Our Universe

[Peru]

Being a person who believes in god, I find it hard to believe in such a thing. 

You're not the only one.
I find it pretty silly how some people can believe is such a theory.

[Mike]

For the sake of the topic, we should leave religion out of this.

---

The big bang theory is exactly what it is: a theory. There are thousands of theories about how this universe was formed, and the only thing they will ever be are theories. They are neither correct nor incorrect, only probably or less probable. The only reason why the big bang theory is given the most attention is because it has been deemed one of the most probable.

We have no way of knowing what happened how ever long it happened ago, and arguing about who's correct or incorrect is useless. We should be discussing which is the most (or least) probable instead.

[Jerome]

For the sake of the topic, we should leave religion out of this.

---

The big bang theory is exactly what it is: a theory. There are thousands of theories about how this universe was formed, and the only thing they will ever be are theories. They are neither correct nor incorrect, only probably or less probable. The only reason why the big bang theory is given the most attention is because it has been deemed one of the most probable.

We have no way of knowing what happened how ever long it happened ago, and arguing about who's correct or incorrect is useless. We should be discussing which is the most (or least) probable instead.

But surely you cannot talk about the beginning of the universe, or indeed the probability or likelihood that such a thing happened without involving religion. It just can't be done.

[Maddolis]

Yeah for a big explosion to occur in the first place, there had to be something there, hence people believe in an extra-universal being, such as god.
I'm catholic but for this argument I won't take sides- however "leaving religion out of it" just doesn't work.
It's like asking whether or not somebody will survive a leap of faith, and telling the respondents to "leave science out of it."

[HaZe]

Yeah but science explains life for the most part. Mike's just asking for a better response than "God made it".

[Jerome]

Yeah but science explains life for the most part. Mike's just asking for a better response than "God made it".

Ok, I wrote out a whole long essay to argue the fact the Science does not explain the most part of life (at least for me) but decided to scrap it because it would be looked on as "Stupid" or something.

I'm looking for a better explanation than "Science explains it" you know? Surely it can't .. I mean wtf is Science? It boils down to belief at the end of the day.

[Maddolis]

You can believe you'll live to 200 all you want, but by the end of the day science says you won't.
It's foolish to dismiss science for religion, but oppressing others' religious beliefs based on scientific fact is a delicate matter and should be avoided.
That being said, if science hasn't proved or disproved something, let the religious people have their beliefs and let them express them, there's no real harm.

[Mike]

In the world of science, for something to be held as necessarily true, there must be supporting evidence, observation, or a logical process of reason. In the world of religion, for something to be held as the truth, it must be derived from the corresponding religious text. 

Religion Vs. Science is a perpetual argument because religion cannot provide evidence or logical reason for concepts based on observation. Likewise, "science" is not supported by religious text. They are incompatible.

Using religion in an argument about science (and vice-versa) is a fallacy in formal logic called "Appeal to Authority".

Consider these statements as an example (I will be using the words expert and authority interchangeably):

Steven Gerrard is a professional football/soccer player. Suppose one says "When riding his motorcycle to work, Gerrard uses brand Alpinestars motorcycle jacket, so Alpinestars is the best brand jacket out there." In fact, Gerrard knows little about motorcycle gear. Just because he uses a certain brand of jacket doesn't mean it is the best because he is not an expert, or an authority, on motorcycle gear. Now if one said that "Gerrard wears brand Adidas shin pads, that must mean brand Adidas is the best", this is most likely true because Gerrard plays football/soccer for a living and is most likely an expert with shin pads through experience, or observation. He is an expert, or authority, on the topic of shin pads.

The same can be said for religious arguments in science. Religion is not an authority on science, and therefore cannot be used as reasons to argue topics about science. Likewise, it goes the other way around. Scientific arguments have no place in religion, because science is not an authority on religion.

Based on this logic, science and religion have no correlation to each other and should not be integrated together in arguments. 

[Maddolis]

I agree, both science and religion should stay on their own turfs, because when they get intertwined people get pissed.

Can't wait till I rule the universe.

[Hitman]

Im strongly against any religion at all - i mean, how stupid are them?

- Buddhists... sittin all day around some where "thinking", wasting their life
- Hindus are stressed all day because they're scared they get reborn as a fucking plant
- Jews are still waiting for some messias, lolwut?!
- Muslims preach peace and shit, and actually they're bombing cities, treat women with like 0 rights etc
- Christians are crazy aswell, the pope talking shit about how he dislikes condoms in africa while he has absolutely no clue what hes talking about. And to the so called "holy bible", its some book with 66 fairytales written by 40  authors in 3 languages on 3 continents over approximately 1600 years (i know this is a quote and exaggerated, but you get what i mean)

Now tell me, who would believe in any religion?

Sorry if i offend someone, thats just my 2 cents.