A few quotes from a smart man

[ispar]

The main thing about science is that it cannot explain an origin. Big Bang, sure, great, but how did that little ball of heavy matter come about in the first place? If there's one, couldn't there be more? Maybe...

But the basic principles of science are not simple articles of faith. Take the basic premises of physics. Things accelerate, fall down, push, pull, fly, get thrown, go up and come down in neat little parabolic arcs, and so on and so forth. Other precepts of other sciences are simple, easily observed basics. Most mistakes in science come from levels above the fundamental level. If something suddenly changes on the basic observable level, it could mean that we are in Big Trouble.

Take, for example, the stars. They are clearly there, whether ephemeral or material, optical illusion or actual. Understanding what they are, however, had us stymied for centuries. Understanding the truth about stars and planets paved the way toward debunking the old terracentric solar system model for a heliocentric one, and then towards debunking a heliocentric universe for.... a non-heliocentric universe. And so on, and so forth.

[Dinger]

Disagree ispar, but you're probably on the right track.
Geocentric, Heliocentric, or relative universee, the underlying metaphysical principles are ones that are useful to us in this life. The same goes for ethics.
But can science tell us there's no afterlife? or no salvation?  Hell no!
Again, I don't particularly believe anything, but I think it pretty arrogant to pretend that science extends beyond the realm of faith, or that its extension includes things usch as the existence of God.

[easymo]

The earth is not flat, huh?  Have you ever been to Kansas.

[-dead-]

Please enlighten us as to when exactly we "hit the wall" as far as "understanding the universe" goes Dinger. Then I want to hear about faith and science. Waiting eagerly for your reply.

A big problem with both science and religion: neither one can say anything definite about the true nature of reality - both mindsets can only offer models of reality.

Ouch seems like a pretty big wall to understanding the universe to me!

Anyone think they know "what's really out there"?

Think about how the human eye works - We only see a tiny fraction of the electomagnetic energy in the universe (visible light). So straight off the bat, we have a cut down, 99% missing reality. The eye gets this picture of "reality" upside down & back to front & really really small. It gets changed that way by a lens, which  bends and distorts the electromagnetic radiation, so that it hits a small patch of receptors. These receptors react to only certain types of light, and produce electricity. Our brain then receives this electricity and uses it as "information" which it inteprets to a picture "inside your head" that seems the right way up & the right size - so the brain has further altered the limited amount of "reality" that the eyes gave to it. Add to that the confusions caused by language & cultural limits, and we have a totally distorted "reality" - or a model of reality.

[An interesting problem in its own right: where do you "see" the world or rather "where is the world that you see" - in your eyes? Is it right way up, and stable? If so it's not in your eyes. In your brain? It seems to be "out there" - but you can't see reality directly, you can only see your brain's version of it. Anything you see is therefore VR, I guess. And so the world you see is inside your head, which is inside the world, which is inside your head... etc etc]

Looks like we're not in Kansas anymore, easymo

Pretty dodgy - add to that the possibility (according to some physicists) that the very act of observing the universe changes the universe, and the whole "It's real because I saw it with my own eyes" seems like a big patch of intellectual quicksand.

So much for the observable universe. So if you you don't know what's "really" there, you are extremely unlikely to understand it. This is a fairly scientific view (indeed science has been used long enough that scientists can now say "we know enough to know we know nothing". A damn sight more honest than western religion, which on the whole deletes the "we don't know" science proffers and inserts "God did it" in its stead. I am warey of anyone who says they know what's really going on - after a brief foray into thinking about reality, they all seem like charlatans and liars to me.

And as for the origin of the universe- Big Bang Vs. God thing: no contest - neither one answers the question.
If God created the universe as the Xians say - who or what created God? If God just happened, he sounds suspiciously like the big bang, that funkedup laughed about.

God creating the universe is just as unsatifactory an answer as the Big Bang - either one begs the question "so where did that come from"? to inifinite regress - another unanswerable question.

Let's end with another wise man's quote:

"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."


PS. If anyone still thinks they know "what's really out there"
Do, please, let me know -
But don't forget - you can't impose any cultural maps or models on "reality" as this would be a limited description of it, and if it is limited, it is by definition, not reality: so please, no drawings, maps, use of language, symbols, sounds, smells, sensations or tastes.

[SageFIN]

Preaching monotheism or atheism is a sure way to get to Hel after you die. Everyone knows that the Universe was created by Odin, Vili and Ve, who slew Ymir and made all that we can percieve from his body. Monotheists tell that the Universe was created from nothing. Don't believe them, you can't just have something pop up from nothing. Atheists are even worse.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by funkedup
It was created in seven really really reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eally long days, yep.  

First he created Light, so he started working at night.

[Daff]

"Everyone knows that the Universe was created by Odin, Vili and Ve"

Ah, but they died in Ragnarok and, viola!..Christianity appeared.

Daff

[SageFIN]

Originally posted by Daff
"Everyone knows that the Universe was created by Odin, Vili and Ve"

Ah, but they died in Ragnarok and, viola!..Christianity appeared.

Daff

No, it's not possible. Do have any proof that Ragnar�k already happened? Thought so.

[miko2d]

First, science may not have explained Big Bang yet because it just discovered that there was one - by tracing backwards the ongoing space expansion.
 Nobody postulated the Big Bang and asked us to trust in it. It looks like it was there according to the data and still the fact is constantly questioned. There is a singularity(infinity) involved in the Big Bang and many scientists suspect that infinity is a nature's way of telling us our math is not advanced enough to describe certain things.

 We may never be able to actually explain some things because of the technical difficulties.
 We know now (or strongly suspect) that at certain energy, the three forces of universe become one force.
 There are indications that at certain higher energies all four known forces become one - like it could have been just after the Big Bang.
 We even have specks for the accelerator to prove our suppositions. The first one would be slightly bigger then the solar system, the second one will be the size of a galaxy.
 We may come up with the shortcuts or we may not.

 Second, some questions only make sence because they use our human concepts of time and space which have only slight resemblance to what really hapens in nature.
 At higher speeds then we accustomed to time and distance and mass concepts that we use are not applicable.
 They are much less applicable under the conditions around the Big Bang or on microscopic scale.

 Time is a property of the universe, distance is a way to preceive it's other properties.
 Concept of beginning and end for the time most likely have no more meaning then beginning or end for the sphere.

 There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.
 If God is involved, it would be a logical place for him to be outside that Univese not living in our concept of time.

 miko

[Gunthr]

I was just gonna say that

[midnight Target]

Wow,  I really appreciate this forum! You guys represent a huge pile of collective knowledge that has been very enlightening to me. Thank you. .

On the other hand what exactly is the point?
Given the position that reality is not knowable, we must define our reality to resolve any issue or question.
A defined reality then becomes no less and no more real than any other reality.
BUT! A reality defined for "science" can and should be questioned and refined. A reality defined by religion cannot be questioned and that is the crux of the issue. Sure you can argue that we will always hit a wall, or that we already have. The big difference between religion and science is that one wants to look over the wall, the other is content not to.

IIRC miko, the Big Bang was first recognized empirically back when some engineers from Bell Telephone couldn't explain the background noise that pervaded the universe at a certain frequency. This was determined to be the remnant echo of the Big Bang. (sorry short on details)

[Dinger]

Lessee -- Miko: for many Christians, God exists outside of time.  The exact logical relationship between a Christian God and temporal existence is a fascinating 2000-year-old discussion in its own right.

Yeah, dead, that's part of what I was getting at.  But I think the religious avoid the infinite regress by positing God as the uncreated Creator.  In other words, one "proof" of God's existence that's been a favorite is:

assume: no causal chain is infinite.  In other words, you declare the infinite regress impossible as well as unsatisfactory.
also assume:
every effect has a cause.
From this, you get:
There must therefore be some cause that is itself uncaused.

sure, it's a bit of a petitio principii, and it's an old argument (I think it's the old "unmoved mover" chestnut of Physics Theta and Metaphysics Lambda), but it gets you to God as creator of time, the universe and everything.  If you have to have an origin for things, it's God.  And in yer scientific inquiry, God is always just over the horizon.

In other words, while the "religion" you might find in yer local church may seem simple and ignorant to you, remember that the "science" you find on television is too.  They have to be -- the message is made palatable to the masses.  How can you talk about time as a dimensional extension to someone who thinks that means that what he's eating tomorrow is already decided?  How can you talk about God's foreknowledge, predestination and free will to someone who really needs to hear what he needs to do tomorrow afternoon?
Both science and religion, however, on serious inquiry, can be found to espouse sophisticated worldviews that ultimately rely on taking a few principles on faith.

(and I guess that means I don't believe those who think the KJV is "the literal word of God" have a very sophisticated or even internally coherent notion of religion.)

[fd ski]

Originally posted by miko2d

If God is involved, it would be a logical place for him to be outside that Univese not living in our concept of time.

Shouldn't that be "convinient" instead of "logical".
I see nothing logical about making an exception for something we can't explain, just to satisy those not willing to reason.

Funky baby: Who created god ?
DUH !!!

Cuts both ways, doesn't it ?

I fully agree with statements that Miko initially posted.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

[funkedup]

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Well Bartek it's likely our species doesn't have the capacity to fully understand "the world" meaning the Universe and  how it came to be.  And it's even more likely that scientists won't be able to answer that question in our lifetimes.  So I think being satisfied with not completely understanding the world is a pragmatic and wise choice.  A better choice than spending one's entire life in a state of dissatisfaction.

Of course I think trying to answer those questions scientifically is a noble and cool thing.  And like I said before it will almost certainly have materially useful side effects.  So I'm all for it.  I'm just not basing my satisfaction on it.

[funkedup]

Fd said:  

Funky baby: Who created god ?

Nobody.  He was always there, always will be.  I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.

And it's pretty similar to what science might be saying eventually:

per Miko:

There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.