In another thread, our @slinger writes:
Sorry R.D. … not to get off topic, but you do the same thing when you state that “the science is settled” in relation to creation science. First of all, you most certainly DO believe in creation science. You simply think that the creator stopped at a different point than I do. For instance … there is no “something from nothing” moment … no big bang … without a metaphysical event … i.e. the creator.
For the record, I am probably rather closely aligned with what you might call a “theist agnostic.” While I was raised a Christian, schooled as a Christian for 8 years, and generally have a “gut feeling” that there is a great, big dude up there that created everything, I can’t prove a Creator’s existence so I can’t believe in one. I believe in things that I can see and touch, is the short story. Or at least in things where I see convincing evidence thereof, in the cases where I can’t see and touch (i.e. dinosaurs and shit).
I’m not an atheist, note, in that I won’t ever say that God doesn’t exist. We’ve had this discussion here before on the Revo. Don’t worry, I’m not one of them.
But I feel it’s something worth pointing out that recently (okay, relatively recently) Stephen Hawking has, after many years of at least my level of agnosticism, seemingly developed a pretty sure form of atheism. For many years he and most of the world has been pretty comfortable with the concept that something cannot come from nothing. But Hawking recently hypothesized that something can, in a way, come from nothing.
I will do my best to put this as succinctly as I can, but much of this discussion revolves around the existence of matter and anti-matter. Tied to this concept, we have (I believe experimentally detected) the presence of protons (and, this is key, proton-sized particles) blinking in and out of existence. That’s the best way I can put it. They appear in our reality one moment, and the next moment they’re not there. Then they’re back. We don’t see this happening with large objects, but it does happen on a subatomic level.
In any case, keep that in mind when we discuss the formation of the universe.
How do we traditionally see the universe as having been created? Well, “something” touches off an infinitesimally small and infinitely dense particle that then “explodes” and expands, thus creating “the universe.” Well, we assume that this “something” touched off the match to make the thing in the first place… and then to make it “explode,” right? Welp, if you believe that particles really can blink in and out of existence, then it seems that just maybe, the universe can blink into existence when it’s still that small.
And at a time in which there is a point with infinitely small size and infinitely large mass, you have no progression of time (remember that time slows and comes to a stop as gravitational force increases). Meaning there is no time before the Big Bang. And if there’s no time progression prior to the Big Bang, prior to the everything, then how can there have been a Creator to touch off the whole damn thing?
Short story, not only is a Creator unemployed in Hawking’s theory, but he likely doesn’t even exist in the first place.
Anyway, I’m still a theist agnostic (rather than an atheist), even with all that. But damn it’s an interesting discussion (even if I skipped over some of the meatier parts due to wanting to churn this out quick, heh).Share