the unifying theory of god, the big bang, and evolution

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

the unifying theory of god, the big bang, and evolution

Postby batmanmg » Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:30 pm

well considering that these arguments are almost completely stemmed with the creation of things, the universe, mankind, and the such. then how about this theological theory. mind you i haven't gotten all the kinks out, which is what i have you for.


i'll use billards/pool as an analogy. the first shot in any pool game is the break. what if you could break and know exactly where every one of the balls was going to end up... but more than just know, be able to control your shot to produce whatever (within the bounds of the rules of the game, no extra balls apearing or dissapearing) outcome you wish. you'd be one pretty skilled pool player... well just think of god as that amazing pool player and that break shot as the big bang... he started the cosmos out in such a way that (quantum physics and everything (he's omniscent you know so he didn't measure it, he just knew)) after a long time of waiting, the human race evolved from monkeys.

i'd love to hear your response on the topic,,, especially if your a person of faith. and i know i can be confusing, so if you need clearification, just ask.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby houserichichi » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:29 pm

It cannot be proven nor can it be refuted. The deist argument (which is what I would consider this one) is just as faith-based as any religious one in that it requires the existence of some supernatural being to have some cause-effect on the way things are that are not measurable. It very well could be the case that some god set the universe in motion using all the laws of physics as we know them and has allowed us to discover and tabulate its logic, but it is certainly nothing more than a philisophical argument and nothing more. It lies beyond the realm of science which will never include a god because by definition gods are supernatural and beyond measurement. It never hurts to spark debate though.

That's all just my opinion.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby batmanmg » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:58 pm

and a very good opinion it is... i put forth this theory becuase you hear so much about how science counters the existance of god, and god counters the logic of science. this seems the only logicle conclusion that allows both to exist harmoniously

now i need add ons to this, like the whole marry birthing jesus a virgin, and actualy how literal we should take the creation of man story if the creation of the universe isn't to be taken quite so literaly, and the idea of a soul.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby houserichichi » Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:59 pm

It's definitely an attempt by the faith based community to meld a god into the fabric of science, but science by definition does not have a god at all simply because it is not scientific to just believe in something. Science focuses on evidence and gods leave none of that (hence the word 'faith' in faith based). If the Big Bang turns out to be 'wrong' then a real scientist would search or develop a newer, more accurate theory. If that fails then they continue the process. Since there are an infinitude of possible processes then the argument continues ad infinitum and so gods never play a factor and are completely unscientific.

A scientist's version of the deist argument would run something to the effect of 'what the religious call god is nothing more than an amalgamation of natural processes'. A bold statement, but thus far I don't think there are many things that a group of expert scientists could not describe/ascribe to some natural phenomena.

I could be wrong.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby batmanmg » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:19 am

yeah but a scientist denying a claim that god could have been the one to start time and the big bang from nothingness is just as bad as a faithful person denying a claim that the big bang ever happened...
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby Nick » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:24 am

batmanmg wrote:yeah but a scientist denying a claim that god could have been the one to start time and the big bang from nothingness is just as bad as a faithful person denying a claim that the big bang ever happened...


How so? One has faith, the other has some scientific evidence. They're not equal; it depends on which you value more.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby houserichichi » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:17 pm

What I meant by the no-god comment is more general than the way it literally sounds. A scientist must rule out all supernatural elements regarding anything to do with the nature of existence. Since gods are supernatural in the most strict definition of the word they may not play a part in the scientific explanation of the universe.

I used to agree with what you are saying, that scientists could never be anything better than agnostic, but it isn't the duty of the scientist to prove/disprove the existence of gods as they aren't the ones making the claims. It's the religious person's obligation to offer up the proof as its their theory/belief. If I claimed that thirteen million years ago there was a single elephant that had wings and opposable thumbs it would be up to me to offer into evidence something that would convince the scientist, not the other way around. If it was the other way around (forcing all scientists to be at least agnostic) then there would be nothing from stopping the scientific community from being overloaded and all progress stopped by all the other asinine claims, including those of gods.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby batmanmg » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:04 am

irockyou wrote:
batmanmg wrote:yeah but a scientist denying a claim that god could have been the one to start time and the big bang from nothingness is just as bad as a faithful person denying a claim that the big bang ever happened...


How so? One has faith, the other has some scientific evidence. They're not equal; it depends on which you value more.



what i mean is that the faithful person denies a scientific world because their faith does not alow for it, a scientific person denies a faithful world becuase their science does not alow for it. the faithful dissagree becuase of their faith, the scientific dissagree becuase of their science.


and i aways thought a scientist will never rule out a possibility until it is proven wrong, or that a different possibility is proven right. as for the begining of the universe, you can't rule out the supernatural, you can only disregard it.



it isn't the duty of the scientist to prove/disprove the existence of gods as they aren't the ones making the claims. It's the religious person's obligation to offer up the proof as its their theory/belief.


now your putting all the weight on the faithfuls shoulder. one could flip your statement and say that it isn't up to the faithful to prove,disprove that the bigbang occured nonsupernaturaly, its up to the scientists to prove to the faithful that the big bang occured as they see it. but thats just it... the big bang is a theory,, not provable (at least not right now), just like god/ a suppernatural begining.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby PWrong » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:31 am

the big bang is a theory,, not provable (at least not right now)

Of couse it is. If it wasn't provable, they wouldn't have proven it. :wink:
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby houserichichi » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:52 pm

The word "theory" in Big Bang theory is a lot more than the every day word synonymous with "hunch". It is most definitely on the shoulders of the scientist to give conclusive, testable, predictable, and useful evidence supporting the Big Bang or any of the myriad of other theories that science encompasses and that is exactly what they're doing and is exactly why the Big Bang is commonly accepted among those that follow science as the origins of...well...everything. That's because the scientists are the ones making the claim.

Conversely, the religious are the ones claiming the existence of god(s) and have yet (in my eyes) to shed any conclusive evidence. The real trick, however, is that to show evidence of a blatant claim like the existence of a god, one is forced to use the tools of science. Things like "life is too complex to happen by accident" for instance are much too vague and completely devoid of any real backing-up to be considered support. The religious, in my experience, make the claim that a god exists. Fine. They then try and back up said claim with other claims. This is not evidence, this is not support, and this is not helping the rest of us take them seriously. This is claim after claim after claim. If science worked that way then I wouldn't believe it either but at least they're coming up with predictable, testable, and supportive evidence.

Everything in the universe (or at least everything that I'm aware of, anyway) follows the laws of physics. If it is the case that a god created everything then it lets things just go as you said, following the laws of physics. Since god is supernatural by definition it cannot be measured by science. Thus, there is no such thing as the proof of the existence of a god. Occam's razor would then boot god(s) right the heck out of the equation...strictly speaking, to a scientist it doesn't matter whether a god exists or not...the theory already dictates that one doesn't exist. This is why it's on the shoulders of the religious to come up with something new and original that nobody else has thought of to support their empty (in the eyes of evidence/science) claims.

The universe started and will continue without the need for a god.

It's up to the religious to prove that statement wrong if they want to invoke one.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Nick » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:20 pm

Here's a post from talkorigins.org:

Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support a scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it. If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus. If that hypothesis has no credible competition, despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar. If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation and testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork. Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!)


This applies to all theories; the Big Bang theory, the Theory of Evolution, and Einstein's theories of Relativity.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby batmanmg » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:05 am

well then, i beseach you to pose any other theory of how the universe/time began... a hard issue, becuase another thread has already come t the conclusion that something cannot come from nothing on its own.


