New Images Support 'Big Bang' Theory
-
we don't know. however, that bit of ignorance says nothing about God. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Causality does.
-
Causality does.
what does it say? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
mysticism != sprituality. The former implies union with God while the latter implies awareness of Him. For starters sprituality is uniquely human. No animal has that ability (or the innate desire) to understand divinity. While most of our other thought processes are shared with one or more of our brothers in the animal kingdom, the fact that we alone have this quircky nature shows that it is a uniquely higher function.
BS. First of all you don't know that (who are you to say there is no "spiritual" animal?), but that's moot. There are tons of intellectual things we do that animals don't, but you specifically said "Spirituality is actually one of the highest functions of the human mind." That doesn't have anything to do with what other animals can or can't do. Just because we do something that animals don't, doesn't mean it is "higher." Animals don't smoke crack. Bad example; I guess that gets people higher. Animals don't create nuclear weapons, etc. Perhaps mysticism != sprituality, but certainly, spirituality == mysticism. ;P I'd say spirituality is one of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it. Matt Gerrans
-
i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists. so it would be silly of me to say "Could be God". and i think i've already explained my position on 'chance'; it's a surrender to ignorance. my position is this: we don't know, but if it is withing the realm of knowable things, someday we will know*. * : barring the premature demise of the human race, the sun-death of the solar system or the destruction of the universe itself. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists. so it would be silly of me to say "Could be God".
Then you're allowing your religion to determine your view on science. If you exclude the possbility of God without explicitly proving his nonexistence and involvement in the big bang, then you're just excluding a possible solution based entirely on religious beliefs and with no facts.
Chris Losinger wrote:
my position is this: we don't know, but if it is withing the realm of knowable things, someday we will know*.
Correction: Others will know (assuming that you're correct...because it assumes we're capable of knowing such things). You will be dead. And since you're an atheist, your soul won't be around to know either.
-
what does it say? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument[^] If the universe existed as a singularity at one point, and space and time did not exist, something would have had to occur (despite the lack of time) to cause the big bang. This event would have had to have causation and (as the theory goes) if there is neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor radiation, what could have caused this magnificant event. The answer: Something. What can possibly exist where there is no matter, time, space or energy that could prompt such an event? Therein lies the answer we seek and will probably never find. Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch" (as the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing) so that eliminates the universe itself as the causal element (in that it bangs, expands, then contracts to a point where the process repeats).
-
BS. First of all you don't know that (who are you to say there is no "spiritual" animal?), but that's moot. There are tons of intellectual things we do that animals don't, but you specifically said "Spirituality is actually one of the highest functions of the human mind." That doesn't have anything to do with what other animals can or can't do. Just because we do something that animals don't, doesn't mean it is "higher." Animals don't smoke crack. Bad example; I guess that gets people higher. Animals don't create nuclear weapons, etc. Perhaps mysticism != sprituality, but certainly, spirituality == mysticism. ;P I'd say spirituality is one of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it. Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
who are you to say there is no "spiritual" animal?
Name one.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
but you specifically said "Spirituality is actually one of the highest functions of the human mind." That doesn't have anything to do with what other animals can or can't do.
Actually Troposphere said that. I agreed because it is true. It does have to do with what other animals are capable of because we have many similarities and many advancements. Those advancements are higher orders of thought that the animal kingdon does not have (including things like abstract reasoning, mathematics and spiritual enlightenment).
Matt Gerrans wrote:
here are tons of intellectual things we do that animals don't
That wasn't mentioned. Just that spirituality is one of them.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Just because we do something that animals don't, doesn't mean it is "higher." Animals don't smoke crack. Bad example; I guess that gets people higher. Animals don't create nuclear weapons, etc.
Actually, experiments have been done with drugs (not crack) on baby monkeys. When given drugs, then offered the choice between drugs and food, they starved themselves.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Perhaps mysticism != sprituality, but certainly, spirituality == mysticism.
You have it backwards. Mysticism is a subset of spirituality (as in derived from) but spirituality is not mysticism. I think that's an intentionally screw-up of the definition on your part.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I'd say spirituality is on of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it.
Perhaps sometimes. But usually it's a lifelong attempt to understand the complexities of who we are.
-
Punt! Matt Gerrans
Heheh. Nah, it's not a punt. It just wasn't the answer you were looking for. If you're looking for an answer that follows the natural laws with our normal physical rules; one that seems logical to human finite knowledge, you're not going to get it: we know that if God does exist, he certainly isn't a part of the natural world and doesn't follow natural laws or even our concepts of time. Both of us can agree on that. Since we're both involved in software development assumingly, think of it in OO terms. :) Ha this will be goofy, but hey, it works. Your objects--due to your superior coding skill no doubt--became sentient and started asking where they came from. Speculating on whether they were created by a creator, one object asks the other, "but where did the creator come from? What compiler created him? Where did his code come from?" The answer is that the question itself is flawed because it assumes the creator is governed by laws governing the objects: static code, compilers and the like. Likewise, we cannot assume to know everything about the Creator by mere speculation or investigation of the natural world, because God is not part of the world, nor is God governed by the laws created for the world. With this bit of knowledge, it becomes clear that such a question that limits God to having to observe natural laws is based on a narrow, limited view of things. Like the objects trying to understand the developer, in order to even consider who God is, we have to expand our mind to think outside of the visible natural laws that limit us in our surroundings. Now whether the world and those laws were created by natural means (such as the big bang idea, goo-to-you evolution, etc.) or by supernatural means such as instant creation, that is up to debate. So what can we say about things we cannot fully understand? The question posed cannot be answered logically because it assumes linear time. Now, if you'd like to re-phrase the question in such a way that does not assume time or other natural laws, you might get an answer more easily comprehendible.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i don't believe it was God, because i don't believe such a thing exists. so it would be silly of me to say "Could be God".
Then you're allowing your religion to determine your view on science. If you exclude the possbility of God without explicitly proving his nonexistence and involvement in the big bang, then you're just excluding a possible solution based entirely on religious beliefs and with no facts.
Chris Losinger wrote:
my position is this: we don't know, but if it is withing the realm of knowable things, someday we will know*.
Correction: Others will know (assuming that you're correct...because it assumes we're capable of knowing such things). You will be dead. And since you're an atheist, your soul won't be around to know either.
espeir wrote:
Then you're allowing your religion to determine your view on science.
i have no religion. and no, not having a religion is not a religion, by the definitions of "not", "having" and "religion".
espeir wrote:
If you exclude the possbility of God without explicitly proving his nonexistence and involvement in the big bang, then you're just excluding a possible solution based entirely on religious beliefs and with no facts.
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at... yes, my lack of belief in a god of any kind prevents me from allowing that the Big Bang (or whatever the cause of the universe might have been) was god's work. why would i believe in what i don't believe in? if i'm proved wrong at some future date, that's fine. i'm willing to accept new evidence as it comes in. in other words: prove your God exists, and i'll consider him as a possible cause for my existence.
espeir wrote:
Others will know (assuming that you're correct...because it assumes we're capable of knowing such things). You will be dead
by "we", i meant the human species.
espeir wrote:
And since you're an atheist, your soul won't be around to know either.
my soul won't be around because i don't have one, not because i'm an atheist. :beer: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument[^] If the universe existed as a singularity at one point, and space and time did not exist, something would have had to occur (despite the lack of time) to cause the big bang. This event would have had to have causation and (as the theory goes) if there is neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor radiation, what could have caused this magnificant event. The answer: Something. What can possibly exist where there is no matter, time, space or energy that could prompt such an event? Therein lies the answer we seek and will probably never find. Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch" (as the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing) so that eliminates the universe itself as the causal element (in that it bangs, expands, then contracts to a point where the process repeats).
espeir wrote:
The answer: Something.
but that's not God.
espeir wrote:
Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch"
it's a good thing that theory wasn't in the Bible. people would be doggedly defending it for thousands of years despite all evidence to the contrary! ;) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Then you're allowing your religion to determine your view on science.
i have no religion. and no, not having a religion is not a religion, by the definitions of "not", "having" and "religion".
espeir wrote:
If you exclude the possbility of God without explicitly proving his nonexistence and involvement in the big bang, then you're just excluding a possible solution based entirely on religious beliefs and with no facts.
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at... yes, my lack of belief in a god of any kind prevents me from allowing that the Big Bang (or whatever the cause of the universe might have been) was god's work. why would i believe in what i don't believe in? if i'm proved wrong at some future date, that's fine. i'm willing to accept new evidence as it comes in. in other words: prove your God exists, and i'll consider him as a possible cause for my existence.
espeir wrote:
Others will know (assuming that you're correct...because it assumes we're capable of knowing such things). You will be dead
by "we", i meant the human species.
espeir wrote:
And since you're an atheist, your soul won't be around to know either.
my soul won't be around because i don't have one, not because i'm an atheist. :beer: Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i have no religion.
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at...
Clearly not. Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave. However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory. As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
Chris Losinger wrote:
by "we", i meant the human species.
You will no longer be a member of the club.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i have no religion.
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
Chris Losinger wrote:
you do realize that it's possible to replace the word "God" there with literally anything and have your statement mean exactly the same thing, right ? (especially if you're also going to insist that any belief system at all is a "religion"). in general, that means such a statement is meaningless. X + 5 = 10, for all X. but, to get at what i think you're getting at...
Clearly not. Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave. However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory. As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
Chris Losinger wrote:
by "we", i meant the human species.
You will no longer be a member of the club.
espeir wrote:
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
espeir wrote:
Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave.
care to elaborate?
espeir wrote:
However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory.
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
espeir wrote:
As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
i said no such thing. and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 16:59 Friday 17th March, 2006
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
God is not defined to be an old man with a beard. God is just the reason for our existance. God could be a being, the universe (Big Bang) or even we could be living things in God.
that bit sounds a lot like Deism. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
espeir wrote:
Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Atheism is a defined belief system and is therefore a religion.
call it what you like, but i still have no religion. and not even the mighty power of semantics can force one on me.
espeir wrote:
Your theorum does not hold up per the very example you gave.
care to elaborate?
espeir wrote:
However, God creating the universe is a possibly theory.
well, you're welcome to try to prove it. i suggest you prove the existence of God, first, because until then, it's a pretty shakey theory. if you can do that much, you'll add God to the list of things that science can consider. and you'll probably be more famous than Jesus - that's something to strive for, IMO. once you've proven God exists, i'll consider the origin of the universe in light of your new evidence. until then...
espeir wrote:
As you stated, you discount it merely because of your religious beliefs, which is contrary to scientific thought.
i said no such thing. and puh-leaze... you shouldn't be talking about what's "contrary to scientific thought", when you're trying to get me to consider the possibility that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being created the universe. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 16:59 Friday 17th March, 2006
Chris, It's kind of an odd conversation you and espeir are having. Just a couple of observations and questions: Observations/comments: 1. God's existence/non-existence is independent of anyone's belief/disbelief in God. Truth is independent and stands on its own. 2. If God does exist, then it's probable that he/she was involved in the creation of the universe. 3. We don't know everything yet, and it's quite possible that we'll discover information that will invalidate or partially invalidate our current theories about how the universe works. (Newton->Einstein->Qantum whatever) 4. As such, I would think it more reasonable to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't/refuse to believe". The effect on you is negligible or none at all, but the first seems more open minded than the latter. 5. I've never been to china, so I can't personally vouch for its existence. But other people have been there and I've seen pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve them. The same sort of reasoning can be used for the existence of God. You and I have never seen God, but others have. I choose to believe what I've heard. I don't know what you've heard. I have just one question: What would you accept as proof of God's existence?
-
espeir wrote:
The answer: Something.
but that's not God.
espeir wrote:
Note that physicists have recently discounted the previous Hawking theory of a "big crunch"
it's a good thing that theory wasn't in the Bible. people would be doggedly defending it for thousands of years despite all evidence to the contrary! ;) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
espeir wrote: The answer: Something. but that's not God.
