Something from nothing, the big bang, science has it all.

[Desert Snake]

Something from nothing, in fact, everything from nothing, but we can call it something. Then goop on an asteroid came from nowhere which would have to be somewhere, with no purpose, but yet cause, but not really cause, rather inertia, from nothing, remember, then hit earth, then morphed into the plants etc. we have on earth...

Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.

 

[Jumi]

So it all was there forever or what do you think? Not a big fan of big bang, I'd prefer if there was a steady state universe, but what can you do, that's what facts point towards so far.

 

[Revoltingest]

Something from nothing, in fact, everything from nothing, but we can call it something.

We really don't know that it all came from nothing.
That's just a simplistic description description of the current universe's size at one point in time, ie, really really really small.

Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.
Look to the purple unicorn, Jolene, the purple unicorn.

Science is far more mysterious than any religion man has yet conjured up.

 

[Desert Snake]

So it all was there forever or what do you think? Not a big fan of big bang, I'd prefer if there was a steady state universe, but what can you do, that's what facts point towards so far.

You could have quasi big bang, or localized big bang, that might look like ''the'' big bang, is my opinion. This depends on how ''certain'' the science is behind the theory in the first place. 'Steady state', is sort of an specific theory, I imagine. It may be incorrect, but ''more'' correct.

So, to answer, I am not a proponent of the big bang theory, obviously, however jumping immediately to steady state, or rather assuming steady state in the same type of time/space paradigm isn't my cup of tea necessarily.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, yout point - therefore God? (And the Christian one at that) Good argument, Invictus.

 

[Marisa]

Ironically, the same sarcastic (which I don't have a problem with) questions you ask of science can be asked of a being that has supposedly always existed without a creator. If that being can possess that quality, why not space, the final frontier?

 

[Desert Snake]

We really don't know that it all came from nothing.
That's just a simplistic description description of the current universe's size at one point in time, ie, really really really small.

Science is far more mysterious than any religion man has yet conjured up.

Yep, it also has those elements described as ''magic'' by some when they are referring to religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, it also has those elements described as ''magic'' by some when they are referring to religion.

This would involve 2 different definitions of the word, "magic".

Example....
After drinking in bars, I was put behind bars, & barred from leaving.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, yout point - therefore God? (And the Christian one at that) Good argument, Invictus.

What/who is the ''Christian God''?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ironically, the same sarcastic (which I don't have a problem with) questions you ask of science can be asked of a being that has supposedly always existed without a creator. If that being can possess that quality, why not space, the final frontier?

If you watch Star Trek, there isn't much limitation there. And that is a good question, why not? I'm not the one that relates these questions to ''silliness', as opposed, to people who do, when they relate them to religion.

 

[Desert Snake]

This would involve 2 different definitions of the word, "magic".

Hmm why? I don't think so.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmm why? I don't think so.

Science is magical in a poetic sense, ie, mysterious, wondrous.
Religion is magical in a literal sense, ie, supernatural cause of unnatural occurrences.

 

[Jumi]

You could have quasi big bang, or localized big bang, that might look like ''the'' big bang, is my opinion. This depends on how ''certain'' the science is behind the theory in the first place.

You could, but no one has come up with a credible alternative that explains the conditions we have now.

'Steady state', is sort of an specific theory, I imagine. It may be incorrect, but ''more'' correct.

Yes. There were scientists who did not like the idea of the big bang who kept the theory alive, but it didn't fit the data so even they abandoned it after trying to make it work.

So, to answer, I am not a proponent of the big bang theory, obviously, however jumping immediately to steady state, or rather assuming steady state in the same type of time/space paradigm isn't my cup of tea necessarily.

Reality doesn't care much if it's our cup of tea, though. We might have ideas, but if those ideas contradict the data then they are just good dreams for us.

 

[Marisa]

If you watch Star Trek, there isn't much limitation there. And that is a good question, why not? I'm not the one that relates these questions to ''silliness', as opposed, to people who do, when they relate them to religion.

I suppose some people aren't comfortable with "I don't know" as an answer to a given question. I am, and that probably explains why I don't get much from religion. With science, every question that gets answered spawns a million more questions. That's exciting for me.

 

[Desert Snake]

Science is magical in a poetic sense, ie, mysterious, wondrous.
Religion is magical in a literal sense, ie, supernatural cause of unnatural occurrences.

I think this may depend on how you think of religious ideas. Why are they ''supernatural'', as opposed to just something we can't prove? Isn't science like that?

 

[Desert Snake]

You could, but no one has come up with a credible alternative that explains the conditions we have now.


Yes. There were scientists who did not like the idea of the big bang who kept the theory alive, but it didn't fit the data so even they abandoned it after trying to make it work.


Reality doesn't care much if it's our cup of tea, though. We might have ideas, but if those ideas contradict the data then they are just good dreams for us.

'Cup of tea', doesn't mean it's not ''reality''. It means a personal opinion. Could be correct, or incorrect.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think this may depend on how you think of religious ideas. Why are they ''supernatural'', as opposed to just something we can't prove? Isn't science like that?

You guys assert wild conclusions and just never worry about testing them.

Science tests things and then makes conclusions based on the data.

Those are two very different attempts at ascertaining knowledge.

(edited for terrible typos)

 

[dust1n]

Something from nothing, in fact, everything from nothing, but we can call it something. Then goop on an asteroid came from nowhere which would have to be somewhere, with no purpose, but yet cause, but not really cause, rather inertia, from nothing, remember, then hit earth, then morphed into the plants etc. we have on earth...
Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.

The Big Bang has a overwhelming set of evidence from observations, however, hardly is "everything" explained by the big bang. The Big Bang just coincides with stuff that one can see in space and make sense of it.

Goop on an asteroid? This isn't the commonly held hypothesis.

If Science is a magic, feel free to read the tricks. All of it usually published. However, no one is ever going to be able to describe what it means for "god to make the universe."

 

[Lyndon]

I think the evidence that God/gods exist is greater than the evidence that the big bang actually happened. For one thing I would think more people believe in God/gods than the big bang, must be some evidence at least for those people that believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think this may depend on how you think of religious ideas. Why are they ''supernatural'', as opposed to just something we can't prove? Isn't science like that?

Oddly, science is about disproving rather than proving.