To be fair-minded, there was at least one time the theologians were sorta correct and the scientists were going down the wrong path. Until the early 20th century scientists generally thought the universe was static, unchanging, and infinitely old. But the fact that there was a moment of creation was confirmed by the observations of cosmic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation
God
- Thread starter Tinkerpeach
- Start date
To be fair-minded, there was at least one time the theologians were sorta correct and the scientists were going down the wrong path. Until the early 20th century scientists generally thought the universe was static, unchanging, and infinitely old. But the fact that there was a moment of creation was confirmed by the observations of cosmic red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation
The fact that the universe has a mathmatical scaffolding is an observation, it's not an explanation for why it is that way. Even a scientist as brilliant as Issac Newton thought the mathmatical natural laws were evidence of a divine organizing principle. I'm not saying I agree with him, but it remains an unanswered metaphysical question.
I think we might ultimately have a corroborated theory for dark matter. Dark energy might just be an inherent property of space, which raises metaphysical questions itself if true.
Because of the speed of light, the observable universal always appear to us as an ancient fossil of the remote past. We can never observe the universe as it is today because photons take billions of years to reach our telescopes. And most of the universe is now accelerating away from us at velocities greater than light, meaning we will never observe the photons leaving their stars and matter
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed, but there's a huge difference between understanding the rules, which is doable, and understanding why the rules exist.
Agreed about observing the entire Universe in real time. Regardless, understanding the physics governing it is as completely knowable as the workings of a clock. Predictions can be made and verified.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Hopefully you see that this is exactly how science works. Let's take the example of a drug trial. The scientists start off from the position that "The drug has no effect" and then test against that.
If they run the tests and they don't find any "cures" happening they conclude that they have failed to reject that position, hence "The drug has no effect".
Of course it COULD be that the drug DOES have an effect, they just failed to find sufficient evidence for it. But at the end of the day the conclusion is that the drug has no effect.
Same with the "God concept". The rational place to START is with the position that "There is no God" and then test against that. That's how inference works.
I have failed to find sufficient evidence to reject that initial position. Same with unicorns, same with the invisible wall on the interstate.
This preserves YOUR position that, indeed, this could be wrong. And it makes logical sense. But it isn't really a "belief" in the same way as religious belief.
Hope that clarifies my position.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Science isn't a thing per se, it's a method of study.
Religion is a formalized structure of spirituality.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
But it wasn't because the religious people had any evidence for it. This is the "anosmic pigs and truffles" concept. Sure religion might have said the universe was created, but it wasn't like they had any evidence for it. Unlike the actual big bang in which was established by scientific observation and not fiat declaration.
And even then religion could still be quite wrong. The universe could be eternally existent just in a cycle of big bang-inflation-deflation-big collapse--big bang-inflation-deflation-big collapse--...
Given the Bible's track record on almost all other science it is safe to say that it generally lacks the standing to go up against science on fact claims.
A series of big crunches is a guess. It is contradicted by data which suggested a universe expanding at accelerating rates.
The observational fact is that there was a moment of creation.
The mathmatical concept of infinity was probably unintelligible to Neolithic people. A scientific hypothesis of a static and infinitely old universe would have made no sense to most of them. Undoubtedly they used intuition and common sense to derive a moment of creation in their cosmological world view.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I understand scientific methodology. I understand someone who says "there is no such thing as multiverses" is basing their opinion on belief, not science.
https://www.britannica.com/science/multiverse
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Well, given that there is currently no unfalsifiable way to assess the claim of "multiverses" it's not really quite the same thing. But I get your point.
There are many, many examples which are more appropriate to my original point (like the drug trial, or literally any other claim in science)
Would you say that it is a "belief" on a par with religion to suggest homeopathy doesn't work, for example?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I am not wholly sure I agree there about the lack of infinity concept (I wholly agree that mathematically they wouldn't have the concept, but the concept per se can be inferred). Presumably the early religious thought was that God was eternal and as such "infinite" in whatever temporal or quasi-temporal structure you like.
Either way I don't think religion had any special "insight" to prove science wrong. They just made an ex cathedra claim that God created the universe and went with it. Science, when done correctly, doesn't start off with a claim and test for it, they start off with a claim and test AGAINST it. (Like the drug trial example I gave earlier to Doc).
The Bible also claimed that plants appeared on earth before the sun. I think we can easily assume that any time the Bible got the science correct it was more happenstance than actual insight.
Guesses, intuition, and imagination are a key part of science.
The multiverse doesn't currently have any data to support it, but it is a great scientific idea that should be considered, and possibly tested if and when anyone can come up with ways to do it. Some people think anomalous statistical patterns CMB might hold the key.
I don't claim the bible is a scientific document. Just that the intuition about a moment of creation seems to have been borne out by scientific observation.
I think there is a lot of truth in the Gospel of Matthew and the Daodejing. It's just doesn't happen to be truth of a scientific nature.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It would help explain the origin of the Universe.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Hence my comment about anosmic pigs and truffles. (Or the way the phrase used to be "even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle"). I don't think it was an intuition based on fact, it was just a guess that happened to maybe be correct. But I do see your point.
OH, yeah, I totally agree. There's a lot of truth about how people are in the collected writings of religions all around the world. There is a lot of value in these texts.
I just try to resist the urge to point and laugh at the scientific knowledge of Bronze age people.
In the year 1904, highly educated and scientifically literate people would have roared with laughter being told that time and distance were not uniform and static. Time and spatial distances can be, and are different to different observers.
Many of our scientific theories will probably look preposterous in 200 years.
Tinkerpeach
New member
Actually the Bible has never been scientifically wrong, only our interpretations have been wrong which in itself is an amazing feat since there were over 40 different authors of it.
The more we learn about science the more we can clarify things in the Bible
Not a single piece of tangible physical evidence supports string theory. It is just a consequence of theoretical mathematics.
Maybe the multiverse as a concept lies in higher mathematics, rather than in any tangible evidence
IBDaMann
Well-known member
No, Terry, atheists do not believe that. We'll schedule your brain stem for an MRI
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct. There is no science in the Bible.
Genesis has two different creation stories, the details of which contradict each other.