Ok ive heard a lot of theories and all of witch i have simple questions to disolve those theories
example the big bang theory
Question: if we have a basic laws such as matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed and cause and effect and you push this then that will do that then how could the big bang have possibly existed with out one single thing such as a cause.

Take a glass of water put it into a steril environment with absoultely noooo influence of anything know what would happen.... absolutely nothing think of the universe as all that watter and the glass is its boundery, nothing will happen to the water unless acted upon by you do this and thatll do that or cause and effect....????
hmmm very interesting post your replys cuz im really really wanting to argue and make you guys fight :)

sorry i love debates...

Views: 154

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

problebly some easy solution to this, mayby because it wasnt i point of balans inn the beginning, ore something like that?

in that case, the energi woud have an eksplanition.

sorry about the english, is from norway
Err.. first of all, you should really read this: -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop. Your text is making my brain hurt... No offence meant, though.

The big bang theory doesn't state that matter or energy came from nothing, it doesn't even try to explain what happened before the big bang or even what happened on the exact moment of the big bang. Quote from the wikipedia: "As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

And your example is flawed, because the universe isn't a sterile enviroment and probably wasn't sterile before the big bang. Anyone is free to correct me.

MY question is: Did i just feed the troll?
It is admirable that you can read it, but surely not worth the trouble. He is disrespecting the participants in these discussions.
He did post sort of serious replies to the threads he posted in though... for a troll.
Well I looked some more into his posts... his comments make my brain boil, not only because they most of the time makes no sense or are just blatantly stupid without knowing a thing about the subject matter (sorry if that sounds offensive but it's true).
My learning disability made me have to give up reading the original post. Funny, I could read everybody elses just fine. ;p
Precisely. The Universe is not a sterile environment. It's a huge mess of just about every atomic combination that can form... which then eventually mix with other formations, and so on, and so forth.

... and the Universe had billions of years to do this, with a span of space that we cannot hope to visualise.

The universe in around the time of the big bang and further into expansion would have been the farthest possible thing from sterile that can exist.

And yes, I do believe you just fed a troll.

This debate question would only make sense if the entire universe was comprised of nothing but silica, nitrogen, and oxygen. Which yes, in that case, life never would begin.
But the universe is not a small glass in a sterile environment... it's a cesspool of atomic interactions between just about every element that can form naturally, and it's been given all the space and time it needs to do it.

... and I have an itching suspicion the author knows that.
It's become increasingly difficult to justify "...god's will..." or "...act of god...". But we humans still like to package things. Everything we see and understand has some beginning and some end, even the mountains. And we know that for a fact thanks to science driven by curiosity.

Therefore, IMHO, we create a Big Bang theory to explain all of this. But no scientist or theist, creationist or otherwise, can explain, "What existed before there was nothing to exist. Was it a god, a prime mover, or maybe a Big Bang?"

One concept we find difficult to understand is the property of infinity, except in mathematics and religion. And then it's still something vague that we are simply told to accept. There is another theory, however.

I've learned throughout my life (I'm 70) that the simplest solution or explanation is more often the correct solution or explanation. Of course, there are no guarantees.

Suppose that the universe is infinite in size, and eternal in time. In short, it and everything in it has always existed. Matter, the content of the universe, constantly interchanges with energy, and vice versa. It happens every time you strike a match, or start a nuclear reaction.

Basically, the universe has always been here, matter and energy constantly interchange, and matter itself is constantly re-arranging itself.

Einstein was wrong, and Hubble came close to fixing Einstein's math problem, but no cigar. There are other more satisfying explanations for Hubble's Red Shift. And remember that even into the 1920s, the entire universe consisted of just our own Milky Way!
Marvin: "One concept we find difficult to understand is the property of infinity, except in mathematics and religion."

I will never understand how someone can state that god has existed always, that the afterlife lasts forever, that god is infinitely powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent...

...but the universe had to have a beginning, a first cause, a finite starting point!
"...but the universe had to have a beginning, a first cause, a finite starting point!"

Why? Can you explain why the universe must have had a begining?

Everything that we humans are aware of in the universe has both a start and an end, from grains of sand to galaxies. That's part of our conditioning; finiteness. Theists have no problem with an infinite deity. Mathmaticians have no problem with an infinite string of numbers as long as 1 can be added or subtracted.

Even science, not being able to accept the concept of an infinite god creating a universe, had to create an alternative, the Big Bang, in order to "explain" things. Personally, I include that as just another unsatisfactory creation myth - something needed to satisfy the human mind. The Big Bang itself produces an infinity problem, doesn't it?

Again, a century ago the universe consisted of only the Milky Way. But that was only because we couldn't see any farther.
Either the universe has ever exhisted, or it emerged from nowhere in one moment. Neither of those options seems reasonable to me. Amazingly, the only thing that makes sense in my head is that the univers should not exhist LOL

Of course I know that's due to my lack of understandment, rather then due to unieverse's lack of sense. Science can explain how universe began, but not why. Unfortunately we have to satisfy with it, because neither can religion or metaphysics answer that question.

Adding a God to the whole situation, as a first mover, just raises more questions instead of answering them. That's not the most parsimonious hypothesis.
I dont see how anything has to have a set start or beginning. Time is relative, and perhaps our universe does not have THE set of rules, as much as A set of rules. Perhaps our Universe was born from some place outside of our universe and outside of our universe's rules where time and space function in completely different ways. To ponder the origins of the universe, or matter, or energy is just so far out of our reach. I don't think we have enough knowledge to even understand the question yet, much less an answer.





Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service