The concept of GOD is that there is this ultimate being that created everything: the universe, planets, humans, animals, etc. The big bang theory says that there was this infinitely small, and infinitely dense singularity that one day exploded to create the entire universe. you know what they say, "we're made from dead stars." If you look at things this way, then creationists are making the same argument evolutionists are, just with different words. I believe this is a classic example of Bertrand Russell's Problems with Philosophy.
Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens, Hybrids, Elongated Skulls & Nephilim - YouTube one of many good historians
Ehh sure.. I mean. Idk. Thats kind of a stretch but yeah you could say the singularity is the catalyst for an omniscient being's creation. Still i think the reason the two philosophies are separated are not because of how they explain what did happen, but what will happen next. Under the watchful eye of god we could have such things as an alternate dimension for the souls of moral people. Under the absence of it we can ponder if we lived in a closed or curved universe, and the possibility that the density of the universe could cause it to collapse on itself and create another big bang, perpetuating the hindu ideal of a cyclical birth and death of the universe. And druggies look forward to even combination of the two where the universe does follow a set of fundamental laws that may/or may not be under the eye of a god; but consciousness is independent of material laws and independent of the body, allowing the idea of an alternate dimension or states possible.
I think he means to say that the singularity essentially is the same as an omniscient being -- rather than giving rise to one -- in the respect that it is a creator of the universe.
Yeah but I think some people want to feel special. That the creator of the universe is taking note of our species and that were not just left to our own devices. But i meant that the other way around. An omniscient being first, uses the singularity as a physical force to create. Saying both are the exact same in the same instance won't get a lot of people behind it because what about the big bang theory suggest omnipotence you know?
Concept of God , implies that a sentient being is the unmoved mover, , while the big bang doesn't imply a sentient unmoved mover , or an unmoved mover at all. Very different assertions
So you've just kind of taken it upon yourself to say that a scientific explanation for the potential birth of a universe, is the exact same thing as people believing in an omnipotent being that created the universe in a couple of days, rather than billions of years. And then you referenced the phrase "we're made from dead stars"- stars that were billions of lightyears away. This would make them older than the galaxy God created. Which would make God a fictious parable, and scientific theory much more distinguished and sound- although obviously not ironclad. Science is all about disproving itself through peer review and trial. They may discover down the line that there is a more scienficially-sound argument for the genesis of the universe- in fact some alternative theories as of late have surfaced, and not many of them sound insane. You don't even have to go too deep into science to disprove the OP. Common sense will do.
is this a philosophy thread on a marijuana forum, or am I in some kind of peer reviewed academic journal debate? I was only talking about creationist and evolutionist in the context of our origins. also, you're assuming the god i'm talking about is a christian god where they believe the universe was created ~ 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.
Taking two extremes at different ends of the spectrum, and muddying the waters between them by adding personal philosophy or sentiments to belief systems that speak in absolutes against each other quite clearly through their respective rhetoric, does not suddenly turn this into some rabbit hole that is going to blow anyone's mind.
No they are not the same, one group believes in the scientific method. While the other group believes in blind faith, very different. Also one camp is focused on God's will on Earth, the other is trying to explore beyond Earth and beyond the universe.
Well coming off your post by mentioning Russell's work you're trying to come off as if you're well read in the subject , but you end up making an largely erroneous comparison and the Big Bang is a separate theory from Evolution, so it makes no sense to mention "evolutionist".
I'm pretty sure that the OP was alluding to the fact that the universe came to be as such, came to be constituted as such, by means of an evolutionary gradation; and not that the evolution of the cosmos is exactly the same thing as biological evolution; evolution is evolution - a change or alteration over time - even if there may be a variety of forms by which evolution manifests. "Cosmological evolution" (look up the term) is not an oxymoron, so don't try to make it seem that way.
I never implied it's an oxymoron. They're just two different theories. It's much too common for creationist to equate The Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution. Using the term evolutionist is misleading if OP truly meant that since the term Cosmology already includes evolution(of the universe) in it's title, cosmologists would be the proper term to use. I've never seen anyone call a physicist a "cosmological evolutionist" or a "evolutionary cosmologist" , which is just redundant from the reasons I've just mentioned. Cosmologist implies the person works in the field of physics, hence it's reasonable to refer to the big bang. Evolutionist will imply the person works in the field of biology, and It's particularly this field of research that usually get's a lot of beef from creationist, so I doubt the OP meant that.
Not at all. Sorry man. God is a hypothesis that can be neither proven nor disproven. It's no more or less probable than Sasquatch. The Big Bang on the other hand is a hypothesis that CAN be proven. Let me know what ya think. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
big bang is still an unproven theory. it's a good one, but unproven and can't be proven for a while. I can say the same thing about god. we can prove he exists if you wait long enough for him to appear. i'm not saying i disagree with big bang theory. just throwing that out there. anyways, some people taking this topic way too seriously. i thought this sub was more like a "smokers philosophy" type where i can say things like: i'll find my way out. thanks.
Big Bang was proven. The universe is expanding at a rate that's speeding up therefore going backwards it must have came from a singularity. Good thing about science is that it's true whether u believe it or not. What will blow ur mind is that Lawrence Krauss proves that it's plausible that the universe could've have came from nothing. Yes something from nothing. Defies common sense but the quantum mechanics (particle physics) show that it's possible and happens all the time. U can't prove god exists. If u could it would've been done already. I'm a serious guy Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm a lifelong atheist.. and while I can't say that the big bang and God are the same, it is kind of similar. That is, if you're looking at the big bang like it was the beginning. It's like the scientific model to combat creationism, inadvertently creating a creationism like theory. If you think about, the big bang and an infinite universe (if you believe in an infinite universe) don't click. To say that a single point, the singularity, went through a big bang and created the infinite universe is just as fanatical as God creating the universe. Sorry, but an infinite universe isn't going to start at one singularity.. I can't buy into there being a singularity that created an infinite universe in an instant. It would of had to spread out, radiate from that single point, and if that's the case, then how do we know the big bang didn't happen 37,492 trillion years ago and it just happened to spread to our sector of the universe 14 billion years ago? Or, staying with an infinite universe, there would be infinite big bangs happening right now, have always happened infinitely in the past, and will infinitely happen in the future.. and if that's the case, how can it really be the beginning if it always has and always will be happening?