The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could we live in a young universe?  (Read 6756 times)

Offline Magnus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« on: 21/02/2009 14:30:02 »
Magnus asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Well, as a hardcore Christian guy, I find it VERY exciting to explore and
understand more of the creation. But I find that so many non-believing scientist have a hard time to even spend  a minute of seriously debating the probability of the "terrifying" matter of God. Well at least I haven't heard anything from you about this issue yet.

Probably you will answer this by the classical "Beliefs and Science does
not belong in the same ballpark" or something like that. Well I think they do, when it comes to the stories about our common origins...

Now to the question:
If we would suppose that there were a limit of the universe, and we were
somewhere close to the center. Is it not  true that we, being "recently" popped out of a White hole, could have a young universe from the earth's Local time, since the time at the edge would have been moving faster?

I'm not completely sure my question is making any sense what so ever in your ears, but I hope you've heard the question in some form before, and that you have the possibility to try and answer ...

Hope you have a wonderful day!

Ps. newbielink:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/ [nonactive], keep up the good work!

What do you think?


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #1 on: 21/02/2009 14:47:29 »
Quote from: Mangus
Now to the question:
If we would suppose that there were a limit of the universe, and we were
somewhere close to the center. Is it not  true that we, being "recently" popped out of a White hole, could have a young universe from the earth's Local time, since the time at the edge would have been moving faster?
The belief that there is an all-powerful divine entity that is interested in human activity is common among humans. You answered your own question correctly. Religion is about faith; science is about questioning, testing, observing, and predicting based upon those observations. If you believe in the supernatural all things are possible; all test results can be tricks played upon us by an amused creator.

But if things are real, as they seem to be, we can know with much certainty that the universe exists as it seems to exist and has existed for a bunch of billions of years.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2009 14:51:50 by Vern »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #2 on: 21/02/2009 21:00:31 »
The concept of an active participant creator seems to be from a scientific viewpoint extremely unlikely and I tend to agree with this but it fails totally to complete the picture because if there was an active participant creator that designed our universe who or what made this creator?  The only answer must be at some point the something made itself! 

I say this as a scientist AND an active practicing christian. 

Many people place far too much importance on the factual truth of religious myth.  A myth does not have to be factually true to impart wisdom.  However I honestly believe that without religion as a binding force on large communities mankind would not have progressed much beyond the hunter gatherer or basic subsistence farmer stage.  The really important thing is how we work well together to conserve and save the planet that we have damaged with our excesses of population not the precise details of our God or the way we express ourselves with respect to it.

You are correct in the belief that your question does not make any sense please rephrase it in simple scientific factual terms and without any statements like "suppose we were...
 

Offline itisus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #3 on: 23/02/2009 05:49:49 »
Many people place far too much importance on the factual truth of religious myth.  A myth does not have to be factually true to impart wisdom.  However I honestly believe that without religion as a binding force on large communities mankind would not have progressed much beyond the hunter gatherer or basic subsistence farmer stage.  The really important thing is how we work well together to conserve and save the planet that we have damaged with our excesses of population not the precise details of our God or the way we express ourselves with respect to it.
Yes, you need to separate "religion" from particular beliefs.  A religion is a means of enforcing conformity.  Religions are corporate entities, usually run for the benefit of management, more of a gamble for other stakeholders. The relation to abstract facts is irrelevant.  Some religions propose deities, some don't.
 

Offline Magnus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #4 on: 26/02/2009 10:30:01 »
The belief that there is an all-powerful divine entity that is interested in human activity is common among humans. You answered your own question correctly. Religion is about faith; science is about questioning, testing, observing, and predicting based upon those observations. If you believe in the supernatural all things are possible; all test results can be tricks played upon us by an amused creator.
A little comment on what you wrote; Religion is about faith. -True, but if we talk about the origin of the universe and historical data from i.e. rocks or fossils, both believers and non believers have THE SAME DATA, the same rocks, stars, fossils. The difference is according to my opinion which beliefs we have or which "pair of glasses" we are looking on these data with.
If we took a look at fossils in rocklayers, a non-believer would claim that the works of time piled it all up in these walls, assuming the common scientific beliefs that BIG amounts of time were behind it. But if you are a believer you would look at the same fossils you would remember that there is a historical occurence of a global disaster in about 4000 bc which wiped out all of mankind except 8 persons. It sustained for 40 days and water was covering the earth far over the mountain Arrarat. There are so many more details which are making scientifical sense, not only in this occurence that I as a christian have no reason to be afraid of being questioned about the credibility/authentity of the Bible.

But if things are real, as they seem to be, we can know with much certainty that the universe exists as it seems to exist and has existed for a bunch of billions of years.
Well, certainly not if we believe in the core truth of Einsteins science.
Time is relative and depending on things like speed and gravity, so if gravity is denser here than out in the edge of space our clock is most probably ticking slower, right?
Maybe thats how the distant starlight has been able to reach to us within the ~6000 years of believers-universe-existing-timeframe :)

Hope that you all can keep this discussion in a good way, with scientifical and positive criticism, so that we can continue discussing the important matters and not waste eachothers or the moderators time by dodging pie-throwing comments. :)

With hope in good discussions ahead and my very best wishes and big thanx to everyone of you great, inspireing lads at the naked scientists!


 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #5 on: 26/02/2009 12:27:17 »
Magnus - firstly, may I welcome you to The Naked Scientists.

You are correct in saying that believers and non-believers alike have the same data to look at. The difference is what is done with that data.

Those of a scientific disposition will look for more corroborative data to substantiate it, to search for universal laws that explain how and why things are the way they are.

A religious person, on the other hand, does not bother looking for such corroborative evidence and, in fact, a lot actively discourage it. They are content to take the "Only God could have done this" or "This proves God exists" approaches. When something is discovered that clashes with their beliefs, it is simply ignored, discarded as having been interpreted incorrectly, or called the work of the devil.

A classic example data of data being ignored is the evolution of the eye. "There hasn't been enough time for the eye to have evolved" trumpet the Creationists. Well, I'm sorry, but there has. There is scientific evidence for such a process yet the Creationists ignore it and continue to insist it does not exist.

We have discovered and proved (as near as makes very little difference) that certain processes in the universe take millions, of even billions, of years; the stellar life-cycle for instance. We have observed, we have measured, we have theorised based on those observations and measurements, and those theories have withstood every attempt to disprove them. There is overwhelming evidence that the universe has been around for more than 13 billion years. Not 1 shred of evidence exists for the universe being only a few thousand years old.

Another argument I hear time and time again is that science has failed to prove the non-existence of God. I turn that argument around and ask whether any religious person has ever disproved science. It is not the aim of science to prove that God does not exist. Nor is the non-existence of God necessary to the furtherance of science. It is, however, necessary for theists to prove that science is wrong before their arguments will have any validity.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2009 12:46:35 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #6 on: 26/02/2009 12:30:06 »
If you are looking for a scientific discussion of religion, the post by itisus sums it up pretty well. It may very well be that religion provided the glue that allowed great leaders to control the masses that they then used to conquer other masses and so build nations.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2009 12:38:57 by Vern »
 

Offline Magnus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #7 on: 26/02/2009 21:55:32 »
Those of a scientific disposition will look for more corroborative data to substantiate it, to search for universal laws that explain how and why things are the way they are.
As a believer of a God, I definitly support the idea of such things as universal laws. This is one of the most significant proofs of a creator. WHY should there at all be any reason for logical, understandable, measurable laws in the universe.
Or to put it plain; why should we exist if there was no purpose?

Reading the introducting pages of Sir Martin Rees' book "Just six numbers. The deep forces that shape the Universe" gives me as a believer a reason to stand in awe of the incredibly critical and highly decsive values of the properties for the existance of our universe. Of course a non-believing scientist would turn this argument around and say that this is the only reason why we are lucky enough to exist.
However, I also want to point out that there is nothing that builds up my belief as much as reading a pure scientific book about i.e. quantum mechanics, black holes or string theory, because they all make very much sense to me in my view of God! (pleas ask me why later I want to go on with this reply)
 
A religious person, on the other hand, does not bother looking for such corroborative evidence and, in fact, a lot actively discourage it.
Wow, that was really prejudice, actually, because I do bother looking for every  evidence that I can find. But I do not assume that time and coincidence is capable of creating the completely mindblowing splendor of the 10 to the power of 45 something spectrum of our known sizes of the universe, from (probably)strings
to most distant galaxies!

Perhaps you have met some believers who lives with the belief just like many non-belivers do about the "majority of the leading scientist" - They use other peoples proclaimed knowledge as their ultimate authority and lean on their current understanding of the Universe.
A christian who is afraid of science and avoids questioning is missing out on soething really big, because the truth always endure testing!
I personally highly encourage every kind of truthseeking with open eyes.

There are also many believing scientists throughout history who were able to unrattle the most challenging questions of their time thanks to their belief in an invisible force, and inisible laws, and an invisible logic behind all creation.

They are content to take the "Only God could have done this" or "This proves God exists" approaches. When something is discovered that clashes with their beliefs, it is simply ignored, discarded as having been interpreted incorrectly, or called the work of the devil.
Maybe this is how the "new" science of the 20-century was recieved in uneducated christian churces/communities once, but this is no longer a fact according to my opinion. I myself is a proof of this very thing. I had a difficult time to grasp the thought of Einsteins postulates when I first read them, and in fact my wife still discard me when I try to explain some of it to her (which proves your case, by the way ;) However, after realizing its consequences it's nothing other than natural that this is the way some of the universal laws works. And God fits very nice into this new upgraded worldview of mine :)

A classic example data of data being ignored is the evolution of the eye. "There hasn't been enough time for the eye to have evolved" trumpet the Creationists. Well, I'm sorry, but there has. There is scientific evidence for such a process yet the Creationists ignore it and continue to insist it does not exist.

I have an interesting calclation for you...

faculty, most of us know it's powers...

If we pick three cards from a norma deck of playingcards, like 2,3 & 4, mixed together you will get a maximum of 2x3=6 possible combinations.
2-3-4, 2-4-3, 3-2-4, 3-4-2, 4-2-3, 4-3-2!
So the probability for us to get a selected combination out of these three mixed cards will always be 1/6.
 
If we add one card, 5, we will get 4 cards, and the easy calculated combinationrange will be 4 (the number of cards) x 6 (the previous number of possible combinations) = 24 different combinations. 
Equals to 1/24 probability for our new selected card combination.

If this continues with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 cards we will have a probability of a selected combination of 1/3628800

Is that big?
Well, lets continue... 11=39916800, 12=479001600, 13=6227020800, 14=87178291200
If we continue up to 20 cards we get... 1*10^16...
Is this much??

Well lets say you would try one new set every second, this would take about 321'445'069 years!!!
And now think about the number of neurons that exist in your brain....
about 100'000'000'000... And how long do YOU think it would take to try the connections and get them correct for such a thing, including no use of intelligence, just chance...

I currently have totally worn out my brains in trying to write in english,so I rest my case with these last words. And once again thank you for a inspiring, encouraging, good and funny podcast. Have a good night (I'm off to the duty of dishes :)
« Last Edit: 26/02/2009 21:57:25 by Magnus »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #8 on: 27/02/2009 00:13:12 »
Quote
As a believer of a God, I definitly support the idea of such things as universal laws. This is one of the most significant proofs of a creator. WHY should there at all be any reason for logical, understandable, measurable laws in the universe.

That is precisely the point I was making. You take existing scientific knowledge and claim it is "proof" of a creator. It is not proof of anything of the like. What it shows it that there are fundamental laws behind events in the universe.

I'm off to bed now but I shall address the rest of your post tomorrow when my brain isn't so tired.
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #9 on: 27/02/2009 03:44:20 »
I say this as a scientist AND an active practicing christian.  
I have always wanted to ask this question of a scientist and a christian but until now  have never known one to ask.
How does a scientist reconcile the teachings of science with the teachings of christianity.
I have always thought of the two as mutually exclusive.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #10 on: 27/02/2009 04:19:11 »

Or to put it plain; why should we exist if there was no purpose? 
Why do humans have this almighty need for a purpose to exist.Wheat does not need a purpose to exist nor does sand or elephants but they do.
Why can't humans just except they are here to perpetuate the species like every other organism on this planet.And if we don't perpetuate the species then we will go extinct like many other organisms before us.
We were not here at the start of Earth and there is a better than even chance we won't be here at the end.In which case you could very much ask what was the purpose.

Cheers
justaskin 
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #11 on: 27/02/2009 11:42:30 »
Quote
Reading the introducting pages of Sir Martin Rees' book "Just six numbers. The deep forces that shape the Universe" gives me as a believer a reason to stand in awe of the incredibly critical and highly decsive values of the properties for the existance of our universe.

I  do not stand in awe. The question of whether it is pure chance that those values are what they are or there is an underlying law dictating their values is what fascinates me.

Quote
Of course a non-believing scientist would turn this argument around and say that this is the only reason why we are lucky enough to exist.

If the values were not what they are then we would not exist. There is no question about that and it cannot be argued against.

Quote
However, I also want to point out that there is nothing that builds up my belief as much as reading a pure scientific book about i.e. quantum mechanics, black holes or string theory, because they all make very much sense to me in my view of God! (pleas ask me why later I want to go on with this reply)

I would be interested to hear your view of God sometime.

Quote
Quote

A religious person, on the other hand, does not bother looking for such corroborative evidence and, in fact, a lot actively discourage it.

Wow, that was really prejudice, actually, because I do bother looking for every  evidence that I can find. But I do not assume that time and coincidence is capable of creating the completely mindblowing splendor of the 10 to the power of 45 something spectrum of our known sizes of the universe, from (probably)strings
to most distant galaxies!
I think you misunderstood what I meant. A scientist will look for corroborative evidence of the science in order to establish that the way we think things work is correct. A religious person, in general, will look at the evidence and interpret it differently. He would simply say that it is yet more proof of God's existence without wondering what the real reason for it is.
As for my statement about active discouragement, I have personal experience of that. To take but 1 person as an example, his attitude is that science should be abandoned as anything that is discovered that clashes with what's in the Bible must be the work of the Devil. As anything to do with the Devil is to be avoided, scientific endeavours should cease. He believes that everything we need to know is in the Bible.
That particular person is a South African who used to be a policeman there. He now lives in England and works as a sheet metal fabricator. He plays for his local darts team and is an accomplished rock musician. I only add that to show that he is not a total weirdo.
I have also met a fair number of Americans from the Bible Belt who hold very similar views, so it is not uncommon.
Quote
Perhaps you have met some believers who lives with the belief just like many non-belivers do about the "majority of the leading scientist" - They use other peoples proclaimed knowledge as their ultimate authority and lean on their current understanding of the Universe.
A christian who is afraid of science and avoids questioning is missing out on soething really big, because the truth always endure testing!
I personally highly encourage every kind of truthseeking with open eyes.
I don't think you do “highly encourage every kind of truthseeking with open eyes.”. You do not seek the truth as you have already decided what the truth is. It is scientists who have the truly open eyes and minds. They actively seek new laws & new evidence, etc and are prepared to embrace new ideas & new theories. In some cases it can take a while for new theories to become accepted (as with quantum mechanics) but accepted they eventually are.
Quote
There are also many believing scientists throughout history who were able to unrattle the most challenging questions of their time thanks to their belief in an invisible force, and inisible laws, and an invisible logic behind all creation.
There have indeed been, and continue to be, scientists who are also religious; many major advances were made in the Moslem world. And although I agree with your statement that some scientific advances have been made “thanks to their belief in an invisible force, and inisible laws, and an invisible logic behind all creation.”, I challenge your inference that it was the religious aspect that drove them on. It is far more likely that they were looking for scientific reasons why things are the way they are.
Quote
Quote
They are content to take the "Only God could have done this" or "This proves God exists" approaches. When something is discovered that clashes with their beliefs, it is simply ignored, discarded as having been interpreted incorrectly, or called the work of the devil.

Maybe this is how the "new" science of the 20-century was recieved in uneducated christian churces/communities once, but this is no longer a fact according to my opinion. I myself is a proof of this very thing. I had a difficult time to grasp the thought of Einsteins postulates when I first read them, and in fact my wife still discard me when I try to explain some of it to her (which proves your case, by the way ;) However, after realizing its consequences it's nothing other than natural that this is the way some of the universal laws works. And God fits very nice into this new upgraded worldview of mine :)
Creationism v Evolution is a classic case in point. I have heard quite a few religious people claim that fossils were put in the ground by the Devil to confound us.
Quote
Quote
A classic example data of data being ignored is the evolution of the eye. "There hasn't been enough time for the eye to have evolved" trumpet the Creationists. Well, I'm sorry, but there has. There is scientific evidence for such a process yet the Creationists ignore it and continue to insist it does not exist.

I have an interesting calclation for you...

faculty, most of us know it's powers...

If we pick three cards from a norma deck of playingcards, like 2,3 & 4, mixed together you will get a maximum of 2x3=6 possible combinations.
2-3-4, 2-4-3, 3-2-4, 3-4-2, 4-2-3, 4-3-2!
So the probability for us to get a selected combination out of these three mixed cards will always be 1/6.
 
If we add one card, 5, we will get 4 cards, and the easy calculated combinationrange will be 4 (the number of cards) x 6 (the previous number of possible combinations) = 24 different combinations. 
Equals to 1/24 probability for our new selected card combination.

If this continues with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 cards we will have a probability of a selected combination of 1/3628800

Is that big?
Well, lets continue... 11=39916800, 12=479001600, 13=6227020800, 14=87178291200
If we continue up to 20 cards we get... 1*10^16...
Is this much??

Well lets say you would try one new set every second, this would take about 321'445'069 years!!!
And now think about the number of neurons that exist in your brain....
about 100'000'000'000... And how long do YOU think it would take to try the connections and get them correct for such a thing, including no use of intelligence, just chance...

But evidence for the evolution of the eye has been found. Are you also going to simply ignore that evidence and try to use statistics to prove that what was found cannot actually exist?

The odds of winning the UK lotto jackpot are approximately 1:14million yet frequently it is won by more than 1 person.

As  for the brain, what you say may hold true if the human brain were to have suddenly popped into existence 1 day. But it didn't. The brain started as a simple organ and developed from there, building on what already existed in primitive form.

Quote
I currently have totally worn out my brains in trying to write in english,so I rest my case with these last words. And once again thank you for a inspiring, encouraging, good and funny podcast. Have a good night (I'm off to the duty of dishes :)

Your English is very good indeed. I hope you enjoyed doing the dishes!  :D
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #12 on: 28/02/2009 20:17:55 »
Coming back to justask in on my being a scientist and a practicing christian. 

My Christianity is based on the way I view that I should interact with other propel and life on this planet.  My science is based on reality of measurements and scientific laws  they really only interact where potential scientific experiments and investigations would result in unethical activities ie cruelty to animals or people or destruction of the environment.

As to Magnus who appears to be concerned that the universe as we see it is very improbable.  There is a growing interest in the concept that our physical laws themselves have evolved to enable complexity.  The reason for this is that as the universe cooled down it was not a truly random process that caused the various symmetries to settle down the way they did but the fact that as things became less uncertain processed that enable complexity like recycling processes and other waves were favoured and became the dominant processes over brief random interactions.  Look at my New theories topic on "Evolutionary philosophy" if you want more details.


All aspects of religious literature are in the form of myth and metaphor and have no precise relation with any facts that actually happened altough some very significant things did happen around the early years of AD however I have no reason to believe that any physical laws were ever violated.  Anyone who insists on this must demonstrate this violation under scientific observation before I will accept it

One of the simplest models to help you define your behaviour is to have in mind the concept of a loving God who will at some time call you to account for all your actions.  This is a valid concept whether such a God actually exists or not.  I am an Atheist who follows the christian religion because religion is a force that can unite people to achieve greater things for longer terms than any other ways. 

I am still greatly saddened by all fundamentalist sects who believe that their religion is the only one possible and other religions must be forced into submission,  At the intellectual and moderate level all of the major global religions are in agreement of basic principles and tolerant of each others rituals.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #13 on: 28/02/2009 21:03:06 »
Magnus
Quote
faculty, most of us know it's powers...

If we pick three cards from a norma deck of playingcards, like 2,3 & 4, mixed together you will get a maximum of 2x3=6 possible combinations.
2-3-4, 2-4-3, 3-2-4, 3-4-2, 4-2-3, 4-3-2!
So the probability for us to get a selected combination out of these three mixed cards will always be 1/6.
 
If we add one card, 5, we will get 4 cards, and the easy calculated combinationrange will be 4 (the number of cards) x 6 (the previous number of possible combinations) = 24 different combinations.
Equals to 1/24 probability for our new selected card combination.

If this continues with 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 cards we will have a probability of a selected combination of 1/3628800

Is that big?
Well, lets continue... 11=39916800, 12=479001600, 13=6227020800, 14=87178291200
If we continue up to 20 cards we get... 1*10^16...
Is this much??

Well lets say you would try one new set every second, this would take about 321'445'069 years!!!
And now think about the number of neurons that exist in your brain....
about 100'000'000'000... And how long do YOU think it would take to try the connections and get them correct for such a thing, including no use of intelligence, just chance...

Do you mean 'the factorial'? I guess you do.

Your argument about the numbers involved does not actually hod water.I shows that you are being selective in your conclusion as to what the numbers show you.
There is another example of how ones initial perception of 'chance' can be very misleading.
The probability of two people having a birthday on 1 Dec is 1/365X365 1/130,000 but you only need 23 people in a room for two of them to be very likely to share a birthday. Looking at the first value makes it hard to comprehend the second value.
Your creationist view uses the equivalent of the first figure whereas evolutionists use the (correct) second figure.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #14 on: 28/02/2009 22:25:59 »
Magnus has got it very wrong.  The process is not one of finding one improbable pattern in a vast array of improbable patterns but one of finding one of a group of very probable (or successful or long lived) patterns from a group of slightly less probable (or successful or long lived) patterns many times over which ends up producing an apparently improbable pattern that is in fact just one of many almost inevitable patterns that could have resulted.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #15 on: 28/02/2009 22:55:02 »
Ian - that's what I meant when I wrote:

Quote
As  for the brain, what you say may hold true if the human brain were to have suddenly popped into existence 1 day. But it didn't. The brain started as a simple organ and developed from there, building on what already existed in primitive form.

But I put it in the kind of simplistic terms that my poor little brain can cope with.
 

Offline itisus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #16 on: 01/03/2009 03:25:49 »
Coming back to justask in on my being a scientist and a practicing christian. 
....

One of the simplest models to help you define your behaviour is to have in mind the concept of a loving God who will at some time call you to account for all your actions.  This is a valid concept whether such a God actually exists or not.  I am an Atheist who follows the christian religion because religion is a force that can unite people to achieve greater things for longer terms than any other ways. 

I am still greatly saddened by all fundamentalist sects who believe that their religion is the only one possible and other religions must be forced into submission,  At the intellectual and moderate level all of the major global religions are in agreement of basic principles and tolerant of each others rituals.

Working backwards...
All of the global religions are in fierce competition, and their only point of agreement is that they would like to prohibit all criticism of their absurd doctrines.  It may (or not) be that only the monotheistic ones are dominated by fundamentalists, but those are the ones with the most firepower.

If you are actually an atheist, you realize the Christian doctrine is baloney.  If you just like the social interaction or the pomp or something, or just subjugating yourself to authority, that is a different matter.  Real atheists the world over live fine Golden Rule sorts of lives without fear or awe of an imaginary Great Slavemaster in the sky watching their every move.

There is no reason a scientist cannot be a practicing Christian, for there is no way to disprove a sufficiently vague God concept, and no science (including evolution) contradicts it.  Fundamentalism is a different matter.

The various god concepts are not religions.  Religions are corporate structures with budgets and power, bent on enforcing conformity.  That is their value and their threat.

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #17 on: 01/03/2009 12:25:40 »
Quote
It may (or not) be that only the monotheistic ones are dominated by fundamentalists,

There are Hindu fundamentalists too and that is a polytheistic religion. They just don't get a lot of publicity in the West.

Most religious texts are written in ambiguous language and are therefore open to multifarious (good word, eh!) interpretations. There seems to be a lot of cherry-picking as to what should be taken literally and that which is allegorical. Interpretations can be made to justify almost any opinion. When will people realise that differences between sects is nothing to do with God per se but is solely down to how fallible humans have interpreted what was written by those who claimed to have recieved divine messages.

What I want to know is, why does God insist on so much praise? Choirs of angels have to sing his praises continuously, telling him how great he is. Humans are supposed to bow down and worship him on a regular basis. Is God the biggest egotist ever?

Also, why did God suddenly stop appearing? In the Old Testament he was popping up all over the place - in burning bushes and pillars of fire, on top of mountains, etc. Yet now he's nowhere to be seen. Has he retired?
« Last Edit: 01/03/2009 12:42:26 by DoctorBeaver »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #18 on: 01/03/2009 20:41:00 »
To be fair to Magnus, it is extremely hard (impossible, actually) to comprehend numbers which involve powers of ten greater than about 6 and less than -6. When we're talking tiny probabilities and extremely large statistical populations and lengths of time, it's difficult to comprehend them objectively. It is much easier to hang on to words like "infinitessimal" and ~"incredible' etc etc for your argument. If you really feel that "there must be someone responsible" for it all, then the numbers really take second place in any argument.

Anti-Science religions have had to bow out from arguments which can be be proved with photos taken from space abd the like but we will never be able to prove or disprove the theories involved in Evolution. Evidence can only get stronger and stronger but you will never be able to drop a 'proof' on a Creationist's foot and say "there you are". They can always hope that JC or someone will come out of the sky and put us all right about things.
 

Offline Magnus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #19 on: 01/03/2009 22:10:58 »
It's rather fun to watch how a thread that should focus on physics and science so totally evolve into a religious debate...
If you are looking for a scientific discussion of religion, the post by itisus sums it up pretty well. It may very well be that religion provided the glue that allowed great leaders to control the masses that they then used to conquer other masses and so build nations.
I'm actually NOT looking for a scientific discussion of religion.
My purpose with this thread was NOT to begin a philosophical debate about God. Everyone of these almighty statements that are made here about God is rather unnecessary. If He is exist He is not dependent of anyones opinion. And if He does not exist then there is no need for anyone to try to talk down on other peoples beliefs.
The reason I started this thread was to try to get a serious estimation about some of the creationists ideas that exists, and how probable their calculations are according to non-christian independent sources.
I don't really have time to get into all the new thread-subjects written in every answers above, so I won't.
But still I hope that the nakedscientists will take my question seriously and do what they promised in the mail they sent to me, and take up the subject in a coming podcast.

Please dare to do some research in this matter and don't do like they usually do and just interview someone with contradictory opinions. Why not take a creationist into the show or set up a debate?

