No, I can see how it can be used in other scientific discussions that have to do with the actual theory but I dont see how is can be used to prove that their is a god. Unless the scientific theory said the big bang was created by a god. It also depends on how you define god, if you wanted to say a "power" or something along those lines Id understand. This is why I cant discuss religion their are too many beliefs and theories on religions, god, and life in general.
I've never understood how people can still believe in a god in this day and age. You would think in the 1400's or so when it was easier to print off books like the bible and more people were learning to read and question the bible that the whole system would die off but now it's just used as a manipulator
I dont either. I am just think kind of person who will try and force myself to think there is a god and my brain immediatly shoots every possibility down. Not that there is anything wrong with people who do. I have a religious family, my uncle is a fairly well known priest down here and I respect him for that and I respect him as a person.
That's making the assumption that there was nothing before the big bang; three dimensional temporal space was created from the singularity, but that's no reason to declare that it was the genesis of everything there has ever been. Furthermore, a creative force does not necessarily have to be an etheral transcendent deity, capable of manipulating every atom in the universe and ubiquitously assessing and scrutinising the minds of all his delegates. You speak of logic, yet how is it logical to conclude on an explanation so complex and intricate without any shred of substance? Individual conscious perception is proof? So my perception of a unicorn defines it as proof? I have no idea what you mean by "without much other influences?" - much of the bible is contradictory, with many passages making continuity conflictions throughout. Many books have a visceral prose, does that mean they can be promoted from fiction to religious doctrine? Either you're a child, or you are seriously naive to the mechanics of the working world; without money people wouldn't simply "help each other to the best of their ability" .. What a fatuous and callow supposition.
...Dawkins in an evolutionary biologist.... He isn't even an authority in the discipline being criticized.... Wowzers, that's bad critiquing. If you all want to discuss the context of the initial singularity in the context of scientific epistemology, you should probably start a thread in Science and Nature... maybe. EDIT: The reader comments are more exhaustive and articulate than the columnist.
Sorry that was a bad link I dont know where you can go to read about it. I saw it on TED not too long ago and didnt know where to find the video and assumed that article would talk about it. That was my bad.
[quote name='"Bliss junkie"']If you havent you should read up on Dawkins Conundrum Dawkins' Conundrum: How can something come from nothing? | Washington Times Communities[/quote] An article written by an angry theist, lol. I don't know why the idea of nothing is so hard to grasp.. When you're talking to someone, it appears there is nothing between you, but its just matter we can't see with the naked eye. Problem is, the "nothing" in space is amazingly small, too small for us to see with our current technology, let alone capture. Small things that can pass through most anything we have. It's like trying to capture water in a fish net. Speaking of, that's why hydrogen is so hard to store. It's so small that it just basically passes through everything. It's nothing because its nothing that we can detect or describe, yet..
No worries! Hell, I appreciate you taking the time to share a source! Please post that TED video if the name of the speaker comes to mind. I'll be sure to take the time to watch it.
Maybe Im thinking of this video. Bare with me guys, my memory is incredibly bad these days. Stephen Hawking: Questioning the universe | Video on TED.com
[quote name='"HookedonPhonics"']Atheism is not a belief, it is an understanding. We wont thank you for the plight of knowledge, and the insistent demand of religion to censor and repress the truth - Why the fuck would we be grateful for the atrocities you've committed on the world?[/quote] It's actually a disbelief, but close enough.
All these believers of their gods and disbelievers but none here agnostic ?? Everyone seems so absolutely sure.
Actually, I think the majority of regular posters on GC are agnostic, at least in this section. We have a handful of agnostic atheists, a few agnostic theists, a few agnostics, and a few die-hard theists.