How do you know?
-
BS. First of all you don't know that (who are you to say there is no "spiritual" animal?), but that's moot. There are tons of intellectual things we do that animals don't, but you specifically said "Spirituality is actually one of the highest functions of the human mind." That doesn't have anything to do with what other animals can or can't do. Just because we do something that animals don't, doesn't mean it is "higher." Animals don't smoke crack. Bad example; I guess that gets people higher. Animals don't create nuclear weapons, etc. Perhaps mysticism != sprituality, but certainly, spirituality == mysticism. ;P I'd say spirituality is one of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it. Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I'd say spirituality is on of the baser functions of the human mind. It seeks oversimplification and runs away from reality instead of seeking to understand it.
I think your view of spirituality is flawed. All of the people who I know who are spiritual are some of the most intelligent, most thoughtful, most reasoning people I know. Their spirituality causes them to seek understanding of everything around them.
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
explain the existence of God
"As Man now is God once was, as God is Man may become"
-
Chris, It's kind of an odd conversation you and espeir are having. Just a couple of observations and questions: Observations/comments: 1. God's existence/non-existence is independent of anyone's belief/disbelief in God. Truth is independent and stands on its own. 2. If God does exist, then it's probable that he/she was involved in the creation of the universe. 3. We don't know everything yet, and it's quite possible that we'll discover information that will invalidate or partially invalidate our current theories about how the universe works. (Newton->Einstein->Qantum whatever) 4. As such, I would think it more reasonable to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't/refuse to believe". The effect on you is negligible or none at all, but the first seems more open minded than the latter. 5. I've never been to china, so I can't personally vouch for its existence. But other people have been there and I've seen pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve them. The same sort of reasoning can be used for the existence of God. You and I have never seen God, but others have. I choose to believe what I've heard. I don't know what you've heard. I have just one question: What would you accept as proof of God's existence?
ahz wrote:
God's existence/non-existence is independent of anyone's belief/disbelief in God.
true. as is the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. would i be silly to give FSM credit for the creation of the universe?
ahz wrote:
If God does exist, then it's probable that he/she was involved in the creation of the universe.
we all know how "if" works. :)
ahz wrote:
We don't know everything yet, and it's quite possible...
of course. i've been saying that through the whole thread (or at least on another sub-thread of the same conversation). it's the main reason i don't need to resort to God Did It. currently-unknown natural explanations are more likely.
ahz wrote:
s such, I would think it more reasonable to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't/refuse to believe".
let's talk about the FSM again. would anyone question me, or think it was unacceptable, if i said i refused to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe ? why should this other myth get special treatment when it comes to scientific questions ?
ahz wrote:
You and I have never seen God, but others have.
others claim they have.
ahz wrote:
What would you accept as proof of God's existence?
i'm not sure. everything i'm thinking of could plausibly be the action of a natural being or force with powers we don't yet understand: big unexplained things acting on the earth - mountains moving, seas evaporating, mass levitation, you know - big miracle-y things. could just be a hostile alien playing with us. until natural explanations are ruled out, there's no proof of the super-natural. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Which Bible do you mean? Have you read it? All of it? Did you kill your goat today and sprinkle blood on both sides of the altar? Did you correctly remove the entrails before burning its head on the altar? No? Better go read up so you can get things right. Matt Gerrans
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
If you are serious, then you need an education in civility and what the grace of God, through the person of Jesus Christ, really means.
Wow, your arrogance is breathtaking. Who the hell do you think you are to preach? How dare you presume to tell other people what to believe and how to behave. It is you that needs an education and if you truly claim to represent your god then I pity that poor entity its choice of followers. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are to preach?
I don't suppose a verbal attack on a forum qualifies as preaching? ;P Maybe I'm naive to be tempted to group an expression of outrage together with trying to influence how people behave. :) Paul
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
espeir wrote: The answer: Something. but that's not God.
How do you know?
i was unclear. i meant: that Something does not automatically mean God. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker -- modified at 18:46 Friday 17th March, 2006