Zmid Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 You seem to be lumping the big bang and evolution together. Background microwave radiation doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Correct, but what I think Theta is trying to say is that all the available evidence to do with either theory supports them, or at the very least, does not disprove them, and he is using background microwave radiation as an example. And you're correct that quantum mechanics can be used to explain the something from nothing theory...but I don't accept quantum theory as proven either. There's a reason they call all this stuff 'theories.' None of it is proven. I also don't buy the fact that we KNOW everything is expanding from everything else. All we KNOW is that every is expanding away from US. We don't really know what the heck is goin on out there. I've even heard theories that the universe is crashing in on itself, heading for the Big Crunch. Nobody really knows. All we know is that we're here and stuff is happening out there. Yes, you're perfectly correct, all these theories are not absolutely proven. That's the way science works - scientists study the evidence, come up with a theory that fits the evidence, and, where possible, do experiments to test whether their theory is correct. This theory is then accepted until it is proven wrong, if it ever is. If you only accept things that are totally and utterly proven as fact, there's not very many facts about anything. My only real argument with anything on this debate is the absolute trust...call it faith...of science and that the scientific view is correct and religion is rubbish and people are idiots for believing it. Well, speaking personally, I do not have an absolute trust of the scientific view, I only trust it as far as I do because it uses evidence rather than blind faith. As for religion being rubbish, I do not necessarily believe that. I do not know whether or not God exists, but, if He does, I believe he must have used science and scientific principles to create the universe, rather than just snapping His fingers and causing it to pop into existence (but I could be wrong :D :D ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 That's exactly the same point as the 'something from nothing' debate. At least quantum mechanics explains how something may come from nothing rather than making assumptions. Well, actually it is making assumptions. It's an attempt to explain something we have no explanation for, just as the creation theory does. There are assumptions being made on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Except that scientific 'assumptions' are usually made on the basis of experimental data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Well, speaking personally, I do not have an absolute trust of the scientific view, I only trust it as far as I do because it uses evidence rather than blind faith. As for religion being rubbish, I do not necessarily believe that. I do not know whether or not God exists, but, if He does, I believe he must have used science and scientific principles to create the universe, rather than just snapping His fingers and causing it to pop into existence (but I could be wrong :D :D ). I tend to agree with that. As I said above, I think Genesis was put into terms ancient man could understand. I think the 'days' of creation were actually 'time periods' some of which lasted millions of years, not literal 24 hour days. So, we're on the same page in that respect anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldritch Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 If you haven't taken an Epistomology course you should consider it. The philosophical debates around knowledge and our perceptions of it are quite stimulating. If you are really hard-core then take a course in mathematical logic leading to Goedel's Theorem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 A time-traveller perhaps, coming from a time when matter already existed? Yes, but then you run into the problem of where this universe exists and how it was created. :P Well now we're getting into the crux of the matter. Who says God had to come from anywhere? He just is. We are trapped in our assumption that EVERYTHING has to have a beginning and an end, because that's our only frame of reference. But the Creator isn't bound by our limitations, not bound by time or space. He doens't have to have a beginning or an end. To Him, it's now, last week, 2 million years ago, and 10 million years in the future all at the same time, IMO. But that's getting into another whole topic of discussion. I like to think of the universe as a garbage can. God, is standing outside of this garbage can, not being affected by any of the rules that apply to the things inside of the garbage can. Since he is not affected by time, he could be at any point of the garbage can at anytime. He can be at the very bottom, the very top, or anywhere. It might seem as though he is in all places at the same time, but really time doesn't apply, so he could leisurely walk from one end of it to the other and pop out of nowhere, but it would appear to us as though it took no time at all. I kind of just repeated what you said, but I like to use that comparison. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldritch Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Double post - sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 What makes genesis any more valid than any of the other creation myths the world over - some of which are too graphic to mention on these forums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltiraaz Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Well there is more evidence to support Christianity then any other religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idea assassin Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Except that scientific 'assumptions' are usually made on the basis of experimental data. That's true. But experimental data is often wrong. Science has never proven that God doesn't exist. Science has never proven evolution exists. Science has never proven the Big Bang theory. Or quantum mechanics, or any of that stuff. All those theories are just attempts to explain why such and such is why it is. Science isn't that different from religion really. Science folks take it on faith that their beliefs are accurate, religion folks take it on faith that their beliefs are accurate. Bottom line is, nobody knows for sure, and nobody is GONNA know for sure. That's just the way the universe works. It's too damn big to understand, really. Just when you think you know the rules, somebody comes along and wipes it all out. They're even finding inexplicable things in space to that seem to go counter to the laws of physics, so who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.