Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why You Might Have to Choose Between Science and Faith [View all]spin
(17,493 posts)171. The creator is eternal to us. ...
But he may simply be a computer programer in a different universe.
If so Shakespeare was right.
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
William Shakespeare
We don't believe that the universe has always existed because it is expanding and that would suggest that at sometime in the past it was much smaller, perhaps infinitely small. We don't believe it will eventually collapse and then re expand because the rate of expansion is increasing.
Big Bang
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[7][8][9][10] At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.[11] The core ideas of the Big Bangthe expansion, the early hot state, the formation of light elements, and the formation of galaxiesare derived from these and other observations. As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The consequence of this is that the characteristics of the universe can be calculated in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[12][13][14] while large particle accelerators replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model. On the other hand, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes, and astronomers are prevented from seeing the absolute earliest moments in the universe by various cosmological horizons. The earliest instant of the Big Bang expansion is still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
***snip***
While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theoriesthe Big Bang and the Steady State theory,[16] observational confirmation of the Big Bang scenario came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and later when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body. Since then, astrophysicists have incorporated observational and theoretical additions into the Big Bang model, and its parametrization as the Lambda-CDM model serves as the framework for current investigations of theoretical cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Accelerating universe
The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[3][4] since around redshift of z~0.5.[5] The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z"supernovae.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Of course 50 years from now we probably will have an entirely different theory widely accepted by scientists. By that time we may have proved the existence of parallel universes and believe that our universe was created when two universes collided with each other.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
248 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Darwin eventually discarded religion because it is incompatible with science. nt
Deep13
Feb 2014
#78
His auto-biography makes it clear that he was a complete skeptic at the end of his life.
Deep13
Feb 2014
#85
Lots of pressure from family and Catholic Church, to "accept" God in the last breath; and be "saved"
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#199
The human brain is a pattern recognition machine among a great many other things
Fumesucker
Feb 2014
#3
An argument from ignorance as in "We don't know the answer to that at this time"?
cbayer
Feb 2014
#87
so your claim is that there is serious investigation going with respect to theory of consciousness
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#105
Check out Julian Jaynes's _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. nt
tblue37
Feb 2014
#30
I see no major problem in believing in a creator and also believing in evolution. ...
spin
Feb 2014
#8
In the meantime, thanks for your evolutionary idea: religion as materially functional(at times).
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#136
My son in law who is agnostic feels religion is the Santa Claus story for adults. ...
spin
Feb 2014
#141
The most fervently religious nations are not the most peaceful or ordered ones
Fumesucker
Feb 2014
#20
Throughout our history, the United States has had a strong religious foundation. ...
spin
Feb 2014
#51
Name one naturalistic theory that has been supplanted by a supernatural explanation...
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2014
#131
That's a fair challenge and impossible to do as a supernatural event can't be explained by
spin
Feb 2014
#139
Of course not. Your question was how did scientists figure out that they were wrong? ...
spin
Feb 2014
#146
ah you seem to think science is another religiuon that accepts things "as gospel".
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#186
"building cathedrals" really - no science there, just a minor adjunct to cathedral building.
Warren Stupidity
Feb 2014
#161
A cursory search on PBS shows at least 2 NOVA's and such devoted to cathedral building
Heddi
Feb 2014
#162
Once Christians accept evolution, they have a big question: why did Jesus die and get resurrected?
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2014
#27
He meant entomology. Clearly the study of insects flows naturally from a discussion of theology.
rug
Feb 2014
#65
Beachwood has a good point that everyone is avoiding: what about all the science religion negates?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#133
Besides literal interpretation like creationism, what science doe religion negate?
cbayer
Feb 2014
#135
Most physical "miracles" conflict with science. Liberals therefore often read them as metaphors.
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#197
You are unable to hold both concepts in your brain and don't believe in a god or
cbayer
Feb 2014
#50
The problem, as I see it, is that we teach our children faith before we teach them science
Beachwood
Feb 2014
#32
I think that when one speaks of something as concrete and definitive as weight,
cbayer
Feb 2014
#124
Wait, it seems that your reasoning is the black or white, reductive thinking here.
cbayer
Feb 2014
#108
Again, your entire argument hinges upon your equivocation of the word "faith."
trotsky
Feb 2014
#112
Faith comes into marriage because you are getting married with the belief that it will work.
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#210
The only way my comment is "nonsense" is if you were to get married
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#228
They may change a lot, they may change a bit, they might not change much at all.
trotsky
Feb 2014
#235
"If you go into a marriage with the faith that your partner won't change, you're a fool."
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#236
Many have thought Science and Religion are incompatible, but both useful. So: compartmentalize
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#116
Did people misunderstand the Bible - and the natural science buried beneath "solstice"?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#198
Religion is the pretension of knowledge, not the pursuit of it, it provides easy answers, but not...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#202
What religion only asks questions, and doesn't provide answers? I can think of none that don't...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#206
"The claims of religion are untestable by their very nature..." This, right here, is my point...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#208
Why do you want to change the meaning of words to become meaningless?
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#221
Uhm, those aren't knowledge, you may have knowledge of them, they exist, but they aren't...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#223
Your definitions of God are all over the place, some of them make me a theist, which is just silly.
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#225
A definition of knowledge which flies in the face of centuries of epistemological research?
Act_of_Reparation
Feb 2014
#231
Is reality subjective in your world? I ask because you are basically arguing that words...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#233
Bullshit, straight up, unadulterated bullshit. You and him make belief equal knowledge...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#241
Translation: Humanist-Activist disagrees with me, but doesn't have a meaningful argument
Fortinbras Armstrong
Feb 2014
#242
Actually I have been asking for an example of knowledge gleaned from belief or faith...
Humanist_Activist
Feb 2014
#245
The claims of Religious "knowledge" DO seem FAR less certain than Science
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#212
Okasha: Time after time you've asked for facts. And I've furnished them - while you have not
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#219
Learn to see generic similarities and larger patterns: Moses touches/grabs a snake is not related?
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#234
When studying culture, Social Scientists look for larger patterns; major phenomena
Brettongarcia
Mar 2014
#248
What I am is someone who types very quickly and recklessly, but I am none of things
cbayer
Feb 2014
#220
"Facts" explicitly and by name, figure in both definitions of knowledge listed above.
Brettongarcia
Feb 2014
#218