Is God real post your thoughts!

[l0rd]

Stepping out, why? Throwing mud is fun. :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Anyways, its not like earth was a predestined place for life, and the only chance for life to exist in the universe. If earth had failed to meet those slim conditions, another planet might have...there are "over 9000" planets. When each is given taken into account. The chance of spontaneous life in the universe is pretty good, or at least not improbable.

 

 

 

Also, your 48,000,000,0...... number is made by a religious guy, lol.

[warri0r45]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

 

 

 

No scientist in their right mind suggests that the genome of an E.coli bacterium (roughly 4.5 million base pairs in length from memory) formed spontaneously during one singular event. You're right to laugh at it, but this is a prime example of the misinformation and misrepresentation of abiogenesis by creationists. E.coli, as any other bacterium, is a modern organism that has been evolving for billions of years. As the theory goes, abiogenesis would first create simple self-replicating DNA or RNA molecules encased in a lipid membrane. Such molecules need to be only around 60bp in length. Even then, there's a whole lot of detail and other possibilities I'm leaving out.

 

 

 

I wouldn't hold any confidence in the arguments of someone on yahoo answers, either. I'm not sure what exactly those probabilities refer to and I wouldn't be surprised if they have nothing to do with the current scientific hypothesis on how abiogenesis occurred. By the looks of one of them, it's arguing the odds of a modern protein being formed by chance from the assembly of amino acids, which again, isn't at all what abiogenesis suggests.

 

 

 

I didn't suppose my argument about retrotransposons would have any impact either, but it's ok. Hopefully someone else found it interesting.

[I_am_Geed]

blegh

 

 

 

God is the master of everything, science, knowledge, etc, both in the mortal world and in the world he presides in

 

 

 

End of story? :thumbsup: even though i know an atheist will make some smart-[wagon] response to this

[Obtaurian]

Our solar system, consisting of eight planets revolving around a medium sized star (referred to hereon as a solar mass), is located on the tip of one arm of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Our galaxy contains something along the lines of 200 billion to 400 billion solar masses. It is thought to be on the large side, as far as galaxies go.

 

 

 

Galaxies belong to groups, which contain up to 50 galaxies. Our galaxy is a member of the Local Group, which has more than 40 galaxies.

 

 

 

Galaxies also belong to clusters, which contain 50 to 1,000 galaxies.

 

 

 

Groups and clusters in turn make up superclusters, which contain anywhere from 5 to 50 clusters. Our supercluster is the Virgo supercluster. These are the largest known objects in the universe, and it is estimated that there are about 10,000,000 of them.

 

 

 

All of this information can be found via Google or a library. Saying that the probability of anything is about 200 trillion isn't saying much when you consider how large the universe is. I hope this gives everyone a bit of perspective.

[l0rd]

blegh

 

 

 

God is the master of everything, science, knowledge, etc, both in the mortal world and in the world he presides in

 

 

 

End of story? :thumbsup: even though i know an atheist will make some smart-[wagon] response to this

 

 

 

There is nothing to argue there, and all you're doing is repeating yourself. Its insulting the negative connotation you give to atheists, and basically all your post is, is spam. Your obviously, consciously or not, are trying to start another mini-flame war.

[NorthernHero]

Some things no one can explain.

 

True. And you could actually say that 'most things no one can explain'. Even if you know the answer. Ofcourse you can always try but words just happen to be a very very crude tool for explaining things, if we think about it. Explain how you wave your hand. Explain that tree you are looking at. And start with basic things like explaining its colour with detail. (no it's not green)

 

 

 

 

 

A certain professor at Harvard at the time Tim Leary was making experiments there said, "No knowledge is academically respectable which cannot be put into words". Alas for the department of physical education. Alas for the department of music and fine arts. That is very important, because one of the createst intellects of modern times was Ludwig Wittgenstein. And as you read the end of his Tractatus, which was his great book, he shows you that what you always thought were the major problems of life and philosophy were meaningless questions. Those problems are solved not by, as it were, giving an answer to them but by getting rid of the problem throught seeing intellectually that it is meaningless. Then you are relieved of the problem. You need no longer lie awake nights wondering what is the meaning of life, and what it is all about, simply because it isn't about anything. It's about itself, and so he ends up saying, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

[snowager286]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

 

 

 

To further his point I would like to point out that the enzymes required for any functioning being to emerge would take exceedingly long times to form naturally. One of these enzymes is one that is needed for chlorophyll and it would have taken half the earths lifespan(including the years it was inhospitable) it have formed.

[warri0r45]

[hide=]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

 

 

 

To further his point I would like to point out that the enzymes required for any functioning being to emerge would take exceedingly long times to form naturally. One of these enzymes is one that is needed for chlorophyll and it would have taken half the earths lifespan(including the years it was inhospitable) it have formed.

