Home

Strips

Comments

Sort By:
Jan 17, 2009
I do not pretend to be an expert on either religion or science. Far from it in fact. But my understanding of the big bang is that it did happen at a fixed point in time. However this is not, from my pov at least, evidence of god.

Firstly there are arguments that the universe expand and contracts in a never ending cycle and the latest big bang could merely be part of this continuing cycle/

Secondly our arguments that something cannot come from nothing and that every effect must have had a cause are based on our own perceptions of time and space. Could it not be that at such a momentous occasion as the creation of the universe these laws were slightly altered or not yet in existence?

Thirdly the fact that we are vague about it is (I think) that it is difficult to research something happening so very long ago in very extreme conditions (that are most unlike those we are used to on earth). Because something has not yet been explained by science does not mean it wont be in the future.

Or yes, perhaps it could be a god or gods.

(I personally like the idea of a higher power but do not follow any prescriptive religion.)
 
 
Jun 29, 2008
Oh man. I was in exactly that situation these last weeks. Dilbert strips are so accurate that it starts to get scary sometimes !
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
I think you misunderstand me: I do not in any way think the Big Bang theory defective: the Laws which I cited back it up by confirming that the Universe must have had a start time.

And do you reject Aristotle's statement that every effect must have a cause? If you do, then the Laws I cited, the Big Bang, and all other scientific ideas are, in all probability, no closer to the truth than the idea that the Universe fell out of the ear of a giant rabbit!

And once again we are faced with the dilemma of an effect without a cause. God is that which would exist if nothing existed. I am a scientific person, but I believe that every process that reveals knowledge must have a starting point, and I think it more scientific to be clear that my science starts with God, rather than be vague, and attempt to fool the unwary into thinking I have no starting point: that my knowledge is pure logic, and therefore must be true.
 
 
Jun 13, 2008
Dear Theophilus,

Intersting that you suggest I should study a bit more. Might I suggest you work on those reading skills a bit. Its tlhintoq (with a Q) not tlhintog (with a G). <laugh>

Let's see... Using science laws to justify the existance of a god. Novel approach. Where to begin... "If the universe has existed forever then all the energy would have died out by now." But the universe as we know it, in its present form hasn't existed forever. Science gives us an age since the big bang, thus a starting point. You can't take part of a science and ignore the other parts that don't back up your hypothisis.

"Something cannot come from nothing." This line of argument really doesn't work either. You can't say 'The universe didn't just spring to life from nothing, it had to come from something, thus God' without the rest of the argument saying 'So where did God come from?' If you are going to try to follow a causal relationship from one to the other you don't get to just stop following that trail when you get to the point you like. Its not a bus you can just hop off when it reaches your church.

By trying to create a source for all that matter and energy you trip yourself. If you can be comfortable saying "Well, god just always has been" and that she/he/it contained so much matter and energy as to create a universe PLUS still be alive and powerful afterward then I would think it not such a stretch to be comfortable saying the universe started at a fixed point in history, and that even now all those stars are loosing energy and dieing as the universe expands, completely in accordance with the physical laws that you pointed out.
 
 
Jun 12, 2008
And to respond to twalt, the God described in the Bible has no actual name: the various things we say as his name, including "God", are merely titles that reflect his various attributes. Jehovah is a latinization of a hebrew word meaning "One who saves". "I am who I am" reflects his self-existence: the fact that he can act, and not merely react, as I proposed in another post.

timdiprose, I take offense at your characterization of religious zealots: I am one myself, and I think that I am a rational and practical person.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!