EVE Search - A Really Serious Question

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

A Really Serious Question

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rawr Cristina Caldari Cult of Rawr	Posted - 2008.01.30 01:10:00 - [31] I'm with the "Universe has no beginning or end but is infinate through whatever means thus the chance for life to emerge at some point is ultimately certain" principle. Questioning your creations is pointless though, really, since when it gets to the point of "What Caused the big bang?" and/or "Who/what/where did God come from?" then no true answer will ever exist.
Dark Shikari Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.30 01:28:00 - [32] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 30/01/2008 01:35:55 Originally by: Joseph 9 Originally by: Dark Shikari It is much like asking a Christian to prove that his God exists--or just as much, asking an atheist to prove that God does not. These are in fact different. This is a logical fallicy, specifically proof of non-existence, grabbing a random quote from google as I can't be bothered to type. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm specifically) When an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims. P.S. I think we've completely derailed your thread Ecnav. Sorry. That is a gnostic atheist argument. There are 4 types of belief/nonbelief: Agnostic Atheist: Believes God probably doesn't exist, but its impossible to rule it out or prove so. Gnostic Atheist: Believes God certainly doesn't exist, and since you can't prove he does, he doesn't. Agnostic Theist: Believes God probably exists, but its impossible to prove so, so one cannot be sure. Example: Deism. Gnostic Theist: Believes God certainly does exist, and since you can't prove he doesn't, he does. Example: Christianity. Most organized religions follow the last--gnostic theism. I'm personally an agnostic theist, with very slight leanings towards agnostic atheism. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.01.30 01:42:00 - [33] Originally by: Last Wolf Edited by: Last Wolf on 29/01/2008 22:29:27 Big Bang theory is crap TBH. Last time i lit a fire****er I didn't get a universe. Even Darwin noted how it was nearly mathematically impossible for an eye to be made from evolution, not to mention reproducing that eye in nearly every living animal that lives above ground. Not to mention, That there is a certain matter that behaves differently than all other matter on earth. and without this ONE.. I repeat this ONE exception out of all the other millions of molecular structures life would not exist. Water EXPANDS as it gets colder, not denser. If it wasn't for this, ice would sink, and rivers, oceans, and lakes would freeze from the bottom up, killing the organisms that produce 75% of the oxygen on Earth. That is way more than just coincidence. edit: crac\|<er is censored? LOL Darwin noted no such thing. What he said was that he couldn't understand it. In fact now that we know rather more biology than we did in Darwin's day, the evolution of eyes is one of the simplest things to explain. It gives a huge survival advantage at every evolutionary step, and it's development is easily shown. Even the so-called Intelligent Design advocates don't bother with the eye now. I advise actually reading The Origin Of Species* rather than credulously accepting the interpretations of people who strongly wish to discredit it and who have shown themselves to be quite happy to be dishonest and deceitful in pursuit of their aims. It's also worth reading more recent works on the subject. For the record, eyes have evolved separately in something like 7 different ways. Eyes are rather easy to evolve. Richard Dawkins devotes a chapter to a rather good essay on this subject in one of his books (Can't remember if it's Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker) CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Gatchiko	Posted - 2008.01.30 01:52:00 - [34] Uhm, 42?!
Last Wolf Templars of Space	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:01:00 - [35] Originally by: Tarminic And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats. No, I'm just a horrible debater. Someone could ask me to prove that Earth exists and I would present a horribly flawed argument. I figured I'd save myself of further embarrassment seeing how each post I made got picked apart and thrown back at me by half a dozen posters each time. I'm more a "Think of something ---> Post/Say about said something ---> Think about what I just Posted/Said ---> Slap forehead" kinda guy.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:11:00 - [36] Originally by: Last Wolf Originally by: Tarminic And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats. No, I'm just a horrible debater. Someone could ask me to prove that Earth exists and I would present a horribly flawed argument. I figured I'd save myself of further embarrassment seeing how each post I made got picked apart and thrown back at me by half a dozen posters each time. I'm more a "Think of something ---> Post/Say about said something ---> Think about what I just Posted/Said ---> Slap forehead" kinda guy. That's...actually...a very mature thing of you to admit, more mature than the general tone of my responses in this thread. I apologize for the tone of my remarks. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree on this now that you've shown me up in the dignity department. ---------------- Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2
Sister Impotentata Elite Angels Of Death	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:13:00 - [37] Originally by: Dark Shikari There are 4 types of belief/nonbelief: Agnostic Atheist: Believes God probably doesn't exist, but its impossible to rule it out or prove so. Gnostic Atheist: Believes God certainly doesn't exist, and since you can't prove he does, he doesn't. Agnostic Theist: Believes God probably exists, but its impossible to prove so, so one cannot be sure. Example: Deism. Gnostic Theist: Believes God certainly does exist, and since you can't prove he doesn't, he does. Example: Christianity. Hey guy. I believe God created the charge on the electron, I believe God limited the speed of light, I believe God defined Planck's Constant. After that, he said "GO!", and here we are. Where does that put me? ----- TANSTAAFL Originally by: Tommy I've go' the Scourges son. I thin' it's you wha' sh' b'ave. Wha'? You wa' aa' see 'f I go' tha' minerals?
Dark Shikari Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:17:00 - [38] Originally by: Sister Impotentata Originally by: Dark Shikari There are 4 types of belief/nonbelief: Agnostic Atheist: Believes God probably doesn't exist, but its impossible to rule it out or prove so. Gnostic Atheist: Believes God certainly doesn't exist, and since you can't prove he does, he doesn't. Agnostic Theist: Believes God probably exists, but its impossible to prove so, so one cannot be sure. Example: Deism. Gnostic Theist: Believes God certainly does exist, and since you can't prove he doesn't, he does. Example: Christianity. Hey guy. I believe God created the charge on the electron, I believe God limited the speed of light, I believe God defined Planck's Constant. After that, he said "GO!", and here we are. Where does that put me? If you believe that God certainly did such things and it isn't really debatable, you're a gnostic theist. Gnostic theists do not necessarily believe in the stereotypical God of Moses or such; it is simply defined by whether they consider the existence of God debatable and where on the side of the debate they fall. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Sister Impotentata Elite Angels Of Death	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:34:00 - [39] Originally by: Dark Shikari If you believe that God certainly did such things and it isn't really debatable, To me, everything is debatable, and nothing is certain. Crap. That sounds snobbily metaphysical. I believe God did the things I mentioned because they fit my current view of the universe. It's not that I believe in God who made these inviolate rules, it's that I accept many of these rules as nearly inviolate, and if they are inviolate, it is easy for me to believe in a God that made them so. And had the foresight to make a few simple rules and let the universe grow from them. ----- TANSTAAFL Originally by: Tommy I've go' the Scourges son. I thin' it's you wha' sh' b'ave. Wha'? You wa' aa' see 'f I go' tha' minerals?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:37:00 - [40] Originally by: Sister Impotentata stuff Agnostic Theist from the Church of the UniMatrix. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:46:00 - [41] Originally by: Sister Impotentata Originally by: Dark Shikari If you believe that God certainly did such things and it isn't really debatable, To me, everything is debatable, and nothing is certain. Crap. That sounds snobbily metaphysical. I believe God did the things I mentioned because they fit my current view of the universe. It's not that I believe in God who made these inviolate rules, it's that I accept many of these rules as nearly inviolate, and if they are inviolate, it is easy for me to believe in a God that made them so. And had the foresight to make a few simple rules and let the universe grow from them. I'd peg you as an Agnostic Theist then. At some point it is all beliefs. We can put forward arguments for those beliefs with good or not so good reasons to convince others but that is about as far as it goes. In the end you will believe what you will and no one can "prove" you wrong. IMO the trouble tends to lie with people who forget their belief is a belief and somehow make it fact in their own minds. It's dogmatic types which have a disturbing tendency to lean towards fundamentalism and fanaticism (whatever their particular religion).
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2008.01.30 05:50:00 - [42] the beginning of the universe is like what's beyond the singularity: conjectures, suppositions and philosophy. I prefer to believe in the multiverse theory, altho if there REALLY was a big bang, I'm more inclined to say that the big bang was in fact a big crunch. --- planetary interaction idea!
Sister Impotentata Elite Angels Of Death	Posted - 2008.01.30 06:49:00 - [43] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h I'd peg you as an Agnostic Theist then. Great. Father Roy is going to kick my ass. If he doesn't poke my ass first, that is. Actually, Father Roy was a good guy. I hope he didn't poke any asses. I'd be very disappointed. About as disappointed as I am in the rest of my local Catholic Church. ----- TANSTAAFL Originally by: Tommy I've go' the Scourges son. I thin' it's you wha' sh' b'ave. Wha'? You wa' aa' see 'f I go' tha' minerals?
Mary Makepeace Caldari Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.01.30 10:27:00 - [44] Originally by: Ecnav Well what the heck caused that huge object to form? why does it need to have formed? when you consider that time itself varies, the progression of time itself could slow, and slow down so much that it never actually begins.
Miss Anthropy The Greater Goon GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 11:49:00 - [45] Originally by: Last Wolf Originally by: Tarminic And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats. No, I'm just a horrible debater. Someone could ask me to prove that Earth exists and I would present a horribly flawed argument. I figured I'd save myself of further embarrassment seeing how each post I made got picked apart and thrown back at me by half a dozen posters each time. I'm more a "Think of something ---> Post/Say about said something ---> Think about what I just Posted/Said ---> Slap forehead" kinda guy. Ditto on that. I used to love debates when I was younger but the older I've gotten, I've realised that I know very little, or I have trouble articulating that which I do know. I used to be pretty bright but as I've gotten older I've let myself go a bit mentally. Too many games and not enough reading . Personally I believe in creation. The OP explained the problem of the Big Bang theory succinctly. I can't prove to anyone here that there is a God so I'm not going to bother. Suffice it to say, the Universe and life itself is just too organised and detailed (in my opinion) for it to all be caused by an explosion out of nothingness.
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Frontline.	Posted - 2008.01.30 11:58:00 - [46] Originally by: Calderio The Flying Spaghetti Monster Against my better nature, I must agree with this BoB. The FSM extended his noodly appendage and thus the universe was formed. Life was wrought forth from nought more than the left over remains of his snacking pot noodle (beef & tomato flavour -- oh how different it might have been if only it had been chicken and mushroom). May the FSm bless you and all of your pasta R'amen Quote: According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians. Their image as "thieves and outcasts" is misinformation.
Kirjava Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.01.30 12:13:00 - [47] Originally by: annoing Originally by: Calderio The Flying Spaghetti Monster The FSM extended his noodly appendage and thus the universe was formed. Lies, God came to the realisation she was one of billions and to make the world more interesting created it! Time is not linear like everyone thinks, its more a giant.... squiggly ball of overlapping timelines allowing the universe to exists by the fact that it currently does. Okay, enough with the token Haruhistic comment. Noone knows and until we can survive to observe the creation of another universe we will only ever have theory. Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Frontline.	Posted - 2008.01.30 12:16:00 - [48] Originally by: Sister Impotentata I believe God did the things I mentioned because they fit my current view of the universe. Which God would that be? Would that be the Jedeo/Christian God Jehovah? What about Islamic God Allah? Or would that be one of the Hinduism Gods like Shiva (whos history is evidentially older than that of the jedeo god)? Or what about the religion of the Budhha who derives from Hinduism? In fact, as there are + 170 religions with as many gods, with at least 6 older than the judeo religions, which shall we choose as the right 'god'? Or do you just mean 'God' in general? I'm not having a go at you, im just fed up with this 'God' rubbish. State whom you mean please you 'goddies', its nice to have a perspective on your thoughts and the direction from which they are bourne. Quote: According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are "absolute divine beings" and the original Pastafarians. Their image as "thieves and outcasts" is misinformation.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.01.30 12:28:00 - [49] Originally by: Miss Anthropy Personally I believe in creation. The OP explained the problem of the Big Bang theory succinctly. I can't prove to anyone here that there is a God so I'm not going to bother. Suffice it to say, the Universe and life itself is just too organised and detailed (in my opinion) for it to all be caused by an explosion out of nothingness. Just to twist your tail... Where did God come from? If you have an issue with the Universe springing from nothing (although no one says it came from nothing...it is logical to assume something was there) where do you suppose something like God came from? Talk about "organized and detailed" God trumps the Universe considering it is a conscious being capable of creating a universe. I just find it interesting that people have a difficult time with the notion of the big bang but can wrap their minds around the concept of a supreme being that can magic up whole universes on a whim with ease.
Miss Anthropy The Greater Goon GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:16:00 - [50] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Just to twist your tail... Where did God come from? If you have an issue with the Universe springing from nothing (although no one says it came from nothing...it is logical to assume something was there) where do you suppose something like God came from? Talk about "organized and detailed" God trumps the Universe considering it is a conscious being capable of creating a universe. I just find it interesting that people have a difficult time with the notion of the big bang but can wrap their minds around the concept of a supreme being that can magic up whole universes on a whim with ease. I have no idea where God came from. The best thing about being a Creationist though is that it doesn't matter where God came from. All you need to know is that this God created the universe we live in. The point is, whether you believe in God or the Big Bang, then both require a degree of blind faith because neither have been emphatically proven to exist. As far as I know (and I'm no expert) the only evidence that implies the Big Bang theory is the constant expansion of the Universe. But since we know so little about the Universe then maybe one day we'll find another reason for this constant expansion. Perhaps it merely looks like expansion when in reality it could probably be something as trivial as Earth's constant orbit making it appear the universe is expanding. But, like I said, I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm just guessing. Personally, I've always believed that science and religion can be compatible. Unfortunately, both science and religion are hell bend (excuse the pun) on disproving each other. Stargate SG1 was very interesting in that it constantly tried to merge science with religion. Who's to say that they might not be far from the truth? What if God is in fact a powerful alien who created life here? The Universe is vast. There just has to be other life out there. I can't believe that out of the whole cosmos there's only us freaks down here on this rapidly warming planet.
Elliot Reid Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:38:00 - [51] Originally by: Miss Anthropy Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Just to twist your tail... Where did God come from? If you have an issue with the Universe springing from nothing (although no one says it came from nothing...it is logical to assume something was there) where do you suppose something like God came from? Talk about "organized and detailed" God trumps the Universe considering it is a conscious being capable of creating a universe. I just find it interesting that people have a difficult time with the notion of the big bang but can wrap their minds around the concept of a supreme being that can magic up whole universes on a whim with ease. I have no idea where God came from. The best thing about being a Creationist though is that it doesn't matter where God came from. All you need to know is that this God created the universe we live in. I can't believe that out of the whole cosmos there's only us freaks down here on this rapidly warming planet. Selective quoting 4tw obviously but in 1600 the philosopher Giorano Bruno was burned at the steak by the Roman Inquisition for believing, amongst other things, that there were an infinite number of planets in the heavens harbouring an infinite amount of beings. "Thus is the excellence of God magnified and the greatest of His kingdom made manifest; He is glorified not in one, but in countless suns; not in a single Earth, a single world, but in a thousand thousand, I say in an infinity of worlds." __________________________________
Dark Shikari Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:40:00 - [52] Originally by: Elliot Reid burned at the steak London broil or New York strip? Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Elliot Reid Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:41:00 - [53] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Elliot Reid burned at the steak London broil or New York strip? ffs I was correcting that whilst you were replying __________________________________
Sister Impotentata Elite Angels Of Death	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:47:00 - [54] Originally by: annoing Originally by: Sister Impotentata I believe God did the things I mentioned because they fit my current view of the universe. Which God would that be? Would that be the Jedeo/Christian God Jehovah? What about Islamic God Allah? Or would that be one of the Hinduism Gods like Shiva (whos history is evidentially older than that of the jedeo god)? Or what about the religion of the Budhha who derives from Hinduism? In fact, as there are + 170 religions with as many gods, with at least 6 older than the judeo religions, which shall we choose as the right 'god'? Or do you just mean 'God' in general? I'm not having a go at you, im just fed up with this 'God' rubbish. State whom you mean please you 'goddies', its nice to have a perspective on your thoughts and the direction from which they are bourne. Since I was raised Catholic, my God would be the Trinity. But in truth I don't believe in any one in particular. I don't disbelieve in any others, either. I do feel that if I'm going to believe in a God, I should believe in an omnipotent one, because otherwise, what's the point? A non-omnipotent God is just a toon with better stuff than me. I'm not wedded to the idea of God at all. I just find my concept, that God made some simple rules and everything else followed, a cute explanation for things. ----- TANSTAAFL Originally by: Tommy I've go' the Scourges son. I thin' it's you wha' sh' b'ave. Wha'? You wa' aa' see 'f I go' tha' minerals?
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:48:00 - [55] Originally by: Miss Anthropy The point is, whether you believe in God or the Big Bang, then both require a degree of blind faith because neither have been emphatically proven to exist. As far as I know (and I'm no expert) the only evidence that implies the Big Bang theory is the constant expansion of the Universe. No, the difference is that we do have supporting evidence for the Big Bang (even if there's still a lot about it we don't know), whereas we have none for God. Stating that "believing" the Big Bang requires "blind faith" is entirely misrepresenting the situation. There are two main evidences supporting the Big Bang: the most conclusive one is the cosmic background radiation, observed for the first time in the '60s and subjected ever since to a lot of research. Think of it in lay terms as the "aftermath echo" left behind by the Big Bang, and it is by studying its properties that we are getting a better picture of what happened back then. The second is the observed cosmological redshift of the light from far away galaxies, which is due to the expansion of the Universe - but this expansion is not simply that galaxies are moving away from each other, it is due to the space between them actually expanding, and therefore stretching photons as they pass through it. There are many other minor pieces of evidence supporting these and the Big Bang theory, but those two are the most solid ones we've got at the moment.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:54:00 - [56] Originally by: Isiskhan Originally by: Miss Anthropy The point is, whether you believe in God or the Big Bang, then both require a degree of blind faith because neither have been emphatically proven to exist. As far as I know (and I'm no expert) the only evidence that implies the Big Bang theory is the constant expansion of the Universe. No, the difference is that we do have supporting evidence for the Big Bang (even if there's still a lot about it we don't know), whereas we have none for God. Stating that "believing" the Big Bang requires "blind faith" is entirely misrepresenting the situation. There are two main evidences supporting the Big Bang: the most conclusive one is the cosmic background radiation, observed for the first time in the '60s and subjected ever since to a lot of research. Think of it in lay terms as the "aftermath echo" left behind by the Big Bang, and it is by studying its properties that we are getting a better picture of what happened back then. The second is the observed cosmological redshift of the light from far away galaxies, which is due to the expansion of the Universe - but this expansion is not simply that galaxies are moving away from each other, it is due to the space between them actually expanding, and therefore stretching photons as they pass through it. There are many other minor pieces of evidence supporting these and the Big Bang theory, but those two are the most solid ones we've got at the moment. Really its a drop in the bucket as far as evidence of anything. There is just as much drop in the bucket evidence for god. I dont believe in god, but looking at it objectively, its true. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:20:00 - [57] As far as I know, the most compeling evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory is that the universe is expanding. However, more detailed measurements have discovered that the rate of expansion is actually speeding up slightly. So we can safely conclude that the diameter of the universe follows a function of time, and that function is not linear. Now have a look at a sine curve Is it an unreasonable conjecture that the physical size of the universe varies with time according to a sine curve? Say diam(Universe)=asin(bt)+c so that it varies between c-a and c+a light years across. I realise tht scientifically speaking, I'm talking complete bollox. And unless we can observe the universe for a few more billion years, there's no way to tell, or even guess, what function of time the size of the universe actually obeys. It's just a random thought that just occured to me. It would explain why we obvserve the universe expanding at an increasing rate, while still allowing it to have always existed. It also has the comforting conclusion that the universe will ALWAYS be here, with no heat death, big rip, big crunch or anything. Of course I can think of no mechanism by which such an expansion/retraction pattern would occur. Springy aether anyone? --------------------------------------------------------------------
Dheorl Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:24:00 - [58] Originally by: Last Wolf Edited by: Last Wolf on 29/01/2008 22:29:27 Big Bang theory is crap TBH. Last time i lit a fire*****er I didn't get a universe. Even Darwin noted how it was nearly mathematically impossible for an eye to be made from evolution, not to mention reproducing that eye in nearly every living animal that lives above ground. Not to mention, That there is a certain matter that behaves differently than all other matter on earth. and without this ONE.. I repeat this ONE exception out of all the other millions of molecular structures life would not exist. Water EXPANDS as it gets colder, not denser. If it wasn't for this, ice would sink, and rivers, oceans, and lakes would freeze from the bottom up, killing the organisms that produce 75% of the oxygen on Earth. That is way more than just coincidence. edit: crac\|<er is censored? LOL Even if they did freeze from the bottom upwards I don't see why life couldn't have just evolved differently in the first place. Also I love how every statement along it being impossible for life as complex as us to evolve always has the word nearly in it.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:49:00 - [59] Originally by: Miss Anthropy I have no idea where God came from. The best thing about being a Creationist though is that it doesn't matter where God came from. All you need to know is that this God created the universe we live in. The point is, whether you believe in God or the Big Bang, then both require a degree of blind faith because neither have been emphatically proven to exist. As far as I know (and I'm no expert) the only evidence that implies the Big Bang theory is the constant expansion of the Universe. But since we know so little about the Universe then maybe one day we'll find another reason for this constant expansion. Perhaps it merely looks like expansion when in reality it could probably be something as trivial as Earth's constant orbit making it appear the universe is expanding. But, like I said, I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm just guessing. Personally, I've always believed that science and religion can be compatible. Unfortunately, both science and religion are hell bend (excuse the pun) on disproving each other. As noted above there are a variety of observations that support the notion of the Big Bang. The expanding universe is just one of them albeit a compelling one which is simple to follow. - The universe is expanding so everything (you know what I mean) will be further away tomorrow than it is today. - If everything is further away in the future it follows everything was closer in the past. - Turn the clock back far enough and eventually everything must be in the same spot (aka the Big Bang Singularity) - Time stops at the singularity...there is no "before" so it is a definitive starting point - Boom Big bang, time moves forward, everything moves apart. Rinse and repeat. My point was to force you to examine your reasoning. If you find it difficult to accept that the universe, of its own accord (through some natural process), popped into existence why do you find it easy to accept that some supreme consciousness magicked it into being? Note I am not arguing for or against god here. I am merely asking you to ask yourself what the basis of your beliefs are. If you merely hold God must have done it because the Big Bang is inconceivable to you I have to wonder at your thinking. How is God, as a concept, more comprehensible than the big bang?
Dheorl Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:54:00 - [60] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h - The universe is expanding so everything (you know what I mean) will be further away tomorrow than it is today. - If everything is further away in the future it follows everything was closer in the past. - Turn the clock back far enough and eventually everything must be in the same spot (aka the Big Bang Singularity) - Time stops at the singularity...there is no "before" so it is a definitive starting point - Boom Big bang, time moves forward, everything moves apart. Rinse and repeat. What if the universe actually just fluctuates?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.