Monday, 27 September 2010

When an answer is not an answer

I guess when it comes to addressing the problem of "where did everything come from" one can, to a certain extent, believe whatever they wish on this topic: an intelligent designer, less-intelligent designer, or maybe even a natural explanation. I personally see no need to invoke a supernatural cause anywhere in the universe, at any time. But this does not mean that a god is not possible. I only prefer to follow the mathematics and evidence that seems to show how stars form the different elements at their core that we are made of while the rapid expansion of space-time ~13.6 billion years ago caused the stars themselves to coalesce. How the so-called 'Big Bang' got started is anybody's guess really. I prefer not to comment on this idea as physics itself breaks down if you go too far into this amazing event, and there are plenty of better sources than myself that could explain this in fulfilling detail.

By the way, if mathematics and evidence did point to god as being the first cause of the universe, what exactly does that prove? I mean, do you stop there and say, "god did it" or would you and others be keen to try and figure out how he did it? And, once you do figure out how he did it, wouldn't god have had to use natural physics, chemistry and such, at least in order to form things originally, seeing as that is how things appear to be formed today? And if we find out how he used these natural methods to create the universe, doesn't the need to invoke a god seem a bit redundant? After all, if we then show that natural methods can create a universe, where then does god fit? If I have written this clearly enough, you should see the reason science does not appreciate the invocation of gods into their workings. Simply put, saying "god did it" does not answer anything, it just pushes a possible answer to the question further away.

No comments: