Into the Night
Verified User
Why do you assume there was a Big Bang?
The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Why do you assume there was a Big Bang?
Yakuda
Verified User
Yes. Perhaps but what evidence do you have for such a thing.
Yakuda
Verified User
The expansion of the universe. BTW an idea first posited by a Catholic priest
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Your thread offers the opportunity for me to repeat myself.
The entire solitary, comprehensive and inclusive universe, of which by the definition of "universe" there can only be one,
is merely the totally random confluence of sub-atomic particles in the otherwise infinite vacuum of space.
The source of the sub-atomic particles is unfathomable to the human brain in its present level of evolution,
nor is there to this point any evidence that there's anything to gain by knowing.
I have accurately defined the universe as accurately as it may be defined at this point, so now,
I'm going to think about donuts instead. I am admittedly into good donuts.
The entire solitary, comprehensive and inclusive universe, of which by the definition of "universe" there can only be one,
is merely the totally random confluence of sub-atomic particles in the otherwise infinite vacuum of space.
The source of the sub-atomic particles is unfathomable to the human brain in its present level of evolution,
nor is there to this point any evidence that there's anything to gain by knowing.
I have accurately defined the universe as accurately as it may be defined at this point, so now,
I'm going to think about donuts instead. I am admittedly into good donuts.
Yakuda
Verified User
So wordy but at the exact same time so incomprehensibly lazy.
Last edited:
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I dunno. Looked pretty straightforward to me. They defined their terms in the first paragraph and then proceeded to explain our limitations, none of which are controversial.
They key difference is: some people are so in need of a "placeholder" that they make up one, like "God" to explain that which is effectively inexplicable. And if you ask a LOT of religious folks to "explain God" they will shrug and note that God is beyond human understanding.
So it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. They are effectively the same.
Some of us just prefer to leave it unknown without a placeholder. And CERTAINLY not a placeholder that then has specific requirements that allow followers of that placeholder to decree that others are to be eternally damned for failure to believe as they do in their placeholder.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
...who was ALSO a degreed cosmologist and physicist.
Which do you think was necessary to establish the "Big Bang"? Religious faith or observation and measurement of physical objects?
Yakuda
Verified User
Correct AND a Catholic priest. I mentioned that because there are some who aren't quite savvy enough to realize that faith and science arent at odds with each other
See what I mean?
Yakuda
Verified User
It isn't as impressive a question as I suspect you think it is even if you ask it twice
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I am doubtful that it was his Catholicism that carried the day in terms of science. Just like Murray Gell-Mann being way into Buddhism and even tried to apply it in his classification of subatomic particles (riffing on the "8-fold way", if I recall), but at the end of the day it wasn't the Buddhism that made the case, it was the science.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
You want to take a stab at this "simple question", then?
Yakuda
Verified User
What's hilarious is youre making a case against an argument that was never made but you're so proud of yourself. Good for you. Do you know why I mentioned that he was priest?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I assumed it was because you thought religion has something valuable to add to the sciences. Maybe I was mistaken. If that is the case please accept my sincerest apologies.
Yakuda
Verified User
Religion does have something valuable to add to the sciences but that's still not the reason I mentioned it. I'll give you credit though for having the decency to recognize you don't know everything. Apology accepted.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
The universe exists.
Yakuda
Verified User
Incorrect
Two reasons. First to note that religion is not incompatible with science and two that with all his knowledge Fr. Lemaitre did not abandon his belief in God. That's the arena of intellectual spiritual sloths.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Of course. And your existence [along with that of so many like you] legitimizes the question, "Is this a good thing?"
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Religion cannot have any role in science. Nicolas Steno is another prime example. He established the core of much of what we know about old earth Geology but he, himself, ultimately left the sciences and became a Bishop. Murray Gell-Mann (a leader in the early development of the standard model of physics) was heavily influenced by Buddhism when he tried to leverage it for his classification scheme of subatomic particles (8 fold way). BUT THE RELIGIOUS STUFF HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the science per se.
Sure the people doing it were religious in one way or another, and maybe even they felt it was a great thing to see the "mind of God" in their discoveries. But religion CANNOT play a role in science since science works ONLY with the testable and/or observable.
This is not to say that scientists cannot be religious, but they are forbidden to introduce "miracles" into their science and there's almost nothing I can think of that would call for a religious thought in the science lab.
Into the Night
Verified User
The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science, just as the Theory of the Continuum (the universe has always existed and always will).
From our local position, we do observe a so-called 'red shift' of galaxies as they move away from us, but even if they are, our little corner of the universe has nothing do with anywhere else that so far has not been observed.
No boundary of the universe has ever been observed.
Assuming said priest (Lemaître) is proposing a theory that is actually True, where was God before the Big Bang? If He was outside the universe, then the 'universe' isn't the universe. It is not universal.
If God was part of the Big Bang, that directly conflicts with the numerous descriptions of Him being from everlasting to everlasting.
So what Lemaître proposed has some problems that conflicts directly with the Catholic Church and the teachings of God.