| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ecnav
Gallente
The Hate Foundation.
   |
Posted - 2008.01.29 21:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ecnav on 29/01/2008 21:59:56
Edited by: Ecnav on 29/01/2008 21:59:27
If matter can neither be created or destroyed, what made the universe?
Even the Big Bang theory begins with the fact that a huge, dense, and hot object was all the universe was in the beginning, and that something caused it to explode.
Well what the heck caused that huge object to form?
__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __
A ship while docked is safe...
But that isn't what ships were made for.
|
Joseph 9
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:01:00 -
[2]
Internally self consistent quantum fluctuation with a net enegy of zero. Happy now?
|
Calderio
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:01:00 -
[3]
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Click The Power Of BOB Compells you |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:01:00 -
[4]
Answer: No one knows.
No, seriously. We have no idea, though there are a few theories floating around. Unfortunately we won't be able to test any of these theories for a couple thousand years.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:10:00 -
[5]
Hint: gravity is negative energy (due to the fact that it takes energy to leave a gravitational field).
Hint 2: the total positive energy of an object is equivalent to the negative energy of its gravitational field.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Last Wolf
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:11:00 -
[6]
This is why religions and beliefs of God(s) is so common around the world. There are so many things that science can't explain, but a "Higher Power" could.
|
Last Wolf
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:12:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Dark Shikari
Hint: gravity is negative energy (due to the fact that it takes energy to leave a gravitational field).
Hint 2: the total positive energy of an object is equivalent to the negative energy of its gravitational field.
I dunno about that. I know a lot of depressing/lazy fat people. Depending on how you interpret "Positive Energy"
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:16:00 -
[8]
Currently about the earliest cosmologists can speculate on is about 10^-43 seconds after the big bang went *bang*. This is known as the Planck Epoch and represents the smallest timeslice measurable. In reality theorizing even back to that moment is dicey at best but with today's knowledge that seems to be a hard limit.
While that is a very teeny moment post big bang it seems to place a hard limit on looking past it to the big bang singularity itself.
As mentioned there are some theories. While those theories are informed by what we know today they really are just educated guesses at this point. No one knows exactly.
Also realize that thinking back to "before" the big bang is meaningless for us. Space and indeed time itself were born at the moment of the big bang. There is no "before" so describing it is literally impossible for us (would be like asking what is north of the north pole).
|
Orgos Khenn
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:19:00 -
[9]
Maybe it was formed by the crunch of the last universe collapsing on itself.
----
In before Jonny JoJo turns this into an Amarr whine
|
Last Wolf
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:29:00 -
[10]
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
|
Joseph 9
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:29:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Hint: gravity is negative energy (due to the fact that it takes energy to leave a gravitational field).
Hint 2: the total positive energy of an object is equivalent to the negative energy of its gravitational field.
Isn't that what I said... and what happens to items with negative charge. Anyway it's probably wrong as the expansion of the universe is accelerating which implies it has to have a positive net energy in some way.
|
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:31:00 -
[12]
There is a perfectly logical explanation.
Unfortunately it is not observable from our position.
EVE CCG Trinity Booster
|
Joseph 9
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:31:00 -
[13]
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
And I'm afraid I'm going to get scientific on your ass here. Reference for the bolded text please.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Last Wolf
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.
Anthropic principle. If the universe wasn't created in such a way as to allow life to exist, we wouldn't be here, and therefore nobody would be around to ask "why are we here?"
Therefore, it is stupid to wonder "why does the universe have just the right physical properties to allow life?" If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Last Wolf
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:36:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Joseph 9
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
And I'm afraid I'm going to get scientific on your ass here. Reference for the bolded text please.
First link of a google search.
http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/darwineye.htm
As it goes on to explain, it seems I too had seen the quote out-of-context and remembered it as such. Still my last point still stands.
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:37:00 -
[16]
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.
Wow, you aren't really familiar with the actual theory, are you?
Quote:
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.
1. Entirely different and unrelated theory
2. Eyes did not evolve instantly, primitive multi-celled organisms had light-sensitive organs that could determine their vertical orientation in an ocean. Eventually these organs evolved and became concave and more accurate, allowing creatures to detect movement changes in light.
