Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang
Written by Nancy Atkinson
What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, "There is no such thing as 'before the Big Bang.'" That's the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, "We just don't know." Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be. Carroll discussed this type of "speculative research" during a talk at the American Astronomical Society Meeting last week in St. Louis, Missouri.
"This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist," Carroll said. "We are both blessed and cursed. It's a golden age, but the problem is that the model we have of the universe makes no sense."
First, there's an inventory problem, where 95% of the universe is unaccounted for. Cosmologists seemingly have solved that problem by concocting dark matter and dark energy. But because we have "created" matter to fit the data doesn't mean we understand the nature of the universe.
Another big surprise about our universe comes from actual data from the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) spacecraft which has been studying the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) the "echo" of the Big Bang.
"The WMAP snapshot of how the early universe looked shows it to be hot, dense and smooth [low entropy] over a wide region of space," said Carroll. "We don't understand why that is the case. That's an even bigger surprise than the inventory problem. Our universe just doesn't look natural." Carroll said states of low-entropy are rare, plus of all the possible initial conditions that could have evolved into a universe like ours, the overwhelming majority have much higher entropy, not lower.
But the single most surprising phenomenon about the universe, said Carroll, is that things change. And it all happens in a consistent direction from past to future, throughout the universe.
"It's called the arrow of time," said Carroll. This arrow of time comes from the second law of thermodynamics, which invokes entropy. The law states that invariably, closed systems move from order to disorder over time. This law is fundamental to physics and astronomy.
One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? "And low entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time" said Carroll. "Life and death, memory, the flow of time." Events happen in order and can't be reversed.
"Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you're doing observational cosmology," Carroll said.
Therefore, in order to answer our questions about the universe and the arrow of time, we might need to consider what happened before the Big Bang.
Carroll insisted these are important issues to think about. "This is not just recreational theology," he said. "We want a story of the universe that makes sense. When we have things that seem surprising, we look for an underlying mechanism that makes what was a puzzle understandable. The low entropy universe is clue to something and we should work to find it."
Right now we don't have a good model of the universe, and current theories don't answer the questions. Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can't prove anything until after the Big Bang.
Inflation theory, which proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments, is no help, Carroll said. "It just makes the entropy problem worse. Inflation requires a theory of initial conditions."
There are other models out there, too, but Carroll proposed, and seemed to favor the idea of multi-universes that keep creating "baby" universes. "Our observable universe might not be the whole story," he said. "If we are part of a bigger multiverse, there is no maximal-entropy equilibrium state and entropy is produced via creation of universes like our own."
Carroll also discussed new research he and a team of physicists have done, looking at, again, results from WMAP. Carroll and his team say the data shows the universe is "lopsided."
Measurements from WMAP show that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.
An explanation for this "heavy-on-one-side universe" would be if these fluctuations represented a structure left over from the universe that produced our universe.
Carroll said all of this would be helped by a better understanding of quantum gravity. "Quantum fluctuations can produce new universes. If thermal fluctuation in a quiet space can lead to baby universes, they would have their own entropy and could go on creating universes."
Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. "None of this is firmly established stuff," he said. "I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I'll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we've figured it all out."
Admittedly, as writer, trying to encapsulate Carroll's talk and ideas into a short article surely doesn't do them justice. Check out Carroll's take on these notions and more at his blog, Cosmic Variance. Also, read a great summary of Carroll's talk, written by Chris Lintott for the BBC. I've been mulling over Carroll's talk for more than a week now, and contemplating the beginnings of time — and even that there might be time before time — has made for an interesting and captivating week. Whether that time has brought me forward or backward in my understanding remains to be seen!
Filed under: Cosmology
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
So, what's with the funny emails?
Hard to believe, an article in here that actually begins with the word "speculative." You all must have turned over a new leaf!
June 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
so basically the article is about a bunch of 'scientists' whining that the model of the universe they have invented doesn't make sense. Of course it isn't going to make sense when you abandon the natural and true idea of God. They struggle and struggle when the answer is right there.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
This is what I love about Astronomy! Just wondering and investigating, then wondering even more!
June 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
"Events happen in order and can't be reversed."
Doesn't that directly contradict the quantum mechanical principle of unitarity? I think this goes to show that the contradictions between our "theory of large stuff" and our "theory of small stuff" are not confined to extreme cases, but instead produce many irreconcilable inconsistencies in the interpretation of fairly simple observations.
There's a difference between forming a scientific hypothesis which simply lacks support as yet, and forming a philosophical speculation that's incapable of being established even circumstantially. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, but it's not consubstantial with science and shouldn't be treated as such. I'm not saying that this crosses the line, it's just something to be aware of and cautious for. I take a fairly sharp view of the distinction (perhaps because I'm an absolutist), but I'd say that science can't really say anything about the beginning of time or ascribe it any properties other than existence or non-existence because it lacks a cause. We should confine ourselves to making statements about what follows from it.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The universe is expanding because when it was created a huge amount of anti-matter and regular matter annihilated each-other, producing incredibly rapid expansion and hurling the remaining matter away from the center of the universe at relativistic speeds.
Entropy increases because our universe only experiences time unidirectionally.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I have no data, nor have I attempted to try any experiments… But I have been drunk a few times, and I think it is possible that the Big Bang was created from the "other side" of a super massive black hole that 'ate' -it is my understanding that they break everything down to at least the atomic level- for billions (if not more) years, then finally reached a critical mass and exploded (out the other side) to create the universe as we know it. And I will go a step further and say this is probably commonplace with countless other "universes" out there. Although I believe there can be only one universe and all of the other 'universes' are part of it.
Just a thought..
June 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
OOPS.. Sub-atomic…
MegaChrist – Are you here just to piss people off, or trying to convert them… Or perhaps just to stimulate debate?
June 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
MegaChrist, what an awesome name, Im going to say that whenever something shocks me from now on.
I dont see why anyone would logically choose to believe in god. It seems so self-indulgent to think that because that which cannot be explained, however, seems like it can by a method that feels like it makes sense. Aside from that being sloppy science, personally how can that ever be fulfilling? To believe in anything as if that belief somehow stood for a truth beyond the desire to think it so? I would not be able to live inside myself and impose my imagination on a universe that was beyond that size, at least not willingly.
This isnt an attack on those who believe in the idea of a god, but a miscomunication from my end with the process that makes such a thing simple for others.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
So why, pray tell, did God make the universe lopsided, mr Megachrist?
And no, "he works in mysterious ways" is not an acceptable answer.
June 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I wonder why MegaChrist is visiting this blog (other than provocation). When he really believes that God is the answer for everything, and that there is no need for searching how things work, because it is God is the answer for everything, then there is no need for astronomy, physics, mathematics, biology, medicine, … or any other science. We all should better turn into theologists, and only study the Bible instead. With this attitude we would be still in the Stone Age, or better told on the trees – arrgh I forgot that Evolution is the wrong theory too! We all came from the apple sin in fact. Or was it the snake who fertilized Eve?
June 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
MegaChrist knows what he is talking about and the rest of you punks don't. 2012 is coming 53 representing!!!
June 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
53 you heard me he is right and the rest of you are high school dropouts!
June 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
If you got a problem with MegaChrist you got a problem with me! And if you don't believe in God well then how do you suppose the universe came to be? And don't say "we're working on it."
June 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
OK Mr Mars, and Mr MegaChrist, I sincerely hope at least one of you is kidding around.
God is the only answer!
"I have a cold" – "God!"
"Gas is over $4 a gallon" – "God"
"I'm bored on a Friday night" – "God!"
So, the end is neigh! Really ?!? REALLY?!? And it's all Gods will, huh? There are so many good arguments logically tackling that – but its a futility of effort, some people just do not want to talk.
Look, how many apocalypse predictions have there ever been – for thousands of years people have started cults, religions, hell, wars over jsut that. Haven't panned out though – we're still here writing comments on Universe Today.
However, I am 100% positive that when that real killer asteroid (or gamma ray blast, or rogue brown dwarf hits, or really bad ocean methane fart) hits, some A-Hole is going to claim it matched some crap that some other self important A-Hole saw in a moment of religious ecstasy. I mean statistically speaking someone is going to say the Earth will end that particular day!
However, until that day, why spend our time arguing about irrelevant non-measurable things like gods – or if we do to leave that at the door of philosophers and not encumber science.
If you would just open your eyes, you will see that there are so many things going on, here in this measurable universe – we know so little about. Every layer we go deeper we uncover more mysteries to explore.
Our only hope as a species, perhaps the only hope for life on Earth (or from Earth) is to always push out to understand more, expand – like a bacterial colony [sic] to the end of time…
Whatever… it is funny how in the analysis of the origins of the universe people cannot help but come into conflict with individuals rigid religious dogmas.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I could be wrong, but didn't some guy say we were going to be in a nuclear war yesterday?…. I can only imagine what his followers are thinking today… Or what his sermon will sound like tomorrow..
June 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Exactly!
My only fear is that someday some nut is going to predict the end of the world – and have the means to effect it!
Such is the tenuous nature of life… c'est la vie!
June 13th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Dear Mega Christ and others please take your discussion to your Christian science fair where all questions are taken care of to your liking. It is great that you have the answers to everything but some people like the one that enjoy reading this blog might prefer things to be a bit more complex. And before you write anything else please tell us that you at least know what "entropy" means.
Otherwise I do like the black hole idea – even though it's rather science fiction (for now).
June 13th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I find question concerning times arrow, entropy and the association between entropy and information very interesting.
I speculate as follows:
Viewing the universe as the ultimate information processor and invoking Landauer’s Principle, if entropy is at a minimum at the instant of the “big bangâ€, information is a maximum at that instant. If the universe then evolves towards a point where eventually entropy reaches a maximum value (near infinite) then the universes information content evolves towards zero.
If I make the assumption that “information†may be equated in some way with “existenceâ€. I.e. For an entity to exist, that entity must be associated with information: otherwise we have no way of knowing that it exists. An entity that contains zero information then cannot exist. Thus the universe could be said to evolve from a state of “maximum existence†towards a state of “non-existenceâ€, (similar to evolution from a low entropy state to a high entropy state implying a relationship between time and increasing entropy). This appears to be similar to the evolution of a virtual particle, with time a variable used to describe the evolution of the wave function from creation to destruction.
