Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

Science CAN necessarily explain the big bang because it's a part of science.

Science exists beyond human knowledge. For example, in mathematics there may be conjectures which we may never prove but nevertheless either can or can't be proven.

Math and science are man-made tools to explain what already is. Since every effect must have a cause, so then must everything have an explanation.

Our science can explain the events of the big bang. It may not be able to explain its origins (the pre-universe) but I believe if it can't, then another science with its own physical laws can.

Science is just a method used to arrive at an acceptable theory that we go by until the next theory comes around that can disprove the current one, it's not an entity. It's a process of gathering information then interpreting that information in a peer-reviewed and logical way, that's it. There's no "other science" or "our science." Saying that the big bang is "part of science" doesn't make sense, because science isn't a thing, it's just a method.

If what you're saying is that everything that happens does indeed happen and everything that has happened has indeed happened, then "duh." As for some creature named science knowing something that we don't know yet, that's not how it works. Everything is understanable if we understand it, if we don't get something yet then it has yet to be described. There's no need to make it more complicated than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Science is just a method used to arrive at an acceptable theory that we go by until the next theory comes around that can disprove the current one, it's not an entity. It's a process of gathering information then interpreting that information in a peer-reviewed and logical way, that's it. There's no "other science" or "our science." Saying that the big bang is "part of science" doesn't make sense, because science isn't a thing, it's just a method.

If what you're saying is that everything that happens does indeed happen and everything that has happened has indeed happened, then "duh." As for some creature named science knowing something that we don't know yet, that's not how it works. Everything is understanable if we understand it, if we don't get something yet then it has yet to be described. There's no need to make it more complicated than that.

---

Exackerlly. If God exists, he - or even the debate as to whether or not he does - falls within the scope of scientific enquiry. Everything falls within that scope, because it's an approach - it's not a territory and it's not a conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

It is only your opinion that God needs to be explained. How can finite minds explain an Infinite Being? How ignorant of a comment.

---

Yet you have just explained God as an infinite being. It looks like it may tacitly be your opinion as well.

Further, I may say that the universe is an infinite entity. And this does not require as many leaps as God is a infinite entity who created the universe a non-infinite entity.

If I'm an ornithologist and I tag a bird in Charlotte NC, and a few days later I take a trip to Atlanta GA and astoundingly run across the same bird with the same exact tag. What would my conclusion be?

Looks like the bird flew to Atlanta. I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. The conclusion most people would not come to is that that bird flew to Tampa, then Miami, then Savannah, where a fellow ornithologist caught the bird brought it to Atlanta in their car on a dare from their old college roommate and re-released it downtown. Any reasonable person would find this conclusion less likely.

It's not that these events couldn't have transpired its that their invocation is less preferred than the first scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Are you sure? What an "inspired" post! It almost seems like.... a revelation!

My guess: the authors of the Bible had a great many purposes and motivations. In addition, the motives of the authors are not of primary importance to the value of the text.

---

The motives help the reader understand the text. When those motives can be seen to be devious, reading into the text something else in order to justify a belief is simply a misreading of it.

I think you misunderstood me. My fault since I made my post confusing.

What I meant was that whether or not we ever find the means to explain something like the big bang doesn't mean we can't. It's as explicable as anything else that follow the physical laws of the universe.

I said it was man-made and never said it was alive.

By "our science" I meant the physical laws that we observe in our universe. By "another science" I meant the possible physical laws of another universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

You heard right - the Previous Universe.

---

Glad to hear that it didn't just happen once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

But the energy from the Big Bang is finite and the force which impels the Universe to expand, eventually will cease, and slowly slowly slowly everything will begin to attract everything else back toward the central hub and ultimately into a very small very hot ball of pure energy... ...

---

Is there entropy in this system? That is, can it wind down after a period of time and not go back to the state where it will explode again? Or is it a perpetual motion system?

I suspect it can wind down, so then there is something that must have started it. This pushes the actual beginning ever deeper into the past.

The reason there must be some beginning, or some input from the outside, is because the universe is still going on now (since we are here). If it could wind down in a finite amount of time and the past is infinitely deep, it would have exhausted itself by now. Every finite length of time has already occurred.

Perpetual motion isn't possible in our current understanding of physics.

The universe probably will collapse into itself in a Big Crunch. Or it might expand indefinitely causing temperatures to drop to the point where no life will be able to exist. AKA a Big Freeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberbob

Perpetual motion isn't possible in our current understanding of physics.

The universe probably will collapse into itself in a Big Crunch. Or it might expand indefinitely causing temperatures to drop to the point where no life will be able to exist. AKA a Big Freeze.

---

That sounds reasonable.

There seems to be three explanations for what started it all in the first place:

1) Chance.

2) G-g-g-god.

3) Something that is not subject to the laws of entropy or we would have to then ask what started that cause.

I would like to challenge the idea that evolution in the biological sense does not exist, and that, even if it did, science does not prove this idea.

The stratigraphic history of the Earth, filled with fossils from the myriad of eras prior to the one we currently live in, tells the story of unfortunate species either unable to adjust to the changing environment or unable to live longer; and from this body of fossils a trained paleontologist is able to deduce the structural qualities of the life-form in question. I ask, for anyone whom challenges the notion of evolution, what makes one life-form more successful in surviving in a certain environment than anothers? (When I say surviving, I don't mean longer life-spans, I mean an ability to live in an ever-changing environment, although I know you can manipulate it to make both terms seem synonymous). Certain finches on the Galapagos islands had beaks too thick to puncture holes and eat larvae while others had beaks too thin to puncture the trees where larvae were living. Those poor birds, they died. Others that were able to live in the aforementioned environments lived. Why? What gave them the ability to exist in an environment that killed others? The short-answer of course, is genetics. Something about their cellular, deoxyribonucleic build-up gives these birds an inherent advantage whereas others have an inherent weakness. In the case of the finches, such advantages manifest themselves in either thicker or thinner beaks, depending on what the landscape of the island requires.

Let's begin on the premise evolution does not exist. I then ask you, what explains the difference between appearances in birds of similar species (oh wait, that's a contraption of evolution too, isn't it)? What explains the difference in appearances between two parents and their offspring? Evolution is most broadly considered change over time, regardless of the progress made or lost by that change. If two parents of different ethnicities (let us say, Asian and Mexican) engage in mating practices and have children, what explains the appearance of that child, who will inevitably possess facial characteristics of both races? Notice, evolution is noticable first and foremost through visual aide. Few could suggest an idea of evolution if everything looked the same. Yet it is this ability to distinguish notable differences that makes evolution noticable. Over successive generations there is a noticable change between what is and what was. What explains this mechanism?

Of course, evolution in a scientific sense aligns itself with a notion of changes in skeletal structure over time. But let us speak of it broadly. If evolution is change over time, and the appearances of offspring change from generation to generation--indicating a chance of some sort in the genetic makeup of the children--then there is a change occurring, yes? And as the different combinations of genetic sequences and chromosones enter the DNA pool, DNA changes are likely to continue to change, yes? If change occurs, and evolution is change over time, then evolution is occurring, yes? And if skeletal structures change, too, over time, evolution is occurring, for human form has changed from one stage to another.

Let us move to the premise that science cannot prove evolution. If we reject genetics and evolutionary theory as is necessary to reject the science behind it, I wonder if one too can reject history. Fossils are evidence of life in prior forms in a previous era. If contemporary skeletons of similar species demonstrate changes in skeletal structure in comparison to prior species, there is a change over time--an evolution in a broad sense. What causes this mechanism? Of course, as you observe the fossils, you realize there is still skeletal tissue remaining. We living creatures still have skeletal tissue. There must be some inherent connection between the qualities of that creature--perhaps embodied in the tissue?--that causes a contrast between the creatures of today. Notice I don't say genetics, but it is logical to assume there is something about the tissues that make them distinct.

Let us assume God played an active hand in creating the change. Notice, there is a still a change over time that causes that of tomorrow to be different from that of today. Is that still not evolution? Is there still no change that creates different creatures? Evolution still hence exists.

There's no need to reject evolution or be militant against science. While some may attempt to portray science and/or evolution as against God, this simply isn't the case. Science can only study that which lies in the known universe. It can only test hypotheses within the realm of possibility. If we act on the premise that there is a God, there is no scientific test to prove His existence; an entity beyond our dimension is also beyond our means of enquiry. Nor does evolution counterract His existence: is it not possible to say God created the means by which creatures evolved? Is it not possible to say God created the means by which the Big Bang gave birth to the universe? Ultimately, determining God through human reasoning is a guessing game; and while I will take no sides between atheists and theists, I find it incredulous for one to outright discredit science and evolution when they pose no threat under any circumstance to the existence of a supernatural entity.

Yes/No - your response is appropriate, but inconclusive

I wasn't posting a question in need of reply, but a fact

The Universe is the only perpetual motion system

The Universe is expanding still rapidly but with such dynamics of scale we cannot discern at the speed of our lifetimes and scientific means of measurement are hardly as old as the universe - a hundred years isn't a blink of an eye in cosmological terms, it's a complete nothingth


Put a start on the beginning of this Universe at the estimated (and very close 14 billion years, and you can put an end on it at about 100 billion years - give or take a few billion years (so far away it doesn't matter)

After every sun has finally died, and every galaxy has been consumed by its black hole, and every galaxy cluster has collapsed in on itself, and the power of the energy cannot push any more, then it shall have ceased to expand

And then the force of gravity will slowly (slowly at first I say) take over, black holes will eventually eat each other, and all scatty bits of matter be sucked in with increasing speed as their weight increases


It looks fantastic in reverse

Why are you guys talking about astrophysics? Besides, you're totally oversimplifying things. It's like you got all of your information from an Eye Wonder book (zing!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Why are you guys talking about astrophysics? Besides, you're totally oversimplifying things. It's like you got all of your information from an Eye Wonder book (zing!).

---

:D

I'm pretty sure none of us are rocket scientists.

I'm certainly not.

^^^ The universe is not a perpetual motion system. If it was then why would it stop expanding and collapse into itself?

If the Big Bang theory is true, and the universe had a finite past, then so too must it have a finite future. That is, it must eventually stop expanding, which will cause a Big Crunch.

Perpetual motion is probably not possible in our universe. No machine (including our universe) can produce more energy than it consumes. So if the universe had a definite, finite past then it MUST run out of energy and stop expanding. That is because nothing with a finite past can have infinite energy. So if the Big Bang theory is true, the universe will possibly end after it runs out of energy.

@cyberbob

The system of Universe to Universe is a perpetual motion

The Universe does not run out of energy because all energy is not consumed

No more no less

Constant from Universe to Universe


The weight of Energy - An entire Universe worth