With great expectations for a seriously good podcast, and with big thanx for a very good show!
/Magnus, Sweden
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #20 on: 01/03/2009 22:16:31 »
Magnus asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Well, as a hardcore Christian guy, I find it VERY exciting to explore and
understand more of the creation. But I find that so many non-believing scientist have a hard time to even spend  a minute of seriously debating the probability of the "terrifying" matter of God. Well at least I haven't heard anything from you about this issue yet.

Probably you will answer this by the classical "Beliefs and Science does
not belong in the same ballpark" or something like that. Well I think they do, when it comes to the stories about our common origins...

Now to the question:
If we would suppose that there were a limit of the universe, and we were
somewhere close to the center. Is it not  true that we, being "recently" popped out of a White hole, could have a young universe from the earth's Local time, since the time at the edge would have been moving faster?

I'm not completely sure my question is making any sense what so ever in your ears, but I hope you've heard the question in some form before, and that you have the possibility to try and answer ...

Hope you have a wonderful day!

Ps. I listen to you a lot, keep up the good work!

What do you think?

If you're not looking for a scientific discussion on religion, why did you write that which I have emboldened in the quote?
 

Offline Magnus

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #21 on: 01/03/2009 22:55:26 »
I just get a feeling that I should try to refocus this thread into the original thought I had when I wrote the question to chris@thenakedscientists.com, which later became this forum-tread.

Most of us who reads/writes on this forum/thread already have a quite good understanding of the time-frames of the classical darwinian/evoultionary theories. But my hope with starting this thread was as I said earlier to get independent, scientifical speculations about the creationistic theories about the evolution of the created world.

If you're not looking for a scientific discussion on religion, why did you write that which I have emboldened in the quote?
I am interested in this matter, but I now more than before realize that it's not what I want this thread to focus on. And I also did NOT include that text in my "Now to the question"-text...

I'm sorry that I don't have time to get into details that I want, this time.
Hope to get into more, details if I have time and strength... I'm on winter-vacation in the swedish mountains...
See you all later... :)
 

lyner

  • Guest
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #22 on: 01/03/2009 23:30:20 »
How can we be expected to have a Scientific discussion about Creationism? Science tried to deal with evidence whenever it can. I have not seen any evidence to support Creationism. If you can come up with some (and I don't mean that it just has to be the answer because you can't accept Evolution), then we could discuss that evidence.

I don't find the idea of God "terrifying" at all. There seems no reason to believe in a God, so how can the unbelievable be terrifying? I can easily see why people should want to believe in a God, but that's another matter.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #23 on: 02/03/2009 09:54:22 »
Magnus - I hope you enjoy your holiday (vacation).
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #24 on: 03/03/2009 23:52:26 »
coming back to itisus and others.

Mankind is nothing if people do not work together and co-operate for things way beyond the lifetime of one generation.  Tribes cities and countries all have local interests religions can be truly world wide.  Can you show me any large atheist or agnostic groups that do this.  If one existed I might well join it but on the whole atheists are isolated individuals crying in a corner.  I am not under any false pretenses. I pointed out my views before my confirmation into the Church of England more than 40 years ago and said I want to join will you accept me?  After a considerable period for thought I was accepted.  I still attend church regularly most sundays.  It offers me time to consider things beyond my own personal desires and needs and gives me a framework in which to set them.

I feel that one of the great sadnesses and problems of a lot of the world today is the loss of religion not as an authority figure telling them what to do but as something beyond the mundane to strive for. 

I am the first to agree that many terrible sins are committed in the name of religion.

I do not agree that religions see themselves as competing against each other there is a solid network of interfaith dialogues and co-operation in the top of the religious organisations across the world.  As always it is the destructive extremists who shout loudest and get the attention from the media.   Co-operation and peace is not newsworthy to you don't hear about it.

You need to look well beyond the chips on your shoulders, talk to and learn from the wise yourself, to find out the true value of a religion.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2009 23:54:28 by Soul Surfer »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Could we live in a young universe?
« Reply #24 on: 03/03/2009 23:52:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length