According to Landauer for a computational operation in which 1 bit of logical information is lost, the amount of entropy generated is at least k ln 2, and so the energy that must eventually be emitted to the environment is E ≥ kT ln 2. (I posit that the environment here is the spacetime that the universe inhabits as a “virtual entityâ€.) However, if I make the usual assumption that the total energy of the universe is zero at every instant it cannot emit energy into its environment, and information cannot be lost implying entropy cannot be increasing! – (If total energy is non zero, conservation of energy would not apply: if energy can magically appear at the big bang, then why not anytime?)
This speculation would seem to indicate that either; the total energy of the universe is non zero; that Landauer’s Principle cannot be applied to the universe (and hence the universe is not a “computing machineâ€); or that time cannot be associated with increasing entropy!
It would seem likely that I have made some fundamental error in reasoning here and would appreciate enlightening comment.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
ScepticTim –
Sorry… I probably can't enlighten you or provide an enlightening comment………. What???
So….. If possible…. In one or two paragraphs, … What happened before the Big Bang?
June 13th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
MegaChrist seems to be comfortable with a very small God — most of us aren't. That said, "I don't know" and "we don't know" can often be more productive, scientifically speaking, than any version of "We have all the answers." It's good to see cosmologists beginning to explore and publicly report on aspects of their field of study that we really don't know much about, however strange and vexing these may be. This is how we grow up, culturally and scientifically, and come to fit a much larger universe than the one we knew as children. No God worth His salt would dislike that.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Whenever a Christ and an Anti-Christ get together and shake hands, it always results in a mega-christ annihilation which thereby creates a new universe. I guess there was just more Christs involved than Anti-Christs involved at that seminar and so you see the one came out on top
June 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Its True, that we have not yet proved the existence of God. It is also True, that God is not yet disapproved.
Absence of Evidence doesn't mean Evidence of Absence.
A few decades ago, majority of scientific community believed in steady-state theory, which is now discarded to let in the Big Bang theory.
But, even the Big Bang theory is not the ultimate answer. A new theory might be on its way to help us discard the widely accepted one.
Let me give an analogy here with Expanding Universe.
Our Earth, 3 rd planet from the Sun is one among the total 8 planets. We have the means to see all these planets. Accept Uranus and Neptune, all of them are visible through naked eyes. Yes, even on a clear moon less night, lucky ones would spot Uranus too. I have not calculated, but, there would surely be a range of period, in which, if observed, all the planets would be seen as distancing from Earth. Even the Sun would appear to be going away, even the Moon. This period could be as small as 1 hour or as big as 1 week. May be bigger or smaller than what I said.
I am closing with this for you guys to think.
Hemal
June 13th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Insisting that 'God' created the Universe has at least 2 major problems:
(1) It merely defers the question of how the Universe started, to how did this 'God' come into being. Saying that this 'God' always existed does not help – as one could say that the Universe has always existed in some form.
(2) No useful theory has been put forward on how this 'God' created the Universe.
Hence saying that 'God' did it, does not solve the problem of how everything started. Postulating the existence of some kind of 'God' is an unnecessary complication.
It is possible that our notion of time is only an approximation, and that the Universe no more had a beginning than a circle has a starting point, or trying to find where North of North is!
June 13th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
"This is an interesting time to be a cosmologist," —–
Nancy… I wish I was a cosmologist… It would always be interesting…. Tell Sean I said so..
June 13th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hehehe, the evolution of emoticons…. I guess there are about 3 missing links in my model, which proves I'm God!
June 14th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Mega Infidel, I don't how a light bulb works so it must the work of a magical god. Using god for all answers is just plain laziness. Some people actually want to know how things work and fairies god's whatever is not the answer.
I seen somewhere in the bible that the earth is only 4000 years old, Please explain that! Knowledge is the enemy of religion.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I'm no conquerer of ignorance, in fact I'm quite ravaged by it, but I wonder why people don't see religion as inferior intelligence. For example trying to cut down a tree with a knife, they have much more efficient means of accomplishing that now (chainsaws), so isn't science the progressing intelligence of existence, making religion a failed hypothesis? Does anyone honestly think that people back then had the capacity to confirm their assumptions? I think the people who created religion as a means to tame people, pooped behind bushes. It seems to me they just didn't have the technology to comprehend the world around them so they came up with whatever might comfort those best to deal with death and keep everyone from running amuck. Could it be the religious creators we just mere children in the evolution of intelligence? It seems obvious to me…
I'm not hating on religion I just see it as nothing more than wishful thinking and an out of date idea…
so maybe this point we are at now is another stage of understanding, trial and error. Its good to have options, process of elimination will eventually find the answer so long as there are minds hungry enough for it.
For those who still cling to religion, I think they're just affraid to abanndon their belief for the fear of being ignorant, or maybe they just don't want to accept the end and have to rely on the after life to console their anxiety.
These new ideas are just the next step to the answer, there can only be so many ideas and with the race for it growing ever faster, eventually someone will find the evidence to solidify one of these hypothesis. That's life, understanding, and there's plenty of it. I don't know the inner workings of the big bang, but it makes me think, and gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart to appreciate the actual fact of being aware of such important information. Its nice to be informed, so thanks for this mind opening discussion, I have certainly enjoyed absorbing all this and sorting it out in the logical file cabinet. Aren't we all just like the kid that keeps asking why. Why? Because its human nature. That's all I know. Thanks for enduring my ramblings, I feel better now. Good luck in life everyone :-j
June 14th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Current cosmology is a house of cards, just need to wait long enough to see which card knocks it over this time…
We really need the scientific community to be open to alternate cosmology theories as the ones we currently have are filled with even more gaping holes than AGW is (and AGW is the swiss cheese of science right now).
James
June 14th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Oh my, it seems I've found an entire conclave of humanity on the internet that has never heard of trolling. Some troll has apparently discovered this world wide web exoplanet before I have, and even figured out all the right buttons to push. An entire conversation has been derailed in an unproductive and monotonous direction by an unconvincing caricature of the religious fanatic designed to play on the prejudices of its participants.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Megachrist & Mars: U people are a joke. But perhaps you can inspire some discussion on "The Origin of God". Who or what made him/her/it? How did he/she/it come about? Where does he/she/it live?
June 14th, 2008 at 7:22 am
I think God was created by the Spaghetti Flying Monster.
And going back to the topic of the Big Bang, there is some interesting reading about other problems than just those mentioned in this article. Check it out here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
June 14th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Instead of hammering out all of your misspent frustrations out on megachrist maybe you could come up with a reasonable argument.My question to you all is Why is God not real?
Because you cant "observe" him.?
The same things can be said of a black hole and yet you believe they exist.
The same as well can be said of God we can't directly see him but his interactions with those things around him can be observed like gravity if you will pulling at those that believe.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I like how Hemal thinks. I also believe that a new theory will show it's head soon. A better one too, this one is just to complicated. Sorta like Einstein said, science should come out to be simple.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
LLDIAZ: Nobody is disputing here whether God is real or not. That's just a question of definition. If you tell me God is what others understand under physical laws, or nature, then I am all right with its existence. If you tell me it is some intelligent being, then I have my doubts about it, but quietly let you believing in it.
What upsets me though is when someone tells we should stop looking for answers how things work, because we already have the answer: it is God who controls it all!
June 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am
"I completely agree",
belief should be personal not something shoved into everyone's face as the answer to all our problems when obviously the problems themselves were not brought on by God but by man himself.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
LLDIAZ
Why should belief be personal? More specifically, why should belief have anything to do with our choices or thoughts? There is what seems to make sense by inference, deduction, authority, wild speculation etc. and what we cannot know.
Believing one thing or another is like putting money down on a bet that in a fight your boxer is going to win. Now lets say religion is your motivation and by higher authority you believe that your fighter has the edge to win. Another person puts down a bet on the other fighter and their, lets say more scientific choice, is made by examining the training regiment, diet, technique, and scores of past matches for their fighter.
So we have two different positions held by two different people rooting for two different ideas which may or may not support a champion among the other, but yet each person believes in what they have chosen because they agree with why they have chosen.
It is a step of faith that puts an artificial claim on what is speculated or hypthesized to happen based on one manner of obtaining information over another.
My point is in saying that there is no need to hedge a bet period. Let our work be our work, and our choices make sense, and be held to scrutiny, but have a belief in the outcome be irrelevant.
This is not to say that one person in reflection of their choice should not be able to say "it would make sense for my fighter to win based on these and these reasons," but to have that person say "I believe that person will win because of these and these reasons" is unecessary.
There is a difference between the two affirmations, and one that I believe <-(j/k), I think makes sense.
Additionally the whole subject of understanding what existed before the universe is genuinely frustrating because the answer never satisfies the reason for the question.
The reason for the question is due to human beings not being capable of understanding the idea of infinity. We think of it as existing, but we cannot understand the experience of what that reality is really like. This means that no matter what the answer is to the question of how the universe started and how whatever started that will never be wholly satisfying because it never ends.
We will never get to a point where we can breathe a sigh of relief and say ahhh this is where it all started. Our existence, this existence of everything does not have a homeland. New things start and evolve but it appears that things are always there. If you look at science or religion that is what you get.
A person in religion might say that God was the beginning but then that again does not satisfy anything other than how we or this universe or our experience of time arrived here. What about God's beginning, because God's beginning becomes the more intriguing issue. The only answer then is that God is Infinite, but that satisfies not our curiosity in the manner of know how.
Ideas presented here of universes creating other baby universes might explain how this universe came to be, but it again does nothing to satisfy the reason for searching. We need a beginning otherwise we dont know what to think, because we cannot think in infinity, it goes past our reasoning. I am not saying we dont accept infinity, we accept that numbers go on forever, I am saying that when it comes to an issue of understanding something based on a motivation that is as innate and internal as human curiosity, that drive will not be fulfilled until some form of linearity is discovered.
Its the same reason why great literature is defined by a beginning middle and an end. We are simply imposing our own sense of self onto the universe with everything we create, defined not by what we create as much as how we create.
As long as we can search we will search. We searched for the answer to how the universe came into existence. Religion has found one and science has found one. Its only due to the methods and nature of science that their answer is likely to change as we learn more, and as science one day starts to see that their is a way of discovering what happened prior to the big bang it will investigate that, because we are looking for a beginning, that might not be there, but it appears to be our calling to find a starting point as this satisfies the dimensional structure of our minds capabilities and needs.
More importantly I dont know why I just flooded this comments page with all of my unecessary diatribe.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Before the Big Bang there was no time right?
You need "time" to think and without time you can't think about whats before…so dont think about it
June 14th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
RY
Maybe u should've read my post, its plain and simple, religion is mere childish superstition. Look into your rationale, these people who created the concept of religion were only a few steps above cavemen so how could their outrageous claims hold any water? Its not a matter of proving or dissproving god, its a matter of logical reasoning, there is no god and no one will ever discover that there is. U notice there's no religious investigation to determine if there is or not? That's because the people who have any college education have better things to do, like attaining facts about the world around us or us around the world. Just because a book was written thousands of years ago doesn't mean that they we able to witness this wrath of "god." I mean seriously I don't know how any reasonably intelligent person could even consider religion to have any truths whatso ever. The drawings these people would make of gods we only shooting stars when they saw them, the plauges were acts of nature, not god. These people were just terrible scientists, all they had was observation and preception, no tools or calculations to figure things out, they just used their imagination (very poorly I might ad).
Relying on religion is like relying on a 5 year old to do your math homework, it just doesn't make sense…
June 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Seriously people, the comments on this article are mostly directed towards a few cranks who posted than the article itself.
Unless they show any real power over us or the world, treat them like you would any street corner doomsayer and walk on by.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
At least to me, singularities of any kind in nature is a no no. Specially the big bang singularity. Some thing out of nothing bothers me.
I give a hint of my version before and after the big bang at
cosmicdarkmatter.com
Nature abhors infinities.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Ok everyone! Back to the "time before the big bang" thoughts. Let's set aside algorithms and paradigms for a moment and set our minds adrift. Let's think what if the void occupied by what we call the observable universe always existed. And maybe the "big bang" was nothing more than some unknown form of energy being slowly or maybe quickly converted into a visible form of matter by some mysterious mechanism. Remember? Energy equals matter. Matter equals energy. And just maybe this theoretical "conversion" continues today and we simply can't see it because we are viewing it on a time and space scale we haven't recognized. This theoretical conversion could be no more complex than the analogy of atmospheric moisture condensing into the equivalent of clouds on earth. If the "big bang" were about this simple, it could explain the choatic jumble of everything we see in the observable universe including "blue shifted" galaxies. In an expanding universe, what could be driving "blue" galaxies toward us? Why couldn't the observable universe be an infinitely small sphere in a boundless void. The boundary radius of this sphere might about 13.7 billion or so light years or to the "red shift one" limit for an observer. The observer would always be central in this sphere. Beyond this "red one" limit there just might be more of the same universe or nothing ad infinitum. This "nothing" before the "big bang" may be the void containing all we can imagine. An empty boundless void doesn't appear to have any meaning unless some form of energy existed in the void before the birth of all we see.
June 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I wonder if any of you have ever heard of "The Big Splat" theory before. These observations seem to be in line.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Why is everyone worried about the way I do things?
If you think you can create a nice fully accountable evenly distributed universe, go right ahead.
Ever heard of ART? Hello!?!?
I was being creative! That is why you call me the Creator, right?
I swear to Me, If you keep complaining, I'm just gonna hit the UNDO button. Lets's see what kind of "theories of everything" you can come up with then!
June 14th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
It is pointless to seek answers to questions we are not yet ready to answer.When we do find the answers to the questions "who,what,when,how was the universe created"then what?Will this knowledge save us or destroy us or simply satisfy our curiosity until the next craving.We should try to answer questions that are more down to earth because thats were the real action is.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Rusty , I reckon you are spot on with your analysis of religion.
Megachrist excellent thread hijack …kudos , now eff off.
June 15th, 2008 at 4:05 am
God is not a answer for logical arguments… but He is a need for a human life… we have been created like this.
why do u believe in moral laws? do you have philosophical or logical answer?
if u say: moral is a habbit, then you are not a human but an animal… and if you say i feel moral laws in my heart, then you are a HUMAN…
1- BELEIVEING IN GOD IS A MORAL LAW, NOT A NECESSITY OF LOGICAL REASON!
2- if u have a fix reason for any thing in the world without doubt, then you can unbeleive in God. there is nothig in the world with a fix and undoubtable reason…
June 15th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Time before the big bang raises several questions. Its hard for me to wrap my mind around reality with the perspective of being on the inside looking out. I don't know if there was time before the big bang, space/time seems to be a fabric, a fabric unraveled as the big bang occured and continues to unravel. I find it remarkable that humans have managed to get this far, to be able to branch out of survivalist intelligence. Its sad to think that we could've ended up hunting to survive and that's it, so maybe we should all appreciate the information we do have and cherish the opportunity to be in such a technological boom. Although gabriel u make a good point, I would much rather see efforts going towards curing illness and overwhelming the bad things that are here on earth instead of scanning the universe, it is none the less intriguing.
Humans are something else, it is great to wonder how we got here and what allowed us this existence, but it should be of higher concern to find the best ways to keep us here in this paradise we often take for granted. I hope that through an understanding of the universe we find ways to save ourselves from whatever random coincidence may be lying in wait to derail our train ride on the reality railroad. After all it does seem that random coincidence created the conditions we are fortunate enough to thrive in today and it could just as easily be taken away by chance.
I enjoy seeing questions push our brains to the limit, trying to see beyond our existence into the formation of that pre existence or how it came to be. Its like seeing our universe on a blank page, where did the page come from? What does it consist of? Scientists just don't know yet and I can tell the suspense is killing everyone. We all want to know, to not be ignorant, to be informed, to have all the pieces of the puzzle, to find closure. We have clumps of connected pieces but a border hasnt even been established and until it is, the rest of the information just sort of floats around, something like us…
I'm not very smart but I'm aware of life, its a lottery we have all won. Time is our grand prize, and how we choose to spend these winnings is critical. So far we have made progress and I'm optimistic, I just wish that everyone could have that point of view. Go science.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:11 am
I believe the universe created god.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:02 am
To think or argue that this area of space/time we call the "universe" is the ONLY universe in all of Infinity is akin to similar false "terra-centric" or "helio-centric" arguments of bronze-age shamins and the theologically driven aguments of the middle ages.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Jason,
I think that idea makes more sense than the reverse. Only because naturally I could write you a book on my understanding of the ways in which humans created God, but to devise an explanation for the opposite is beyond my capabilities.
Rusty,
I agree with what you said about religion and its believers though it sounds a little harsh, as they would be the butt of a giant joke of ignorance.
I will be progressively curious to see how first would countries evolve, religiously, in the next 50 years. I think the UK has a percentage of 60% athiest, which in no way is unreasonable, yet still quite astounding.
As time goes on and the general public becomes more educated, and the norm becomes to think critically, what will the advantage of religion be reduced to? I already see its positive values being flaunted like a new bracelet by the modern, so-called "lazy christians."
Religion is already starting to become a tradition more than it is a faith or conviction in ones life. Though at the same time, living in my own first world country in the western part of the world, I think about how the vast majority of people on this earth are religious. Yet we ignore their opinion because we hold our culture as dominant, as demonstrated by our technology and our ideals. Of course it is those ideals in which the arguement over who is superior is found.
If someone showed me a picture of a man riding a camel, and a man driving an automobile and asked me which one believes in God, my answer would be simple. Where only half the time would the man driving the automobile also believe.
Ok I should really stop talking now.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
"so basically the article is about a bunch of 'scientists' whining that the model of the universe they have invented doesn't make sense. Of course it isn't going to make sense when you abandon the natural and true idea of God. They struggle and struggle when the answer is right there."
Even a cursory look at Quantum Physics shows that the Universe isn't required to 'make sense' to humans, yet we use devices based on quantum phenomena, every day.
It's intellectually lazy to invoke direct divine explanations, just because you can't think of anything else.
Neither God nor the Universe promised the search for knowledge would be easy.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It's me again and I apologize for my religious talk. I came to talk science. I also came to my senses and decided to part with MegaChrist's central idea. I realized that he is misleading and his thoughts should be kept to himself. People have traveled great technological distances and should be respected. They sweat blood and bled their brain coming up with ideas and theories. You are all correct, science should be taken advantage of. You are also bias and close minded. Lets talk science. I want everyone of you to remember when you were in a state of non-existance. You cannot remember can you? Were you with God and once you were born he removed your memory? Were you floating in space? Were you living another life as another person or animal? Were you non-existant? How can you not exist? Is it possible that when you die that you will go back into that state of not remembering anything? Of total nothing. This is great and good but it brings up more questions. What then is the purpose of us living if we are going to just die and not remember anything? Why do we live useless lives? What good comes from us living? We are just useless and really don't need to live at all. And that's truth. Now do you understand MegaChrist's belief? He has simply driven himself insane with questions that he can't answer. People are people and that's all. They don't have superpowers. If you can believe that John Adams was the second president then you should be a little more open minded because you or anyone alive today can't prove if most of he presidents even existed. "Oh… there's official documents and it's proven." Shut up! You don't know. You weren't alive then so there is no way that you would know that. You simply just trust what other people say in the same way that MegaChrist trusts what the Bible says. So stop rejecting God. He is very complex in the same way science is. Every answer doesn't have to be science. Some could be, I'm not bias. Many of you are and need to be slapped. "Oh… I'm going to wait for science, I'm going to wait for some self taught human to come up with intellectual sounding answers and explanations so I can feed off of his every word. If you want to find out about the secrets of the universe, stop debating, stop speculating and just wait to die. Dying will reveal everything.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:45 am
When I started asking the "why" questions in church at the age of 9 or 10 is when I began to realize even back then that people were arguing about and killing each other for thousands of years over whose imaginary friend was better or more powerful or whatever.
