God.

[Orch_Dork]

Re: God.

ok you make a good point.

[Ice wolf]

Re: God.

i don't know how that speck of matter that was there before the big bang got there.

Right there! Yes! Right there!

Although, it wasn't "that speck of matter". It was supposedly energy, and this is how it's suppose to work:

Matter can be turned to energy right? Ex. Gasoline, coal, etc.
So energy can be turned to matter. (Supposedly)

BUT

Where did the energy come from? National Geographic has failed to answer that. When I think of a scientist's idea of the universe's beginning, I think:

At the beginning of time there was energy. Energy. Just floating I guess? So the energy made up the universe which, again, supposedly is around the size of an atom. The energy exploded (Big Bang). So now the same action that turns matter to energy, turned energy to matter. So then there was matter.

(And then it gets into more complicated stuff about bacteria being the start of living creatures)

When trying to prove your point, you cant use the point you are trying to prove as a fact in the arguement.

This is true

[Orch_Dork]

Re: God.

thats almost restating the big bang

[devonin]

Re: God.

Where did the energy come from?

To quote a very widely respected Hindu scholar in a moment of silliness: "Perhaps it is turtles all the way down"

(To explain: The big criticism against non-creationsists by creationists is "If every event needs a cause, your theory goes back and back and back, to a causeless cause (the big bang) which you yourselves have asserted is impossible" and the same was pointed out to this scholar about the metaphorical belief that the earth is supported on the back of giant turtle, and the question she was asked which gave the answer I quoted was "Well what is supporting the turtle?")

[Orch_Dork]

Re: God.

Matter can be turned to energy right? Ex. Gasoline, coal, etc.
So energy can be turned to matter. (Supposedly)

Not true actually. Those energy sourses ex. coal,gasoline,exc. only store energy. they release it when burned. the coal itself undergoes a chemical change, the coal burning creates carbon dioxide and other byproducts, so the coal is just in a diffrent form.

if it did change into energy, that goes agianst that matter cannot be created nor destroyed

[JonoSasson]

Re: God.

I'm definitely not a god believer of any kind. Mainstream religious gods, Shinto gods... gods are talked about all the time. In the good old days of Religious Education however, I had for a very for short time (I wonder why it was such a short time...) a teacher who gave me both some very insightful and less insightful words. Of the ones I do consider insightful, he told me, "God isn't something you necessarily have to believe in, God can be something we feel inside when we are happy, when we are sad, when we laugh and when we're nervous. It doesn't have to be materialistic, represented as a man sitting beyond the clouds who created what we live in today. Upon the chapel I went to everyday as a child were the words, 'God is Love' and for those who don't believe there was an all-knowing and wise creator, perhaps the God we're looking for is simply inside of us."

He didn't say that exactly, I'm sure some of that is my beliefs also... but that's I'm sure what he was trying to get me to see. He continually reminded my class, "God is Love. Love is God." In fact, he was getting older and it pretty much begun every lesson.

Anyways, God doesn't have to be a theological reference. Although try telling that to a philosopher. I told my philosophy teacher that, she gave me a half hour-long lecture as to why this could never be. I never was one for philosphy... or philosophers.

Having little knowledge or care for both 'The Big Bang' and the Creationist God, I think what's happened here is that society has taught itself through everyday things that everything must have a reasonable explanation. Hence Science comes about (don't hold that against me!!). We continually see things from a

beginning-------------------------end

perspective, because it seems rational. Some question what is past space. The only reason they question this is because we have been lead to believe that after something there must be something more. We can't just say space just goes on forever because 'that doesn't seem right'. Sure, I myself find it hard to conceive that this is the case, but perhaps it is! Don't just disregard something for the sake of disregarding something. There's so much we don't know and probably won't know for millions of years to come (which may come, maybe God will destroy us before then though). I'm beginning to like the theory of being on the back of a turtle.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: God.

Not true actually. Those energy sourses ex. coal,gasoline,exc. only store energy. they release it when burned. the coal itself undergoes a chemical change, the coal burning creates carbon dioxide and other byproducts, so the coal is just in a diffrent form.

if it did change into energy, that goes agianst that matter cannot be created nor destroyed

The Law of Conservation of Matter has the stipulation of "by ordinary chemical means" tacked onto the end for a reason.

