Big bang without God???

[lotstodo]

I used to believe just as Hawking presents himself but as we've probed deeper in space and the atom, it has become clear to me that there is too much order at each level too say it was by random chance. If chance is true, what I'm told happened isn't statistically possible. I'm to believe that the laws that govern everything were established after the fact? And if they were here before, then how and from whom? Everything in the universe was supposedly packed into something so tight it could fit in your hand? The laws that caused this compaction, where did it derive? The energy law that caused the explosion, where did it come from? Questions the elite can't answer or agree upon. Does it discount the whole premise? Maybe not, but to teach it as "rock solid" doctrine? No way.

Where did the laws of physics come from? That is the $64,000 question. We know how the universe behaves and that it behaves according to these laws, but we don't know why. But like I said, not knowing everything does not equal not knowing anything, or that what we do know is somehow tainted by that fact. Faith may point us toward an answer as to why, but I don't personally believe that it is the answer. I am personally content in knowing that it does exist, it is a place of some order, and that it is a place of endless wonder and profound happenings. I'm glad to be here and relish the opportunity to exist and know the wonders of life. It's an incredible experience.

As for the singularity existing, it is indeed within the laws of physics. It is a fantastic concept, but reliably proven. I have trouble wrapping my brain around a lot of things out there and the singularity is indeed one of them. I am fascinated by black holes. They are similar to the singularity, but on a much smaller scale. Their gravitational force is so strong that they can warp time and light cannot escape. Wow. The best part is that they were proven using the same techniques that were used to describe the singularity, and then they were actually observed. Wow again.

The question of order is not scientifically bizarre. Order is the preferred state of matter and energy. Nothing is completely random at every level. The universe that we know requires balance of countless forces to exist. It's fantastic, but not supernatural. The universe obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the laws of statistical mechanics. Mathematically, given a large enough set of anything, there will statistically be a subset that shows order, and that subset may be selected for those properties. The universe, in effect, seeks equilibrium (this is a much simplified version for the purposes of this discussion).

One can look towards the sciences similarly to philosophy or even religion and I personally applaud the work of those who further our knowledge in many areas. It's wonderful that people spend their lives studying, analyzing, and theorizing in their line of academia as we "advance" our civilization. I for one don't believe we know a fraction of what we think we know nor do I personally believe we should know everything. A theory is only valid until disproved. Obviously if an apple falls it will eventually hit the ground but there's a big stretch to get to where we "know", or think we know, the single moment of creation millions of years ago. We are the same people who can't even balance a budget, much less a checkbook, or consistently deliver mail. For a renown genius to stand up (no pun intended) and proclaim it all happened without any help from a Creator is just appalling. I pray for his soul because it's as broken as his body.

I can understand where you are coming from, man is fallible, but you and Fox have made the same mistake in terminology and thus perhaps thought. A Scientific Theory is not the same as theorizing. A Scientific theory is more accurately described in the vernacular as a fact. A scientific theory requires a statistical certainty of 5 sigma. That means that there is no more than a 1 in 3.5 million chance that what is observed is an act of randomness or improperly attributed to a different set of variables. A discovery similarly requires a p value of 0.0000003, or 3 millionths of 1 percent chance of significant inaccuracy. That's pretty darn certain. This is the most rigorous level of knowledge and certainty in science, however a theory or discovery will never attain a p value of zero, because there is, as you point out, the fallibility of man. Theories will never become laws even though law sounds more impressive, because they are not the same thing. Laws require a specific set of circumstances while theories do not. It is interesting that you mention gravity, because gravity is a law and is perhaps the least understood law we have. Statistically speaking, our understanding of what happened those many many years ago is more certain than how bodies interact with each other and the forces that attract them. But you are correct, science will NEVER say that anything is 100% certain, because man is fallible, and our knowledge is ever increasing. Again using gravity as an example, we are increasing our knowledge of gravity every decade. The Higgs Boson was a huge step. But that does not mean that that apple falls up and Newton was wrong. It simply means that we are refining our understanding. Indeed Newtonian Physics, actually all of classical physics, has been superseded, but that, again, only means that our understanding has grown, these are not false. Very few actual "modern" scientific theories based on the scientific method have ever been entirely discarded. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that any theory developed since Karl Popper introduced the idea of falsification into the scientific method in the 1930's has been disproved. In fact, going back to the mid to the late 1800's I can't remember one, although again I may be incorrect. So I must disagree when you say that we don't know even a fraction of what we think we know. We are certainly not 100% correct, but pretty darn good. But I must agree wholeheartedly if you say that we don't know even a fraction of all that there is to know. That is an unquantifiable figure.

I once heard Hawking say that while nothing in our vast knowledge of the universe can disprove the existence of God, nothing so far has required his hand. This is a fact supported by evidence. It does not mean that God does not exist, but it simply means that there is no direct, empirical, or other evidence of the supernatural in the known universe. Can there be a God who created all of this? Sure there can be. That's why I am not a atheist, and I certainly don't find religious belief damnable.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Re: Re: Big bang without God???

I'm fascinated with the universe as well. Quite frankly, I watch everything on tv and try to read a lot pertaining to it. Maybe that's my appeal toward Star Wars. Lol!

PBS did a fantastic series on String Theory and Membrane Theory. Now those are the guys who are really out there. I love their attitude and dedication even though they know that there is a big chance that they will either hit a dead end or prove themselves wrong in their lifetime. They still come to work every day for years with a smile on their faces. Now that's dedication to science.

Those guys are so so far over my head that I can only understand a very small portion of what they are trying to prove, but I still find it completely fascinating. I hate to admit it, but over 40 years of non-use, misuse and abuse of these brain cells have left me at a distinct disadvantage.

I love watching those shows narrated by Morgan Freeman. I think they are called "Looking through the Warmhole". Very interesting.

 

[J-man]

IMO God was the catalyst in the formation of our universe and I'm confident that statement is within the 0.0000003 tolerance. I can live with the 3 millionths of 1 percent chance of significant inaccuracy. Just as science at the highest level requires acceptance of certain "universal" laws, theories, assumptions, or whatever title we wish to give it and take as certainty today, belief in God requires a certain acceptance by faith. I'm merely stating that many of today's scientific discoveries or proclamations will be revised or corrected somewhere in the future. Today there are accepted as fact or at least within the acceptable tolerance. Hawkins may be worldly intelligent and I admire him for that (I really do), but somewhere down deep in his soul I would expect him to at least allow for the remote possibility that God's hand was involved in the cosmos. Even if it were only 3 millionth of 1 percent chance.