Dinosaurs are not real :(

I was still under the impression that what caused the big bang is still pretty much a mystery?

I've always been under the impression that we know or at least the scientific concensus is that the big bang occurred, but that there are several hypothetical models on how it occurred.

And as for the why, well that is a question for philosophy rather than Science...currently anyway.
 
Not that that is particularly related to anything I said.....it also assumes that Science and Spirituality are incompatible, which they are not. It also ignores examples of Scientists and other highly educated individuals who, for whatever reason develop a belief from a position of atheism or agnosticism.

As any scientist will tell you, and if you are indeed a scientist you should know yourself, we approach the World and Universe as it is, not how we would like it to be.

I would be wary of attributing any particular conclusions based on limiting the knowledge or experience of the individual....limiting the worldview and experience of an individual will invariably bias them into the limitations that you set.....the only true test would be to give them equal access to all world-views from a base of total ignorance of all worldviews and let them make their own mind after conducting their own investigations....that would be preferable to adding artifical bias toward one world view at the expense of another.


Don't think of an elephant. oops, you just did.

If people are raised being told there is a God, or even simply knowing that a great many people beleive in a God will change the persons beleifs to some extent. Even if that means they simply question whther there is a God or not, and so by your definition become an agnostic.

I never really understood your point of showing that some % of scientists beleieve in some form of God/Deity/spirituality. I supposed that you wanted to show that even scientists with a scientific understanding of the universe still beleive in one of the aforementioned. But I don't think this is valid evidence at all. As I said, I think the only way that you would find any interesting insight would be to isolate a lot of people from any religious or spiritual beliefs and teach them only facts of the universe, i.e. teach them science. My expection is that they will not develop any form of deity to explain the universe, and wont question the existence of such a deity.

Religious and spiritual beleifs have developed across cultures and peoples as a mechanism to try to explain the world, their surroundings, and try to answer comforting questions about existence, life after death etc. If humans are given an explanation for the physical process of the universe based on facts then they are unlikely to need to develop imaginary deities with magical powers, be that a clasical God, or animal spiritis, mother earth/nature, etc.
 
Last edited:
Don't think of an elephant. oops, you just did.

If people are raised being told there is a God, or even simply knowing that a great many people beleive in a God will change the persons beleifs to some extent. Even if that means they simply question whther there is a God or not, and so by your definition become an agnostic.

I never really understood your point of showing that some % of scientists beleieve in some form of God/Deity/spirituality. I supposed that you wanted to show that even scientists with a scientific understanding of the universe still beleive in one of the aforementioned. But I don't think this is valid evidence at all. As I said, I think the only way that you would find any interesting insight would be to isolate a lot of people from any religious or spiritual beliefs and teach them only facts of the universe, i.e. teach them science. My expection is that they will not deelop any form of deity to explain the universe, and wont question the existence of such a deity.

Religious and spiritual beleifs have developed across cultures and peoples as a mechanism to try to explain the world, their surroundings, and try to answer comforting questiongs about existence, life after death etc. If humans are given an explanation for the physical process of the universe based on facts then they are unlikely to need to develop imaginary deities with magical powers, be that a clasical God, or animal spiritis, mother earth/nature, etc.


I don't disagree with you on the basis that an individual will generally be indoctrinated into whatever world-view they are isolated into believing or accepting...

However, I think you are not considering that no matter how much we know or learn of the How.....we will always ask the Why? Be that for the physical Universe or for individual experience, spirituality and by association religion is about more than God, it is also about answering the Why of our existence, something Science doesn't yet address. I would suspect that rather than developing a theist religion, they would be more apt to develop a Pantheist, Pandeist or Deist or some other philosophical alternative. I doubt that Science would be enough for everyone to answer their questions?

That is not to say that some, as is the case today would not be perfectly content with simply knowing How and not considering the Why to be important.

May I ask what discipline your PhD is in?
 
Last edited:
Maybe you could start a topic on this?, i for one would be very interested to learn this "scientific fact".

The story of the existence of a god is entirely fictional. It's the equivalent of saying that Harry Potter is real because someone wrote it down. If you concede, though, that we cannot say that it is a fact that Harry Potter exists, then I am willing to agree that the non-existence of god is not a fact.

Castiel, I'm in a rush atm so I'll reply to you later! Interesting points though.
 
I was still under the impression that what caused the big bang is still pretty much a mystery?

Again, you need to be careful what exact question you are asking.
Scientitists consider the Big Bang as starting from a point when the entire universe was a singularity with super high energy density which rapidly expanded outwards, cooled and allowed matter to form. The proof of this, the understanding of the physical processes, the mechanisms are relatively well understood. Much more so than the genral public expects. The Big Bang is actually quite well understood. There is a lot of observational evidence to support it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

It is called a theory but you need to understand what a scientitifc theory is to appreciate it. The word "theory" does not have the same meaning in science as common speach.


