Back to the beginning

[Ambassadar]

Locke, Tigra, Warrior... there is a thread on evolution. If ya'll want to talk that go there for reasons I describe below plus the fact we will explode the topic into something so large we will get nowhere in our discussion on origins of the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now let the fun begin. :P

 

 

 

Quote Tigra:

 

 

 

The Bible says everything was snapped into existence. We *know* this is not true. We KNOW it. It is 100% factual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote Ambassadar: All I did was say if you KNOW this then tell me how you know it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote Tigra: It's not my job to educate you, Ambassador.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seemingly enjoy dodging questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you just get annoyed at me for dodging questions after you started your whole rant off dodging my question? I'm sorry but that is kinda funny. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was told this thread would be locked if it became an evolution thread. In fact it did get locked until I clarified that we would not talk about that. Don't blame me. I can't help that. Just check the first page and you will see the moderator that said they went back and unlocked it after I clarified that it would not be about evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about taking Biology 101? Reading a book besides the Bible? Anything?

 

 

 

Woo Woo. I is just an ignoooramus thut tinks cyanse is jus wut dem dere heathens beeleeve. Is buuks those thingies with dem squigglez?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean come on... Do you honestly think I am some ignorant person with no brain and no education?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly what is with all the personal attacks? It is coming across as you are incapable of making a post without personally attacking me in some way. That isn't something you want to be doing in a debate. It adds nothing while creating all kinds of problems that get your position nowhere. If my ideas are so wrong then prove it with facts. If you make my ideas look ridiculous then you make me look ridiculous and then it spares you the trouble of calling me names.

[warri0r45]

Locke, Tigra, Warrior... there is a thread on evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, my thread and it was locked, so forgive me, I won't drag your thread down too. I might concider a new one though... :-k

[Ambassadar]

I didn't realize it got locked. That is a bummer. You did a very good job of introducing that thread but it turned into a runaway train. I stayed away from it because it just got too ugly. I'm trying to avoid that fate for this thread so we can have some intelligent banter on topics instead of opinions and the only way I know how to do that is to stay on this one topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still learning more about the area of quantum physics that assassin_696 brought up. The reason I am holding off on responding to his comment is I want to make sure I know my stuff to avoid making a false comment about it.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Where did the energy come from then? Are you telling me something can be created from nothing?

 

 

 

The origin of the universe isn't a question for science to answer, it's outside the scope of science. However the phenomenon does exist (Quantum fluctuations), it's actually one way of explaining why we have so much energy in the universe (the small fluctuations of energy that occurred got stretched out during the short time span of inflation).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words we agree that this would have to be one of the potentials of what could be since it cannot be proven or disproven at this point.

You were the one that brought up energy being constant in other universes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand your point. I never said the Big Bang assumed the universe was created from scratch. To me the Universe is the energy contained in the Universe so when I made this statement I was referring to it in energy terms.

You wrote: "All matter and energy(which would include the Universe) would be infinitely old because it would never have had a beginning(a creation)", but Atheism or cosmology (for that matter) doesn't agree with that. The universe did have a creation, I don't think anyone disputes that; people dispute that it was the Christian God that caused creation. The only other alternative is a cyclic universe, however it's not well supported at present (accelerating universe).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theory: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

 

 

 

Are you saying this isn't a hypothesis?

 

 

 

No, Theory basically means scientific fact; you can find it in any dictionary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the second law says without an outside energy source it would have stayed in a degenerate state for eternity. What is the outside source of energy?

In inflation theory it is known as the inflaton field/inflatons, it's a field existing in the universe which caused a huge repulsion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless the beginning of the Universe can be reproduced to observe it first hand anything anyone ever says about it is speculation.

And that's why you can't 'use science' to disprove either side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this what you consider a reasonable assumption? Compared to this I feel like my assumption is just as reasonable or more so. Granted that is just my opinion. Other people may think the alternative is more attractive but that is fine. It's not like there is some dictatorship that will execute someone for disagreeing.

The problem is that there are many more alternatives then you propose. One popular example being the many worlds interpretation, another being that the universe is just similar to a quantum fluctuation in space containing the universe. In essence there are a practically endless amount of ways which could of created the universe, restricting yourself to one idea is rather short sighted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with this but does education make intelligence?

When it comes to science, yes it does.

[Tigra00]

Ambassador, I didn't dodge your question. Infact, I answered it. I directed you to a biology book. Did you honestly wish for me to cover everything from cell structure to macroevolution in one post, or what?

[Ambassadar]

The origin of the universe isn't a question for science to answer, it's outside the scope of science.

 

 

 

Why are scientists trying to figure it out then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the phenomenon does exist (Quantum fluctuations), it's actually one way of explaining why we have so much energy in the universe (the small fluctuations of energy that occurred got stretched out during the short time span of inflation).

 

 

 

Please provide me with data that says energy can come from nothing. If this is not the case then the whole quantum thing is irrelevant to the conversation. Link me to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The universe did have a creation, I don't think anyone disputes that; people dispute that it was the Christian God that caused creation.

 

 

 

The big bang was not a creation of new energy. The theory states that it was a rapid expansion of pre-existing energy. Thus the fact remains if energy cannot be created from nothing the pre-big bang energy would have already been an infinite number of years old(assuming outside energy wasn't leaking into the situation from another universe which I addressed in my original post).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only other alternative is a cyclic universe, however it's not well supported at present (accelerating universe).

 

 

 

If it cycled then every time it cycled it would never quite reach it's prior potential from the previous cycle. It would be like a clock pendulum swinging slightly less each time and eventually stopping. The only way this isn't the case is if energy can be created from nothing or there is an energy leak in the system which I addressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, Theory basically means scientific fact; you can find it in any dictionary.

 

 

 

I cut and pasted my definition from the Webster Dictionary. I think it was entry number six on the list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In inflation theory it is known as the inflaton field/inflatons, it's a field existing in the universe which caused a huge repulsion.

 

 

 

Please go into more detail. Are you making the claim that energy is created from nothing here? Just wanting clarification on what exactly you are getting at with this. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's why you can't 'use science' to disprove either side.

 

 

 

I'm glad you acknowledge God creating the Universe as a legitimate reasonable explanation then. That is the point I was getting at with this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that there are many more alternatives then you propose. One popular example being the many worlds interpretation, another being that the universe is just similar to a quantum fluctuation in space containing the universe. In essence there are a practically endless amount of ways which could of created the universe, restricting yourself to one idea is rather short sighted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stated it might not be a closed system in my examples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also stated that if the 2nd Law could be overturned that would be an option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those two things take care of the suggestions you just made of things I missed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As long as there isn't an infinite energy source doing the leaking into our universe the second law would hold true because that energy source would run out eventually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is an infinite energy source that means either the second law doesn't hold true in some circumstances which was one of my options or else there already is an infinite amount of energy out there somehow. (only way how I could see this could be is with an infinite amount of multiple dimensions) which was another choice of mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fail to see the logic hole. Lemme know if I missed something. I left my three final options pretty broad so they could cover just about every finer point I could think up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Tigra I didn't want you to cover any of it since we aren't talking about the Earth or evolution in the first place. :P

[warri0r45]

I haven't been looking into this post too much, but suppose the universe was created by a god. What makes people so sure thier god is the one that did it? There could have been some mystical force that created everything, but whether or not it takes a form, dosen't take a form, has a name, dosen't have a name, is good, is evil, has a conciousness, does not have a conciousness, has a gender, does not have a gender, has a personality, is limitless in it's capabilties, is still 'alive' or has 'died', is black, blue, white, opaque, solid, liquid, gas, energy etc is completely debatable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is that it may well be a possibility, but the nature of the creator is so open to interpretation, it's hardly a sufficient rival scientific theory and will likely never be. But then again, interpretation about the beginning of the universe and existance itself are hypothetical at best (unless I'm missing some obvious evidence for the big bang theory, I haven't really looked into it that much).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll have to do some research into the big bang theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two observations are at the base of observational big bang cosmology. First, the universe is expanding uniformly, with objects at greater distances receding at a greater velocity. Second, the Earth is bathed in the cosmic background radiation, an isotropic glow of radiation that has the characteristics expected from the remnant of a hot primeval fireball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tracing the expansion of the universe back in time shows that the universe would have been compressed to infinite density approximately 8ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ16 ÃÆÃââââ‰â¬

[Ambassadar]

I understand what you are saying Warrior but all I am focusing on in this post is the possibility of God. For this topic it isn't as much concerned with who is that supernatural being but rather if it is plausible he exists which I feel according to the knowledge I have it is plausible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind I am not ramming that down people's throats... merely saying that is my opinion. Once again my entire point rests on these three options of how the Universe exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. There must be an infinite number of universes that bumped into each other because if there is a set number of universes even if it is billions of them eventually all that energy in all those universes would stabilize at it's lowest form and because of that our universe couldn't exist as it does now. (Anyone saying anything about other universes or energy leaking in from somewhere else would fall into this catagory)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics that can be reproduced 100% of the time in any situation aren't true and we should ditch them in favor of a mere theory that cannot be proven. (Any theory that says energy can be created from nothing would fall into this category)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, there was a God or creator that created everything. (Besides those two options above this is all I see left as the alternative... give me more options if you can think of any)

[assassin_696]

After a lot of consideration and research, and until proven otherwise, I feel like I should say that I agree with your theory Ambassadar. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you say, it's not concrete proof, but it goes a fair way.

[warri0r45]

I understand what you are saying Warrior but all I am focusing on in this post is the possibility of God. For this topic it isn't as much concerned with who is that supernatural being but rather if it is plausible he exists which I feel according to the knowledge I have it is plausible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind I am not ramming that down people's throats... merely saying that is my opinion. Once again my entire point rests on these three options of how the Universe exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. There must be an infinite number of universes that bumped into each other because if there is a set number of universes even if it is billions of them eventually all that energy in all those universes would stabilize at it's lowest form and because of that our universe couldn't exist as it does now. (Anyone saying anything about other universes or energy leaking in from somewhere else would fall into this catagory)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics that can be reproduced 100% of the time in any situation aren't true and we should ditch them in favor of a mere theory that cannot be proven. (Any theory that says energy can be created from nothing would fall into this category)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, there was a God or creator that created everything. (Besides those two options above this is all I see left as the alternative... give me more options if you can think of any)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. There was a supernatural uncaused cause that caused the big bang. My idea is that it dosen't necessarily have to be a deity as they are highly specific and highly human perceptive. I believe this is also a plausible alternative. You can add it if you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not ruling out any of your alternatives though.

[Tigra00]

The Universe was created before anything was ever said about the God of the Jews, fyi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all we know, Ra created the Universe. Or Osiris. Or Any other God that was written about before the God of the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you should be speculating about "God", you should be speculating "If God, WHICH?" ;)

[warri0r45]

The Universe was created before anything was ever said about the God of the Jews, fyi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all we know, Ra created the Universe. Or Osiris. Or Any other God that was written about before the God of the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you should be speculating about "God", you should be speculating "If God, WHICH?" ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's always wondered me why people think thier perception of god or diety of choice is 'the one.'

[Celt23]

 

The Universe was created before anything was ever said about the God of the Jews, fyi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all we know, Ra created the Universe. Or Osiris. Or Any other God that was written about before the God of the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you should be speculating about "God", you should be speculating "If God, WHICH?" ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's always wondered me why people think thier perception of god or diety of choice is 'the one.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they don't, then that religion will just fall apart. Religion was important in keeping societies together.

[Tigra00]

 

 

The Universe was created before anything was ever said about the God of the Jews, fyi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all we know, Ra created the Universe. Or Osiris. Or Any other God that was written about before the God of the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you should be speculating about "God", you should be speculating "If God, WHICH?" ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's always wondered me why people think thier perception of god or diety of choice is 'the one.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they don't, then that religion will just fall apart. Religion was important in keeping societies together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, the God of the Jew's was the first God to ever demand that you worship He and He alone, and hell, they don't even do that anymore. They worship Jesus. The entire religion is a farse and they all fail to see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an absolute toss-up as to which religion, if any, are the right ones. Personally, I'm fond of the Greek stories. So I'll just say that those God's all created this and control it. Prove me wrong, guys. Prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion isn't important for keeping societies together, either. It separates them. Look at the USA right now...We're split 30-70, Religious goofs to normal people who want actual important laws. Can you imagine, in any rational world, were abortion and homosexual marriage are the biggest freakin' issues in the nation? It's honestly a travesty. We have illegals hopping our boarders, which now are able to reap SSI benefits. We have a war going on...All this other actually IMPORTANT stuff and people care about dead fetus's and two gay guys' private lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freakin' amazing.

[Celt23]

 

 

 

The Universe was created before anything was ever said about the God of the Jews, fyi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all we know, Ra created the Universe. Or Osiris. Or Any other God that was written about before the God of the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you should be speculating about "God", you should be speculating "If God, WHICH?" ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's always wondered me why people think thier perception of god or diety of choice is 'the one.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they don't, then that religion will just fall apart. Religion was important in keeping societies together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, the God of the Jew's was the first God to ever demand that you worship He and He alone, and hell, they don't even do that anymore. They worship Jesus. The entire religion is a farse and they all fail to see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an absolute toss-up as to which religion, if any, are the right ones. Personally, I'm fond of the Greek stories. So I'll just say that those God's all created this and control it. Prove me wrong, guys. Prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion isn't important for keeping societies together, either. It separates them. Look at the USA right now...We're split 30-70, Religious goofs to normal people who want actual important laws. Can you imagine, in any rational world, were abortion and homosexual marriage are the biggest freakin' issues in the nation? It's honestly a travesty. We have illegals hopping our boarders, which now are able to reap SSI benefits. We have a war going on...All this other actually IMPORTANT stuff and people care about dead fetus's and two gay guys' private lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freakin' amazing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was the first religion with it in the doctrine, but, for example, if you were a part of the Roman Empire, you'd be heavily scorned, possibly thrown into the Colliseum if you did not worship the Roman gods or the emporer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was talking further into the past, say 1000-1 million years ago, when there wasn't so many gigantic nations with different religions.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Why are scientists trying to figure it out then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't, the big bang is what happens just after creation and we can infer about it through things like Microwave background radiation and galactic red shifting; how do you propose we find out what happened before the big bang? Basically science follows the following quote:

 

 

 

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

 

 

We have a way of which to access the universe, so we have a way in which to talk of the universe. On the other hand we don't have a way to access what happened before the universe so we can't possibly say anything useful about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please provide me with data that says energy can come from nothing. If this is not the case then the whole quantum thing is irrelevant to the conversation. Link me to it.

 

 

 

Please tell me what you mean by nothing, since nothing is a fairly ambiguous term. If you mean 'literally nothing', well then your statement is a tautology and there is nothing that I can say to prove you wrong. However if you mean 'nothing' as in non-classical (views of the conservation of energy), a 'consequence of physics' or 'lacking a cause -> effect chain', then there are a few things which could be considered as coming from 'nothing'. A classic example would be the Casmir effect (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6 for an explanation), this force certainly doesn't obey classical conservation of energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The big bang was not a creation of new energy. The theory states that it was a rapid expansion of pre-existing energy. Thus the fact remains if energy cannot be created from nothing the pre-big bang energy would have already been an infinite number of years old(assuming outside energy wasn't leaking into the situation from another universe which I addressed in my original post).

 

 

 

Where does it state that it was an expansion of pre-existing energy, that's an assumption you're making. It still begs the question, where does the 'pre-existing energy' come from? Your just using term 'pre-existing' as codeword for "I have no [bleep]ing idea".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it cycled then every time it cycled it would never quite reach it's prior potential from the previous cycle. It would be like a clock pendulum swinging slightly less each time and eventually stopping. The only way this isn't the case is if energy can be created from nothing or there is an energy leak in the system which I addressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A perfect pendulum in a vacuum swings forever, (air) resistance is the main thing slowing down a pendulum. If you are not removing energy from an oscillating system then there is no reason for it to stop oscillating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cut and pasted my definition from the Webster Dictionary. I think it was entry number six on the list.

 

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory, it's one of those words that have completely different meanings (in this case opposite) depending on the context. Notice how "1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." is the opposite to "7. guess or conjecture." Now which one do you think is used to describe things like big bang theory or theory of relativity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please go into more detail. Are you making the claim that energy is created from nothing here? Just wanting clarification on what exactly you are getting at with this. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is an 'inflaton field' any different from creating energy from 'nothing', in this case we have given 'nothing' a name and a description. How is getting energy from a transition from the metastable to stable any different then getting energy from 'nothing'. For all we know the universe is still in a false vacuum and energy might be released at any time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad you acknowledge God creating the Universe as a legitimate reasonable explanation then. That is the point I was getting at with this.

 

 

 

And again:

 

 

 

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

 

 

What makes you able to acknowledge a God creating the universe in the first place? You can't infer anything about "the creation", so why can you speak about it? The only thing you are going on is the bible, and that is conjecture unless proven otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fail to see the logic hole. Lemme know if I missed something. I left my three final options pretty broad so they could cover just about every finer point I could think up.

 

 

 

The 'quantum fluctuation analogy' for example isn't either option. Say the universe follows some time-energy uncertainty, then the universe is both closed and obeys the 2nd law. For all we know the universe could just spontaneously appear and disappear at any time, hence has a net energy of 0. That's the crux of my argument, it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation.

[Locke]

Just curious death_by_pod, but aren't you the same user who told me that you can't even be certain my house exists because of the potential subjective nature of reality? How then can you be so sure about the scientific facts you provide?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your views seem to be very inconsistent.

[Death_By_Pod]

Just curious death_by_pod, but aren't you the same user who told me that you can't even be certain my house exists because of the potential subjective nature of reality? How then can you be so sure about the scientific facts you provide?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your views seem to be very inconsistent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I ever say I was sure? I'm only explaining what I believe to be reality, whether you agree with it is up to you. I'm here to provide discussion, not to force you into what I believe. If you want to believe your house really exists for everyone, the sky is red with blood and that there really is a firmament then go right ahead, just don't expect a lengthy discussion about it.

[Locke]

Did I ever say I was sure? I'm only explaining what I believe to be reality, whether you agree with it is up to you. I'm here to provide discussion, not to force you into what I believe. If you want to believe your house really exists for everyone, the sky is red with blood and that there really is a firmament then go right ahead, just don't expect a lengthy discussion about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By presenting things as fact, you are asserting you are sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have a way of which to access the universe, so we have a way in which to talk of the universe. On the other hand we don't have a way to access what happened before the universe so we can't possibly say anything useful about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in other words, you think you have a way of which to access the universe and you think you don't have a way to access what happened before. You don't actually know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also can't assert anything Ambassador says is wrong or argue with him, because you aren't even sure what you're saying is fact. For all you know, it's just your imagination. Ambassador's points are just as valid as yours because neither are "facts," it's all subject to one's own reality. In your reality, you can't access what happened before the universe. Ambassador might be able to though, you don't know. How can you make blanket statements about what "we" can do if everyone's reality is different?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

By presenting things as fact, you are asserting you are sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in other words, you think you have a way of which to access the universe and you think you don't have a way to access what happened before. You don't actually know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have a way to access what happened 'beforehand', If you find a way let me know and I'll see if I can reproduce your way; from my understanding of the universe, it's apparently impossible to see 'beforehand'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also can't assert anything Ambassador says is wrong or argue with him, because you aren't even sure what you're saying is fact. For all you know, it's just your imagination. Ambassador's points are just as valid as yours because neither are "facts," it's all subject to one's own reality. In your reality, you can't access what happened before the universe. Ambassador might be able to though, you don't know. How can you make blanket statements about what "we" can do if everyone's reality is different?

 

 

 

Exactly. The only reason why I'm making blanket statements is so I can have some kind of discussion. If you wanted to be fundamental about it, sure we will never agree upon what we see, however that's not the point of this thread. The point of this is a scientific discussion about the big bang. Science is an attempt to introduce a common framework in which we can share knowledge; it doesn't change the fact that knowledge is interpreted subjectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you even read my post, at the end I even said:

 

 

 

"it's absurd to even acknowledge something as being a reasonable explanation; anything is a reasonable explanation."

[Demonic_Bunny]

Define the 'God' we are talking about here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it a Juedo-Christiian God, or some vauge Creator?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Locke, If we do not make assumptions, based upon what we have come to know as 'fact', we cannot function in real life.

 

 

 

Try living as a Sceptic in truest sense of the word. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By having a Creator, we are merely adding another step to the step to the cyclic headache of 'who-created-the-creator.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the laws of Science as we know them do not apply to 'God', surely the counterargument could be that natural forces ( Such as Energy ) behave in ways that we cannot understand with todays science. ?

[assassin_696]

By having a Creator, we are merely adding another step to the step to the cyclic headache of 'who-created-the-creator.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is though, that if there is a creator, it doesn't have a cause, and we simply cannot describe and explain it with the scientific laws in our universe.

[assassin_696]

 

If it cycled then every time it cycled it would never quite reach it's prior potential from the previous cycle. It would be like a clock pendulum swinging slightly less each time and eventually stopping. The only way this isn't the case is if energy can be created from nothing or there is an energy leak in the system which I addressed.

 

 

 

A perfect pendulum in a vacuum swings forever, (air) resistance is the main thing slowing down a pendulum. If you are not removing energy from an oscillating system then there is no reason for it to stop oscillating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a good point actually. If we imagine our universe (assume for a second there's only one) as an energy system from which despite various energy changes there is no net loss or gain of energy, then there is no reason why it cannot continue to function forever.

[warri0r45]

 

By having a Creator, we are merely adding another step to the step to the cyclic headache of 'who-created-the-creator.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is though, that if there is a creator, it doesn't have a cause, and we simply cannot describe and explain it with the scientific laws in our universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus why no ones view of 'the creator' or chosen diety is correct. You can't really analyse the supernatural with your very much natural brain, eyes, hands, ears and nose.

[assassin_696]

 

 

By having a Creator, we are merely adding another step to the step to the cyclic headache of 'who-created-the-creator.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is though, that if there is a creator, it doesn't have a cause, and we simply cannot describe and explain it with the scientific laws in our universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus why no ones view of 'the creator' or chosen diety is correct. You can't really analyse the supernatural with your very much natural brain, eyes, hands, ears and nose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly :P