Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum GOD AND THE BIG BANG

GOD AND THE BIG BANG
- AND OTHER ARGUMENTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND FAITH

This is based upon the following web page:
God and the Big Bang

Written by Mike Poole.

In which scientists ability to comment upon the existence of God is challenged.

Also the whole idea of religion being in such complete conflict with science is also challenged.

Extract :

ARE SCIENTISTS ATHEISTIC?
The media love confrontation - it's good for viewing figures and sales. A few vocal scientists, given a disproportionate amount of air time and column inches, often give the impression that scientists are a bunch of atheists.

But there is no evidence that they are any more unbelieving than the rest of society.
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein.

Many of the greatest scientists in history believed in God: Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, to name but a few. Today there are plenty of scientists who are committed Christians. One UK organisation, Christians in Science, has members and contacts numbering some 1500 scientists, including university staff, scientists in industry and science teachers. Other such organisations also exist. But that is not 'news', so they receive little publicity.

And:

Science is the study of the natural world - of nature. Questions about God are questions about whether there is anything other than nature. It's no use going to science, the study of nature, to find out whether there is anything other than nature!

---------------------------------------------

It seems to me that when scientists make claims about being able to disprove God's existence, they are strolling into the realm of philosophy. For example the post - 'Proof that God did not create life'is claiming too much.

Any takers?

Most of the stuff on that site is stupid.

However, the part that you've extracted is largely correct. Proofs that god exists or doesn't are not scientific, they are philosophical.

OTOH, the fact that many scientists of the past believed in god is not particularly relevant. Most of them were brainwashed deeply by their societies from a very young age.

Einstein's religiosity was indistinguishable from atheism. The same could be true of other erstwhile religious scientists.

Belief in god seems silly to me. That's not a scientific view. It's a philosophical view.

OTOH, the fact that many scientists of the past believed in god is not particularly relevant. Most of them were brainwashed deeply by their societies from a very young age.

- Well, yes, this would make sense - but, there are many, many scientists today who profess a religious faith or who will admit to believng in something larger than themselves, however fuzzy that belief may be.

It is just that religion is often portrayed (on this forum as well) as the enemy of science. Admittedly, the church has a very poor record in this area - such as the embarrasing and ridiculous treatment of Galileo and other great scientists, but I and many other believers hold the position that what scientists discover about this universe is very, very welcome and should not be viewed as a threat to faith. For example, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution or the big bang.

The Bible never claimed to be a scientific textbook and has little to say on the subject - unless you are a narrow minded fundamentalist who is not willing to accept the evidence of our own eyes, and wishes to interpret everything in the Bible literally.

Why is it that there is such a harsh treatment of those professing faith, in other threads on this site? Some people posting here seem to have an almost evangelical zeal to rubbish faith.

Regards,

Blacknad.

I can't speak for other people. But in general people like to have certainty. Atheists are no exception.

Also, the fact that some religious people have to keep bringing that into the scientific realm causes some scientists and science enthusiasts to want to fight back.

I can't speak for other people. But in general people like to have certainty. Atheists are no exception.

- True, but I do not think we will ever have complete certainty. I have to live with a great degree of uncertainty - that is the nature of faith. If I could prove - even to myself - that God exists then I would not need to have faith, but as it is, I have to admit to a degree of uncertaincy.

Also, the fact that some religious people have to keep bringing that into the scientific realm causes some scientists and science enthusiasts to want to fight back.

- I do not detect quite the same animosity towards faith in the British scientific community - this may be because the American Christian is of a more fundamentalist variety and attacks scientific theory more readily. I don't know.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad:
Those of us who have been on this forum a long time can remember having the forum attacked and almost destroyed by "people of faith" on more than one occasion. This being, at the time, the only forum that encouraged wide participation of individuals from many aspects of science, not just astrophysics and astronomy, the loss of this forum was felt keenly by those of us who valued it for its diversity and openness. One individual in particular, who shall remain unnamed, wrought so much havoc with long, illiterate and prolixed diatribes against science and scientists, that the entire forum became very sensitive to any remarks that smacked of religiosity. Some of us still remember, and the desire to protect this place as a congregation where freedom from religion is practiced still burns deeply in some people.

This is a science forum, and is a unique place therefore. We'd like to keep it that way. Post religion at your own risk; it can and will be cut if it gets out of hand. Nothing personal; that's why the forum is now moderated and requires registration. You are welcome to post Science and Science related material all you like. That is what we are here for. Faith is not Science and as such has no place here. Send me a personal message if you have a problem with that.

BLACKNAD:

I am a member that signed on recently. I have not observed in the postings any specific attack on religion. Intelligent people know better than to attack a concept that is not based on repeatable factual testing in its origin. But I do wonder why people that may have a profound belief in religion want to confront others to exercise their beliefs. That, to me, suggests insecurity in their concepts but I will not seek to enlarge on that potential insecurity. I prefer to leave the issue dormant; any merit in it will eventually surface. I have read the bible closely while never attempting to memorize it. My interest was to some day write a book interpreting the apparent conflicts with God and Gods questionable un-god like behavior. I may still do it if I live some more.

Let?s go to the Big Bang. That is the scientific theory (one) for the origin of the universe. That is like saying matter always was and always will be. The theology buffs argue that God always was and always will be. Same stuff.

On a different science forum you are permitted to ask an expert any question about science (I forget which one) and some knowledgeable person provides an answer with in a few days. My QUESTION:

If a Black hole is a concentration of matter so extreme that not even light can escape how can we compress the entire universe into a little thing and still have the stuff escape? ANSWER: They are two different things.
I don?t doubt that - but what did he say?

Your answer is to leave your religion at home. We are not going to share.
Jim Wood

Marc P reveals himself as a manipulative and an ignorant person typical of that of a creationist. I?m referring to the cut and paste job:

Is an example, there are more.

I came to this site because of a keen interest in science and would never have posted anything on religion if I had not been troubled by the amount of posts trying to give religion a kicking. DA Morgan and Uncle Al in particular seem to have a bent for attacking faith matters.

I will not start another topic regarding faith or anything related, but reserve the right to respond to people who rubbish any belief in anything outside the realm of nature.

Based on Amaranth's comments, people have had a bellyful of religious people attacking the site - that is not my intention.

And I agree that many, many religious people are insecure in their beliefs. It is my contention that they do not know what they believe well enough. It is like the old saying - They have just enough religion to hate - but not quite enough to love.

Regards,

Blacknad.

"It is like the old saying - They have just enough religion to hate - but not quite enough to love."

Well said indeed.

Welcome to the forum. We have plenty of room in the sandbox for all types. Play nice and stick to Science, ...etc. Have fun!

"Amaranth"

Thanks for that. I hadn't heard that before..

science and religion are not enemies. religion comes up with stories of how everything works, science studies how everything works. Scientific findings simply do not agree with religious beliefs. Science and religion are after the same answers but science actually answers them.

drat! I meant to say, science and religion are asking the same questions but science actually answers them.

Rob,

Obviously you would expect me not to agree entirely:)

Religion and science are not really asking the same questions.

Science deals with the practical issues of living in and exploring this universe and everything within it, including ourselves.

Religion asks whether there is anything existing outside the boundaries of our natural experience and whether that something could or does interact in any way with us.

If anything outside does break in and interact with this universe it would be on an ad hoc basis (our conception of the miraculous) and would therefore not be open to falsification or verification by empirical research - especially if for some reason it did not wish to place itself under the microscope.

Religion intersects with science when it tries to understand the nature of humanity - why do we perceive beauty around us? Why do we have a concept of justice? Why do we sometimes do that which we do not want to do? Why do we have such great strengths, but also such great frailties?

It is my belief that science can answer many of these but not all.
It is my belief that religion may hold the key to these questions.

You said that science and religion ask the same questions but science actually answers them.

Well where they do ask the same questions it is not clear to me that science can answer all of them - and in this life we will never know for sure if religion has the answers. But it is possible by my reckoning that religion may be answering them, but we just cannot verify it.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"Religion asks whether there is anything existing outside the boundaries of our natural experience and whether that something could or does interact in any way with us."

I call nonsense on your statement. Religion doesn't ask questions. Religion by its very nature demands that you accept, as an article of faith, that it ALREADY HAS all of the answers.

You can not point to a single religious text in Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology in which it is written ... "we were wrong and upon investigation determined the correct answer to be ...."

Not once has any religion admitted to the fact that its understanding of heaven and earth was wrong. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. But you won't find it in the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an.

"Religion asks whether there is anything existing outside the boundaries of our natural experience and whether that something could or does interact in any way with us."

- Yeah. Not thinking clearly here. Should probably be, 'Religion is [not exclusively] concerned with what lies outside of our ability to explore by scientific methods. Science, obviously can have no such interest.

DA Morgan -
I call nonsense on your statement. Religion doesn't ask questions. Religion by its very nature demands that you accept, as an article of faith, that it ALREADY HAS all of the answers.

REP: You are welcome to call nonsense on my statement, but never-the-less I still think that religion does ask questions. It seems to me that this is exactly what theologians do. There may be some confusion over the meaning of religion here ? I am talking about people collectively who have ?Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe?.
There are surprisingly few core beliefs that we subscribe to, and there are more secondary beliefs that flow from them, but there is nearly a whole universe full of questions whose answers we are not sure of. Those are the questions that religion asks about and explores. The apostle Paul said ? ?now we see through a glass darkly?.
For example, what I know about the nature of God and what he does is one miniscule step away from nothing. I believe he has revealed something of himself and there is much that can be inferred about him. Those are amongst the question that I ask ? and I am as much a part of religion as anyone else. This is what I meant by ?religion asks questions?.

DA Morgan ?
You can not point to a single religious text in Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology in which it is written ... "we were wrong and upon investigation determined the correct answer to be ...."

REP: I don?t think this is the case ? Christian theology has undergone immense change over the last two thousand years as it has built upon, revised or rejected what has gone before, all in the light of what the bible tells us, combined with our own observations, experience and reasoning. There are whole rafts of religious issues that are negotiable, but not all ? the few central tenets have, in the main, remained consistent amongst the broad church. i.e. the Nicene Creed ? consisting of only 13 sentences.

DA Morgan ?

Not once has any religion admitted to the fact that its understanding of heaven and earth was wrong.

REP: Extract from
www.newhumanist.org.uk

?That said, what ought we to think about the just departed Pope, Carol Wojtyla? As a scientist, I can't really complain that much about him. He managed to officially pardon Galileo (almost four centuries later, but hey!), though he refused to apologize for burning Giordano Bruno at the stakes. John Paul II also wrote a letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1997 advising Vatican scientists (and Catholics at large) that the Church doesn?t have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution.?

OK, a mixed bag, but I think there is an admission there that the catholic church was wrong on not only heliocentrism but on the ridiculous charge of heresy ? especially in the light of the fact that if they had paid attention to the bible they would have known from Job 38:33 (which states that the heavens "fix their rule over the earth,?) that the heavens control the earth and not the other way around ? one of the few areas where the bible has something to say about the way the universe works.

And now even the catholic church is admitting that Christian opposition to the theory of evolution is mistaken ? a theory that I have never had a problem with, as a Christian belonging to the independent free churches, who's members are free to conclude whatever they want to about such things.


And I think that the following article from The Guardian newspaper shows that the catholic church has admitted mistakes and apologised for a whole range of issues:

www.theguardian.co.uk


DA Morgan -
Not once has any religion admitted to the fact that its understanding of heaven and earth was wrong. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. But you won't find it in the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an.

REP: Speaking for the bible ? it does not claim to be a scientific textbook and is hardly descriptive about the nature of the heavens and the earth, however much some Christians want to use it in that way. So in the terms you state, there wouldn?t be much to have to admit to and correct anyway.

Regards,

Blacknad

I never understood why some religious people couldn't accept the big bang. Seems to me that the bible actually described it in a very simple way -- "Let there be light." If you wanted to describe an explosion in the very most simple way possible, wouldn't "A large burst of light" be close to the most simple you can get?

Ric said: I never understood why some religious people couldn't accept the big bang. Seems to me that the bible actually described it in a very simple way -- "Let there be light." If you wanted to describe an explosion in the very most simple way possible, wouldn't "A large burst of light" be close to the most simple you can get?

REP: I couldn?t agree more. I will be the first to admit that there are many religious people who are narrow-minded and driven unthinkingly by dogmata. They are representative of a percentage of the general populace who also cling obstinately to what they believe whether it stands up to inspection or not, (esp. see politicians)
Heck, there will be many aspects of my own belief that are unthinkingly held ? I am sure DA Morgan will happily attest to this. I just hope that I am open to actually considering them and jettisoning the rubbish when I am challenged ? I am sure DA Morgan will not happily attest to this

What must be understood though, is that the vast majority, (I think), of religious people will just accept happily what science tells us and just get on with life, and like me, will be grateful that we have people who are willing to devote their lives to the pursuit of exploring and understanding this universe and letting the rest of us share in the wonder and benefits, and who often do it for no significant material cost.
But of course these are the religious majority who you never hear about because they don?t make waves. You only hear about the ones who are proactive in protesting and pushing their own half-baked pseudo-scientific theories.

Ric said: Seems to me that the bible actually described it in a very simple way.

REP: I don?t believe the bible was attempting to definitively describe it at all. As I have said elsewhere, the bible has never claimed to be a scientific textbook.
What is contained in the first chapters of Genesis may be there only to represent the fact that ultimately God is somehow responsible for bringing the universe or multiverse (thanks Rob), into being and is written (just before the second century B.C.) in Moses?s very simple understanding of the workings of nature.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Again, Ric said,
I never understood why some religious people couldn't accept the big bang.

REP: Here are two reasons why religious people find it hard to accept some things that are scientifically staring them in the face. I limit my comments to Christianity.

1. When we believed that lightning was hurled from the heavens by an angry God, and that earthquakes were caused by him angrily stomping around, it was easy to maintain a belief in God and we felt secure in that ? although how secure you could feel with a God that spent most of his time in a foul temper is debatable.
Now there may be lots of religious people who have the unswerving belief of a village idiot that God is in the heavens and all is well, but I and other Christians I know will admit to having doubts at times, (maybe the best defence against a dangerous fundamentalism). When someone experiences doubt and sees one of the things that have they have used to combat those doubts being ripped away by science, then they may start to get defensive or offensive. For example, the belief that we are physically at the centre of the universe that led us to wrongly employ strong-arm tactics to resist heliocentric thinking.

2. When you believe that Genesis is to be read literally, then of course, the idea of evolution is anathema. The thinking is that, ?if we jettison a literal belief in any part of the bible, then what foundation does our theology now rest on ? this will erode the authority of scripture?.
This is a concern, yes, but will only mean that we will have to think a little more clearly to define what is literal or not.
Clearly the following verse in Song of Solomon where the author writes about his lover is not to be taken literally, but is poetic :

Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle,
that feed among the lilies.


Well I started with the big bang and ended with breasts. Not a bad days work if I do say so myself.
Regards,

Blacknad.

Aren't we forgetting that the bible actually stated that the earth was a circle i.e. round when science for many years considered that earth flat. Therefore that statement let there be light is actually confirming the big bang theory which obviously was not a spontaneous act but the will of the supreme being which is God. The bible confirms dinosaurs too. There are many scriptures that corroborate this. Religions by the way are only paths to the truth.

Please provide references to any version of any bible or serious science book that says:

1. The earth was a circle
2. Scientists considered the earth to be flat
3. That the Big Bang included light (it did not) thus falsifying your preposterous statement about "let there be light."
4. That there are dinosaurs mentioned in the bible

You are among the brain-washed many that are incapable of critical thinking. If you truly believe what you wrote back it up with citations.

As I know you can not I will ask you to explain to us the following from your authorless book just because, like your god, I like stupid people so much:

"Genesis 19

5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to
thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7. And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly,

8. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."


Your god thinks a good man will give his virgin daughters to a mob to be raped and brutalized. Do you?

Simple question. I think we deserve a simple yes or no answer.

A new challenge:
DA Morgan:

As I know you can not I will ask you to explain to us the following from your authorless book just because, like your god, I like stupid people so much:

"Genesis 19
5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men who came in to
thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7. And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly,
8. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

Your god thinks a good man will give his virgin daughters to a mob to be raped and brutalized. Do you?

Simple question. I think we deserve a simple yes or no answer.
--------------------
DA Morgan

Rep:
I lost track was it Ric or someone else that felt the need to bring religion into the fray again. My thought is that neither the perpetrators nor the perpetuators know the Bible. I can say with authority that I do not know the Bible but I know that being in general parlance a woman being screwed was considered less fearsome than for a man to be sodomized. You add the rape and the brutalized, possibly true, but the point may be that sex with a woman, albeit a virgin, was deemed then to be more acceptable (than it is now?).

We should compare some timeline concepts. In China, during famine, it was common practice to put female children out in the snow, deadly cold, so they would not draw upon the meager food supply. Much earlier and later (later we prove) it was not uncommon to sell you excess female children into slavery (they might get screwed as well). The Bible reflects such concepts and while we may not agree with them we must acknowledge that such (now) strange conduct was universal in this world society.

Now, how about the Big Bang and let their be light. I don?t think there was a Big Bang and I don?t think you will give a damn what I think but Fact has it that the inner areas of the Solar System have terrestrial planets because our Bang caused all the extra gas and stuff to be blown out to the larger objects. So, why would there be no light as a part of the Big Bang of your Universe. Was it all dark matter, Uncle al. per recent post, would not be inclined to that- says it?s a gone idea. Was there no ignition as part of the BB. I like to think of it as a Big BM. Possibly due to an overdose of laxaderma.

This kind of reply is not my style and I will say up front it is a lot of fun so you will understand why I did it and why I know you all do it. jw

The bible teaches us to love God and everything he creates with our hearts and our minds. He wants us to use our reasoning. So why would God create a universe which could not be explained through reasoning? God made us to be creatures of reason and if he didnt make our world scientific and reasonable man would eventually go crazy for the answer(some might say we are anyways)

http://www1.cac.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march96/universe1.html

"One would think that if someone has trouble reconciling religion with physics, they would like the big bang. It has beautiful elements of ultimate mystery." Margon (sorry dont know the first name)

Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

Smart guy, but maybe not THAT smart.

He also said "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."

Check out http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html for more on the genious and http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html for more quotes!

Blacknad,
You and I have very different views; for example, I do not think you would describe atrocities, love, trust and basically everything a living thing can perform or experience as a mere product of ?neurons firing because of stimuli?.
(Please correct me if I?m wrong.)

You said; ?science deals with the practical issues of living in and exploring this universe and everything within it, including ourselves. Religion asks whether there is anything existing outside the boundaries of our natural experience and whether that something could or does interact in any way with us.?

I disagree. The definition for science is the study of natural and physical phenomena. Therefore, if there were anything existing outside the boundaries of our natural experience it would still, despite it?s complexity and greatness, be a natural phenomena and would undoubtedly be explained by science. Science is basically the study of how everything works. With that in mind, there is nothing that exists outside the realm of science.

As for what you said about religion intersecting with science, that is only 1 branch of science.

To DA Morgan

So you think my God and I are stupid, and you I suppose are highly intelligent. Very well I will quote the scriptures to support my statement. By the way, it was NOT GOD WHO OFFERED THE VIRGIN DAUGHTERS BUT LOT for the sake of the two visitors who were ofcourse angels. God would not have permitted him to give his daughters just like he prevented Abraham from sacrificing his son. Beware of mocking God, there is a limit to the extent a human can go when playing around with God. I can certainly vouch for that. It would not take much effort from God to reduce one to a blabbering idiot like what happened to Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 4:31-37

Rob,

It is good to hear your sensible measured tones after dealing with the bluster of Daniel Morgan.

You said:

I do not think you would describe atrocities, love, trust and basically everything a living thing can perform or experience as a mere product of ?neurons firing because of stimuli?.

REP: I am not sure if I got the gist of your question, but if I got it right I would answer by saying that I subscribe to the following belief:

1. Without a creator to inject something else into the process, I think that is exactly what they are ? everything a human does is a mere product of ?neurons firing because of stimuli? ? I do not believe there is free-will, but everything is pre-determined, and has stayed on the same inexorable course since that first moment when the universe came into being. What is more ? without a belief in a creator that makes sense of it all ? I have a nihilistic belief that it is complete lunacy to say that life or existence has any meaning. It is meaningless, purposeless, there is no goal, it is utterly absurd, there is no right or wrong and there is even no truth, because the whole concept is meaningless.

Someone said on this site, either Uncle Al or DA Morgan (I think) -

My only purpose is to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide, and the longer I can do that the better.

Well the question must be ? why the longer the better ? why at all?

Regards,

Blacknad.

jjw04 wrote:
"My thought is that neither the perpetrators nor the perpetuators know the Bible."

I don't think the issue is "knowing the Bible" as for everyone that claims to "know" it I can find a limitless number of people that will debate it with them.

The issue is knowing the English language, knowing Boolean logic, and being able to apply both without prejudice.

Socalsum41fan wrote:
"One would think that if someone has trouble reconciling religion with physics, they would like the big bang. It has beautiful elements of ultimate mystery." Margon (sorry dont know the first name)

Bruce Margon. He teaches here at the Univeristy of Washington.

Philege wrote:
"So you think my God and I are stupid, and you I suppose are highly intelligent. Very well I will quote the scriptures to support my statement. By the way, it was NOT GOD WHO OFFERED THE VIRGIN DAUGHTERS BUT LOT for the sake of the two visitors who were ofcourse angels."

Actually I didn't think anything of you before you posted the above idiocy.

1. The visitors were not angels. The visitors were demanding that he bring them a man they were chasing so they could beat him or kill him.

2. You are correct that god didn't offer up the virgins to be raped. No not to dirty his hands directly. Keep reading the text. He praised Lot as "a good man."

Idiot? Know I don't actually believe you are an idiot. No doubt your IQ is higher than that. I do, however, think you are brainwashed and incapable of thinking for yourself.

Philege,

I have debated with DA Morgan and have resisted responding to his very evident sarcasm, insult and lack of manners. At the most, I have accused him of bluster.

I would urge you to do the same.

It achieves nothing to deal with people in this way except give you a little short term pleasure for putting someone in their place.

And I would also suggest that warning someone of the dangers of mocking God is pointless if they have zero belief in God.

It's like me telling you that Santa Clause is going to bust you up if you say you don't believe in him.

Regards,

Blacknad.

DA, you seem to bring up Genesis 19 a lot, and it's not really been answered by anyone.

To be as simple as possible; you've twisted the story into something it is not.

When a child does something well intentioned but ignorant, a good parent recognises and rewards the good intentions, then later chides the poor execution of them.

Lot shows obvious good intentions in welcoming the visitors into his home, and in trying to protect them, but then shows some rather bad morals in offering his daughter.

So it is quite reasonable to say that God, as a good parent, rewards Lot for his hospitality at least enough to spare him from destruction.


This aside from the obvious fact that we only see a brief snapshot of Lot's life here; and certainly not enough to decide whether he would class as a good man or not.

Blacknad,
Have you ever heard of the conscience universe theory, which states that the universe and planets inhabited by living organisms are also living organisms?
(To me, this theory makes a lot of sense and that is another one of the reason why I don't believe in a creator.)

(The following may be highly scientifically inaccurate.)
If we were cells on a planet (which communicates with other planets via radio signals) many of us who produced those signals would have died, and they would be received by a later generation.
Life could then be said to exist in different levels invisible to us because they are either too large and going too slowly (universes) or too fast and small (particles of matter)
I will stop here because this is a philosophical theory and I don't want to annoy any scientists. That is a possible answer to your question on why life exists at all. Though, my personal theory is, there is no reason for it, it is just a natural occurrence like any other which, by coincidence produces life. In a nutshell, a human falling in love is about as impressive as an oxygen atom fusing with another oxygen atom.

Rob,
Do you mean a "conscious" universe?

Hi Rob,

Yes, I have heard of it - Gaia and all.

I think they are anthropomorphic beliefs, something us theists are accused of also.

I suppose a very good definition of what constitutes life would be needed before we could say that a planet, with it's complex ecosystem, could be said to be a living organism.

However - either way - it is not a view I accept.


Sorry if I am a bit dense but I found the second part of your post a little obscure.

Gabriel:
Your nonsensical rationalization is not supported by any organized religion. Offering up one's virgin daughters for rape is not considered immoral in any civilized society. It is considered a felony.

Rose:
Given the intelligence invested in this discussion maybe it should be the "cous cous" universe. I am personally appalled that these people, with hardly any apparent formal education, are allowed access to keyboards.

Blacknad:
You are in no position to define life when you can't even define death.

Amaranth,
yes, I did mean conscious universe.
I guess my sub-conscious likes science as much as I do.

DA, who said anything about organised religion?

I, as a Christian, am justifying my beliefs, I don't see that I need to find a link from the church of England to justify that.

And surely the laws which govern 'civilised society' are merely enforced morality.

Neither of the things you said really even disputed my argument.

But still, this could easily spin off into rather a long debate, and since I only have temporary access to this computer before the intelligence police come for me, I'll leave it here. (Excluding significant developments.)

Greetings and Peace to all. I was initially interested in the holographic universe topic which is why I chose to register here. Now I am quite amused with all the banter about the Big Bang being morphed into a religious justification extravaganza. Please forgive me for any mispellings as I tend to think content is more important than form. But I would like to add that what is happening to Earth as an organism is also happening to the organisms living on the earth, and perhaps on a universal scale, to outerspace. Change takes place until homeostasis is met. But that doesn't explain Boredom, does it?

Gabriel wrote:
"and surely the laws which govern 'civilised society' are merely enforced morality.'

They are not. Morality doesn't exist unless defined by the person, place, and time on which you specifically ask someone the moral question. Morality has no absolutes.

Murder has been immoral and illegal throughout most, but not all of human history. Premarital sex has been both legal and illegal and moral and/or immoral depending upon context only. I can assure you that your morals are not mine. But my laws are equally applied to you.

Solvent: If there is a point in what you wrote ... I missed it. Boredom is impossible if you have an agile mind.

Erm, perhaps we need to start moseying back to Science somewhere along the way.

"Amaranth"

Your the one with the axe. Feel free to let it fall where it may. You'll not hurt my feelings a bit.

SAGG has NEVER enforced a policy of "real science" on its lab rats. And because it doesn't we, from time-to-time, get the stray religious zealot or brain-washed victim of their childhood hell bent on saving our souls.

After they discover we are incorigiable they all go away to prosleytze somewhere else. Whenever you and Kate decide to lower the tolerance level you'll have my support. Until they the lab rats will do what is wholly predictable.

Well, philosophy is science too. The only reason why so many people believe in God is because we are indoctrinating children with this believe. The stronger the indoctrination, the more people will believe in God. In North Korea people ''believe'' in Kim Il Jung and many Germans (including scientists) regarded Hitler as a God like figure.

Scientists may not be atheistic because they don't necessarily apply scientific reasoning to every aspect of their personal lives. However, from a scientific point of view, religion is nonsensical. The Bible is just a fantasy book that contain some historical facts. It is no better than, say, Greek Mythology.

Religion is a psychological phenomenon. Once the brain is infected with it, it is difficult to disinfect it. Just think about it. God created you for a purpose. So, what you do must be somehow important. After you die you'll live on forever in Heaven. Without this idea you would have to admit that you are insignificant. Hundred years from now you'll be dead and burried. In the far future, all the things you've done will be gone. It wouldn't have mattered if you hadn't existed at all.

The fact that our existence is futile, that all the things we think are important are actually totally insignificant is just too hard to accept for most people.

Well said Count.

If people weren't so bent on finding some fanciful justification for doing the right thing ... or justifying their existance ... they might actually decide to do the right thing just because it makes life better.

Which would be a real tragedy for those who panhandle for a living hiding behind a white collar.

Reminds me very much of the following quotation:
Ministers say that they teach charity.
That is natural.
They live on hand-outs.
All beggars teach that others should give.
~Robert Ingersoll