Views on the Creation of the Universe

by simon17 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Tekel
    Tekel

    james_woods,

    Not one person in this thread says that a non-causal event like the Big Bang proves that a God exists. Your using the analogy of a causal event, a quarter found under a pillow is the only bad science I see on this page.

    While I agree that the universe collapsing upon itself is not likely, there are still factors which could eventually move scientists to change their minds. Science can not explain what dark energy or dark matter is, and while both these things seem to keep the universe from contracting, we simply do not know enough to completely rule out a Big Crunch being the ultimate fate of this universe.

  • thecrushed
    thecrushed

    Religion is the frozen thought of man out of which they build temples. -krishnamurti That kinda sums it up right there doesn't it!

  • thecrushed
    thecrushed

    oops forgot to clarify what it sums up. I was replaying to New Chapters comment about how religion effects science.

  • dark angle
    dark angle

    Religion has developed a haughty attitude throughout the ages making it unwilling and unable to spot its flaws and correct its understanding of our natural world. I think the reason why this is, because it has not developed a mechanism to critically check its beliefs, biases, and rush & dirty conclusions against reality. By its very nature it has become an enemy of reason and science, hindering human progress throughout the late centuries.

    Victor J. Stenger says:

    Faith is belief in the absence of supportive evidence and even in the light of contrary evidence. No one disputes that religion is based on faith. Some theologians, Christian apologists, and even a few secular scholars claim that science is also based on faith. They argue that science takes it on faith that the world is rational and that Nature can be ordered in an intelligible way.

    However, science makes no such assumption on faith. It analyzes observations by applying certain methodological rules and formulates models to describe those observations. It justifies that process by its practical success, not by any logical deduction derived from dubious metaphysical assumptions. WE MUST DISTINGUISH FAITH FROM TRUST. Science has earned our trust by its proven success. Religion has destroyed our trust by its repeated failure.

    Using the empirical method, science has eliminated smallpox, flown men to the moon, and discovered DNA. If science did not work, we wouldn't do it. Relying on faith, religion has brought us inquisitions, holy wars, and intolerance. Religion does not work, but we still do it.

    Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their unequivocally opposed epistemologies—the separate assumptions they make concerning what we can know about the world. Every human alive is aware of a world that seems to exist outside the body, the world of sensory experience we call the natural. Science is the systematic study of the observations made of the natural world with our senses and scientific instruments, and the application to human needs of the knowledge obtained.

    By contrast, all major religions teach that humans possess an additional “inner” sense that allows us to access a realm lying beyond the visible world—a divine, transcendent reality we call the supernatural. If it does not involve the transcendent, it is not religion. Religion is a set of practices intended to communicate with that invisible world so that we can either cause forces from it to affect things here or at least apply insights gained from it to human needs.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    The big bang occurs after the universe has reached a critical point in it`s expansion then implodes on itself then at its next critical stage the big bang occurs again , a never ending cycle of a big bang and an implosion which may take billions of years from one cycle to the

    There could be no infinite cycle of past bang/crunches. If there were, you'd never be able to arrive at the present one. You can't traverse an actual infinity of cycles through a succession of them, it is a logical impossibility.

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    Tekel

    I dont beleive that the fact, the expansion of the universe is speeding up validates the crunch theory wrong , on the contrary I think it could validate that theory to be very plausible. Why ?

    Think of a hydrogen bomb explosion,at it`s core heat/debris/particles/etc.blast out at Xmetres per second at a hundred metres away it may be X10 metres per second and a mile away it maybe X1000 then at some distance it stops and slows down.

    All I`m saying is maybe we are in the early stages of the Big Crunch

    botchtowersociety

    This has gone right over my head , can you explain that to a simpleton like me ? Seriously, in laymens terms . I don`t profess to be knowedgable on this subject,just interested

    smiddy

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    This has gone right over my head , can you explain that to a simpleton like me ? Seriously, in laymens terms . I don`t profess to be knowedgable on this subject,just interested

    Maybe I did a poor job of explaining it. In the physical world, potential infinites can exist (the universe could go for an infinite amount of time), but actual infinities cannot (the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    None of this proves that there isn't a cosmic bang/crunch cycle, but it shows that the cycle cannot go back an infinite amount of time. If the bang/crunch universe is correct (JWoods noted the evidence at hand is against it), there had to be a first time.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit