This here is a work based on my opinion with scientific support. I don't expect anybody to agree with it because a lot of people are athiest or don't like the idea of something being in control that they can't see. I ask that you approach this with an open mind. But if you don't agree and willing to take the time to post a comment, at least give me the pleasure of reading your version of what you think happened to cause everything. Constructive critism will always be listened to, but someone who criticises without offering any tips or explanation is not being constructive. This type of critic is useless and a waste of everybody's time, and is probably the main reason why creativity in this world isn't developing at a fast a rate as it used to.
The bible says that God made the world in seven days. The bible also says that God made an Adam and an Eve and they were our ancestors, the first humans. Along with some other parts of the bible, I do not believe these things are true. The gene pool with regards to the human race is too varied for it to have evolved from two humans. I do believe in God, but I believe that some of these stories are symbolic and are used to make a point. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the universe started with the Big Bang. There is also the strong theory that we are part of an evolution process.
The crash course summary of the Big Bang theory is as follows: there was once a huge amount of matter, and at some point it started to spin horizontally. Then it started to form into a pancake shape, spinning faster and faster. Then the mass exploded, and all the pieces eventually became the planets, the stars, the galaxies, everything.
Evidence supporting this includes Edwin Hubble’s theory that there are distant galaxies in every direction from us that is moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. If we were to rewind this process, then where did that start? There must have been one point of origin for everything because if there were two, then how could the expansion be so accurate (it is generally believed that the whole universe is round, either spherical or oval shaped). All matter must at one time have come from one place.
The Big Bang theory also predicted the existence of cosmic background radiation (this was the glow left over from the actual explosion itself), and it received its strongest confirmation yet when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson.
Of course the Big Bang theory will never be proved, but it is the one that seems the most logical to me. I find it a bit unbelievable that all the planets and the stars existed from the beginning of time more-less the way they are now and without coming from a single source, especially with the universe expanding in a sperical shape. I strongly believe that if the universe is expanding now, it always was, right from the point of origin. The universe could not have existed and then just started expanding at the speed of light.
If a homogenous material is broken down to the smallest particle without losing its physical properties, you have an atom. As you probably know, atoms have protons and neutrons in the nucleus, with electrons revolving around it. As all things consist of atoms, this means the smallest building blocks of a human work under the very same principles as those found in a plastic cup, a page from a book, the air around us, etc. The only differences are the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in each atom, and how (or if) the atoms are bounded together. Also, the other atoms an atom is bound to also plays a huge role. If these are the only differences, then would it be too far-fetched to suggest that EVERYTHING is part of something massive i.e. everything came from the same source.
A planet stays on its course, revolving around the nearest star due to the gravitational pull the star has on the planet. I’m not going to go into the physics of it but there is an attractive force between the planets in our solar system and the Sun. This force is dependent on (and more noticeable because of) the relatively huge masses of the planets and the Sun. The same way there is an attractive force between you and every object around you. This force cannot be measured due to its tiny, tiny size. This is because the mass of a human and any given object is negligible compared to that of a planet and the Sun.
For the formation of life, it must have been created after the Big Bang at some point. People have argued that the strength and energy dispositioned atoms in such a way to create life. Whatever happened, I do not believe that all forms of life appeared at the same time. After the dinosaurs died out, there was the Ice Age. Some believe it was the Ice Age that killed off the dinosaurs. But it seems that the only life-form that likely survived the Ice Age were fish (maybe plants got through in the form of sea plants), so my guess is that we evolved from fish. Maybe there was some type of fish or sea-living creature that could survive for short periods out of water (sea lions, whatever), and evolution carried on from there. The similarities in our genes compared to other animals supports evolution as well. Our genes are 99% similar to that of a monkey, and there are substantial similarities between genomes of humans and mice as well (which is why testing newly developed drugs on mice is so popular).
The most basic form of life is the single cellular organism, which must have a nucleus (with DNA), cytoplasm and a cell wall or membrane. These are the most basic requirements for life. If that is so, then it seems laughable to suggest that all these atoms and molecules arranged themselves perfectly to form this single cell from dust blowing in the wind. Something else must have happened to create life, it physically couldn’t have started on its own so it got help from somewhere. A miracle occurred.
Another miracle must have happened to start the Big Bang. If you consider all the matter in the universe (planets, stars, etc.) then the energy it took to cause the Big Bang was of unimaginable size. Energy isn’t created or destroyed, but changed from one form to another. Where did this huge amount of energy come from?
I think there is a God that made these two miracles happen. I don’t think life just magically climbed out of a hole in the ground and I think God was the source for the energy that caused the Big Bang. The way athiests can’t understand the ideology of God is the same way I can’t understand an athiest’s explanation from the origins of life, but it will always be extremely interesting to hear. Of course, I can’t prove anything that I have said here (except those things proven by other people). The believe in God is down to the individual: either you do or you don’t.
References:
1. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15197712/.html
3. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/816/2?etoc
|
Written by Phil (6683 comments posted) 2nd December 2007 | Interesting piece. It was going so well untill you got towards the end. You asked in your intro for alternative versions - I don't know enough science to have a specific one of my own, but I do have a reaction to the content of this:
The basic argument that the origins of the big bang and the first life forms being unexplainable and therefore must be an act of god doesn't wash with me. I don't understand how my car works, but it certainly isn't an act of god. Just because something can't be explained (yet)doesn't mean some rather impressive guy called god has to step in to fill the gaps. Using this argument to prove to existance of a god is self defeating. All through history things have been attributed to god because humans didn't understand them at the time. Ancient Egyptians believed a great big dung beetle pushed the sun through the sky. I think they may have been proven wrong. Your argument is one with diminishing returns.
Also, what sort of god does it describe? One who creates the universe and then buggers off to leave us to it? Do we really even need a god like that? What's this god been doing since the creation of the first life form?
I'm not going to argue (here) that god doesn't exist - but for me, your arguments don't hold water.
"I don't understand that. - Must have been god then."
As for a critique, you need to be careful with grammar. For example, on one occasion you use is instead of are. Perhaps you haven't proof read this yet.
For one who hasn't done much reviewing, you certainly know what you want. Time to offer it to others too?
Phil.
|
Written by Fledermaus (3248 comments posted) 2nd December 2007 | I'm a bit sceptical towards any piece which tries to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God. Religion isn't science and if the existence of God was provable, we could well do away with all religion and try figure out how it works the scientific way.
The funny thing about science is that it seems to become a religion itself nowadays: People take theories to beat eachother with as 'the truth'. The irony is that just as there are different religions, there are different scientific views, even with respect to issues such as the creation, size or built up of the universe.
Using science as 'proof' of 'the truth' is a rather unscientific attitude towards science and a rather religious one towards religion...
Not saying you have no good points, for it is thought provoking, but I'm afraid you overlooked the disagreements within the scientific world itself. Which I cannot elaborate on myself, as I am not into the field of physics, but which I heard are enormous... | Correction
Written by Fledermaus (3248 comments posted) 2nd December 2007 | Sorry, wrong choice of words:
"Using science as 'proof' of 'the truth' is a rather unscientific attitude towards science and a rather religious one towards religion... "
should be:
Using theories as 'proof' of 'the truth' is a rather unscientific attitude towards science and a rather religious one towards religion...
Anyways... Why do people feel the need to prove or disprove the existence of God? Either you believe in him or not. Why this urge to justify that belief or to convince others? |
Written by Josie (2780 comments posted) 3rd December 2007 | | I'm not a scientist, but I have read and do understand exactly what you have said, and in myself I agree with you John. I may be the only one on this website to say this, but I do feel that I am a part of a much bigger force or power that certainly extends well beyond my physical being. I have prayed for the impossible more than once, and it has happened more than once. I felt as if I had tapped into an enormous energy far beyond my own physical world. For me, I am just one small atom, but part of a much bigger one. If we are all part of this larger force (which I call God), then, like when your finger hurts and you feel it, or you feel even a hair pulled from your head, he knows what you pray for. I can't write an essay here, but I know that we all have free will on this earth, and often when things go wrong they are our own fault, but when things happen which are not of human making, I am sure that God realizes and feels for us and cares for us whether we live here or beyond. End of sermon. | No Review
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3331 comments posted) 3rd December 2007 | I'm not sure my review will meet your stringent demands so I won't offend you with it. I will say if you really believe, proof is irrelavent,isn't it? That's the whole point of belief.
Jane |
Written by cheapthrill (30 comments posted) 3rd December 2007 | First a couple of typos I spotted;
"... but I believe think some ..."
"... with elctrons ..."
In regards to the content, another article would probably be better suited as a counter argument but I'll try and keep it brief enough for a comment. Many people of faith who have tried a similar vein of argument fall into the same pitfall as you have. While your acceptance of certain scientific theories may give you a more rounded base to explore your faith in terms of commonly held modern beliefs, I don't feel you are looking at the arguments in the right context.
One of the principal scientific tenets is measurable observation. Can I quantify what I am seeing?
One of the principal religious tenets is faith.
God to the scientific community is an unproven and so far unobservable entity, there is no empirical evidence that can describe his or hers existence in terms of our knowledge of the physical universe.
This fact is essentially the point of contrition between both camps of thought. Religious doctrine at this juncture takes solace in faith. While scientific doctrine would argue that no new understanding of our universe has been derived as nothing has been quantified.
I'll venture now into my own opinion on the matter.
If you look at the task in hand for both lines of thought, each have their own burdens of proof.
Science needs to explain what exactly human faith is and how it is inadmissible as a form of empirical evidence towards scientific knowledge. For me personally this has been achieved on many levels through psychological and sociological research. The 3 main monotheistic religions all originate from the same region. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have similar doctrine and a shared history. Yet isolated continents, countries and cultures all have generated their own belief systems. The similarities between creation stories and moral edicts, however remote the culture, illustrates the psychological and sociological process that makes groups of humans subscribe to a shared belief system. Creation stories seek to explain our surroundings while moral edicts give dogma and structure to our innately moral selves. As such faith seems to me to be a emotional response, I wouldn't accept a scientists assertion that pink cars were fast because he loved the colour pink and hence can't accept faith as admissible fact.
The religious burden, I guess this is what you are trying to fulfill, for me personally would be based around actually providing some scientifically measurable event that could prove the existence of God or the providence of faith. Like Fledermaus asks though, I have to ask do you really need to reconcile your beliefs in such a manner to people already doubtful? And wouldn't it almost be blasphemous to do this? By this I mean a scientific hypothesis includes by de-facto an outcome of failure that you have to accept as a possibility, or the experiment it self can hardly be considered unbiased. | Thanks for your opinion!
Written by JohnFHamill (34 comments posted) 3rd December 2007 | Thanks to all who took the time to read this, to be sure I must start reviewing other people's work, I haven't been a member of this site for a long time but I will get better. I'm not trying to put anything into people's minds, my ideas are clear but one of the main aims was to see what other people thought. It doesn't really matter what other people believe or don't. But for some strange reason more people have read this than the other two things I've done to date so I've hit a nerve somewhere!  | Er. Yes ... Well..
Written by gerardconnolly (1186 comments posted) 3rd December 2007 | Brave manifesto, John.
For myself I prefer to keep religious opinion suitably , ' Elizabethan ' [ ie private ]. But good luck to you in your quest to enlighten. My feeling is you will enlighten the converted; and befuddel the dammed.
Slan! | Now then, now then ...
Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 3rd December 2007 | First off I have to say you should be congratulated for sitting down and putting what has obviously been a considerable amount of thought into words that on the whole make sense. The one shortcoming this whole thing has, irrespective of whether we share opinion is that you make no attempt to define what you consider god to be – I am assuming that he is the Christian god but as you have not provided that detail it is an assumption I have to make.
Ultimately if you are on about the Christian god then you have proven he does not exist because absolutely none of the stories about that god tarry with your theory. You could say the Bible is symbolic but that also makes it analogous, which also then makes the stories mythical and completely avoids the fact Christians firmly believe the Bible to be the word of god – how could he get it all so wrong. The same applies for the Islamic god. So who is your god?
You need to consider whether your god is divine or a being with powers that would seem supernatural to us – which is the definition of a god: a supernatural being. If you consider your god divine then you are all alone, there is absolutely no evidence for a divine god no matter how you try to leverage books written 2000 years ago, by people that on average died under the age of 40 almost all from infection or disease because the knew so little about the world they lived in. Likewise it is hardly surprising that they wrote down accounts of good and bad fortune as being dished out at the hand of god. I do find it stunning people in the modern day still believe the stories.
If you think that somewhere out in the vast yonder there is a race of living beings who have been around for a longer period of time, have greater technology and therefore would seem supernatural – then I am with you.
Your big bang theory holds up and sounds interesting and touches on one of the philosophical discussions that you often hear, that no theory can be fully explained because once you have the big bang theory you need to explain what happened before the big bang. Likewise if god was complex enough to create earth, who created god.
Your discussion on cells is too light for my mind. It seems from the journals I have read that the thought is life appeared on earth very soon after the earth formed, just under 4 billion years ago. Nobody knows how, and although we can make good guesses we really don't know how the first cellular reproduction in the oceans eventually manifested as a coded DNA reproduction. You could consider that leap to be a miracle but that is simply an act of not thinking: 'oh we don't know, it must have been a miracle', rather than applying our knowledge and intelligence to the problem over time. I could give you a theory that involves clay and crystals but we do not have time here.
If we viewed everything we didn't understand as a miracle man would be forced to believe everything was undertaken by some higher or divine force that can make miracles happen. And we have come full circle.
I guess your enquiring mind will keep enquiring so I hope to catch more of your thoughts over time. I have written at length on similar subjects on my website which you can access from my profile if you ever feel the need.
Once more .. I applaud your intent. | Scientiffically Proven John
Written by Josie (2780 comments posted) 10th December 2007 | | I have scientifically proven that God exists, and many times over too. I have come face to face with problems in life that no human being could possibly have worked through because they were scientifically impossible. I have prayed, put the problem in God's hands, and often, between almost immediately to a short while afterwards, they have been worked through with amazing results. Doctors have found it impossible to believe, except that they have seen the results and have believed. In one hospital near to us, a faith healer works with surgeons with amazing results. Scientifically proved beyond any doubt!!! God exists for those who open their hearts and eyes. Enough said! | Carried away with fffff's.
Written by Josie (2780 comments posted) 10th December 2007 | | S C I E N T I F I C A L L Y | The nihilist's oar
Written by Levi (31 comments posted) 12th December 2007 | Kudos first to John for sparking this age-old debate - enjoyed reading the piece and reactions to it. Principally, I'm dissappointed at the essay itself - as Phil said initially, it was going so well until the actual crux of the argument; that simply because something cannot be explained, it's attributed to God. I was hoping for something mathematical and textbook here, but the whole argument hinges on the fact the existence of god can neither be proved nor disporoved. And I'm certainly not touching that one.
However, regarding the creation of life - your first mentioned 'miracle'; a conclusion which is based largely on a vague process of elimination - there is no mention of the construction of bacteria. If it's a counterpoint to 'dust blowing in the wind' you need, please check out 'Bacteria' on wiki for the composition of this organism, and you'll see exactly how 'laughable' the creation of life is. From there - symbiotic and evolutionary theories - which you already accept - will go some way to explaining the rest. Of course life didn't 'magically crawl out a hole in the ground'; it was a very long, intricate and complex process and - paradoxically - the undoing of the whole essay. You just don't present any 'science'.
Enjoyed reading, though. Try again sometime.
Jon
|
Written by Levi (31 comments posted) 12th December 2007 | ... And I do mean 'try again' - it wasn't supposed to be a flippant back-handed remark. With a bit more research, you could well develop a convincing argument, and it clearly provides a thought-provoking and enjoyable discussion.
|
Written by Jacquie (13 comments posted) 4th February 2008 | Interesting discussion.
The article itself and the reviews it has received are, for the most part, way above my head. So I thought I would add my views to the discussion. Whilst they do not account for my belief in God, as such, I do think that they present a fair argument for the existence of some being of design. Simplistic? Very possibly. Still, here goes.
I am not going to explain my deep seated belief in God - just present a couple of thoughts that sometimes keep me focused. Incidentally, I read the article in Wiki about bacteria and didn't understand a word of it.
Okay, a couple of thoughts. The moon revolves around the Earth, basically never nearer, never further away. Now I know there are purists who may argue that it is retreating at a couple of inches or so per decade, but we're none of us going to live long enough to see it slip out of orbit - and who knows? It may be on a "wobble" trajectory, which starts it coming back in every few thousand years. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, nothing we have put into orbit around the Earth has stayed there, always going into a decaying orbit and crashing back to Earth eventually. Not so with the moon.
The same side of the moon is always facing the Earth, which means it is rotating at the same speed that it completes an Earth orbit - and has done so for countless millenia. Can you imagine the mathematics involved here in both these described examples? I, for one, can't.
Solar eclipses. The moon is the same size as the Sun from our perspective, giving rise every now and then to the greatest celestial fireworks display. A little further away, a little nearer and this would not occur. A different tilt to the Earth, a slightly different orbit to the moon and possibly the moon would never cross the path of the Sun to give rise to this display - and yet, there it is. Chance???
Life on Earth. We are supposed to believe it came about by accident. This is tantamount to saying that if you go up in a plane with the makings of a house - bricks, sand cement, water, rooftiles, floorboards - and then drop it all out, lo and behold, a perfect house would build itself by the time it landed. Yet the same sort of people who would have us believe that life DID come about by chance cannot accept that something so simple as a Stone Age arrowhead or axehead formed itself. Oh no!!! It had to be man-made.
As I said earlier, just my thoughts and a couple of simple arguments to back up by belief in God, but as the saying goes...
To those who believe, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.
Please remember, I am not a scientist. If I choose to call something that causes design to be (and which is way beyond my comprehension) God, then I reserve the right to do so.
Many thanks for your time.
Regards
Jacquie  | Slight correction
Written by Jacquie (13 comments posted) 5th February 2008 | Should have been (I think):
"To those who will not believe..." |
Written by Diddi (80 comments posted) 16th March 2008 | | I'm a 'swinging voter' I think most people are. I enjoyed your article, it's not really a scientific essay because you insert scientific facts. It's not a religious essay because you insert articles of faith. It is, however, a brilliant essay showing to us a young man who is seeking a way through this 'cats cradle' of life. I neither agree or disagree with you, I am just delighted to see you having a go at it. Kudos to you, the courage that you show. Develop it more. One interesting thought from me. People tend to view god as a 'supreme' version of themselves. If we are so close to primates (99% you said) What if god turned looking like a mountain gorilla? |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