[/hide]

 

Your argument assumes there are no other catalysts which can do the job of making chlorophyll, which is questionable considering the apparent flexibility of the sequence of amino acids in an enzyme. It also assumes that life on earth has an absolute need for chlorophyll to make energy (via photosynthesis), yet there are bacteria (some of which lay the foundations to deep-sea hydrothermal vent ecosystems) which don't need photosynthesis to make energy.

 

 

 

Using modern day enzymes, genes or genomes, etc, as a benchmark for what was required in early life forms is dubious at best and it's not what people in the relevant field consider the likely way life first evolved.

[Shinjula]

[hide=]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

 

 

 

To further his point I would like to point out that the enzymes required for any functioning being to emerge would take exceedingly long times to form naturally. One of these enzymes is one that is needed for chlorophyll and it would have taken half the earths lifespan(including the years it was inhospitable) it have formed.

[/hide]

 

Your argument assumes there are no other catalysts which can do the job of making chlorophyll, which is questionable considering the apparent flexibility of the sequence of amino acids in an enzyme. It also assumes that life on earth has an absolute need for chlorophyll to make energy (via photosynthesis), yet there are bacteria (some of which lay the foundations to deep-sea hydrothermal vent ecosystems) which don't need photosynthesis to make energy.

 

 

 

Using modern day enzymes, genes or genomes, etc, as a benchmark for what was required in early life forms is dubious at best and it's not what people in the relevant field consider the likely way life first evolved.

 

and its also assuming theres only one planet in the universe.

[Serpent Eye]

[hide=text fest]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

 

 

 

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God.

 

 

 

Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

 

 

 

Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious...

 

 

 

I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea.

[/hide]

 

 

 

You are right I should be capitalizing he when referring to God. But, yes you should capitlize God, It IS a proper noun whether or not you believe in him or not. Unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point.

 

 

 

Don't argue language with me, please...

 

 

 

You are right: I should be capitalizing "he" when referring to God. However, you should capitlize "God," unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point. It is a proper noun, whether you believe in Him or not.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

I digress...

 

 

 

I really don't care if I "maul" the English language by not capitalizing the word "god," nor do I care if I'm making an ideological point by it. Capitalizing the word "god" puts him/her on a pedestal in my eyes, and I have no intention of doing that.

[l0rd]

[hide=text fest]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

 

 

 

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God.

 

 

 

Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

 

 

 

Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious...

 

 

 

I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea.

[/hide]

 

 

 

You are right I should be capitalizing he when referring to God. But, yes you should capitlize God, It IS a proper noun whether or not you believe in him or not. Unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point.

 

 

 

Don't argue language with me, please...

 

 

 

You are right: I should be capitalizing "he" when referring to God. However, you should capitlize "God," unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point. It is a proper noun, whether you believe in Him or not.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

I digress...

 

 

 

I really don't care if I "maul" the English language by not capitalizing the word "god," nor do I care if I'm making an ideological point by it. Capitalizing the word "god" puts him/her on a pedestal in my eyes, and I have no intention of doing that.

 

 

 

Regardless, the people who said it should be capitalized are wrong. I will copy and paste straight from dictionary.com, where it explicitly said it is lowercase in these situations:

 

 

 

(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

 

(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

 

(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.

 

(lowercase) any deified person or object.

 

 

 

Secondly, anyone who argues grammar when it is totally irrelevant is stupid in my book. When arguing with someone, and then happen to misspell something (which in this case he actually didn't), and the other person argues about your grammar it just shows either: 1.they're looking for a flame war 2: they're a very angry person, who needs to constantly let it out some way or another or 3. Correct grammar is one of the most important things in their life, more important than respecting others and others opinions.

[Obtaurian]

[hide=]

[hide=]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

 

 

 

To further his point I would like to point out that the enzymes required for any functioning being to emerge would take exceedingly long times to form naturally. One of these enzymes is one that is needed for chlorophyll and it would have taken half the earths lifespan(including the years it was inhospitable) it have formed.

[/hide]

 

Your argument assumes there are no other catalysts which can do the job of making chlorophyll, which is questionable considering the apparent flexibility of the sequence of amino acids in an enzyme. It also assumes that life on earth has an absolute need for chlorophyll to make energy (via photosynthesis), yet there are bacteria (some of which lay the foundations to deep-sea hydrothermal vent ecosystems) which don't need photosynthesis to make energy.

 

 

 

Using modern day enzymes, genes or genomes, etc, as a benchmark for what was required in early life forms is dubious at best and it's not what people in the relevant field consider the likely way life first evolved.

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

And furthermore, even he were correct, and the amount of time it would take were an issue, half the Earth's lifepspan is less than one sixth of the lifespan of the universe, so time is not an issue here.

