In addition to the stuff others have posted, I’ll offer these videos.
Basically we don’t know, but we are getting closer to a working theory. We know that at some point chemical compounds became capable of reproduction and metabolising energy.
We figured out that you can create amino acids and sugars by delivering energy (in the form of electricity) to a solution very similar to conditions on the early earth back in the 1950s.
In terms of how I view the world it’s important to keep looking to answers to questions, and I don’t think ‘God did it’ is a particularly good answer to any scientific question.
I will use another quote, given far smarter people have articulated it better than I ever could.
Carl Sagan
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
@Macot thank you for the videos, I will give them a watch and let you know my reaction.
While I do that, I do have another question.
Do you have a viewpoint on where the ‘raw material’ came from that led to the Big Bang? Is there any scientific evidence for how that material got here in the first place?
It’s a lot of mass! And it prompted numerous laws of physics and so on.
But where did it come from? Or how did it get here?
If I may cut in here, I’m not having for a second that all the mass in the entire universe was once the size of a beachball. Yes E=MC2 so qed sufficient energy would give us all the quillions of gigatons of mass in the universe. Maybe just an error in my comprehension.
The first thing to bear in mind is that even if the Big Bang as a theory is wrong, that does not make the claims of a God or of the supernatural correct.
There are numerous other theories of how this particular universe came into being-
The Holographic theory, string theory, multiverse theory, and the “eternal” theory that it had no beginning and will have no end.
Humans have a particular problem with the eternal theory as we view the world and life itself as having a beginning, middle and probably an end - birth, life, death. Our stories start with "once upon a time and end with “They all lived happily ever after” it may not be (and probably isn’t) this way.
There is a change occurring though - video games for instance no longer usually start at a beginning and some have no conclusion - ever - which ties in with the holographic theory nicely.
Or as in Animal House, our whole universe could be a tiny cell within a giant body and we could have whole universes within our cells.
This needs a lot more thought and meditation to come up with a definitive answer. Now where did I put those mushrooms?
The problem is the same for atheists and theists. We can’t conceive of eternity, but we can’t imagine how something could just appear out of nothing. Our minds are not equipped to understand either possible answer to this question. We will probably destroy ourselves before we know the true origin of the universe.
I don’t find any of these more (or less) convincing than some form of intelligent design.
Is it cutting edge though? Are we any closer, with all our current computer power and scientific workforce? We discovered the theories of evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, created satellites and sent people to space with relatively primitive technologies
Thats good. The holographic theory would point towards an intelligent designer - maybe someone sat in his mum’s basement banging away at a keyboard. Who knows?
All realistic theories are on the table until disproven. Some are a bit more ridiculous than others though and dont hold up to even the slightest scrutiny - Scientology springs to mind.
There is a difference though between a bona-fida scientific theory and one that is based upon faith.
I often find this type of statement a bit dispiriting. Yes, we have “computer power” and a “scientific workforce” - whatever that means, but ask yourself this; what are they used for? Is the level of funding on researching, in this case the origins of life, anywhere near for example developing pointless video games, movies, ads, better ways to deliver and explode bombs, nuclear submarines, etc… Something as profound and as interesting as the origins of life should have more scrutiny applied to it but the fact is, it doesn’t. Very few people in this world care and funding is very scarce indeed. Funding for any sort of biological research is.
Though since we are no closer to knowing, the other theories require some form of faith too, albeit in the scientific method which has brought so many other developments
If you take string theory for instance - that is all based upon theoretical mathematical and physical calculations - it is a bona fida attempt to explain the universe through observation, testing and theory.
It does not take it’s information from a 2000 year old book written by inhabitants who had just emerged from the stone age. Therefore it has a far greater chance than any faith in a supernatural being.
Yes, but just as string theory is just one theory, the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book is only one form of religious expression. I would assume a tiny minority
