I have an Idea Regarding What Came Before the Big Bang

[guillaumeb]

My idea is not dressed in scientific language. It is dressed in the language of faith.

It cannot be verified by science because it depends on faith, which is the willing suspension of disbelief.

It does not need to be verified by science because faith and science are 2 different entities. The first depends on belief, the second demands proof. If anyone cannot accept that faith is unverifiable, that person can reject faith or accept that faith is unverifiable.

And if another does not share my belief, that does not diminish my belief, not does it diminish non-believers or alternate believers in my eyes. We must all find our own path.

And if I believe, that does not make me childish, or uninformed, or psychotic, or delusional. It simply means that I have faith in a Creator. The One who, in my view, caused the Big Bang, and indirectly is responsible for all that resulted from that Big Bang.

If any here feel that faith does make a person childish, or uninformed, or psychotic, or delusional. it would be best for them to not embrace faith.

So my idea is that the Creator decided to create. And did so. And millions of years later, we are debating the matter here. While the Creator remains the One who created.

[California_Republic]

1. The creation of something from nothing or

The concept that something exists for ever are both equally mind blowing.

My theory “ because there is something, then there can be anything “.

Meaning because something was able to make the universe, or have it always existing, something so powerful and mind blowing then tossing in a God seems as workable as the other theories.

God works as well as all the other unprovable theories.

[guillaumeb]

2. We cannot prove anything about what happened prior to what we see as

existence appearing. Scientists can speculate, but given that we cannot travel back, there can be no proof. Your theory is a provable as my idea.

[Eko]

4. Right now we cant.

That doesn't mean that one day we wont.

[guillaumeb]

9. Anything IS possible. eom

[marylandblue]

15. You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of science

which you either are unaware of or won't acknowledge.

[guillaumeb]

21. Perhaps it is you who misunderstands,

or refuses to acknowledge.

[marylandblue]

24. In terms of science, no

I wasn't taught by theologians, but by scientists

[guillaumeb]

25. It is not what is taught, it is what is learned.

And an acknowledgment of the limitations of that teaching and learning.

[marylandblue]

39. I learned a lot

In particular, I learned that evidence trumps everything else, including faith. People who have faith in things where the evidence does not point, end up in fallacies like there is no global warming, vaccines cause autism and the earth is 6,000 years old.

[guillaumeb]

40. But you did not learn everything.

Did you learn where the matter came from that exploded in the Big Bang?

Was it conveniently lying around from the creation of another universe?

[marylandblue]

43. I learned where the evidence points

Right now the evidence points to it coming from a random fluctuation in a primordial nothing. More importantly, I learned that this hypothesis is falsifiable, in that it makes predictions that can be tested. That as we gather more evidence, the evidence will either confirm or deny the hypothesis. There are other hypotheses. These too make predictions that are falsifiable.

[guillaumeb]

50. A primordial nothing?

So nothing transformed into something? If there was nothing, what non-existent force caused this random fluctuation?

[marylandblue]

72. Nothing is actually a physical quantity

It has properties. We do not yet fully understand its properties, but it is not the philosopher's nothing, which defines nothing as a state of emptiness that also has no potential to become something. Put another way, if we fully understood the laws of physics, those laws would require that something exists. While these concepts are mindbending, they again result in predictions that can be tested by evidence.

[guillaumeb]

76. I do not understand how nothing can have a physical quality.

But I am not a scientist. And if this scientific nothing has properties, where did the nothing come from?

[marylandblue]

92. Well, one way to think about it comparing it to empty space

Which comes closest to most people's idea of nothing. And in fact for a long time, people did assume that empty space was just plain old empty space containing nothing. But actually it is brimming with activity. It has subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence. They don't come from anywhere, they are just random fluctuations in empty space itself.

Space also appears to contain a force called dark energy that is pushing the expansion of the universe. We don't understand this force at all, but we can see its effects. And unlike the other forces of nature like gravity and electromagnetism, it seems to be a property of space itself, rather than a property of subatomic particles.

So again, nothing, if it "exists" at all, it could have properties that predict a universe. The nothing didn't have to come from somewhere because "coming from somewhere" is a property of things in the universe, but is not a property of nothing.

Our minds have trouble understanding modern physics concepts like general relativity and quantum mechanics and cosmology because they evolved to work with macroscopic matter at low speeds on a planet that came from an exploding star. Our minds did not evolve to think about nothing because our ancestors did not need to know about nothing.

[guillaumeb]

114. This argument also shows the limitations of language.

I think that for most people, the word nothing implies a vacuum that has literally nothing in it. But the nothing of which you speak has something in it.

And yes, I freely admit that I have trouble comprehending this.

[pangaia]

85. Hip Hip....

[TlalocW]

99. The Big Bang does not equal Something from Nothing

You should perhaps read what the Big Bang is.

God does work as well as all the other hypotheses (not theories). Alas, so do Universe-Creating Glitter Pixies.

TlalocW

[Eko]

3. Here's mine.

There are super massive black holes in the center of most galaxies, eventually they pull in all the matter in their galaxies, then start to attract each other and combine into one super super massive black hole with all the matter in the universe in it. Since there will be no matter anywhere time will stop and everything is now in a black hole, then it explodes. Just an idea but nature likes to grow, die and then grow from what died so,,,,,,,

[guillaumeb]

10. Where did the matter come from that formed all of these black holes? eom

[Eko]

17. From the previous universe.

where did that matter for the previous universe come from, the previous one and so on.

[guillaumeb]

22. Exactly. An infinite number of previous explosions, expansions, and contractions.

Like a Moebius strip.

[Eko]

28. Yes.

Or, it could be something else. Every year plants grows back, but the earth wasn't here at one point so the plants weren't always here, and there was a time there were no plants on the earth. Certain conditions had to occur for that to be possible, the universe could be the same way. Think of the universe as one grass plant in your lawn.

[guillaumeb]

29. Yes, it could be something else.

For me, that something is the Creator. For others, it is an unknown.

[Eko]

42. This is where Athiests like me dont understand you,

You know you don't really know any more than I know,,and yet you present it as a fact. Its fine that you may believe something, I too believe something, I just shared it with you. But just because I believe it that does not make it a fact. Its not a religion thing either, I know plenty of religious people who will say that its just their belief, and not a fact. When you do that it makes you appear very condescending and that is off putting to a lot of people.

[guillaumeb]

48. You did misunderstand.

I did not present a fact, I presented my belief. The 2 are not equivalent.

[Eko]

51. Nope.

For me, that something is the Creator. For others, it is an unknown.
(or known) (unknown)
Maybe you are not saying its a fact, but you dont really know that and to present it as so is condescending. And if you want to attack my theory you can do it to me and not down thread buddy.

[guillaumeb]

57. It is a belief.

What I said in the original post. And given that this is an opinion piece, I felt that it was understood that this is my opinion.

So where does condescension come into the discussion?

[Eko]

58. Straight from you.

Did I attack your belief first or did you attack mine first? Its all right there in the thread.

[guillaumeb]

61. I am posing questions about what you wrote.

That is not an attack, it is called dialogue.

[Eko]

65. This is a dialogue?

You ask me for proof for mine while offering none for yours nor do you even think you have to. That is a dialogue?

[guillaumeb]

68. I cannot prove what I have faith in.

I admitted as much in the original post.

[Eko]

70. Yes, that is your belief.

I told you what I believe and then you ask for proof. A dialogue has to be even and this one is certainly not.

[guillaumeb]

73. You are correct.

I was posing questions that I feel are relevant about what you posted. But no, this is not an even affair because I will admit that any faith is unprovable.

[Eko]

75. You werent just posing questions, you wanted evidence.

"The idea of an endless series of explosions/expansions/contractions as an explanation assumes far too much on no evidence."
You owe me an apology.

[guillaumeb]

78. I did apologize, in #66

66. My apologies.

That was marylandblue.

I lost track of who said what.

And I will repeat it.

My apologies. As to the explanations, yours and the other poster, I find them both to be unsatisfying, but I am certain that you find faith based beliefs unsatisfying also.

[Eko]

80. You apologized for saying I said something I did not.

You owe me an apology for coming on here, creating a post that says you don't need proof for your belief, ask people to debate it, I give mine and you attack it down thread saying there is no proof for it. That is condescending and hypocritical.

[guillaumeb]

83. I apologized,

but the questions that I posed to you represent my inability to grasp the argument. And I still cannot grasp it. I am not a science major, but it seems to this literature major that if any scientist suggests that matter just happened to be there to explode, that
just happened explanation begs the question of where did the matter come from.

Another here suggested a primordial nothing that has properties, but that explanation begs the question of where THAT nothing came from.

And I know, and admit, that I cannot explain how the Creator always was. I have faith that the Creator exists/existed/always existed.

So no, we cannot debate faith and science on the same level.