Technically, if you had enough energy you could re-form wood from ash, but you'd need trillions of processes with probabilities on the order of quantum leaps for it to happen, though.

Ordinarily, one could ignore that fact and just go with what you said, but the sheer amount of energy present in the big bang makes just about anything possible. I mean, you don't expect a giant blob of iron to pop out of this speck and form the core of a planet, do you? No, in the first fraction of a second of the universe's life, the energy density was so great that everything existed in the form of fundamental particles that we probably don't even know about yet. Effectively pure energy that quickly condensed into particles, matter.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[hayatewillown]

Re: God.

Ok, You want to play smart eh? Well lets think about this. I am putting this on here to critical thinking, supposively is supposed to have intellectual thinking. If you guys thought throughly, you would put a debate against this.

This is all I ask, what is everyones opinion on god, and why or why not do you believe in him/her/it.

And when it say " You may also look to scientific proof", He uses a reference from Einstein.
You could also LOOK for the information. HE wasn't supposed to provided anything.

And stop getting off topic. Act smart.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

To quote a very widely respected Hindu scholar in a moment of silliness: "Perhaps it is turtles all the way down"

Are you sure that's the origin of the quote? It was also used in a forward to a Stephen Hawking book, which suggested an alternate origin.

(To explain: The big criticism against non-creationsists by creationists is "If every event needs a cause, your theory goes back and back and back, to a causeless cause (the big bang) which you yourselves have asserted is impossible" and the same was pointed out to this scholar about the metaphorical belief that the earth is supported on the back of giant turtle, and the question she was asked which gave the answer I quoted was "Well what is supporting the turtle?")

Current scientific theory is looking for the cause of the big bang, not assuming it is a causeless cause. There are different models of possible causes for the big bang, one of the most popular is the model of a collision between two other universes. Also there's no reason necessarily to assume that every event needs a cause.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

This might be kind of a strange idea and I don't know if this really ties into any of the ideas listed. This idea is not something that I neccessarily believe, but it's a very interesting thought though. What if the future and past are both being made and never end? As if the world's past and future somehow started at a present time. I doubt if this would be true or make any sense, but how would anyone intrepret this?

[devonin]

Re: God.

Are you sure that's the origin of the quote? It was also used in a forward to a Stephen Hawking book, which suggested an alternate origin.

I got my version of it from one of the Science of Discworld novels by Terry Pratchett with Drs Cohen and Stewart...I'm going from memory here so if you have an attirbution directly in front of you, I'll suppose I'm simply confusing my quotes.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Here's the Wiki entry

[Garthhh]

Re: God.

I'm middle of the road on this issue, but I am leaning more towards full blown atheism. While I am technically an agnostic, there is just so much evidence against the existence of a god. For one, how could a being, greater than us or not, create the entire universe? Using its imagination? Not probable. But, looking to science, there are more sensible explanations. Big bang, evolution, etc. In my opinion, it is stupid to believe that a greater being is actually out there making changes in the world. If so, why would said greater being not just prove itself for once?

The only thing that has just about everyone confused is how the universe started. Sure, the big bang seems like a reasonable explanation, but what created the big bang? What created all of the matter in the big bang? Confusing, eh?

These things will not be found out within your or my lifetimes (I presume.) Once more is found out about time, space, and matter, there will be more answers. Religion may be proven true or false. The universe may finally be figured out. These things you and I will never know.

[devonin]

Re: God.

While I am technically an agnostic

Once more is found out about time, space, and matter, there will be more answers.

You are not technically an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the belief that asking questions about the deeper meanings of the universe and existence especially about the creation of the universe and the existence or non-existence of God is meaningless because -whether there were answers or not- they would not be within the realm of possible human understanding.

[Hollus]

Re: God.

You are not technically an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the belief that asking questions about the deeper meanings of the universe and existence especially about the creation of the universe and the existence or non-existence of God is meaningless because -whether there were answers or not- they would not be within the realm of possible human understanding.

Actually, there are two types of agnosticism. Weak agnosticism is the belief that there isn't enough evidence on either side (For-God and Against-God) to rationally support either side. Strong agnosticism is the kind you're talking about, Devonin, were the human mind is incapable of answering questions about the existence of God.

(Personally, I'm atheist. It's way more likely that energy and matter spontaneously came into existence (the Big Bang) than a omnipotent sentient entity (God) spontaneously came into existence.)