Do you think you have a soul?

[yomom1919]

1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe.

 

 

 

I may be mistaken, but I could have sworn you said that exact same statement a few months back, minus the big bang thing. Maybe I'm just imagining things..

[The Real ET]

1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe.

 

 

 

I may be mistaken, but I could have sworn you said that exact same statement a few months back, minus the big bang thing. Maybe I'm just imagining things..

 

 

 

So what if he did? Even if he did say the exact same thing before he's still right.

[l33t_necroh]

Me and My friend have some Crazy and just plain weird ideas about the soul, and what happens when you die.

 

Which i will kindly explain and wait for criticisms and weird looks O:)

 

 

 

I believe you have a soul, and when you die, your soul goes to find another host, an unborn host. And when your born, You remember every thing in your past life, every thing you had and lost, Which I believe explains why babies cry, They remember all their loved ones they had lost. Over time you forget your past life, and start life new again. I also believe that you do this a set amount of times (5-10, 9 for cats :P) in order to judge you, gaining a passage to heaven (or maybe the other place)

 

 

 

yes, I know, Im crazy, kooky, and just plain weird. *opens up for criticisms and weird stares*

[The Real ET]

Me and My friend have some Crazy and just plain weird ideas about the soul, and what happens when you die.

 

Which i will kindly explain and wait for criticisms and weird looks O:)

 

 

 

I believe you have a soul, and when you die, your soul goes to find another host, an unborn host. And when your born, You remember every thing in your past life, every thing you had and lost, Which I believe explains why babies cry, They remember all their loved ones they had lost. Over time you forget your past life, and start life new again. I also believe that you do this a set amount of times (5-10, 9 for cats :P) in order to judge you, gaining a passage to heaven (or maybe the other place)

 

 

 

yes, I know, Im crazy, kooky, and just plain weird. *opens up for criticisms and weird stares*

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The only thing I really have to say about that is the baby crying thing. Because, you know, that the baby needing something and not being able to communicate on the same medium older humans can has nothing to do with the fact why they cry. :-s

[sparky697]

Ever since I got the [cabbage] scared out of me in 1999 about the world ending, I've thought about this for a long time.

 

 

 

I've thought about:

 

What dying feels like?

 

Where you go?

 

What is at the place that you go?

 

Do you talk to god?

 

Can you see living family members on Earth from Heaven?

 

 

 

I have so far not came to a conclusion for any of these answers.

 

 

 

For a while, I have also thought about asking my parents if, when/if they die, they could perhaps send me a message or let me know that they're okay in Heaven or wherever they're at. I'd love nothing more than to have a conversation with my mother or father's ghost after they've passed. I think that would be neat.

[yomom1919]

So what if he did? Even if he did say the exact same thing before he's still right.

 

 

 

Wow! because I totally implied he was wrong! I know hes right :roll:.

 

I was wondering if he saves certain arguments because he has to pull them out so many times, it becomes convenient. Or if I was just having some deja vu

[The Real ET]

So what if he did? Even if he did say the exact same thing before he's still right.

 

 

 

Wow! because I totally implied he was wrong! I know hes right :roll:.

 

I was wondering if he saves certain arguments because he has to pull them out so many times, it becomes convenient. Or if I was just having some deja vu

 

 

 

Possibly? :-k He may just have learned the definition of theory as such and just memorized it? I do that a lot, most times without even meaning to. Enough of this off-topic chatter though. :D

[yomom1919]

Possibly? :-k He may just have learned the definition of theory as such and just memorized it? I do that a lot, most times without even meaning to. Enough of this off-topic chatter though. :D

 

 

 

Sorry for excessively reacting and using the roll smiley I hate myself when I do that :P.

 

 

 

Anyway, no I do not believe we have a soul. I believe that humans are merely products of evolution and were not 'intended' for something or supposed to be on some sort godsend mission. I believe that we are simply glorified animals who happen to have a high enough IQ for a conscience.

[warri0r45]

3) You can certainly disprove literally interpreted aspects of some religions. Once they gel into the natural world, they are up for scientific scrutiny like any other idea. But, the purpose of scientific theories is not to disprove a religion, and anyone who thinks something like the big bang theory proves there is no god, they're kidding themselves.

 

 

 

The post I'm making is incredibly off-topic, but exactly!

 

 

 

Why can't the religious people just say, "Okay that's how it works, but God made it that way and he's the one behind it all."

 

 

 

And why don't the scientists realize that their theories, laws, and conjectures don't disprove the existance of a high power?

 

 

 

It would make things so much easier... >.<

 

 

 

Sir, scientists recognise quite well thier theories do in fact not disprove any supernatural notion. If they do not, they aren't aware of the FIRST thing about science and thus are not to be called scientists.

 

 

 

What is that FIRST thing, you ask? The FIRST this is that science is limited as a naturalistic methodology. It knows nothing and speaks nothing of the supernatural. :wink:

[warri0r45]

1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe.

 

 

 

I may be mistaken, but I could have sworn you said that exact same statement a few months back, minus the big bang thing. Maybe I'm just imagining things..

 

 

 

Probably did. Every now and then you get the same misrepresentations. Thus, you'll get the same response from me.

 

 

 

EDIT: By the way, It's not a copy-paster in my bag of arguments, if that's where your queries were directed. Repetition is the key to memory. I probably just remember a similar verion from saying it over and over again.

[crimsonking]

Asking someone to back up disbelief in something is a logically bankrupt task. The ususal chronology is that the claimant backs up the claim. Whether it's just as 'provable' or 'unprovable' for or against means nothing as I could just as easily ask you to back up disbelief in my assertion that exactly 1,234,223 special oranges orbit a supernatural planet made of 3 toed socks beyond the edges of the universe. But, of course, you don't need to do this because firstly, I'm the one making that assertion and believing it and if I demanded such a justified explanation for everything you disbelieve we'd be here for eternity because my imagination knows no limits.

 

 

 

Oh and what are the 'unproven theories' you're referring to, may I ask?

 

 

 

I never demanded an explanation for his disbelief, I merely said that I could just as easily ask for an explanation just as he did for the other guys belief, yet it would just come out the same way, even if its with science that you try to explain existance it still comes out the same as if you were trying to explain religion, the most you can do for either is give 1) unproven theorys such as the big bang theory or 2) the Christian theory of God.

 

 

 

3) I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove religion so there is no reason to get into an unnecessary fight over it and get these discussions banned again.

 

 

 

 

1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe.

 

 

 

2) There's no such thing; that's not a theory. Unless, of course, you use the everyday use of the word theory, that being 'guess or conjecture.' The big bang theory is at least much more than guess or conjecture.

 

 

 

3) You can certainly disprove literally interpreted aspects of some religions. Once they gel into the natural world, they are up for scientific scrutiny like any other idea. But, the purpose of scientific theories is not to disprove a religion, and anyone who thinks something like the big bang theory proves there is no god, they're kidding themselves.

 

 

 

1) I use the word theory as a way of guessing things we lack the evidence to properly back up, if thats not the proper use for it the who the hell cares? I'm only human, I think my explanation, whether me using the word 'theory' was correct or not, still properly shows what I'm getting at, so if you couldn't understand then I'm sorry my improper use of a word confused you, but if you could, which I'm sure you do, back off and get a life, I'm not in the mood to mess with stuck up grammar Nazis.

 

 

 

the big bang we lack the evidence to back up, its a possibility, but we lack evidence, as well as a proper explanation as to what caused it.

 

 

 

2) I do use the word theory as a guess, and the Big Bang theory is no more than that, we lack any evidence or proper explanation, thus it is no more proven than the idea of God.

 

 

 

3) Of course you can disprove the parts of religion that involve the universe we live in, but that was not the point I was making, that statement was regarding the conversation at hand, which, obviously, is over the belief in souls and the afterlife.

 

 

 

Of course the Big Bang doesn't disprove the idea of God, I never said it did, I merely said it was as proven as the idea of god is.

[The Real ET]

3) You can certainly disprove literally interpreted aspects of some religions. Once they gel into the natural world, they are up for scientific scrutiny like any other idea. But, the purpose of scientific theories is not to disprove a religion, and anyone who thinks something like the big bang theory proves there is no god, they're kidding themselves.

 

 

 

The post I'm making is incredibly off-topic, but exactly!

 

 

 

Why can't the religious people just say, "Okay that's how it works, but God made it that way and he's the one behind it all."

 

 

 

And why don't the scientists realize that their theories, laws, and conjectures don't disprove the existance of a high power?

 

 

 

It would make things so much easier... >.<

 

 

 

Sir, scientists recognise quite well thier theories do in fact not disprove any supernatural notion. If they do not, they aren't aware of the FIRST thing about science and thus are not to be called scientists.

 

 

 

What is that FIRST thing, you ask? The FIRST this is that science is limited as a naturalistic methodology. It knows nothing and speaks nothing of the supernatural. :wink:

 

 

 

There is a lot of different sciences that have been emerging in the last century or so that deals a lot with the super natural. Mostly ghosts and the like, but there are some smaller scientific sects out there trying to find solid proof of the existance or absense of a higher power. I'd give you some sources, but I think all that stuff is a crock and don't want to waste my time looking it up. =P

[KingdomOfLight]

Do you think you have a soul, some sort of essence, or do you think you are just some random makeup of physical cells, that there is nothing more to you than a biological brain, and that when you die you will cease to exist?

The latter.

[warri0r45]

Asking someone to back up disbelief in something is a logically bankrupt task. The ususal chronology is that the claimant backs up the claim. Whether it's just as 'provable' or 'unprovable' for or against means nothing as I could just as easily ask you to back up disbelief in my assertion that exactly 1,234,223 special oranges orbit a supernatural planet made of 3 toed socks beyond the edges of the universe. But, of course, you don't need to do this because firstly, I'm the one making that assertion and believing it and if I demanded such a justified explanation for everything you disbelieve we'd be here for eternity because my imagination knows no limits.

 

 

 

Oh and what are the 'unproven theories' you're referring to, may I ask?

 

 

 

I never demanded an explanation for his disbelief, I merely said that I could just as easily ask for an explanation just as he did for the other guys belief, yet it would just come out the same way, even if its with science that you try to explain existance it still comes out the same as if you were trying to explain religion, the most you can do for either is give 1) unproven theorys such as the big bang theory or 2) the Christian theory of God.

 

 

 

3) I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove religion so there is no reason to get into an unnecessary fight over it and get these discussions banned again.

 

 

 

 

1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe.

 

 

 

2) There's no such thing; that's not a theory. Unless, of course, you use the everyday use of the word theory, that being 'guess or conjecture.' The big bang theory is at least much more than guess or conjecture.

 

 

 

3) You can certainly disprove literally interpreted aspects of some religions. Once they gel into the natural world, they are up for scientific scrutiny like any other idea. But, the purpose of scientific theories is not to disprove a religion, and anyone who thinks something like the big bang theory proves there is no god, they're kidding themselves.

 

 

 

(1) I use the word theory as a way of guessing things we lack the evidence to properly back up, if thats not the proper use for it the who the hell cares? I'm only human, I think my explanation, whether me using the word 'theory' was correct or not, still properly shows what I'm getting at, so if you couldn't understand then I'm sorry my improper use of a word confused you, but if you could, which I'm sure you do, back off and get a life, I'm not in the mood to mess with stuck up grammar Nazis.

 

 

 

the big bang we lack the evidence to back up, its a possibility, but we lack evidence, as well as a proper explanation as to what caused it.

 

 

 

2) I do use the word theory as a guess, and the (2) Big Bang theory is no more than that, we lack any evidence or proper explanation, thus it is no more proven than the idea of God.

 

 

 

3) Of course you can disprove the parts of religion that involve the universe we live in, but that was not the point I was making, that statement was regarding the conversation at hand, which, obviously, is over the belief in souls and the afterlife.

 

 

 

Of course the Big Bang doesn't disprove the idea of God, I never said it did, I merely said it was as proven as the idea of god is.

 

(1) I was just explaining what a theory is in the context of science. It's important to do this because the big bang theory is a scientific theory and not guesswork, as is portrayed by the conventional use of the word theory. It's not being a grammar Nazi, it's pointing out a vital distinction which is essential to avoid 'It's just a theory' type accusations in a debate. It is a theory, and it's never going to become a 'proven theory' or a fact. Such a change dosen't happen.

 

 

 

(2) Have you read about it? To be honest much of the physics I read when I get into it just goes over my head. But you saying it's a guess is wrong. It's the most substantiated and accepted theoretical framework out there in regards to how the universe got to it's current state. From what I can pick up, I can tell you the evidence suggests an expanding and cooling universe. Logic alone would tell you that some point in the past, the universe was denser and hotter. This being the very essence of the big bang theory and not even going into any of the complex mathematics or cosmology. Not my cup of tea.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

 

 

Perhaps you should tell me whether you feel it's all just a guess after you read this. To be honest with myself I wouldn't know if some of this is guess work or not because much the physics goes over my head, but from what I do know, it's anything but a guess. It deserves more recognition than that.

[The Real ET]

Sorry that this post is off-topic, but I just really gotta say...

 

Wikipedia is the devil and never, EVER post it as a source for anything. If the article's sources are good post those, but a Wikipedia article is a pile of mush.

[yomom1919]

Sorry that this post is off-topic, but I just really gotta say...

 

Wikipedia is the devil and never, EVER post it as a source for anything. If the article's sources are good post those, but a Wikipedia article is a pile of mush.

 

 

 

If that article was a pile of mush, then all these sources, which include Stephen Hawking, are all mush.

 

 

 

[hide]

 

1. ^ "Even though the Universe has been expanding and cooling ever since, the sound waves have left their imprint as temperature variations on the afterglow of the big bang fireball..." Chown, Marcus (30 October 2003). "Big Bang sounded like a deep hum". New Scientist.

 

2. ^ Slipher, V. M.. "The radial velocity of the Andromeda nebula". Lowell Observatory Bulletin 1: 56ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ57.

 

Slipher, V. M.. "Spectrographic observations of nebulae". Popular Astronomy 23: 21ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ24.

 

3. ^ Friedman, A (1922). "ÃÆÃâÃâ¦Ã¢â¬Åber die KrÃÆÃâÃâümmung des Raumes". Z. Phys. 10: 377ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ386. (German) (English translation in: Friedman, A (1999). "On the Curvature of Space". General Relativity and Gravitation 31: 1991ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ2000. DOI:10.1023/A:1026751225741. )

 

4. ^ LemaÃÆÃâÃâître, G. (1927). "Un Univers homogÃÆÃâÃâène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nÃÆÃâÃâébuleuses extragalactiques". Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels 47A: 41. (French) Translated in: (1931) "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ490.

 

5. ^ Lemą̮̉̉tre, G. (1931). "The evolution of the universe: discussion". Nature 128: suppl.: 704.

 

6. ^ a b Edwin Hubble (1929). "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ173.

 

7. ^ E. Christianson (1995). Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0374146608.

 

8. ^ a b c P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra (2003). "The cosmological constant and dark energy". Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 559ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ606. DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559. arXiv:astro-ph/0207347.

 

9. ^ E. A. Milne (1935). Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure. Oxford University Press.

 

10. ^ R. C. Tolman (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LCCN 340-32023. Reissued (1987) New York: Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.

 

11. ^ Zwicky, F (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 773ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ779. Full articlePDF (672 KiB).

 

12. ^ Hoyle, Fred (1948). "A New Model for the Expanding universe". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108: 372.

 

13. ^ R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe, G. Gamow (1948). "The Origin of Chemical Elements". Physical Review 73: 803.

 

14. ^ R. A. Alpher and R. Herman (1948). "Evolution of the Universe". Nature 162: 774.

 

15. ^ Simon Singh. Big Bang. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

 

16. ^ a b A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.

 

17. ^ a b Boggess, N.W., et al. (COBE collaboration) (1992). "The COBE Mission: Its Design and Performance Two Years after the launch". Astrophysical Journal 397: 420, Preprint No. 92-02. DOI:10.1086/171797.

 

18. ^ a b c D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP collaboration) (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology". Retrieved on 2007-05-27.

 

19. ^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (1973). The large-scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4.

 

20. ^ There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe. Usually at least the first few minutes, during which helium is synthesised, are said to occur "during the Big Bang".

 

21. ^ a b c Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148: 175ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Death45]

I believe that when you die you energy is dispersed into the surroundings in which you die in, and ghosts are created by some of the free floating energy that cannot accept providing life essence for the people around it. But then how come exorcisms always seem to work :-k ? Are exorcisms a way to weaken the energy, giving it no choice but to help the life of another person? I don't know and know one will know until they die, and obviously when they die they can't come back to tell us, and ghosts can't tell us because they "remained behind". Yes I am weird.... :oops:

[The Real ET]

Sorry that this post is off-topic, but I just really gotta say...

 

Wikipedia is the devil and never, EVER post it as a source for anything. If the article's sources are good post those, but a Wikipedia article is a pile of mush.

 

 

 

If that article was a pile of mush, then all these sources, which include Stephen Hawking, are all mush.

 

 

 

[hide]

 

1. ^ "Even though the Universe has been expanding and cooling ever since, the sound waves have left their imprint as temperature variations on the afterglow of the big bang fireball..." Chown, Marcus (30 October 2003). "Big Bang sounded like a deep hum". New Scientist.

 

2. ^ Slipher, V. M.. "The radial velocity of the Andromeda nebula". Lowell Observatory Bulletin 1: 56ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ57.

 

Slipher, V. M.. "Spectrographic observations of nebulae". Popular Astronomy 23: 21ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ24.

 

3. ^ Friedman, A (1922). "ÃÆÃâÃâ¦Ã¢â¬Åber die KrÃÆÃâÃâümmung des Raumes". Z. Phys. 10: 377ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ386. (German) (English translation in: Friedman, A (1999). "On the Curvature of Space". General Relativity and Gravitation 31: 1991ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ2000. DOI:10.1023/A:1026751225741. )

 

4. ^ LemaÃÆÃâÃâître, G. (1927). "Un Univers homogÃÆÃâÃâène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nÃÆÃâÃâébuleuses extragalactiques". Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels 47A: 41. (French) Translated in: (1931) "Expansion of the universe, A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ490.

 

5. ^ Lemą̮̉̉tre, G. (1931). "The evolution of the universe: discussion". Nature 128: suppl.: 704.

 

6. ^ a b Edwin Hubble (1929). "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ173.

 

7. ^ E. Christianson (1995). Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0374146608.

 

8. ^ a b c P. J. E. Peebles and Bharat Ratra (2003). "The cosmological constant and dark energy". Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 559ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ606. DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559. arXiv:astro-ph/0207347.

 

9. ^ E. A. Milne (1935). Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure. Oxford University Press.

 

10. ^ R. C. Tolman (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LCCN 340-32023. Reissued (1987) New York: Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.

 

11. ^ Zwicky, F (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 773ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ779. Full articlePDF (672 KiB).

 

12. ^ Hoyle, Fred (1948). "A New Model for the Expanding universe". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108: 372.

 

13. ^ R. A. Alpher, H. Bethe, G. Gamow (1948). "The Origin of Chemical Elements". Physical Review 73: 803.

 

14. ^ R. A. Alpher and R. Herman (1948). "Evolution of the Universe". Nature 162: 774.

 

15. ^ Simon Singh. Big Bang. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

 

16. ^ a b A. A. Penzias and R. W. Wilson (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.

 

17. ^ a b Boggess, N.W., et al. (COBE collaboration) (1992). "The COBE Mission: Its Design and Performance Two Years after the launch". Astrophysical Journal 397: 420, Preprint No. 92-02. DOI:10.1086/171797.

 

18. ^ a b c D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP collaboration) (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology". Retrieved on 2007-05-27.

 

19. ^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (1973). The large-scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4.

 

20. ^ There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe. Usually at least the first few minutes, during which helium is synthesised, are said to occur "during the Big Bang".

 

21. ^ a b c Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148: 175ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[The Real ET]

I believe that when you die you energy is dispersed into the surroundings in which you die in, and ghosts are created by some of the free floating energy that cannot accept providing life essence for the people around it. But then how come exorcisms always seem to work :-k ? Are exorcisms a way to weaken the energy, giving it no choice but to help the life of another person? I don't know and know one will know until they die, and obviously when they die they can't come back to tell us, and ghosts can't tell us because they "remained behind". Yes I am weird.... :oops:

 

 

 

Hahaha, when do exorcisms work? Don't tell me Emily Rose, that was as much a real story as Jack and the Beanstalk. :lol:

[warri0r45]

Sorry that this post is off-topic, but I just really gotta say...

 

Wikipedia is the devil and never, EVER post it as a source for anything. If the article's sources are good post those, but a Wikipedia article is a pile of mush.

 

 

 

That's beside the point, though, you can obviously click the reference links to the reference section and link to them. The point is that the big bang theory is not a guess like the laymans use of the word theory suggests. Any amount of research obviously affirms this.

[yomom1919]

That's what I'm talking about. You don't know which of those sources are legit and with accurate information. Even with those sources, the article on Wikipedia itself can have the information mis-interperated or leave out an important piece of information. That's why I said to post actualy sources and not just a mush article.

 

 

 

Find 1 error [disregarding grammar] in that whole article and I'll agree with you. I've used wikipedia for quite a while now, I even use it on papers [but cite the main source instead] and have yet to be corrected by any teacher on anything I write. Its credible enough.

[crimsonking]

Asking someone to back up disbelief in something is a logically bankrupt task. The ususal chronology is that the claimant backs up the claim. Whether it's just as 'provable' or 'unprovable' for or against means nothing as I could just as easily ask you to back up disbelief in my assertion that exactly 1,234,223 special oranges orbit a supernatural planet made of 3 toed socks beyond the edges of the universe. But, of course, you don't need to do this because firstly, I'm the one making that assertion and believing it and if I demanded such a justified explanation for everything you disbelieve we'd be here for eternity because my imagination knows no limits.

