Science and Religion

Galaxies are not in fixed positions, either.

They are moving towards each other, away from each other, orbiting each other, and colliding and merging with each other.

This article has a good description of it all.
https://www.universetoday.com/138055/new-map-shows-motion-galaxies-supercluster/

This one is kinda cool, too.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna1040936
It has images of gravitational attraction of our "closest" galaxies, and where they are all going.

Quote: Evenbob

Where is it expanding to.

"In the standard physics theory, the galaxies are all getting farther apart; that is the expansion of the Universe. Yet in the way the theory describes it (I mean in General Relativity Theory) none of the galaxies are actually moving. All that is happening is that the amount of space (vacuum) in between them is increasing."
Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

So no, the galaxies are not expanding,
they are in a fixed position. Confused
yet? That's because none of this is
settled science.

What is settled science is that the universe is expanding. I do also think that the red shift does speak to the galaxies moving but I am not an expert on this. This expansion points of course to a beginning.

Quote: FrGamble

This expansion points of course to a beginning.

Beginning of a galaxy, not beginning
of the universe the galaxies are in.
There are billions of galaxies that
we know of, but of course we can
only see so far. Billions is such a
large number that it's meaningless
to our brain, it's just a word. Our
galaxy is so huge it's beyond our
comprehension, and it's one of
the smaller ones.

There are 200 billion observable
galaxies and they say there could
be 2 trillion. Trillion, which is 1000
billion. Yet there is a
single 'god' in charge of all this, according to
the god people. Do you see how
silly that is?

Quote: FrGamble

What is settled science is that the universe is expanding. I do also think that the red shift does speak to the galaxies moving but I am not an expert on this. This expansion points of course to a beginning.

I try not to be part of this stuff, but I will ask: is “God” part of the universe, or external to the universe?

If “God” is part of the universe, then “God” also started at the inception, and was not the cause of anything.

If “God” is external to the universe, then “God” is beyond perception, because the universe encompasses everything known and unknown.

I won’t answer, but I will read any responses. But as I see it, it’s turtles, all the way down.

Quote: Mosca

I But as I see it, it’s turtles, all the way down.

Bertrand Russell also mentions the story in his 1927 lecture Why I Am Not a Christian while discounting the First Cause argument intended to be a proof of God's existence:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.'

I am indebted to Mosca for the link
to turtles, it turned up a wonderful
lecture Bertrand Russell gave almost
100 years ago. He was a British
philosopher, logician, mathematician,
historian, writer, essayist, social critic,
political activist, and Nobel laureate.
One of the smartest men of the 20th
century, he gave a lecture in 1927
called Why I Am Not A Christian.

I just read it and it blew my socks off.
This is me, he describes who I am.
I agree with him and he agrees with
me. For instance, I arrived at the
conclusion that the universe has been
here forever on my own. Russell says:

"There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

Mind blowing. Then there's this from
his wiki bio:

"For most of his adult life, Russell maintained religion to be little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects, largely harmful to people. He believed that religion and the religious outlook serve to impede knowledge and foster fear and dependency, and to be responsible for much of our world's wars, oppression, and misery."

Is this guy me? He tears apart the
first cause argument, and the
argument by design. He points
out the good things about Jesus,
and his many faults. He rips the
argument that all morality comes
from god.

If you're a Xtion, read this lecture
at your peril. Now I have to order
Russell's biography, I know nothing
about him other than he was very
well respected in the 98 years he
was alive.

https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

Quote: Evenbob

"For most of his adult life, Russell maintained religion to be little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects, largely harmful to people. He believed that religion and the religious outlook serve to impede knowledge and foster fear and dependency, and to be responsible for much of our world's wars, oppression, and misery."

Similar to Bill Nigh The Science Guy who thinks teaching Creationism is child abuse.

Quote: Mosca

I try not to be part of this stuff, but I will ask: is “God” part of the universe, or external to the universe?

If “God” is part of the universe, then “God” also started at the inception, and was not the cause of anything.

If “God” is external to the universe, then “God” is beyond perception, because the universe encompasses everything known and unknown.

I won’t answer, but I will read any responses. But as I see it, it’s turtles, all the way down.

God is external to the universe. You are correct that God is therefore beyond our perception. We can know of the existence of God through reason and impossibility of a real infinite regress. Therefore we know it cannot be "turtles all the way down". However, you are right in that if all we could know of God is its existence then there would not be the possibility of knowing anything about God or any need for religion. Religion comes from the belief that God reveals Himself to us. God desires to show us who God is and this is the only real knowledge we can have of God beyond the basics of being all-powerful, spiritual, and outside of time and space. I might also say that I think through reason alone we can also know that God is intelligent and loving. Outside of this different religions claim to know who God is based on what God has revealed to humanity through prophets, scriptures, traditions, history, and other ways.

Quote: FrGamble

We can know of the existence of God through reason and impossibility of a real infinite regress.

Yeah, no. This has been debunked
14 ways from Sunday and you know
it. I would post multiple links but
why bother. You'll just pooh pooh
all of them and stick with the Vatican
propaganda line as usual.