Slashdot Mirror
The Origin of the First Light In the Universe
StartsWithABang writes Before there were planets, galaxies, or even stars in the Universe, there really was light. We see that light, left over today, in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background, or the remnant glow from the Big Bang. But these photons outnumber the matter in our Universe by more than a-billion-to-one, and are the most numerous thing around. So where did they first come from? Science has the answer.
Don't fall into the trap. The sky has always been falling on our heads, whether it be foreign invaders, disease, nuclear war, the youth of today, asteroid strike, climate change, alien invasion etc. If one thing is constant throughout history it's that somehow there always seems to be a threat of sudden extinction, and when it's found to be overblown we simply find something else to replace it with. Sure one of them has to be right sooner or later, but worrying about it won't help
Science isn't supposed to "have answers". The premise of a scientific theory is twofold:
1. It must "work" given certain conditions.
2. It must be able to be proved NOT to work outside of those conditions.
Science says nothing about rights and wrongs, just whether things work or not within certain measurable parameters.
Premise 2 is important. If you can't say what will make your theory break, then it's not clear you're really saying anything at all.
4. Why not simply the glow from the universes out that made its way into our space before us?
Maybe the folks in the universe before us turned out the lights before they left . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
That's a bit like Bush talking about evolution and intelligent design, and claiming that "we have two theories". They both are theories, but only one is scientific. Same with these two theories about the origin of the universe. When scientific theory is demonstrably false, the theory is revised. When a theory fails to explain certain phenomena, it is refined. Scientific theories are put to the test. In religion, the theory is the test, even it that means denying what is staring you in the face. Or as another one put it: "Science needs to be seen to be believed, while matters of faith need to be believed to be seen".
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Because the math fits the background temperature. It doesn't fit the other ideas suggested so far such as yours.
Don't let your lack of understanding of either religion or science stop you from making such stupid accusations. Is your God so puny that it can be killed by astronomy?
Not as such on a macro scale.
"The Science of Discworld" has a good section on the big bang. For those who haven't read it the book is about comparing science with magical thinking by comparing a very fictional world with reality.
Einstein became pretty famous by suggesting that space is curved, which is why it's come back around.
What if our model is wrong? I mean so wrong that crap has been built on crap that now has become a religion, a test of faith, do you believe the equations explain the system, or only predict how the system would look through the limits of the detection mechanism.
The model is pretty good at predicting a bunch of stuff; even if the model is wrong, it has proven to be eminently useful in everyday applied science and engineering. So who cares if it turns out to be crap upon crap? Scientists would, and they'd be ecstatic. Proving that there are major problems with the currently held theory means more work, jobs, grants, awards for scientists, and a chance to go down in history.
When a scientists measures something that doesn't fit the current models, they will generally suspect their equipment first. You could say it's reverence for established theories, but it is simple care to double check before announcing a ground breaking discovery to the world. You wouldn't call up your friends and family about winning the lottery before double-checking your ticket at least a few times either.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
http://www.multivax.com/last_q...
It worked, I have no faith in him what so ever. Frankly he's a right prick. Ooh, lets test those parents faith by giving their new born child some hideously painful cancer. It's ok though because their baby will live forever up in heaven and it's worth it to cause all that pain on the offhand chance one of its parents makes the grade.
I'd be a better god than that jack ass. If he really does exist I want nothing to do with him and given half the chance I'd beat the shit out of him when I saw him.
In the beginning there was nothing. And God said "Let there be light."
And there was still nothing. But you could see it.
They are definitely NOT both theories. Theories, by definition, have supporting evidence and are modified as new evidence is discovered. There is no supporting evidence for so-called "intelligent design"- it is a belief. The layman's misunderstanding of the word "theory" is why the ID idiots have been able to gain as much traction as they have.
It's not my fault because I didn't create the circumstances and I'm powerless to prevent or cure it. How the hell is it not his fault. He's omniscient and omnipotent. He knows it happens and could stop it yet chooses not to. If you see a child being beaten and killed do you step in and help or do you stand around and watch to see if any of your peers are worthy of your respect.
Is he infinite or is he finite. You can't have it both ways. If he's infinite he's demented, if he's finite he may be worthy of respect or awe but not worship.
Well, that and you as an infinite series of Boltzmann Brains in various states of psychosis.
Because people have free will. Or because this particular universe with its laws and constants is the only viable universe that could exist. Take your pick.
How could he stop it? Take away free will? Step in to physically intervene in that time and place? Should he strike down the perpetrator, or just shield the innocent child from the blows? 24/7 for billions? Take away all consequences?
You would be a pet in a terrarium. And what would be the point of that, for him or you?
It is you that can't have it both ways.
As you say.... you can't have it both ways. Either we are free willed or not...
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If God were to stop it, and supposedly he could, it would mean that he would have to override the consequences of what are supposedly freely willed human decisions, making the very point of giving us free will in the first place moot.
OK then, quick free will/morality test:
1) You see a criminal beating an innocent child to death. You have with you a cell phone, a tazer, and a handgun. Do you intervene? Does your intervention mean the criminal doesn't have free will?
2) You see a criminal beating an innocent child to death. You're omniscient and omnipotent. In particular, you have the ability to teleport to a nearby location in the form of a human owning a cell phone, a tazer, and a handgun. Do you intervene? Does your intervention mean the criminal doesn't have free will?
Bonus question: If someone tries to flap their arms and fly, does their inability to do so impinge on their free will? Conversely, if there were a law of physics that prevented murder, would such a law of physics impinge on a person's free will? If your answers don't match, how do you tell the difference between a law of physics that impinges on free will and a law of physics that doesn't?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
What you're saying is that God is able to eliminate evil, and he's willing to eliminate evil, he just wants to allow evil to continue for a few thousand years first?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways