Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

if we're going to make up a supernatural being into existence simply because we can't understand why there's something instead of nothing, i think who created god and how should be addressed as well. shouldn't the infinite regress of time be applicable to god? "oh, well he exists outside of time" - isn't that just too easy?.

Indeed; it's never made sense to me that someone could be OK with saying "God always existed", but not OK with saying "the preconditions for the Big Bang always existed."  (What's the difference?)

Additionally, here are some fun links talking about recent theories wherein it is only the traditional 3+1 dimensional concept of space-time that stops during the Singularity.

[paradisel0st]

Nice information Quadz I find it quite interesting as well.

Reaper
is it really
necessary to continue
to type like this?

I don't understand how people get into such poor habbits. I'm going to have to make a special keyboard just for you minus the shift + enter key.

[reaper]

sorry paradise
i didn't mean too
hehe, alright, i will change my ways just for you

there it is again.. the god damn enter key!
oh well at least i'm trying anway. well dahang - lets not forget it's its all theory to begin with.

[DaHanG]

i will respond (with a response) when you have a decent format for your writing.

 

[reaper]

wasn't aware this was englishfest 2008
i think  i understand what you meant by respond

[Whirlingdervish]

the reason there is currently something instead of nothing, is that as long as time has existed ("real" time that we experience) there has been a large amount of something and between then (the begining of real time) and now, that something hasn't smacked into an anti-something of equal mass and been obliterated.

 

amazing, isn't it?

[quadz]

i like the investagation into things like multiple dimensions, it's interesting, and it shows belief in that we might not have a clear understanding of things

Well, er... Yes-and-no.

[reaper]

just because math helps predict how particles move, doesn't mean religion is wrong
i'd put more money on there being a personal god to man, than to any of these theories
equations, could just be.. equations. and there could be a lot more to things then some extra dimension
or how there might have been a big bang

i'm guessing of course.  but  so are the people that are saying, science has what it has figured out, and they can figure out why something came from nothing.  or it's more believable this happened, than a higher power.  and who's to say there isn't a personal god and something came from nothing

either way, reading about the universe is pretty neat : )

but as far as  taking some of these scientists philosophies, i'd rather think for myself.  this hawkings guy lost a lot of his credibility with me, when he started talking about global warming as if it existed as a fact

[DaHanG]

just because math helps predict how particles move, doesn't mean religion is wrong

strange interpretation. i think we all know reason disproves religion, not math.

i'd put more money on there being a personal god to man

please state why you would put money on that.

[Whirlingdervish]

I think you may be looking for answers to your questions in the wrong place, if you think that science can define the conditions prior to the big bang with certainty. I don't know of a physicist worth their salt, who would make that argument.

the reasons being (Hawkings mentions this in A Brief History of Time)

1: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory... Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory."

2: No observations can be made that can provide any amount of certainty as to the conditions prior to the universe's inception because prior to this point in history, there was no recordable time and none of the 3 dimensions of the physical universe existed. Therefore things that happened before time existed are beyond of the ability of scientists (and science) to record, test, measure or observe. Without these inputs, no theory can be formed, much less tested to be in accordance with observations or predictions.


note: #2 is a paraphrase by me, not Stephen Hawkings' actual words.

[reaper]

I think you may be looking for answers to your questions in the wrong place, if you think that science can define the conditions prior to the big bang with certainty

i'm obviously not a physicist, but from reading i gather:
there' s many theories in place as

[DaHanG]

ill respond once there's a normal writing effort.

[QuakeDuke]

ill respond once there's a normal writing effort.

I suppose that now before we continue, we must define normal writing effort......

QD

[DaHanG]

not if you use a little brain power (something religious people tend to not use). clearly, reaper's 3rd grade writing format is unacceptable.

DHG

[reaper]

your crazy
i'm not going to to edit my post again, i had to fix a lot of mispelling to begin with. nor go  back and see if i responded properly to the converstation, it was close enough

you responded with one setenace that didn't make sense. and you show me a 3rd grader who can write like that, and i'll show you a 3rd grader who's gonna be a rich mother fucker