A Theology Question

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes

The material world is the nature of what exists


The functions of that material interacts with its self under the rules of how it effects each other

That system had such properties that it’s interactions creates conditions that allowed life to form and expand and evolve


That interaction includes how those conditions cause the matter to consolidate at some point



Black holes and the like


Given enough time it consolidates to a point that the system blows it all to hell again


The big bang



How many times has this system had a big bang?

That’s the Oscillating Universe theory, evince, and it’s been disproved since the Universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion. Even with Dark Matter, there isn’t enough matter to draw it all back together again.

In short, ours is a one-shot Universe.

https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/

The Oscillating Universe Theory is a cosmological model that combines both the Big Bang and the Big Crunch as part of a cyclical event. That is, if this theory holds true, then the Universe in which we live in exists between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch.

In other words, our universe can be the first of a possible series of universes or it can be the nth universe in the series.…

… The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We are the proof the system can support life


It’s just that simple

Agreed. So why can’t life be found elsewhere? If life is so abundant, why haven’t we seen any signs off Earth?

Fermi’s Paradox comes into play here.

 

[evince]

My bucket list of questions:

Why did the Big Bang happen?
Why is the universe finely tuned?
Why are there natural laws and mathmatical scaffolding, and where do they come from?
What caused inert prebiotic chemicals to self organize into complex self replicating cells capable of storing and transmitting vast quantities of information?


I think there might be scientific explanations, but I am prepared for the possibility these are metaphysical questions forever out of reach of human comprehension

There is a scientific explanation

Life is a possibility in this system of material and it’s interactions


The system created life

That is a known fact

 

[evince]

Agreed. So why can’t life be found elsewhere? If life is so abundant, why haven’t we seen any signs off Earth?

Fermi’s Paradox comes into play here.

Life can not yet be found because man is not yet capable of what they need to do to find other life

 

[evince]

That’s the Oscillating Universe theory, evince, and it’s been disproved since the Universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion. Even with Dark Matter, there isn’t enough matter to draw it all back together again.

In short, ours is a one-shot Universe.





https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/

Disproven for the moment



Because we have not observed long enough to see the interaction properties that caused the big bang

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Life can not yet be found because man is not yet capable of what they need to do to find other life

Hmmmm…..I disagree. We’ve been looking pretty hard for over 70 years. Not a single sign of life elsewhere in our Solar System and no signs through radio astronomy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Disproven for the moment



Because we have not observed long enough to see the interaction properties that caused the big bang

I have more faith in science than wishes and magic.

 

[evince]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...rn-cosmology/008B497D38AD577C1BBDF8E1D8801E35


The idea of an oscillating universe has been in crisis several times, but recently it has experienced a spectacular revival in the form of models inspired by string theory and other theories of quantum gravity. This paper argues that the current revival of interest in cyclic models is not primarily rooted in their “aesthetic” qualities, as used to be the case. With the maturation of cosmology following the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965, the hypothesis has become part of the discourse of modern theoretical cosmology, and as such it is discussed within a normal scientific context

 

[Dutch Uncle]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...rn-cosmology/008B497D38AD577C1BBDF8E1D8801E35


The idea of an oscillating universe has been in crisis several times, but recently it has experienced a spectacular revival in the form of models inspired by string theory and other theories of quantum gravity. This paper argues that the current revival of interest in cyclic models is not primarily rooted in their “aesthetic” qualities, as used to be the case. With the maturation of cosmology following the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965, the hypothesis has become part of the discourse of modern theoretical cosmology, and as such it is discussed within a normal scientific context

First, the paper is over 14 years old. Lots of science between then and now. Second, it says this: “… On the other hand, extrascientific considerations continue to play a role, and they probably always will. The heritage from the past is still visible.”

Extrascientific? WTF? That gets into Perry’s magical origin of the Universe theory.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrascientific
extrascientific
adjective
ex·​tra·​scientific
: lying outside what is scientific : lying outside the province of science
an extrascientific area of experience

 

[Concart]

legitimate questions to be sure

I always tell people who complain about the Old Testament to complain to Jews about it, the Hebrews wrote the OT. Outside of the books of Torah and Job, god makes very few direct appearances in the OT.

The OT, or more properly the TaNaKh cannot be divorced from it's historical context. The TaNaKh was largely edited and compiled during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. Given the oppression they lived under during the Babylonian exile, it's not surprising the literary creation they compiled and edited would have some focus given to questions about whether Yahweh was actually just, whether there was any point to suffering and if humans actually had the ability to understand divine providence.

The TaNaKh is remarkable because it doesn't sugar coat the spiritual and historical lives of the Hebrew people. It is in some ways a brutally honest self reflection on Jewish identity.

I’m not complaining about it. I’m complaining about the people who believe it is the word of God. Because if it is, I have zero interest in a relationship with that narcissistic, jealous, insecure evil God.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This is a key point. No one claims "There is nothing out there to discover that we haven't discovered yet", however, the fact that we choose to NOT BELIEVE that some particular item ("X") exists out there simply because we have zero evidence for it does not amount to a BELIEF that "X" does not exist.

That may sound a bit clunky but it is at the heart of this discussion.

It is NOT a "belief" (as some on here claim) that Thormalgazine does NOT exist (a thing I just made up and has no evidence for it). No one is "agnostic" about Thormalgazine. In fact no one believes Thormalgazine exists simply because I said the word.

Some on here feel that it is an active belief to fail to believe in something like God.

I understand their position that it is truly "I don't know", but that isn't how we treat it in our daily lives. Every single day we operate under simple rules "There is no elephant that lives in my shed out back", "there is no invisible wall that runs across the interstate".

All these things MIGHT be true but no one thinks it is an active BELIEF to NOT BELIEVE they exist.

The default position on question like "Are there any gods?"...or "Are there no gods?" SHOULD BE: I do not know.

It should not be this null hypothesis nonsense that you want to use in order to rationalize your position.

Take a different question of the same universal type:

Are there any sentient beings living on any of the planets orbiting the nearest 15 stars to Sol?

I say the default position should be: I do not know?

Why would you say the default position should be something other than that?

 

[Concart]

The universe does seem finely tuned to allow for the creation of matter, water, carbon polymers, and the ingredients of life.

And if it had a different composition, it would have different life forms. These life forms exist because they can in this universe. The universe is always going to be balanced and tuned to things in it or those things wouldn’t exist, something else would. And the universe would be perfectly tuned to THAT. So it isn’t coincidence. It is inevitable.

 

[Concart]

The default position on question like "Are there any gods?"...or "Are there no gods?" SHOULD BE: I do not know.

It should not be this null hypothesis nonsense that you want to use in order to rationalize your position.

Take a different question of the same universal type:

Are there any sentient beings living on any of the planets orbiting the nearest 15 stars to Sol?

I say the default position should be: I do not know?

Why would you say the default position should be something other than that?

The problem with your two questions is that one can be answered by science, and one cannot. That’s a meaningful distinction. You can’t discuss those two questions as if they are related, because they are not.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I’m not complaining about it. I’m complaining about the people who believe it is the word of God. Because if it is, I have zero interest in a relationship with that narcissistic, jealous, insecure evil God.

IIRC, there are about 2000 denominations of Christianity. Most do not take the Bible as the literal word of God. You’re attacking a minority. Very unDemocratic. LOL

39% Literal vs 54% Not-so-much:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...ans-view-the-bible-and-other-religious-texts/
3 Christians, who make up a majority of U.S. adults (71%), are divided over how to interpret the Bible. While about four-in-ten Christians (39%) say the Bible’s text is the word of God and should be taken literally, 36% say it should not be interpreted literally or express another or no opinion. A separate 18% of Christians view the Bible as a book written by men, not God.

 

[Cypress]

I’m not complaining about it. I’m complaining about the people who believe it is the word of God. Because if it is, I have zero interest in a relationship with that narcissistic, jealous, insecure evil God.

I think a strictly literalist interpretation of the bible is both stupid and theologically wrong.

Strict Biblical literalism is most closely associated with conservative American Protestantism

 

[Cypress]

There is a scientific explanation

Life is a possibility in this system of material and it’s interactions


The system created life


That is a known fact

thanks

To me, life emerged and the universe blinked into existence...because the system did it - is not scientifically or philosophically satisfying as an answer. It seems like circular reasoning. The premise needs as much proof as the conclusions do

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There's a distinction between terrible and preposterous questions, and good and legitimate questions.

Asking if a pink unicorn is in my garage is a terrible and preposterous question.

Asking if there is some higher organizing principle underlying reality and the cosmos which is beyond science and human cognition is a good question.

What makes it a good question? Honestly asking because I don't really see the difference. Is it because it "feels" like there must be som "organizing principle"? I understand a lot of people feel that there must be, but without any real evidence that there is.

 

[Cypress]

And if it had a different composition, it would have different life forms. These life forms exist because they can in this universe. The universe is always going to be balanced and tuned to things in it or those things wouldn’t exist, something else would. And the universe would be perfectly tuned to THAT. So it isn’t coincidence. It is inevitable.

Matter only exists because the fine tuning of physical constants and the tuning of the Higgs field. There's no reason a universe of pure energy or plasma shouldn't have existed if a few constants were be changed, and the Higgs field tweaked.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And if it had a different composition, it would have different life forms. These life forms exist because they can in this universe. The universe is always going to be balanced and tuned to things in it or those things wouldn’t exist, something else would. And the universe would be perfectly tuned to THAT. So it isn’t coincidence. It is inevitable.

Or none at all. If the multiverse theory holds true, there would be Universes devoid of life and incapable of supporting it. There might be some where the natural laws prevent matter from existing. OTOH, there might be some where life sprouts spontaneously from everything.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think a strictly literalist interpretation of the bible is both stupid and theologically wrong.

Strict Biblical literalism is most closely associated with conservative American Protestantism

Agreed. It also goes against using one’s God-given brains.