Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Day the Big Bang became Religion

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Imagine a creature one hundred billions years from now, receiving a revelation concerning how the universe came to be. Immediately, he rushes to his brethren, who are busily studying the world around them.


    Within the last 50 years, this civilization has learned how life evolved, and the basic laws of physics. So this certain creature was estatic to tell his brethren what was revealed to him.


    "Brothers!" He said. "I've just received a wonderful message from my god. He told me he created the universe from an extremely dense, hot state that rapidly expanded, cooling off to form the basic sub-atomic particles we see today. Through the process of time, galaxies formed, then stars, planets, and eventually life."


    As they were listening, they looked at each other bewildered. When he was finished, one laughed and said, "What nonsense. A blind person can see that the universe is eternal!" Another mockingly said, "Where are these other galaxies you speak of? There is only one, and you're in it, unfortunately."


    So with no way to prove the revelation, this poor creature walked away, leaving amidst a roar of laughter, which could be heard for quite a distance.









    So how do you guys like that little story I put together?:cool: Okay, it might not be on the level of Shakespeare, but a hundred billion years from now, it will be a very real scenario. The Big Bang will become religion, and not scientific fact! Now it's not just me who is saying this, but listen to Lawrence Krauss (skip to 51 minutes).........











    Now, this is not the first time I've watched this video. In fact, if any of you debated with me in the past, I've mentioned it often. Yet today as I was listening again, I was surprise to hear him say that "all" the evidence for the Big Bang will pretty much be nonexistent, including the cosmic background radiation. Ultimately, this just shows us how limited science really is. Yes, it's great for the now, I'm not saying what science has told us concerning the present is wrong. What I am saying, is when it comes to the past, this is where current observational patterns fall short.




    If a hundred billion years from now, there will be no observable evidence for the Big Bang, could there also be many evidences missing today that would give us a different picture about the past?




    This is what I argue. What if God created this place with the perfect set of laws? There was no death, no natural disasters, or anything like that. Yet once sin entered through our disobedience, everything was thrown out of wack. Now with our current, observational science, all we see are those things (the wacky things), because the world is now corrupt. However, this is only what we see today. The truth would be, it was not always like this. So how would science detect the perfect world from the imperfect world?




    There's something else that Krauss said that caught my attention. (It starts around 23 minutes in the video) He said when it comes to empirical science, knowing the answer means nothing, but testing your knowledge means everything. So as a creationist, as a scientist in training, even if what I believe is correct, it doesn't mean a whole lot unless I can show that it is true. Some would say many people have been down this road a hundred times over, and have prove without a shout of a doubt, the Genesis account did not happen. Even most Christians acknowledge the Genesis account is not literal. Yet in the same way I know the sun doesn't literally rise, I know everyone who tried to verify the Bible, did it from today's point of view. Christians tried to prove the Bible, through today's known scientific laws. They couldn't see the perfect God created. The perfect laws that governed this world and the universe. (The laws themselves were thrown out of wack)




    So in essence, I must work from the beginning, to this current day. Instead of working from today, to the beginning. Because today, a lot of information could no longer be observable. Just like it is 100 billion years from now.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The Big Bang Theory came from decades of scientific research, mathematical analysis and cosmological observation. It is based on physical evidence and reasoned logic. On the other hand, religion as we see today, and religion as we have seen in the past, is just make-believe with zero evidence and must be taken on faith. This is why you can't flip the scenarios like that and argue from an alternative perspective - they are not the same thing.

    If your creature came to his friends with evidence for his case, then he wouldn't have been laughed at. Religion has never given any evidence, science always has. That is why flipping the two scenarios and attempting to reason a reverse perspective to somehow make the reader reconsider the possibility of religion's legitimacy is simply fallacious, dishonest and demeaning to scientific efforts.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    tl:dr It was too long for me to read all of it, but the Big Bang has some plausible evidence. Religion has none. Evidence for the Big Bang: Cosmic Background Radiation, Red Shift, Hydrogenelium Ratio, etc.

    I'm sure that there is more evidence but I'm only doing GCSE Physics currently so I haven't studied more than that. Scientific Theories will never become religion. The two are polar opposites: One uses pure fact and evidence, the other uses faith and belief.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    The Big Bang Theory came from decades of scientific research, mathematical analysis and cosmological observation. It is based on physical evidence and reasoned logic. On the other hand, religion as we see today, and religion as we have seen in the past, is just make-believe with zero evidence and must be taken on faith. This is why you can't flip the scenarios like that and argue from an alternative perspective - they are not the same thing.

    If your creature came to his friends with evidence for his case, then he wouldn't have been laughed at. Religion has never given any evidence, science always has. That is why flipping the two scenarios and attempting to reason a reverse perspective to somehow make the reader reconsider the possibility of religion's legitimacy is simply fallacious, dishonest and demeaning to scientific efforts.



    I'm not demeaning science, only showing it's limits. The creature couldn't have come to his friends with evidence in that scenario, because there simply was none. So if there is no evidence, does that mean the Big Bang never happened? According to empirical science, the Big Bang would be rubbish.



    So my argument is, are we missing something today that would change our view on the past? If we can miss something later on, chances are we could be missing something right now.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The big bang doesn't really hold any great challenge for a Christian, apart from if you are a fundamentalist and believe every word of the Bible (of which there are very few). The man who first came up with the theory of the Big Bang was Christian (as was Mendel, the father of modern genetics and many more)
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can you summarise what you're saying? It's quite easy to get lost in what you're talking about... maybe it's just late.

    But science is the best method we have to gain knowledge about the world. Trying to discredit it because it can't answer everything is stupid. I don't think you should even try to do that.

    What does god have to do with this?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    If a hundred billion years from now, there will be no observable evidence for the Big Bang, could there also be many evidences missing today that would give us a different picture about the past?
    Absolutely - there could well be many pieces of evidence which existed in the past but which are completely inaccessible now. In fact, I know that such pieces of evidence have existed but are now inaccessible...

    At the precise moment that the rate of expansion of the universe surpassed the speed of light, pieces of evidence began to become inaccessible. The universe is 96 billion light years across and has existed for only 14 billion years. That means that there's 82 billion light years of space which, although they exist, are completely inaccessible to us, and unfortunately, those 82 billion light years contain the earliest stages of our universe.

    BUT... just because there COULD be evidence for something doesn't mean that you're not crazy for believing in something WITHOUT the evidence to hand.

    When a religious person speaks their mind, they could well be correct. But I can't verify that they are correct, and neither can they - which means that they didn't arrive at their conclusions rationally and methodically, but that they just happened to get lucky and stumble, irrationally, to the correct conclusion.

    There were probably people in centuries gone by who believed with conviction that there were billions of galaxes in the Universe, and that we evolved from a common ancestory with monkeys, slugs, chickens, pine trees and pubic lice... and the evidence we have today shows their conclusions to be absolutely spot on. But the fact is, they arrived at those conclusions in the absence of the evidence to which we are privy today, and that means that they were nothing but raving lunatics who got lucky.

    I'd much rather be the INCORRECT scientist whos current beliefs are based on evidence and whose beliefs will evolve to accomodate new evidence, than the CORRECT stark-raving lunatic whose beliefs are arbitrary and unfounded.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chickenonsteroids)
    Can you summarise what you're saying? It's quite easy to get lost in what you're talking about... maybe it's just late.

    But science is the best method we have to gain knowledge about the world. Trying to discredit it because it can't answer everything is stupid. I don't think you should even try to do that.

    What does god have to do with this?


    It is a great method of obtaining knowledge about the world. Yet, it a great method of gaining knowledge about this current world. When talking on the past, it is very limited. I would even say extremely limited. Look on the history of the Big Bang and the universe. We can only see the furthest galaxies and determine an age for the universe based on them. However, it is said that the first galaxies formed hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) That is almost a billion years of grey area.




    Look at what science says about earth's history. The earliest dated rock is around 3 billion years ago. Yet scientists say there had to be time for the rock or crust to develop on the earth. So they say the earth is over 4 billion years old. That is another billion years of grey area. Science is limited when it comes to the distant past. As I shown, it possibly could even be wrong.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    It is a great method of obtaining knowledge about the world. Yet, it a great method of gaining knowledge about this current world. When talking on the past, it is very limited. I would even say extremely limited. Look on the history of the Big Bang and the universe. We can only see the furthest galaxies and determine an age for the universe based on them. However, it is said that the first galaxies formed hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) That is almost a billion years of grey area.

    Look at what science says about earth's history. The earliest dated rock is around 3 billion years ago. Yet scientists say there had to be time for the rock or crust to develop on the earth. So they say the earth is over 4 billion years old. That is another billion years of grey area. Science is limited when it comes to the distant past. As I shown, it possibly could even be wrong.
    Ok I get what you mean.

    What does god have to do with this?

    Also, can you stop leaving many lines after each paragraph? It's a small thing but it's annoying
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chickenonsteroids)
    Can you summarise what you're saying? It's quite easy to get lost in what you're talking about... maybe it's just late.

    But science is the best method we have to gain knowledge about the world. Trying to discredit it because it can't answer everything is stupid. I don't think you should even try to do that.

    What does god have to do with this?
    Essentially what they are saying is that relying on scientific evidence to uncover the truth about the universe can lead you to incorrect conclusion - and by way of example, the OP explains that in 100 billion years there will be no evidence for the big bang theory as, by then, all the galaxies and stars in the universe will have accelerated away from us much faster than the speed of light, and any being in a future civilisation who tells his friends that he believes in a big bang will be called an illogical, irrational fool by his friends.

    So the OP, I think, is saying that just because there's no scientific evidence to support the claims of religious people doesn't necessarily mean that their claims are false - just that they are not supported by evidence that is CURRENTLY availably (i.e. perhaps evidence existed in the past but is no longer accessible, or perhaps evidence will arise in future).

    But I still say that whether or not you are currently correct in your beliefs is besides the point - I'd rather hold an incorrect belief that is supported by evidence than hold a correct belief that was arrived at in an arbitrary fashion and I happened to get lucky and be right.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    So how do you guys like that little story I put together?
    Hated it. Poor character development. I never once cared about the protagonist.

    I was surprise to hear him say that "all" the evidence for the Big Bang will pretty much be nonexistent, including the cosmic background radiation.
    uh...what?


    Ultimately, this just shows us how limited science really is. Yes, it's great for the now, I'm not saying what science has told us concerning the present is wrong. What I am saying, is when it comes to the past, this is where current observational patterns fall short.
    Every time we look at the sky we're seeing the past. How is it falling short exactly? We understand how light travels and can therefore do plenty of science based on that to explain what we see.

    If a hundred billion years from now, there will be no observable evidence for the Big Bang, could there also be many evidences missing today that would give us a different picture about the past?
    No because the evidence we have now takes us back to a few hundred million years after the big bang. All our knowledge and observations point towards us getting closer to the beginning of the universe.

    This is what I argue. What if God created this place with the perfect set of laws? There was no death, no natural disasters, or anything like that. Yet once sin entered through our disobedience, everything was thrown out of wack.
    Urgh, the "humans are the centre of the Universe" idea again. Surely you understand that the universe is nearly completely hostile to us in every way imaginable. You can't possibly think it was created with us in mind can you?

    Look at what science says about earth's history. The earliest dated rock is around 3 billion years ago. Yet scientists say there had to be time for the rock or crust to develop on the earth. So they say the earth is over 4 billion years old. That is another billion years of grey area. Science is limited when it comes to the distant past. As I shown, it possibly could even be wrong.
    It's not really a grey area. We have rocks that are older than the Earth to study and planet formation is a well developed science. We know exactly where the Earth came from :s
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    It is a great method of obtaining knowledge about the world. Yet, it a great method of gaining knowledge about this current world. When talking on the past, it is very limited. I would even say extremely limited. Look on the history of the Big Bang and the universe. We can only see the furthest galaxies and determine an age for the universe based on them. However, it is said that the first galaxies formed hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) That is almost a billion years of grey area.




    Look at what science says about earth's history. The earliest dated rock is around 3 billion years ago. Yet scientists say there had to be time for the rock or crust to develop on the earth. So they say the earth is over 4 billion years old. That is another billion years of grey area. Science is limited when it comes to the distant past. As I shown, it possibly could even be wrong.
    Perhaps it is limited(as it is in all respects), but it's better than all the other methods.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chickenonsteroids)
    Can you summarise what you're saying? It's quite easy to get lost in what you're talking about... maybe it's just late.

    But science is the best method we have to gain knowledge about the world. Trying to discredit it because it can't answer everything is stupid. I don't think you should even try to do that.

    What does god have to do with this?
    To summarise

    He's saying that in the furture there will be thing that scientists won't be able to observe, things that will be in books and in peoples beliefs but still un-observable.

    His question is, if in the future there will be things we can't observe, is it possible that in our current time, there are things that we can also no longer observe. Things that might even be evidence of a higher being..
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Okashira)
    x
    and the point of this thread is?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S-man10)
    and the point of this thread is?


    Arguing from the Bible, the point of this thread shows how Genesis could be true, but key evidences for it could be missing. Just like today we know the Big Bang is true, yet there's a day where all evidence for it is gone.




    (Original post by oo00oo)
    Absolutely - there could well be many pieces of evidence which existed in the past but which are completely inaccessible now. In fact, I know that such pieces of evidence have existed but are now inaccessible...

    At the precise moment that the rate of expansion of the universe surpassed the speed of light, pieces of evidence began to become inaccessible. The universe is 96 billion light years across and has existed for only 14 billion years. That means that there's 82 billion light years of space which, although they exist, are completely inaccessible to us, and unfortunately, those 82 billion light years contain the earliest stages of our universe.

    BUT... just because there COULD be evidence for something doesn't mean that you're not crazy for believing in something WITHOUT the evidence to hand.

    When a religious person speaks their mind, they could well be correct. But I can't verify that they are correct, and neither can they - which means that they didn't arrive at their conclusions rationally and methodically, but that they just happened to get lucky and stumble, irrationally, to the correct conclusion.

    There were probably people in centuries gone by who believed with conviction that there were billions of galaxes in the Universe, and that we evolved from a common ancestory with monkeys, slugs, chickens, pine trees and pubic lice... and the evidence we have today shows their conclusions to be absolutely spot on. But the fact is, they arrived at those conclusions in the absence of the evidence to which we are privy today, and that means that they were nothing but raving lunatics who got lucky.

    I'd much rather be the INCORRECT scientist whos current beliefs are based on evidence and whose beliefs will evolve to accomodate new evidence, than the CORRECT stark-raving lunatic whose beliefs are arbitrary and unfounded.



    82 billion light years of history is an even bigger grey area than I expected.:eek: Yet what if I could prove the knowledge of Genesis? That is what I'm attempting to do. The Bible is definitely not a science book, science wasn't even praticed in those days. Yet, it could very well be history book. With scientific knowledge increasing, I believe we will finally be able to prove Genesis. Yet again, with scientific knowledge increasing, I understand it is limited. I have to prove Genesis, from genesis. In other words, the only way we will know the complete truth, is to start from the very beginning. If the Bible is true, the scientific models I should gather from it will be better than the models we work with today. (My models should explain the world, better than our current ones)
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Okashira)
    I'm not demeaning science, only showing it's limits. The creature couldn't have come to his friends with evidence in that scenario, because there simply was none. So if there is no evidence, does that mean the Big Bang never happened? According to empirical science, the Big Bang would be rubbish.



    So my argument is, are we missing something today that would change our view on the past? If we can miss something later on, chances are we could be missing something right now.
    No, it doesn't mean the Big Bang never happened, but it does mean that his friends are perfectly reasonable in rejecting it. And yes, we are missing things right now, but that is no justification to start making things up on the grounds that “you guys don't have all the answers” or “you may be wrong”, nor is it grounds to reject current explanations. We have to remain honest and work with what we currently know. Believing things based on what we 'may' know in the future is fantasy because it is ultimately unfounded, unsupported, and not known (i.e, you can't prove it).

    Furthermore, there could be many truths we are missing now, but it's highly unlikely to be something we've empirically proven wrong. Religions either have no evidence or have had their claims thoroughly disproven - it's not going to resurface that Adam and Eve were actually the first man and woman for example, because based on genetic and fossil evidence this scenario isn't possible.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes and if new evidence appeared to disprove current theories then that would be the working hypothesis, wouldn't it? Its hardly faith based.

    Oh and how the hell does Science does not know everything = therefore religion does. Seriously? are people actually making those humongous leaps of logic?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chickenonsteroids)

    Also, can you stop leaving many lines after each paragraph? It's a small thing but it's annoying

    Can you give me an example of this, so I know how to type from now on.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by Okashira)
    Arguing from the Bible, the point of this thread shows how Genesis could be true, but key evidences for it could be missing. Just like today we know the Big Bang is true, yet there's a day where all evidence for it is gone.
    Just to mention, you should make it clear about the point of discussion for every thread you create in the OP

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 10, 2012
New on TSR

What are your A-level predictions?

Join our AS and A2 results day chat thread

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.