Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
They all may require a measure of uncertainty and speculation, but if you wanted to go with the theory which requires the least amount of unsupported assumptions, which would you choose?
How does religfious belief carry on ?
- Thread starter ThE sAtIvA hIgH
- Start date
Brick Top
New Member
I'm not fighting over anything, nor have I actually taken a stance on what I may or may not believe. I only pointed out how the lack of definitive proof of a God is really no different that the lack of definitive proof of any other belief of how all things came to be.
Brick Top
New Member
Supported or unsupported assumptions nevertheless remain assumptions.
Would it be fair to say that much, if not all, of the support for the assumption of the Big Bang Theory relies, at least to some degree or another, on physics?
Well, so far two experiments have resulted in neutrinos being found to travel faster than the speed of light. If that is upheld and proven to be accurate, than Einstein was wrong that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, and physics relies on that pretty heavily, right? So if the speed of light is not the fastest speed achievable, than much of the support for any assumption that relies on physics for it's proof is bound to be inaccurate. If that is the case, how supportive actually is the support?
Personally, I don't care in the least what would truthfully explain what and how. I am here and that is all that matter to me.
I just like pointing out to those who say that since there is no proof of the existence of God that a God does not exist, even though in their belief structure there also lacks irrefutable absolutes and for them to believe what they believe, regardless of how they attempt to validate it or justify it or define it or rationalize it, it still comes down to a leap of faith for their belief to exist, just as in the case of those who believe in a God or intelligent design or moon men being behind the creation of everything.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
All belief structures lack irrefutable absolutes. Any answer we have is at best an approximation of the truth. I agree that this is something worth pointing out, especially in response to the OP.
You do however make it sound as if the lack of absolutes puts creationism and the big bang on equal ground. There is a big difference between wild uncontrolled assumptions and evidence based assumptions, such a difference that it becomes necessary to not conflate the two. To say they both require a leap of faith is superficial and reductive. The difference is in the methodology. One is the result of intuitive guesswork, and the other of strictly controlled and rigorous application of consistent doubt in the pursuit of evidence. One gives us extremely rigid and specific answers and tries to explain away the inconsistencies, and the other gives us an ever growing framework of understanding of how the universe presents itself and what that may imply. One is supported by the word of men, the other is supported by math, cosmology, physics, geology, empirical observation, ect. When we examine these two types of faith, we see that they are so very different as to effectively be opposites.
Since absolute answers are off the table, we have to go with the most accurate approximation. That is best accomplished by paying strict and close attention to our assumptions, rather than saying they are all assumptions never the less.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
No legitimate scientist claims the big bang created everything, only that the universe as we know it started in a very hot dense, spot, and then it started to expand. Furthermore we do see cosmic background radiation, exactly as predicted by Stephen Hawking, which also supports the Big Bang Theory.
No, they don't require faith. Faith exists in a barren lack of evidence (or in the face of ignorance), and we have plenty of evidence, and have extrapolated a wealth of theories from that evidence. These theories are currently the best explanation we have, and as new evidence becomes available the theories will change. 'Faith' doesn't require evidence, or careful, planned, measurement and analysis.
So, no; scientific theory doesn't require faith.
WeedKillsBrainCells
Well-Known Member
Big bang doesn't particularly need verifiable proof, its called theory for a reason. Personally I think it's gonna be pretty hard to work out what happened all those years ago. Still... i'd gladly settle more with 'i dont know' than a magical creator
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Something else I find interesting when I converse with people IRL. Although they persist and say that god is about faith, they have no problem listing what they see as evidence. The bible's historical (in)accuracy, miracles, personal experiences, the complexity of life, ect. Faith is only used as a fallback, when this evidence is brought into question. Essentially it's used as a sort of special pleading. This is another outstanding distinction between the 'faith' science has in the big bang and faith in the church.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Ok scratch off "fighting" and insert "master-debating". We cool?
lol.
FR33MASON
Active Member
If you read again, you will see that I noted that not all people, but some people will use faith to cope with the unknown. Not all people have the same level of consciousness.
FR33MASON
Active Member
Words only matter if you allow them to matter. Yes the bible, the quran and all religious texts are a crock in my opinion but it is just my opinion. I am curious as to what devout individuals did to provoke such animosity from people.
I do envy religious people as ignorance is bliss.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
This is a common mistake. 'Theory' in scientific terms means best explanation based upon the available evidence. The term theory can cover anything from something we know very little about (multi-world theory, String Theory) to something we are almost 100% certain about (Evolution, Big-bang theory).
Farfenugen
Well-Known Member
fear.......
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
^ best answer yet.
joey555
New Member
I do agree w/ some of ur points....I do, but the "BIG BANG" is a misnomer...a bang cannot happen in space/ or vaccum. That which has not been proved yet by science does not mean it will remain that way......there was a time when negative energy or anti-matter did not exsist until it was proved or to put it another way, humans were not aware that the GENE HAR-1 has exsisted until the discipline of genetics came to be then when the genome was mapped- we became aware of the HAR-1.
Please do not misconstrue this as an affront, or me being a dick~~~ just adding input.