• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence of creation

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
A lot of `science` writings start with something like `big bang` thinking because of a priest that was erronious in the considering of the fact that the Cosmos is filled with trillions of `big bangs`.
These `BBs` happen all the time, trillions of years apart, but the Cosmos is rather large, so it's rather hard to keep track. Every `black hole` ends as a new `singularity` until `gravity` wins the contest, and then another `BB` starts. The Cosmos is pimpled with entities.
We still can't see them yet. It takes time, lots of it. But we will sometime be so honored.
~ Anyway that's my thinking, remember....I'm always confused...I got an excuse !
But...think about it !
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
A lot of `science` writings start with something like `big bang` thinking because of a priest that was erronious in the considering of the fact that the Cosmos is filled with trillions of `big bangs`.
These `BBs` happen all the time, trillions of years apart, but the Cosmos is rather large, so it's rather hard to keep track. Every `black hole` ends as a new `singularity` until `gravity` wins the contest, and then another `BB` starts. The Cosmos is pimpled with entities.
We still can't see them yet. It takes time, lots of it. But we will sometime be so honored.
~ Anyway that's my thinking, remember....I'm always confused...I got an excuse !
But...think about it !
Tell me, is your avatar Sid James, by any chance?
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
OK. Calling it an "explosion" is misleading. Expansion is a more accurate term. Moreover, an explosion destroys because it produces a shock wave that hits objects that are initially outside the envelope of the shock wave and thereby exerts powerful forces on them as it passes. In the Big Bang model, there is nothing "outside" for the expanding universe to hit or pass. It is the universe itself that is expanding.

Lastly, the initial expansion is thought to have involved only radiation. Matter is presumed to have condensed from the radiation (a process called pair production) and the radiation and matter would have been mixed together in a state called a plasma, for about 380,000 years. Only after that did atoms condense from the plasma and light and matter become separated from each other, allowing the universe to become transparent to light for the first time. And this event is the first thing that we have observational evidence for. The light from that last moment of existence of the plasma ball is what we see in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). This is the famous "echo" of the Big Bang.

Everything before that is, perforce, speculative physics, as we have no observations against which to test our hypotheses.
Thank you for this explanation. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain. I am especially drawn to two things you said. First, you say the initial expansion " is thought to have" etc. Second, everything before the expansion is "speculative physics". So it sounds like much of this idea is not certain. You can't really see "proof" only observations and speculations. Why can't science also admit the possibility of other unobserveble factors? Maybe an unobserveble creator? But to totally deny it because there is no proof is not enough reason because there is no proof of what happened at the "big bang" or if it even happened that why. Only speculation. Why not speculation of a creator?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Thank you for this explanation. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain. I am especially drawn to two things you said. First, you say the initial expansion " is thought to have" etc. Second, everything before the expansion is "speculative physics". So it sounds like much of this idea is not certain. You can't really see "proof" only observations and speculations. Why can't science also admit the possibility of other unobserveble factors? Maybe an unobserveble creator? But to totally deny it because there is no proof is not enough reason because there is no proof of what happened at the "big bang" or if it even happened that why. Only speculation. Why not speculation of a creator?
Haha, well spotted, I chose my words with care.

In a number of other threads, the issue of what constitutes science has come up. What makes a theory or hypothesis scientific or not? The usual answer is that a scientific theory is a model of physical reality that works, in the sense that it can successfully predict the outcome of observations designed to test the model.

At the leading edge of science it is inevitable that there will be some observations for which no model yet exists (e.g. dark matter) and some hypotheses for which no observational tests can yet be devised - including what is thought to have been going on in the early universe before the end of the plasma phase. These are "unfinished business" and not part of what one might call "settled science".

As for "proof", no theory in science is ever proved, in the absolute sense of a logical or mathematical proof. No matter how many observations fit the model, it always remains logically possible, in principle, that tomorrow some new class of observation could be made that does not fit, requiring the model to be changed.

But speculation about a creator does not belong in science. Science is short for natural science, not supernatural science. Adding a creator to the picture is an unnecessary additional hypothesis, and as such is set aside by the principle of Ockham's Razor. We are free to believe in a creator if we wish, but He will not feature in any theory of science.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Thank you. Well said. I still believe that some of the things that science cannot fully explain may be explained by the addition of a superior power or being that has not left evidence that "science" can see. Just my opinion.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Thank you. Well said. I still believe that some of the things that science cannot fully explain may be explained by the addition of a superior power or being that has not left evidence that "science" can see. Just my opinion.
A conviction that there is a creator is not in conflict with science, but lies outside the domain of science, which is confined to observation of natural phenomena and construction of predictive models to account for them.

One important reason supernatural ideas like a creator can't play a part in science is that no predictive model can be constructed upon this idea: as the creator is not bound by any laws of nature, there is no way to predict what effects we should see as a result of the hypothesis.

However I personally always find it a bit sad when I come across people who seem to look for proof of their faith in things science can't yet explain. This is the notorious "God of the Gaps". As Cardinal Newman pointed out, more than a century ago, a person who bases his faith on that is doomed to have it badly shaken as science advances. It's a dead end for the religious believer, tempting though it may look - especially to non-scientists.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
A conviction that there is a creator is not in conflict with science, but lies outside the domain of science, which is confined to observation of natural phenomena and construction of predictive models to account for them.

One important reason supernatural ideas like a creator can't play a part in science is that no predictive model can be constructed upon this idea: as the creator is not bound by any laws of nature, there is no way to predict what effects we should see as a result of the hypothesis.

However I personally always find it a bit sad when I come across people who seem to look for proof of their faith in things science can't yet explain. This is the notorious "God of the Gaps". As Cardinal Newman pointed out, more than a century ago, a person who bases his faith on that is doomed to have it badly shaken as science advances. It's a dead end for the religious believer, tempting though it may look - especially to non-scientists.
Again, you make a lot of sense from a scientific point of view. I just believe there are things outside the area of science that can only be explained by some outside power or being or ( if you are a Satr Wars fan ) some "force". Maybe science will someday explain it all and maybe someday science will admit there is something else out there. I really hate to think that humans are the greatest beings in the universe. Look at all the pain and suffering they cause one another. I will not try to change your beliefs and hope you will not try to change mine. There is room for all. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Again, you make a lot of sense from a scientific point of view. I just believe there are things outside the area of science that can only be explained by some outside power or being or ( if you are a Satr Wars fan ) some "force". Maybe science will someday explain it all and maybe someday science will admit there is something else out there. I really hate to think that humans are the greatest beings in the universe. Look at all the pain and suffering they cause one another. I will not try to change your beliefs and hope you will not try to change mine. There is room for all. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Many people, scientists included, think or feel that there is more to existence than the tangible, physical world that we study in science. My own opinion on this has varied in the course of my life and I do not yet consider it settled.......
 
What evidence is there that the universe, the solar system, or life was created?

Parts for an airplane dont just appear. These parts also dont assemble themselves into an airplane. Thats two impossible events and we are just talking about an airplane. A bird is far more complex. The universe is far more complex. I would say that by simple logic something created the universe.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Parts for an airplane dont just appear. These parts also dont assemble themselves into an airplane. Thats two impossible events and we are just talking about an airplane. A bird is far more complex. The universe is far more complex. I would say that by simple logic something created the universe.
Airplanes do not reproduce. Your analogy fails.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hence my quote " the universe is far more complex"

You can't even define "complex' much less make a case for why complexity matters. Here is a hint, the reason why your analogy fails in regards to evolution is not because airplanes are "complex" or because anything else is complex.

Evolution is very well understood. There are still unanswered problems in it, but those in no way present a refutation of the theory. Unexplained problems are to be expected. We keep solving them and finding more every day. That is the nature of science.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Parts for an airplane dont just appear. These parts also dont assemble themselves into an airplane. Thats two impossible events and we are just talking about an airplane. A bird is far more complex. The universe is far more complex. I would say that by simple logic something created the universe.
There is no logic in this argument. It is just the old Argument from Personal Incredulity, yet again: because you, personally, cannot understand how complexity could have arisen naturally, it must be impossible for it to have done so. You are helped to your conclusion, I am sure, by not knowing anything about the mechanisms by which complexity can arise.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Parts for an airplane dont just appear. These parts also dont assemble themselves into an airplane. That's two impossible events and we are just talking about an airplane.

The obvious of human intelligence does not have anything to does with the history of life and evolution. False analogy.

A bird is far more complex.
No problem given millions of years of evolution.


The universe is far more complex. I would say that by simple logic something created the universe.

By the objective verifiable evidence the origins of our universe is natural based on the Laws of Nature. There are not any falsifiable theories, hypothesis, nor theorems that the source of the universe is anything but natural.

Can you provide a falsifiable theory or hypothesis that the birds evolved, or the universe is Created by an intelligence outside our natural physical existence?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Parts for an airplane dont just appear. These parts also dont assemble themselves into an airplane. Thats two impossible events and we are just talking about an airplane. A bird is far more complex. The universe is far more complex. I would say that by simple logic something created the universe.


That’s a false equivalency. Creationists are implying that the atoms in the materials that made up the plane were also created. You have a long way to go before proving that.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That a bird will materialize over time. It can pass on traits which in a snapshot of time could lead one to believe it did originally come from nothing but as my analogy shows this is not possible.

Your analogy is meaningless, does not reflect science. and you lack the basics of high school science with a fundamentalist religious agenda.

Airplanes, computers and are based on the technology and intelligence of humans the same way the same science is applied to the science of evolution of life, and the earth and universe billions of years old. Science is science.

Science does not propose that anything came from absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
Top