Scientists find cosmic ripples from birth of universe

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by TripleThreat

So what made the tiny speck that created the universe? Where did it come from? Haha

So what made that god that created the universe? Where did he come from? Haha

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

So what made that god that created the universe? Where did he come from? Haha

Alpha and Omega?

[ActiveShooter]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

So what made that god that created the universe? Where did he come from? Haha

When the time is right, you can ask Satan. Hahaha

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

So what made that god that created the universe? Where did he come from? Haha

The article even points out the obvious "scientists still don't know who kicked the ball".

I would also like to point out I'm playing devils advocate on this, not trying to convince anyone the existance or non-existance of anything.

But when you rally simplify the entire arguement, science says creation happened basically by chance; while religion points more toward a designed /planned event. As far as I know it could be either. The Big Bang theory could have just been a random gas explosion, or a designed gas explosion. the findings mentioned in the OP are not proving / denying the nature to the primal question, "why".

[Fish]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

The article even points out the obvious "scientists still don't know who kicked the ball".

I would also like to point out I'm playing devils advocate on this, not trying to convince anyone the existance or non-existance of anything.

But when you rally simplify the entire arguement, science says creation happened basically by chance; while religion points more toward a designed /planned event. As far as I know it could be either. The Big Bang theory could have just been a random gas explosion, or a designed gas explosion. the findings mentioned in the OP are not proving / denying the nature to the primal question, "why".

No, Science does not say the universe happened by chance. Science says that we don't have enough information to know how the universe came to be. It's not an "either religion or science" choice regarding the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't actually address the creation of the universe. Because science currently doesn't have the technology to find any evidence of what happened before the universe began expanding. The Big Bang theory only addresses the time frame of several seconds after the universe was the size of a marble, to present time when the universe is measured to be 13 billion light years wide. It makes no claims of what might have happened before the universe began expanding.

The Big Bang(if true) wasn't simply a big explosion. There is no confusing the Big Bang with a random gas explosion. Before that point, there wasn't even empty space.

The findings in the OP were never meant to explain the "Why". The findings were meant to show that one of the major predictions for evidence of the Big Bang has actually been verified, giving more validity to the Big Bang theory as a whole.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Fish

No, Science does not say the universe happened by chance. The Big Bang theory doesn't actually address the creation of the universe. Because science currently doesn't have the technology to find any evidence of what happened before the universe began expanding.
The findings in the OP were never meant to explain the "Why". The findings were meant to show that one of the major predictions for evidence of the Big Bang has actually been verified, giving more validity to the Big Bang theory as a whole.

I'll never know why some see it as an either or.

Why can't the Big Bang be Gods plan? Why can't evolution be Gods plan?

Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They are not competing on the same turf.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'll never know why some see it as an either or.

Why can't the Big Bang be Gods plan? Why can't evolution be Gods plan?

Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They are not competing on the same turf.

Because if this is true, its the worst plan in all the universes.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Because if this is true, its the worst plan in all the universes.

You are a bad man!

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Because if this is true, its the worst plan in all the universes.

Because it's self-evolving, right? God's plan CAN'T be true because he screwed up by not making everything "perfect" instantly, despite God himself being "perfect", right?

Think about this for a second. What would be the point of making everything perfect the first time? Don't you think it would be too easy?

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Three7s

Because it's self-evolving, right? God's plan CAN'T be true because he screwed up by not making everything "perfect" instantly, despite God himself being "perfect", right?

Think about this for a second. What would be the point of making everything perfect the first time? Don't you think it would be too easy?

- Define "perfect"

- Define "God"

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They are not competing on the same turf.

Actually I would argue that's not entirely the case, as I believe both the establishment of science and the establishment of religion are highly dogmatic and conservative institutions that have a great deal of difficulty dealing with ideas that are either outside of or in opposition to their accepted norms. Human nature, after all.

The difference of course being that, over time, science can actually change. Slowly, kicking and screaming the whole time, but it can change. Because as you mention at its core it's based on observation.

But, in any case, I would say that they do in many ways compete for the same turf, as you put it. At the end of the day it's all about trying to quantify the universe and our place (if any) in it.