Science must become honest.

Science should get to work and instead of fighting the truth of God [embrace God the Absolute truth.]

The big bang is not the absolute truth.

Our very existence without God makes no sense at all and cannot even be explained without being dishonest in every way possible....... by inventing absurd theories..

Presently, scientific inquiry without spiritual knowledge is onesided.All forms of human inquiry should be utilized in search for Absolute Truth. A physicist should inquire: what is the real source of the laws of nature?

A chemist can inquire: who is the Supreme Chemist behind all the wonderful molecules, DNA,chlorophyll, proteins, etc.? Vedanta explains that if we do
research far enough, we will find that the ultimate source is God.

Thus, Vedanta advises that scientific knowledge should not try to remove God from everything. When one realizes the AbsoluteTruth through such an inquiry, he will understand the actual basis of reality. And then, his duty is to glorify the Supreme Lord through the scientific understanding. This is the secret and the real platform of happiness. This is what is instructed in the
Bhagavata Purana, the natural commentary on the Albert Einstein once remarked, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery
everyday.”
In the human form of life, the consciousness (cetana), intelligence (buddhi), mind (manas), senses (indriyas) are fully developed. Thus, human being is totally equipped to make the deepest jignasa (inquiry), the spiritual inquiry. A similar message echoes in the statement of Albert Einstein who states that knowing the mind (plan) of God is most important and the rest are details.

By this inquiry, sambandha, the relationship between the individual self and God will be established and the pure spiritual knowledge of the self will be understood. Isa Upanisad further declares, isa vasya mid am sarvam, everything belongs to the Supreme Lord. Therefore, everything should be used, including the works of the scientists and all the leaders of the world in the service of the Supreme Lord.

In a nutshell, this is the view of Vedanta regarding the prime duty of humanity.

T.D. Singh. Ph D. and Dasa

Originally posted by Dasa
Science should get to work and instead of fighting the truth of God [embrace God the Absolute truth.]

The big bang is not the absolute truth.

Our very existence without God makes no sense at all and cannot even be explained without being dishonest in every way possible....... by inventing absurd theories..

Presently, scientific inquiry without spiritua ...[text shortened]... this is the view of Vedanta regarding the prime duty of humanity.

T.D. Singh. Ph D. and Dasa

It is the atheist evolutionary scientists that are dishonest. It is not the science itself, because creationist use the same science methods with different conclusions. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is the atheist evolutionary scientists that are dishonest. It is not the science itself, because creationist use the same science methods with different conclusions. 😏

Both of you are so full of shyte I can't even imagine two people more suited to each other. You both should get married, then you could argue your ridiculous fantasies till doomsday.

Originally posted by Dasa
Science should get to work and instead of fighting the truth of God [embrace God the Absolute truth.]

The big bang is not the absolute truth.

Our very existence without God makes no sense at all and cannot even be explained without being dishonest in every way possible....... by inventing absurd theories..

Presently, scientific inquiry without spiritua ...[text shortened]... this is the view of Vedanta regarding the prime duty of humanity.

T.D. Singh. Ph D. and Dasa

"A physicist should inquire: what is the real source of the laws of nature? "

We see no laws. All we see are regularities, and exceptions to them.

"The big bang is not the absolute truth."

It is one current provisional approximation.

Originally posted by JS357
"A physicist should inquire: what is the real source of the laws of nature? "

We see no laws. All we see are regularities, and exceptions to them.

"The big bang is not the absolute truth."

It is one current provisional approximation.

Some in science see laws, for they name them laws because they know of no exceptions to them. The big bang is an attempt to ignore God in the creation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some in science see laws, for they name them laws because they know of no exceptions to them. The big bang is an attempt to ignore God in the creation.

That's why we have you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some in science see laws, for they name them laws because they know of no exceptions to them. The big bang is an attempt to ignore God in the creation.

I see absolutely no reason why the universe could not have been created by God using the Big Bang. Why all you crackpots think it all had to be "poofed" into existence is beyond me. Give God some credit, would you?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I see absolutely no reason why the universe could not have been created by God using the Big Bang. Why all you crackpots think it all had to be "poofed" into existence is beyond me. Give God some credit, would you?

We believe God spoke the universe into existence just like He did everything else. I do not believe that means he "poofed" or "banged" it into existence, my young woman. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by Suzianne
I see absolutely no reason why the universe could not have been created by God using the Big Bang.

I agree. The 'big bang' theory states that the universe came into being from a singularity, mass from no mass just pure energy.

Originally posted by divegeester
I agree. The 'big bang' theory states that the universe came into being from a singularity, mass from no mass just pure energy.

Yeah well I wouldn't put much stock in the 'singularity' part in the big bang theory
(or inside black holes).

When you get back to the 'singularity' you have reached/gone past the point where
you have to have gravity AND quantum mechanics to explain what's going on.

And quantum mechanics and gravity are not presently talking to one another.


We have presently got our theoretical understanding back to a tiny fraction of a second
after the big bang.

However before that tiny fraction of a second is simply a question mark.

We only have hypothesised suggestions for what quantum gravity looks like, and thus have
no confirmed way of describing the conditions at the very beginning of the visible universe.


I would note however that few if any current attempts at quantum gravity include singularities.

There may well be a 'before the big bang'. It probably wasn't a point of zero dimensions and infinite
density.

But we don't currently know.

Speculating about it without facts is just making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah well I wouldn't put much stock in the 'singularity' part in the big bang theory
(or inside black holes).

When you get back to the 'singularity' you have reached/gone past the point where
you have to have gravity AND quantum mechanics to explain what's going on.

And quantum mechanics and gravity are not presently talking to one another.

...[text shortened]...
Speculating about it without facts is just making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Nevertheless making unproved hypotheses is one way of advancing science. Take string theory for instance. It has just about zero in the way of proof but it answers a lot of questions about our universe. It might even be proven totally bogus but it has generated a lot of math that might lead to real answers.

It may well be our universe is what happens to the insides of some if not all black holes. We just don't know at this point in time.

But to reject it out of hand closes possible doors that some genius of the future can see that we don't at this point in time. A future Einstein or Dr. Higgs may see some side issue we haven't even looked at yet and come up with real clues about our universe that CAN be proven.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nevertheless making unproved hypotheses is one way of advancing science. Take string theory for instance. It has just about zero in the way of proof but it answers a lot of questions about our universe. It might even be proven totally bogus but it has generated a lot of math that might lead to real answers.

It may well be our universe is what happens to ...[text shortened]... haven't even looked at yet and come up with real clues about our universe that CAN be proven.

I am all for scientific inquiry in search of the truth and perhaps what actions took place when God spoke His commands to bring the physical universe into existence. However, I am against adding statements of lies as to what we actually know about the creation of the universe.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah well I wouldn't put much stock in the 'singularity' part in the big bang theory
(or inside black holes).

When you get back to the 'singularity' you have reached/gone past the point where
you have to have gravity AND quantum mechanics to explain what's going on.

And quantum mechanics and gravity are not presently talking to one another.

...[text shortened]...
Speculating about it without facts is just making an argument from ignorance fallacy.

We don't know, but have some damn good ideas that should be explored.

"And quantum mechanics and gravity are not presently talking to one another."

Was that trying to be funny? Because I found it hilarious. Mind you, just because science hasn't yet discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Have a good one and thank you. This one is for you 😉

If your definition of 'honesty" is something that reinforces the beliefs you already hold, and for which you also have no proof, you are doomed before you've begun. Science and religion have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.