Start of the Universe

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 34 total items

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

Science - big bang.... evolution... etc.


religions - God.... or some other being....


Now... everyone always says "If God created everything, who created God?".... and or something along those lines to the various religions that believe in a higher being.

The problem with a "science" believer asking that question is to also ask "if the Big bang created everything, what was before the big bang?"

science laws say - Nothing can be created nor destroyed. If nothing can be created, then "something" was always there. and if that "something" was always there, before, during, and after all time, then how is that any more "believable" than to say that God, like "something" has existed before, during, and after all time.


here's a side topic:

It doesn't matter how the world or universe was created. It matters more whether you believe, however it was created, that it was created by chance, luck, God, or what. Even if we say 100% without a doubt that evolution created humans, that doesn't mean God didn't make each evolutionary step happen. It is more about what you believe is the cause rather than what you believe "happened".

What do you think about these thoughts?

-Boojitsu21

Cancel

big bang. But...you never know, it could be God.

  • Jan 07, 2007
Cancel

Science and the big bang are my believes, if something like a god exists then it would be part of science too, that means that god is tied to his own physics and mathematical laws.

  • Jan 07, 2007

ProgramZERO

ProgramZERO

The Lost Generation

Cancel

Quote by boojitsuThe problem with a "science" believer asking that question is to also ask "if the Big bang created everything, what was before the big bang?"

Some scientists believe that another universe existed before the big bang. Some believe that the universe is really a cycle of collapsing and expanding universes. A big bang might be followed with a big crunch and that big crunch would be followed with another big bang. Of course this is all theory but still a fascinating concept.

Quote by boojitsuEven if we say 100% without a doubt that evolution created humans, that doesn't mean God didn't make each evolutionary step happen. It is more about what you believe is the cause rather than what you believe "happened".

Well, that depends. The concept of deities comes from religious doctrine and usually, said doctrine also explains away the origin of man and Earth. Adam and Eve don't work and neither does the idea of Earth being created in seven days.

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

Adam and Eve work just as well (if not better) for how a world could be populated and survive than it does to say certain minute probabilities and factors all elevated to a point where they could create thing(s). Those things just happened to be able to survive, create, evolve, etc. all because the Earth was at a perfect spot. not too far from the sun and not too close. Now given the 1000000000000000000000 planets and systems in space that people believe exist, this makes sense. But to say that Adam and Eve are "impossible" ideas, is to say that the easier way (that humans were placed here or that the "start" of the humans were placed here with divine will) seems ridiculous. The bible was also written in the scope of the writers. The writers had only what they heard / learned through their life. God doesn't need to explain himself (scientifically) to someone (such as the writers of the bible) who would have no idea what a solar system, molecules, elements, atoms, etc. would be in the first place.

just my thoughts

-Boojitsu21

Cancel

On the contrary, there are a number of theories speculating what 'was' before the big bang, or what allowed the supermass of the big bang to pop into existence at all. I suggest you read up onHartle-Hawking Initial State, String landscape and the Ekpyrotic scenario. Nowhere has it been stated with 100% confidence that nothing could exist before the big bang, we simply do not have a means to investigate that far into the past as yet, though particle collision experiments are showing promise to this end.

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

I was saying, hypothetically, if we knew 100% of all scientific like this made this which lead to this... blah blah blah...

why does that HAVE to rule out a deity, such as God, being the hand that moved things in that direction. That is mainly my question i guess.

-Boojitsu21

Cancel

Scientists tend to rule out creation myths (i.e. Eden, Dreamtime) because they see these as convenient stories made up by the people of old, back when superstition and symbolism was favoured over logical thought and process. A religious leader can best attract followers by appearing omniscient, thus it is logical to think that many would make up such tales on the spot when questioned on Man's origin. However, saying that God crafted Earth from nothingness and Adam from dust is as good as saying that a giant plate of pasta crafted Earth from its meatballs and shaped Man from tomato sauce. Both are matters of faith that are not supported by a single shred of evidence whatsoever. In contrast, theories such as Hawking's are based off scientific study, existing facts, and are both realistic and logical. Thus while I acknowledge that existing scientifc theories may be wrong (and many scientists, Hawking included, accept that they are not infallible), I find it more logical to subscribe to them rather than crackpot beliefs of flat Earths and such.

  • Jan 08, 2007

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

Actually alot of those stories are exactly that...stories. After all how many people in those times would have been interested in the science and cause and effect. So they create story that puts a deity behind the actions without having to actually explain said actions.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Jan 08, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

See, but my question is still... even if we have science telling us (scientifically) how things came about... science still just says "these things HAPPENED to be that way". they can say "gravity pulled it a certain way" or "the temperature was just right" and so on and so forth. My question then, with many scientific theories and ideas, is, why does God have to be taken out of the equation (as in, why didn't God make it so that the atom was struck by lightning at the perfect time at the perfect place, etc.)

Mainly: can God be the replacement for probability and random chance occurances in science

mountain

mountain

None

Cancel

yeah I guess that a good question, science seems to the rule out the possibility of a deity all together. That in a way is a form of a closed mindset.

  • Jan 09, 2007
Cancel

Of course, an omniscient and omnipotent God can replace random chance and coincidence. But then, one could also say that our universe and all of creation is in reality just a huge computer simulation run by some vast alien computer, akin to the situation in the Matrix movies. Science tends to rule out the possibility of deities because many scientists see no reason to consider divine intervention of any sort, just like they have no reason to believe every occurence in the universe is decided by an alien computer. There is no evidence to support claims that all things are the will of a deity, as opposed to resulting from random chance and coincidence. Scientists have found physical evidence and logical arguments that support theories like the Big Bang or the Big Crunch. They do NOT have any evidence that an omnipotent being created the universe with a word, or that the moon and sun are the eyes of a Norse frost giant. To many scientists, the idea of divine involvement in the creation of the universe is either wholly unsubstantiated or impossible to prove, hence they disregard the concept entirely and move on. This is not reflective of closed mindsets, but of common sense.

  • Jan 10, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

common sense of course meaning common to all people or common among a certain group? common sense can be the burning of flags, the killing of many people, or the freeing of people. Common sense tends to, in and of itself, create a closed-mindedness of sorts. It's basically saying "we are right, and if you don't believe it, you're stupid"... and why ? because EVERYONE ELSE believes it or sees why it's "true"...

word choice aside

just because science doesn't "need" to rely on a deity to explain chance or probability, does not mean that it is useless, pointless, or anything like that. Yes, it is POSSIBLE that we are all a figment of someone's imagination or we are controlled by alien computers. Because we have no "evidence" to support it really, a person can choose to rule those ideas out.

Now, onto a more mainstream idea of a deity such as the Christian / Jewish God. God "spoke" the world into creation. To say that God literally spoke the world and everything around it into creation is to say that there is no equivocation of the English word "spoke". That is also to say that there was A - no losing in translation from the original documents to today's English language and B - that God "speaking" is the same as a human having a conversation, commanding an army, or typing an e-mail.

Even outside of the specific Biblical / Scriptural writings that explain what many believe is the "way the world came to be", to say that all Christians believe that God continuously and obviously intervenes is interesting. If God moved a mountain, and the people who wanted to check whether it was nature or God, who would win? Obviously nature because it's not like God moves the mountain with his "hands" per-se or that God leaves behind "marks" that would indicate it was God and only God that could explain it. With random occurances and happenstances, naturally science can offer suggestions, theories, and ideas. The "proof" however is not to be found. All of science is giving estimates and probable ideas. But if you're looking for aliens, you'll find them, if you're looking for God, you'll find God, if you're looking to find nothing but nature, you'll find exactly that as well. Our minds will see what we want to see (for the most part) in this search so I guess it's more what you believe going into this discussion than it is what you're going to get out of the discussion.

-Boojitsu21

Cancel

Concerning the Big Bang and the origin of the universe, no idea is more valid than the next. Here's why. There are two predominant theories as to how things in the universe work. They are the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Relativity governs the very large and Quantum Mechanics explains the very small. Science would like to have just one explanation for everything, or at least a way of relating these two theories. But so far nobody has been able to find that relation.

As you work your way back in time towards the start of the universe, simulating the conditions we believe were present at that time, certain phenomena begin to appear. For example, two of the four fundamental forces of the universe, the Electromagnetic (electricity and magnetism) and Weak (molecular radiation) forces, merge to form the electroweak force. As you go further back, the Strong force merges together with the Electroweak. This is all done through mathematics within the field of quantum mechanics.

Now, the fourth fundamental force, gravity, still acts differently and we have yet to prove that it merges with the other three forces. However, at a point very soon before we reach the Big Bang in our path backwards, something very interesting happens. In short, all of our known physical laws break down. This time, known as Planck Time, is about 1*10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. What happened between time t = 0 and t = Plank Time we don't understand, but is it believed that for that brief instant, gravity was united with the other forces.

The point of this is that we don't know what happened in the very early stages of the universe. The math that has been used to devise Relativity and Quantum Mechanics doesn't apply because the laws that those theories are based on don't hold. To be sure, there are theories about what may have happened, but since we know so little about how things behaved at that time, they're nothing more than speculation.

So whatever you choose to believe in, either divine intervention or just natural processes, your choice is just as valid as the next guy's because all we have at the moment is speculation.

Quote by boojitsujust because science doesn't "need" to rely on a deity to explain chance or probability, does not mean that it is useless, pointless, or anything like that. Yes, it is POSSIBLE that we are all a figment of someone's imagination or we are controlled by alien computers. Because we have no "evidence" to support it really, a person can choose to rule those ideas out.

It's not that science doesn't "need" divine intervention, it's that science can't use divine intervention. Science, by it's very nature, cannot use an explanation that can never be tested. So scientists are forced to find natural explanations for the phenomena they encounter. A scientist may believe in God and Biblical Creation, but he cannot let his personal beliefs interfere with his work, if he wishes to remain objective.

  • Jan 11, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

objective would include the possibilities of outside forces beyond what we can hear, see, touch, smell, or sense. This doesn't mean it's more logical than not, but to be truly objective would be to not rule things out without a large amount of evidence disproving it (rather than a lack of evidence proving it)

-Boojitsu21

Cancel

Someone to the question "What was God doing before to create Universe" replied: "God was creating the hell for who asks these questions"...

By the way...
I think, in agree with many scientists, that Time is a quality of this Universe so that speaking of something "before Universe" makes no sense.

A theory said that the quantity of the total mass of the Universe is equal to 0. This beacause a mass of 100Kg of matter plus a mass of 100Kg of antimatter anihilate themselves. The theory says that the quantities of "materia" (matter) and "antimateria" (antimatter) are equal.

I'm an ateist and to explain what I think of the life and the death I say:
"Can you remember what you think 10 years before you born? What you feel? You cried? You suffered? You joy? Well, when you'll be dead it's the same as you were unborn..."
So it doesn't matter... nothing matters really...
:)

  • Jan 11, 2007
Cancel

Quote by boojitsuobjective would include the possibilities of outside forces beyond what we can hear, see, touch, smell, or sense. This doesn't mean it's more logical than not, but to be truly objective would be to not rule things out without a large amount of evidence disproving it (rather than a lack of evidence proving it)

-Boojitsu21

Objective within his role as a scientist, my mistake, I should have clarified.

  • Jan 11, 2007
Cancel

Whee, I'm back >.>

common sense of course meaning common to all people or common among a certain group? common sense can be the burning of flags, the killing of many people, or the freeing of people. Common sense tends to, in and of itself, create a closed-mindedness of sorts. It's basically saying "we are right, and if you don't believe it, you're stupid"... and why ? because EVERYONE ELSE believes it or sees why it's "true"...


That isn't common sense... that's more of an ego.

Quote: science laws say - Nothing can be created nor destroyed. If nothing can be created, then "something" was always there. and if that "something" was always there, before, during, and after all time, then how is that any more "believable" than to say that God, like "something" has existed before, during, and after all time

In order to create, something must be consumed... Scientists has been and probably still are experimenting with particle accelerators and such to simulate the big bang. This is also how they created anti-matter.

Quote: I was saying, hypothetically, if we knew 100% of all scientific like this made this which lead to this... blah blah blah...

why does that HAVE to rule out a deity, such as God, being the hand that moved things in that direction. That is mainly my question i guess.


Now, if we knew all science, we wouldn't be talking about this would we? If we knew all science, then we would also know if god exists.

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Jan 16, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

That's kind of what I was saying though,

If God, let's say, makes a giant valley in the middle of the dessert. God comes up to you and says I am going to make a valley in the sahara dessert. Bring any of your friends or family if you want to see this miracle !

You bring everyone and then BAM God makes a giant valley appear in the dessert.

All your friends and family say "how is that God?"...."it's just an earthquake cause of the fault-lines"

So the only "proof" would be if you saw God there actually doing something. And even then, some people wouldn't believe.

So if God did create the everything, does shift nature sometimes, we wouldn't have "proof" because we would just attribute it to natural occurances or phenomena, right?

Cancel

boojitsu, the contrary is true too, right?
If occurances or phenomena have all the responsability of these "crations" and we WANT (or NEED) to believe we can say "God made this!".
Right?

  • Jan 16, 2007

boojitsu

boojitsu

Ninja In Training

Cancel

Yes, but the contrary happens less than the first.

More people (now a days) would be likely to say an earthquake is ALWAYS plate tectonic etc and less likely to say it is an "act of God"....

but yeah, you're right, people can write off things as "God" if they want to, but I don't see that happen very much in my experiences.

-Boojitsu21

Cancel

People can't see that life, world, all things are not what they are, but what WE THINK they ARE! ^_^
So God!
Or Occurances... :)

  • Jan 18, 2007
Cancel

Here's an idea. Why not just have god present himself... if he is there then we'll know.

You can't deny someone's presence... geez....

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Jan 19, 2007
Cancel

Why being so radical?

Why not both?

One doesn't have to exclude the other.

Of course, a scientist in deep investigation has the obligation to rely only in those things that can be verified by instruments or senses.

But since both, the Big-Bang and Creationism are theories, a good esceptick can't either denny or accept one or the other as the last word. Besides, that also means that the Big-Bang theory, as instruments get more acurance and and new thoeries arrive, could change.

But for a everyday Joe Six-Pack, as we all are (no offense) God could have started the Big-Bang.

Why not? Is also valid, since it can be believed that since things in Nature happen very slowly, and God is not a magician pulling bunnies out of a hat. To be more clear, he respects his own rules.

  • Jan 19, 2007

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 34 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.