Religion

edhopper

(33,651 posts)

21. I don't take religious and folk origin stories

Tue Feb 10, 2015, 04:54 PM

Feb 2015

Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

seriously as having any veracity as far as science. As cultural artifacts and anthropologically, sure. But not as theories of actual events.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning [View all] rug Feb 2015 OP

I hope the graphic is wrong, because a theory predicting stars first formed 400 million years ago struggle4progress Feb 2015 #1

Thats 400MY after the big bang Peregrine Feb 2015 #31

Yes: I edited with that correction yesterday struggle4progress Feb 2015 #32

I heard Roger Penrose being interviewed recently MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #2

Those would be tough experiments to construct. rug Feb 2015 #3

True enough! nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #5

Is this another "fluctuating universe" model? okasha Feb 2015 #6

I don't know what that is. MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #8

Big question BillZBubb Feb 2015 #4

The background radiation is always in the back of my mind mmonk Feb 2015 #10

Imagine there is no universe where yehi 'or was uttered Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #7

Thanks. There was a reason I posted this in Religion. rug Feb 2015 #16

Relgion and Cosmology are two major sources of theories about the origin of the univese. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #18

I thought the steady state model has been largely rejected. rug Feb 2015 #19

This gives it new life. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #20

Not really. okasha Feb 2015 #55

Not a dichotomy? rogerashton Feb 2015 #30

That's helpful. Once the math is removed I followed it. rug Feb 2015 #37

And yet edhopper Feb 2015 #40

And have yet to answer that question. rug Feb 2015 #41

We don't yet have the answers edhopper Feb 2015 #43

"Yet" isn't much better. rug Feb 2015 #44

Than "God"? edhopper Feb 2015 #45

No it isn't. Here's why. rug Feb 2015 #46

That is how you logically edhopper Feb 2015 #47

Name-calling isn't much of an argument either. rug Feb 2015 #48

Why do you say edhopper Feb 2015 #49

Because physics, by its very nature, has limits. rug Feb 2015 #50

Only if you believe edhopper Feb 2015 #51

I would like to think that reason would settle this difference, but ... rogerashton Feb 2015 #52

What makes you assume there are questions beyond those limits? AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #58

Fun With Music Cartoonist Feb 2015 #9

That is great! Did you do that? cbayer Feb 2015 #13

Why post this Religion? edhopper Feb 2015 #11

Agnosticsherbert got it. Yehi 'or. rug Feb 2015 #17

I don't take religious and folk origin stories edhopper Feb 2015 #21

Is the Big Bang not an origin story? cbayer Feb 2015 #24

I rewrote it edhopper Feb 2015 #25

See, this could be completely fabricated and I would have absolutely no idea. cbayer Feb 2015 #12

Not really edhopper Feb 2015 #14

I was kind of making a joke. cbayer Feb 2015 #15

There are far more than a few physicists edhopper Feb 2015 #22

The degree to which a layperson can really understand this is questionable, imo. cbayer Feb 2015 #23

I don't have a problem understanding it edhopper Feb 2015 #26

The data can be shown and explained, but it can still be proven wrong cbayer Feb 2015 #27

You are only dependent on scientists/experts because you choose to be. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #29

Distinguish evidence from models. rogerashton Feb 2015 #33

It is fascinating to me, but my point was that much of it has to be cbayer Feb 2015 #34

My point was just rogerashton Feb 2015 #35

I reread your post and missed the point about refining the model. cbayer Feb 2015 #36

People put way too much confidence in the peer review process goldent Feb 2015 #39

I agree and too many people say "Peer reviewed!. Must be OK!" cbayer Feb 2015 #59

Oh fucking please. Here we are with the false equivalency again. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #28

well said pokerfan Feb 2015 #38

I think you can only verify the arguments are logically consistent goldent Feb 2015 #42

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #56

I've long thought that the Cosmos didn't LuvNewcastle Feb 2015 #53

That's why I think the inevitabilty of knowledge is dubious. rug Feb 2015 #57

That's the bottom line... TreasonousBastard Feb 2015 #60

How did you arrive at the 15 billion years edhopper Feb 2015 #61

Seeing as how both Time and Space were a function of the BB, there was no "before" it Vincardog Feb 2015 #54

I'm always thinking about this stuff, my DU journal here is full of... hunter Feb 2015 #62

Have you seen Interstellar? cbayer Feb 2015 #63

I did. But my paranoid pessemistic self saw some "Twighlight Zone" nightmares in it. hunter Feb 2015 #64

Ok, this is not an interpretation that occurred to me, but cbayer Feb 2015 #65