The ultimate singularity is the Big Bang, which physicists believe was responsible for the birth of the universe.

We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything. It is a notion that is, in fact, utterly absurd, yet terribly important. Those so-called rational assumptions flow from this initial impossible situation. Western religion has its own singularity in the form of the apocalypse, an event placed not at the beginning of the universe but at its end. This seems a more logical position than that of science. If singularities exist at all it seems easier to suppose that they might arise out of an ancient and highly complexified cosmos, such as our own, than out of a featureless and dimensionless mega-void.

Top | New | Old

Nyxxx · 22-25, F

The fact that you think that scientists think that the Universe literally came from nothing, proves that you do not understand The Big Bang at all. You even say it happened "for no discernible reason" but scientists know that isn't true. We know what caused the Big Bang and have for quite a while.
You might think the Big Bang is an explosion but we know that's not what happened, it was, put very simply, the expansion of space. We even know what caused that to happen and we have observable evidence to prove it. Look up Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

....and then you say a religious belief is more logical than science. Religion is not logical at all. A religious belief is just a belief people have based on whatever book that specific religion tells them is true, which is often made up of information that cannot be proven or has been disproven.
The Big Bang has been proven, whereas a future apocalyptic event mentioned in books that are usually not even accurate in regards to history, cannot possibly be relied upon to accurately predict the future.

Northwest · M

@Nyxxx

You might think the Big Bang is an explosion but we know that's not what happened, it was, put very simply, the expansion of space

FYI: All explosions ARE rapid expansions of "something." Gas in the case of an internal combustion engine, rocket, bomb, etc.

The faster the expansion, the bigger the expansion.

But religion does not offer a better explanation and unlike science, it doesn't offer intermediate steps of our level of understanding of the process. The former is a single "and a miracle happened" take it or leave proposition.

Wireman · 31-35, M

Believe the science. It is safe and effective, just follow the money.

GoFish ·

evolutionist aren't scientist because evolution is fiction not scientific at all it's total bs

TrumanTheTrueman · 36-40, M

@GoFish I agree. It is science falsely so called.

TrumanTheTrueman · 36-40, M

@GoFish Watch this documentary. You will enjoy it: [media=https://youtu.be/85ar53InP6A]

GoFish ·

@TrumanTheTrueman my dad had all the ken ham and kent hovand videos

MyNameIsHurl · 46-50, F

Yeah, theyre heading down the wrong path

bookerdana · M

ExNihilo? eh Georges Lemaître,a belgian priest proposed what later was derided as the big bang theory..if Science can't see it or measure it,it ain't there

Northwest · M

An interesting word salad.

The current thinking, is that there was a single point, not clear how long it was there, or if it was the result of a contraction that over billions of years, resulted in a single point.

But science does not propose a reasonable explanation for the "initial expansion", or what happened during. What happened since seems to following better understood rules, but we're still learning.

The irregularities are the result of a non-symmetrical initial expansion.

The simple answer is that we don't know what caused the beginning or if there is an end, and western religion, which in reality is Levantine religion, represents the thinking of less than 1/4th of the world's population is just another stretch of the imagination. But that's just imagination and does not provide a better explanation.

Add a comment...