Evolution & God

[Desi Cartman]

I have thought about it for as long as I can remember. To me God as well as evolution are both theories and either of them could be proven correct/incorrect depending on the person's belief. I would request you all to post what you believe in and why. I will also add a post mentioning my thoughts and belief

[Desi Cartman]

The big bang theory presents an interesting meeting place for modern science and established western religion. Both groups seem happy to agree that the universe originated out of nothing in an explosion at a definite time very long ago. A few scientists may go on to assert that no further explanation of the universe is necessary, because before the big bang there was no time, so there was no "before the big bang." Stephen Hawking likens the problem to "What's north of the North Pole?" In western religious philosophy the big bang implies the existence of a creator outside of physical existence to launch the whole thing. Pope Pius XII stated so on 22 November 1951, early in the development of the theory (1). Either way, as long as the conversation keeps to the near side of the big bang, the theory holds nothing for science and religion to disagree about (2). The same kind of truce has helped, to a lesser degree, the Darwinian paradigm for evolution and the origin of life on Earth. The theory says life originates out of nonliving chemicals and evolves to higher levels of organization simply by following mechanistic laws. Western religions say yes, and every mechanism has a creator. But here the truce has been uneasy. October 22, 1996, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II (right) acknowledged the significance of the mainstream theory of evolution. But his overal tone was cautious. And that evolution was now "more than just a hypothesis," as he was widely reported to have said (3,4), is possibly a mistranslation (5) of "more than one hypothesis" (6). In any case the Pope went on to say, "Rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution."

A Third Alternative If biology had followed Pasteur's paradigm instead of Darwin's, and if Cosmic Ancestry were the prevailing theory today, the mechanical theory of nature would be sufficient to account for evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth. There would be no need for supernatural intervention. But neither science nor religion seems interested in Cosmic Ancestry as an alternative. Most biologists are so committed to Darwinism that they treat any alternative as unscientific. And creationists are quite pleased if the scientific alternative is mandated to be Darwinism. A gridlock has been reached. In one important respect Cosmic Ancestry is fundamentally different from both Darwinism and the prevailing western religions. Both hold that life arises and evolves from simpler beginnings. Darwinism explains this process with material causes, religions do so with supernatural causes. In Cosmic Ancestry life neither arises nor evolves to more highly organized forms from simpler beginnings. With only material causes, it just doesn't work. But life can, with only material causes, descend from prior life at least as highly evolved as itself. Thus in Cosmic Ancestry life only descends. We acknowledge that this difference is profound. As for where this life comes from "in the first place," the question may be misguided. Science cannot answer every question. For example, why is there anything instead of nothing at all? The existence of the physical world, with or without a beginning, is a phenomenon that science cannot reduce. We are suggesting that highly evolved life is a phenomenon of similar magnitude that science cannot reduce. In science God never emerges from behind a curtain and performs an act of supernatural intervention. This principle is maintained if life has no beginning. We think this conclusion is the scientific one. From a religious perspective, conversely, life that comes from eternity is an unassailable miracle.

http://www.panspermia.org/mechansm.htm

[THX_1138]

Well Desidownunder what would you like? a long debate proving without a shadow of doubt that evolution is overwhelmingly the correct and observed theory or would you like a nonsense debate hijacked by the religious nuts who are unable to accept a criticism of their personal beliefs? The first of your two quotes borrows from Saint Thoma Acquina's proofs for the existence of God that any freshman student of Philosophy is qualified enough to dispell, question and challenge into submission. The other critiques of evolution that you might hear in this thread, if indeed the religious nuts come to the party, is the age old argument of irreducible complexity, i.e. the William Paley approach. Again, that has been obliterated into insignificance by numerous evolutionary biologists and mathematicians, foremost or rather, the most popular amongst whom is Richard Dawkins. I would appreciate if you could maybe tabulate some of the questions you have or what your particular view point is on this issue and then maybe we can address each question/belief strategically. Opening the forum to an unbounded debate is receipe for disaster!

[Desi Cartman]

All I m looking for is the views of fellow posters , what do they believe and why .. The reason I started this thread was to know what other people think about it and what I can learn from it. In no way did I mean to start a thread where people will prove each other wrong in a way thats offensive.

a long debate proving without a shadow of doubt that evolution is overwhelmingly the correct and observed theory or would you like a nonsense debate hijacked by the religious nuts who are unable to accept a criticism of their personal beliefs?

if evolution is correct then does it mean that so called theories about God are incorrect ? So is there really a god then ?

[graphic23]

All I m looking for is the views of fellow posters , what do they believe and why .. The reason I started this thread was to know what other people think about it and what I can learn from it. In no way did I mean to start a thread where people will prove each other wrong in a way thats offensive. if evolution is correct then does it mean that so called theories about God are incorrect ? So is there really a god then ?

Why cannot God and Evolution co-exist? I believe in Evolution. I also believe in the existence of God. i am not very familiar with the logical contradictions so if one of you could explain, it would be much appreciated. :)

[Desi Cartman]

Do you know of any religion that mentions anything similar to evolution. Most religions say that god created humans ... or I should be asking "Can You Believe in God and Evolution?"

[Rajiv]

All I m looking for is the views of fellow posters , what do they believe and why .. The reason I started this thread was to know what other people think about it and what I can learn from it. In no way did I mean to start a thread where people will prove each other wrong in a way thats offensive. if evolution is correct then does it mean that so called theories about God are incorrect ? So is there really a god then ?

..i have a counter question? who made god

[Desi Cartman]

..i have a counter question? who made god

thats one of the questions that I have .... I asked this to a pastor and he just smiled at me ...:cry_smile:

[Rajiv]

thats one of the questions that I have .... I asked this to a pastor and he just smiled at me ...:cry_smile:

LOL, I mean if God made everything..then he must be perfect ! yes..then who made this perfect being Point is, why stop there; I think we can go by theories but ultimately it started somewhere

[Desi Cartman]

LOL, I mean if God made everything..then he must be perfect ! yes..then who made this perfect being Point is, why stop there; I think we can go by theories but ultimately it started somewhere

thats what I think as well and wanted to know what others believe .. I also believe that religion and god is beneficial to the society so people pass on their worries to someone else (God) and do not worry about things that they cant control. God is also a single answer to all unanswerable questions. I guess it saves millions from trying to over-control their life and getting depressed ... its a system where you leave the worries to God or unknown.

[yoda]

we did evolve and were put in place by god to do so.

[Desi Cartman]

The term GOD when I use is not a religion specific .. I am talking about the so called "the one and only god". even hindus believe that there is just 1 god and rest are different ways to present him ... I am asking , is it true that there is a god ? if so where is the proof ... just like the way people ask evolution can not be proven as it has missing links , the same way God's existence can not be proven either ...

[THX_1138]

All I m looking for is the views of fellow posters , what do they believe and why .. The reason I started this thread was to know what other people think about it and what I can learn from it. In no way did I mean to start a thread where people will prove each other wrong in a way thats offensive. if evolution is correct then does it mean that so called theories about God are incorrect ? So is there really a god then ?

If God is defined as a creator or originator etc etc, then Mathematically speaking, he or she does not exist. This is the conclusion of arguments against Saint Thomas Acquina's proofs for the existence of god. As some of the other posters indicated, that there does not exist a logical contradiction between the two, well maybe there is some truth to that. One can continue to believe is god even with all the evidence against it, but that is their own discretion. Finally, while evolution does not aim to prove the non existence of god, it just so happens that the properties using which god is defined are contradicted by numerous conclusions of modern physics and evolutionary biology.

[THX_1138]

Why cannot God and Evolution co-exist? I believe in Evolution. I also believe in the existence of God. i am not very familiar with the logical contradictions so if one of you could explain' date=' it would be much appreciated. :)[/quote'] good point... well graphic as i said in my previous post, it just so happens that the properties which define a god are contradicted by some of the conclusions of modern astrophysics and evolutionary biology. to be better explain it, god resides in the gaps of our understanding. i.e. initially before we understood evolutionary biology, god was attributed as the reason for our existence on this planet. when evolution was better understood, god was pushed into a new gap, the origin of the universe. now that when we have almost conclusively explained that too with the theory of big bang, god is now pushed into the gap to explain how life originated on this planet. note that i say almost conclusively since we are still working on some concepts such as why do particles have a mass? why is there not more antimatter in the universe as there is matter? what is dark matter and what is dark energy? etc... but a overwhelming majority of the work has been done. so yeah, while you are most welcome to believe in both the existence of god and evolution, from the view points of how god has been defined in abrahamic religions, he or she does not exist.

[THX_1138]

The term GOD when I use is not a religion specific .. I am talking about the so called "the one and only god". even hindus believe that there is just 1 god and rest are different ways to present him ... I am asking ' date=' is it true that there is a god ? if so where is the proof ... just like the way people ask evolution can not be proven as it has missing links , the same way God's existence can not be proven either ...[/quote'] evolution has been proven conclusively without a single contradiction. i repeat, without a single contradiction. you can do a google ninja on me and give me a million links to the contrary, but they are all pseudoscience. there has not been a single peer reviewed academic study published till date that points towards a contrary explaination. if you need a overwhelming and quick proof that evolution exists, ask someone who has had his/her appendix removed, or a tail bone fracture. then it will dawn upon you that the creator has not achieved perfection. for more proof, examine your DNA sequence and it will leave you wondering what on earth is all the junk DNA for?

[THX_1138]

thats what I think as well and wanted to know what others believe .. I also believe that religion and god is beneficial to the society so people pass on their worries to someone else (God) and do not worry about things that they cant control. God is also a single answer to all unanswerable questions. I guess it saves millions from trying to over-control their life and getting depressed ... its a system where you leave the worries to God or unknown.

are you sure about that? majority of conflicts around the globe would just disappear if someone waved a magic wand that would erase religion from our conciousness in an instant. the irish-english rivalry, the indian-pakistani rivalry, the israeli-palestinian rivalry, the problmes in uganda-rwanda, conflict in the congo basin, the christian-muslim rivalry in nigeria, the slav-croat-muslim rivalry in the balkans, the bhuddhist-hindu rivalry in sri lanka just to name a few. which it would be an over simplification, but misplaced nationalism and religion are the single most reasons for most of the world's most agregious and extensive wars for the past 2000 years.

[CC1981]

Every few months this 'God' topic pops up and it ends up being the same ol circular stuff all over again. Anyways, my views on God is simple - i am an agnost ( ie, i don't believe or disbelieve in God, to me the question is an indeterminate as of now) and most importantly, i do not CARE if God exists or doesn't. The 'do not care' is a part i've borrowed from Buddhism, where Siddharta correctly surmises that the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to our state of being in this universe. For if God was relevant, he would've left a lasting and unimpeachable sign/representative to keep humanity informed of his existence. Furthermore, Dharma, which essentially means 'the way', is independent of God- for dharma is ruled by causality- cause and effect, aka, karma. Just like how me or you saying something doesn't necessarily make it right, the same standard holds true for this 'God' character. This is something that followers of Abrahamic faith (and to an extent, Hindu cultists like the Shiv Sena/RSS idiots) fail to appreciate. That 'coz God said so' argument is essentially 'might is right' argument is lost on such people. The most common argument for the existence of God, which THX has touched, is the ' apparent order in the universe' theory- where religious folks point to the apparent 'orderly' look of the universe and say that this cannot be per chance but must be engineered. This is quasi-logical IMO, for the universe from where we stand, does seem well organised. But where this theory falls down is that it presupposes- when we DO NOT know the entire extent (and thus, the nature) of the universe, how can we pass any judgement on whether it is organised or not ? What may be organised from our perspective might just be a very small layer to the cosmic reality,where the overall dictum is chaos. Furthermore, the Dalai Llama, in his book " The universe in an atom" points out some very cogent arguments against the 'one creator God' which are actually hard to ignore. For one, he quotes a 9th century Buddhist philosopher from India, who essentially says that the 'one creator God' is an inconsistent argument. Simply because, the 'one creator God' is invoked as a necessity of causality- the 'ground zero' of 'who started it all/someone must've started this all' question. Ie, most religious people, will instinctively use 'God' as the starting point of universe as an explanation to its causation. But they are forced to abandon causation itself when the question is extended to 'well, who started/created God then?' Ie, in that instance, causality is abandoned, thus making the entire argument inconsistent. This is a very glaring flaw in the argument for God IMO. Another problem with the 'controller God' - ie, the God who built the world, is going to judge us,etc etc. is from a fundamental aspect of physics, namely, quantum physics. As one famous particle physicist points out to the Dalai Llama (and he agrees), the 'all powerful omnipotent God who created this universe' is an inconsistent argument within itself. The reason for this is simple: if God is omnipotent, then he/she cannot change. For what will omnipotence change to ?? Omnipotence implies the absolute pinnacle of anything conceivable. Now, consider the fact that the very basic aspect of interaction is 'change'. What i mean is, the very act of touching something is changing yourself at a quantum level ( the atoms in your finger/hand etc are NOT the same in number, alignment or spin before/after touching something) and this is true in every single observed case in this universe. Which begets the question : if God is omnipotent and cannot change, then how can God create something or interact with this universe, given that to interact is to change ??? That can imply only two things- that something omnipotent CANNOT interact or create the universe or that the creator cannot be omnipotent. There is also the famous question posed by a famous logician in the reneissance period ( Renee desCartes i think,not sure): 'Can God create a hammer so heavy that he himself cannot lift it ?' This question perhaps underlines the ultimate dichotomy and problems in the 'absolute powerful creator God' argument of most religions : If God cannot create a hammer so heavy, then he isn't omnipotent. If God can create a hammer so heavy,then he cannot lift it, thus he cannot be omnipotent either. But at the same time, i accept the limitations to scientific thought- where scientific thought in itself has its boundaries and one fact that eludes most scientists/science-thumpers is that science cannot answer all the questions of our existence either- it is not simply a limitation of information, it is a fundamental limitation of science in itself. Take for example, the 'Big bang theory'. I've met countless scientists- some even professors and far more learned than me- who absolutely swear by the origin of the universe through the big-bang. Yet, very few of them can realise that it is only a theory, a theory that we CANNOT extend to the whole universe even if all the data suggests so. Why you may ask, indignantly ? It is for the simple reason that we do not know the limits of the universe. And until we know the limits of the universe, how can we comment on its origin ? How can we say with certainty that the entire universe started with the Big bang and not just our observable universe ? How can we garantee that there weren't 10 simultaneous Big bangs- the rest 9 beyond our observable universal boundary- that started this universe ? For ultimately, our concept and notion of the universe can be very appropriately analogised to a ship in the middle of an ocean on a pitch-black night, with its light on. The ship can see only how far its lights will let it see- it can't see the whole ocean. It doesn't know this ocean or the entirity of the ocean or even its properties- how big it is, whats its shape, whats it complete composition,etc etc. How can this ship then make any serious claims about the origin of this ocean, given the limited nature of its vision ? Nomatter how certain the shipmates are on some observed phenomena on the ocean, it remains and will forever remain a phenomena only in their observable field of vision, that does not need to be extended to the rest of the ocean. Ultimately though, reading the Buddhist though makes one thing amply clear- that whether God exists or doesn't, is ultimately irrelevant to our own existence and nirvana. Which is why, i am an agnost not only for the scientific reason that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven, but also for the fact that i simply do not care about whether God/Gods exist or not.

[cochise]

What makes 'reality' real?

[THX_1138]

Every few months this 'God' topic pops up and it ends up being the same ol circular stuff all over again. Anyways, my views on God is simple - i am an agnost ( ie, i don't believe or disbelieve in God, to me the question is an indeterminate as of now) and most importantly, i do not CARE if God exists or doesn't. The 'do not care' is a part i've borrowed from Buddhism, where Siddharta correctly surmises that the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to our state of being in this universe. For if God was relevant, he would've left a lasting and unimpeachable sign/representative to keep humanity informed of his existence. Furthermore, Dharma, which essentially means 'the way', is independent of God- for dharma is ruled by causality- cause and effect, aka, karma. Just like how me or you saying something doesn't necessarily make it right, the same standard holds true for this 'God' character. This is something that followers of Abrahamic faith (and to an extent, Hindu cultists like the Shiv Sena/RSS idiots) fail to appreciate. That 'coz God said so' argument is essentially 'might is right' argument is lost on such people. The most common argument for the existence of God, which THX has touched, is the ' apparent order in the universe' theory- where religious folks point to the apparent 'orderly' look of the universe and say that this cannot be per chance but must be engineered. This is quasi-logical IMO, for the universe from where we stand, does seem well organised. But where this theory falls down is that it presupposes- when we DO NOT know the entire extent (and thus, the nature) of the universe, how can we pass any judgement on whether it is organised or not ? What may be organised from our perspective might just be a very small layer to the cosmic reality,where the overall dictum is chaos. Furthermore, the Dalai Llama, in his book " The universe in an atom" points out some very cogent arguments against the 'one creator God' which are actually hard to ignore. For one, he quotes a 9th century Buddhist philosopher from India, who essentially says that the 'one creator God' is an inconsistent argument. Simply because, the 'one creator God' is invoked as a necessity of causality- the 'ground zero' of 'who started it all/someone must've started this all' question. Ie, most religious people, will instinctively use 'God' as the starting point of universe as an explanation to its causation. But they are forced to abandon causation itself when the question is extended to 'well, who started/created God then?' Ie, in that instance, causality is abandoned, thus making the entire argument inconsistent. This is a very glaring flaw in the argument for God IMO. Another problem with the 'controller God' - ie, the God who built the world, is going to judge us,etc etc. is from a fundamental aspect of physics, namely, quantum physics. As one famous particle physicist points out to the Dalai Llama (and he agrees), the 'all powerful omnipotent God who created this universe' is an inconsistent argument within itself. The reason for this is simple: if God is omnipotent, then he/she cannot change. For what will omnipotence change to ?? Omnipotence implies the absolute pinnacle of anything conceivable. Now, consider the fact that the very basic aspect of interaction is 'change'. What i mean is, the very act of touching something is changing yourself at a quantum level ( the atoms in your finger/hand etc are NOT the same in number, alignment or spin before/after touching something) and this is true in every single observed case in this universe. Which begets the question : if God is omnipotent and cannot change, then how can God create something or interact with this universe, given that to interact is to change ??? That can imply only two things- that something omnipotent CANNOT interact or create the universe or that the creator cannot be omnipotent. There is also the famous question posed by a famous logician in the reneissance period ( Renee desCartes i think,not sure): 'Can God create a hammer so heavy that he himself cannot lift it ?' This question perhaps underlines the ultimate dichotomy and problems in the 'absolute powerful creator God' argument of most religions : If God cannot create a hammer so heavy, then he isn't omnipotent. If God can create a hammer so heavy,then he cannot lift it, thus he cannot be omnipotent either. But at the same time, i accept the limitations to scientific thought- where scientific thought in itself has its boundaries and one fact that eludes most scientists/science-thumpers is that science cannot answer all the questions of our existence either- it is not simply a limitation of information, it is a fundamental limitation of science in itself. Take for example, the 'Big bang theory'. I've met countless scientists- some even professors and far more learned than me- who absolutely swear by the origin of the universe through the big-bang. Yet, very few of them can realise that it is only a theory, a theory that we CANNOT extend to the whole universe even if all the data suggests so. Why you may ask, indignantly ? It is for the simple reason that we do not know the limits of the universe. And until we know the limits of the universe, how can we comment on its origin ? How can we say with certainty that the entire universe started with the Big bang and not just our observable universe ? How can we garantee that there weren't 10 simultaneous Big bangs- the rest 9 beyond our observable universal boundary- that started this universe ? For ultimately, our concept and notion of the universe can be very appropriately analogised to a ship in the middle of an ocean on a pitch-black night, with its light on. The ship can see only how far its lights will let it see- it can't see the whole ocean. It doesn't know this ocean or the entirity of the ocean or even its properties- how big it is, whats its shape, whats it complete composition,etc etc. How can this ship then make any serious claims about the origin of this ocean, given the limited nature of its vision ? Nomatter how certain the shipmates are on some observed phenomena on the ocean, it remains and will forever remain a phenomena only in their observable field of vision, that does not need to be extended to the rest of the ocean. Ultimately though, reading the Buddhist though makes one thing amply clear- that whether God exists or doesn't, is ultimately irrelevant to our own existence and nirvana. Which is why, i am an agnost not only for the scientific reason that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven, but also for the fact that i simply do not care about whether God/Gods exist or not.

HA ha... thats a good one. Who is this particle physicist? Its a rather simple argument (however, one could argue that in the process of creating the universe, god acheived perfection, a dumb argument but the naysayers will find a bone to pick) but i like the logical implication. as for the bit about the order and orgainzation in this universe, one just has to look at the numbers. save for this earth, and that too only a small percentage of its total surface, anywhere else in this massive universe which at last approximation is 13.4 billion light years big, human survival is impossible. life would be terminated almost instantly and in a rather horrible fashion. so yeah, do explain to me the order of this universe for if this is supposed to be order, then i would hate to see how disorganized god can get.

[THX_1138]

Every few months this 'God' topic pops up and it ends up being the same ol circular stuff all over again. Anyways, my views on God is simple - i am an agnost ( ie, i don't believe or disbelieve in God, to me the question is an indeterminate as of now) and most importantly, i do not CARE if God exists or doesn't. The 'do not care' is a part i've borrowed from Buddhism, where Siddharta correctly surmises that the existence or nonexistence of God is irrelevant to our state of being in this universe. For if God was relevant, he would've left a lasting and unimpeachable sign/representative to keep humanity informed of his existence. Furthermore, Dharma, which essentially means 'the way', is independent of God- for dharma is ruled by causality- cause and effect, aka, karma. Just like how me or you saying something doesn't necessarily make it right, the same standard holds true for this 'God' character. This is something that followers of Abrahamic faith (and to an extent, Hindu cultists like the Shiv Sena/RSS idiots) fail to appreciate. That 'coz God said so' argument is essentially 'might is right' argument is lost on such people. The most common argument for the existence of God, which THX has touched, is the ' apparent order in the universe' theory- where religious folks point to the apparent 'orderly' look of the universe and say that this cannot be per chance but must be engineered. This is quasi-logical IMO, for the universe from where we stand, does seem well organised. But where this theory falls down is that it presupposes- when we DO NOT know the entire extent (and thus, the nature) of the universe, how can we pass any judgement on whether it is organised or not ? What may be organised from our perspective might just be a very small layer to the cosmic reality,where the overall dictum is chaos. Furthermore, the Dalai Llama, in his book " The universe in an atom" points out some very cogent arguments against the 'one creator God' which are actually hard to ignore. For one, he quotes a 9th century Buddhist philosopher from India, who essentially says that the 'one creator God' is an inconsistent argument. Simply because, the 'one creator God' is invoked as a necessity of causality- the 'ground zero' of 'who started it all/someone must've started this all' question. Ie, most religious people, will instinctively use 'God' as the starting point of universe as an explanation to its causation. But they are forced to abandon causation itself when the question is extended to 'well, who started/created God then?' Ie, in that instance, causality is abandoned, thus making the entire argument inconsistent. This is a very glaring flaw in the argument for God IMO. Another problem with the 'controller God' - ie, the God who built the world, is going to judge us,etc etc. is from a fundamental aspect of physics, namely, quantum physics. As one famous particle physicist points out to the Dalai Llama (and he agrees), the 'all powerful omnipotent God who created this universe' is an inconsistent argument within itself. The reason for this is simple: if God is omnipotent, then he/she cannot change. For what will omnipotence change to ?? Omnipotence implies the absolute pinnacle of anything conceivable. Now, consider the fact that the very basic aspect of interaction is 'change'. What i mean is, the very act of touching something is changing yourself at a quantum level ( the atoms in your finger/hand etc are NOT the same in number, alignment or spin before/after touching