lol :lol:

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Your faith in what you believe in, is incredibly larger and stronger than mine, being a Christian. :XD:

 

 

 

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people.

 

 

 

You act as if, you like to leave 'all your options open' when it comes to how the world was created by being open to all 'theories' yet you'll take in no consideration (you and the other big bang etc etc type of people) to the fact that there might be a creator.

 

 

 

Big double standard if you ask me.

 

 

 

There very well may be a creator. I'm not saying there isn't, I just reserve the right to argue against it or any other belief based idea. I'll inevitably argue against the creator-god idea as it's the most prominent and I think it's had it far too good for far too long.

lol :lol:

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Your faith in what you believe in, is incredibly larger and stronger than mine, being a Christian. :XD:

 

 

 

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people.

 

 

 

You act as if, you like to leave 'all your options open' when it comes to how the world was created by being open to all 'theories' yet you'll take in no consideration (you and the other big bang etc etc type of people) to the fact that there might be a creator.

 

 

 

Big double standard if you ask me.

 

 

 

There very well may be a creator. I'm not saying there isn't, I just reserve the right to argue against it or any other belief based idea. I'll inevitably argue against the creator-god idea as it's the most prominent and I think it's had it far too good for far too long.

 

 

 

That's my point. You'll argue against any 'belief based' idea yet totally open yourself to any thought of man's attempts to figure 'unknowns' out which is the closest thing to impossible.

 

 

 

Double standard. You'll listen to one man's theory (where he tries to work things out through his own intellect), but you'll reject another's strong belief (which you classify as a theory - what I classify as a belief).

 

 

 

All I'm going to say is if you're going to try and figure out yourself the impossible, using information you've gathered from yourself and others, you might as well explore all 'avenues' of possibility, including 'creationism' and a higher being.

 

 

 

All I'm saying is your one of many millions out there searching for the 'truth.' If your going to stay loyal to yourself you might as well search and try to discover all possibilities instead of relying on other's abilities to work it out. Therefore there's no way of you bridging a gap between you and the 'truth,' if your keeping all your options open.

lol :lol:

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Your faith in what you believe in, is incredibly larger and stronger than mine, being a Christian. :XD:

 

 

 

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people.

 

 

 

You act as if, you like to leave 'all your options open' when it comes to how the world was created by being open to all 'theories' yet you'll take in no consideration (you and the other big bang etc etc type of people) to the fact that there might be a creator.

 

 

 

Big double standard if you ask me.

 

 

 

There very well may be a creator. I'm not saying there isn't, I just reserve the right to argue against it or any other belief based idea. I'll inevitably argue against the creator-god idea as it's the most prominent and I think it's had it far too good for far too long.

 

 

 

(1) That's my point. You'll argue against any 'belief based' idea yet totally open yourself to any thought of man's attempts to figure 'unknowns' out which is the closest thing to impossible.

 

 

 

(2) Double standard. You'll listen to one man's theory (where he tries to work things out through his own intellect), but you'll reject another's strong belief (which you classify as a theory - what I classify as a belief).

 

 

 

(3) All I'm going to say is if you're going to try and figure out yourself the impossible, using information you've gathered from yourself and others, you might as well explore all 'avenues' of possibility, including 'creationism' and a higher being.

 

 

 

(4) All I'm saying is your one of many millions out there searching for the 'truth.' If your going to stay loyal to yourself you might as well search and try to discover all possibilities instead of relying on other's abilities to work it out. Therefore there's no way of you bridging a gap between you and the 'truth,' if your keeping all your options open.

 

 

 

(1) What exactly does this mean? The cyclic universe idea? I don't 'open myself up to it', I disbelieve it in much the same way that I do a creator-god. I do, however, find it compelling because it's a hugely novel idea to me. I understand the dynamic of creation perfectly: God --> everything (I'll try not to sound condesending by just putting a 'zap' in between those two things).

 

 

 

(2) I'm being ignorant here (haven't read up on the possibilities of the cyclic model) but I wouldn't call either a 'theory'. They are both beliefs to me. I believe neither.