[Eko]

87. No you didnt.

You need to give me an apology for requiring evidence for what I said when you straight up say there is no evidence for your belief and you feel like there doesn't have to be. I respected your belief and didn't come on here to question the validity of it, I just gave what I thought it could be. You didnt just ask questions for it, you straight out questioned the validity of what I said because there is no evidence for it. You suspend the need for evidence for yours but not mine, and in doing so asked for respect for yours while disrespecting mine. You rigged the game. Apologize.

[pangaia]

94. Science, to simplify it, deals with reality.

Faith is hoping something is true because it feels good.

Faith of consciousness is freedom.
Faith of feeling is slavery.
Faith of body is stupidity.

G I Gurdjieff

[guillaumeb]

115. True. And science hypothesizes about what it does not know. eom

[pangaia]

128. I do not think you understood the full meaning of that quote.

It is not what it appears to be.

To understand it, one must be able to think in a very different way that that to which we are blindly accustomed.

[pangaia]

95. Science is, to simplify it, what is true, or a search for what is true.

Faith is hoping something is true because it feels good.

Faith of consciousness is freedom.
Faith of feeling is slavery.
Faith of body is stupidity.

[Eko]

81. Its almost like

you coming on here, making a claim, saying there is no need for you to prove it, then ask for proof for a claim you dont like. Like the rules dont apply to you or what you like, but do to others. It's actually not almost like, its is what you did.

[guillaumeb]

84. We cannot debate faith and science.

One can discuss faith issues, or one can discuss science issues. The NOMA in action.

[Eko]

88. We arent.

There is no scientific proof for mine just like yours.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. In principio erat verbum, they say.

[guillaumeb]

11. They also continue:

et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. And:

Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis.

[guillaumeb]

19. My Latin was limited to serving at Mass,

and some little self-instruction.

I read the Bible originally in French, and then in English.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. I'm not even Catholic, but I've been singing in choirs for a long time,

and one picks up a lot of Latin that way. I also took it in high school, although I've forgotten most of the grammar.

[guillaumeb]

31. I have never sung in choirs,

but I have played music in various churches.

[sprinkleeninow]

103. Well, dip me in chawklit! I had four years of Latin in H.S.

And I was really into it. Excelled in it. [Not much else, tho. 😕] I considered being an educator and teaching Latin. Who knew.

[Ron Obvious]

6. Faith

"It cannot be verified by science because it depends on faith, which is the willing suspension of disbelief."

Then I'm afraid it's of no value whatsoever. No different than a sincerely-held belief in a flat earth or geocentrism. That's not how we advance our knowledge and the human condition.

Sorry to be harsh.

[guillaumeb]

12. If you find it of no value, discard it. eom

[longship]

7. Thus remains my claim that non-overlapping magisteria is rubbish.

It's not that science treads into the realm of religion, it's that religion just cannot manage to keep their grubby, sticky fingers out of science. And, of course they call it faith.

Hint: there is no faith in science.

[guillaumeb]

14. NOMA is rubbish to those who disagree with the premise.

I do not.

I have faith that science will continue to make advances, but I also believe in the Creator.

[longship]

96. There's that word again. Faith.

I rest my case, my good friend.

Hope that you are well.

[guillaumeb]

116. And you.

Neither of us will convince the other, and that is fine with me. Have a good day as we hope for Mueller to do his work.

[longship]

125. That's one with whom I have faith, my friend.

Here's hoping for a good outcome.

[sprinkleeninow]

135. Right on!

📣MUELL-ER ! MUELL-ER! MUELL...

[marylandblue]

8. "suspension of disbelief" is a phrase from literary criticism

in which the author invites the reader to temporarily believe in a work of fiction. You are literally calling God a fictional character.

[guillaumeb]

16. The phrase "willing suspension of disbelief", coined by S.T. Coleridege,

when applied to faith, implies that faith cannot be proven by science.

Faith is also called belief in the absence of proof.

[marylandblue]

18. It's also called "believing what you know ain't so" eom

[guillaumeb]

20. Can anyone believe what they truly know cannot be?

I will make an exception for a certain segment of Trump voters.

[marylandblue]

26. Sure why not? We are not logical creatures.

[guillaumeb]

27. Most of us feel that we are logical. We even write about it.

[marylandblue]

36. I am not a logical person, but I can use logic.

I think most of us make the unwarranted assumption that we are logical or rational creatures. The evidence says rather we are creatures that can reason.

[guillaumeb]

38. I think that we use both logic and emotion. We cannot do otherwise.

But recognizing when we are using each one can be a problem.

[marylandblue]

41. Generally speaking, we are more like to use emotion when we think we are using reason

That's again because we are creatures that reason. We also confuse logic with reason, and both with empirical facts.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

110. Coleridege (sic) would not like your application of his term.

And it certainly has a very clear meaning today. No, on second thought, he'd probably chuckle at your misapplication of the term.

Verisimilitude is 100% about writing fiction. And, as fiction, the Bible is probably as believable as the Walking Dead. But the theme of Walking Dead is more palatable.

[guillaumeb]

119. I will ask Coleridge when I see him.

But I believe that he would agree with me.

[cornball 24]

30. And never the twain shall meet-at least not at this point in time. Science is evidence-based.

Evidence is not immutable. As new evidence is substantiated, science evolves. What is immutable is creation, making something from nothing. As my finite mind cannot grasp the concept of something coming from nothing, ergo, I believe in The Creator. Belief in The Creator requires faith. Science vs. Faith! I'm going with faith.

[guillaumeb]

33. And I also.

The idea of an endless series of explosions/expansions/contractions as an explanation assumes far too much on no evidence.

And when I ask where did the matter come from that provided the mass for these things, there is never an actual answer.

[marylandblue]

44. Under this hypothesis, the matter always existed

And for it to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis, it would have to make testable predictions. It predicts, among other things, that the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and reverse. Current evidence is that it is expanding at an increasing rate, so it is disconfirmed.

[guillaumeb]

53. Where did the matter come from?

[marylandblue]

64. Why did it have to come from somewhere?

[Eko]

46. Seriously?

And a infinite god does not? Where did god come from? How long has he been there?

[guillaumeb]

54. Unanswerable by me.

As are my questions about this matter that happened to exist.

[Eko]

56. No but you will happily believe in a god

with no idea on he came to exist. Balderdash.

[guillaumeb]

59. Do you happily believe in this matter that

just happened to be sitting around to be affected by this primordial nothing?

If so, based on what exactly? Is it a belief that scientists will find an answer?

[Eko]

62. Where did I say anything about

primordial nothing?

[guillaumeb]

66. My apologies.

That was marylandblue.

I lost track of who said what.

[Eko]

47. I provided exactly where the matter came from.

Dont be disingenuous.

[guillaumeb]

55. You provided a theory.

And this convenient matter that just happened to be there? Who put it there?

[Eko]

60. Who put god there?

[guillaumeb]

63. Are we both now arguing from belief?

My intention is not to provoke you, but in my opinion, these answers depend on believing that matter just happened to be lying around to be affected.

[Eko]

67. And yours depends on God just lying around.

[guillaumeb]

69. It does, and I acknowledge that. eom

[Eko]

71. See?

You dont need proof for yours but you require proof for mine, and then talking smack about it down thread. Not a dialogue at all but a place for you to be even more condescending.

[guillaumeb]

74. My questions are not meant to be condescending.

Nor are they the questions of a scientist, but they do seem to me to be questions that are relevant.

[Eko]

49. The thing is we can see nature do that every day.

Grow, die and grow back. Way more evidence for my theory than yours.

[MineralMan]

32. Any math to support that, guillaumb?

Any evidence at all? Anything at all?

Stephen Hawking you're not.

[guillaumeb]

34. Read #33.

And feel free to answer that question.

[MineralMan]

35. So, your answer is no...

[guillaumeb]

37. If you read #33, you have my argument.

And your answer to the question was............?

[Proud liberal 80]

45. I believe

In Genesis and the Big Bang Theory. I don’t take the genesis as literal. One day back then could have been equivalent to a billions of years now.

[guillaumeb]

52. I agree, and so did the one who expounded the Big bang theory.

Georges Lemaitre, the one who expounded and introduced the Big Bang, was a Catholic priest and scientist who accepted both.

[sprinkleeninow]

105. Well looky here. Thank you. Genesis and B.B.T.

This is why 'new earth literalists' have birds desperately trying to deflate a 'belief' that an 'evolution' of creationism is acceptable and
not against scripture for one.

I believe in a creationist 'evolution' bc I believe in the Creator. There's evidence of old earth. They hold that all creation was a done deal in virtually six calendar days? Oy.

[Kablooie]

77. What came before the Big Bang...

Were cocktails at a very expensive restaurant,

[guillaumeb]

79. As long as it was not a Trump owned restaurant.

Congratulations on the funniest explanation.

[sprinkleeninow]

107. Ya caint say bang around these parts.

[guillaumeb]

118. Or it was the combination of big and bang. eom

[sprinkleeninow]

130. What iffen thee scientists posited it was a smallish bang

or a moderately noticed average bang or a

I had better quit while ahead.

Ya caint say anything anymores 'cause it lands in the gutter. 😱 😝

[sprinkleeninow]

131. Picture this: (Pulls up to fast food drive-in window): "I'll have a bang and make it a big one."

😇

[kurtcagle]

86. Current Cosmological Thinking

There's a fair amount of evidence to indicate that the universe today is essentially the inside of a black hole inside of about a fourteen dimensional manifold. It starts out with a certain amount of both dark mass and energy that are themselves a function of the size of the black hole, and a very small portion of luminal mass and energy. This is a transient stage, one we're currently very early in.

Eventually, most matter exists in exotic forms - white dwarves, neutron starts, quark stars, and the rest is in black holes. In time, the protons of these strange stars break down and dissociate, until eventually any given segmentation of space will become so empty that time itself becomes meaningless - the universe returns to nothingness.

Not all universes created by black holes are viable. Some have too little mass, and evaporate quickly. Others may have a deficit or surplus of certain types of mass or energy. Over an incredibly long period of time - greater than 10^120 or so years, the universe has too little energy to create black holes in the first place. Now, to put that into perspective, our universe is approximately 10^10 years old.

It is possible that the vacuum could collapse, just as its possible that past universes had too much mass and collapsed in on themselves. I suspect that the very concept of nothingness is unstable. At that point we're in the realm of magic, simply because we lack the necessary frame of reference to perceive of nothingness as something.

[guillaumeb]

89. Where did the matter come from that makes up the universe?

I am not asking for a scientific explanation because I am not a scientist. But it seems to this non-scientist that if the universe is composed of matter, my question is valid.

Unless we simply say that matter always existed and leave it at that.

[tonedevil]

113. Simply leaving it at that...

is what you do if you invent a deity to explain the origins of the planet and the life on it. If you wish to approach this in an even remotely scientific way you examine what you can. Use that information to create falsifiable theories and test those theories. When the results are as you predicted you have a new bit of information you can use to dig deeper into the subject. When the results are not as you predicted you examine where the error in your observations and calculations are and revise your theory.
You have fine enough questions regarding what happened before the Big Bang, but the fact that no one on this board and probably the planet can tell you that at this time doesn't mean a deity is the best explanation. Without some falsifiable evidence to support the deity of your choice it isn't even an explanation, just a story.

[guillaumeb]

124. Yes, it is a faith based story. I admitted that. eom

[tonedevil]

126. I interpreted you as...

postulating that a point had been reached where the scientific answer would be to stop questioning the answers and answering the questions and simply leave it at that. I was trying to point out that constant questioning is the scientific method not declaring something decided and no longer examining the premise in light of new information.

[guillaumeb]

127. Understood.

As a person living in the 21st century, I appreciate all that science has done.

[sprinkleeninow]

132. The word 'postulating' sounds a tad

risqué.

[tonedevil]

134. As in...

I met a girl last and she had me postulating all night long.

[sprinkleeninow]

137. "I had too much to dream last nite."

I thot of additional to post, but then I'd need a bar of soap, if ya know what mean. 😱

Ma would say, "The party's gettin' rough." 😆

[sprinkleeninow]

106. What is beyond the edge of the cosmos if there is an edge.

Last edited Mon Mar 5, 2018, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Scripture says 'He'll roll back the Heavens like a tent cloth.' Ut-oh...

[Voltaire2]

90. A ridiculous childish bit of rubbish.

By the way that would be approximately 13.5 billion years later, not “millions”, but as your sciency thing is a grade school effort, it’s close enough.

[guillaumeb]

91. I cannot tell you how much this response added to the conversation.

Someone up-thread spoke of a primordial nothingness.

[Voltaire2]

98. There is no conversation here.

You posted a long screed of justifying/immunizing babble in front of your sparky creator thingy and then proceeded to insult some person who thought you actually intended to discuss anything.

I did add a substantive comment to the only remotely evidence based assertion in your sparky-genesis nonsense: you were off by an order of magnitude, at least, in your timeline.

[guillaumeb]

117. No there is no conversation.

You are convinced that theism is a sign of psychosis, so what can any theist respond to that?

[Thedemby]

93. Before the bang.

Comes forplay. You are all guessing but I am speaking from experience.

[guillaumeb]

120. Thedemby, meet Kablooie.

Upthread.

[marylandblue]

97. Another view of why "faith" is an inadequate answer

I call concepts that are poorly defined "squishy." Squishy because you can mold them into any shape then mold it into some other shape as much as you want. God is a squishy concept. Because we imagine by faith a being we can't understand, claim it has no properties and claim it can do whatever it wants. But much as it's claimed God has no properties, properties are asserted, and if it has properties, evidence for them can be found. "Creates universes" is a property. "Eternal" is a property. Usually, theologians add other properties like "all powerful" "perfectly good" and "communicates with prophets." But these properties are testable as well.

Take "communicates with prophets." That should be an easy one to test. It's been said that God communicated scientific information to certain prophets. Information that the prophet could not have gotten from another source. But on close examination, this claim falls flat. The purported scientific information is generally vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Often the same prophet has other information that is disconfirmed by science, suggesting that any correct information is just a lucky guess.

We have the beginning of Genesis, which has a place that maybe sounds a little like the big bang. Okay. But then it says it took six days. Well that's wrong, so we have to interpret days as billions of years. But then it says birds were created before land animals. That's definitely wrong. So the evidence suggests the author of Genesis had no special scientific information, just a bunch of legends or guesses, one of which is vaguely right and others are flat wrong.

This God did not anywhere provide clear scientific information that could not have been known at the time. He did not, for example, give the value of pi to 100 digits. That would be impressive. He did have a chance to do it in 2 Chronicles 4:2, where pi is given as 3. Good approximation for 1000 BC but hardly Godlike accuracy.

So at least as far as far as this test goes, God can't have the property of "communicates scientific information." The hypothesis is false. As soon as you go through an analysis like this, people resort to "faith" to resurrect the hypothesis is some other way. Maybe we don't understand the information. Maybe the prophet didn't understand it. Maybe it meant something else. Maybe it has to be reinterpreted. Or maybe just you must have faith to see that the scientific information is there. Or another favorite - the sceptic just doesn't want to see. None of those answers are scientific, which itself ought to negate the idea that there is scientific information there. But somehow it doesn't.

[Permanut]

101. Great info, marylandblue..

The apologists, e.g. at Christian Courier, justify the squishy math by a series of maybes. Maybe the basin had a rim with an inside diameter and an outside diameter; and besides, a squishy number is fine anyway, what's the big deal.

I guess they've had a long time to work on these "answers".


[link:https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/497-solomons-basin-and-pi-a-bible-error|

Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic; I don't know if anyone is driving the big bus, and it doesn't keep me awake at night. The scientific research we are seeing in astronomy and cosmology, however, is immensely interesting. Carl Sagan, you left us too soon.

[sprinkleeninow]

133. What if there is a 'Busdriver', wouldja bee happy?

[TlalocW]

100. It's best to never embrace faith

Is there any belief that can't be reached by faith alone? There isn't. So someone could believe by faith as strongly as you do that Douglas Adam's Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed out the entire universe and then live in fear of the coming of the Great White Handkerchief. And both get us to the same place - nowhere.

TlalocW

[TygrBright]

102. Big Bang theory was formulated by LeMaitre

Who was a Catholic priest as well as an astronomer and a professor of physics.

His work may fairly be described as rooted in his faith as well as his scientific expertise.

helpfully,
Bright

[marylandblue]

108. His science may be correct, but his faith still be incorrect.

[guillaumeb]

121. True, and I have pointed this out.

As well as the NOMA argument, but the NOMA argument is often rejected by those who insist on one big standard.

[Lint Head]

104. Interesting. Taking theology in college was one if my favorite classes.

My professor was eventually let go for being too subversive.
But the questions I've always pondered were the unanswerable ones. The ones where you here the faithful sometimes answer by saying, "That's something only God knows." Or, "We are not smart enough to know God's mind and should trust all He has done.."
Questions like, 'If there was "nothing" and God created something from nothing, how could there be "nothing" if God existed to create something from nothing? God would be "something".

[guillaumeb]

122. And all of the talk about dark forces and other things can be represented by an unknown

and scientifically unknowable Creator.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

109. Nothing personal, I'm going to stick with Hawkins.

Turtles all the way down and all that.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Says you.

[guillaumeb]

123. Yes, I did.

And I will say it again in the future.

[Act_of_Reparation]

112. NOMA is about the nature of the questions, not the nature of the answers.

The origin of the universe is a scientific question. Any answer to this question is therefore subject to scientific analysis. The nature of the answer—whether it comes from science or faith—is not relevant.

[Sneederbunk]

129. A big fuse?

[guillaumeb]

136. Trump has a shorter fuse.

And so he compensates with anger.