So yesterday I was bored out of my mind and ventured over to the wonderful writers on yahoo.com. (For those who don't know thats an example of the literary device known as sarcasm.) My mouse soon clicked over a headline called "Will Science Someday Rule Our the Possibility of God?". For those interested the full article is available here. To summarize it briefly, the article discusses various leaps in science and how those leaps can further rule out the "need" for a God to answer what scientists cannot. My answer to the question posed in the title is flat out no.
If I created a coffee maker that grew its own beans, started the coffee whenever you woke up, added the right amount of cream and sugar depending on your mood, gave you a massage and a kiss to start your day, all without electricity or input form you I'd be considered a genius. Now, lets say scientists spent a good 25 years trying to analyze every aspect of my coffee maker and find out how every atom works. If they figure it out completely does that mean I no longer I exist? That just because the intricacies of my wonder can finally be explained I vanish and the coffee maker is just a by product of natural selection of previous coffee makers? Obviously not, but that is the point Ms. Natalie Wolchover is getting at.
She finishes off her introduction by asking "if science could really explain everything?". The answer to that question is no. People who truly understand the nature of this great universe and science in general know that with every discovery theres a thousand more things to learn about, new theories to test and many more to disprove. In essence, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
Wolchover's first point is that scientists have pin pointed the Big Bang so thoroughly that they know what happened "10^-43 seconds" after the Big Bang until now. (For those unfamiliar with scientific notation 10^-43 is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.) But also mentioned that the split second BEFORE that is still "murky" and cosmologists still haven't figured it out. She quotes a cosmologist from Cal Tech who says progress will eventually figure it out. And that an idea of a model that supports this theory is that the universe is like a big balloon that naturally deflates and inflates itself as time goes on. Even if this were true who put the universe here? Where did all the energy in the big bang come from? Basic physics states the matter and energy cannot be created, much less spontaneously appear from nothing. Its clear that there had to be an initial input at first, a creator, if you will.
She then mentions the point that "physical constants that define our universe" are so exact that modifying them "by a hair" essentially ruins the entire universe. But instead of saying that this is by design and God had a purpose in making the universe she argues the point of parallel universes; stating that there are endless universes in one complete multiverse, where every physical constant is represented, ones where electrons weigh a kilogram instead of 10^-31 grams. And thus, because all of them are represented we just got lucky by being in the perfect one. The problems with this are clear, where are all these multiverses and how in the grand scheme of things has not one been able to create a transportation method between all of them? And second even if this hail mary theory were true, it still requires a creator, a beginning. Universes don't just pop out of nowhere, life doesn't magically sprout from a lucky bacteria and turn into 1.7 million different species of animals. They are put here by design. There is a reason why no historical evidence exists of life spontaneously forming, because that isn't how it works and it never happened.
Science is breaking down and analyze the world around us. If belief in God meant no science then we would still be in our neanderthal days, playing with fire and finding berries for dinner. God created this world with a design, which why science works. Every electron is the same mass, gravity is equal throughout Earth, the Earth is the perfect distance from the sun to not burn or freeze us, the water cycle is a perfect way to replenish a finite water supply, there are simply too many phenomena to be explained by science. Laws of science simply state that things occur, they can't explain why my heart beats perfectly even when I'm not not awake, or how it happens to adjust to my needs when I'm exercising. "Oh but thats the sub-conscience of your brain!" Okay, care to explain how THAT works? How does my brain know what electrical impulses to send and when?
Any stat major will love to tell you how low the odds our of the right combinations of mutations to create a new living thing, which is yet another reason why it didn't happen like that.
Realizing that God explains what science cannot is key to understand the world around us. And Ms. Wolchover, whenever science does explain the entire universe it will confirm the existence of a deity, not disprove it.
If I created a coffee maker that grew its own beans, started the coffee whenever you woke up, added the right amount of cream and sugar depending on your mood, gave you a massage and a kiss to start your day, all without electricity or input form you I'd be considered a genius. Now, lets say scientists spent a good 25 years trying to analyze every aspect of my coffee maker and find out how every atom works. If they figure it out completely does that mean I no longer I exist? That just because the intricacies of my wonder can finally be explained I vanish and the coffee maker is just a by product of natural selection of previous coffee makers? Obviously not, but that is the point Ms. Natalie Wolchover is getting at.
She finishes off her introduction by asking "if science could really explain everything?". The answer to that question is no. People who truly understand the nature of this great universe and science in general know that with every discovery theres a thousand more things to learn about, new theories to test and many more to disprove. In essence, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
Wolchover's first point is that scientists have pin pointed the Big Bang so thoroughly that they know what happened "10^-43 seconds" after the Big Bang until now. (For those unfamiliar with scientific notation 10^-43 is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.) But also mentioned that the split second BEFORE that is still "murky" and cosmologists still haven't figured it out. She quotes a cosmologist from Cal Tech who says progress will eventually figure it out. And that an idea of a model that supports this theory is that the universe is like a big balloon that naturally deflates and inflates itself as time goes on. Even if this were true who put the universe here? Where did all the energy in the big bang come from? Basic physics states the matter and energy cannot be created, much less spontaneously appear from nothing. Its clear that there had to be an initial input at first, a creator, if you will.
She then mentions the point that "physical constants that define our universe" are so exact that modifying them "by a hair" essentially ruins the entire universe. But instead of saying that this is by design and God had a purpose in making the universe she argues the point of parallel universes; stating that there are endless universes in one complete multiverse, where every physical constant is represented, ones where electrons weigh a kilogram instead of 10^-31 grams. And thus, because all of them are represented we just got lucky by being in the perfect one. The problems with this are clear, where are all these multiverses and how in the grand scheme of things has not one been able to create a transportation method between all of them? And second even if this hail mary theory were true, it still requires a creator, a beginning. Universes don't just pop out of nowhere, life doesn't magically sprout from a lucky bacteria and turn into 1.7 million different species of animals. They are put here by design. There is a reason why no historical evidence exists of life spontaneously forming, because that isn't how it works and it never happened.
Science is breaking down and analyze the world around us. If belief in God meant no science then we would still be in our neanderthal days, playing with fire and finding berries for dinner. God created this world with a design, which why science works. Every electron is the same mass, gravity is equal throughout Earth, the Earth is the perfect distance from the sun to not burn or freeze us, the water cycle is a perfect way to replenish a finite water supply, there are simply too many phenomena to be explained by science. Laws of science simply state that things occur, they can't explain why my heart beats perfectly even when I'm not not awake, or how it happens to adjust to my needs when I'm exercising. "Oh but thats the sub-conscience of your brain!" Okay, care to explain how THAT works? How does my brain know what electrical impulses to send and when?
Any stat major will love to tell you how low the odds our of the right combinations of mutations to create a new living thing, which is yet another reason why it didn't happen like that.
Realizing that God explains what science cannot is key to understand the world around us. And Ms. Wolchover, whenever science does explain the entire universe it will confirm the existence of a deity, not disprove it.
try posting things other than just redskins stuff - this was actually impressive, punk :)
ReplyDelete