Quote:
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's because water, when it freezes, crystallizes. It's not by magic or anything, and plenty of other materials do the same thing. However, none of those materials are liquid above at temperatures common on Earth's surface.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:39:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Last Wolf
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.
You really should go back to your chem class.
You are correct that if water did not do this nifty trick life would likely not exist on earth.
You are however completely wrong that water is the only thing that does this. Silicon, Bismuth, Antimony and Gallium come to mind as other things that do this. You just do not encounter them as much.
|
Last Wolf
Templars of Space
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:40:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Anthropic principle. If the universe wasn't created in such a way as to allow life to exist, we wouldn't be here, and therefore nobody would be around to ask "why are we here?"
Therefore, it is stupid to wonder "why does the universe have just the right physical properties to allow life?" If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
So Scientists have to get Philosophical to explain what they can't Explain?
Makes since to me.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Last Wolf
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Anthropic principle. If the universe wasn't created in such a way as to allow life to exist, we wouldn't be here, and therefore nobody would be around to ask "why are we here?"
Therefore, it is stupid to wonder "why does the universe have just the right physical properties to allow life?" If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
So Scientists have to get Philosophical to explain what they can't Explain?
Makes since to me.
You're asking a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Therefore, one cannot answer scientifically.
Any question that, at least now, we have no way of gathering any evidence about, is not scientific; it is philosophical.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:53:00 -
[20]
You tell people the Answer, and they ignore it. 
EVE CCG Trinity Booster
|
Elliot Reid
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Last Wolf
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Anthropic principle. If the universe wasn't created in such a way as to allow life to exist, we wouldn't be here, and therefore nobody would be around to ask "why are we here?"
Therefore, it is stupid to wonder "why does the universe have just the right physical properties to allow life?" If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
So Scientists have to get Philosophical to explain what they can't Explain?
Makes since to me.
If there were an infinite number of parallel universes and each of these universes were different in some way from each other, the law of averages would suggest that eventually a universe would be created that'd be perfect for carbon based lifeforms and have lots of, massively coincidental, sets of conditions met for that life to form and evolve.
__________________________________
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:01:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Last Wolf
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Anthropic principle. If the universe wasn't created in such a way as to allow life to exist, we wouldn't be here, and therefore nobody would be around to ask "why are we here?"
Therefore, it is stupid to wonder "why does the universe have just the right physical properties to allow life?" If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
So Scientists have to get Philosophical to explain what they can't Explain?
Makes since to me.
You use "philosophy" like it is somehow counter-science.
Science is, in its purest form, merely the application and verification of philosophical principles in a quantifiable manner. For questions asked where it is impossible to answer with verification or proof (such as the one in the OP), you are, by default, talking philosophy.
------
Originally by: Dark Shikari
The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways. |
Sharupak
Minmatar
Knights Of the Black Sun
Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:03:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
You tell people the Answer, and they ignore it.
I agree,
If you expounded upon it, this thread would go 30 pages at least!
I will take M theory and parallel universes for 2000 alex!
_______________________________________________
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. |
Mtthias Clemi
Gallente
The Space Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:26:00 -
[24]
Just because things happened in a certain way and we are here, does not mean that if they hadn't happened we wouldn't be here...
If you get me?
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:28:00 -
[25]
And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats. 
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Sharupak
Minmatar
Knights Of the Black Sun
Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:55:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tarminic
And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats.
Yeah, thats because the big bang is where science and religion finally meet. Creation from something you cant see.
_______________________________________________
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. |
Joseph 9
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:56:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Tarminic
And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats.
Thats unfair tbh, if he's in the Europe he's probably gone to bed. I know I should have. And when I forced him to reference a quote he used he was intellectually honest and admitted he hadn't fully read the quote before and had misquoted.
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 00:06:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Joseph 9
Originally by: Tarminic
And faced with logical evidence, the "zomg big bang is dumb" poster immediately retreats.
Thats unfair tbh, if he's in the Europe he's probably gone to bed. I know I should have. And when I forced him to reference a quote he used he was intellectually honest and admitted he hadn't fully read the quote before and had misquoted.
Fair enough...should he return I will rescind my statement.
----------------
Tarminic - 31 Million SP in Forum Warfare
Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.2 |
Joseph 9
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 00:10:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Joseph 9 on 30/01/2008 00:12:49
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.
|
Ecnav
Gallente
The Hate Foundation.
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 00:51:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Originally by: Last Wolf
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.
Anthropic principle. If the universe wasn't created in such a way as to allow life to exist, we wouldn't be here, and therefore nobody would be around to ask "why are we here?"
Therefore, it is stupid to wonder "why does the universe have just the right physical properties to allow life?" If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
Life grew and evolved with these conditions already in place, we just used them. These conditions did not decide to just show up after life existed.
__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __
A ship while docked is safe...
But that isn't what ships were made for.
|
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)=a*sin(b*t)+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?
|
Kirjava
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 17:55:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Dheorl
What if the universe actually just fluctuates?
Then I owe my freind a coke.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:26:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Dheorl
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?
It used to be considered that the universe did exactly that in a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. However the latest measurements seem to indicate the universe will expand forever eventually leading to the heat death of the universe. I preferred the idea of a big crunch renewing cycle myself. Better than the near nothingness the universe seems destined for but no one asked my opinion.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Lyrus Associates
Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:50:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Dheorl
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?
Read my post - I just said that 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sister Impotentata
Elite Angels Of Death
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:52:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
It used to be considered that the universe did exactly that in a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. However the latest measurements seem to indicate the universe will expand forever eventually leading to the heat death of the universe. I preferred the idea of a big crunch renewing cycle myself. Better than the near nothingness the universe seems destined for but no one asked my opinion.
I've always thought that was a rather depressingly bleak outcome as well. Somewhere along the way, reading the kind of sci-fi I like to read, I integrated into my happy outlook a notion: There is a force that will oppose the Second Law, a force that will keep Entropy from having the final say. Life.
I think I picked that up from Dan Simmons' Hyperion books.
-----
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?
|
Sharupak
Minmatar
Knights Of the Black Sun
Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:57:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Sharupak on 30/01/2008 18:57:04
It's ok, we it will still be warm when we die.
_______________________________________________
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 18:59:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Sharupak
Edited by: Sharupak on 30/01/2008 18:57:04
It's ok, we it will still be warm when we die.
Don't know about you, but I plan on living forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sharupak
Minmatar
Knights Of the Black Sun
Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:11:00 -
[67]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Sharupak
Edited by: Sharupak on 30/01/2008 18:57:04
It's ok, we it will still be warm when we die.
Don't know about you, but I plan on living forever.
Hey, thats your problem and I dont think they have pills for that.
_______________________________________________
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. |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:26:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Patch86 on 30/01/2008 19:27:04
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
It used to be considered that the universe did exactly that in a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. However the latest measurements seem to indicate the universe will expand forever eventually leading to the heat death of the universe. I preferred the idea of a big crunch renewing cycle myself. Better than the near nothingness the universe seems destined for but no one asked my opinion.
I've always liked to think of the universe as much like an explosion, like a firecracker. you set off the firecracker and for a very brief moment you get intense heat, noise, light, and bits of casing sprayed everywhere, before it goes cold and quiet again.
Now imagine that one of those tiny particles of red-hot firecracker casing is a galaxy, and each of the minuscule sub-atomic particles that make it up are stars, and around each of these sub-atomic particles revolves even smaller particles still, and on one of these sub-sub-atomic particles live billions of living things, each one living for only a billionth of the length of the whole moment-long firecracker explosion. And thats kind like what we are
------
Originally by: Dark Shikari
The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways. |
Sharupak
Minmatar
Knights Of the Black Sun
Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:40:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Patch86
Edited by: Patch86 on 30/01/2008 19:27:04
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
It used to be considered that the universe did exactly that in a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. However the latest measurements seem to indicate the universe will expand forever eventually leading to the heat death of the universe. I preferred the idea of a big crunch renewing cycle myself. Better than the near nothingness the universe seems destined for but no one asked my opinion.
I've always liked to think of the universe as much like an explosion, like a firecracker. you set off the firecracker and for a very brief moment you get intense heat, noise, light, and bits of casing sprayed everywhere, before it goes cold and quiet again.
Now imagine that one of those tiny particles of red-hot firecracker casing is a galaxy, and each of the minuscule sub-atomic particles that make it up are stars, and around each of these sub-atomic particles revolves even smaller particles still, and on one of these sub-sub-atomic particles live billions of living things, each one living for only a billionth of the length of the whole moment-long firecracker explosion. And thats kind like what we are
You smoke weed too?
Actually, I have thought of it similarly and I agree.
_______________________________________________
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. |
Ruciza
Minmatar
The Feminists
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:57:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Ruciza on 30/01/2008 20:08:37
First, gravity is not negative energy, it's a force, or a conservative force field in the wider sense. Objects inside this force field can be said to have negative potential energy. 'Negative Energy' is some outlandish hypothetical stuff like 'Negative Matter'. Good in theory, but inconsequential without evidence, just like God.
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 best thing about being a creationist is to stop thinking then. Good point.
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. 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.
In other words, you lack scientific education. And you disregard evidence on grounds of "I'm no astrophysicist".
Originally by: Miss Anthropy
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.
It isn't compatible at all. The debate is over, God is dead, we killed him hundreds of years ago. Since then - no new arguments. The only one you have left is "you can't prove me wrong." One second of reflection tells you there must be a major fault in there...
Originally by: Miss Anthropy
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?
Ok, you're right. Forget everything I just said. Jesus was an alien.
|
Sharupak
Minmatar
Knights Of the Black Sun
Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:10:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Ruciza
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 best thing about being a creationist is to stop thinking then. Good point.
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. 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.
In other words, you're ignorant. And you disregard evidence on grounds of "I'm no astrophysicist".
Originally by: Miss Anthropy
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.
It isn't compatible at all. The debate is over, God is dead, we killed him hundreds of years ago. Since then - no new arguments. The only one you have left is "you can't prove me wrong." One second of reflection should tell you there must be a major fault in there...
Originally by: Miss Anthropy
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?
Ok, you're right. Forget everything I just said. Jesus was an alien.
Congratulations for being just as dogmatic as the religeon you are trying pathetically to slam.
1. Science and religion used to be the same thing.
2. What we know of the secrets of the Universe is infantesimal! We just figured out that Pluto is not a planet, just another object in the kuiper belt. Scientists are trying theories like Dark Matter and Dark Energy to solve problems like why some galaxies are clumped together instead of the theories even dispersion. Mathmatically, gravity was supposed to overcome the velocity of the big bang but it appears thats not the case so its Dark energy that is speeding the expansion up. Scientists are changing their minds on stuff in the universe on almost a daily basis. To not believe in the big bang does not make you ignorant. Believing in the big bang also does not make you ignorant.
_______________________________________________
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. |
das licht
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:40:00 -
[72]
I think that one is a big secret.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:47:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Patch86
Edited by: Patch86 on 30/01/2008 19:27:04
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
It used to be considered that the universe did exactly that in a Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle. However the latest measurements seem to indicate the universe will expand forever eventually leading to the heat death of the universe. I preferred the idea of a big crunch renewing cycle myself. Better than the near nothingness the universe seems destined for but no one asked my opinion.
I've always liked to think of the universe as much like an explosion, like a firecracker. you set off the firecracker and for a very brief moment you get intense heat, noise, light, and bits of casing sprayed everywhere, before it goes cold and quiet again.
Now imagine that one of those tiny particles of red-hot firecracker casing is a galaxy, and each of the minuscule sub-atomic particles that make it up are stars, and around each of these sub-atomic particles revolves even smaller particles still, and on one of these sub-sub-atomic particles live billions of living things, each one living for only a billionth of the length of the whole moment-long firecracker explosion. And thats kind like what we are
This is a nice analogy as long as you remember that the fire*****er explodes into surrounding space. For the Big Bang it was space itself that exploded (i.e. it did not explode *into* anything). A subtle but important distinction.
To extend that idea when people say they cannot point to a spot and say the Big Bang originated there is not entirely correct. It happened everywhere. At some time in the distant past you (or at least what comprises you) and the Andromeda Galaxy (and everything else) were in the same infinitesimal spot.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |