How did Bigbang effected your Beliefs?

[Ben Dhyan]

A scientific theory is far more superior than an unsubstantiated idea completely born from the imagination.

Atheists may have a narrow view of reality, but that is not a problem of universal existence, it is to be expected, but they will eventually learn and evolve in time.

 

[metis]

Atheists may have a narrow view of reality, but that is not a problem of universal existence, it is to be expected, but they will eventually learn and evolve in time.

Would you include as such with agnostics?

 

[YoursTrue]

The first time I heard about BBT my mind imagined a massive lump of material that exploded and expanded creating what we know as the universe. In my mind it kept expanding until it reached a point where it began to contract and eventually returned to the giant lump of material which would then explode again in a never ending cycle. Then I eventually found out my understanding was completely wrong and what happened is beyond my ability to comprehend. So something I misunderstood and can't understand has no effect on my religious or lack of religious beliefs.

At least you're honest enough to say you don't understand it. Yet some scientists endeavor to offer a possible explanation as to how it all happened. They claim their ideas could be credible, maybe they claim they are credible, but -- are they sure?

 

[YoursTrue]

Atheists may have a narrow view of reality, but that is not a problem of universal existence, it is to be expected, but they will eventually learn and evolve in time.

So can you elaborate on what you mean when you say atheists (and perhaps you include agnostics in this) will learn and evolve in time?

 

[John53]

At least you're honest enough to say you don't understand it. Yet some scientists endeavor to offer a possible explanation as to how it all happened. They claim their ideas could be credible, maybe they claim they are credible, but -- are they sure?

I understand the basic principles of evolution. It's not difficult and the best part is anyone can walk out in their backyard and observe it or google transitional fossils and observe it. When it comes to stuff like DNA I know next to nothing. You on the other hand seem to feel you're smarter than the vast majority of biologists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Would you include as such with agnostics?

Yes, all prodigal sons will eventually return home to their source.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So can you elaborate on what you mean when you say atheists (and perhaps you include agnostics in this) will learn and evolve in time?

Yes, not only atheists and agnostics, but all souls who love this world. Material existence is not the soul's Heavenly home, and, to some extent we all have the 'prodigal son' aspect in our nature.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand the basic principles of evolution. It's not difficult and the best part is anyone can walk out in their backyard and observe it or google transitional fossils and observe it. When it comes to stuff like DNA I know next to nothing. You on the other hand seem to feel you're smarter than the vast majority of biologists.

No, that is not true. On the other hand, from the evidence presented by those who are educated as scientists, they may see and believe what they deem to be evidence, but no one has really seen any transition between animals and by that I mean in the broad scope. They may say, ok, evolution is true-proved-yes, proved because beaks change, but really, they are still birds. They do not evolve to something other than birds.
They may also say that dinosaurs became birds because of feathers they think were embedded in fossils, but there is no evidence (I dare not say proof, of course -- because there IS none anyway) that dinosaurs evolved to become birds. Embedded feathery impressions said to be precursors to birds do not add up to actual evidence that dinosaurs evolved to become birds. It may seem that way in a scientist's mind, but there is a dark hole in the supposed progression. I used to believe what I was taught in school about evolution. I believed it because I had no other way of looking at it. But now I realize that scientists go by a theoretical model and try to fit in pieces they believe fit in as evidence of the process. And as we know, sometimes their theoretical assertions change.

Explaining differences in rates of evolution

Scientists look to fossils and evolutionary trees to help determine the rate of evolution -- albeit with conflicting results. A new model has helped to resolve these contradictions.

www.sciencedaily.com

Then it has been explained to me, well, that's science. things change, things are discovered, etc. The previous conclusions were, however, taught as truth and not possibilities.

 

[John53]

No, that is not true. On the other hand, from the evidence presented by those who are educated as scientists, they may see and believe what they deem to be evidence, but no one has really seen any transition between animals and by that I mean in the broad scope. They may say, ok, evolution is true-proved-yes, proved because beaks change, but really, they are still birds. They do not evolve to something other than birds.
They may also say that dinosaurs became birds because of feathers they think were embedded in fossils, but there is no evidence (I dare not say proof, of course -- because there IS none anyway) that dinosaurs evolved to become birds. Embedded feathery impressions said to be precursors to birds do not add up to actual evidence that dinosaurs evolved to become birds. It may seem that way in a scientist's mind, but there is a dark hole in the supposed progression. I used to believe what I was taught in school about evolution. I believed it because I had no other way of looking at it. But now I realize that scientists go by a theoretical model and try to fit in pieces they believe fit in as evidence of the process. And as we know, sometimes their theoretical assertions change.

Explaining differences in rates of evolution

Scientists look to fossils and evolutionary trees to help determine the rate of evolution -- albeit with conflicting results. A new model has helped to resolve these contradictions.

www.sciencedaily.com

Then it has been explained to me, well, that's science. things change, things are discovered, etc. The previous conclusions were, however, taught as truth and not possibilities.

What is not true?

The fossils are the evidence as is the skeletons of modern birds. And saying birds evolved from dinosaurs isn't really correct, they evolved from theropods.

Because no one has seen one species evolve into another is only evidence of human life expectancy. We don't live long enough to observe it but we can observe the evidence. I've asked before so I doubt you'll respond but if you have evidence that it happened any other way then post it and I'll look at it with an open mind.

 

[John53]

Oops, I thought we were in the thread about Darwin, not sure why the person I was replying to suddenly switched to a thread on BBT. Old age mistake, sorry.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In my opinion the

"It's beyond my grasp, therefore it must be God."​

argument hovers somewhere between childish naivete and comical arrogance.

Not sure I've ever heard that argument, can you offer a source for it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I remember when I was a teenager, some thirty years ago, the Big bang theory was not known to many people, including myself. As a teenager I thought this world obviously must have been created by God, as it is too big and complex to exist without a creator.

Off course, now, that science expains it through Big bang theory and evolution, I don't have same reasoning that it is too big and complex to be without a God, as science explains it how it did happen.


Now, I am curious how many of you, that used to believe in God, due to the complexity of this world, no longer believes in God, after you become more informed about Bigbang and evolution.

Well, science doesn¨t explain it as for the BB. And for evolution that is not problem as you can combine God and evolution.

 

[metis]

Yes, all prodigal sons will eventually return home to their source.

I really cannot agree with that as agnosticism in various forms make a great deal of sense. I'm not one myself, but my position of faith is from something other than empirical evidence as I cannot prove what I experienced objectively.

 

[exchemist]

Not sure I've ever heard that argument, can you offer a source for it?

There is the well-known expression “Act of God”, for example. In times past it was commonplace to ascribe natural phenomena to the Almighty when the mechanism responsible was not known. Earthquakes, floods, plagues…..

Triumph of natural science since the Renaissance has been the employment of methodological naturalism which rejects such attributions in favour of searching for explanations within nature.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is the well-known expression “Act of God”, for example. In times past it was commonplace to ascribe natural phenomena to the Almighty when the mechanism responsible was not known. Earthquakes, floods, plagues…..

Triumph of natural science since the Renaissance has been the employment of methodological naturalism which rejects such attributions in favour of searching for explanations within nature.

Hm. Not sure that’s quite the same argument tbh.

Attributing dramatic natural phenomena to God’s wrath - or generosity - may have had more to do with widespread belief in an interventionist deity, than an attempt to explain the mechanism. But I suppose it was easier to believe in a deity like that, when so many natural processes were apparently inexplicable.

 

[pearl]

No effect at all. I understand the Bible to speak of 'why' and science to speak of 'how'. There is no conflict.

 

[exchemist]

Hm. Not sure that’s quite the same argument tbh.

Attributing dramatic natural phenomena to God’s wrath - or generosity - may have had more to do with widespread belief in an interventionist deity, than an attempt to explain the mechanism. But I suppose it was easier to believe in a deity like that, when so many natural processes were apparently inexplicable.

That’s a fair point. Though things like the heavens would have been seen, in the Ptolemaic system, as manufactured by God, with no attempt to search for a natural cause.

Moving forward to the modern era, the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design sets out to claim that certain features of organisms must have been created by supernatural intervention, based on a variety of specious arguments that they “could not” have arisen by natural means. They say, in effect, we don’t have an explanation for how these features arose, ergo God did it.

The basic rationale linking these is the “God of the Gaps”, a term coined by my old maths prof, Charles Coulson.