Grandpa Greenman Posted February 11, 2015 #1 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Way down in the depth of the site, in the science section there is a discuss of a new (old) idea in cosmology that the Universe alway was and there was no bang, no actual beginning the Universe just always was. Here is a link to the discussion. http://www.unexplain...1 and link to the article. http://phys.org/news...iverse.html#jCp Can't really discuss it's effect on religion, if true, in the science section. My question is, if there is no beginning of the Universe and it just always was, then doesn't that kind of negate the need for a creator? No creation, no creator. If this is true would it affect your religious thinking? Edited February 11, 2015 by GreenmansGod 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holographic60 Posted February 11, 2015 #2 Share Posted February 11, 2015 There is stil a "Creation" involving the material world... The real world, though, the greater reality involves Eternity. The situation existent apart from time and space, as we experience it "here. Apart from the perception of linear time. This is what we wake up to when we depart from, "here". As one can read in the many anecdotal accounts at www.nderf.org also. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k0zm1k Posted February 11, 2015 #3 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) It seems to me that this would only reaffirm the notion that many religious people seem to maintain. That God is and always has been. The Big Bang Theory was believed by many to debunk religious creation stories as there was now a scientific explanation for creation which didn't require a God, but merely a Singularity. But the Creationists saw it as evidence that something had been created, since the Big Bang Theory couldn't tell us what happened moments before the Big Bang. This left room for Creationists to say that what happened prior to the Big Bang was an act of God. This new theory now, if it becomes widely accepted, will not end the debate. It will only force all sides of it to ammend their positions and theories accordingly. Because this is what humans do when they fall into the trap of Certainty of Belief. They defend it to no end! Religion is predicated on faith in something that can't be observed, science upon discovery and exploration of what can be observed...but both require a great deal of blind faith in order to fully accept their assumptions about the Universe. And the faithful are always blinded by this. So, in short, I don't think it does anything to shake the belief in God, nor does it do anything to affirm the absence or presence of one. It's simply another theory of how and why that will likely be replaced by several more over the next hundred years. Seems to be the pattern anyhow. Edited February 11, 2015 by k0zm1k 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 11, 2015 #4 Share Posted February 11, 2015 This topic was discussed at length recently in this thread, you might want to review it: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=270313 Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted February 11, 2015 #5 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I think it would depend on the religion, and the sect within a particular religion. If you view the universe as being separate fro [insert deity here], then it would mess with your faith. If you view the universe and [deity] to be closely related or the same thing, then it would likely support your belief. And then we have the Buddhists, hangin' out and not bothering anyone, who likely wouldn't care one way or another. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted February 12, 2015 Author #6 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As a pantheist, reading the article my first thought was something that makes sense to me at last. In one form or another the Universe just is, makes me all warm and fuzzy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted February 12, 2015 Author #7 Share Posted February 12, 2015 This topic was discussed at length recently in this thread, you might want to review it: http://www.unexplain...howtopic=270313 Br Cornelius Thanks I forgot about the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted February 12, 2015 #8 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Just puts the argument back to square one sans the convoluted explanation by a certain famous atheist in his book as to why the big bang doesn't require God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 12, 2015 #9 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Let there be LIGHT ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted February 12, 2015 #10 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Way down in the depth of the site, in the science section there is a discuss of a new (old) idea in cosmology that the Universe alway was and there was no bang, no actual beginning the Universe just always was. Here is a link to the discussion. http://www.unexplain...1 and link to the article. http://phys.org/news...iverse.html#jCp Can't really discuss it's effect on religion, if true, in the science section. My question is, if there is no beginning of the Universe and it just always was, then doesn't that kind of negate the need for a creator? No creation, no creator. If this is true would it affect your religious thinking? Religion always find an easy out, which seems to be not too much of a problem with an omnipotent being. Man was not made by God, we're star stuff. Yet somehow God still made man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted February 12, 2015 #11 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Let there be LIGHT ! Took about 380 thousand years according to the best information we have today. I saw that article on FB today too. On the IFL science site. LINK I also saw a quote form Carl Sagan If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth. Problem seems to be the premise is rather shaky, I do not expect this to change much of what we know, it's an interesting thought experiment in very early stages. From the above Link Although Das and Ali's vision appears to resolve a number of problems with the dominant cosmological models, it still requires extensive elaboration to test whether it has even larger problems of its own. Edited February 12, 2015 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Acid Posted February 12, 2015 #12 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Yes, religion is so infused with logic that practitioners will always change their views when new evidence comes along. Ah hang on, that's science. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood_Sacrifice Posted February 13, 2015 #13 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Neither this new theory, nor the big bang, actually proves (or disproves) God. How one wish to reconcile their religious beliefs with science is their perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzillasaurus Posted February 13, 2015 #14 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I apologize, but the theory that the Universe never began is ridiculous. It is fundamentally impossible for something to always exist; it must have been forged by SOMETHING. It seems that atheists pull-out ridiculous theories like this one just because they choose not to side with the possibility of there being a creator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted February 13, 2015 #15 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) God can actually allow a big bang to occur, produce earth in a Great Lab, then plug in earth to the current 3D universe on Day 4. That said, strictly speaking big bang is not a science, it is rather history. ====== To me, today's "science" (Tree of Knowledge) is destroying faith more than building it. Today's science is more like a religion. science has limits. I forgot which theorem says that it is impossible to make all the laws/theories correct when we do our research and observation from inside our universe. We need to stand outside the box in order to make our laws/theories scientifically correct. We cannot do experiments outside our 3D space neither. If certain existence is a mixture from multiple spaces, then we may not be able to discover it from inside our 3D space through scientific experiments. On the other hand, the accuracy of science relies on its power of prediction (i.e., the predictability of science). Basically, science is the detecting of truth by prediction. We speculate that something repeats itself endlessly and thus develop a 'formula' to describe this repeated behavior. The 'formula' is only considered as 'proven' when its prediction of the repeating behavior makes no mistake. We can arrive the surface of the moon because the theory behind it makes correct predictions without mistakes. Our brain recognizes such a truth by "prediction with no mistakes". Another example is water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. We make prediction before each and every lab experiment without mistakes. In fact, if your prediction fails, that is, water doesn't dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you deserve a Nobel Prize. That's why true science (predictions without failure) is accurate and reliable. However, today's humans demand that everything should be with a "scientific" explanation. We thus call everything a "science" including those don't have a repeating pattern for you to make the infallible predictions to confirm their truth. Big bang, evolution and etc., which by far we have no way to confirm their truth by means of prediction without failure. Big bang is a one time event never repeats itself for us to confirm its truth, while we have never observed the process of a, say, mammal being developed from a single cell organism. We haven't done this for even once, not to speak to make it predictable unlimited number of times like how water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. When given water we can predict correctly unlimited number of times how it turns to hydrogen and oxygen. When given a single cell organism, we can never tell (not even once) how it can turn into a mammal. "Science" of this kind can never attain the same accuracy as a true science (such as water change into hydrogen and oxygen). The "science" we call is not the same science capable of detecting a truth beyond double. Only those true science (with prediction without failure) can attain such an accuracy. The false science is thus confusing us to think that they can attain the same accuracy as a true science does. We can no longer distinguish between the two. We assume them as the same by our education. To me, our education system is the mark of beast. Everyone stepping out of our education will thus fight God using the false science exclusively. However it is forewarned that the fruit from this Tree of Knowledge is something that the day you choose to eat of it, the same day you shall surely die. God on the other hand, hid the Tree of Life from the reach of humans. Humans thus have no way to get to the truth hidden behind our physical death. We have to have faith either to believe that life will continue, or to believe with the same among of faith that life ceases to continue. Our knowledge (our science) will never reach such a truth! In contrary, our science is becoming a deceiving agent leading to our second death, just as prophesied in Genesis. Edited February 13, 2015 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted February 13, 2015 Author #16 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I apologize, but the theory that the Universe never began is ridiculous. It is fundamentally impossible for something to always exist; it must have been forged by SOMETHING. It seems that atheists pull-out ridiculous theories like this one just because they choose not to side with the possibility of there being a creator. No they put it out, because the math worked, unlike big bang theory where the math didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 13, 2015 #17 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) spinning spinning spinning around spinning around always always always spinning around spinning around spinning spinning spinning around always always spinning around spinning around ! I wish there were no nukes ever. Edited February 13, 2015 by Ellapennella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Skellington Posted February 14, 2015 #18 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Kind of cracks me up, really... If you go with the Big Bong theory, you get to a point where there is nothing and then nothing explodes and forms everything. You must be smoking something. Now they say that-- No! It couldn't have started with a bang, but it must have always existed--- which, by the way is exactly how Christians have come to understand God, accepting that God was always there and that He brought everything else into existence. Some "scientists" have such a problem with religion, so they have to call what was at the beginning a "Singularity" (but not God) and they insist that "Something" always existed (but not God) yet they refuse to call their own beliefs (theories) a religion, which of course it is. It's just a religion without God at the heart of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenWolf Posted February 14, 2015 #19 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Kind of cracks me up, really... If you go with the Big Bong theory, you get to a point where there is nothing and then nothing explodes and forms everything. You must be smoking something. Now they say that-- No! It couldn't have started with a bang, but it must have always existed--- which, by the way is exactly how Christians have come to understand God, accepting that God was always there and that He brought everything else into existence. Some "scientists" have such a problem with religion, so they have to call what was at the beginning a "Singularity" (but not God) and they insist that "Something" always existed (but not God) yet they refuse to call their own beliefs (theories) a religion, which of course it is. It's just a religion without God at the heart of it. A belief is not a religion, it is a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted February 14, 2015 #20 Share Posted February 14, 2015 So everything came from nothing and has been here forever... Accepting that seems to be as much a reliance on faith as anything any religion ever stated. I refuse to believe that the beauty OR the horror of our lives is built on an unanswerable randomness. I believe that in this physical realm we cannot really understand the truth of the reality out "there". It will only be when we have shuffled off this mortality that we will understand what it was all about - and I'm okay with that. In the meantime I try not to harm others on the same journey...I try. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogbin Posted February 14, 2015 #21 Share Posted February 14, 2015 This topic was discussed at length recently in this thread, you might want to review it Br Cornelius Oh no.. not this again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted February 14, 2015 #22 Share Posted February 14, 2015 A belief is not a religion, it is a belief. but if you believe to believe that a belief you believe is a belief that you believe to believe and not a religion you belive by belief in to not believe in but just a belief you believe to believe in and that it's not anything but a belief you believe in is your belief . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted February 14, 2015 #23 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Kind of cracks me up, really... If you go with the Big Bong theory, you get to a point where there is nothing and then nothing explodes and forms everything. You must be smoking something. Or beating a straw man.Now they say that-- No! It couldn't have started with a bang, but it must have always existed--- which, by the way is exactly how Christians have come to understand God, accepting that God was always there and that He brought everything else into existence.And gives a completely fictional account of it.Some "scientists" have such a problem with religion, so they have to call what was at the beginning a "Singularity" (but not God) and they insist that "Something" always existed (but not God) yet they refuse to call their own beliefs (theories) a religion, which of course it is.It's just a religion without God at the heart of it. Yeah, those "scientists" invent all kinds of silly beliefs; the evolutionary theory, germ theory, atomic theory, etc. They just can't accept God's geocentric creation which occurred about 6000 years ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Br Cornelius Posted February 14, 2015 #24 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The Big Bang was the creation of a priest with the express purpose of allowing God the initiator to still exist in a scientific world. The Big Bang rests on assumptions/fudges which were introduced at each stage when observations failed to match its predictions. A steady state model can adequately explain all observations unlike the Big Bang model which relies on fudges to explain observations. The Big Bang in its current form is almost certainly a dead theory (just few want to admit it yet), but what replaces it is still to be disacovered. i put my money on steady state, but thats just a hunch. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted February 14, 2015 #25 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The Big Bang was the creation of a priest with the express purpose of allowing God the initiator to still exist in a scientific world. The Big Bang rests on assumptions/fudges which were introduced at each stage when observations failed to match its predictions. A steady state model can adequately explain all observations unlike the Big Bang model which relies on fudges to explain observations. The Big Bang in its current form is almost certainly a dead theory (just few want to admit it yet), but what replaces it is still to be disacovered. i put my money on steady state, but thats just a hunch. Br Cornelius So for the sake of curiosity, why is the Big Bang still regarded as a "theory" in science? Shouldn't it be marked down by science as a failed hypothesis? I know you stated that "just few want to admit it yet", but if that is so what makes your opinion more authoritative or valid than the astrophysicists who have devoted their lives to the study of the cosmos? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts