Is it possible to hypothesize the existence of a universe governed by supersymmetric natural laws that existed before the Big Bang (Garden of Eden)? Is it possible to believe that the Big Bang occurred due to the breaking of this pre-existing supersymmetry (a consequence of original sin)? It is possible that man (Adam and Eve) was present in the primordial universe (Garden of Eden) before the Big Bang, and that he reappeared on earth at the end of a long evolutionary process ,after the formation of the solar system in the current universe, born from the Big Bang (concordance between sacred scriptures and Darwinian evolution theory, meaning of the Divine commandment "Grow and multiply")? My answer "IS YES". In answering this question, the titles of the last chapters of a book by a famous Italian epistemologist (L. Geymonat) come to mind: "Science and Reality, Science and Truth, Science and Conception of the World".
I will try to give a reasonable synthetic answer to the question which is already present in the formulation of the same. The Big Bang theory was initially proposed by the Jesuit father G. Lemmaitre, a profound expert in the theory of Relativity. The Catholic church, for example, proposed that the Big Bang should be interpreted as the act of creation, even if Father Lemmaitre himself suggested maintaining the religious and scientific discourse on two distinct and separate levels. Then other points of view were proposed: for example, the astrophysicist S. Hawking theorized that the universe created itself, a thesis based on quantum theory, and that to justify the existence of the cosmos, the work of a Creator God it wouldn't be necessary. My idea is that a universe (created Universe) governed by supersymmetric natural laws existed before the Big Bang (the Garden of Eden) and that man was actually placed in it before the Big bang (Adam and Eve). In this universe, precisely due to the nature of the physical laws that governed it, man did not get sick or age, he was not subject to death, he was endowed with superior qualities, he could understand the structure of the cosmos and give a name to the beings that they were part of it. The animals did not hunt each other because they did not feel the urge of hunger and did not have to fight to survive. Then man committed original sin which resulted not only in the loss of God's Grace, but also in the upheaval of the natural balance. The breaking of the existing supersymmetry would have caused the Big Bang. The current universe, born from the Big Bang, would have evolved for billions of years. Man would then reappear on earth only after billions of years and at the end of a long evolutionary process. The rest is known history. I do not intend to delve into other theological aspects of the problem, but only to outline a line of thought that could start a debate on the meaning of "Intelligent Project" and induce those who wish to carry out further research in this direction.
Sorry, but mixing religious and science concepts is harmful. Religion must consider almightiness and omnipotence doctrines. Science must exclude any activity of a creator in its natural laws.
Any mixture of those disjoint principles only disturbs the mutual respect.
I don't think that science and religion must necessarily deal with different, non-overlapping fields. There have been religious people, for example, who have argued, citing alleged scientific evidence, that the earthly paradise was a specific area on earth at a specific time, and that Adam and Eve existed on earth a few thousand years ago. There are scientists and philosophers for their part who refute the truthfulness of the content of the sacred scriptures or vice versa argue in support of the Intelligent Design hypothesis.
Gennaro Franco "I don't think that science and religion must necessarily deal with different, non-overlapping fields"
You immediately see that science and religion must necessarily deal with different, non-overlapping fields, if you consider any arbitrary contradiction between the two. Without violating mutual respect, the contradiction cannot be resolved.
This is just a respectable point of view. I think that the coherence between the content of sacred texts and that of scientific theories can be demonstrated. My conjecture is an invitation to those who want to do so to carry out research in this second direction.
Coherence is not a problem. The problem is that no proof mechanism exists. Mathematics, used to proof facts in science is not applicable to religion. Without an arbitration mechanism disputes must be avoided. In fact, they would be without sense.
It seems that my arguments now become repetitive. But in my opinion we cannot expect something good from confronting science and religion. Such a confrontation only would destroy confidence among all concerned persons, religion and science followers. Coherence does not help, but confrontation only causes damages.
In a certain sense proposing such a confrontation is like declaration of war between science and religion. We must avoid such a war under all circumstances.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Biomolecules
- Peptides