 

 

 

I'm going to say again that people vastly underestimate the sheer size and grandiosity of the universe. Also, Shinjula is correct. It is falacious to assume that our planet is the only planet capable of sustaining life. Refer to my post regarding the size of the universe to get an idea.

[Serpent Eye]

[hide=Quote]

[hide=text fest]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

 

 

 

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God.

 

 

 

Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

 

 

 

Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious...

 

 

 

I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea.

 

 

 

You are right I should be capitalizing he when referring to God. But, yes you should capitlize God, It IS a proper noun whether or not you believe in him or not. Unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point.

 

 

 

Don't argue language with me, please...

 

 

 

You are right: I should be capitalizing "he" when referring to God. However, you should capitlize "God," unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point. It is a proper noun, whether you believe in Him or not.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

I digress...

 

 

 

I really don't care if I "maul" the English language by not capitalizing the word "god," nor do I care if I'm making an ideological point by it. Capitalizing the word "god" puts him/her on a pedestal in my eyes, and I have no intention of doing that.

 

 

 

Regardless, the people who said it should be capitalized are wrong. I will copy and paste straight from dictionary.com, where it explicitly said it is lowercase in these situations:

 

 

 

(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

 

(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

 

(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.

 

(lowercase) any deified person or object.

 

 

 

Secondly, anyone who argues grammar when it is totally irrelevant is stupid in my book. When arguing with someone, and then happen to misspell something (which in this case he actually didn't), and the other person argues about your grammar it just shows either: 1.they're looking for a flame war 2: they're a very angry person, who needs to constantly let it out some way or another or 3. Correct grammar is one of the most important things in their life, more important than respecting others and others opinions.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I certainly wasn't attempting to start a flame-war :? It's just... bothersome when someone rides my back about doing something wrong ("mauling the English language"), and in the process, they themselves become guilty of it.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

More OT, I really think for me it comes down to something similar to the words "Church/church."

 

 

 

When capitalized, "the Church" generally represents the Roman Catholic church. While, when left uncapitalized, the word "church" generally represents a body of people with the same faith and beliefs.

 

 

 

It's the same thing with "God/god" to me. "God," in my eyes, means the Christian god, while the lowercase version, "god," can represent many different deities. As I don't believe in the Christian god, I generally don't capitalize it.

[Ouchy]

I think that there might be a god or something out there, but not as we have anticipated him as. It makes sense about the universe being created, and all the rest, but then what made god? God, astronomical thoughts are flooding my brain now :shock:

 

 

 

~Ouchy

[aquariusman]

I am agnostic. I don't think we will ever know. However, I certainly hope that He or She exists, for it means that for billions of people, their trust and faith is well met.

 

 

 

I think I also said a while back that Creation is the most logical way we came to be. Most people would argue that a Creator would ahve had to create himself, and that is impossible because of logic, but you need to think about it under the assumption that if this Creator does exist, does that not forfeit logic? So I think that we were created, and basically my theory essentially comes to be that a God created the world, and set the laws of physics, etc. When something doesn't go the way the God likes, this God intervenes. I feel that this accomodates science and everything unexplainable by science.

 

 

 

As for Christianity, or more specifically the concept of sin combined with creation, I think that the whole thing is the biggest contradiction or idiocy possible. If we are supposed to stay "pure" why would we be given the ability to commit sin? Surely a Creator would not give it's Creations the ability to do wrong if he does not want them to. Saying it is a 'test' is even worse, because that means the Creator must not be powerful enough to shape the minds of it's Creations.

[andylax38]

From the origin of the universe to the dawn of man on earth there are scientific theories to support the creation of it all. The one thing we do not know is what set off the infinitely hot and dense point that was the universe some 14 billion years ago into the universe as we know it today. Now you can argue the validity of many of the theories proposed to described what happened along this time line but you cannot deny that that the universe is this old, proven by general relativity along with things such as the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. One also cannot argue that the universe is expanding in all directions and this shows that it was at once smaller then it is now and as stated before was most likely at one time a point of infinite density and temperature. This moment 14 billion years ago is the moment that in my mind the possibility of a god exists. There has to be some reason why the universe was set into the motion that comes to beings such as us existing. Why not a creator of a higher power setting this in motion? A question we will probably never answer and I almost hope that we never do because the world is probably better off not knowing. Would anything really change if you new the answer to a question such as is god real? Better to just leave it in mystery and let each individuals decide for themselves in my opinion.

[Shinjula]

...but you cannot deny that that the universe is this old, proven by general relativity along with things such as the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. One also cannot argue that the universe is expanding in all directions and this shows that it was at once smaller then it is now and as stated before was most likely at one time a point of infinite density and temperature. ...

