God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[sswhateverlove]

Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".
http://www.stats.org/faq_vs.htm

So, two things: One, for the information of anyone reading, when I clicked on that link it caused my antivirus program to recognize a harmful element and block it. Take from that what you will.

Two, and this is for the quote in question, you aren't seriously going to go with "it's just a theory!" after spending the better part of a day telling us how into science you are, are you?

Apparently I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. I'm skeptical of many scientific perspectives on reality because I think they may be leaving out some very important variables.

---

So, two things: One, for the information of anyone reading, when I clicked on that link it caused my antivirus program to recognize a harmful element and block it. Take from that what you will.

Two, and this is for the quote in question, you aren't seriously going to go with "it's just a theory!" after spending the better part of a day telling us how into science you are, are you?

Apparently I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. I'm skeptical of many scientific perspectives on reality because I think they may be leaving out some very important variables.

I'm skeptical of all religious perspective because I think they're leaving out all the important variables.

[Endo]

So, two things: One, for the information of anyone reading, when I clicked on that link it caused my antivirus program to recognize a harmful element and block it. Take from that what you will.

Two, and this is for the quote in question, you aren't seriously going to go with "it's just a theory!" after spending the better part of a day telling us how into science you are, are you?

Apparently I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. I'm skeptical of many scientific perspectives on reality because I think they may be leaving out some very important variables.

Okay, SO WHAT? On the local scale, we are able to mathematically describe the actions of the world and universe. Science is revising itself all the time, but we're at the point where we can say with gigantic levels of certainty that "This is how things work." and "This is how that happened."

[Alex K]

So, two things: One, for the information of anyone reading, when I clicked on that link it caused my antivirus program to recognize a harmful element and block it. Take from that what you will.

Two, and this is for the quote in question, you aren't seriously going to go with "it's just a theory!" after spending the better part of a day telling us how into science you are, are you?

Apparently I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. I'm skeptical of many scientific perspectives on reality because I think they may be leaving out some very important variables.

There are many atheists here. There are quite a few scientists here working the disciplines you talk about. It would help if you'd assume less about what either think, and ask them. More pointed questions concerning you doubts with less assumptions.

[Surgenator]

I'm skeptical of all religious perspective because I think they're leaving out all the important variables.

Science is not a religion. Science changes its views. Religion doesn't.

And I already addressed "important variables" you mentioned in science.

[sswhateverlove]

Apparently I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. I'm skeptical of many scientific perspectives on reality because I think they may be leaving out some very important variables.

Okay, SO WHAT? On the local scale, we are able to mathematically describe the actions of the world and universe. Science is revising itself all the time, but we're at the point where we can say with gigantic levels of certainty that "This is how things work." and "This is how that happened."

Based on my understanding of current perspectives in science, I would say I disagree.

[Surgenator]

Based on my understanding of current perspectives in science, I would say I disagree.

Your understanding of science is poor. Too much sensationalist crap.

[Endo]

Okay, SO WHAT? On the local scale, we are able to mathematically describe the actions of the world and universe. Science is revising itself all the time, but we're at the point where we can say with gigantic levels of certainty that "This is how things work." and "This is how that happened."

Based on my understanding of current perspectives in science, I would say I disagree.

So what you're saying is basically: "This piece of wood was cut too long, throw the whole thing away!" or "This bathwater's been used, and the baby's not any good either!"

There are no "perspectives" in science. There is math that is being worked on, math that has been disproven, and math that has been verified.

[Whateverist]

No, it's not a commonly held opinion, it's your fantasy of what science says. Stop. Creating. Strawmen. It's possibly the most annoying thing you can do on a forum like this. We have smart people here, ask us what we believe, don't tell us.

Ok, if you think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. What do you believe is the currently held opinion in science with regard to the origins of the universe?

Why do you approach this in such an authoritarian manner? Why begin by deciding what the experts think? Couldn't we just discuss the way things stand directly without the expert middlemen? It makes you come off as putting on airs in ways you probably do not intend.

I find the choice of 'nothing' or 'no nothing' to be as unhelpful as that between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Both nothing and supernatural are categories devoid of certain members. What good does it do to start that way?

Intuitively, I assume that before any event you can name there would've been the necessary prior conditions. If you believe in God then you think that catalyst was already there. I don't assume the local big bang is and will be the only one. With most models of multi-verses there is no predicted effects which we should be able to test from within the local big bang. That doesn't mean the big bang is unique. It just means we're in no position to know in either event. Where knowledge isn't possible, I prefer to admit I just don't know.

[sswhateverlove]

Based on my understanding of current perspectives in science, I would say I disagree.

So what you're saying is basically: "This piece of wood was cut too long, throw the whole thing away!" or "This bathwater's been used, and the baby's not any good either!"

There are no "perspectives" in science. There is math that is being worked on, math that has been disproven, and math that has been verified.

I never implied any such thing. I think there is a lot that science has explained and revealed that has assisted us in navigating our environment.

With regard to explaining things like the nature of reality, existence, consciousness, not so much. Most astrophysicists and quantum physicists would admit they are humbly ignorant with regard to those facts. That's okay though. I think we are at a time in history when technology has and will continue to advance rapidly and I think we will continue to learn more and more. I think it will most likely be a time, just like many years ago, when we go from a perspective that the world was flat to a perspective that it is round, metaphorically. It's exciting.

---

Based on my understanding of current perspectives in science, I would say I disagree.

Your understanding of science is poor. Too much sensationalist crap.

What do you refer to as sensationalist crap? Some of the stuff I'm referring to has been referred to as "the most accurate theories ever".

---

Ok, if you think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. What do you believe is the currently held opinion in science with regard to the origins of the universe?

Why do you approach this in such an authoritarian manner? Why begin by deciding what the experts think? Couldn't we just discuss the way things stand directly without the expert middlemen? It makes you come off as putting on airs in ways you probably do not intend.

I find the choice of 'nothing' or 'no nothing' to be as unhelpful as that between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Both nothing and supernatural are categories devoid of certain members. What good does it do to start that way?

Intuitively, I assume that before any event you can name there would've been the necessary prior conditions. If you believe in God then you think that catalyst was already there. I don't assume the local big bang is and will be the only one. With most models of multi-verses there is no predicted effects which we should be able to test from within the local big bang. That doesn't mean the big bang is unique. It just means we're in no position to know in either event. Where knowledge isn't possible, I prefer to admit I just don't know.

Again, I am not claiming belief in God. The title of the thread was meant to open discussion between atheists and theists alike before I realized that theists are most likely scared away before even engaging in discussion.

With regard to my referring to scientific experts, I do so because they are assumed to be the people who are "in the know" about things that related to our understanding about the nature of reality, consciousness, existence. My subjective opinion means nothing to anyone but me.

Personally I think the multiverse theory is fascinating, as is the holographic universe theory. I wouldn't say I "believe in them" per se, but they're interesting to think about and discuss. I'm very skeptical, but I rule out no possibilities unless I feel like I have good reason to.

[Surgenator]

What do you refer to as sensationalist crap? Some of the stuff I'm referring to has been referred to as "the most accurate theories ever".

And your reading the sensationlist version of it. You're probably getting your science info from the news or blog posts. Those sources don't explain the science and often misrepresent it.

Good sources of science are in science text books and peer reviewed journals.