Religion vs. Science

[X]

No offense intended. I write opinon as fact, and I apologise for appearing dismissive.

Perfectly understandable Tasty, I often find myself having to apologize for the very same thing.

If we start at 0.(42 zeroes)1 second, that us when we understand from. At that point quarks and leptons were formed.

See, stop right there. What about the period of time prior to that 0.(42 zeroes)1 second?

When the universe was 0.(36 zeroes)1 second old, a period of inflation begun. This means that the universe expanded enormously over a period of 0.(34 zeroes)1 second. I don't know the precise dimensions off hand, but it is known. This is why the universe is almost identical on a large scale, because it went from being tiny to being enormous in such a small time that there wasn't time fr any differences to develop. There were small quantum inbalances though, and these grew with gravity.

As inflation finished and the universe cooled, the quarks fused to make protons and neutrons at around 0.000000001 seconds after the big bang. Then at about 2 minutes old, these neutrons and protons fused to make helium, and a tiny bit of lithium and barium nuclei.

That's pretty much it until the universe is 300,000 years old. At this point, we have nuclei, and those gravitational imbalances. At this point, electrons joined with protons and made hydrogen atoms, and the tiny quantum imbalances from before had grown quite a bit.

Then the hydrogen was attracte to the quantum imbalances and they compacted into star forming regions. When these stars were formed, we get galaxies, around some of the stars we get planets, and thus we have a fairly good accuracy.

Fast forward 5 billion years and the sun is born. Fast forward 500,000,000 years and the earth is born. About a billion and a half years later, complex organic molecules are formed, which evolved with time into rna, and eventually dna. You'll have to ask a biologist the precise order of the next few steps, but ultimately, you end up with me and you sitting on a laptop.

And that, in short, is the history of the universe.

That's all good and well for explaining the "how", but doesn't even attempt to address the "why", which is what all religion and spirituality and belief in a higher power is really about. It's not about how the universe exists, it's about why the universe exists, and this is a question that it is impossible for science to answer.

Because the Higgs particle is the one responsible for mass.If we understand that, then we unerstand why the quarks were formed. If we find it, we can find how it is born of energy, and thats it, there's nothing before, the energy comes from the singularity.

Again, explaining the "how" is not what religion is about.

The obvious question to ask is "what about before that, why was there a singularity?", but this is where the misunderstanding begins. People see the universe as some eternal thing, and then the big bang happened, but that isn't the case. Time and space were born when the big bang happened. It doesn't make sense to ask why it happened, because nothing could have caused it, it is causally independent. There was no "before the big bang" because there was no time.

Now how exactly would you or any other Scientist know if there were ever any pre-big bang construct of time? You can't know that, don't know that, and shouldn't even attempt to address it. Because once again, it's impossible for you or anyone else to know the answer to that dilemma.

It is about faith. Science requires inductive leaps. While they aren't as big as those in religion, they are there. I believe in evolution, a fundamentalist doesn't.

See, why bring fundamentalism into it? I'm not talking about the Bible or the Quran or the Torah or basically anything that any religion has to say on the topics of science and history. As I've said again and again, I have nothing but contempt for organized religion. Forget the established religious groups and all of their belief systems, I'm speaking of simply a higher power. Doesn't even have to be an altruistic one.

Science and faith/spirituality don't have to conflict with each other y'know.

There isn't a why. The how is the why.

(Stick with me because this sentence may be a tongue-twister) How can the how by the why? The words have two different definitions, it's literally impossible for the how to be the why.

People often ask this, but put simply, life is a quantum fluke. If it wasn't for quantum indiscrepancies, we wouldn't be here, an it is as simple as that. It's a very human trait to search for the meaning of life, but put simply, there isn't one.

Don't take this wrongly because I respect you very much as a poster Tasty, but how the hell would you POSSIBLY be able to know there isn't a meaning to life? YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! There is no possible way for you even begin to know that!


Seems like an almost nihilist point of view

There are too many arbitary consequqnces and things in the universe that are visibile to believe in an intelligent designer.

Again, I never once stated to believe in the altruistic Christian God and Jesus family of Christian lore. I simply believe there is something more to the creation of the universe then just "poof, hello cosmos!" all of a sudden. It doesn't have to be an intelligent designer, perhaps the universe itself is simply one giant evolving organism of many.

All I'm saying, is that trying to say that science can explain everything, is absurd. It's fundamentally impossible for science to.

Absolutely, this is something I've said about communism always. Anarchy too. Be an anarchist if you want, but who's going to fix a pothole in the road in an anarchist country, people don't do anything for no gain.

Agreed on communism, big disagree on anarchism. Don't tell me you're one of the misinformed millions who think anarchists just want chaos and total lack of government? I wish the modern anarchist movement would just change their name, because the word "anarchy" always tends to make people think anarchists are violent thugs when in truth they are the most close-knit and self-sufficient community I've ever encountered. Anarchism is in no way about greed, and is infact one giant dismissal of greed. So the analogy with communism really doesn't apply here.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I agree with X. Wow, here in the lounge, I agree with Becca and X on a topic. Awesome.

I was raised Jewish. I had a Bar Mitzvah.

I also haven't been to Temple since I was 19.

Science explains the how questions, for the most part, while religion answers the why. The reason that there is so much debate about religion, is that there is an equal amount of debate about the "why" questions. The how questions can be proven, to an extent.

Religions spring up around the answers to why we are here. Whether it be to give glory to the creator, to answer some question that takes thousands of generations, to prepare our world for the eventual takeover, or whatever explanation every religion, cult, or school can propose.

We can go back to the first fraction of a second to ascertain what has happened. But even the theoretical Higgs Boson doesn't answer the question of why it is there. I would also argue that the main flaw is science is that it can't even answer "how" it got there.

Science doesn't give any more concrete evidence that it is correct either. Evolution is easily determined true by the fossil record, but when you look around the world, some form of intelligent design seems to in play. Sure, the gills have fish have evolved over time, but females couldn't select mates with better gills without there having been some form of rudimentary gills in the first place. Furthermore, the balance between land and water, the elements present at the beginning of life on Earth, and all the breaks that life have been given seem very coincidental. For evolution to be the only answer, you would have to believe that we truly are the only planet with advanced life, because everything had to break perfectly for our species to exist. For this to happen by chance, multiple times, seems a bit too much for science to explain. "We can't find another planet with life, but there is one, somewhere" seems a bit vague to me. Some kind of creator seems to be, at the very least, in play.

Maybe God is dead, maybe the human faith in him is what is dying. In either case, science is not the answer to this question. For those searching for a sign, look at yourself. Science tells us that life is impossible on every planet they have found, except for one, this one.

 

[jokeboy624]

I have to respectfully disagree with you fromthesouth. It's actually statistically improbable with the sheer number of stars and planets in the galaxy that intelligent life WOULDN'T have evolved. I can't find the article that I read this in right now, but it works out that there are millions, if not billions, of planets that are very similar, if not exactly like Earth in its composition. Also, I choose to look at it like this, the proof that it could happen stares back at us every time we look in the mirror, because we are here. The reason we have yet to find another planet is that we:
1) don't know where to look or haven't looked in the right places.
2) can't travel/look as far as we need to because the galaxy is so immense.

I pose this question for you, what if there isn't a why? I'm not saying there isn't, but what if there isn't a why, there is only just because, like our parents used to say. I wholeheartedly agree that religion is in place to answer the "why", I become bothered when it tries to answer the "how" and also when people become hurt by it.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I have to respectfully disagree with you fromthesouth. It's actually statistically improbable with the sheer number of stars and planets in the galaxy that intelligent life WOULDN'T have evolved. I can't find the article that I read this in right now, but it works out that there are millions, if not billions, of planets that are very similar, if not exactly like Earth in its composition.

Theoretically. We have yet to find any. We are using numbers and computations that hold true in our solar system, and trying to apply them to every star that we see, however, stars emit different level of radiation, heat, etc. It is not out of the realm of possibility either way. My point wasn't that we were alone in the universe. It was only a thought that without a creator, a lot of coincidences had to come to fruition for us to be here, communication from hundreds and thousands of miles away, without seeing each other, when once, we were bacteria in a steaming pile of starshit.

Also, I choose to look at it like this, the proof that it could happen stares back at us every time we look in the mirror, because we are here. The reason we have yet to find another planet is that we:
1) don't know where to look or haven't looked in the right places.
2) can't travel/look as far as we need to because the galaxy is so immense.

Good use of the word could. I don't believe that we are alone. That would be arrogant. I just feel that all life is a sign of a creator. Planets have to break just right for life to exist.

I pose this question for you, what if there isn't a why? I'm not saying there isn't, but what if there isn't a why, there is only just because, like our parents used to say. I wholeheartedly agree that religion is in place to answer the "why", I become bothered when it tries to answer the "how" and also when people become hurt by it.

OK. Does it change the argument much if there isn't a why? Religion answers more how questions that science does why questions. Something had to start somewhere. Even if the whole universe sprung from a single point of matter with all four known forces swimming around inside of it, HOW did that get there?

 

[jokeboy624]

I only have one issue with your last post and that is religion ATTEMPTS to answer more "how" questions than science ATTEMPTS to answer more "why" questions. With those two additions, I would agree.

Where everything started is the most baffling question ever postulated in my opinion and for myself, I choose to sit this argument out because I have yet to hear a reason that satisfies my upbringing, education and beliefs. That's all we're doing here, trying to find answers to the questions posed in our lives and that's why I think people cling to religion and science so tightly.

By the way, this may be the most civil discussion I've ever been a part of when it comes to this subject. It always seems to break down into flaming (both on the internet and where I'm headed according to others I've spoken with). I was once called a devil worshiper, but that's unfair because it wasn't actual worship . Just wanted to say thanks for the fine conversation and hope to have many more.

 

[Tastycles]

Perfectly understandable Tasty, I often find myself having to apologize for the very same thing.



See, stop right there. What about the period of time prior to that 0.(42 zeroes)1 second?

That's where the higgs boson comes in. As it stands, we think that we know why the quarks came together, but finding the higgs boson will make that belief far more tenable. When we find that we go further back, if we find its properties, then we've solved it, Theory of Everything has been cracked, we just have to fill in the details.

That's all good and well for explaining the "how", but doesn't even attempt to address the "why", which is what all religion and spirituality and belief in a higher power is really about. It's not about how the universe exists, it's about why the universe exists, and this is a question that it is impossible for science to answer.

It's because there isn't an answer. IT's a very anthrocentric ideal to search for meaning. Because everything in our lives has a reason, we think everything should, but it really shouldn't. Something just happen. Take quantum physics. An electron is either spin up or spin down. It's one or the other, and its random. There's no possible reducible reason for it, it just is. I think its reasonable to assume that on the macroscopic too.

Again, explaining the "how" is not what religion is about.

Creationists will tell you otherwise, but I appreciate your view, completely.

Now how exactly would you or any other Scientist know if there were ever any pre-big bang construct of time? You can't know that, don't know that, and shouldn't even attempt to address it. Because once again, it's impossible for you or anyone else to know the answer to that dilemma.

Because that is what the big bang means. If there was time before the big bang, then there wasn't a big bang. If there wasn't a big bang, then there's an awful lot of evidence that makes no sense whatsoever.

See, why bring fundamentalism into it? I'm not talking about the Bible or the Quran or the Torah or basically anything that any religion has to say on the topics of science and history. As I've said again and again, I have nothing but contempt for organized religion. Forget the established religious groups and all of their belief systems, I'm speaking of simply a higher power. Doesn't even have to be an altruistic one.

But why do you need that? Honestly, I have no idea.

Science and faith/spirituality don't have to conflict with each other y'know.

No, ask Einstein and Newton. However, I think had Newton been alive now, he wouldn't have held God in the esteem he did. I don't think it's that unlikely that religion will one day die out. Well, I do, but I don't think it'll ever depose science again.

(Stick with me because this sentence may be a tongue-twister) How can the how by the why? The words have two different definitions, it's literally impossible for the how to be the why.

Because the why is the ultimate description. What I'm saying to you is that the why doesn't exist, and the how is the highest explanation we have.

Don't take this wrongly because I respect you very much as a poster Tasty, but how the hell would you POSSIBLY be able to know there isn't a meaning to life? YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! There is no possible way for you even begin to know that!

Because there emphatically isn't a meaning to life. You live, you breed, you die. The effect you have on earth is minimal at most, the effect you have on the universe is nought. There is absolutely no point to life on a universal scale, it changes absolutely nothing. To me, it is unreasonable for a creator to create a universe as vast as this and put lifeforms as insignificant as ours in one miniscule part of it. What would be the purpose? I can only assume that the creator makes arbitary things, or there is no point to life and we are nothing but a side effect of quantum mechanics.

Seems like an almost nihilist point of view

Existential nihilism, moreso.

Again, I never once stated to believe in the altruistic Christian God and Jesus family of Christian lore. I simply believe there is something more to the creation of the universe then just "poof, hello cosmos!" all of a sudden. It doesn't have to be an intelligent designer, perhaps the universe itself is simply one giant evolving organism of many.

It defies conventional thought, that is why you are uneasy about it, but I assure you, that is basically the bet explanation we have. I know you haven't professed to be the pope or anything, but I am addressing everyone through your post, because it is providing the most sensical religious retort.

All I'm saying, is that trying to say that science can explain everything, is absurd. It's fundamentally impossible for science to.

But the only reason religion can explain anything is because it cannot be tested, and that makes it illogical to believe in it, don't you think? If I could describe the universe through mathematics alone, I would, but it can't be done. I'd rather paper the cracks with physics than religion.

Agreed on communism, big disagree on anarchism. Don't tell me you're one of the misinformed millions who think anarchists just want chaos and total lack of government? I wish the modern anarchist movement would just change their name, because the word "anarchy" always tends to make people think anarchists are violent thugs when in truth they are the most close-knit and self-sufficient community I've ever encountered. Anarchism is in no way about greed, and is infact one giant dismissal of greed. So the analogy with communism really doesn't apply here.

Anarchy, by definition, is the lack of a ruler. So that's what I take anarchy to mean. It's sad, but it's true, you need an ultimate power, otherwise you end up with people manouvering to take it. I know the modern ideas are about mutual aid and things like that, which I think are all destined to failure, because people don't like people.

 

[Worlds_Greatest_Booker]

i find myself sitting on the fence with this subject as at one moment i will think "what if their is a god" and i'll think about it for a while untill something happens (e.g. i'll see a priest man say "all gays go to hell" and that will piss me off no end) it makes me think if i live my life good, dont steal, dont cheat on my girlfriend, dont kill etc. then surely this would allow me to go into "heaven". i mean sure i dont go to church and i use gods name in vain (i say god damit and jesus alot) but im a good person. for example a few weeks ago i was talking to a friend of mine who is religious. i was joking with her that i'm going to hell and shes going to heaven she suddenly stopped laughing turned to me and said "oh im going to hell" she then went on to tell me that when she was going out with a guy and she kissed someone else. now if someone who when her leg was broken by her little brother didn't even threaten him is going to hell for one little fuck up, then with all the respect to religious people and i dont mean any effence god can go and fuck himself.

now dont get me wrong i dont mean to insult any religious people here as i know that religion is something that people need to survive. that how i think "god" first started, the first people saw what was around them and thought "something must of created this" then when they were close to death they thought "this cant be it, their must be more to this. may be when i die the creater will accept use into where he lives".

now to down right try and prove some ones religion is wrong is one of the worst things possible. as u would be no better than some religous people, it was funny how people were killed if they did not believe in god (during WW1 the soliders were told if they did not go over the top then they would go to hell). but now in todays socitiy if people say they are religous they are almost ridiculed.

now looking at religion their are of course a few things that have put a very big mark on religion.

1. how in the hel....... heaven was god created as what science has proven is that nothing can just exist it has to be created.

2. how would the dinosaurs be explained?

now when the 4 horsemen come riding past my door 2 things will either happen.

1. ill go to heaven and drink strawberry cider and eating fat free galaxy chocolate and listen to eddie guerrero telling stories.

or

2. im gunna go down to hell and be forced to watch HHH vs Randy Orton from WM25 over and over again.

 

[stingerlegends]

Okay let's make this really quick and simple....and if I'm repeating somebody, I'm sorry, I gave up reading everything.


Life cannot be created from non-life. correct? and more importantly, you cannot create something from absolutely nothing. So before the universe existed WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING, there can be NO SUCH THING as a big bang. And that's scientific. There HAS to be something intangible out there with the ability and power to create something out nothing. AND SCIENCE AIN'T IT.

And who says you can't prove God exists? I think I just did. Have a great day guys.

 

[Worlds_Greatest_Booker]

ive just proved u wrong

like u said life can not be made from non-life...... so how was god made then?

 

[stingerlegends]

I should have amended that statement to read ORGANIC life from non-life. The statement as is, is fallible I agree. But God is not organic.

I also want to add that God or a "higher power" is more conceivable to have always been there, no need for being created, as they are insubstantial, ethereal, intangible, NO MASS.

To believe that there is an atom or sub-atomic particle that just "exists" and then explodes, well, that is a big pill to swallow, since even this particle must have mass. Heck even energy has mass.

Consciousness.......there is no mass to that, but it is real, it can be proven.

So why does the same idea not apply to the idea of the ULTIMATE CONSCIOUSNESS?

 

[stebbinsd]

Here's the bottom line: Religion is a lot like the one thing we all have in common: Wrestling. To quote Jeff Jarrett...

If you believe, you don't need an explanation. If you don't believe, no explanation will do.

The Athiests are like those who bash wrestling for being fake; they'll never believe, no matter how much convincing evidence you give them.

Although, if you Athiests want to claim that we Christians can't give enough evidence because they're is no evidence, I do have some that I don't think any of you have ever heard before:

My father, an Agnostic, often asks "What makes Christianity any more legitimate than all those polytheistic religions in Ancient times?" Well, for starters, Christianity (or, rather, it's father religion, Juadism) has been around longer than just about any religion ever, and still survives to this day. Seriously, back in the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Mesopotamia, by the way, was the first known civilization), the one called Abraham is said to have received a telepathic message from Yahweh (the name of the Diety who would eventually become simply known as God), to travel the world, hence the Hebrew religion was born. Hebrewism became Juadism, and Juadism gave birth to Christianity.

So, to the Agnostics, if you ask what makes Christianity any different than the religions of Greece and Egypt, then consider the simple, yet powerful fact that it has stood the test of time.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Okay let's make this really quick and simple....and if I'm repeating somebody, I'm sorry, I gave up reading everything.


Life cannot be created from non-life. correct? and more importantly, you cannot create something from absolutely nothing. So before the universe existed WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING, there can be NO SUCH THING as a big bang. And that's scientific. There HAS to be something intangible out there with the ability and power to create something out nothing. AND SCIENCE AIN'T IT.

And who says you can't prove God exists? I think I just did. Have a great day guys.

This is a silly argument, looking at it from either side. I mean, if something can NOT come from nothing, where did God come from? I'll wait for the cop out answer of "god is before time" or something silly like that. I have NO idea how you think you proved God saying this, all you've done is given athiests an easy way to reply.

I should have amended that statement to read ORGANIC life from non-life. The statement as is, is fallible I agree. But God is not organic.

I also want to add that God or a "higher power" is more conceivable to have always been there, no need for being created, as they are insubstantial, ethereal, intangible, NO MASS.

To believe that there is an atom or sub-atomic particle that just "exists" and then explodes, well, that is a big pill to swallow, since even this particle must have mass. Heck even energy has mass.

Consciousness.......there is no mass to that, but it is real, it can be proven.

So why does the same idea not apply to the idea of the ULTIMATE CONSCIOUSNESS?

Ah, there's the cop-out answer I was looking for.