 

Um, except people still do

[Lenticular_J]

I am agnostic. I don't think we will ever know. However, I certainly hope that He or She exists, for it means that for billions of people, their trust and faith is well met.

 

 

 

I think I also said a while back that Creation is the most logical way we came to be. Most people would argue that a Creator would ahve had to create himself, and that is impossible because of logic, but you need to think about it under the assumption that if this Creator does exist, does that not forfeit logic? So I think that we were created, and basically my theory essentially comes to be that a God created the world, and set the laws of physics, etc. When something doesn't go the way the God likes, this God intervenes. I feel that this accomodates science and everything unexplainable by science.

 

 

 

As for Christianity, or more specifically the concept of sin combined with creation, I think that the whole thing is the biggest contradiction or idiocy possible. If we are supposed to stay "pure" why would we be given the ability to commit sin? Surely a Creator would not give it's Creations the ability to do wrong if he does not want them to. Saying it is a 'test' is even worse, because that means the Creator must not be powerful enough to shape the minds of it's Creations.

 

I hope you're never eaten by a shark. Because I think you're cute. In an "I-concur mostly bust I'm not agnostic although a lot of those ideas are my beliefs" kinda way.

[l0rd]

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

 

Creationists believe God came from nothing, and atheists believe the first particles came from nothing. So I don't see why many theists say that the atheists theories are invalid, when in reality their theory does not explain the existence of God.

[Lenticular_J]

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

 

Creationists believe God came from nothing, and atheists believe the first particles came from nothing. So I don't see why many theists say that the atheists theories are invalid, when in reality their theory does not explain the existence of God.

 

 

 

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

 

Creationists believe God came from nothing, and atheists believe the first particles came from nothing. So I don't see why many atheists say that the theists theories are invalid, when in reality their theory does not explain the nonexistence of God.

 

 

 

This thread is fun.

[I_am_Geed]

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

 

Creationists believe God came from nothing, and atheists believe the first particles came from nothing. So I don't see why many theists say that the atheists theories are invalid, when in reality their theory does not explain the existence of God.

 

 

 

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

 

Creationists believe God came from nothing, and atheists believe the first particles came from nothing. So I don't see why many atheists say that the theists theories are invalid, when in reality their theory does not explain the nonexistence of God.

 

 

 

This thread is fun.

 

 

 

It really is kinda of a fun thread. Both sides, theists and athiests are 100% sure their reason is right, and it turns into hate/flame-wars.

 

 

 

In all honesty, noone really knows, its all about faith. What you believe in is what you believe in. Noone can stop you from that. I guess for theists is cherish your time on earth and hope for the best? Same with athiests, just they believe theres is nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

With the strange nature of our universe, anything is possible.

[NorthernHero]

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

I don't expect you to read this overly huge thread thourght, but I explained (tryed to explain) couple pages backwards that there is another theory than "something DID come from nothing" theory. The theory of no time, the "no beginning, no ending" theory, "It always is" theory.

[l0rd]

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

I don't expect you to read this overly huge thread thourght, but I explained (tryed to explain) couple pages backwards that there is another theory than "something DID come from nothing" theory. The theory of no time, the "no beginning, no ending" theory, "It always is" theory.

 

 

 

Yes, and I elaborated and tried to counter that theory, again, a couple pages back.

[EdgedThesis]

The Big Bang theory explains why the universe is expanding as it is. It's not how scientists claim the universe was created.

 

 

 

So far, with what we know, the only thing we can assume is that there was a dimensionless point that housed all matter, all energy, all time, and all space. And that it was always there.

 

 

 

It did not come from nothing. It was forever there.

 

 

 

Well, actually, our universe might be going in a bang/crunch cycle. I'm not entirely sure about the physics behind it, and I might be wrong, but I believe that gravitational forces will eventually overwhelm the outward forces gained from the initial explosion. After this, parts of the universe will actually begin to retract, and collapse once more into a singularity.

 

 

 

Anyway. The only thing difficult to wrap our heads around is this: if all of our universe was a singularity, what laid beyond it?

 

The answer is, of course, nothing. But we cannot even begin to fathom that concept yet.

 

(Which is a reason why religion exists in the first place.)

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: By the way, isn't it impossible for our Universe to have a 'beginning'? The Universe isn't contained within Time, Time is contained within it. This effectively means that the Universe never happened, while simultaneously meaning it is always there.

[Moad14]

Whether it be that you're a theist or an atheist, what it comes down to is that something DID come from nothing.

 

 

 

Creationists believe God came from nothing, and atheists believe the first particles came from nothing. So I don't see why many theists say that the atheists theories are invalid, when in reality their theory does not explain the existence of God.

Why did you attack my points then? :| It obviously goes the other way too, atheists proclaiming the ridiculousness and falseness of God.

 

 

 

By the way, not getting back into the debate, just curious.