something) and this is true in every single observed case in this universe. Which begets the question : if God is omnipotent and cannot change, then how can God create something or interact with this universe, given that to interact is to change ??? That can imply only two things- that something omnipotent CANNOT interact or create the universe or that the creator cannot be omnipotent. There is also the famous question posed by a famous logician in the reneissance period ( Renee desCartes i think,not sure): 'Can God create a hammer so heavy that he himself cannot lift it ?' This question perhaps underlines the ultimate dichotomy and problems in the 'absolute powerful creator God' argument of most religions : If God cannot create a hammer so heavy, then he isn't omnipotent. If God can create a hammer so heavy,then he cannot lift it, thus he cannot be omnipotent either. But at the same time, i accept the limitations to scientific thought- where scientific thought in itself has its boundaries and one fact that eludes most scientists/science-thumpers is that science cannot answer all the questions of our existence either- it is not simply a limitation of information, it is a fundamental limitation of science in itself. Take for example, the 'Big bang theory'. I've met countless scientists- some even professors and far more learned than me- who absolutely swear by the origin of the universe through the big-bang. Yet, very few of them can realise that it is only a theory, a theory that we CANNOT extend to the whole universe even if all the data suggests so. Why you may ask, indignantly ? It is for the simple reason that we do not know the limits of the universe. And until we know the limits of the universe, how can we comment on its origin ? How can we say with certainty that the entire universe started with the Big bang and not just our observable universe ? How can we garantee that there weren't 10 simultaneous Big bangs- the rest 9 beyond our observable universal boundary- that started this universe ? For ultimately, our concept and notion of the universe can be very appropriately analogised to a ship in the middle of an ocean on a pitch-black night, with its light on. The ship can see only how far its lights will let it see- it can't see the whole ocean. It doesn't know this ocean or the entirity of the ocean or even its properties- how big it is, whats its shape, whats it complete composition,etc etc. How can this ship then make any serious claims about the origin of this ocean, given the limited nature of its vision ? Nomatter how certain the shipmates are on some observed phenomena on the ocean, it remains and will forever remain a phenomena only in their observable field of vision, that does not need to be extended to the rest of the ocean. Ultimately though, reading the Buddhist though makes one thing amply clear- that whether God exists or doesn't, is ultimately irrelevant to our own existence and nirvana. Which is why, i am an agnost not only for the scientific reason that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven, but also for the fact that i simply do not care about whether God/Gods exist or not.

That is merely metaphysical mumbo jumbo. For one, there were not 10 or any multiple Big Bangs. Why? well big bang was not someone playing with firecrackers, it was the result of a very high energy confined to an incredibly small volume. As a result, expansion occured. In this expansion, contraction of the matter back into the previous high energy, low volume state is impossible. As for commenting on the universe without mapping it is absolutely legitimate. We arent dealing with a cartographical endevor here. We are talking about using the current data and then testing it against our hypothesis. At the moment, the entire universe has certain consistent properties: it is made of particles that are either fermions or bosons. There are several types of either particles and while more remain to be discovered, the fact remains that this universe is consistent in the aspect that it is the combination of these particles. In essense, we know the nature of this universe. Hence, the data is in. This is not to say that all the conceivable data is in, but there is enough data to warrant a hypothesis testing. So far, the hypothesis checks out perfectly well.