Big Bang Evidence for God

For all of your religious hatred, I cannot think of a time when science has ever inspired me to be a better person. I can think of lots of times when my relationship with God and/or my spiritual values have inspired me to be more polite, more patient, more kind to other people. But science, or more specifically this scum filled forum, has made me impatient with other people, it has made me question every reason to be polite, caring, kind, considerate or loving. This scum hole of atheists has had a very negative effect on my outlook. This place is like a tar pit of hate that I've become stuck in. Everything good and spiritual and sacred is reflected in the most negative outlook here. I have met good religious people and I have had really special and sacred experiences; but in this logicalized place of evil, everything good is soured and ruined. I don't necessarily blame science. Science is just a process of organizing knowledge into a testable explanation that makes predictions about the universe.

No, I don't blame science. In fact, I don't blame you for having become brainwashed into thinking you have no soul. You are just souls that have become lost in the whirlwinds of negativity. I forgive you and I pray that you find your way to the light.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for admitting religion has nothing to do with science. If you want to argue the merits of religion in social life, that is another matter. Evidence exits that religion has been both beneficial and detrimental to society. On balance? Not good, IMO.
Just stay out of science, science is a method, not a philosophy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey, great! We agree on that! Just to speculate, is there any chance we might come across a mechanism that will let us get more "net zero energy"? It would be like a loophole in the law of conservation of energy.

No, I was offered all of the educational opportunities that I wanted. It's actually a science versus my religious dogma issue. I actually consider myself a spiritualist, not specifically a Christian; more Christian-ish. I admit that Christianity is a beautiful religion, but the Christian God of the Bible is a myth, although a beautiful myth close to my heart. Science really requires hard evidence to prove anything. As a spiritualist, I believe in spirits. I just don't think that they can produce the hard evidence that would ultimately prove their existence; or at least not usually. When I leave this world, I will find a physics department and try to haunt it in some scientifically provable way, like throwing dry erasers on the floor during lectures.

In general, I've never had a problem with professors or people with tremendous egos. I just think that some things that exist in reality cannot always be proven to exist.

Anyway, peace.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eace:

Mazulu

P.S.

Honestly, how hard would it be for a geneticist to bio-engineer a real unicorn? Basically a horse with one horn? Is it really that hard?

 

I think if I were answering a child's question like that I'd simplify it and 'dress it' in examples they can understand, rather than using terms like 'inflation'.

See, here is an example of a problem people who denounce mainstream theories have. You don't know the answers so in your imagined discussion with your grandson you say "I don't know", implying that mainstream science doesn't now. The problem is you're assuming your capacity to answer is aligned with sciences.

From 1 nanosecond after the big bang we know reasonably well how space-time expanded, the behaviour of forces, the types and interactions of particles, the temperature of the particles and initial density perturbations. Using detailed models the BBM predicted the thermal profile of the photon background, the ratio of light elements and the large scale structure of galaxy groups and more besides.

You saying "Don't know" in your imagined discussion doesn't mean science doesn't know. I said that there are some things we don't know but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. You are not a good representative of the scientific establishment for your grandson so your little imagined discussion doesn't hold water.

It didn't have to expand 'into' anything, a common misconception people who don't do relativity can make.

All of which we have evidence for.

The fact something about the universe is outside of our everyday experience doesn't make is wrong. Too many hacks think that the universe should be describable in simple ways, as if the human mind is so brilliant that everything in the universe is within its grasp given minimal effort. This often gels with people's religious belief, as if we're god's chosen and made in his image then there is something special about us. Personally I think that's a laughable view to take.

Part of the beauty of science is being able to look at and explore things, be it universe spanning cosmic structures or subatomic particles, which are completely different from our everyday experiences. To try to dismiss them because they are different from everyday experience is a terrible thing to do, it closes your mind to so many incredible things.

This has illustrated my point perfectly. You don't understand how it is the Andromeda galaxy is approaching us while science says galaxies are expanding away from one another so rather than find out you just assume that surely there's so problem with all of it and thus dismiss it.

Do you really think astrophysicists wouldn't notice a MASSIVE glaring problem like that if it were actually a problem? Do you think people whose job it is to observe, record and model galactic dynamics are unaware or ignoring a problem like that? Do you think everyone in the astrophysics community is a moron or conspiring to keep it all secret? Please tell me.

Since you're either too lazy or too stupid to find out for yourself I'll tell you the reason that isn't a problem. Universal expansion occurs over vast distances, billions of light years, as the effect is very very weak. For objects sufficiently close together, like the Milky Way and Andromeda or the cells in your body or bricks in the wall of your house, the other forces of gravity and electromagnetism are enough to overwhelm the expansion effect. Just as a magnet can overwhelm gravity when you use one to pick up paper clips on your desk gravity is able to overwhelm space-time expansion until you're considering huge distances (gravity gets weaker over larger distances, expansion compounds and gets more powerful).

There, you've had a straw man of yours explained and refuted. I hope you take from this experience that it would be wise of you to find out what science says before trying to lampoon it. I also hope that if you have had such discussions with your grandson you go back and correctly inform him because he would now be infected with your ignorance. Good going.

Considering you butchered the actual science and misrepresented it, twisted by your bias, yes. Fortunately the actual science doesn't sound like that. Besides, the religious 'explanations' for all of this are fairy tales and have no evidence. How did the universe come about? God did it. Okay.... so how can you test that? Does your account of Genesis gel with physical evidence? No? Oh well, in that case...

Seriously? Because science doesn't have all the answers and (according to you) sounds like fairy tales you want to jump to "There is an all powerful, omniscient all knowing intelligent being which created everything and cares about humans"?! God is not the default explanation, the default explanation is "We don't know but we'll carry on working on it". Why should the universe have been made by an intelligent agent? Why should that agent be all powerful? Why should it be all knowing? Why should it care about it? Religious people complain about the seeming complicated nature of cosmological models yet then they say "God did it", where their god is this extremely complicated entity which they are happy to say "Oh it has always existed". So you complain if scientists consider the notion of an always existing universe but you are fine with the suggestion an always existing being, who is necessarily more complicated than the universe since it created the universe! Do you see the hypocrisy in that?

It is like Mazula's false dichotomy of "Big bang or Christianity!". If the BBM were disproven tomorrow then the rational position is to say "We don't know how the early universe worked". Jumping to the maximally complex and powerful entity conceptually possible (as the Christian god is sometimes likened to, ie the power to do all things not logically inconsistent with one another) is delusional.

Anyway, never mind replying to me, I would like you to spend the time finding out what the big bang model actually says and then, if you've had such conversations with him, letting your grandson know you've been misinformed and you misrepresented science.