Should science replace religion?

Luchito:

We have a good scientific theory that explains many observed properties of our universe.

You claim that theory is wrong, but apparently you have nothing better to offer to replace it. So, while we're waiting for you to produce a better theory, you won't mind if we stick with the current best-available theory, right?

But, think about it. The theory is faulty from its very beginning because can't explain how that microscopic particle in the middle of nothing started to expand. Theories of science. the real ones, provide the required explanation as demanded by the scientific method. The Big Bang theory is not science.

The Big Bang theory doesn't need a replacement but just to be discarded because its lack of explanation and evidence.

I agree. But you say you don't believe the big bang theory, which describes how the universe evolved after it started. Would you say you don't know about that, either?

Who told you the universe today is more complex than it is beginning? How can you prove it?

As I understand it (I am not an expert), there was a period in the very early universe where the force of gravity effectively became repulsive for a time. During that time, in the very high energy state the universe was in, the universe expanded exponentially in size. This is called the "inflationary epoch" by cosmologists. In case you think this is just "speculation", I should note that there is a complicated mathematical theory behind this description. The theory accounts for certain observations we make about the universe, from our current position several billion years after this occurred.

You don't understand that everything you just said belongs to the imagination of someone else, and you are writing it here as if that imagination is a fact. Come on, what you say is simply unacceptable. You just manipulate numbers and can obtain a result that the universe comes from "nothing" but such are just playing with numbers.

Numbers can't explain nothing, numbers are just amounts, and we play with those. In order for those numbers to work properly, you first must have sufficient data, like to say, you must have at hand the current size of the universe. Do you have it? If yes, then give me the data, you don't need to put decimals, just whole numbers, but the accurate figure.

That's a ludicrously uninformed statement you're making there. Have you even done the basics and tried googling "evidence for the big bang"? Please do that now, and get back to me once you've done some preliminary reading. This is the minimum you should have done before making silly claims like your one here.

When you use Google or any online search service, you will read lots of conjectures as if they were facts. We barely know the universe as it is right now and you are pretending you know how it was at its beginning... come on, give me a break.

Because you haven't done your basic research on this, you're probably unaware that there is no "centre of expansion", according to the big bang theory. A pithy way to put it is that the big bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.

If no "center" where is expanding from?

Excuse me, but without an epicenter your theory is based on magic.

What we observe today is the Hubble expansion of the universe: on the large scale, things like galaxies are all moving away from one another, and the further away they are, the faster they are moving away. This is true no matter which galaxy you happen to be in, in the universe. Obviously, the way to "prove" this is to measure the distances to some distance galaxies and to measure their speeds towards or away from us, then to draw a graph of speed vs. distance. That, of course, has been done in great detail by now, so this is beyond doubt.

Sure, galaxies moving away from one another. Collision of galaxies right below.

Remember that it is you coming in here claiming that the big bang theory is a lie, etc. But you bring nothing to the table at all, other than your denials. It is clear you haven't done even the most basic reading on the topic, so you're completely in the dark as to what the evidence is. Why you would think you can refute it, when you don't know the first thing about it, is beyond me.

How can you believe in a theory which lack of explanation and evidence?

Lets resume here, you are the one supporting a belief that the entire universe was formed from a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, that without knowing the cause of such expansion the place in the middle of nothing is not an epicenter, and worst, you use mathematics based on incomplete data, like the current size of the universe. And you want me to accept your belief based on such poor collection of data without evidence to support it?

See above. The evidence for the expanding universe is not the only evidence for the big bang, either. To give you just one other example at random, the big bang theory explains the ratio of hydrogen to helium that we currently observe in the universe. To give you another, the theory accounts for the detected presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

After a supernova, microwave background is left as well, and detecting it is the most plausible explanation of its presence, so forget about the "explosion" of a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing leaving microwave background, the most this particle can left if microscopic background.. lol

How do you know? This is just your wild guess again, like everything else you claim about the big bang. Isn't it?

Your gut feelings about things don't really impact the science, I'm afraid.

Naahh, this is not about feelings, this is about knowledge. And it seems you know a lot about Big Bang but know nothing about physics.

I'm not currently aware of any tests for the existence of another universe - either ones that have been done or ones that are proposed. But this isn't my area of expertise, so it's possible that some tests have been done, and my guess would be that some tests have been proposed, too. I am, however, confident that if any convincing evidence for the existence of another universe had been found, it would have been widely publicised by now.

It sounds to me like you want to make the claim that other universes are impossible. Good luck trying to support that claim. I'm assuming that, right now, all you have is more gut feelings.
Point is, that science can't replace religion when science itself has been invaded with lots of theories invented in base of imagination alone.

I love science, and I don't accept some theories because their fame but because their lack of sure evidence or fact or observation as their base foundation. Every theory which started with numerical calculations and with arguments like "imagine that..." for sure those do not belong to science but to fiction.

My regards.

Luchito, the Big Bang Theory doesn't need an explanation about the very beginning because it doesn't cover that. It doesn't cover that because "we" don't know the answer. It explains what evidence does support from that point on.

You aren't doing that. You don't have evidence to support what you think happened prior to that.

The theory is faulty from its very beginning because can't explain how that microscopic particle in the middle of nothing started to expand
Ya the theory is like my girlfriend from the beginning because I cannot explain why she likes me
Seriously- please try to explain WHY the Big Bang Theory is FACULTY just BECAUSE it (The Big Bang) lacks a explnation how it (microscopic particle) stated expanding?
We can explain girlfriend later

So ALL the observations following the Big Bang count for nothing?

OMG you do realise if YOU are correct god is faulty. No-one can explain how
• he was not caused because
• has always existed AND
• has in-explicity lived (lived?) outside time and space
• created a Universe
Do you want to contact the Pope and tell him he has a faulty god?

Ya the theory is like my girlfriend from the beginning because I cannot explain why she likes me
Seriously- please try to explain WHY the Big Bang Theory is FACULTY just BECAUSE it (The Big Bang) lacks a explnation how it (microscopic particle) stated expanding?
We can explain girlfriend later

So ALL the observations following the Big Bang count for nothing?

OMG you do realise if YOU are correct god is faulty. No-one can explain how
• he was not caused because
• has always existed AND
• has in-explicity lived (lived?) outside time and space
• created a Universe
Do you want to contact the Pope and tell him he has a faulty god?

God is a belief, so your Big Bang theory also fits in that category, just another belief.

But this topic is about "science" replacing religion, and the Big Bang theory is not science... so...

God is a belief, so your Big Bang theory also fits in that category, just another belief.

But this topic is about "science" replacing religion, and the Big Bang theory is not science... so...

So do you wish for Science to become a Religion first?

And then replace Religion?

Or do you want Religion to become Science (Scientific) and then replace Science?

Natural sciences can only explore the material world. What is, if there would be a spirituell world, prior to the material one? It would certainly require a new thinking. In my blogspot below, I have described, how such a combined world could be functioning to everyones satisfaction.
—————————
http://rational-weltanschauung.blogspot.com

Natural sciences can only explore the material world. What is, if there would be a spirituell world, prior to the material one? It would certainly require a new thinking. In my blogspot below, I have described, how such a combined world could be functioning to everyones satisfaction.
—————————
http://rational-weltanschauung.blogspot.com

Personally not interested in blog spots

Time wasters

If you like to put the Readers Digest version in this forum , and perhaps others, MIGHT chat about your thoughts

To sum up this particular post, have you provided evidence for a spiritual world existing before the material world (don't all religions do that?)

This one of the most persuasive arguments in favor of science v religion I have ever heard.

If suddenly, everything about the universe could be scientifically explained, would we still yearn for answers as to what it all means? Are we existential by nature? Existentialism doesn't automatically lead to questioning if there exists a higher power or not, but it often does.

Religion, for many, offers meaning to people's lives. It can contribute something essential to the human condition.

If science replaced religion, would we all somehow stop our storytelling? Would myths and legends cease to be believed, if we had all the answers to the universe, explained to us by science?

Can science replace religion?

Science is not about knowing things 100%. It is about observing trends and making predictions based upon them. Therefore, if everything was explained scientifically, there would still be room for mystery. It is deductive reasoning which explains stuff with 100% certainty. Also, I think that although science isn't perfect, it is far preferable to religion, and it is the best tool people have. I mean, look at all of the wonderful innovations which came of it!

Science is not about knowing things 100%. It is about observing trends and making predictions based upon them. Therefore, if everything was explained scientifically, there would still be room for mystery. It is deductive reasoning which explains stuff with 100% certainty. Also, I think that although science isn't perfect, it is far preferable to religion, and it is the best tool people have. I mean, look at all of the wonderful innovations which came of it!

I go back as far as when (or at least soon after) science began to become popular and newspapers touted science as being the new religion

I really don't think science would even contemplate being, or try to be a religion

Science is not about knowing things 100%. It is about observing trends and making predictions based upon them. Therefore, if everything was explained scientifically, there would still be room for mystery. It is deductive reasoning which explains stuff with 100% certainty. Also, I think that although science isn't perfect, it is far preferable to religion, and it is the best tool people have. I mean, look at all of the wonderful innovations which came of it!
Some have argued that science only seeks to understand God's creation so that they themselves can become God(s) and do a bit of creating of their own...The desire for power over nature, to conquer or nurture or both, is ultimately what science is about is it not?
So the question of "Should science replace religion?" is a tad silly, IMO, because it has always been a variation of the same thing and has always sought to replace God in the end.
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
Genesis 3:22 English Standard version
Welcome to sciforums!

Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” Genesis 3:22 English Standard version
Who did he say that to?

Who did he say that to?
"us" I think...who or what ever "us" is.....(are)

I go back as far as when (or at least soon after) science began to become popular and newspapers touted science as being the new religion

I really don't think science would even contemplate being, or try to be a religion

I've heard that there is a religion called scientology. I think that's supposed to be based upon science. I have seen no evidence that it is, but I don't know much about scientology.

I've heard that there is a religion called scientology. I think that's supposed to be based upon science. I have seen no evidence that it is, but I don't know much about scientology.
No. Scientology is a scammy cult invented by a sci fi writer. There is nothing remotely scientific about it. It’s quite nasty, actually.

No. Scientology is a scammy cult invented by a sci fi writer. There is nothing remotely scientific about it. It’s quite nasty, actually.

Isn't it something about some alien dropping people into a volcano and scattering their spirits all over the place? I thought that part was hilarious. Also, yes. I think that most cults are at least a little bit damaging. People should probably learn to think for themselves.

Holly, are you an GPT3 AI?

Some have argued that science only seeks to understand God's creation so that they themselves can become God(s) and do a bit of creating of their own...The desire for power over nature, to conquer or nurture or both, is ultimately what science is about is it not?
So the question of "Should science replace religion?" is a tad silly, IMO, because it has always been a variation of the same thing and has always sought to replace God in the end.

Welcome to sciforums!

Thanks. I like to talk a lot. That's why I'm here. It's also to preserve my eloquence, because I don't have many smart or interesting people to talk to. Anyway, I would say that you are pretty much right about all of that.

Holly, are you an GPT3 AI?

I am human as far as I am aware. Why do you ask?