So I was watching this documentary on how the universe began and the whole time I was thinking about how similar this is to religion. Mainly this show was on the big bang. They were arguing that everything in the universe just appeared out of nowhere in one single point and exploded into everything. Lately I've been thinking that science and religion are both a bit ridiculous. Theoretical physics is based on as much fact as any religion. It takes a bit of faith for both I guess. God saying "let there be light" and the big bang theory seem to have a lot in common. In all practical purposes I can see how useless it is to try to comprehend the making of the universe but I can't help wondering how and why we are here. Maybe the universe just appeared out of nowhere due to infinite probability or maybe some divine being made the universe because they were bored. Anyways I know this kind of a pointless post but I think its interesting and fun to talk about. Although frustrating because we will know the answer...
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Theoretical physics and religion
- Thread starter (Blimps2)
- Start date
!!4iV4HF9R34g
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,116
You got me with that one! 
IamMe90
Bluelighter
I don't think that physics necessarily entails creation out of nothing
AfterGlow
Bluelighter
Big Bang = The universe as we know it began expanding from an infinitely small singularity.
That's not the same as something from nothing.
That's not the same as something from nothing.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
erm, source? look on the arXiv for physics and you will see experiments conforming to theory to up to 15 decimal places.... when did religion predict anything to one decimal place? one requires faith, but will update its assertions in the light of new evidence, the other requires faith so strong that you have to ignore empirical evidence to maintain that faith.
what happened before the big bang is just like religion though, yes. the laws of physics apply to the universe, i.e. everything after the big bang, to me saying 'before the big bang' is essentially saying 'before physics' so clearly physics is not a suitable tool for those investiagtions.
i am very much up for wondering how and why we're here, but if you don't want to use science, which would be my answer- though i'd start with the formation of life on earth, not before the big bang- or religion, how do you propose to investigate it? current atheistic philosophy might be a good way but as those philosophers tend to draw heavily on science, they wouldn't seem appropriate for someone who's decided science is ridiculous (and typed it on a forum on a computer using the fruits of 21st science- semiconductor theory and infomation theory to name 2 aspects you're benefiting from directly right now...).
ninjadanslarbretabar
Bluelighter
my point of view.....
is a donut hole something ?
can it be something by itself without the donut around it ?
the only way for the donut hole to be is by having a donut around it or else it doesnt exist
science simply made the myth of creation less poetic but more precise
in both case they say that there was nothing and then came something
that something being god or the big bang
and that something created something (the universe)
so it goes nothing-something(god -big bang)-something(universe)
and then the bible talks about evolution and how it started with light, and then some time later came water and then came plants, then sea creatures, then land creatures and then humans
science says the basic same thing but again less poetic and a whole lot more precise
the problem ive got with both is the idea of nothing
what created god ? what created the big bang ?
its the donut hole !
but you cant have the donut hole with out the donut around it !!!! fuuuuuuu
it cant start with nothing because nothing IS nothing
so it starts with something
nothing and something are interdependent
the concept of nothing comes from something
the concept of the donut hole comes from the donut
so something gave birth to nothing
so the big bang-god idea-phenomenon gave birth to nothing just as much as nothing gave birth to them
but that always gets unmentioned, unaccounted for
people simply blindly believe-accept that nothing can came to be out of nothing
which makes no sense
which is similar to believing that the earth is flat, its linear logic where you simply thinks that post a certain point if you dont see it then it doesnt exist or matter
and i can accept that kind of logic out of the bible but not out of science,
science isnt suppose to do leaps of faith like that
that just isnt scientific
but then thats not what science do thats what people do
the big bang says that it came out of something
but people make the leap of faith that since post a point they dont see the horizon then that must be nothing and that nothing gave birth to the big bang
but then they are simply transposing the creation myth unto science
that is bad !
science cant prove that there was nothing before something came to be
because you simply cant measure a nothing
the same way you cant prove god with science
saying that the big bang-universe came out of nothing is just as good as saying that it came out of god
same basic logic-leap of faith
you cant have concept like something and nothing out of context of each other
like how if i want to write something on a piece of paper i need there to be nothing already on that paper to hold what im writhing
like if i want to use a black pen on a white page
black on black or white on white wont do
you wont see something if there is no duality
you need black on white or white on black
you need nothing to hold something or something to hold nothing
the donut hold just isnt there by itself because its a idea that is given birth by the donut
like the chicken egg paradox - which came first ?
well fish and lizard had eggs before chicken came to be
but the idea is about a chicken egg and it aint a chicken egg until there is a chicken inside the egg
so none comes first
both give birth to each other at the same time
if you trace a circle then where is the begining of that circle ? if you draw two dots on each side then which one comes "first"
so that aint a paradox if you stop using linear logic which is a vestige of a bible way of thinking
it aint how it goes in eastern way of thinking and some other place
"nothing" needs to be accounted for
duality arise from unity
unity arise from balancing duality, opposites are complimentary
the universe gave birth to the big bang
because the big bang IS the universe, it aint a separated entity
and time is relative, its a space-time continuum
so there isnt a point in the universe that is a begining more than it is a end
the only way it is such is in relation to us and our own made up reality aka belief
or a "illusion" if you take Einstein words for it (or the Buddhist word for it):
"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated."
""...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.""
no begining no end except for this subjective experience called the present
right now is the end of the past the begining of the future
where does the past ends ? where does the future ends ?
if its a continuum they both meat each other at the other end of the universe which happens to be right here right now which is self emanating
past + future = present
and thats what we call time
you can see it as a duality (past-future)
or experience it as a unity (present)
the dynamic between the two creates triviality (time)
to stop linear thinking you need to bring it all home by putting yourself into the equation
you are part of the experiment, you are influencing the results
you cant simply objectively see things from a outside perspective with your mind without balancing it with your subjective experience of the now
when your mind traces a time line from the past to the future it does such from the present
which is the zero point balancing past n future
but then where does that line starts and ends ?
if we put little arrow at the end it doesnt mean that it ends there,
and where it goes cant be left unaccounted for
and if you say it starts back at the big bang because you cant see further then that then you are fucking it up with a leap of faith because you fail to leave linear thinking behind
if the universe gets smaller and smaller wouldnt that bring you along with it ?
but then you need to involve yourself in the equation on a subjective level
it gets smaller and smaller until when ? until where ?
does it ever ends if time and space are getting smaller and smaller too ?
if there is less and less time doesnt it slows down from your point of view ?
if there is less and less space doesnt that brings you closer to it ?
because if you can see it youll realize its happening right now !
infinity doesnt end, if you divide 1 by 2 you get half of 1, and if you divide half of one by 2 then again you get half of that, but then where-when is it that you can stop dividing it because there is no more unit to divide ?
that just wont happen, youll simply get a number that gets physically bigger and bigger post that dot 0,000000000000000............x
you just wont get there
so where does it ends-begins ?
the infinitly smaller the space time continuum gets the the closer it gets from non-being
to the point where i could hold it in my hand
i could hold a billion universe in my hand
i could hold infinity right now, and i do, its all around, it is happening, the big bang is happening right now
if it takes less time and less space to hold the universe the closer you get to "where did it all begin" then the bigger and more time filled you get
... the universe is expanding
so instead of seeing it on a time line where you are not including the dimension of space, try to put it on a model that includes both
like in a circle, you draw a dot but instead of drawing a line you draw a ever expanding circle around it
so lets say you have a dot a circle around it and another circle around it
the dot being the big bang, the second circle being the present, and the biggest circle being the future
the thing is in that model is that the big bang is within you because you (as part of the universe) you have being expanding in both time and space since there-then
but then what about the future
well the bigger it gets the less energy it has, the cooler it gets and then you end up in a situation where just like rain its gonna fall back down to earth
i mean water gets hot due to the heat of the sun, so it evaporates, then it goes up but since the earth is turning the rains gets caught up in earth gravitational field and start turning with it and ends up going further from the sun, gets cooled down, creates clouds up to a point where it simply falls back down because it doesnt have enough energy anymore
so as much as the universe is expanding its gonna get back to where it started and then do it again and again and again, back and forth, back and forth....
like its breathing, the universe is breathing like a organism
but then if the big bang is happening right now then the end of the universe is happening right now too
so that bigger circle has no boundary
"Boundary, border, frontier : share the sense of that which divides one entity or political unit from another."
Terence McKenna would say : What psychedelics do is they dissolve boundaries
and see what can happen when you get there, you feel one with the universe, you come up with ideas like we are all one, that you are god, that all is god, people plants..everything
simply because you loose linear thinking, you loose seeing yourself in a world that is more objective than subjective or more subjective than objective
or a world where things are more good than bad or more this than that..
we create boundary to make sense of it all in relation to our situation, which is mainly one where we need to find food and avoid predator, avoid falling of a cliff, making a difference between what came before and will come next and things like that
but then thats just our own made up world, thats the angle we are coming from
but ultimately it aint that more than anything else, we live inside infinity and all is possible
i think that we divide ourself for the sake of understanding but we fail to reconnect,
and as long as people believe that we are going forward without realizing that we are going backward just as much then we fail to understand the present, which leads us to fail to take care of it, which is where we are, we fail to take care of ourself because thats where we live
as one unit, as one race, as one moment in time, as one
anyway, thats my take on "Theoretical physics and religion"
and Hallelujah ; )
is a donut hole something ?
can it be something by itself without the donut around it ?
the only way for the donut hole to be is by having a donut around it or else it doesnt exist
science simply made the myth of creation less poetic but more precise
in both case they say that there was nothing and then came something
that something being god or the big bang
and that something created something (the universe)
so it goes nothing-something(god -big bang)-something(universe)
and then the bible talks about evolution and how it started with light, and then some time later came water and then came plants, then sea creatures, then land creatures and then humans
science says the basic same thing but again less poetic and a whole lot more precise
the problem ive got with both is the idea of nothing
what created god ? what created the big bang ?
its the donut hole !
but you cant have the donut hole with out the donut around it !!!! fuuuuuuu
it cant start with nothing because nothing IS nothing
so it starts with something
nothing and something are interdependent
the concept of nothing comes from something
the concept of the donut hole comes from the donut
so something gave birth to nothing
so the big bang-god idea-phenomenon gave birth to nothing just as much as nothing gave birth to them
but that always gets unmentioned, unaccounted for
people simply blindly believe-accept that nothing can came to be out of nothing
which makes no sense
which is similar to believing that the earth is flat, its linear logic where you simply thinks that post a certain point if you dont see it then it doesnt exist or matter
and i can accept that kind of logic out of the bible but not out of science,
science isnt suppose to do leaps of faith like that
that just isnt scientific
but then thats not what science do thats what people do
the big bang says that it came out of something
but people make the leap of faith that since post a point they dont see the horizon then that must be nothing and that nothing gave birth to the big bang
but then they are simply transposing the creation myth unto science
that is bad !
science cant prove that there was nothing before something came to be
because you simply cant measure a nothing
the same way you cant prove god with science
saying that the big bang-universe came out of nothing is just as good as saying that it came out of god
same basic logic-leap of faith
you cant have concept like something and nothing out of context of each other
like how if i want to write something on a piece of paper i need there to be nothing already on that paper to hold what im writhing
like if i want to use a black pen on a white page
black on black or white on white wont do
you wont see something if there is no duality
you need black on white or white on black
you need nothing to hold something or something to hold nothing
the donut hold just isnt there by itself because its a idea that is given birth by the donut
like the chicken egg paradox - which came first ?
well fish and lizard had eggs before chicken came to be
but the idea is about a chicken egg and it aint a chicken egg until there is a chicken inside the egg
so none comes first
both give birth to each other at the same time
if you trace a circle then where is the begining of that circle ? if you draw two dots on each side then which one comes "first"
so that aint a paradox if you stop using linear logic which is a vestige of a bible way of thinking
it aint how it goes in eastern way of thinking and some other place
"nothing" needs to be accounted for
duality arise from unity
unity arise from balancing duality, opposites are complimentary
the universe gave birth to the big bang
because the big bang IS the universe, it aint a separated entity
and time is relative, its a space-time continuum
so there isnt a point in the universe that is a begining more than it is a end
the only way it is such is in relation to us and our own made up reality aka belief
or a "illusion" if you take Einstein words for it (or the Buddhist word for it):
"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated."
""...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.""
no begining no end except for this subjective experience called the present
right now is the end of the past the begining of the future
where does the past ends ? where does the future ends ?
if its a continuum they both meat each other at the other end of the universe which happens to be right here right now which is self emanating
past + future = present
and thats what we call time
you can see it as a duality (past-future)
or experience it as a unity (present)
the dynamic between the two creates triviality (time)
to stop linear thinking you need to bring it all home by putting yourself into the equation
you are part of the experiment, you are influencing the results
you cant simply objectively see things from a outside perspective with your mind without balancing it with your subjective experience of the now
when your mind traces a time line from the past to the future it does such from the present
which is the zero point balancing past n future
but then where does that line starts and ends ?
if we put little arrow at the end it doesnt mean that it ends there,
and where it goes cant be left unaccounted for
and if you say it starts back at the big bang because you cant see further then that then you are fucking it up with a leap of faith because you fail to leave linear thinking behind
if the universe gets smaller and smaller wouldnt that bring you along with it ?
but then you need to involve yourself in the equation on a subjective level
it gets smaller and smaller until when ? until where ?
does it ever ends if time and space are getting smaller and smaller too ?
if there is less and less time doesnt it slows down from your point of view ?
if there is less and less space doesnt that brings you closer to it ?
because if you can see it youll realize its happening right now !
infinity doesnt end, if you divide 1 by 2 you get half of 1, and if you divide half of one by 2 then again you get half of that, but then where-when is it that you can stop dividing it because there is no more unit to divide ?
that just wont happen, youll simply get a number that gets physically bigger and bigger post that dot 0,000000000000000............x
you just wont get there
so where does it ends-begins ?
the infinitly smaller the space time continuum gets the the closer it gets from non-being
to the point where i could hold it in my hand
i could hold a billion universe in my hand
i could hold infinity right now, and i do, its all around, it is happening, the big bang is happening right now
if it takes less time and less space to hold the universe the closer you get to "where did it all begin" then the bigger and more time filled you get
... the universe is expanding
so instead of seeing it on a time line where you are not including the dimension of space, try to put it on a model that includes both
like in a circle, you draw a dot but instead of drawing a line you draw a ever expanding circle around it
so lets say you have a dot a circle around it and another circle around it
the dot being the big bang, the second circle being the present, and the biggest circle being the future
the thing is in that model is that the big bang is within you because you (as part of the universe) you have being expanding in both time and space since there-then
but then what about the future
well the bigger it gets the less energy it has, the cooler it gets and then you end up in a situation where just like rain its gonna fall back down to earth
i mean water gets hot due to the heat of the sun, so it evaporates, then it goes up but since the earth is turning the rains gets caught up in earth gravitational field and start turning with it and ends up going further from the sun, gets cooled down, creates clouds up to a point where it simply falls back down because it doesnt have enough energy anymore
so as much as the universe is expanding its gonna get back to where it started and then do it again and again and again, back and forth, back and forth....
like its breathing, the universe is breathing like a organism
but then if the big bang is happening right now then the end of the universe is happening right now too
so that bigger circle has no boundary
"Boundary, border, frontier : share the sense of that which divides one entity or political unit from another."
Terence McKenna would say : What psychedelics do is they dissolve boundaries
and see what can happen when you get there, you feel one with the universe, you come up with ideas like we are all one, that you are god, that all is god, people plants..everything
simply because you loose linear thinking, you loose seeing yourself in a world that is more objective than subjective or more subjective than objective
or a world where things are more good than bad or more this than that..
we create boundary to make sense of it all in relation to our situation, which is mainly one where we need to find food and avoid predator, avoid falling of a cliff, making a difference between what came before and will come next and things like that
but then thats just our own made up world, thats the angle we are coming from
but ultimately it aint that more than anything else, we live inside infinity and all is possible
i think that we divide ourself for the sake of understanding but we fail to reconnect,
and as long as people believe that we are going forward without realizing that we are going backward just as much then we fail to understand the present, which leads us to fail to take care of it, which is where we are, we fail to take care of ourself because thats where we live
as one unit, as one race, as one moment in time, as one
anyway, thats my take on "Theoretical physics and religion"
and Hallelujah ; )
fridgebuzz
Bluelighter
I think of reality as god's great correctional facility for his fallen angels. It's divine therapy.
Who said it needs to have an objective meaning?
Who said it needs to have an objective meaning?
ninjadanslarbretabar
Bluelighter
subjective reality said so
imo we try to give meaning to it all because of our subjective experience of reality
and we use objective reality to give ground to our meaning
so if you see it from a outside point of view objective reality is like a soil where subjective reality takes roots from and then grows out of as a plant towards the sun
the light of the sun is like god (or any of that spiritual stuff that we feed from)
but we cant keep our roots out of the earth or else we fall, we fall farther from the light,
the stronger the roots in objective reality, the stronger our grasp of subjective reality
CoffeeDrinker
Bluelighter
They are both fingers pointing to the same moon. They both are capable of endless amounts of distraction and distortion. They are both necessary to humanity.
fridgebuzz
Bluelighter
From this perspective it's the other way 'round. Won't deny that works for you though.
ninjadanslarbretabar
Bluelighter
well i said "so if you see it from a outside point of view .." and then i was gonna do it from a inside point of view but though bah, no need to repeat the same thing in reverse
but it aint about one side more than the other
its a matter of equally feeding from both end to get a strong center : )
but it aint about one side more than the other
its a matter of equally feeding from both end to get a strong center : )
would it be a valid scientific theory for me to say that the universe has always existed and instead of just one big bang that it happens in cycles? Gravity is the strongest force acting on super massive things such as stars and galaxies. what if whenever black holes get large enough they just explode into a new universe or galaxy? black holes are extremely dense and heavy so if they sucked up enough matter and energy they could explode therefore creating something very similar to the big bang.
sssssssssss
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 690
science is the religion following the enlightenment period and scientific method where truth is derived from logic instead of emotions.
these theories still require faith
these theories still require faith
hiphophippy
Bluelighter
This theory already exists.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Legerity- sorry, no I mean physics in general. I just take extreme exception to anyone putting religion on the same empirical basis as science....
if that was the case why do scientists waste fuckloads of taxpayers money on experiements when they could equally well just make shit up all day/talk to god or however religious knowledge occurs? and why hasn't religion spawned any technological revolutions...? though for the record i think current science and religion are both equally wrong, but one hopefully converges towards something more correct.... so i am not saying science is right eevrything else is wrong i'm saying i think science provides better ways to investigate the universe.
edit- also i personally do not think religious/spirtual knowledge is the type of knowdledge that could do any of that, and i don't think that detracts from it. but if people are going to compare the two on a level playing field, then experimental testing, technology etc come into it.
if that was the case why do scientists waste fuckloads of taxpayers money on experiements when they could equally well just make shit up all day/talk to god or however religious knowledge occurs? and why hasn't religion spawned any technological revolutions...? though for the record i think current science and religion are both equally wrong, but one hopefully converges towards something more correct.... so i am not saying science is right eevrything else is wrong i'm saying i think science provides better ways to investigate the universe.
edit- also i personally do not think religious/spirtual knowledge is the type of knowdledge that could do any of that, and i don't think that detracts from it. but if people are going to compare the two on a level playing field, then experimental testing, technology etc come into it.
Last edited by a moderator:
ninjadanslarbretabar
Bluelighter
but what if religion is your science just as much as science is your religion
like some ancient civilization did with the stars (and other stuff)
astronomy is science, you simply observe and write it down, and you get knowledge about the universe
but what if its done on a spiritual level because the sun is god and the stars are gods and understanding their movement and how they affect life on earth will make you closer to god
but then what is knowledge, what if you know when the sun will rise, when summer will come, when is it time to start growing which plants, how to get somewhere using stars as a map
that knowledge give you power, it makes you closer to god(s)
if its good science and if its good religion, science and religion can be one and the same
and it use to be like that
because if your spirituality was shit your civilization simply wouldnt survive
and if your science sucked then you wouldnt make it
but then we got the luxury to be in a situation where both could independently survive for the sake of preserving their own self absorbe agenda because we got real good at building civilizations
and now we are in a situation where science has brought guns and nuclear bombs and powerful weapons while religion has brought crazies ready to use them to bring down Armageddon
and now its threatening our own survival as a species
we need to come together as one
science and religion both need to open up to each other, forget the dispute of the past, and become opposite-complimentary sides of the same coin
a science without its heart is weak science
an a religion without its head is weak religion
like some ancient civilization did with the stars (and other stuff)
astronomy is science, you simply observe and write it down, and you get knowledge about the universe
but what if its done on a spiritual level because the sun is god and the stars are gods and understanding their movement and how they affect life on earth will make you closer to god
but then what is knowledge, what if you know when the sun will rise, when summer will come, when is it time to start growing which plants, how to get somewhere using stars as a map
that knowledge give you power, it makes you closer to god(s)
if its good science and if its good religion, science and religion can be one and the same
and it use to be like that
because if your spirituality was shit your civilization simply wouldnt survive
and if your science sucked then you wouldnt make it
but then we got the luxury to be in a situation where both could independently survive for the sake of preserving their own self absorbe agenda because we got real good at building civilizations
and now we are in a situation where science has brought guns and nuclear bombs and powerful weapons while religion has brought crazies ready to use them to bring down Armageddon
and now its threatening our own survival as a species
we need to come together as one
science and religion both need to open up to each other, forget the dispute of the past, and become opposite-complimentary sides of the same coin
a science without its heart is weak science
an a religion without its head is weak religion
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
how can religion be a science though? though i don't have an adequate definition of science, i think it has to involved falsifiability (see popper...), make predictions, explain things etc. religion cannot reliably predict and its explanation is (can't remember who i stole this off...) essentially 'magic man done it,' well at least for mainstream monotheistic religions.
what i don't understand is why people want religion and science to be the same? to me they are both tools with different aims. one is about your spiritual existence, the other your physical existence, even if one and the same they usually address different needs (i say usually because for me i have effectively replaced religion with post enlightenment philosophy, science and maths....). the only reason i can think of to try to justify religion on sceintific grounds is so that religious people can get their agenda taught to kids in school lessons.
science has no heart. therefore both weak and strong science have no heart.
what i don't understand is why people want religion and science to be the same? to me they are both tools with different aims. one is about your spiritual existence, the other your physical existence, even if one and the same they usually address different needs (i say usually because for me i have effectively replaced religion with post enlightenment philosophy, science and maths....). the only reason i can think of to try to justify religion on sceintific grounds is so that religious people can get their agenda taught to kids in school lessons.
science has no heart. therefore both weak and strong science have no heart.