Harmless wrote:Theories are hypothesis, based on principles, observation, and connections. They're a possibility, not entirely confirmed or backed up by physical evidence.
And as long as they are not confirmed (due to the lack of physical evidence) they will remain theories.
Sure, there's a chance of it happening, but as long as it's not 100% confirmed I really wouldn't worry about it.
Especially if there's no definitive proof to even make it a theory in the first place. A theory only becomes true/confirmed once a defined pattern is set up after definitive proof is presented. That alone is fact.
No, scientific theories are never "true" or "confirmed". It seems you're misunderstanding the concept of a "theory" a bit. There's no such thing as "definitive proof". However, this doesn't mean that we can't collect empirical evidence to support or refute any number of theories that already exist. Also, if you don't want to worry about something because it's not 100% confirmed... why worry about the existence of a god?
Harmless wrote:Let's take the Big Bang Theory for example. People theorize that a bunch of space dust clustered and a giant, infinite expansion was created, and all the stars and planets and everything formed.
I think you're misunderstanding the big bang a bit, so I'm going to paste a brief explanation of it and its consequences here:
"The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,[4][5] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble's Law.[6] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid, there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[7] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies." (from
Wikipedia)
Harmless wrote:Now let's break it down. Step 1: Is there physical proof backing up this claim? No. So it is merely a theory.
There has been a ton of evidence collected over the past few decades to support it, which is exactly what makes it a theory and not just some random crackpot idea somebody came up with.
"...accumulated empirical evidence provides strong support for the [big bang theory].[8] In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart, important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1965, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence.[9] The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature.[10][11][12]" (again wikipedia)
Harmless wrote:Step 2: Is it logical? Does the theory contradict itself, or does it provide a seamless connection and flow of logic? Well... that's much harder to answer than the first question, for obvious reasons. We're dealing with a lot more interpretation and variables when we analyze the Big Bang Theory. Why was there a sudden clustering of dust? Why was there a beginning before the "beginning/birth" of the universe? By acknowledging that something came before the Big Bang Theory (which is supposed to be how the entire universe was created), the theory effectively falls flat on its face, and contradicts itself.
Every theory has inconsistencies, assumptions, and other issues. This one, based on plenty of empirical evidence and long-upheld theories with even more evidence unto themselves, is the best we've got right now in terms of explaining the origin of the universe. It's not complete, and never will be, because we can never have definitive proof of anything and everything can always be revised. Also, there comes a point when there is just no way to verify something experimentally, and it becomes complete speculation; as far as I see it, this is what religion is, and the development of theories like the big bang is quickly approaching that threshold. We'll never be able to prove whether or not the theories we have are true just as we'll never be able to prove whether or not there exists any sort of god (this is why i'm agnostic/apatheist).
"While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined. The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time; this infinite energy density is regarded as impossible in physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not applicable before the time when the universe cooled down to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends on various assumptions, of which some could never be experimentally verified." (wikipootia)
Harmless wrote:To make a long story short, it's a theory that needs more thought put behind it.
See above.
Harmless wrote:The Bible is another story. It is not a theory, it is an actual thing. It was discovered, apparently written down and revised generation after generation by churches of the East, and later by churches of the West.
Just because it's written down doesn't make it fact. Before it was written, it was passed down by word of mouth, and there's plenty of room for the story to be altered in that time (regardless of whether the original one was true or not). The fact that it's been changed even in its written form (translated between languages, text altered within individual languages' editions, interpretations varying extremely widely throughout the history of Christianity and across the globe, added to over time) just furthers this.
Harmless wrote:(1) But how valid is the Bible? (2) Can we really confirm that they wrote down every single word Jesus said, and how accurately? (3) If so, then why don't we just keep going back to the old testament? (4) If not, why all the revisions?
(5) And if Christianity really is the one true religion and following God is the best thing you can do, then why all the fractures in Christianity's history?
Why all the splitting of the churches and the lack of unity as one Christian faith?
(1) Depends on your interpretation. Literally, probably not very. Symbolically/metaphorically, probably a lot more so. (2) Yes, to some degree of accuracy, through tracking down other historical accounts of this. However, just because Jesus said it doesn't mean it was the objective truth. Maybe it was just a story he made up to teach a lesson to the people. Maybe it was complete ♥♥♥♥ that he started spouting off as he lapsed into some sort of insanity. (3) Because we still don't know whether to interpret it literally or figuratively. (4) Because powerful people like to insert their own ideas into things and force the masses to conform? I'm not sure. (5) Well, there's the existence of opposing viewpoints that need to be taken into account. That includes different divisions within Christianity and entirely different religions. People disagree over the meaning of the bible still today, and look at how many major divisions of the church there are. They all have different ways of viewing and interpreting the scripture. Is it a perfect historical account of a series of miraculous events that we should take word-for-word and worship? Is it a didactic narrative, giving us a lesson in morals? Is it a great piece of classic literature that criticized the views of the world at the time it was written and makes beautiful social commentary that we still think about and follow today? Is it a partially factual, partially fictional account of the past that tells us how the world should be? Or is it something else? Organized religion attempts to take a certain perspective and assimilate others to follow its teachings, but its fundamental flaw is that it fails to recognize individual differences in interpretation, and in the past it has often punished those who dissent or disagree. These people occasionally find others who agree with them and amass enough followers to create a religion unto itself, but personally, I think it's doomed to fail and cause more divisions unless it teaches in a more open and fluid manner that tolerates and accepts differences in belief. This also goes for what I perceive to be the general population of atheists, as they seem to suffer from the same flaws that major organized religions have, constantly criticizing anything but their own viewpoint and attempting to force others to conform (call me a hypocrite if you want but w/e, this is how I feel about most major groups with seemingly aggressive followers). It should really be up to the individual imo. It's your choice as to whether you believe in a god or not, or believe that the bible (or the torah or the qur'an or the analects or the shruti or literally any other religious text) is worth following, or to identify with a major religious group. I kind of wish people would take the time to make an informed decision about everything that's out there before settling with what their parents taught them or whatever they thought of on their own, but I guess it is what it is.
Harmless wrote:Well, there can only be one answer, as History has shown us: It's because people disagree on the validity of viewpoints, and the interpretations people have given the bible over the years.
Even with the Bible being a physical thing, it is more or less a book describing a theory, that leads for us to analyze, interpret, and question. We do not have physical proof that God exists. All we have are [...] words
Yes
Harmless wrote:So then Nan asks me, how do we know? Is there even a way to determine if something is 100% accurate or true?
And yes, there is! That is through decisive physical proof and absolute sound logic. However, given the fractures, revisions, and misinterpretations, it would be hard to believe the Bible is physical proof. Apparently, not even the Christians themselves can truly grasp the form of God, or his intentions. And whether or not he even exists in the first place, we cannot determine yet. That reason being, we can't go to the beginning of time and space right now because we rely on retrieving history through recordings and written records. And until we find an alternative way to really determine how the universe was created, we're just going to have to keep the Bible and the Big Bang Theory as strictly theories.
Now don't get me wrong, just because I say that the validity of the Bible is not entirely certain, it's still the bible. It's still an artifact, and a written record of the past
Yes to the first part, but also see pretty much everything I wrote above (most importantly, (a) there's no such thing as definitive proof, and (b) written account =/= truth)
Harmless wrote:Whether or not it's actually just describing a theory is also very likely, however, given context, past history, and the logic of the situation.
I'm not completely certain what you mean by this.
Harmless wrote:What I am trying to express is: Believe ultimately what you want to believe. But you really cannot say that there was a definite way of how the universe was formed when we don't even have the appropriate technology and methods to discover the far off past for ourselves.
We're working on that part :p
Posted: October 17th, 2015, 11:49 am