The fish Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 It's just a bit mind boggling saying "well everything was just there". Maybe it's just my mind being wierd, but it's just hard to imagine something not having a beginning. To put it simply: we don't know. However, the idea that there is a set number, which is (the total amount of energy) + (total amount of mass x speed of light in a vacuum squared), is probably the strongest idea there is, and that the forces keep all of it from ever being totaly at rest (so far).
weeyellowbloke Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I have on HUGE problem with human science. It takes the fact that everything has a beginnig for a fact. And indeed, it IS a HUMAN fact. But the universe isn't bound by human laws, so why should it have an origin? Is it that hard to accept that maybe it was just there all along? There was a theory like that back before the 1960's called the steady state theory that suggested that the universe was expanding, but that new matter was constantly being created to keep the universe essentially the same. The problem with this is that it does not account for the homogenious nature throughout the universe of cosmic background radiation and also images from distant (and therefore ancient) parts of the universe show that the universe has changed over time. Think of the world as a number of causes in a chain. Each cause triggers another in a domino-like effect. Each cause (or action) does not cause itself - they are contingent on the previous actions (think of the domino analogy). The world can thus either be explained as an infinite regress of caused causes (an endless line of dominos), or alternatively there is a first uncaused cause - a necessary being, outside the causal network, that is the cause of causation (triggering the domino effect). An infinite regress doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, hence the conclusion of the existence of a first cause (ie. God) is reached. That's a simple cosmological argument for you to mull over. It's by no means flawless, but it's at least thought-provoking, and counters the dilemma that many have brought up of "what created God?", since God is seen as a necessary being, outside the causal network. God is. He doesn't need to be created because he is outside of cause and time, and so the very concept of non-existence cannot apply to him. Btw, I am a theist, but I don't believe that God can ever be proved scientifically or philosophically even. Though neither can God be disproved. As I said in a previous post that is based upon Newton's laws that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and therefore all events must have a cause. However these laws apply matter and time. The Big Bang was the source of the four principal dimensions of space and time. So there does not necessarily have to be a cause for the Big Bang as there would have been no matter or time before it for a cause to happen within. It is perfectly possible that the Big Bang "just happened" as within quantum physics things can quite often happen for no reason. However it is also true that scientists have tried to put forward explanations for how a Big Bang could occur culminating in variations on string theory.
The fish Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Will someone kill themselves and come back to us ? Just the clear the situation up Shotgun it not being me, and nominate UK. As I said in a previous post that is based upon Newton's laws that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and therefore all events must have a cause. However these laws apply matter and time. The Big Bang was the source of the four principal dimensions of space and time. So there does not necessarily have to be a cause for the Big Bang as there would have been no matter or time before it for a cause to happen within. It is perfectly possible that the Big Bang "just happened" as within quantum physics things can quite often happen for no reason. However it is also true that scientists have tried to put forward explanations for how a Big Bang could occur culminating in variations on string theory. What he said, plus the idea of it "pulsating". Quantum physics is all a bit...out there, though. It's kind of wacky, even for physicists! Oh, and string theory is beyond me, I know practically bugger all of it at the moment.
UK Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I really don't know what's wrong with being a Christian who believes in the Big Bang theory, so that's what I'll go by. I'm split, really, but who cares? we're here now.
weeyellowbloke Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 What he said, plus the idea of it "pulsating". Quantum physics is all a bit...out there, though. It's kind of wacky, even for physicists! Oh, and string theory is beyond me, I know practically bugger all of it at the moment. I'm still not too sure about pulsating idea myself. I'm still not certain where the forces needed to overcome the increasing repulsive force of dark energy would come from. I do like the idea of a cyclic universe though as the idea of this being the universe has one shot at existence before entropy increases and heat death occurs leaving a big empty space. That all seems a bit of a depressing conclusion. That's why I quite like a recent theory that has come up that just prior to the total conclusion of a Big Rip, caused by dark energy, a section of the universe is retained containing of dark energy and no entropy resulting contraction back to a single Big Crunch style point. As for string theory, I'm a bit shaky on the specifics, I'm only an armchair physicist who is actually useless at maths, but as I understand it it works on the idea that there are more dimensions then the usual four we can observe (some say 10 dimensions, some 11 or more). Within these extra dimensions are one dimensional strings which vibrate. As well as these strings there are also membranes which move through the exta dimensions and can consist of anywhere from 0 to 9 dimensions and our four dimensional universe lies on one of these many branes. It's still a bit of a controversial theory though. It can be extended to suggest a possible source of the Big Bang in that it may have been created by the random collision of our brane and another one.
DomJcg Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I really don't know what's wrong with being a Christian who believes in the Big Bang theory, so that's what I'll go by. I'm split, really, but who cares? we're here now. yeh hi, im like you, as the fish will tell, i believe in God and jazz but believe in all the big sciencey stuff, but keep an open mind to all of it, because oddly enough most of it makes sense :P
Mr-Paul Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 yeh hi, im like you, as the fish will tell, i believe in God and jazz but believe in all the big sciencey stuff, but keep an open mind to all of it, because oddly enough most of it makes sense :P Totally agree. Nothing wrong with believing in God and science, I do. People says it's impossible because science contradicts what the bible says, but we must remember that the bible is not fact, it was written by people based on their own experiences.
Sanchez Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Totally agree. Nothing wrong with believing in God and science, I do. People says it's impossible because science contradicts what the bible says, but we must remember that the bible is not fact, it was written by people based on their own experiences. So why believe in it?
Mr-Paul Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 So why believe in it? Because I believe there must have been something before the big bang at the origin of the universe. It can't have just been random. I believe that there is a God behind it.
Sanchez Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 That doesn't mean you have to believe in the christian god, nor any other. EDIT: Hell, because you think that something has to have a beginning, why not simply accept that we don't know how it happened, probably won't ever know and be done with it.
Mr-Paul Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 That doesn't mean you have to believe in the christian god, nor any other. EDIT: Hell, because you think that something has to have a beginning, why not simply accept that we don't know how it happened, probably won't ever know and be done with it. Well it is my own choice to believe in God, and is the way I was brought up. I don't have to believe in a God, but I do okay? We don't know exactly know how the universe started, but religion provides an explanation, which I have chosen to believe.
Slaggis Posted September 21, 2007 Author Posted September 21, 2007 Well it is my own choice to believe in God, and is the way I was brought up. I don't have to believe in a God, but I do okay? We don't know exactly know how the universe started, but religion provides an explanation, which I have chosen to believe. Exactly. I don't personally believe God created stuff etc, but I can unerstand why people do, it's an explanation to a questions thats basically impossible to answer.
Sanchez Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Well it is my own choice to believe in God, and is the way I was brought up. I don't have to believe in a God, but I do okay? We don't know exactly know how the universe started, but religion provides an explanation, which I have chosen to believe. What I meant is why don't you make your own god, based on what you believe rather than conforming to the pre defined gods.
Shino Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 That's as much of an explanation as saying that the universe was crapped out by someones asshole. I choose to believe that.
Mr-Paul Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 What I meant is why don't you make your own god, based on what you believe rather than conforming to the pre defined gods. Mainly because I've had a Christian upbringing which has led me to believe in the Christian God. Why would I change and start believing in a different God unless I had lost faith in Christianity? As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not really a practicing christian, I don't go to church every week (I used to), but I do believe in God and have a fairly 'christian' way of life.
Indigo Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I really, really, really don't want to flame you.I really don't. I honestly don't, I promised myself I wouldn't get into these kind of arguments anymore. Oh, fuck it, I've had a bad week; I need some fun. I'll be gentle, though... That is a useless argument for the existence of a god. It falls apart if you think about it for more than 3 seconds. How (or should I say "why") does god exist outside space-time, and what evidence have you to support this idea? Why can't the universe be a loop; something that expands and contracts over time? Come on, matey, if this is going to be a proper debate, you'll need some evidence. I never claimed it did not have flaws. Ultimately the argument does fail, and the intention of my post was never to claim otherwise. I was simply throwing some ideas into the mix. Should an idea be discarded because it cannot be proved? Only if it can be conclusively disproved should it be wholly dismissed. Of course there is no evidence that God exists outside time, neither is there evidence to the contrary. I was musing over it, since I thought the discussion was intended to be philosophical, and not purely scientific. My intention was to create a bit of discussion, not to claim to be some grandiose intellectual authority. "Why can't the universe be a loop; something that expands and contracts over time?" This statement leaves me curious. If it continually expands and contracts in a loop, which did it start with?
weeyellowbloke Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Here's a thought. Seeing as the principals of mathmatics are constant, such as one will always equal one etc. could God not be an equation which pulls together all the fundamental aspects of physics and explains the structure, history and basically the cause of the universe. It's the holy grail of physics, the unified theory of everything, an equation that explains all, but could that not be seen as a God seeing as it would be constant and outside the universe. Hmmm, such an equation may be beyond all human comprehension though.
Hellfire Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I think that the human mind can't possibly comprehend existance, space and time to even a fraction of its full extent, so the best we can do is use math to get as close as we can get. Also, if a God had to create stuff because there was nothing, how was God there? Wasn't there supposed to be nothing? It's impossible to imagine "nothing".
UK Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Mainly because I've had a Christian upbringing which has led me to believe in the Christian God. Why would I change and start believing in a different God unless I had lost faith in Christianity? As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not really a practicing christian, I don't go to church every week (I used to), but I do believe in God and have a fairly 'christian' way of life. Don't worry, mate, people will always diss what they don't understand.
Strider Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 How was God there? Just so you know, i do believe in God and what not, i do listen to all the science involved and make up my own mind but i do think there is something more. Anyway "How was God there". Whenever I think of God, i never imagine him to actually be there or anywhere, not in the Galaxy anyway. I always think of him in a higher plane of existance, not in pysical body.
Shino Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Don't worry, mate, people will always diss what they don't understand. What's there to understand? He (and apparently you) have an hereditary faith. I always think of him in a higher plane of existance, not in pysical body. But weren't we made based on his image?
Mr-Paul Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I think that the human mind can't possibly comprehend existance, space and time to even a fraction of its full extent, so the best we can do is use math to get as close as we can get.Also, if a God had to create stuff because there was nothing, how was God there? Wasn't there supposed to be nothing? It's impossible to imagine "nothing". The idea of a god is that he is above existence and the rules of this world.
Strider Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 But weren't we made based on his image? God knows. I'm sorry i really wanted to say it.
UK Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 What's there to understand? He (and apparently you) have an hereditary faith. But weren't we made based on his image? Explain by what you mean by that. Also, as for the God question, I believe that some things re too big and superior for man to ever understand or grasp.
DCK Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Should an idea be discarded because it cannot be proved? Only if it can be conclusively disproved should it be wholly dismissed. No no, this is a fundamental flaw in logic. When you claim something, it can be dismissed without prove. By your logic, you can take anything for possible truth if it cannot be disproven. Try to disprove me the existence of tooth fairies or the giant universe ass it shits matter from. Just because the idea can exist in your head, it means nothing without prove. The idea of God can actually be discarded, just like the idea of Santa Claus and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow; objectively speaking they are all as ridiculous as one another as there's no prove. It's exactly because of this is why I don't see much sense in discussing the origin of the universe as there's little meaningful to say about it so far. Even the theories that might give an explanation like M-theory and the likes are purely theoretical and have yet to give empirical prove.
Recommended Posts