Spirituality
12 Sep 05
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by widgetSo these guys support the "Big Bang" and Comology in general?
So these guys support the "Big Bang" and Comology in general?
And you want to throw your intellectual lot in with them? Sorta...? ...Sorta?
The Big Bang theory is certainly tricky - really, I guess, you had to be there....
No. Their observations were used in constructing the big bang theory.
And you want to throw your intellectual lot in with them? Sorta...? ...Sorta?
Yes. Most importantly, their observations prove that there has to be a beginning to this universe we live in.
The Big Bang theory is certainly tricky - really, I guess, you had to be there....
The same can be said for creation.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompYes. Good observation.
Quantum Field Theory
Relatativity only covered Minkowski 4-dimemsional vector space and doesn't address Quantum Mechanics.
I don't think however that this undermines general relativity as a viable theory. Quantum Mechanics is just like Atomic Theory in that it only explains the functionality not the origin.
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThere was a beginning. You were likely too busy gasping and wailing to remember it. You were there. That time is still now. This is the moment that you live in. The eternal present. It is a gift. Enjoy it!
[b]So these guys support the "Big Bang" and Comology in general?
No. Their observations were used in constructing the big bang theory.
And you want to throw your intellectual lot in with them? Sorta...? ...Sorta?
Yes. Most importantly, their observations prove that there has to be a beginning to this universe we live in ...[text shortened]... inly tricky - really, I guess, you had to be there....[/b]
The same can be said for creation.[/b]
Once you personally accept responsibility for being here you may find that you treat all creation as if it were a toybox of your own design. Suddenly you are the owner/operator! Who can you blame now?
Ghandi said: "Be the change that you want to see in the world." What do you want to see?
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI assume you mean matter, not atoms, as there are theories regarding the formation of atoms as frogstomp points out. There is no current testable scientific theory on where the matter in the universe came from, therefore, explanations for it, at this point, are "non-scientific" and belong in the realm of faith. You may believe in an creator if you wish, but don't cite Einstein as a source for such a belief, as he did not share it.
Sure. Pray give me a more scientific theory on where all the atoms in the universe came from.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by Halitosenow see I was being precise, didn't you notice that I said Quantum Field Theory and not Quantum Mechanics.
Yes. Good observation.
I don't think however that this undermines general relativity as a viable theory. Quantum Mechanics is just like Atomic Theory in that it only explains the functionality not the origin.
And also the I refered to Relativistic space-time as Minkowski 4-space
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by widgetThere was a beginning. You were likely too busy gasping and wailing to remember it. You were there. That time is still now. This is the moment that you live in. The eternal present. It is a gift. Enjoy it!
There [b]was a beginning. You were likely too busy gasping and wailing to remember it. You were there. That time is still now. This is the moment that you live in. The eternal present. It is a gift. Enjoy it!
Once you personally accept responsibility for being here you may find that you treat all creation as if it were a toybox of your own desig ...[text shortened]...
Ghandi said: "Be the change that you want to see in the world." What do you want to see?[/b]
Once you personally accept responsibility for being here you may find that you treat all creation as if it were a toybox of your own design. Suddenly you are the owner/operator! Who can you blame now?
Ghandi said: "Be the change that you want to see in the world."
Well said.
What do you want to see?
There's a lot I would want to see changed. A poor example of the many, but I would like to see the millions of children orphaned by AIDS in Africa to be put in a family environment and shown love and care.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by Halitose... Grand! So now you have to do something about it. That's the key to changing the world!
There's a lot I would want to see changed. A poor example of the many, but I would like to see the millions of children orphaned by AIDS in Africa to be put in a family environment and shown love and care.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI assume you mean matter, not atoms, as there are theories regarding the formation of atoms as frogstomp points out.
I assume you mean matter, not atoms, as there are theories regarding the formation of atoms as frogstomp points out. There is no current testable scientific theory on where the matter in the universe came from, therefore, explanations for it, at this point, are "non-scientific" and belong in the realm of faith. You may believe in an creator if you wish, but don't cite Einstein as a source for such a belief, as he did not share it.
Okay. Matter.
There is no current testable scientific theory on where the matter in the universe came from, therefore, explanations for it, at this point, are "non-scientific" and belong in the realm of faith.
Absolutely.
You may believe in an creator if you wish, but don't cite Einstein as a source for such a belief, as he did not share it.
I'm not citing Einstein for my belief in a creator, I'm citing him in my need for a creator.
My point still stands. You can't generate all the matter in the universe from nothing. Einstein is just used to prove the beginning of the universe, not the existance of God.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompPlease accept my humblest apologies. I fell into the mortal error of vagueness. 😉
now see I was being precise, didn't you notice that I said Quantum Field Theory and not Quantum Mechanics.
And also the I refered to Relativistic space-time as Minkowski 4-space
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWe don't know if the matter in the universe was "generated" at all; it may have simply existed. The Big Bang happened, but all that means is that the spatial boundaries of the universe expanded, not that anything was "created" or "generated". To go beyond the Big Bang and say there is a Creator is a leap of faith. The Big Bang doesn't say there wasn't a Creator but it certainly doesn't say there was.
[b]I assume you mean matter, not atoms, as there are theories regarding the formation of atoms as frogstomp points out.
Okay. Matter.
There is no current testable scientific theory on where the matter in the universe came from, therefore, explanations for it, at this point, are "non-scientific" and belong in the realm of faith.
Absolu ...[text shortened]... nothing. Einstein is just used to prove the beginning of the universe, not the existance of God.[/b]
It seems to me a more persuasive case for some kind of "design" could be made from the fact that the physical rules and strengths of the various basic forces of nature are life conducive in this universe, but that would require this being the only universe and the non-existence of "mega laws" which made those variables come out necessarily the way they were. I have discussed this in other threads before, but most of the extremist Christians here reject the Big Bang theory altogether and thus cannot even reach this level of metaphysical musing. Regardless, it is presently not "science", though the possibilities are being studied and discussed.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay. Lets talk bottom line. I say: "In the beginning, God." You say: "In the beginning, we don't know."
We don't know if the matter in the universe was "generated" at all; it may have simply existed. The Big Bang happened, but all that means is that the spatial boundaries of the universe expanded, not that anything was "created" or "generated". To go beyond the Big Bang and say there is a Creator is a leap of faith. The Big Bang doesn't say there w ...[text shortened]... less, it is presently not "science", though the possibilities are being studied and discussed.
None of these explanations are superior to the other, but the main point I was making, it that saying God created it is not illogical or unscientific, it just requires the extra ingredient of faith.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's not "illogical" or "unscientific" but it is "non-scientific", as it is a hypothesis that cannot be judged by the scientific method. Therefore, it's not something that belongs in a Science class.
Okay. Lets talk bottom line. I say: "In the beginning, God." You say: "In the beginning, we don't know."
None of these explanations are superior to the other, but the main point I was making, it that saying God created it is not illogical or unscientific, it just requires the extra ingredient of faith.
