Not of science. Rather, of your claim of what it is supposed to be.
-
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!
Unscientific, Secularist Cosmology: Everything from Nothing! Not!
I agree with the OP that the big bang as an explanation for the origin of the universe would appear to be fundamentally flawed. I'm not going to go as far as saying god fills the gap though because as a materialist I'm biased against religion and I'm more than willing to say so.
Basically the Big Bang is built on a logical fallacy that nothing causes everything or that nothing must necessarily be something inorder to cause everything. So Either 0 does not equal 0, or 0=1. Which in virtually any other sphere of enquiry is "wrong".
In the defence of science however, logic is not necessarily a guide for truth. reality is messy and complicated and our ideas are only imperfect representations of reality so its more than possible that as we gather more evidence a better picture will emerge. The problem is trying to study time and space on cosmological scales of billions of years makes ibservations difficult and relies on a high degree of abstraction.
But as I am the scientific eqivilent of a medieval peasant telling Gallelo "that telescope is witchcraft! It is the work of the devil! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!" I'll settle for saying that cosmology is just in a really weird place at the moment as I cannot offer a better explanation than everything out of nothing.
Basically the Big Bang is built on a logical fallacy that nothing causes everything or that nothing must necessarily be something inorder to cause everything. So Either 0 does not equal 0, or 0=1. Which in virtually any other sphere of enquiry is "wrong".
In the defence of science however, logic is not necessarily a guide for truth. reality is messy and complicated and our ideas are only imperfect representations of reality so its more than possible that as we gather more evidence a better picture will emerge. The problem is trying to study time and space on cosmological scales of billions of years makes ibservations difficult and relies on a high degree of abstraction.
But as I am the scientific eqivilent of a medieval peasant telling Gallelo "that telescope is witchcraft! It is the work of the devil! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!" I'll settle for saying that cosmology is just in a really weird place at the moment as I cannot offer a better explanation than everything out of nothing.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
step forward and make a proper denial
substance will remain at rest until an action upon it
(science)
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I invite you to make denial
science lied about a substance at rest......stays that way.....?
As a non-scientist with zero qualifications in this field and whose opinion is therefore worthless...
Either:
1) The first law of thermodynamics may not apply at cosmological or quantum levels due to the extreme natures of these properties involved
Or...
2) applies but in a way we don't currently understand..
Or...
3) the first law of thermodynamics can be said to be universal based on assuming nature is uniform and that scientists need to reconsider their theories.
But I'm a scientifically illiterate moron on the Internet and Practically a chimp putting a cube into a round hole compared to the men in white coats who came up with this stuff. My justification for arguing this point is that I can only plausibly hope to better understand the Big Bang by questioning it to find out where my own ideas are mistaken based on the evidence.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I'm not sure Newtons laws are applicable to the big bang. In any case we currently have no idea what caused our universe to come into being, or even if "caused" is applicable.
Thing is, I have neither need nor interest in adopting your dogmatic premises, so there is no place for me in this game of yours.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh good.....I have no dogma....
and you have no need
Thief
Rogue Theologian
as for the other two previous posts.....
I believe science is correct
an object at rest will stay that way
I also believe that what we see above our heads is CLEAR indication of a starting 'point'
when I ask substance first?......it's a no-brainer
Spirit had to be in MOTION.....that substance would be so
I believe science is correct
an object at rest will stay that way
I also believe that what we see above our heads is CLEAR indication of a starting 'point'
when I ask substance first?......it's a no-brainer
Spirit had to be in MOTION.....that substance would be so
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
And there it is, your very own denial....
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
And you claim science?
Pseudoscience maybe
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yea change it around to suite this day and age, that's all their trying to do, make it fit with what science already know, after all we are dealing with desperate people with a desperate belief.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the belief came first.....long before science
Thief
Rogue Theologian
so...I reiterate
psychoslice
Veteran Member
No it didn't, your interpretation came after the fact, you can make just about anything sound the way you want it to sound, backward words from the past are nothing compared to what we know today, get up with the times if you truly want to learn something about the cosmos.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
no....once more.....
belief in Higher Powers came long before science
psychoslice
Veteran Member
And once more your just fitting what you want to fit into what you believe, just to make it sound all so knowledgeable, when it isn't.
Prove this via logic or evidence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
if it fits........
Thief
Rogue Theologian
go back to op ....and read