Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Go look up the microwave background radiation. Cosmological theories predict it, and there it is. It's a remnant of the earliest moments of the big bang, cyclical or not. There is no other way to explain it.

Useful? Are microwaves useful?

Of course they're limited as humans. But because we don't know where the "end" of pi is, does that mean it's not useful to us in the real world? In science, and in physics particularly, you look around yourself, draw lines into the past and into the future, and see where they take you. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong.

Well written. I'm going to remember your line about pi. It's a great analogy.

I can say, as a Christian, that science is looking for the mechanisms that were used by the Creator do create the universe -- all of OUR space and time. Science says nothing about teleology. Science does not answer the "why." Science does not address morality, or our response as intelligent beings to what we may discover when we look. That is what our faith tries to comprehend and make meaningful.

The quantum world exhibits falsifiable principles

But falsifiability isn't absolutely necessary, all the time, for science. And in spite of that the whole quantum construct is so counterintuitive and bizarre that it's hard not to believe there's some other ordering below it that makes what we see as quantum mechanics make sense, or at least more than it does now. About all you can say about quantum mechanics is that it works.

I totally agree about your skepticism about string theories; what's new here is his postulation that dark energy may be the manifestation of energy in a dimension that draws the branes back together again, creating another burst of a universe. Perhaps the new European collider will add some knowledge that will allow string theories to create testable hypotheses, which is what they are lacking (I guess there's your falsifiability).

Why are you so *repelled* by such proclamations? If they are silly and irrelevant to you, then ignore them. Your comment reveals a sense of insecurity.

I whole-heartedly agree with the shouted out comment about God.

I'm all for science, and I'm all for acknowledging the limitations and flaws in science--not the least of which is human nature (self-deception, lying, imperfect senses, etc.).

Why are you so *repelled* by such proclamations? If they are silly and irrelevant to you, then ignore them. Your comment reveals a sense of insecurity.

His / her comment reflects a person who accepts scientific reality's concern over the increasing sway that evangelical fundamentalists have over US science policy, and their four-square attack on Darwinian evolution and now more and more on the geological timescale. Note that last week the Florida legislature did approve of the teaching of evolution in the schools, but only as long as it was tagged with the (layman's meaning of) "theory," by which they mean to convey the concept "guess."

But at least they allow the teaching of the foundation of life sciences in their schools. It could be worse. And it's enough to make any scientist nervous.

I get nervous when materialist atheists and their assumptions are guiding science. That's not to say that I'm not also nervous when religious fundamentalists try to skew scientific research to suit their tastes.

In the truth seer's proclamation, however, I see no anti-science bias whatsoever. Rather, I see an acknowledgment that, whatever the science may be, God is behind everything.

Your comment reveals a sense of insecurity.

Don't you think that "shouting" GOD IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING on a thread talking about the scientific mechanics behind the formation of the Universe reveals insecurity on the part of the shouter?

I can't help but draw parallels between religious attempts to explain HOW and the historical silencing of dissenting views. Didn't the church essentially shout 'God is the answer to everything' to Galileo when he proclaimed that the Earth revolved around the Sun hundreds of years ago?... don't Islamic terrorists shout 'God is great' just before they blow themselves up along with bus loads of innocent people today? Haven't we been killing or suppressing each other with such baseless blanket proclamations for far too long now!? Simply put, they are not endearing or insightful.... merely sad and a little bit scary.

So unfortunately, screaming "GOD IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING" as a response to genuine scientific insight doesn't begin to change the fact that SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING! Given time and, in the face of scientific knowledge, religious beliefs always fade from the religions that spawned them. You don't still believe the Earth is flat, the center of the Universe, or created 6,000 years ago, do you? Yet some religious people still maintain at least one of these beliefs. All I can say is: its a little pathetic, entirely insecure, and extremely vain, self-centered, stubborn and near-sighted.

If someone wanted a theological discussion to answer the WHY question in: Why are we here?, then e-shouting their personal religious beliefs in response to scientific theory is not the way to start that debate (although it has been done to end it).

I get nervous when materialist atheists and their assumptions are guiding science

Not sure they do this. What science says is, "God is not the answer behind electrostatic attraction." "The universe is as old as it looks, God didn't create it at some other time and leave all these clues to mislead us." "the Bible doesn't get to place restrictions on a description of the process of evolution."

This isn't denying God. Individual athiests may say, "God doesn't exist at all" but that's not based on science, that's their opinion. Science does in fact not recognize miracles that bypass natural laws, but that doesn't reflect an atheistic viewpoint, it reflects observation. To me, God is still there, regardless of the age of the universe, or the composition of quarks, or Darwin.

. . . or created 6,000 years ago, do you?

Yes, many of them do. Look at how many Omnitheaters in the South refused to book the films "Galapagos" and "Ring of Fire" because they mentioned evolution and the geological timescale. The answer is a very large number of them. So, religious limitation of science is alive and well right here.

Science does in fact not recognize miracles that bypass natural laws, but that doesn't reflect an atheistic viewpoint, it reflects observation.

Amen!

SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!

Why do snowflakes form as they do?

How does gravity work?

Science has failed to find answers to so many different things. Up 'til now, all it can do is describe how they behave.

The fact that people use religion to deny scientific conclusions doesn't mean truth seer was doing so. Clearly, some folks here have chips on their shoulders.

Apparently, until just recently, we didn't even know how wide our own galaxy was.

How sure can we be about our new best guess?

We can't, but we can be sure it's science, because the old was is immediately replaced because it didn't match the newer observations.

Why do snowflakes form as they do?

Water freezes.

How does gravity work?

Mass attracts.

Just because you don't understand something, or science has yet to discover its full workings, (or I don't have space here to fully explain climate and physics) doesn't mean that it wont be scientifically explained eventually. In contrast, religion is moving in the opposite direction, explaining less and less as we observe and understand more.

The fact that people use religion to deny scientific conclusions doesn't mean truth seer was doing so. Clearly, some folks here have chips on their shoulders.

I'm responding in this thread and not truth seekers for a reason.... I'm responding to this thread. If I seem to have a "chip on my shoulder", its because screaming religious beliefs in response to a new scientific idea is appalling from a historical context and literally represents thousands of years of needless violence and oppression that is still going on (and killing innocent people all over the world) today. Yes, that does make me mad, so when I see it, I try to call it out for what it is: baseless, dangerous, and ultimately futile.

Water freezes.

More specifically, why do snowflakes form as they do? We know something about the lattice structure, which explains why there is a six-fold symmetry, but we don't know why different types of snowflakes form at different temperatures and humidity. There's a researcher at Cal Tech looking into this, but, so far, the answer is elusive.

Mass attracts.

That's an observation, not an explanation. By what *mechanism* does mass attract? Nobody knows, though many have speculated.

What guarantee is there that science will *ever* find an answer to these very basic questions? There is none. I see no reason to be arrogantly confident that such answers will be found.

This was brought to my attention via a separate discussion.

I'm no Einstein, but I do find it most puzzling why snow crystals grow like they do, and I want to figure out the underlying physics. I am interested in the fundamental aspects of how molecules jostle into place to form a crystal -- how fast does this happen? How does it change with temperature? There are many such questions, and ice is an interesting case study of crystal growth. These remarkable structures simply fall from the sky, and we ought to understand how they are formed! I feel that with over six billion people on the planet, surely a few of us can be spared to ponder the subtle mysteries of snowflakes.

And, from this page:

Why snow crystal shapes change so much with temperature remains something of a scientific mystery. The growth depends on exactly how water vapor molecules are incorporated into the growing ice crystal, and the physics behind this is complex and not well understood. It is the subject of current research in my lab and elsewhere.

So, it's not just that you don't have time to explain these things to me (nice try, though), it's that nobody (human) actually knows.

What guarantee is there that science will *ever* find an answer to these very basic questions? There is none. I see no reason to be arrogantly confident that such an answer will be found.

Quite correct. But that doesn't mean that science is wrong, or that it's not worth studying. It only means we're not done.

What it does mean, though, is that whatever the answers to these questions really are, they are what they are, period. To use the example of the thickness of the galaxy, at 12,000 light-years as has been recently discovered, I expect one of my (dear) fundamentalist friends to tell me that this is not possible, because the universe is only 8,000 years old, as calculated from the Bible. 6,000 LY was OK, 12,000 LY is not OK, due to the Bible. He starts there, and to him all science is there to affirm the Bible.

And his ilk would suppress as erroneous all mentions of the universe being billions of years old, or of speciation arising from Darwinian evolution, and many other things, because they are obviously unBiblical. Fine for him, but it's not science.

It only means we're not done.

What irks me is when folks insist that we are so close to understanding everything. Do you think there is an end to knowledge? Will we *ever* be "done"?

As for fundamentalists, they could be right. If there is an omnipotent God, He very well *could* have created the world 6,000 years ago--complete with fossil record and background radiation. I'm not saying I believe that, but anything is possible.

By the way, I don't think anybody can point out a place where I say that science is not worth studying. Nor, I believe has anybody else made such an assertion in this discussion.

What guarantee is there that science will *ever* find an answer to these very basic questions? There is none. I see no reason to be arrogantly confident that such answers will be found.

So... you believe there is no scientific explanation for why snowflakes form different shapes or how gravity attracts? I completely disagree.

So, it's not just that you don't have time to explain these things to me (nice try, though), it's that nobody (human) actually knows.

*Sigh*.... "gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other" as defined in Einsteins General theory of relativity...

General relativity (GR) or General theory of relativity (GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16. It unifies special relativity, Newton's law of universal gravitation, and the insight that gravitational acceleration can be described by the curvature of space and time, this latter being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the matter in spacetime.

If you don't really understand that, just take from it the fact that we're well on the way to scientifically explaining gravity. But, how much of that understanding has come from religion? None.

Snowflakes are similar... their formation is complicated and probably involves a good deal of random chance. Again... how much understanding of snowflake formation has religion given us? None. Science? Everything we currently know.

So the more accurate question is: What makes you think science wont find explanations for these things? I'm pretty certain religion can't, and since there must be an explanation, I'd put my "faith" in science.

To learn more (because I honestly do not have the time to explain everything about physics that you don't know):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow

He very well *could* have created the world 6,000 years ago--complete with fossil record and background radiation.

Correct. And, we couldn't tell the difference.

I don't think anybody can point out a place where I say that science is not worth studying. Nor, I believe has anybody else made such an assertion in this discussion.

Correct also. I'm responding to some other discussions I've had with other people, where they've argued that science education is not very important because nothing can be "finally" determined, anyway. My mistake. However, that argument is in fact often used to justify restricting what science teachers can teach.

Correct. And, we couldn't tell the difference.

While it is correct that it is possible God could exist and could've created everything in a manner so as to hide from us his true methods, it is also equally probable that we are inside a Matrix computer simulation, and everything around us actually is fake.... we still wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there is no evidence supporting either theory.

"Anything is possible" really does mean: Anything is possible.... not simply "God is possible." However, evidence and observation tend to point towards the true explanation, and again, while it is possible that everything around us is a lie, its highly unlikely and a little too pessimistic for my tastes.

So... you believe there is no scientific explanation for why snowflakes form different shapes or how gravity attracts? I completely disagree.

I'm not saying there is no naturalistic explanation for these things, I'm saying that we may never find them.

*Sigh*.... "gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other" as defined in Einsteins General theory of relativity...

That's *one* theory, isn't it? Rather it's a model that would tend to explain things. Of course, that answer begs another question (as do almost all mundane answers). Granted what you say, what is it about massive objects that causes space-time curvatures? Why is space curved? What is the mechanism by which space is curved, or is it an inherent property of space?

I'm not actually expecting you to be patient enough (or able) to answer all these questions. I'm trying to point out that science does *not* have all the answers, nor will it ever. God, by definition, *does* have all the answers.

...and since there must be an explanation, I'd put my "faith" in science.

Why must there be an explanation? Can you explain/prove *that*?

Why did you choose to have what you had for lunch today? Was it a purely deterministic, rational choice, or was there some element of caprice and whim involved?

God is a person as well. God has whims. Whimsy often defies any explanation.

By the way, I have an engineering degree from an Ivy League University. While I haven't studied graduate level physics, I *did* get an "A" in undergrad quantum physics. I'm confident that, with enough patience, I can understand anything in mathematics and physics.

Of course, I find my patience often to be lacking--I'd rather be playing music.

So the more accurate question is: What makes you think science wont find explanations for these things? I'm pretty certain religion can't, and since there must be an explanation, I'd put my "faith" in science.

Religion has an answer for *every* why. That answer is: because God willed it to be so. "Not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord."

Admittedly, that answer is not very useful from the engineering perspective, but, for the meaning-seeker, it's perfectly valid.

Ok.... now you're just selectively addressing some of the points I made and not answering the questions I posed to you. I still want to know why you think religion can provide the answers to how a snowflake forms or how gravity works, while science can not.

I'm not actually expecting you to be patient enough (or able) to answer all these questions. I'm trying to point out that science does *not* have all the answers, nor will it ever. God, by definition, *does* have all the answers.

God by definition? Who's definition? I don't remember any religion teaching that: "God is a person as well. God has whims." And simply because something is defined, does not mean it exists.

Why must there be an explanation? Can you explain/prove *that*?

Yes. Even if your explanation is "God did it".... thats still an explanation!

So... my question again: What makes you think science wont find explanations for these things [snowflakes and gravity] and why do you think religion can? As an engineer, you do agree that "because God willed it to be so" is "not very useful from the engineering perspective" and we're talking about HOW (an engineering question), not WHY (a theological/philosophical question).

I don't remember any religion teaching that: "God is a person as well. God has whims."

I should clarify that.... What I mean is that according to the definition of "person", God can not be a person.

I still want to know why you think religion can provide the answers to how a snowflake forms or how gravity works, while science can not.

Because experimental science is limited to using tools and instruments built by human hands. Those instruments will always have a limited precision. Theoretical science involves using our limited intellects to try to wrap our minds around *everything*, or at least break things down into digestible chunks. Not every equation can be so factored.

God by definition? Who's definition? I don't remember any religion teaching that: "God is a person as well. God has whims." And simply because something is defined, does not mean it exists.

Well, *I* defined God as the All-in-All and the Whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. Many standard definitions of God include the three O's (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence). By those definitions, "God willed it" answers not only the why, but the how, who, what and where.

What makes you think science wont find explanations for these things [snowflakes and gravity] and why do you think religion can?

There is a spiritual principle that, though we are finite beings, God can reveal anything to us (otherwise, God would not be infinitely powerful). So, yes, God may choose to reward our search for answers to specific questions. However, is there a limit to how many questions we have to answer? If God is infinite, then there are infinite questions to answer and no end to knowledge.

What I mean is that according to the definition of "person", God can not be a person.

Why not? What is your working definition of person?

I'll use Webster's definitions (not my own)...

Person:

1 a human being regarded as an individual

God:

1 [without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 ( god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.

So "God" does not equal "Person"

But semantics aren't the issue. As an engineer, if I asked you how steel was made, you would have a step by step explanation of how steel is made. You could say "God did it," but you would be wrong, wouldn't you? So, if you believe that God is the answer to "how" everything happens, than what do we spend our time doing all day? Aren't things possible of happening without God? Doesn't the absence of both requirement and proof mean something doesn't necessarily exist? Haven't you considered that fact before? And how can you defend a potentially figment of your imagination as an explanation for a demonstrable natural effect. I'm just curious because you seem to have taken up an incredibly counter-intuitive viewpoint...

So "God" does not equal "Person"

God as described by the scriptures to which I subscribe has infinite forms, many of which are personal (if relatively superhuman). Many people (say, the champion of UFC) have qualities which could be described as "superhuman". Does that make them not persons?

As for how things happen, there are absolute considerations and there are relative considerations. From the relative consideration, people making steel mine iron ore, smelt it, refine it, etc. From the absolute consideration, those people are *parts and parcels* of God--think of them as cells in the body of God, so, yes, God is doing the work--God's will is being done.

There's a whole world of scripture out there on these topics into which I could start to delve here if you're interested.

The Brahma Samhita is a one place to find descriptions of the personal aspects of Divinity as well as a fair bit of cosmology.

Here's a little sample:

BS 5.11: The Lord of the mundane world, Mahā-Viṣṇu, possesses thousands of thousands of heads, eyes, hands. He is the source of thousands of thousands of avatāras in His thousands of thousands of subjective portions. He is the creator of thousands of thousands of individual souls.

BS 5.12: The same Mahā-Viṣṇu is spoken of by the name of "Nārāyaṇa" in this mundane world. From that eternal person has sprung the vast expanse of water of the spiritual Causal Ocean. The subjective portion of Sańkarṣaṇa who abides in paravyoma, the above supreme puruṣa with thousands of subjective portions, reposes in the state of divine sleep [yoga-nidrā] in the waters of the spiritual Causal Ocean.

For beginners, The Bhagavad Gita is an excellent place to start. Chapter 15 is called (in this particular translation): The Yoga of the Supreme Person.

Here's a nice verse from chapter 15 of Bhagavad Gita:

BG 15.5: Those who are free from false prestige, illusion and false association, who understand the eternal, who are done with material lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who, unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person attain to that eternal kingdom.

From the absolute consideration, those people are *parts and parcels* of God--think of them as cells in the body of God, so, yes, God is doing the work--God's will is being done.

Ok.... when I say too much, you don't answer my questions, so:

Why do you think this is true?

Do you have any evidence?

Ok.... when I say too much, you don't answer my questions, so:

You have felt free to treat any number of my questions as rhetorical. For instance, there was the one about what you have for lunch and how you came to choose it.

Do you have any evidence?

I'll quote myself:

My evidence is not empiric. It's purely subjective. That's just fine by me. There's plenty of it, though.

Would you like some? Trying to prove the existence of a spiritual being by material means is largely an exercise in futility.

Why do you think this is true?

Because God reveals Himself in every sunrise, sunset, the song of the birds, the song in my heart, and, of course, most importantly because those in whom I've placed my faith and trust (because they have captivated my heart and mind) tell me so.

Alright.... so:

1. No (If its subjective, its not evidence).

and

2. Sunrises, sunsets and singing birds.... How can I argue with that?

As for: what did I have for lunch and why? Pizza because they deliver..... I only assumed that question was rhetorical since my answer has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

....... and I've allowed myself to be roped into another futile argument.

....... and I've allowed myself to be roped into another futile argument.

You're right. Chant the names of God and be happy. Life goes on whether science progresses or not.

The fact is, regardless of how much you know about physics and climate, so much of what you know you accept based on *trust*--I doubt you've worked through every proof for yourself. You trust the scientists not to fudge data. You trust the scientists not to come to the wrong conclusions based on their data.

I trust scientists to a point, but try to maintain a healthy skepticism.

I place a lot more faith in the sunrises.

Snowflakes don't care why they form the way they do.

Bodies will attract one other regardless of the explanation we try to hang on their attraction.