No conclusion of that kind has been made.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby moonlord » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:35 pm

The other thread has come to the conclusion that regarding whatever happened before the Big Bang, we can only make untestable hypothesis.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Postby houserichichi » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:47 pm

The faithful are forced to accept science lest they live with the mindset of the outdated. The true fundamentalists (specifically of Christianity as it's the only religion I have ever studied; I leave the others to someone else) believe in supernatural tales that contradict entirely the rules of science. In fact, their belief in said stories are completely at odds with the scientific way of thinking - science doesn't just 'believe' something, it holds it as conjecture until evidence has been found. When enough evidence is found it turns into theory. Scientists 'believe' theory but are open to altering/completely switching it depending on circumstances. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced entirely with Einstein's. Just so happens that Einstein's version has a special case that reduces to Newton's, but fact of the matter is that Einstein's is here, Newton's (as 'truth') is gone. Scientists also know that Einstein's is incomplete so it will, one day, be altered/switched. The religious can't say the same for their theory (unless of course their book were to suddenly be changed).

As a side note, I have no problems with the religious or religion as a philosophy. As a way of life, however, I am vehemently opposed on so many levels. I do hope that isn't washing into my posts - I'm only trying to state the way things are, neutral or not. Of course, I welcome criticism.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby batmanmg » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:11 pm

well this whole thing turned totaly off based. it was a little idea that maybe we could get the faithful peoples to stop protesting big bang theory being taught in school and such. I think i would be much more appreciative of the universe if i could have been taught how it started out.. and let the religious debate then be about what happend before. wich since its not likely to be proven one way or the other will turn into a futile conflict that stays out of the schools.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby gerren » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:56 am

The true fundamentalists (specifically of Christianity as it's the only religion I have ever studied; I leave the others to someone else) believe in supernatural tales that contradict entirely the rules of science


But then again, since God supposedly contradicts the rules of science, wouldnt it make sense for the tales in the bible to contradict science when dealing with such a powerful supernatural being? Also, many of these tales, like i have said in other topics, should not be taken so literally. Some of these tails were probably exaggerated for the meaning of the moral to hit people hard. The bible was not written by God himself, and it is not a complete document. A good chunk of the bible is lost!!!
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby XVX » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:20 am

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

-Albert Einstein


IF there is infinite speculation on the origins of the Universe, then there is zero probability that any guesses we have today is correct. Any finite number of guesses has zero probability of being true if there exists the possibility of infinite guessing.

We are all wrong then.

But thats why I like Einsteins quote. There is such an order and logic to the Universe, that if a random system could demonstrate such order and logic, then the Universe is the ONLY example.

As far as physical systems go, the Universe does not display the properties of originating from randomness, but design. If you just threw things together at random, hoping to create a Universe, there would be zero probability for success if there were infinite choices.

To me, the real conundrum is knowledge. How does knowledge begin? Whatever mechanism you believe in for the beginning of the Universe requires an already existing knowledge for that mechanism.

If you think about knowledge, you'll realise, we never create it. We just learn the knowledge that already exists in the Universe. And there is tons of knowledge in the Universe still waiting to be discovered. How did that get there?

How did the electron know to attract to protons, but not other electrons? How does the electron know to use it's gravitational field with all particles, but just some with it's electric field?

All particles have knowledge on how to interact with ALL other particles. How did these particles get that knowledge? How do they retain it?

And thats the real question. How does something know what to do without having instructions? And instructions imply an instructor.

On the other hand, having a higher intelligence seems like a requirement for the order we see, but this higher intelligence still would face the problem of knowledge and how they came about.

Thus, Im agnostic. A higher intelligence seems required, but that still doesn't answer everything.
XVX
Mononian
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Local Group

Postby Hugh » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:56 pm

A very well thought out post XVX.
XVX wrote:On the other hand, having a higher intelligence seems like a requirement for the order we see, but this higher intelligence still would face the problem of knowledge and how they came about.

The answer for me lies in the thought that it has always existed, so it never has needed to be created.

Logically, something cannot come from absolute nothingness, but that's another thread. ;)
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby gerren » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:23 am

Yes, Kudos to you XVX. Although your ideas about the atom are very well thought out, they cant have "knowledge".

All particles have knowledge on how to interact with ALL other particles. How did these particles get that knowledge? How do they retain it?


They dont retain knowledge, they just have an affinity for one another, thus you get the particles reacting with each other. I am christian, of course. I do not exactly know everything about Christianity, and some of the answers they give dont make sense, but I am sure about one thing-a God/Creator has to exist.
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am


Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest