Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The universe before the one we knew it did follow the same rules ours does. The laws of physics we know would be completely absent - none of them would apply. In a situation such as that, whatever state existed before the universe existed could have spontaneously created the universe out of nothing, because there is no physical property preventing that from happening.
As for M.D.s being "religious" or participating in church, let me tell you (as someone who knows a crap ton of doctors) that it's more of a cultural thing than an "I really believe all this stuff" thing. And not one of them that I know rejects evolution, physics, and the likely origins of the universe (even the churchiest of them all).
The claim of modern science is that everything was created from nothing.
Actually they might take issue with you in the scientific community about using the word "created" but that would just be pedantry.
In that community however it is not that we claim that it all came from nothing. We actually do not know. But what we DO say in the modern scientific community is that there appears to be nothing to preclude such a possibility. The mathematics and other data simply allow it.
Actually in a sense what we have learned is that what we have IS nothing. The sum total of all the energy and gravity and so forth in the universe all seems to come out at "ZERO".
It is massively impossible to explain this to the lay man and I rarely try. But one analogy I have used a few times is to imagine you have no money. But you open two bank accounts. One with an over draft facility. You then transfer money from that one, to the other one.
You then go to an ATM and you can withdraw cash. You have NO money.... but there is cash in your hand.
The universe appears to be somewhat similar. When you add everything we do have together, it seems to be coming out Zero. So the "something from nothing" is actually a kind of misnomer. In fact we got "nothing from nothing, but there is diversity in that nothing".
All very interesting and complex stuff. But the "go to" text and talks on the subject at the moment appear to be the Laurence Krauss books and talks all called "A universe from nothing". Simply google and you tube search the words "Krauss nothing" and youll get most of it. He is a science communicator, so I will defer to him to bring it to the lay public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The idea seems absolutely insane.
Indeed it does, but that is more a comment about humans rather than the science. Because the fact is MANY things that are true seem insane to us.
A great example is when in the pub I occasionally ask people how high they think a page of a news paper would get if you folded in half a number of times. Say 50. The highest answer I ever got was "As high as this pub". The truth in fact is you very quickly get to lengths that require you to measure the distance using the speed of light. It is "insane".
Quantum physics is "insane". Particles are popping in and out of existence from nothing all the time. It makes no sense. It is there, you try to measure it, it is gone. its nuts.
The truths about our universe are incomprehensible, insane, baffling and awe inspiring. That an idea seems "insane" or "sane" says literally nothing about the truth of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
(I have been told in the Science forum that this type of controversial issue belongs in this forum.)
That is a shame. Poor moderation of that forum I feel. It is not a religious issue, at all.
Can I recommend the book "God's Mechanics" by Brother Guy Consolmagno to you? (it's available in many libraries and on Kindle.) He's an astronomer who is the Director of the Vatican Observatory (UofA and MIT grad). His book examines this issue, and how people involved in science and technology approach faith. One of the things he's mentioned is that as someone who is both a scientist and a Jesuit, he has been surprised how often other scientists have mentioned that they are religious, but it's not something they generally bring up in faculty meetings or scientific conferences unless they know someone else is. Regardless of your faith beliefs, it;s an entertaining and interesting read.
As I mentioned, the majority of MDs are religious. A study that was done on the religiosity of MDs found that only about 10% describe their religious affiliation as "none" (a group that can include non-denominationally affiliated believers as well as atheists/agnostics) - the same percentage that you estimate to believe in a personal God in your academic circles. 55% say their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine. It's an interesting study: Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians
I could argue that you may be cherry-picking your definition of "science," and I see a higher proportion of belief in the academic circles I run in. There was a study conducted with the members of the American Society for the Advancement of Science, and "33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view." (Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project)
Interestingly, the largest group of "hard" sciences in the ASAS who believe in God are the chemists (41% believe in God, 14 believe in a "higher power or universal spirit," 39% don't believe), you biologists come in at 32%, 19% and 41% in the same categories, 30/20/47 for the geosciences, and 29/14/46 for the astronomers and physicists.
There are some interesting conclusions from the Ecklund study on religiosity among academic scientists: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ehe/doc/...blems_54_2.pdf. I was surprised to learn that younger scientists have a higher rate of religiosity than middle aged ones.
Why would I read a book written by a Jesuit priest if I wanted an objective p.o.v. with no agenda attached to it? This would be akin to a a fundamentalist believer asking an agnostic scientist to go to the website AnswersinGenesis.com to learn about how Creationism is really science. (you accuse me of cherry-picking and the you offer up this book? LOL)
Insofar as the Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians article. I'm not sure where you got your claim that the majority of MD's are religious. This portion of that article caught my eye:
"Measurements/Results: The response rate was 63%. Fifty-five percent of physicians say their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine. Compared with the general population, physicians are more likely to be affiliated with religions that are underrepresented in the United States, less likely to say they try to carry their religious beliefs over into all other dealings in life (58% vs 73%), twice as likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (20% vs 9%), and twice as likely to cope with major problems in life without relying on God (61% vs 29%)."
Soo....to begin with: MOST of the MDs in the survey you cited didn't even bother to respond! Gee, wonder why? Maybe they had no time or use for religious-type studies? The rest of the paragraph is self-explanatory. And the last lines I bolded speak more volumes.
Too: we must always remember that in the vast majority of cases, when a man of science speaks of God, he usually means a Deistic sort of "Impersonal Life Force" than he does a theistic Abrahamic god. Clearly. Stephen Hawking does this, and he is a confirmed atheist. Einstein did it with his famous "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote. (The line I bolded mentioning the "spirtiual vs. religious" mindset among you MDs confirms this, I think.)
Last edited by Ruffin_Ready; 10-13-2014 at 12:10 PM..
Who says universe begun from nothing? Is it really that hard to remember, that BigBang is nothing but a more or less widely accepted THEORY, just like Darwinism.
It is propagated by many educational institutions and governments. It is propagated by media and science.
But it is nothing but theory. And many of those came about and parished, as "science" is a like a frivolous hippy person - changing its opinions continuously. And its theories.
With that being said, there are plenty of scientists that question it.
Otherwise, if you believe that universe was created from nothing, you defying the most fundamental law of that same universe - law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
And the law of conservation of mass: The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all transfers of matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy: when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change over time (hence, its quantity is "conserved" over time). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
With that said, universe could not come out of nothing. There should have been equivalent to this universe somewhere, and in some form, and in some state, that contained this very universe, and should there have been Big Bang, allowed it to manifest itself into what you call now universe.
Appearance of a universe out of nothing can be done only one way - by miracle. Even then, it is still contained in that very miracle plan and design. But then, you simply prove existence of a superior something, capable of exercising that miracle, aka - God. Hence, either universe was there, in some form, BEFORE Big Bang or, God exists. But even if God were to create it, it still did not come from nothing, but was contained in God's WORD. In its WILL, DESIGN, POWER, etc
thank you for the post.
I was explaining to some one the other day about entropy and enthalpy.
Actually the law pertaining to the "conservation of energy" is not technically a "law of physics" like someone said, but rather is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Also, it applies only to a closed system, thus is not applicable in refuting the postulated mechanics governing the Big Bang.
Many cosmologists think that the BB was merely one in a chain of "bangs; expansions; contractions-to-the-orignal-point-of-singularity; and then bang-agains." That is to say: cyclical. Maybe something like bubbles of water in a boiling cauldron. (I personally love this hypothesis, as it is congruent with the fact that most things in nature ARE cyclical!)
Too: if time, existence, being, and all matter was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then is it not exempt from any manmade laws that evolved 14 billion years later?
Nothing is so irksome to a man of science as when, after explaining natural reasons for 95% of our origins and evolution and our place in the cosmos, a theologian eagerly grasps the remaining unsolved 5% of the Question and exclaims, while holding a bible aloft, "See, you can't explain it all because GOD did it!"
Why would I read a book written by a Jesuit priest if I wanted an objective p.o.v. with no agenda attached to it? This would be akin to a a fundamentalist believer asking an agnostic scientist to go to the website AnswersinGenesis.com to learn about how Creationism is really science. (you accuse me of cherry-picking and the you offer up this book? LOL)
It was intended as a friendly recommendation...friend. Consolmagno is worth reading because (a) he's a good and engaging writer, (b) he's a very accomplished scientist - Ph.D from M.I.T., and one of America's top scientists in the field of the study of Astronomy - he's probably smarter than you or I, (c) he addresses a topic that you mentioned, how scientists approach faith (Incidentally, he's not a Jesuit priest, but a Jesuit Brother).
I'm not sure how you would find a book on the topic of religion and science with an "objective p.o.v. with no agenda attached to it." Everyone writing in this field has some kind of subjective p.o.v. and an agenda, from Consolmagno to Harris to Dawkins. I think it's a good idea to keep an open mind (as a scientist) and to examine the arguments of the other side. As Bertrand Russell said, one should read the books of people with whom you disagree. I've read most of the new atheists and the old atheists. Some of them were worth reading even if I disagreed with them. Hitchens could be a hoot.
Quote:
Insofar as the Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians article. I'm not sure where you got your claim that the majority of MD's are religious. This portion of that article caught my eye:
"Measurements/Results: The response rate was 63%. Fifty-five percent of physicians say their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine. Compared with the general population, physicians are more likely to be affiliated with religions that are underrepresented in the United States, less likely to say they try to carry their religious beliefs over into all other dealings in life (58% vs 73%), twice as likely to consider themselves spiritual but not religious (20% vs 9%), and twice as likely to cope with major problems in life without relying on God (61% vs 29%)."
Soo....to begin with: MOST of the MDs in the survey you cited didn't even bother to respond!
In the science of mathematics, we consider 63% of a group to be "most" of a group. dubious:
Quote:
Gee, wonder why? Maybe they had no time or use for religious-type studies? The rest of the paragraph is self-explanatory. And the last lines I bolded speak more volumes.
Not sure what you mean by the bolded part. Both are indicative of religious belief.
Quote:
Too: we must always remember that in the vast majority of cases, when a man of science speaks of God, he usually means a Deistic sort of "Impersonal Life Force" than he does a theistic Abrahamic god. Clearly. Stephen Hawking does this, and he is a confirmed atheist. Einstein did it with his famous "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote. (The line I bolded mentioning the "spirtiual vs. religious" mindset among you MDs confirms this, I think.)
The research doesn't back your assumptions, however. Even if a majority of scientists who believe in God were the sort of deists you describe...that still means they're not atheists, and have spiritual beliefs, which means, not a materialist. (Yes, I am aware that some atheists do believe in an afterlife, as well as astrology, spiritual power in crystals, Karma causing reincarnation, ghosts, Bigfoot, and what have you - as we are reminded ad nauseam, the only thing that atheism means is a lack of belief in God or gods.)
Bear in mind, in that survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, a majority ("most") of those sent surveys responded, and 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.
I'm not sure how you would find a book on the topic of religion and science with an "objective p.o.v. with no agenda attached to it."
You dont. BOOKS are for the layman, written by people who have become convinced by the science they have read. ANYONE can get a book published. One only has to amazon search the title "How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction" to realize just how unconvincing the publishing industry is.
If you want to get more objective then you read the papers. Peer reviewed papers. The actual source material.
And like me, you learn HOW to read such papers and evaluate methodology and results and statistics.
Reading such books by people like Krauss and Dawkins is not a bad thing, but ultimately if you are really interested in the objective facts you have to go read the research yourself. There is no two ways about it.
Nothing is so irksome to a man of science as when, after explaining natural reasons for 95% of our origins and evolution and our place in the cosmos, a theologian eagerly grasps the remaining unsolved 5% of the Question and exclaims, while holding a bible aloft, "See, you can't explain it all because GOD did it!" Kyle Ruffin
Personally I find it amusing, since there was a time when science knew only 10% of made up our universe and religion knew the other 90% but over the years the amount that science learned has reached 95% and what religion holds to be true has declined to 5%. One group is continuing to learn more and more about life and the cosmos while another group is desperately trying to maintain their ever decreasing knowledge of life and the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
