SCIENCE! It's all about the religion

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hardcore Proglodytes don't worship SCIENCE! because it is a matter of facts; they worship it because it is a means to overthrow their emotional hatred of religion.

yuiyoshida (6,748 posts)

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

blah-blah-blah

Spitfire of ATJ (20,490 posts)

10. This would mean there could be civilizations that go back trillions of years.

^ Is extremely hostile to religion.

Civilizations that are trillions of years old would allow this Proglodyte to attribute all supernatural phenomenon to aliens only without the messy moral implications that attend the concept of angels.

starroute (12,052 posts)

12. The most interesting implications may be for religion

I read an article on Hasidic atheists (yes, they exist) last week that contained one quote that was interesting enough for me to save:

"Moishe explained: on the one hand, Maimonides felt that the belief that the earth was eternal could be destructive to the Jewish religion. On the other hand, he also said that if the infinite character of the earth could be proven, he would accept it as true. Moishe’s conclusion? Maimonides ‘knew the first part of the Torah was iffy at best and bunk at worst’. Moreover, Maimonides’ attempts to reconcile what he thought was true with what he claimed was true were, in Moishe’s words, an ‘epic fail’."

It isn't just Judaism but all the creation-based religions that that are threatened by an eternal universe. For example, the Catholic Church endorsed the Big Bang at a very early point. (Unlike Protestant fundamentalists, the Catholics long ago gave up trying to fight science in favor of cherry-picking the science they prefer.)

An infinite universe doesn't undermine all religions -- just those that are invested in a universe with a discrete beginning and end. But that means most of the belief systems of the West, along with the social structures that grow out of them.

The hypothesis hasn't even been tested and already they're yelling, "God is dead!"

That seems to betray an emotional need more than a scientific observation.

Of course, in decades past the Proglodytes were clucking at religionists that didn't accept the Big Bang Theory as showing a universe billions of years old. The proof, we were assured, was incontrovertible and how silly were the religionists for not accepting the plain truth.

Now they are eagerly anticipating a new truth.*

* - not a denouncement of science (real science) but an observation that what motivates some people is an emotional need draped in scientific garb.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026295041

[SVPete]

Well, the estimated age of the Earth isn't really long enough to allow time for the yet undiscovered force more powerful than entropy to create life from non-life and then further overcome entropy to evolve through Darwin-knows-how-many-generations into man. So an eternal universe and the idea that aliens planted life here bypasses that little problem ... unless one realizes that it leads to a fallacious infinite regression and compounded entropy.

[Big Dog]

Well, the estimated age of the Earth isn't really long enough to allow time for the yet undiscovered force more powerful than entropy to create life from non-life and then further overcome entropy to evolve through Darwin-knows-how-many-generations into man.

What is a sufficient period of time, in years, for "the yet undiscovered force more powerful than entropy to create life from non-life and then further overcome entropy to evolve through Darwin-knows-how-many-generations into man", and what is the basis for your conclusion?

So an eternal universe and the idea that aliens planted life here bypasses that little problem ... unless one realizes that it leads to a fallacious infinite regression and compounded entropy.

How do you reach the conclusion that "a fallacious infinite regression and compounded entropy" is the only, and inevitable conclusion of a combination of those two hypotheses ("eternal universe" and "aliens planted life here"), and why would either hypothesis require the other?

I reject the eternal universe hypothesis, by the way, just as I reject the various multiverse hypotheses. Why?  Because they are unprovable and non-falsifiable, just like global warming/anthropogenic climate change hypotheses.

[Carl]

Lurking DUmbasses,no matter how you try to deny God you know what eternity holds for you.

Enjoy.

[Mr Mannn]

Lurking DUmbasses,no matter how you try to deny God you know what eternity holds for you.

Enjoy.

The demons believe and tremble.

The rage and hate of the Left means they too, believe. Their guilt means they must quash all reminders of their infernal future. For all their defiance and rebellion, they must still face a just judgement.

[obumazombie]

The libs can do their best to remove all vestiges of God during their brief life.
But they really haven't thought the alternatives through very well.

[redwhit]

Isn't it amazing that no one over there remembers the name of the scientist who came up with the Big Bang Theory.

Georges Lemaitre. 

Monsignor George Lemaitre, S. J. 

It's an interesting dilemma.  Having a Roman Catholic priest who's also a scientist really hurts their little worldview but I'm sure they'd love to have something else to say that Catholics are wrong about.  Except that Catholics don't science but, yeah, you get the idea.  Enough to make a centrifuge dizzy.

[Movie buff- The Sequel]

The demons believe and tremble.

The rage and hate of the Left means they too, believe. Their guilt means they must quash all reminders of their infernal future. For all their defiance and rebellion, they must still face a just judgement.

Indeed.
They wouldn't howl and rage so vehemently at the Christian faith otherwise.
It'll be rather funny to see their lives, and all the venom they spewed against the faith, replayed before God, and how the DUmmies will react to it before being cast down forever. "Um, uh, um, heh heh heh, uh, can't You take a joke?"

[diesel driver]

The libs can do their best to remove all vestiges of God during their brief life.
But they really haven't thought the alternatives through very well.

They should read bout Blaise Pascal, especially Pascal's Wager.

[Big Dog]

They should read bout Blaise Pascal, especially Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is built on a false dichotomy. It is a poor argument for belief.

[98ZJUSMC]

Lurking DUmbasses,no matter how you try to deny God you know what eternity holds for you.

Enjoy.

[98ZJUSMC]

Quote from: obumazombie on March 01, 2015, 03:32:06 PM

    The libs can do their best to remove all vestiges of God during their brief life.
    But they really haven't thought the alternatives through very well.

Blasphemer!

The logical end of Liberalism

O, holy Bomb.

[FlaGator]

What is a sufficient period of time, in years, for "the yet undiscovered force more powerful than entropy to create life from non-life and then further overcome entropy to evolve through Darwin-knows-how-many-generations into man", and what is the basis for your conclusion?

How do you reach the conclusion that "a fallacious infinite regression and compounded entropy" is the only, and inevitable conclusion of a combination of those two hypotheses ("eternal universe" and "aliens planted life here"), and why would either hypothesis require the other?

I reject the eternal universe hypothesis, by the way, just as I reject the various multiverse hypotheses. Why?  Because they are unprovable and non-falsifiable, just like global warming/anthropogenic climate change hypotheses.

There are huge theoretical problems with an infinite universe. In an infinite universe you have no starting point will allow for 'now' to exist. You can never get now by a steady progression forward unless now is the end, in which case you do not have an infinite universe. You have a universe with the future is not yet created and the past that has no beginning.

Think of the concept of closing the distance between two objects by half every second. The objects are 10 feet part. How long before the objects occupy the same space?

[FlaGator]

Pascal's Wager is built on a false dichotomy. It is a poor argument for belief.

I don't believe it was not meant to be an argument for belief. It was to show the potential costs between belief and unbelief.

I am a Calvinist and for me there are no arguments for belief. It works like this. If the Lord calls you to belief then you will believe, if the Lord doesn't call you then you will never believe. I cannot by the words that come from my mouth cause someone to believe. I can only plan a seed that the Lord will either choose to grow or He won't.

[Big Dog]

There are huge theoretical problems with an infinite universe. In an infinite universe you have no starting point will allow for 'now' to exist. You can never get now by a steady progression forward unless now is the end, in which case you do not have an infinite universe. You have a universe with the future is not yet created and the past that has no beginning.

Think of the concept of closing the distance between two objects by half every second. The objects are 10 feet part. How long before the objects occupy the same space?

You and I agree abut the implausibility of an infinite universe.

[FlaGator]

You and I agree abut the implausibility of an infinite universe.

I do prefer agreeing with you as opposed to disagreeing. 

[obumazombie]

I do prefer agreeing with you as opposed to disagreeing. 

To quote the late Frank Burns, "It's nice to be nice to the nice".

[Big Dog]

I don't believe it was not meant to be an argument for belief. It was to show the potential costs between belief and unbelief.

I read owebumazombie and diesel driver's statements as arguments for belief. If I am mistaken, I encourage either of them to correct me. Pascal himself intended the Wager to be an argument to choose belief over nonbelief, on utilitarian grounds- playing the odds, if you will.

I am a Calvinist and for me there are no arguments for belief.

To the Calvinist, that may be true.  But the Calvinist idea of belief is not germane to the Wager, because Pascal was not a Calvinist. He was a Catholic, in particular a Catholic mathematician. The idea of election does not figure in Pascal's Wager, because it does not figure in his belief. To the Catholic, belief is a choice- see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1730.

[Big Dog]

I do prefer agreeing with you as opposed to disagreeing. 

Thank you. We agree on many things, and disagree on many. It is a pleasure to argue (in the intellectual sense, not the emotional one) with you.

[ChuckJ]

I haven’t read the new theory other than seeing the headline and scanning a few sentences so take what follows however you want to.

I’m not surprised that a “no beginning” theory for the universe has been created as the Big Bang theory could cause a bit of a “religious” problem. What I mean by that is that if the universe had a beginning where did the matter come from? This opens the door for a creator. I suppose a universe that has always existed does away with problem of the origin of the matter and potential creator. Of course, I do find it curious that someone could accept a universe without a beginning while completely discounting a creator without a beginning.

Regardless of the beginning or “foreverness” of the universe we all believe in miracles because of life. If God personally created all life it was a miracle. If mankind evolved from the the primortall ooze it was a miracle as chemicals, lightning, or whatever creating amino acids that eventually evolved into a single-celled organism that eventually evolved into all life that is and that has ever been is nothing short of miraculous. As long as the miracle of life exists God can not be totally discounted.

I don’t say the above to stir up discussion, debate, or argument among our atheist (both real and pretend) friends. Honestly, that wasn’t always the case with me. I used to enjoy a good argument/debate on the subject and even viewed it as my duty, but these days I avoid such things. If you believe then you believe. If you don’t then you don’t. We’ll all know the answer one day. I now view my duty as just to tell my belief and let you take for what it’s worth. I also figure that trying to live my life as closely as I humanly can to the standards as set forth by my personal Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ is already difficult enough and in the rare cases where my spiritual nature overcomes my human nature that maybe that will be a better light for Him than an argument.

With that said, I personally see His evidence around me every day. I see it in the colors of the morning and evening sky during sunrise and sunset. I see it the unsung beauty of a cypress swamp. Most of all, I see it in the little new baby who laughs and giggles with life.

As Paul wrote: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: