God is the new science?

[Inkidu]

I would like to note that this is not directed to any one person and that the following arguments aren't even from this sight. They are a compilation of questions I've picked up through the years. The answers were the answers I gave to said questions. Now I'm not saying that I can prove God exists. That is still an issue of faith. I just put a spin for the scientifically minded.

I thought I'd take some time to try and answer some of the questions I often hear in the argument for God's nonexistence.
Number one. How can God create an entire universe in seven days?
Well it was six actually. I'll give you a minute to work this one out because it took me a long time to. The man who I believe first figured out how he did was a genius and I can't ask anyone not even myself to compete with genius.

I give up who?
It was Albert Einstein. He had this theory called the theory of relativity. Basically time is relative to your situation. Now you have this ageless being that can operate without having to know time and space in relation humans can't, and we have a tough time with the concept of infinity. A day to him might be a billion years, or that could be his lazy afternoon. However, like most science on this level it can theoretically be done.

What about dinosaurs?
Well now go back and read the Bible, if you haven't I recommend it it's a wonderful read, there's a day or two between animals and man.
Now if I refer you back to point one. That is possibly a large amount of time for evolution and extinction.

Well how did the Universe get created, jack-ass? (He was mad at this point can't you tell?)

Well lets say for the sake of this discussion Big Bang Theory. It's the most widely accepted theory next to the Creation one anyway.
Besides if you compare the two you'll find them frighteningly similar. Anyway, the Big Bang Theory can be projected back all the way to the point when something went off. Then they don't know squat. Now if you have all the matter of existence, and don't through me multiple universes because that's a contradictory commentary in and of itself, in one subatomic speck or whatever, and one of Newton's Laws states "That an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force, and that an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force." Whats left? That speck at rest sure as hell ain't going nowhere. So what's left to bet the outside force.

Well that doesn't mean it was God.
Names are what humans give things to better comprehend their place in the universe. A tree wasn't called a tree till man got there.
God could be called Marty Funklestien and we'd still be having the argument on whether or not Mr. Funklestien created the universe now wouldn't we? God sounds better that's all.

[Trieste]

So you're trying to compare the Big Bang theory to God, connecting them with relativity and physics...

...

Do I have that correct?

[Inkidu]

I'm not comparing God to the Big Bang Theory. I'm saying he's what's left to set it off.
Eliminate the possible and what remains is the answer. I'm trying to explain how it can theoretically be done.
Like I said the large portion of it is still good ole faith in the Almighty.

[Trieste]

I feel the need to correct your quote, since the original seems to suit your argument much better. It's 'eliminate the impossible and what remains, however improbable, must be true.' Or something along those lines; I doubt that's the precise wording. But it's close enough... and closer than 'eliminate the possible'. :)

[The Overlord]

I'll let the true experts have their say.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There are obvious margins that God can be written into in the realm of science.  Some believe that by understanding God’s creation, we as a species become closer to understanding God.  So the idea is not new and will probably never be dispelled.  Largely this would be due to our complete lack of understanding about the workings of this world, this universe and even our bodies.  So much is unexplained that God can easily be seen in the margins and gray lines of this world.

Science has never set out to prove or disprove God’s existence.  Certainly some members of the community have made claims, yet none have ever held up to scrutiny.  Faith remains the ultimate indicators of whether God appears to someone in the fuzzy lines of science or if a person simply sees just more unknown.

[kongming]

Basically time is relative to your situation. Now you have this ageless being that can operate without having to know time and space in relation humans can't, and we have a tough time with the concept of infinity. A day to him might be a billion years,

So it could have taken him six billion years? That's not impressive. Given enough Lego and sufficient boredom, I could make the world, sun, moon etc. in six billion years. Granted, I'm more worthy of worship than he is, given our current track records for murder, inciting murder, and ruining people's lives, so maybe it's unfair to compare myself to him in this case.

I am applying a certain amount of dry, flippant humour to this post. I'll let each reader decide individually how much.

[Vekseid]

It was Albert Einstein. He had this theory called the theory of relativity. Basically time is relative to your situation. Now you have this ageless being that can operate without having to know time and space in relation humans can't, and we have a tough time with the concept of infinity. A day to him might be a billion years, or that could be his lazy afternoon. However, like most science on this level it can theoretically be done.

A more amusing question is to ask why the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day.

Regardless, it's clearly written from the perspective of Earth's reference frame - night falls and day comes once between each passing. There is no appreciable dilation, it's entirely mincing words and trying to play off a theory you don't understand.

Besides if you compare the two you'll find them frighteningly similar.

Not in the slightest. Nothing in the Bible even suggests comprehension of things like the singularity, cosmic inflation - or even the more reserved expansion of spacetime itself, the very nature of matter and energy for the first picosecond of existence... need I go on?

Anyway, the Big Bang Theory can be projected back all the way to the point when something went off. Then they don't know squat.

The Big Bang theory only goes back to that origin. Other theories - testable theories - go back further. The Big Crunch model has been partially discredited, for example, while various patterns that Ekpyrotic theory would leave will be tested for with new satellites in the next decade or so.

Some are of course harder to prove than others - if we don't see a horizon, it's hard to show that the Universe is not for 100% certain a white hole.

Now if you have all the matter of existence, and don't through me multiple universes because that's a contradictory commentary in and of itself

The term multiverse is used because we have a very firm understanding of our currently visible Universe, and since it seems that separate universes will rarely if ever interact, the term is not entirely inappropriate. Also, how can you possibly criticize someone from a lexical perspective? That's just as bad as saying "Don't tell me about multiple worlds because the world by definition contains everything..."

, in one subatomic speck or whatever,

As you freely admit, you don't know what it is.

and one of Newton's Laws states "That an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force, and that an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force."

The Universe mimics a time-reversed black hole of unimaginable magnitude. No outside force is necessarily required. An easier to understand - if inappropriate - example, is to point out a bomb - from a firecracker to a hypergiant. The internal equilibrium is unstable, and it just goes off of its own volition.

Whats left? That speck at rest sure as hell ain't going nowhere. So what's left to bet the outside force.

And it hasn't. We're still the speck, we have not moved except at the expense of other parts of the speck.

[Kalen]

Actually, you can believe in God, or the Big Bang, or both... it doesn't really matter.  What the issue boils down to, in one way or another is simple.

Faith.

One way or another, you're putting faith in something.

I used to argue this with a 'friend' in high school.  I was the agnostic scientist, believing in the Big Bang.  He was an utter creationist, believing in a literal 7 days.  Most of our friends fell in between.  One day, he argued with me that maybe he could accept the big blob of matter and energy, but only God could have set it off, so there was proof... I had to say he was right, and convert.

My reply was simple.

I can't prove the Big Bang.  He can't prove God.  BOTH are a matter of faith, in believing something you can't prove, and accepting it as fact.  It's just a different kind of faith.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Alright I have no doubt that God exists.  But what you're saying only allows for one God being.  I'm a polytheist and I believe in more than one.  How would you change your argument to include that?  

Also do your research into western Philosophy right around the time of Augustine.  Marcus Aquinas (I think was his name) gave some pretty good arguments.  My good friend Aristotle did too.  As did the great Plato and Socrates (allowing for the Socratic problem).  They are all slightly different and all from different points of view.  But they are all argument for an intelligent creator, our God figure.  The One, The Sun, God. . .whatever name you give it's still all about something intelligent creating us instead of chance having it's way.  

If you truly want to argue for this figures existence you should be well read in things outside the bible.  The bible in my opinion is like a bed time story for little kids.  You should also do your research on other religions that are not of Christian origin.  Because though you specifically only believe in one God knowing the arguments brought by other faiths for the existence of the intelligent creator is good ammo.  

Also, some people do not understand scientific jargon, so try putting it in a way that everybody can understand.  Not everyone has had Physics, Physical Science, Biology etc.  

I also suggest using the Socratic Method and creating a Socratic Dialogue, it's very helpful to work out the kinks in your own ideas.  

[Inkidu]

So it could have taken him six billion years? That's not impressive. Given enough Lego and sufficient boredom, I could make the world, sun, moon etc. in six billion years. Granted, I'm more worthy of worship than he is, given our current track records for murder, inciting murder, and ruining people's lives, so maybe it's unfair to compare myself to him in this case.

I am applying a certain amount of dry, flippant humour to this post. I'll let each reader decide individually how much.

It might take him a billion years it might take him a second. Time isn't relative. The point is humans don't know time without space or the other way around. That's that point.

[Vekseid]

It might take him a billion years it might take him a second. Time isn't relative. The point is humans don't know time without space or the other way around. That's that point.

Time is relative. Now is relative. Parts of the Universe are older than others. Photons don't age. The IGM in a supervoid consists of the oldest particles in the known universe.

On Earth, or even in the entirety of the Solar System, this difference is negligible.

[Inkidu]

The point is that humans can't conceive of infinity. We speculate we use it in math but look, we're trying to find an end to PI. We can't accept that it goes on forever.

[Trieste]

How is infinity relevant to relativity? They are two separate concepts, unless you're getting into crazy meta-quantum...

[Kalen]

I still hold that we can't know... no matter what, you're placing faith in SOMEthing.

[Vekseid]

The point is that humans can't conceive of infinity. We speculate we use it in math but look, we're trying to find an end to PI. We can't accept that it goes on forever.

What? Speak for yourself, dude.

Above and beyond Trieste's relevance comment.

Just because you have no means for comprehending even one version of infinity does not mean that other people are so conceptually handicapped.

[Vekseid]

I still hold that we can't know... no matter what, you're placing faith in SOMEthing.

I'm sorry, but this is a useless statement.

How do you know that electrostatic repulsion will still support you and keep you from falling to the center of the Earth tomorrow?

Faith.

How do you know that your memories are real and that yo aren't some artificial construct made last Thursday?

Faith.

...

At some point, trotting out the 'it's all faith' argument is pretty tired. There is a line where it gets ridiculous. Science builds its foundations entirely on logic and observation - and it has produced some pretty stellar results. Religions have given us no such thing. Name one religion that has wiped out a disease, fed six and a half billion people, landed a man on the Moon, allowed us to peer inside our own Sun, or allowed a billion people to converse with each other in real time, without seeing each other?

And yet people crow about it being 'faith'.

[Apple of Eris]

I put my faith In Vekkers that my messages will reach the wife.

And not break any of Einstein's laws in doing so.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, science as it's supposed to be builds it ideas on logic and observation.  Science is guilty of taking an observation or an idea, running across the map with that idea without any support.  If science and religion are set on the same level in terms of argument, then science does use a great deal of faith in guiding its hand.  Grants and investments are made based on belief that someone is on the correct track.  Entire paradigms get stuffed into drawers because someone doesn't agree with what is said.  Both act on their own notions of faith.

Religion has done many things though.  I am sure people will bring up religious wars and terrorism first, so I will concede those.  Of course keeping religion and science on the same level, one can bring up the cruel experiments of Nazi Germany.  Many warnings have been given to science through various authors and movie makers about standing on the shoulders of giants.  So science holds blood on its hands as well.  Though to focus on the blood does not give a full picture.  Religions has feed the poor, funded expeditions into new lands, educated the impoverished, pressed for revolutionary political and social ideas and helped craft marvels of architecture.  They have inspired a multitude of artists to their craft and helped found tenets of peace in all corners of the world.

Both have contributed to bloodshed and peace.

[The Overlord]

What? Speak for yourself, dude.

Above and beyond Trieste's relevance comment.

Just because you have no means for comprehending even one version of infinity does not mean that other people are so conceptually handicapped.

We can conceptually understand the idea of infinity, Vekseid. None of us can truly know it's like.

[Vekseid]

We can conceptually understand the idea of infinity, Vekseid. None of us can truly know it's like.

It's a definition for a mathematical construct. "Knowing what it's like" only makes sense in a specific context.

For example, you can comprehend the range of all real numbers from one to two. There are an infinite amount of real numbers in that range, we cannot comprehend writing out all of them - not because of some arbitrary limitation that can be surpassed by some greater power, it is logically impossible to do.

Now, you might say, comprehending very large numbers - such as the scale of the Universe - is generally not possible for most humans, and this is a fine assertion, but that's not this argument.

The range of numbers between one and two is comprehensible, however, and perfectly so.  It contains an infinity - an infinite number of infinities, even, but we can fully comprehend it for any conceivably possible task. Given any number, it can be determined whether or not it falls in the range. It can be graphed, mapped, etc.  Despite the range having an infinite number of discrete points, we can describe it succinctly.

[Kalen]

I'm sorry, but this is a useless statement.

How do you know that electrostatic repulsion will still support you and keep you from falling to the center of the Earth tomorrow?

Faith.

How do you know that your memories are real and that yo aren't some artificial construct made last Thursday?

Faith.

...

At some point, trotting out the 'it's all faith' argument is pretty tired. There is a line where it gets ridiculous. Science builds its foundations entirely on logic and observation - and it has produced some pretty stellar results. Religions have given us no such thing. Name one religion that has wiped out a disease, fed six and a half billion people, landed a man on the Moon, allowed us to peer inside our own Sun, or allowed a billion people to converse with each other in real time, without seeing each other?

And yet people crow about it being 'faith'.

Actually, I have to refute that, bub.  Today, you call it electostatic repulsion, and believe in gravity, atoms, and such.  Not that long ago, the earth was the center of the universe, the body was ruled by the humors, and oh yes, the earth was flat.

How do you KNOW that Einstein is right?  How do you know that some hotshot twenty years from now, some future Galileo or Darwin won't turn everything on it's ear, and prove all of accepted science wrong... again?

Faith.

You have faith in science.  Hell, so do I.  I buy what they're selling, I totally drink that koolaid.  But I also accept that in the future, what we hold as fact now might be laughed at by future generations.

I just have faith that what we believe now is the best knowledge we have, it makes sense, and it's true.

So, I'm not 'crowing about faith'.  No matter what or who I believe, it's still a matter of BELIEVING it.  The fact that you believe in science (and I'm on the same page as you, here) means you have faith in what we currently believe.

[Inkidu]

We can conceptually understand the idea of infinity, Vekseid. None of us can truly know it's like.

Overlord's right. We understand it as an idea. We don't understand it as a part of existence. When push comes to shove we need workable numbers. Sure we say the universe goes on forever. Yet some scientists are saying it's like a rubber band and going to snap back. That theory implies that the universe is finite.

[Kalen]

Hmm.   Not nessecarily, Inkedu.  If I take a rubber band, and start stretching it in an open field... if the rubber band reaches it's breaking point, and snaps back, it's not because of the size of the field.  It's because the forces within the rubber band reached the point at which they snap back.

In the 'big bang' example, galaxies are moving against the force of gravity.  If gravity overcomes their inertia, which, in theory, it eventually should?  We'd get a big crunch.  Eventually.


What I'm saying here is, space might be finite, or infinite.  We can't measure infinity... soon as you do, it's finite.  But, the expansion/contraction of the universe (defined by the matter/energy in it) and the size of all of existence are mutually exclusive things.

[Inkidu]

A more amusing question is to ask why the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day.

Regardless, it's clearly written from the perspective of Earth's reference frame - night falls and day comes once between each passing. There is no appreciable dilation, it's entirely mincing words and trying to play off a theory you don't understand.

Not in the slightest. Nothing in the Bible even suggests comprehension of things like the singularity, cosmic inflation - or even the more reserved expansion of spacetime itself, the very nature of matter and energy for the first picosecond of existence... need I go on?

The Big Bang theory only goes back to that origin. Other theories - testable theories - go back further. The Big Crunch model has been partially discredited, for example, while various patterns that Ekpyrotic theory would leave will be tested for with new satellites in the next decade or so.

Some are of course harder to prove than others - if we don't see a horizon, it's hard to show that the Universe is not for 100% certain a white hole.

The term multiverse is used because we have a very firm understanding of our currently visible Universe, and since it seems that separate universes will rarely if ever interact, the term is not entirely inappropriate. Also, how can you possibly criticize someone from a lexical perspective? That's just as bad as saying "Don't tell me about multiple worlds because the world by definition contains everything..."

As you freely admit, you don't know what it is.

The Universe mimics a time-reversed black hole of unimaginable magnitude. No outside force is necessarily required. An easier to understand - if inappropriate - example, is to point out a bomb - from a firecracker to a hypergiant. The internal equilibrium is unstable, and it just goes off of its own volition.

And it hasn't. We're still the speck, we have not moved except at the expense of other parts of the speck.

The very definition of the universe is one uni meaning one. Now a universe holds all that will be, ever has been, and is. In one form or another. Where are they keeping the the other universes. Because if its in this one it kills your point.

Are you talking about the first day when God separated the light from the dark then on the fourth day created the moon and stars.
Simple Big bang. Now most Big Bangs make a big light. Light from dark. Then all the matter released would have formed the firmament and stars. Why would the Bible explain it like that? It's trying to explain the universe to a bunch of people enamored with the wheel. It's spoon feeding primitive man. It goes back to the humans can't comprehend infinity. If we still can't today. They couldn't back then.
As far as I know.
Bombs still need a fuse lit a button pressed.
Even dynamite left in humid or hot conditions will sweat glycerin and become unstable to vibration, but its still an outside force. I've never seen any bomb go of on its own.

Even starts only go supernova because of the outside, unyielding force of time. And everyone agrees time didn't start till after the start of existence.