang. When it speaks of Egypt it also means the Earth. When it speaks of Israel it also means ALL people. When it speaks of bread this also means the body we are ALL IN which is Christ. He started his journey at the heel and ended up at the crown! We are the middle slices! When it tells us man is numbered 666 it is also literal. Carbon = 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons are the building blocks of life. Adam was created on the 6th day! 777 would be perfection, yet we fall short.... right now. However, when we come out of the refinery of Egypt we will then be made perfect by our own will. We will also be at the crown of the loaf!

Sorry... got off on a tangent. Basically the OP is correct though, from my pov.

Both are the same from the exact same source, science just does not call it "God", yet.

God is invisible, call him dark matter, if you want. There is a God... no doubt and there was a BANG (!!) to set it all in motion.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
There are those that would also argue that there are many observations of the Bible being correct (the Bible being one of the documents making the claim for an omnipotent God).

That is a commonly held opinion, deliberately foisted upon believers and non-believers alike by religionists who want you to believe in the ancient, traditional origins of their opinions, to give them credibility. A day or so of research would disclose that the Jews had no concept of an omnipotent God in O.T. eras, and that their word for God, "Elohim," is plural. The modern God concept was invented by Catholic theologians, Augustine and Aquinas.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
You stated, " The Big Bang theory on the other hand is based on cold hard facts". Yes, but it is not complete, and there is no cold hard facts proving the existence of a singularity being the origin is there? There are indicators, and mathematical models, but no "cold hard facts" as proof. Again, it's still based upon a belief that the theory is correct, not a proven fact.

YES!!

Originally posted by Krakatoa
You stated, "Omnipotent God is a worthless idea. We might just as well say that a purple 3.21m high elm tree farted the Universe into existence". I wouldn't say worthless, more like not MY belief (or yours it seems). But that opinion is just that, an opinion. What makes your opinion (or mine) worth any more since we also cannot PROVE or TEST the underlying belief in a singularity.....yet. I do not believe in an omnipotent God at all, I believe in M-Theory and the Ekpyrotic Theory. I'm sure "true believers" in an omnipotent God could also make the same claim as you, that what I believe is a "worthless idea".

IMO you need to get over any notions of political correctness. It is absolutely okay to declare the farting elm tree theory "worthless." (However, you might want to consider a similar but more advanced theory-- that the universe arose from the droppings-of-a-great-green-cat.)

reply to post by lostgirl

I'm sorry, AfterInfinity (honestly), I assumed you were being sardonic and expressing your opinion that such an intersection would be negative (fracturing), because the OP seemed, clearly to me, to intend a positive meaning - that science and 'spirituality' would intersect and fuse (perhaps even enhancing each other)...

It's okay. You're new here, I understand how difficult it can be to interpret the subtleties of two-dimensional text. And I look forward to the day such an intersection occurs...when the observers of the coin are able to reconcile its two faces and appreciate the synergetic nature of the twin values. I hesitate to hope that it will be in my lifetime though. It may be a thousand years before we reach that mountain peak. Better late than never, I suppose.

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Consider a trip from a to b. You start at 50mph and the distance between the two 100miles. From the start of the journey you calculate a time of 2 hours to complete the journey.

Now add time distortion. Every hour (as you get nearer) time slows down and you travel at half the speed (as seen from the point of view of the original observer). How long will it take you to reach the end?

The answer is never. Get your head around that and god becomes a pointless three letter word.

That answer is incorrect. If time is cut in half for everyone, you will reach your destination exactly on time.

Only an outside observer with a clock ticking at a different rate could observe any change in your time-dependent velocity with respect to him. You've rediscovered Special Relativity but forgot to do the math.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Greylorn

 

I tend to agree with the premise of the OP. But what it all boils down to for me is that this perceived distinction between theists and atheists is nothing more than one big false dilemma. Why? Simply because regardless of what your belief system is (and yes, science is a belief system), in the end we're all searching for the meaning of our creator (be it an entity or a hot ball of stuff)...[color=Gold] The sooner we realize this, and erase the line that's been drawn in the sand, the sooner we will find our answers.

I agree with this. One point of the OP was to show this dilemma. Another was to lay the groundwork for its resolution.

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Helious
I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang. You can reference people who claim that, that is what must have happened all day long,

And in exactly the same way, if a proponent of the big bang theory makes a specific but farfetched claim, you would be completely justified in asking for references to back up that claim.

But I'm not talking about the big bang. I'm specifically referring to the claim that:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Given that the ATS terms and conditions have:

You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

...then it would be dissapointing to find that he simply pulled that claim out of his arse to bolster his argument.

If I ask one of my Physics 319 (Intro to General Relativity" students the question, "What spinning cosmological entity results in an ergoshperical double event horizon? " their answer had better be, "a singularity." So the basic premise is false. And the whole analogy it supports fails.
And there is quite a bit of observable evidence for the big bang: background microwave radiation; red shift.

I must stand corrected. I apologize for my incorrect statement.

My physics courses came from a earlier, primitive time, where speculative physics was not part of the curriculum.

To correct my OP, the adjective "real" should be inserted before each use of the noun "physics." Thank you for the correction.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I disagree, based on one simple observation: the opposing beliefs of theists and atheists in the issue are not the problem. The opposing beliefs are simply manifestations of a deeper problem, one that is not nearly as simple to overcome as you suggest. This problem, essentially, is a matter of approach.

Theists approach problems very differently from the way atheists do, and this is not an easy difference to overcome. I believe that this very real base issue must be observed to make any progress.

I agree with you on this, absolutely.

Neither theist nor atheist, I approach the problem differently from either of the current "sides." My OP and subsequent posts are (1.) teasers for my published material, and (2.) introductions to a complete and complex physics-based theory that I will try to introduce on this well mannered forum. At the current rate of progress, I'll OP a new idea about once a month and have the complete theory reproduced in about five years.

Originally posted by citizen6511
reply to post by Greylorn

 

the big bang theory is brought to you as the new knowledge by the same mentality that gave us the flat earth theory 500 years ago, imo.

religion is not much better by telling us that faith does not require that anything make sense.
it's a mystery, take what i say on the basis of faith, the earth is the center of the universe.
you could get burned alive for challenging the church's stupidity.

the tiny human mind that requires that we have a theory about everything, iy's entertaining,but, imo, not worth losing sleep over.

the universe is an endless contradiction, the more we understand the more of our theories will fall.

it's a nice mental ride, but humility would accept man's limited understanding of anything and everthing.

Yes. And 500 years ago anyone proposing to send men to and from earth to moon, or transmitting sound and images through the atmosphere, might have encountered an occasional naysayer.

Yet, here we are. Human knowledge is imperfect, but not static. It will change.

Instead of complaining that you do not have all the perfect answers, why not engage in the many conversations about these issues? Read the books that have been written. Study the physics. Add your own mind to the conversation in the most constructive possible way.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Greylorn

 

And if I might add:

Each still requires a creator of themselves.

edit on 15-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

Please explain what you mean by this comment. Flesh it out. Provide an antecedent. Thanks!

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

I disagree, based on one simple observation: the opposing beliefs of theists and atheists in the issue are not the problem. The opposing beliefs are simply manifestations of a deeper problem, one that is not nearly as simple to overcome as you suggest. This problem, essentially, is a matter of approach.

Theists approach problems very differently from the way atheists do, and this is not an easy difference to overcome. I believe that this very real base issue must be observed to make any progress.

What I meant was that the problem itself can be simply classified as a false dilemma because we're all looking for the same thing- the meaning to our existence. But I would agree, the actual problem lies in the approach by both groups, and this rift most definitely needs to be addressed and put aside if we're to make any substantial progress here. It's a very deep issue that is sure to go unrecognized and remain unresolved, unfortunately though.

Both sides preach their views and accuse the other for being wrong, while feigning to know the truth. But who's right in a world where our observations are reduced/limited to mere semantic interpretations. Symbols and sounds that emanate from our minds. But words can't describe what it actually is. And on another planet - our words for what we see and believe mean nothing. So who has the universal say on what the universe actually is, I wonder?

Perhaps we should try to understand the concept of "meaning" and why humans share the desire to find it. Or why we feel so compelled to search for our source, and then label it. It's frantic. Why did this thing we dub the universe give rise to beings like humans and then impose this burden? It's kind of sick

edit on 15-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

It seems unlikely that the universe is sick. What is more likely to be sick, or flawed, are the explanations heretofore advanced to explain the universe.

Better answers, or at least more interesting answers, are a few keystrokes away.