• 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!

Will We Know What Came Before the Big Bang Within the Next 50 Years?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Believing in the scriptures to be true and accepting the scriptures as true, is called FAITH.

FAITH isn’t evidence, nor is it proof.

I am referring to “evidence” as the word is used in scientific context, not used in legal context (eg evidence as used in law and in court cases). And I am using “proof” as it would be mathematical and theoretical contexts (eg theoretical physics), and again, not in the legal context.

The reason why I don’t used terms (eg evidence and proof) as defined in law and legal systems, because they used “evidence” and “proof” as if they were synonymous. In the world of natural science and mathematics, there are clear distinctions between “evidence” and “proof”.

After all, this thread is in “Science and Religion” forum, not in the “Law and Religion” forum.

Proof is a logical statement, which in the worlds of science and mathematics, and proofs are usually defined mathematical equations, formulas or constants/metrics. Equations and formulas are proofs, not evidences. Proof only provide abstract solutions, not real-world solutions.

Evidence, on the hand, is a real world solution, based on verifiable and testable observations.

While proof (in the form of formula or equation) is a useful tool in natural science, natural science rely on evidence to determine what are true or false. The Scientific Method use evidence to test the hypothesis and to determine if the hypothesis is TRUE or if the hypothesis is FALSE.

  1. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” God.
  2. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” soul or spirit.
  3. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” heaven and hell.
  4. You cannot “observe”, “measure” or “test” miracles.
If each ones of these are true, then there are no EVIDENCES in religion.

And if you cannot put god in an equation or a formula, there is no PROOF in religion.
"natural science and mathematics "

What is Nature? Did Science create it and since when, please?
Did Science create Mathematics or Mathematics create Science, please?

Regards
 

gnostic

The Lost One
My understanding is that Religion is a different aspect of reality of life and is proved and evidenced from the Word of Revelation from G-d, it is out of the domain of Science so Science is dumb/blind from this aspect.
No, paarsurrey. You still don’t understand.

What religions have, are beliefs and faiths, not evidence or proof.

Science is a methodology of explaining the natural or physical world, and attempting to test the explanation through either accumulation of verifiable evidence, or through repeatable experimentation.

The evidence or experiment should provide you data, like observations, measurements, tests (like comparison or verification), etc.

If there were evidence for God, then anyone can test god, observe god, measure god or quantify god.

Can you do any of, or combination of, or all of the above?

If you can’t, then it isn’t evidence.

This “Word if Revelation” is nothing more than bunch of claims, that you cannot substantiate. All you can do is believe in a book and have faith that what you believe in, to be real or true.

Faith isn’t evidence.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
No, paarsurrey. You still don’t understand.

What religions have, are beliefs and faiths, not evidence or proof.

Science is a methodology of explaining the natural or physical world, and attempting to test the explanation through either accumulation of verifiable evidence, or through repeatable experimentation.

The evidence or experiment should provide you data, like observations, measurements, tests (like comparison or verification), etc.

If there were evidence for God, then anyone can test god, observe god, measure god or quantify god.

Can you do any of, or combination of, or all of the above?

If you can’t, then it isn’t evidence.

This “Word if Revelation” is nothing more than bunch of claims, that you cannot substantiate. All you can do is believe in a book and have faith that what you believe in, to be real or true.

Faith isn’t evidence.
One didn't elaborate:
"natural science and mathematics " in #76

What is Nature? Did Science create it and since when, please?
Did Science create Mathematics or Mathematics create Science, please?

Regards
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
And what, all matter in the universe was squashed into in the space of less than an atom.
And before that?
Can it be that the matter was not just squashed up into a singularity, but that space itself actually was just very large, and matter was still distanced as far from each other than now?
perhaps space is shrinking, allowing light to travel linger distances, creating the appearance that it is travelling longer distances resulting in redshift.
It might also be that the size of the Universe and the size of distance is a relative concept where the one expands, in relatio to the other.
But, what was before this singularity if you believe in its existance?

The answer is, as i and many, many other people made clear, it is unknown. Remember it is OK to say "i dont know". It is the honest answer.

There are several hypothesis, they are based either on mathematical probabilities or real observations in our universe extrapolating backwards. If someone puts forward a hypothesis that has no basis in maths or reality it is summarily rejected.

Although some who dont know make the wild guess with absolutely no evidence to back it up that "god did it", that is a dishonest answer
 

Wu Wei

ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Pretty darn interesting video dealing with entropy, the arrow of time, and the origin and future of the universe....



Comments?

I have thought, for a very long time, that one day when we discover what triggered the big bang that it would go something like this.

EUREKA!!! I know what started the big....BANG!!!!

And it starts all over again
 

gnostic

The Lost One
They can, this is news?

@dad .

You are known troll, who have known habits of being incapable of learning what science is or isn’t, and being incapable from learning your mistakes, while you repeatedly projecting your own failures of understanding science upon everyone else. That’s why no one who have responded to you, can take you seriously.

Don’t blame everyone who disagree with you for your own ignorance.

I have no more patience with explaining what is or what isn’t evidence, to you.

I am quite sure, @Subduction Zone have repeatedly offer to help you understand what is scientific evidence are, but you have never accepted his offers to teach you the basics.

I have tried, in other threads, but you have refused to learn, so I am not really waste any more time explaining to someone who is willfully ignorant, and who have bad habits of pretending to understand science, either to due to indoctrination or due to your hubris.
 

dad

Undefeated
@dad .

You are known troll, who have known habits of being incapable of learning what science is or isn’t, and being incapable from learning your mistakes, while you repeatedly projecting your own failures of understanding science upon everyone else. That’s why no one who have responded to you, can take you seriously
Coming from an impostor who can't post science, yet wants people to think he owns it, you cannot be taken seriously.

I have no more patience with explaining what is or what isn’t evidence, to you.
No ability you mean, as we can see anytime you post.
I am quite sure, @Subduction Zone have repeatedly offer to help you understand what is scientific evidence are, but you have never accepted his offers to teach you the basics.
Link to a post where that poster showed us support for his bent belief system!?
I have tried, in other threads,
And failed. Yet you seem incapable of admitting or even realizing it.

but you have refused to learn,
We are not here to learn your religion. We are here to see you try to support it.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
And what, all matter in the universe was squashed into in the space of less than an atom.
And before that?
Can it be that the matter was not just squashed up into a singularity, but that space itself actually was just very large, and matter was still distanced as far from each other than now?
perhaps space is shrinking, allowing light to travel linger distances, creating the appearance that it is travelling longer distances resulting in redshift.
It might also be that the size of the Universe and the size of distance is a relative concept where the one expands, in relatio to the other.
But, what was before this singularity if you believe in its existance?
We have documented, empirical evidence that space is expanding, and faster than we previously thought.

The singularity was much smaller than an atom. It was infinitely small. You might say that it was a point, which is nothing but a mathematical conception, and not anything that has substance, since space/time did not exist yet.
 

dad

Undefeated
We have documented, empirical evidence that space is expanding, and faster than we previously thought..
That is based largely on redshifted light as seen from here. If time was not the same out there it loses the meaning you attached to it.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
We have documented, empirical evidence that space is expanding, and faster than we previously thought.

The singularity was much smaller than an atom. It was infinitely small. You might say that it was a point, which is nothing but a mathematical conception, and not anything that has substance, since space/time did not exist yet.
"singularity was much smaller than an atom"
"and not anything that has substance, since space/time did not exist yet."

That makes it attributives/spiritual and it goes out of the domain of Science. Right, please?

Regards
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
"singularity was much smaller than an atom"
"and not anything that has substance, since space/time did not exist yet."

That makes it attributives/spiritual and it goes out of the domain of Science. Right, please?

Regards
No. Science can study anything that can be sensed and/or measured. The singularity can be measured as infinitely small. What is beyond science is what came before, since technically there was no "before," aka time began with the Big Bang.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
No. Science can study anything that can be sensed and/or measured. The singularity can be measured as infinitely small. What is beyond science is what came before, since technically there was no "before," aka time began with the Big Bang.

Thanks for the information.
Regards
 

dad

Undefeated
Do you have any empirical evidence that time has not been the same?
? Has not been? On earth it more or less has. However the forces and nature in the far past on earth are not known. Now if you mean time in deep space well, we don't know.
 
Top