 

 

 

Oh and what are the 'unproven theories' you're referring to, may I ask?

 

 

 

I never demanded an explanation for his disbelief, I merely said that I could just as easily ask for an explanation just as he did for the other guys belief, yet it would just come out the same way, even if its with science that you try to explain existance it still comes out the same as if you were trying to explain religion, the most you can do for either is give 1) unproven theorys such as the big bang theory or 2) the Christian theory of God.

 

 

 

3) I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove religion so there is no reason to get into an unnecessary fight over it and get these discussions banned again.

 

 

 

 

1) Theories don't get proven, they explain facts and work as systems of explanation incorporating evidence. The more evidence, the more tests done on hypotheses regarding that evidence, the stronger the theory. Theories will never become facts. Based on what I know, the big bang theory is a fairly decent one, but best to ask someone more knowlegable just to be safe.

 

 

 

2) There's no such thing; that's not a theory. Unless, of course, you use the everyday use of the word theory, that being 'guess or conjecture.' The big bang theory is at least much more than guess or conjecture.

 

 

 

3) You can certainly disprove literally interpreted aspects of some religions. Once they gel into the natural world, they are up for scientific scrutiny like any other idea. But, the purpose of scientific theories is not to disprove a religion, and anyone who thinks something like the big bang theory proves there is no god, they're kidding themselves.

 

 

 

(1) I use the word theory as a way of guessing things we lack the evidence to properly back up, if thats not the proper use for it the who the hell cares? I'm only human, I think my explanation, whether me using the word 'theory' was correct or not, still properly shows what I'm getting at, so if you couldn't understand then I'm sorry my improper use of a word confused you, but if you could, which I'm sure you do, back off and get a life, I'm not in the mood to mess with stuck up grammar Nazis.

 

 

 

the big bang we lack the evidence to back up, its a possibility, but we lack evidence, as well as a proper explanation as to what caused it.

 

 

 

2) I do use the word theory as a guess, and the (2) Big Bang theory is no more than that, we lack any evidence or proper explanation, thus it is no more proven than the idea of God.

 

 

 

3) Of course you can disprove the parts of religion that involve the universe we live in, but that was not the point I was making, that statement was regarding the conversation at hand, which, obviously, is over the belief in souls and the afterlife.

 

 

 

Of course the Big Bang doesn't disprove the idea of God, I never said it did, I merely said it was as proven as the idea of god is.

 

(1) I was just explaining what a theory is in the context of science. It's important to do this because the big bang theory is a scientific theory and not guesswork, as is portrayed by the conventional use of the word theory. It's not being a grammar Nazi, it's pointing out a vital distinction which is essential to avoid 'It's just a theory' type accusations in a debate. It is a theory, and it's never going to become a 'proven theory' or a fact. Such a change dosen't happen.

 

 

 

(2) Have you read about it? To be honest much of the physics I read when I get into it just goes over my head. But you saying it's a guess is wrong. It's the most substantiated and accepted theoretical framework out there in regards to how the universe got to it's current state. From what I can pick up, I can tell you the evidence suggests an expanding and cooling universe. Logic alone would tell you that some point in the past, the universe was denser and hotter. This being the very essence of the big bang theory and not even going into any of the complex mathematics or cosmology. Not my cup of tea.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

 

 

Perhaps you should tell me whether you feel it's all just a guess after you read this. To be honest with myself I wouldn't know if some of this is guess work or not because much the physics goes over my head, but from what I do know, it's anything but a guess. It deserves more recognition than that.

 

 

 

Whether it seems more probable and is accepted more than other ideas doesn't take away the fact that it is nothing more than an educated guess.

 

 

 

Now, seeing as this has gone completly off course from the initial point I was making, and even farther off course from the topic of this thread, I'm done, if you want to keep arguing this go right on ahead, but I advise you to make a topic on the big bang before you do.

[The Real ET]

Big Bang for the win!! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

I can get us back on track with a question that still hasn't been answered I asked awhile ago. How do those who believe in different polytheisms think on the topic of souls?

[fire_skulll300]

i hope so but i dont think so

 

 

 

i once met someone that died 5 times on an oporating table, she never said anything about what happened after she died.

[hellbellz]

i hope so but i dont think so

 

 

 

i once met someone that died 5 times on an oporating table, she never said anything about what happened after she died.

I had a substitute two years ago tell the class he was dead on an operating table. He said "You have to experience it yourself to understand what it's like". :?