 

 

 

(3) I don't rule either out. With the creation idea, though, I can't see why god is immune to creation himself. That's part of why I doubt. But then again, with the cyclic idea, I likewise question why existance is rather than is not.

 

 

 

(4) I think the above points probably adress this as well.

Yeah i was one of those guys using the big bang for religion theories :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Anyway, i think this is a really good theory but this is just too much for my brain :uhh:

 

 

 

I find it really hard to process the information that the universe has ALWAYS existed. It's just....there's no words really it just confuses me a lot! :ohnoes:

 

 

 

But i'm not saying that you are wrong, this could be true.

If you think about it, every measurable concept, be it length, area, speed, or time has to have two things: A unit of measurement, and an origin.

 

So, a length needs to have some kind of origin somewhere to be considered possible, because otherwise it is uncertain, and therefore not a measurement. If you wanted to draw a line on a graph, you need axis, which ultimately needs a unit of measurement and an origin.

 

 

 

The issue with time is that we generally measure it from the time of the birth of Christ, which then allows for a value of 'negative time', also known as BC. However, this is not a true evaluation of time, because it doesn't start with the origin: the creation of the universe and therefore the start of time. The only reason we use the BC/AD scale is that we don't actually know the exact moment of the creation of the universe, and anyway, we would end up having dates which would fill pages and pages, which is impractical.

 

 

 

Another example of this is the Celcius scale. It is not a 'true' measurement because it does not start at the literal beginning of temperature: absolute zero. Instead, it starts at the melting point of water because we can easily relate to it (everyone has an idea of how cold 0 degrees C is). To solve this in science, the Kelvin scale is used, which is a 'true' measurement because it starts absolute zero.

 

 

 

Please tell me if i'm missing anything here, of if I make no sense.

Just putting this out there, but...

 

 

 

Azathoth.

Without more energy added to the system energy degrades to a lower state over time. So if all existing energy has been here for an infinite amount of time yet it hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet then it seems there is a major unresolved issue here.

 

 

 

Yeah, as far as I know I think the thermodynamics is the biggest problem with the cyclic model. I'll have a look into various aspects when I get a bit of time.

 

 

 

But as for the time must be finite thing, not so sure about that. I can't see the logical link between the two.

Looking back on my own posts, I haven't disproved the actual idea of a repeating universe, it may be the case that multiple universes may exist one after the other, but there is a finite number of universes. Anyway, you need an origin and time scale on your sine graph if it is meant to reflect the size of the universe over time. Where are you going to measure it from? The middle of infinity? If you divide by zero, you will get the same answer.

 

 

 

Oh yeah, I forgot the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The infinite existence of consecutive universes breaks that law. And if you've ever gone through the whole 'make your own perpetual motion machine' drama in lessons, like I have, you will know that it is impossible in any situation. I can pretty much guarantee that you can't get around it, no matter how complex the machine gets. And the universe is the most complex machine of the lot.

I find it really hard to process the information that the universe has ALWAYS existed. It's just....there's no words really it just confuses me a lot! :ohnoes:

 

 

 

See I am just the opposite, I have trouble thinking of the universe as starting with the big bang and there wasn't anything before it. I mean I believe the Big Bang, I just don't see how it could all of the sudden happen. That's why I created my own cyclical theory a while ago. I still like to think of the universe that way even though I know it's wrong, because it's the only way to wrap my head around it.

Indy, I agree. I can't think before a beginning, after an end. Just blows my mind.

 

 

 

And to the little debate going on: This topic was purely about science. The main trouble with Christians is that we can't keep the ignorant amongst us from talking. Bluelancer, you could have ignored his comments or deleted the post for spam.

 

 

 

This was actually looking to be a fairly interesting discussion.

If you think about it, every measurable concept, be it length, area, speed, or time has to have two things: A unit of measurement, and an origin.

 

 

 

Everything you said is right, and rather obvious. The thing is, I don't understand why time being infinite is troublesome. If you're looking for one point where the size of the universe is interesting, lets look at when it was last 0, or at an absolute minimum. Then make that your "year 0" or whatever. From this point move incremental steps and voilÃÆÃâÃâá, you have a time-scale which has a purpose and you can use, without needing to know where it begins. There's gotta be many examples of scales which have no beginning and still make sense.

 

 

 

For example looking at population growth of the human race. You don't need to define where the human race left apes and became human to do that, you just measure the generations from a well-chosen point.

 

 

 

I hope I made sense.

If you wanted to draw a line on a graph, you need axis, which ultimately needs a unit of measurement and an origin.

 

An axis is a point of reference, as is the unit itself. You keep avoiding the "origin". If we graphed a sine function, what would be its origin?

 

I'm open to the idea that all measurable things need an origin, but so far nobody has explained why.

 

 

 

The only reason we use the BC/AD scale is that we don't actually know the exact moment of the creation of the universe

 

BCE/CE notation was created before the big bang theory existed. At the time, they thought that the universe was less than 10,000 years old. Why would they bother counting from the start of the universe? It makes a lot more sense to count from the start of human life, or in the case of BCE/CE notation, the start of the "common era" (whatever that is).

 

 

 

To solve this in science, the Kelvin scale is used, which is a 'true' measurement because it starts absolute zero.

 

Absolute zero is a reference point that humans chose for the scale. Kelvin, the scale itself, does not originate from anything, it is merely an abstract system of measurement created by humans in which all kelvins are relative to absolute zero.

 

 

 

Anyway, you need an origin and time scale on your sine graph if it is meant to reflect the size of the universe over time. Where are you going to measure it from? The middle of infinity? If you divide by zero, you will get the same answer.

 

The sine graph was only shown as an example of how something can be "infinite" with no specific point of origin. It's not meant to graph time and/or the universe. :-s

 

 

 

Oh yeah, I forgot the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The infinite existence of consecutive universes breaks that law.

 

The new cyclic model theories do not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. See here, one of the questions near the bottom:

 

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~stein ... thors.html

 

 

 

See I am just the opposite, I have trouble thinking of the universe as starting with the big bang and there wasn't anything before it.

 

Same here. I don't believe either theory very strongly right now, but I have an easier time understanding the cyclic model.

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

Answer me this simple question: What created the creator?

 

 

 

If we assume that the force/being has "always existed" -- then why can't we apply that same logic to our universe?

Yeah, as far as I know I think the thermodynamics is the biggest problem with the cyclic model. I'll have a look into various aspects when I get a bit of time.

 

 

 

But as for the time must be finite thing, not so sure about that. I can't see the logical link between the two.

 

 

 

I'll be interested to hear your opinion.

 

 

 

As to your second statement you lost me. When did I say time must be finite?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warrior,

 

I have your linked pdf loaded, just haven't had the time yet to read it.

I don't rule either out. With the creation idea, though, I can't see why god is immune to creation himself. That's part of why I doubt. But then again, with the cyclic idea, I likewise question why existance is rather than is not.

 

 

 

I actually see you rule out Creationism all the time, and I'm sure you haven't discovered the spiritual side of yourself enough to be able to rule it out.

 

 

 

That's what I've gathered from your posts from the last 12 months. Obviously not knowing you personally I can't tell you that with 100% belief, but I'm sure I've guessed correctly. :wink:

I don't rule either out. With the creation idea, though, I can't see why god is immune to creation himself. That's part of why I doubt. But then again, with the cyclic idea, I likewise question why existance is rather than is not.

 

 

 

I actually see you rule out Creationism all the time, and I'm sure you haven't discovered the spiritual side of yourself enough to be able to rule it out.

 

 

 

That's what I've gathered from your posts from the last 12 months. Obviously not knowing you personally I can't tell you that with 100% belief, but I'm sure I've guessed correctly. :wink:

 

 

 

I've ruled out strict biblical creationism based on personal research into evolution, etc. I haven't ruled out some type of broad creation based existance by any means. Any attack you've probably seen me lodge over the past 12 months would have been against biblical creationism, which is, as I see it, contradictory to known science.

I don't rule either out. With the creation idea, though, I can't see why god is immune to creation himself. That's part of why I doubt. But then again, with the cyclic idea, I likewise question why existance is rather than is not.

