Religion in all its Forms

Away End - General Chat
704

It’s not an assumption. We know our universe expanded from a region about the size of a grapefruit. But that is the limit of our knowledge at this time. So yes the raw material was there. But there were a few “flukes” along the way. For example there was just the right out of balance matter to anti matter which allowed the universe to form as it has done. By rights the ratio should have been equal and therefore everything basically annihilated itself before it really got going. Another fluke is the micro changes in temperature that existed within the early universe that lead to small differences in density. This ultimately lead to the first structures in the universe. We see this in the Cosmic Microwave Background. I think these are natural phenomenon myself.

What was before, we may never know. We cant go back there, there’s no way we can observe it through telescopes and if there was a method of traversing beyond our universe (if that is even possible) we may not be able to get back or communicate our findings. Spacetime has a wonderful way of protecting the universes secrets.

A point worth noting is that “time” started at this moment. Before then time did not exist, nor did space and therefore the whole idea of spacetime is also mute. So if there was a God it would have to exist outside our universe, live outside of our concept of time and I’d argue pretty much left the universe to do it’s own thing.

1 Like
705

3.10 for the Big Bang bit.

2 Likes
706

We are always going to arrive at the question of where did the thing come, from which we trace the origins of the universe? And if the answer is that it is a constant loop of expansion and contraction that question remains unanswered.

707

So God was a fluke?

I like the idea that the entire universe is the result of a miniscule imperfection.

I find that very comforting.

709

I was being sarcastic

Im outta here.

710

Ah sorry

711

For those of us who are trying to understand why anyone would believe in a supernatural being, and specifically the old testament god, it’s hard to grasp why everything has to be so cryptic.
If you are an all powerful being and you write a book to educate and guide this species which you created, why make it so vague? Why write in riddles? Why introduce burning bushes and parting seas etc? Why send your son to earth and allow him to live in obscurity so that his very existence is a matter for debate? If you’re going to pull this resurrection stunt, do it in public, in front of a big crowd. Get it mentioned in all the histories, carved on tablets, incontrovertibly written down. This god comes across as a cruel trickster, playing with its toys, teasing them with fables which may, or may not be true, all the while watching as they suffer disease and war which could be stopped at any time.

3 Likes
712

Love how Cox articulates his views on God. Clear positioning but also a humility that is missing from Hitchens and his anti-theist devotees

5 Likes
713

I like the idea of being open to everything. That to me sounds perfectly reasonable and right. But like Cox I feel I need proof.

714

The standard Christian response to that would be that God wants us to have faith in him. And if he revealed himself clearly then we wouldn’t need faith as everyone would believe. Even as a child growing up in church I found that really annoying. There are comforting verses in the bible, such as
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face”
And when we get to heaven there’ll be “no more suffering, sorrow, tears”

But if we’re going to see everything clearly and have no suffering etc some day anyway, why not just do that on earth now?

1 Like
715

Because suffering is part of some great plan devised by god.

But it’s OK as he sacrificed himself to himself to stop him holding some aspects of the plan (that went wrong) against us. All perfectly logical and straightforward.

There’s an ancient tradition of piling the sins of a tribe onto a goat and driving it into the wilderness to die:

“a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur”

The scapegoat. Not difficult to see where the idea of JC’s sacrifice comes from.

716

Well yes, that’s foundation of Christianity.
‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’

717

Time is a strange concept which also affects any concept of God. Why ask where the grapefruit sized objet came from and not where did God come from?
Time is a necessary concept in much of physics, where I am at is if there was no time there was nothing so how did time start?
Time is not conciousness however conciousness can come with time. It’s all very wierd isn’t it?

718

Why not design out the sin in the first place rather than designing in the need for torture and blood sacrifice?

Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani?

1 Like
719

That’s what I said

1 Like
720

Brian Cox is a diamond, but I also think the lack of humility that many see in the likes of Hutchins, Dawkins etc is very unfair.

Their anger and intolerance at religion (and mine) starts at the point where religion presumes it can tell non-believers and those of other faiths what they should behave like, what they are allowed to do with another adult in private, what children have to think etc.

Hitchins was always really clear that if your faith is private and doesn’t impact on others he had no problem with it. He also espoused exactly the same message as Brian Cox when it comes to the limits of knowledge - it’s ok to say ‘I don’t know’.

Why Hitchins would get accused of arrogance and intolerance was because he often found himself debating and arguing with people who did believe their version of the magic sky god was true and they had every right to use their faith to control your life. We’re just not used to seeing religion challenged in that way.

1 Like
721

Well, we weren’t before the emergence of Hitch / Dawkins etc. Now there’s nothing surprising about a book called “100 reasons why your religion is horrible” or similar.

As Hitch says, never let religions forget their conduct when they had all the power.

722

Thanks for responses and discussion folks. Interesting stuff.

Big Bang. I’m on board. Have been for many years. The links and clips and so on are good, but they keep making the same sort of point in that they essentially start with things already in place to give rise to the Big Bang.

We can observe the Big Bang. Yes, of course we can. We have been measuring expansion for many years, and cosmic radiation, and so on. All of that is well know by people with even a basic interest in this stuff.

But it all assumes we started with x and it gave rise to y.

As to where x came from, science doesn’t know. Maybe it will one day, and there will be scientific proof of how it happened. Currently there are theories, infinite universes, infinite expansion-contraction, but ultimately no scientific proof of origins, or even a settled theory.

So limiting it to a simple how question, with regard to origins, science has no proof.

It may one day, but that’s where we are.

(My other main question, on the emergence of simple life, then a subsequent question on the emergence of sentient/conscious life, can stay shelved for now, as science hasn’t answered those things… except to say these are the sort of chemicals needed to support life, and we think these are the sort of conditions in which it arose… lovely, but proof? And even better, an experiment to replicate it and demonstrate life coming from non-life? Just a living cell, a simple life form, not something with consciousness. Just simple life. But it hasn’t been done or proven).

Still, keeping the conversation on track as to origins, science might get there, but so far, nada.

723

As for Hitch and Dawkins, they come across as shock jocks to me. They take the worst of something and run a mile with it to make their points. But I see little warmth, humility or humanity.

1 Like
724

Unfair for Hitchins, maybe, but not for Dawkins (or Grayling for that matter - nowhere close to being deserving of sharing a platform with Dawkins, let alone Hitchins!).

Dawkins is a prick. The most common word found in Dawkins’ famous “The God Delusion” is “I”. He’s an arrogant narcissist.

2 Likes