If you are asking how that initial state came to be, then there is much more speculation but not without scientific value. There is just a lot of difficulty surrounding this for various technical reasons. This is the point where many christains that beleive in science point to God as the answer, i.e., he planted the "seed" of the universe and controls the processes. I wont argue against such a point of view but one should note that it is absolutely not required for such a magical process to explain this initial state.
There are actually quite a few competing scientific theorms to explain this stage, its not that scientists don't have an explanation, they have have lots of explanaions but have a hard time unifying different concepts.

An important point here is that in general the human mind cannot grasp certain concepts. Example include imagining a 5 dimensional cube (let alone 11 dimensional, 100 dimensional) but arbitrary dimensional geometry is mathematically trivial. Most of us don't fathom the idea of infinity, and inseatd imagine it just to be very, very big. Hence, all the infinity +1, infinity x 2, etc. stupidity. We also have a hard time to imagine that outside the physical universe there is absolutely nothing, no existence, no time, no space. Most people just imagine that outside the edge of the universe it is just empty space, it is not, it doesn't even exist in the commen sense.

So it is not at all surprsing that most of us find it hard to beleive that all of a sudden the universe popped into existence from nothingness, but scientifically this is plausable, and other fantsatical ideas are also possible such as multiverses.
 
Last edited:
The story of the existence of a god is entirely fictional. It's the equivalent of saying that Harry Potter is real because someone wrote it down. If you concede, though, that we cannot say that it is a fact that Harry Potter exists, then I am willing to agree that the non-existence of god is not a fact.
Jesus was/is a real person Harry Potter is not. Fact. (Well not the HP in the books.)
Whether Jesus is God is up to you to find out.
 
D.P. I did have exactly that ready to post earlier but opted for a simpler post because quite frankly such a post with details and evidence sources would be ignored and selectively quoted by certain individuals and not read as intended at all.

It’s a sad state of affairs man :(
 
I don't disagree with you on the basis that an individual will generally be indoctrinated into whatever world-view they are isolated into believing or accepting...

However, I think you are not considering that no matter how much we know or learn of the How.....we will always ask the Why? Be that for the physical Universe or for individual experience, spirituality and by association religion is about more than God, it is also about answering the Why of our existence, something Science doesn't yet address. I would suspect that rather than developing a theist religion, they would be more apt to develop a Pantheist, Pandeist or Deist or some other philosophical alternative. I doubt that Science would be enough for everyone to answer their questions?

That is not to say that some, as is the case today would not be perfectly content with simply knowing How and not considering the Why to be important.

May I ask what discipline your PhD is in?

I agree that mayn people might ask some why questions. But again, this is just part of human psychology. I know I am a minoritiy but myself, and many others simply beleive the universe exists, end of. There is no why question for me, I accept that I was simply born and exist, without some special purpose.

My PhD was a mix of artificial inteligence, robotics, computer science, biology including evolutionary biology and neurophysiology.
 
D.P. I did have exactly that ready to post earlier but opted for a simpler post because quite frankly such a post with details and evidence sources would be ignored and selectively quoted by certain individuals and not read as intended at all.

It’s a sad state of affairs man :(

Not all of us are like that....I certainly am not and I have never taken RDM to be like that either.....:(
 
Thankyou Nitefly for your honesty. Maybe others here banging on about the so called "facts" can take a leaf out of your book so to speak.

You are most welcome, but your use of 'honesty' concerns me. You almost make it sound like I have conceded a point, when I haven't.

The fact that the origins of life remains a mystery doesn't make one jot of difference to evolutionary theory being sound or comprehensive. As I said, the two are not strictly related.
 
I agree that mayn people might ask some why questions. But again, this is just part of human psychology. I know I am a minoritiy but myself, and many others simply beleive the universe exists, end of. There is no why question for me, I accept that I was simply born and exist, without some special purpose.

My PhD was a mix of artificial inteligence, robotics, computer science, biology including evolutionary biology and neurophysiology.

We are agreed then it seems. I have yet to make any definitive position on the why? I continue to search.


Your chosen field sounds absolutely fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Again, you need to be careful what exact question you are asking.
Scientitists consider the Big Bang as starting from a point whent eh entire universe was a singularity with super high energy density whicvh rapidly expanded outwards, cooled and allowed matter to form. The proof of this, the udnerstanding of the physical processes, the mechanisms are relatvie well understood. Much mroe so thant he genral public expect. The Big Bang is actually quite well understood. There is a lot of observation evidence to support it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

I know all that....

It is caled a theory but you need to understand what a scientitifc theory is to appreciate it. The word "theory" does not have the same emaning in science as common speach.

I know that too...


If you are asking how that initial state came to be, then there is muh more speculation but not without scientific value.

This however is pretty much where we agree yet you seem to be having difficulty in saying that we agree. We do not know what caused the Big Bang to happen, why it started, what was there before. We have some very interesting guesses, but that is about as far as it goes.

This is the point where many christaisn that beleive in science point to God as the answer, i.e., he planted the "seed" of the universe and controls the processes. I wont argue against such a point of view but one should note that it is absolutely not required for such a magical process to explain this initial state.

No argument from me there either.
 
....Didn't they just dig up a Baby Mammoth frozen in ice, perfectly preserved, with fur and everything? looks like the creationists were wrong, who knew? lol
 
Back
Top Bottom