 

 

 

I actually see you rule out Creationism all the time, and I'm sure you haven't discovered the spiritual side of yourself enough to be able to rule it out.

 

 

 

That's what I've gathered from your posts from the last 12 months. Obviously not knowing you personally I can't tell you that with 100% belief, but I'm sure I've guessed correctly. :wink:

 

 

 

I've ruled out strict biblical creationism based on personal research into evolution, etc. I haven't ruled out some type of broad creation based existance by any means. Any attack you've probably seen me lodge over the past 12 months would have been against biblical creationism, which is, as I see it, contradictory to known science.

 

 

 

Ah ok. Your opinion I accept - agree to disagree. There's no need starting up another one of these creation vs. evolution arguments. Especially since it wastes hours of my afternoons and evenings in the end, and nothing changes. :lol:

I don't rule either out. With the creation idea, though, I can't see why god is immune to creation himself. That's part of why I doubt. But then again, with the cyclic idea, I likewise question why existance is rather than is not.

 

 

 

I actually see you rule out Creationism all the time, and I'm sure you haven't discovered the spiritual side of yourself enough to be able to rule it out.

 

 

 

That's what I've gathered from your posts from the last 12 months. Obviously not knowing you personally I can't tell you that with 100% belief, but I'm sure I've guessed correctly. :wink:

 

 

 

I've ruled out strict biblical creationism based on personal research into evolution, etc. I haven't ruled out some type of broad creation based existance by any means. Any attack you've probably seen me lodge over the past 12 months would have been against biblical creationism, which is, as I see it, contradictory to known science.

 

 

 

Ah ok. Your opinion I accept - agree to disagree. There's no need starting up another one of these creation vs. evolution arguments. Especially since it wastes hours of my afternoons and evenings in the end, and nothing changes. :lol:

 

 

 

Yeah, I'll only discuss if people want to, if they bring it up themselves or if it's relevant. But at the moment, this topic is not about that. :wink:

Answer me this simple question: What created the creator?

 

 

 

If we assume that the force/being has "always existed" -- then why can't we apply that same logic to our universe?

 

 

 

I will digress, but only because it includes science.

 

 

 

A deity would not exist in material form, and would not be bound by material rules. The Universe, however, is made up of matter and must follow the rules.

The cyclic model is just a cycle of big bangs. So its no stretch for people who belive the big bang to belive this, though I dont see how its easier for highly religious people.

Answer me this simple question: What created the creator?

 

 

 

If we assume that the force/being has "always existed" -- then why can't we apply that same logic to our universe?

 

 

 

I will digress, but only because it includes science.

 

 

 

A deity would not exist in material form, and would not be bound by material rules. The Universe, however, is made up of matter and must follow the rules.

 

 

 

You mean rules like the conservation of mass/energy?

 

Answer me this simple question: What created the creator?

 

 

 

 

My dear venomai, it's creators all the way down!

 

Answer me this simple question: What created the creator?

 

 

 

 

My dear venomai, it's creators all the way down!

 

I love the idea of turtles all the way down when it comes to Gods and higher forces, but we are talking about monotheism here. The original statement was about the Judeo-Christian God (one creator).

The best part of the article is this quote:

 

 

 

 

"I was sitting with my feet on my desk, half-asleep and puzzled

 

 

 

 

Oh, to be a theoretical physicist :P !

Answer me this simple question: What created the creator?

 

 

 

If we assume that the force/being has "always existed" -- then why can't we apply that same logic to our universe?

 

 

 

I will digress, but only because it includes science.

 

 

 

A deity would not exist in material form, and would not be bound by material rules. The Universe, however, is made up of matter and must follow the rules.

 

 

 

You mean rules like the conservation of mass/energy?

 

 

 

Well, yeah. I meant the empirical rules of physics in general. Like I said a few posts of mine ago. The Cyclical model can't happen because if time was infinite the Universe would not exist. As time progresses, more energy is lost to unusable forms. Eventually that energy will run out in n-Gogol years. If the universe was infinite, that energy would have run out in theory n-Gogol years ago.

 

 

 

And fun fact: I believe in the multiverse :0. Explains lots of things for me, like deja vu and such.