Too bad I can't go back in time about 25,000 years and introduce the concept of science. The ancient people that worshipped nature at least were worshipping something they could SEE and TOUCH and effected them everyday physically!!! Makes a lot more sense.
There's been an awful lot of wasted time, lives and money under the banner – my God is better than your God!! It sounds just as childish now as it did then.
The SCIENCE of proof is the only thing that matters.
And by the way – December 21st, 2012, is simply the end of one Mayan calendar epoch, December 22nd starts the next one and it continues on for about 25 thousand more years. Look it up!
That doomsday crap was dreamt up in the 19th century by some idiot that wanted to fill seats in his church. He was a genius cuz WE ALL FELL FOR IT!
DOH!!!
WE'VE BEEN HAD!!!!! : )
Life is far too short to crowd your days with crap…….
June 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Mr Rusty Shackleford,
Elegantly written and right on the money in a politically correct manner! Now can we please get back to the real reason we enjoy this site and talk about science and the really cool stuff… like how close Pheonix is to answering the water on Mars question?
People are really going to lose their minds when proof of life is found out there, and it won't be long either.
We are living in the best Age of Discovery ever known to humans – The least we could do is take advantage of it and ENJOY the hard work these people are doing!!!!!!!
Think about how many active robotic probes we have in space right now doing incredible – cutting edge SCIENCE…. We have SIX at Mars right now, that is RESLLY COOL stuff!
I have had a difficult time with "the singularity", the something from nothing then – "BANG" thing, but I do believe that something HAD to exist to create or initiate the "big Bang".
After you wrap your brain around the initial bang – the theory makes more sense than anything else we've gotten so far.
Now that we are able to see so far back in time that there is very little to see in Space optically, it's just a matter of time before we discover what existed as the density of the Universe began to thin and expand. It will be found from radio wave lengths – I just hope it is discovered while I'm alive !!!!
I never held a belief about religion one way or the other until I talked to a guy once that held a rabid belief that the Bible was historical LAW and disrespectfully demanded that the Earth was exactly 8 thousand years old!! Granted, he was expressing what he was taught and believed in growing up, but there are always alternative theories that are possible, he just refused to even give them a thought. I found that to be really strange, not to mention self-defeating.
I laughed and said "yeah and it was created at 10 o'clock on a Thursday morning….. in October ! That's what was actually believed in the early 19th century. I'd like to think we've evolved beyond that by now.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Normally I don’t get into these issues on commenting on God and science, because the truth is, as it says in the Bible, “Love thy Neighborâ€, I choose to just allow those around me believe what they believe. This time, however, it is an interesting event where there are such starch perspectives on either side, and few comments have hit any middle ground. So I feel that I should comment and add my two or three pennies; for what they’re worth.
First, let me say, that I know little about science, at least in relative perspective in regards to present company, and when it comes to the concept of God, well what I “know†is what I know, and that can be evaluated from various different angles as to how much I know from those who care to question.
So on with my topic. The key to it is this, and I like what someone said here which in effect said that everything has a theory until there is another new theory that comes along or a law is established. I would agree with this and my key is that all things being equal God and science are just that, equal. For anyone, either scientist or “believerâ€, to say that God does not exist, or that science is lying seems so very unscientific and so very Un-Believer. And here’s why…
If a scientist comes to a “believer†and says, “God does not exist.†Then I would believe that it is safe to say that this scientist isn’t exactly following the laws on which science is founded. The theory of God is just that…a theory. For those of us who believe, we have seen the facts and believe. Those who do not have yet to see the facts. The same could be said for the above article. The interviewee talked about Multi-Verses and Parent Universes. This is speculation, but he believes that it is possible, so he mentions it. When a “believer come to you and says, ‘I believe in God’ then as a scientist, open your mind past you know and start learning, even when you think you know it all. For the scientists out there, you know better than I that the Universe is extremely mysterious and there are many theories that I have yet to be able to rap my head around. The same could be said for God. Perhaps you don’t have it all.
Now, for a believer to not believe in Science is somewhat beyond me as well. When we think of God, and what God has created, well….that would be everything. Right? So, is it not safe to say, that maybe what scientists have to say about the universe is possibly true based on the fact that the universe was created by God and all that is in it is God’s. Say to yourself, scientists are just trying to see what you see; they just need to see it differently. I mean, if a scientist said to you this is grass would you argue with them that it is not? If a scientist said that grass is made up of water and sunlight, would you argue with them that it wasn’t? Science is great, until you don’t want it to be. With science you wouldn’t have cars, or microwaves, or cell phones, and it’s all convenient until we start talking about the universe. So my message to those believers out there would be, open your minds as well.
And to the both of you, open your hearts. That is a scientific and religious object by the way, and it works, on so many different levels.
As for the way I see it, Science is only trying to understand God, even if they don’t see it that way and those believers, well they are only wanting to prove that God exists, in a so very scientific world.
A useful tip:
God is not just one object or some big guy in the sky smiting the wicked and if you see opposite of this, then do like I asked, and open you heart and mind. You may see it differently.
For the Christians out there, I would strongly encourage you all to read your New Testament again. And again and then again. There are many messages in this book, in the Words of Christ that we make a mockery. The way I understand it, is that to be a Christian you follow the precepts laid down by Christ. So do that: Don’t cast stones. I love the one about when a man asks Christ about what to do when the roman guard requires him to carry his pack and Christ says, “Then when you are done, ask the guard whole heartedly if you may carry his pack another mile.†Christ’s message was about acceptance, understanding, and ultimately Love. Telling someone that they are not right, that what they believe is wrong, is not love. That is casting stones.
For the scientists out there, I say to you challenge what you believe. That is what you do everyday…isn’t it. I challenge you to see God as your science. That maybe, just maybe, you touch God everyday. Even if it is something that you don’t like, or can’t understand.
So there is much more that I would like to say, but I will leave that for any specific questions that might come from these comments. I want take anymore of your time today. But thank you all for listening and I hope this helped.
And to quote Einstein: “A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.â€â€¦ “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.â€
Amen
Peace and Blessings to you and not to sound too cheesy or hippy dippy…lol…but love each other a little more. We might get further as a species.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
As soon as God is mentioned everyone goes crazy. We can believe in the string theory, parallel universes, worm holes, gosh knows what else; but mention God.
It is easier for me to believe this wonderful world had to have a creater, and why not.
Could that not be one of your theories.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Willphoenix1
I can tell you are a reasonable person with a great perspective on life, isn't it frustrating to think that all of the disputes in this world could be averted if only everyone would stop to think and listen to u? Yea I have the same problem, it seems senseless that people don't think like u do, they don't have the opportunity so there is no desire to and that's just how it goes.
My only thing with god is that there's never been any progress with it. Just this and that was written and so it shall be type of jargin. Don't u notice cavemen didn't have capacity to assemble pages of assumption? Religious individuals back then didn't know how figure out the world around them so they made stories to captivate and control the ignorant. So I don't believe a scrap of it because it was just people taking a shot in the dark, a guess, not even an educated guess, an imaginative 'I think so.' God is an idea, a concept, but were not part of a reality 'truman show,' sheer random dumb luck coincidence allowed life to form through the right tempuratures, chemical components, and catastpohic events. The animals and creatures that evolved from the oceanic soup of life are our creators, yes, by chance. It just happened to work out, and someone came along and assumed some all mighty being created everything we see, but theyre wrong when it comes to common sense.
Einstein was smart, he was also street smart, by wording his statements so delicately he avoided any assassination attempts and scrutiny from the religious community. Basically he wanted everyone to get along and understand everything in a peaceful fashion.
God just doesn't seem plausible, we created languages, and everything else that helps us live life a little better, god just happened to be one of those things we created with our minds to keep our minds off of the fear of death.
My point is that our brains create our consciousness, and just because our interpretation of reality can assume that when we die our conciousness is 're born' somewhere else is presumptuous at best. We can imagine heaven, 'but when u die u just rot in the ground', as peter griffin has said on family guy. And that's basically it, your brain doesn't work so it can't generate conciousness or reality, therefor your individual experience can't be somewhere else. Someone in here said dying will reveal all the answers, hahah but u won't know the answers if you're dead, genius.
Maybe there is something that created the universe, but there's no reason to call it god because that was simply a mis-judgement of reality.
And of course others would stick to their religion, just imagine if muslim terrorists realized that they weren't dying to meet some virgins but just dying because someone manipulated them into thinking so for their own personal gain, boy would their faces be red. Haha
If u can get someone to believe, u can manipulate, and once u do that u have control over them, terrorists are just the most extreme cases.
Its all about common sense, u don't need god to know that u should try to be courteous to everyone.
But I'm just beating the proverbial dead horse aren't I? Well I wish my knees werent so genetically faulty, then maybe I could actually do something about it. Being bed ridden has given me a lot of time to think and its hard to think with pain, but its easy to see what this reality is, a fortunate opportunity I'm not about to waste praising something that may or may not be relevant. I worship laughter because without it, the constant pain I feel would overwhelm my common sense and cause me to end it all. Haha I'm gunna go watch some family guy and enjoy the feeling of laughter through their incredibly witty jokes… now that's something I can believe in…
June 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
What's with the religious stupidity?
There is indeed a god.
You nor I know what he or it truly is.
Get over it.
I have a theory why "one side of the universe is about 10 per cent thicker or heavier than the other side."
It's our universe's belly button.
We are a baby universe.
As so amply demonstrated by the theological whiners.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:58 am
Haha I love to push buttons, it shows the affect I have on your nerves…
Anywho, life didn't have a plan, it just happened, u throw enough ingredients in chili and it tastes good, the right element components subject to the right conditions and the chemical reaction is life. Mars, u are quite the character and u have an overactive imagination. No one has all the answers, but an inaccurate book doesn't either. What u say makes no sense… What if life hadn't evolved to get to us questioning our relevance? Would there still be god? If there's no life to have the spirit of this realm u speak of does it exist? These are questions u cannot answer and by what u claim, the only reason there is god that is capable of giving each life 2 seperate points of conciousness, is because we think there is a god? What about animals, its obvious pets have emotions, they're aware that they're alive, is there another exception for them too? Do the insects share this aswell? I mean come on, u can only stick to a sham for so long. Its cleary apparent that u are clinging to your god as a captain goes down with his ship, too bad the captain does it for pride, and u will go down with a failed hypothesis.
I waste no sleep on your petty argumentative rants so don't flatter youself…
I ask u this, before u are conceived, u are simply a drop in the bucket, what about your spermicidal brethren u beat to the egg? Do those millions stay in this pre-life state? Only when a life is created a second conciousness is established?
You're on a plank of wood in the middle of the ocean and the logical reasoning factual calculation common sense science yacht cruises right past u into the sunset. but its not too late to catch up. U can save yourself the wasted effort and thought of a god but if not im still going to enjoy my life the best I can, low-stress, highly amused and smile striken. Feel free to say I told u so when u die and I do aswell, if u can find me in the vast existence of post life individuals, millions of trillions or somethin like that? Yea, ill be wearing the blue hat so keep an eye out. Or u won't and u'll just rot in the ground. I see where u can stick to your story, if you're wrong it doesn't matter cause u'll be dead, but if ur right then wow u sure got me. That's your life concern to prove me wrong? Hilarious… I can take solace in the fact that I know you're wrong now while I'm aware of it and will continue to be for decades, so I'm basically right til we die, so it looks like I'm ahead if u want me to be obnoxious. I take two sentences from a book and can deduce within minutes that I'm readin something oblivious ignorant people jotted down as any random thought popped in their feeble-minded cranium.
U can feel free to spend ur sunday mornings on your knees praying, ill be enjoying sleeping in and relaxing so its no concern of mine what u believe in. I dont intend to prove u wrong and be victoriously right, its not about that, its about what seems logical to me and an old story book just doesn't do it for me. Science has tests, data; what does religion have? No answers for any questions… If religion did one good thing it was to try and teach people to not be neanderthals without a conscience, but that type of morals is common sense nowadays so religion is obsolete. religion has caused wars over who interprets life as what, do u think that makes sense? Has science caused wars? Are astrophysicists battling comsmologists? No, they are all working towards one goal, understanding the universe. Religion is busy fighting over whose right or not as science laughs and continues to make monumental progress. That is the heart of the matter, scientists are busy figuring things out and religious fanatics are being stubborn…
So go ahead, come up with some physical concrete evidence and prove me wrong, ill be waiting… U can't prove anything, science hasn't proved everything, but science has proved more than religion so ill stick with the one making more progress. Science is a continuous suspenseful feature film, religion is a childrens pop-up book, all flash and no substance… get with the program, or continue to be the butt of a mulitiple millennia joke, either way I'm laughing and will continue to do so because its funny to me. Nice talkin to u mars, and keep dreamin, maybe god can console u in that state…. and oh yes, my final question to u is, if u think ur so confident in your convictions why don't u just kill yourself and prove me wrong? Haha damn I got u there huh? Haha Now that is funny, thanks for giving me a good dose of laughter mars, I appreciate it, ur alright in my book, and that book is not the bible…
Take care buddy, you'll need it.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:58 am
My only problem with all this discussion about time before time (that is what we're talking about, right?)
is that only mathematics can take us there. And, as I have said in other posts, just because the math describes something doesn't mean that's how it really is. I think sometimes we are blinded to reality by our own cleverness. I have a real problem whenever anyone mentions singularities and then proceeds to talk about them as though their existence was a fact. Why are they a fact? Because that's where our formulas lead us? So what? Did it ever occur to any of them that nature may have some mechanism for preventing a singularity from coming into existence? I'd be willing to bet there is.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
When people tell me that Adam and Eve were the first people created, I tell them that in order for billions of people to be alive, there had to have been incest – which the Bible, God's words – condemn. Soooo what's the answer for that one?
Frankly, scientifically, I think the universe regenerates. I feel that it reaches a point where it can no longer expand and it collapses on itself and expands, collapses, so on and so-forth.
Or if you want to be whimsical, the universe could be contained inside of a jewel on the necklace of some uber-being.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I feel that my word have been made moot, but that is completely ok.
Ok….so. Like I’ve said before. It is a matter of letting go. Everything you or most people have been taught about God is in very many ways a fabrication of the ignorance of man. Period. It’s that simple. Like the caveman and the wheel. The wheel was one of the heights of human achievement at the time, but as time progresses so did the advancements. Understanding God is no different. Our theories will change, and our understanding of them with it. For science to be so closed off to a possibility is futile and arrogant and if this is how science chooses to be, then that is fine. Seriously, but at some point the typing scale will slide. It is inevitable. Science, like God, is too great an experience to be confined in any box.
I respect both views of thought. Both are extremely valid, and for me, without both, our concept of the world is limited. God is so much greater than has been conceived by the majority. It is that way through ignorance. No judgment, it is just what it is. I was ignorant about speeding in my car until I got a few speeding tickets.
All things being equal, or ceritis Peribus. Do you know why we use this term in science? I’m sure many of you do, it’s because in reality the universe is far too complex for most, when analyzing a situation. It needs to be simplified. The same could be said for God.
But as we progress as a species our intellect will only grow so long as we continue to challenge what we think we know. If a scientist would have left the laws of gravity just as they were and accepted that as the only truth, our science as it is today might not be where it is.
So…again…no judgment on any of you. I know that many of you might feel like you are making sound arguments, but to me and many educated people, it sounds closed. Your words sound empty and cold. Allow yourself to be a scientist or a believer in the opposite spectrums for just a moment. Let go of the bible, and let go of what you have seen, and challenge to see deeper. Isn’t that the law of both God and Science?
Listen…I don’t do this often, but I will tell you all a story about myself. I wanted so badly to be a quantum physicist. I am not studying that anymore because it is not my path, but that doesn’t mean that I think it is a bad path. It is what it is, but as a scientist I confronted the Bible and not only the bible, but every other concept of God known to man. I did so because I am a scientist, and through the means in which science finds it’s theories I have come to Love God and Man, and the Universe, more than I ever have. So, if you are a scientist then be so, but look at all the variables. All of them. IF you challenge yourself to do just that, you will confront a lifetime of theory. The possibilities are infinite. Everything is Organic and ever changing. All things are eternal…whether you believe in God or Science. So analyze both as such.
As to the question of Adam and Eve…lol…again…open your mind. The Old Testament is not to be taken entirely as history…and I think that can already be determined. IF you study Hebrew you will find that it is a very complex language. The words are built up in ways unlike our own and once studied, you will find that the story is far different than the one given. Any theologist will tell you this. I challenge you to find that story out. And I’ll give you a hint. First, in the case of Adam and Eve, Adam means, not man, but Human, and Eve means life. Man was tempted by Life. And as for the chronological history of the bible…you know where people lived to be nine hundred years old…think about them as though they were tribes and not just individual people. The story will change drastically.
Anyhow, I’ve said all I can say at the moment because now I need to go spend time with my children. One last thing, however. When thinking about “before the Big Bang†I believe that we will need to harmonize and open our minds before we find the answer to that question, because what is on the other side may not yet be fathomable to our limited minds.
Peace and Blessings!
June 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It is interesting to note the direction the posts took from "Time before the Big Bang" to "God" talk. Not sure what this might mean.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Mars, uve got it all wrong, I told u its not about me being right, I never said I was right, I said the path science is on seems the most logical to me, that's all.
Its interesting to me, I don't hate religion, I just don't like to follow the herd when my questions can't seem to be answered, just averted to another passage in the good book. I admire religion, its for the dreamers, lets just say were both right and wrong in different ways. In the middle, compromise, agree to disagree. Maybe we are both wrong, and it seems ridiculous to argue points when neither will be fully figured out in our lifetime. U just assume you're right and I just want to see my questions answered. In the mean time, I'm enjoying my heaven in reality, now, while I know for sure that I'm experiencing life.
I'm a good person and that's enough for my conscience.
As for the real topic at hand, thinking about time before the big bang gives me a headache, anyones guess would have some points of speculation. The good that may come from this is a sharing of ideas and weighing options. considering everything, its hard to really discuss time before the big bang. Claims can't be solidified with concrete evidence so its just a bunch of guessing until someone great makes a breakthrough discovery. Until then, some sort of god could be the answer but the odds are near impossibility, the idea that the universe acts in a cyclic fashion to collapse and re-bang. But wondering where the absolute beginning of everything is and beyond that, quite frankly seems to be a conundrum none of us are prepared to handle. There will always be a 'what about before that' question for every hypothesis and will continue on like I said before the kid who asks, why? No matter what the explanation is there will forever be a, why?
I'm just glad we are getting something done and I hope ray kursweil's exponential technology concept holds true, I just want to be a robot already so I don't have to be irrepairably genetically disabled anymore. Its monotonous difficulties are relentlessly chipping away at my patience and psyche, any work I try to get done gets abruptly uprooted and my priorities switch to finding pain relief. I've had to give up my studies for the simple reason that my genetics failed to establish a sufficient blueprint, the burden of pain outwieghs the quest for knowledge but through the path of acceptance and understanding I can find ways to better myself and still keep in touch with the ever-intriguing universe. I'm a piece to the puzzle that is the universe (however miniscule and defective I might be), just knowing that makes the idea of god irrelevant because the appreciation I have for what im a part of on the gand scale makes me feel special enough. To think I deserve another life or conscious state is rather conceited.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:19 am
willphoenix:
i thought your post was very good, thank you for your insight. as far as the Adam & Eve thing goes, i was going by the basic view of the situation. naked, tempted by apple, realizes original sin, wears fig leaf, 2 boys & then gradually a few civilizations appear. i never really read into the Bible or Old Testament (oddly enough for reasons i'll list in the following paragraph) so i just went with what was taught to me.
i personally am on the fence as to which way i'm going. i was raised in a slightly Catholic home with private Catholic schooling from kindergarten thru 8th grade, so alot of the time now i spend feeling guilty for thinking that science is the way to go, when deep down some parts of me wants to believe there is a God and all the writings about him that were taught to me were at least 75% valid. there's also the theory that God created everything so that would include science, physics, theories, etc. in all honesty i never intended to make this about religious beliefs, but either one of these two subjects seem to pop up wherever the other is.
in the end, does it really matter what we think or are we left to just keep our beliefs to ourselves and those that associate with them?
June 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Hi everyone,
This will probably be my last post (thank God, or science…lol…right!). Anyhow, it’s been fun being apart of this topic. I am including “time before the Big Bang†here as well. I know that this subject has gotten way off track and I also own my part in it. It’s been interesting nonetheless.
To Rusty,
I’m not sure if you are talking to me when you say, “Marsâ€. Lol…I am not Mars…sooo. Moving on, I would like to respond to what you said, however, whether you were directing at me or not. Ultimately, if you ever have questions about God, ask them, and shoot them my way. I will never try to convince anyone of anything more than just trying to analyze the situation with all its parts. I’m a great observer. I only play devil’s advocate….lol…that’s funny. Because to me a good scientist is just seeking God, and a good Believer is just seeking Science. There is no difference between Science and God in my book. I offer my reflection on God because as a scientist I would like to see more scientists really sitting down and analyzing the theory. No one really has, though many have tried. God is in very many real ways a mathematical equation, made up of organic parts and infinite solutions, which makes it all seem far to complex to be real, but I would argue that you could say the same for Science. That’s why you have many on the Believer side who argue that the world is only 6,000 years old. The concept of Science just doesn’t make since. It doesn’t seem applicable to what they believe. Of course isn’t that what a scientist would say?
So, brother, you are a good man, and I would never say you aren’t and I admire that you are content with your life. Do you know how many actually can’t achieve that? The numbers to that figure are crazy. So if you have found contentment then I solute to you my friend. “The truly happy in the world are those who a truly contented with their lot.â€
As for your ailments, I am sorry to hear that you are in so much pain. If you feel that it would be appropriate, tell me bout it some time. You can find me on MySpace.com under Will Apple. Or shoot me an Email willphoenix1@gmail.com
That goes for anyone.
So be well brother! I wish you all the best in your hunting for the answers.
To Eric,
First, I’m glad you got something out of what I said. That’s the important part. Not that I have amazing things to say….I don’t. I’m just saying what has been said for thousands of years, just differently.
As to whether we should keep our beliefs to ourselves or not. Well, honestly, I would argue that no one view is entirely different from another. That theory is far to complicated to get into here, but if you would like to know more, just let me know.
As for your religious past; many have gone through that. Still are and may be for many lifetimes. As it can be taken from my last post I’m assuming it can be gathered that I have been in a similar predicament. Now I am here and I might have some helpful words. If you are curious to seek. So look me up….you know where to find me. And if it isn’t me then find something. “Never let a good question go to the wayside. If you do you are only potentially giving up the next big scientific breakthrough.â€
So, that’s my piece. I am excited by the aspect that scientist are coming closer to Origin. That is truly an inspiring thing indeed.
As always Peace and Blessings to you all, and I look forward to the next topic, and for those of you who don’t want to hear about God I promise to keep that to a minimum!
Be well and be well to each other!
Will Apple
June 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Consider that the timeline of this present universe in which we live is but one timeline in a larger meta-time (an amplified sort of time which is the type of Time that God experiences).
Time as an ontological item did NOT begin with the creation of this present universe . Instead merely this present timeline did .
Whenever you have a before and after to any event or events you have some sort of time. To claim that one can have a before and an after and not have time is doublethink and makes NO sense .
The weird claim that time is somehow constructed by the mind makes NO sense inasmuch as it would take time to create time –to move a series of events from a NON-time state to a time state would be a progression that would itself have a before and an after and hence would take time .
June 19th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Mars was on here but his comments have since been deleted Will…your insight is invaluable and I will certainly look u up…
Anyways, back to the real topic for a moment…
After reading an interesting article, another theory has been proposed that I find rather interesting. Instead of time, each moment is a 'now' similar to pages in a book ripped from the spine and scattered on the floor. Each page is a 'now', put them in a certain order and go through it step by step, a story unfolds, so think of the pages literally being 'nows' in that they all simultaneously exist, the distance between them is just precieved as time. If u think about it for a while it sort of solves the before the big bang question. Our interpretaions of present and future misguide us in terms of time. Time seems to be an illusion, and in no way do I assume this is absolutely correct but its a hypothesis that could be considered. I only read the article once so bare with me as my details are minimal, I advise u to read for yourself because I'm probably explaining it terribly. But picture 'nows' as integers, they can be connected in some way as in prime numbers but in no way is 3 the past of 5 as the big bang is the past of 2008. There is no river of time connecting them.
When I realized that, I felt something click in my brain that said hey, maybe this guy is onto something, he has been working on his theory for 4 decades so that is also something to consider…
Click here to see the last page of the article, the previous 2 pages are about other theories that are ineresting aswell
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C=
I hope everyone reads this article and thinks about it thuroughly before jumping to speculative conclusions.
My true love in life is witnessing the conquest of knowledge with the greatest tool given to us, our minds. And to see it in full force, with so many working together, the answers to all of our questions could potentially be answered. We just have to be patient and make the best of each moment. I don't like to use the word time anymore, after all it does seem to be another creation of our minds, created to keep track of moments and appointments.lol
You can remember last week only because the neurons in your brain, that are firing NOW, tell u that it is the past. Its hard for me to explain but once u read the article its easier to see. Obviously the writer knows a lot more than I do so take it from them…
That's the thing about life, there's always something, and maybe the purpose of life is to figure out what that something is. God needs to be taken out of human context, languages and cultures, etc. God wouldnt know of these languages anyways since humans created them so picture god as a blank page, through our ways of communication and understanding we can't find a similarity to connect us to it. I think that's why we don't know what god is, really… We just haven't figured out its language… I like to believe that there is a heaven where my deceased loved ones can experience complete happiness since they are unfortunately unable to continue experiencing this one. But maybe this is heaven right now, and I don't want to take the chance of not appreciating it now, so I don't take anything for granted, especailly information.
I have a theory of my own…sort of.
It seems to me that Science is doing the dirty work for religion and religion is accepting the cash handouts from believers. I'd like to see weekly science lectures in a church-like setting, in that regard, I could certainly drop a few bucks in the collection plate and feel I gained something from the experience other than hope and know that my contribution would go towards scientific research instead of possibly buying my way into heaven or paying for the ministers gas. That's information I'd pay to hear and get out of bed on sunday to listen to, but I guess I'm just preachin' to the choir, aren't I, Will?lol
My goodness I love comedy, its is truly special, laughter is the greatest gift of all because at the end of the day, if u can experience the joy of laughter, then all your hard work (regardless of results) will be worth the effort. So I urge everyone to always be sure to laugh twice as much as u feel anger or frustration, its a good way to keep yourself on the rational side of the spectrum. That's how I stay sane anyways…
June 19th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I think that are singularnost – volume in Universe where Universe come from one period your life to another/. And this transformation repeat many times/
Sorry for my wilde english because I am from Russa/
June 20th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Out of all the creatures, and millions of years, how come we are the only ones that can look to the heavens and wonder? Could it be God created man in his own image? Maybe these early hominoids were actually animals.
Is there time? We cannot go back in time, or sure there will be future time, or actually stop present time. Is God outside of time? Did Jesus come into time in the fullness of time to give us another chance at salvation?
I am a Roman Catholic. Since converting from Agnostic to protestant to finally Home (Catholic), i am finally at peace with myself and others. I am not afraid of death or pain and have really been close to death. I love science and my faith gives me the opportunity to study both.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Re: God
Arianism
Catholicism
Protestantism
Latter Day Saints
Nontrinitarian Groups
Messianic Judaism
Christian Spiritualism
Esoteric Christianity
Christian Gnosticism
Early Gnosticism
Hermeticism
Medieval Gnosticism
Persian Gnosticism
Syrian-Egyptic Gnosticism
Ghulat
Kalam Schools
Kharijite
Shi'a
Sufism
Sunni
Contemporary Judaism
Historical Judaism
Rastafarianism
Sabians
Nikaya
Mahayana
Vajrayana
Agama Hindu Dharma (Javanese Hinduism)
Lingayatism
Shaivism
Shaktism
Tantrism
Smartism
Vaishnavism
Six major schools and movements of Hindu
Jainism
Digambara
Shvetambara
Khalsa
Namdhari or Kuka Sikhs
Sahajdhari Sikh
Alevi
Yarsani
Yazidi
Zurvanism
Magus
Neo-Confucianism
New Confucianism
Oomoto
African Initiated Church
Anago
Batuque
Candomblé
Kumina
Macumba
Mami Wata
Obeah
Oyotunji
Quimbanda
SanterÃa (Lukumi)
Umbanda
Vodou (Dahomey mythology)
Vodou (Haitian mythology)
… trimmed list down removing another 400 or so belief systems to make this post not go on like an expanding universe.
The reason that science doesn't factor supernatural beings into it's study is because it is a BELIEF IN A SUPERNATURAL BEING. So which Supernatural God from the above (truncated) list should we start utilizing in the scientific method? Should we use "your god" because it's the only "real" god? Because gosh darn it – the guy in the next house seems to think that his god it the "real" god.
You can put a suit on that gorilla, but it's still a gorilla.
If you want to study the supernatural – call it what it is…. which gives me a good idea for a new reality show. GOD BATTLES.
It's annoying to even have to point all this out, but it seems that at every turn a "God just makes sense" declaration is ending up in the face of science. And it's almost always in the way.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Who made this about god ? Is it that we are serching for a excistance of god? Because we are so lost?
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Sure the Almighty is supernatural. What happened to change a few scared followers into martyrs for their belief?
Why is it so implausible to think there could be a creator when we see creation all around us and science helps us to understand.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:31 am
@MegaChrist's first post at least…
Applying the biblical "God" to any situation is hardly going to make sense of a matter. What with the ideas of Earth being the center of the universe, created before our Sun, a "perfect" man made from dirt (with nipples!) who wasn't really perfect at all, a woman made from a rib. In truth there's no need to bring aspects like evolution, creationism, and the like to this eternal debate. But, since you appear to dig back into the beginnings of Genesis to affirm your view on "God" with Creationism, let's go back to that section for a visit to show why how animals came about isn't the issue you should concern yourself with and as such shouldn't limit yourself to if you truly aim to spread the Word. If you're a true fanatic about Christianity and you follow the Bible as your religion commands, you're to be sadly commended for your effort, however you need to think about what's happening here given your Bible-believing perspective.
I stand by this question: Why would this God, inflict something as harsh as a punishment that is this Fall you (as a Christian) claim (by default) once Adam rebelled against Him? Would it not be harsh to a degree beyond sanity, or would you attempt to disagree? It seems to be a standard Christian's belief that the Fall wasn't a harsh punishment. It seems harsh enough, but since Christians are so protective of God's image, they tend to accept pain, death, and suffering as appropriate punishments for Adam taking a bite of an apple. Odd. How exactly is creating creatures that kill, poisons, etc not so harsh? And He DID create them. While you Christians appear to live behind the idea that God really just removed some of that fantastic staying power which is what brought death into the world, you maintain plants (but only some of them mind you) sprung forth thorns and animals (again, just some!) suddenly were meat-eating killers. HE did that. If there was a Curse brought forth in the Fall, is it not His doing? How would creating that, introducing death and disease to Adam & Eve and the billions and billions of people that would supposedly descend from them, not taking into consideration that the little guy He created might not fathom ALL THERE IS and as such for what's hardly the worst thing in the world decides to curse Adam and all generations thereafter and send them to Hell if they don't obey, etc, etc, etc, not be considered a harsh punishment? Damnation to the apple biters! Right? Maybe the Tree wasn't the best thing to keep in the Garden perhaps? Or letting the snake run free a miscalculation on God's Grand Calculator of Probabilities?
You might say Adam knew well the consequences, but considering he'd never experienced them you'd have reduced all of suffering and death to this date to nothing more than a stubborn and ignorant child mouthing off with a little defiance which is SINful because, well, that's the way God made him…? Nice logic there. For example, why am I being punished with death and the possibility of an eternity in Hell simply because the first guy out of the box couldn't handle it? For a just God it hardly seems fair. And I know first hand this life isn't fair, don't even get me wrong on that note. Hasn't been that way ("fair" that is) since Adam was banned from Eden, no? But why? If the world was perfect, why did God allow it not to be perfect once more? Isn't "perfection" something that should be so perfect it cannot be "imperfect" later? Do you honestly believe something as large and incredible as the entire cosmos was tossed into this Fall simply because a man ate an apple? Perfect means just that, perfect. If something can go wrong, the term perfect in it's definition need not be applied. And I find it laughable at the nerve Christians have placing such a term on Adam himself. Let's say for a second they are somehow right (which they're not) and Adam did actually fathom all there could/would be. People (even the two-faced ones of today's world) are known to give the sacrifice for all when it comes down to it. Compassion and all that, right? Seems that this first man, created perfect, with supposedly knowledge of all that would come (the only means of justification), to fall from perfection didn't have any. So much for that.
Next I gotta ask as to why continue this perversion of an experiment of His that would produce thousands, no millions, no wait, it's billions to burn in Hell later? Why not end it there rather than produce people to burn at the end of all this? He had the foresight according to most that He would have seen this coming, so why do it at all? Perhaps you'd say, "If God didn't do it, you wouldn't exist. Besides, God can take anything make good come out of it." In fact, you did say that. Provided this is accurate (which it ain't), you would mean to tell me I have GOD to thank for doing all that has been done so that I can live in his experiment and likely, as I'm not a Bible believer as a holy work of Him, burn in Hell? Thanks! Sorry, it's nonsense. Simply because an all-powerful entity that seems to have had such a huge hand in vast doings on Earth in the olden days (as shown in the Bible) doesn't feel bothered to drop on by again with another grand miracle to get his point across is no reason to hold him sacredly. It seems rather half-hearted and entirely lazy.
And as a ponder amid the dissection of your more than shaky belief system, I'd wonder; What's your stance on intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Even if you're ignorant enough to not believe the Universe may be as big as full fledged astronomers say, you wouldn't be blatant enough to claim it small, no? You wouldn't deny the stars and the galaxies are there in all their mass. So what's it all for then? Did he just create two fractions of specs on an insignificant mudball so that the rest of the cosmos could just be there and house nothing? I'm not talking UFOs or alien abduction or life evolving on other worlds. But are you to adamantly claim without doubt that He did not create more beings than us in this huge Universe? If He did, were they cast into the Curse because of Adam as well? You say all there is was done so. Again, simply because a creature of God's creation tasted of what appears to be the badly placed killswitch on perfection. Is it that hard to recognize as ridiculous?
Would this little endeavor He seems to be doing out of spiteful boredom (if you're correct that is, which again, you're not) not be a tad more successful if He dropped a little show of His holy presence through the sky with all the angels and whatnot and said to all, "Hey there, I'm real, the Bible IS an accurate work of my inspiration, and if you don't listen to it and its teachings I'm going to send all of you to Hell. B'bye."? If He TRULY wanted results it's better He do it himself rather than laying the task onto people who are both flawed and full of sin themselves, even the "best" of them. When supposed speakers of God are shown to be doing drugs, having sex with hookers, etc, wouldn't be more prudent (given this is eternity punishment or reward for results produced of a handful of years in this physical life recall) for Him to show up Himself or use a bit more of that all-powerful stuff of His to show how serious this is? Perhaps He got caught up in another project and kind of forgot about us? Lazy again, mayhaps?
Maybe you'd be the type of evading-answering-by-noting-something-else Christian to go on to say this was all necessary, yes? You'd HAVE to provided you base your faith in the text of the Bible. Oh wait, in fact you did. God PERMITTED sin to take place and yet used it for good to ultimately glorify is His Son Jesus Christ, per you. Right? Because even Paul confirms this in Romans as was pointed out. It's this that makes this entire thing the most sickening thing I've ever endured, and I've watched Full House once. He PERMITS it but is in no way RESPONSIBLE for it? Is that what I'm reading? Well now, if God isn't to be held responsible for His creation Adam's sin, then we should not be accountable (none of us, from Adam's first child to the baby born in the time of your reading this and onward to all) for enduring an eternal punishment for something Adam did. You might argue, "Well fine then, are you stating yourself you're perfect therefore would not apply to the punishment of sin?" Not at all. I'm what the world has made me. I am the result of the people and beliefs I've encountered in my limited lifetime in a world that God created. I'm a product of what my genetic makeup functioning through me has become after living through this blink-of-an-eye existence. And He did create all of this. It was God that inflicted a life without his presence (the supposed cause of death, natural death of course as everything more is from diseases of his creation. while man may learn to unleash it, it's still there and his doing) and sent out His creations to suffer for not following his rules (a suffering that will continue for all time. Adam's in hell remember? Or is he the exception because…. ..why, exactly?) and gave the animals teeth and claws to cut and gnash at the flesh of humans. Why let so much time pass before coming back to cleanse everything and restore a new earth? He's God, why wait? And, given that all this rebellion happened because of the free will he gave us, wouldn't the new earth Christians seem to believe is coming some day just be subject to the same Fall? So let's say you're still somehow one to state, "God knew that He would sacrifice Jesus to save us." Which in turn means he had the foresight to know that this would never work out and be perfect, so He knew He'd be creating sin and eternal damnation for those He knew would either not believe in a book written by men (whom constantly let us know are full of deceitful words themselves) or never know of how important the issue is. Perhaps that Savior to save all should have been born in Adam's first son? See the lack of logic ever present in what the Bible claims?
And how can you believe God to be compassionate when something such as Hell exists (also something He HAD to have created or it wouldn't exist. He IS the maker of all after all)? Perhaps there's a Hell because there's no reason for a sinful man to remain in the presence of a Holy God? That's the stupid answer I've been given before. This Holy God is the same one that supported war for a time in the Old Testament, yes? The same one that subjected a dear man and faithful follower to every bad thing in the book with Job. Oh sure, He rewarded him, what, ten fold later yes? But where's the holiness in killing off a man's wife and children, his stock, plaguing him, all to prove a point? To another fallen and entirely "evil" creation of His own no less! Batting a thousand! What did the wife and children do? I'm, for one anyway, getting some mixed signals here. Would you argue such behavior, documented in your own holy book, does not denote a sense of worthlessness if He does such things?
Where's my burning bush? I've led a good life. Where's my red sea? If all that Christians say is true I surely don't want to burn for eternity (nice compassion there btw) so if it's so important for Jesus to save my soul, why doesn't he visit me and have a chat so I can take his word for it over yours and over a book? Isn't a judgment to last an eternity worth that much? It's all too unconvincing. For example, if the Fall hadn't happened and time hadn't been allowed to progress, then Jesus and God wouldn't have been glorified. Right? That would be correct assuming if for some reason God couldn't have done this feat at an earlier time, perhaps with Adam & Eve's first born as said prior. Would have saved on souls, yes? Jesus was to be glorified when He conquered Satan, sin and death in one fell swoop on the cross and through His resurrection. Yes? That's fine and dandy stuff right there. In fact, it's what it's all about. Here's the thing however. Does God not have the foresight to prevent a force that would affect His own creations in a way that would prevent them from going to His great beyond called Heaven? Did he really have to create Jesus to endure so much torture? Couldn't have done it a different way? Or done it sooner? Maybe even later? Why Earth at all, why not just do it all in this "heaven"? Another flood would've been good to thin out the badies. Or here's a thought, He could have ended it all with Adam and Eve rather than letting this go on to an ugly point, which I'd hope you'd agree its at and has been off and on for, well, since Adam's little tantrum that screwed everybody EVER?
Oh, quick note again. I've noticed a rise in the phrase of "God created time and He is using it," since the year 2000 passed and Jesus never came.
This in turn brings me to the biggest nonsensical concept wrapped around general consensus among smaller groups of something they dislike to a rampant degree, "sin". No such thing. Everyone is the way they are, period. For someone to change to fit in, such as with Christian groups, is it not denying what they really are? What God has DESIGNED them to be? They're to be punished eternally for that? Is that ever rich. If so then there is no compassion for humanity from Him. Just because this "Satan" convinced the first two people to eat an apple doesn't mean they are suddenly sinful. They are the way God made them. They are "flawed" and "sinful" because of Him and His design. They have NO reason to be held maliciously accountable for what HE made of them. And if something as simple as eating a fruit would bring the Fall and the Curse into all existence, I must demand the logic behind God putting that tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place. Why should I go to Hell? What do I have to be forgiven for? Why should I be punished in the first place? For being exactly what I am? God hates me because I don't fit His profile? Per your Bible I am going to Hell and you (let's say) will be going to Heaven. Right? Why is that? Because you've been forgiven? Because you asked if it was okay that you're not perfect? That you're exactly what He made you to be? God supposedly cannot withstand the presence of a sinful person (which denotes a lack of almighty), and yet that's part of the Christian ideal, no? That you've been forgiven. You're a sinful human, imperfect, but he's forgiven you so you get to be in His presence? You're not perfect, just forgiven right? But why? What makes you think you're forgiven? What makes you believe you need even ask for forgiveness for being exactly what He both made of you and knew what you would come to be? Eh?
And once more on this "the devil convinced", you would need to question the foresight of your "all-powerful being" who seems quite lacking in his abilities. There never should have been evil, nor Satan, if your views on God were at all accurate (which they're not). Christians try to easily avoid any questions on the matter by ducking them altogether with claiming God + Adam & Eve is like Parents + Children. Way to leave the wet knife in front of the outlet of the two year old then, eh God? Your "loving" God that can do no wrong is a rather vindictive THING I must say. Furthermore you (as a Christian) and others like you try to hide behind supposed hopes and dreams that book of yours conjures up, screaming blasphemy at the heights of your lungs capacity at "sinful living", then turn right around and do messed up stuff yourselves. Some on Friday nights, others everyday with bigotry. Some by firing bullets into area targets to put on the front of "fighting for freedom" while oil fields are secured for big business.
Every time I've asked these questions and presented these ideas to pastors and followers of the Bible I come away empty handed. When done online it results in the thanks of many who feel too PC to suggest anything a Christian believes may be inaccurate (meanwhile your kind organizes protests same to everyone else), and the Christian party departing with either no further word & presence or the statement they simply don't have the answers. Seems dodgy this Holy Work of Him in text for all to have all the answers needed doesn't reply to what I present here. Seriously though, go outside your organization some day and t ry presenting this info to a local religious leader and see what happens. You'll be told to read the Bible and seek answers in prayer. What kind of answer is that? I've read the Bible. Read away yourself, you will NOT find the answers to the questions and comments I have raised. NO pastor nor minister CAN less they abandon the Bible's text in favor of "holy retconning" or snubbing. Can't the questions ANY should have and I have presented be answered in the holy work of God Himself? Maybe as I present an idea I've written here for you you'll suddenly want to say, "Well, my belief is," since there's nothing in the Bible to help. My reply to that is, "This isn't about YOUR belief." "Gasp! " you say? Correct. As a Christian it's vital that your beliefs are in sync to the letter with the holy text of your God. If you start to follow your own beliefs you become compromised in your faith. You cannot step out of the Bible to support it, and unfortunately there's not words on any of the pages to help here. And before you open mouth/insert foot with the more frequent, "I've been taught to hate the sin, not the sinner, and been brought up to love everyone, enemy or friend." To this I have to inquire, "Even though it says in the Bible cling to that which is good, hate that which is evil?" Promotion of hate. Gotta love it. And pastors are the worst since most don't even attempt to cover these questions and ideas. Try it. They'll tell you not worry about it, trust in God, maybe you shouldn't think too much about it. Stuff like that, and little to nothing more. The reasons being he doesn't have the answers to the questions and comments and as such can't defend against them with his ministry of hate and bigotry wrapped in a blanket of promises and "love". Fun stuff! And this is world wide behavior. I'd get into Catholics, but they pretty much are pagans and as such not pertinent to the material found here.
And the best part? I'm not sitting here basing anything I type on faith in Christianity, nor faith in Evolutionary Theory, and not even faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm sitting here basing every word on consideration of your Holy Bible. If the book in question is unerringly the perfect work of God then every single aspect and statement of it (especially the entire expanse of the Old Testament which Jesus Himself followed and endorsed) must be true and not open from interpretation by mortal ideals. If such is not the case, if one word of it isn't true, your Holy text unravels and becomes meaningless. I'm trying to explain why said book could never become meaningless as it never meant anything due to the worthlessness it placed on us from the very first chapter. That and that your supposedly almighty and omnipotent Lord isn't that at all, and as the book claims him as such, it's already based itself inside a sea of false pretences.
You worship false text, you know no such truth in this matter be it that the case.
Let's just cover this promise of the New Earth for instance (we're almost through here, you can get back soon enough to belittling the sitting ducks of supposedly only one email, never a follow up, right?) . Basically He's cycling everything. He's going to wipe out all except His chosen, start the Earth anew (and supposedly perfect once more) but He'll be doing so with imperfect sinners. Forgiven sinners, but sinners that will sin once more because that's the nature of us, like I pointed out before. So anyways, let's say you're heading through the pearly gates. The entire reason you're there is that you're awaiting the day Christ will swoop down and slaughter evil (yes, slaughter, per El Biblia on that one), taking His chosen back with Him. The Earth will go through some tough stuff for a while and God will then (per your book my non-friend) recreate the Earth anew with no sin, no hate, no imperfections. That's the promise, the dream. Most of you Christians seem to forget that and leave it as going to Heaven and being done with it. That's simply not the case per the Bible you worship. This raises the instant question of; "If your all-powerful Lord God can recreate this reality with no flaws and He had the foresight to know this would be the case, why create an imperfect world to begin with?" Why let so many souls burn in the Hell He created if He could simply recreate all into perfection? If He can recreate the world without the Curse, He should have done so with Adam and saved the rest of us perversion, pain, misery, sadness, and death.
And lastly, let's just run quickly over this "all-powerful" or "omnipotent" crapola. If God is all-powerful as you teach, why did it take Him six days to create the earth? Really, I'm being serious. It's not intended to be one of those, "Can God create a rock that even he could not lift?" inquiries, but a real question. I actually had a recent numbnut tell me just recently, "God IS all powerful, but even he could not create all this instantly." Then He's not all-powerful. See how that works? Why did He need to take a rest on the seventh day? Instead of having Noah collect two of every animal and put them (and his family) on a boat so they'd be safe from the flood, why not just kill everyone on the earth except for Noah and the animals? Why not do a flood again and weed out the winners from the wicked? What, because he promised he wouldn't? Rather convenient I'd say. Considering the best model to apply to the supposed Flood of Noah says all that water that now comprises the vaster portions of our oceans used to be inside the Earth until HE supposedly released it, it might be better of Him to admit He COULDN'T do it again. If He's all powerful, then why doesn't everyone act like he supposedly wants us to? Free will? He can't change free will? He can't? I think you're missing a crucial part of the term "all-powerful." Is it He does have the ability but He doesn't want to, then? He can, but He doesn't want to? Yes? So, He doesn't want to do anything about making us do what He wants us to do? Oops on the logic there since that's exactly what He's supposedly doing with Earth-bound ministries, like your own. Remember that war between Heaven and Hell? How did that even happen? God's all powerful recall. Satan and his loyal angels attempted a coup to seize power? But God's all powerful. "Yeah. God's side won," right? But angels loyal to Satan were able to raise arms against an all powerful being. Rather than a war, wouldn't God have known about Satan's intentions and cast him down into hell before he could recruit an army? And speaking of angels, do they even truly exist? "Well sure," you might say, "they're God's helpers." So why does He need helpers? Almighty, yeah? You might reply, "They interact with humans, God can't talk directly to people." He's all-powerful. For Him to carry that label there sure seems to be a lot of stuff He can't do.
So let's recap. There is no sinful behavior, only folks being exactly what they are. Creationism vs. Evolution is not the true issue and merely the focus as Christians won't fight the fight I've presented above. God is not all powerful, lacks true foresight, is spiteful and holds little to no worth on us as He gazes down at us with little to no compassion, just waiting for the day to send us all to Hell so He can hit the restart button on "Perfection". Okay, sorry that's not true. He's not gazing at or waiting on anything since He's not real.
If you choose to believe in a higher power of entity, so be it, but stop calling him "God" as that tag is a work of badly done fiction.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:24 am
OK, enough with the bashing. That's for everyone. Religion and science must go hand in hand. All experiments must be started by someone. With this said the universe has no beginnings or endings, only continual fluctuations. The gods or whatever they may be have set things in motion. The idea is to see if we can figure out how. Time as we see it moves in one direction, so we must work with that. Existence grows outward and then back into itself to start anew. This is the cycle of the Universe. The "Big Bang" or whatever it turns out to be is the transition from one cycle of existence to the next. What was before the Big Bang? People trying to figure out this same question to their cycles beginning. Maybe they found the answers and ascended to be of the higher powers themselves. Hell, I don't know. I wasn't there. We must always strive to find our answers. Science and Religion are only the tools we use to get there. We must not abandon one tool for the use of another, they must be used together to arrive at the final answers.
Enough of that. This is a well written article. We may be closer to finding said answers.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Little creatures stuck on a mudball creating imaginative people in the sky to explain things is not a tool but a crutch.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You can only find God within you. You need to love yourself first, why all the hate. I need my faith and I respect your opinion but please let All the Sciences and Religion work together.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Only thing inside you, me or anyone else is biology at work. No spirits, no Gods, no supernatural systems. No one, save the weakest of weak that are dependent on a need to follow/be told what to do/etc, and nothing needs religion. One of the many roots of "evil" still in effect.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I really feel sorry for you. This will throw you into a rage, but I will pray for you.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 am
Why would that throw me into a rage? Stupidity is to be pitied, religion should be mocked. Therefore, your ignorance has my sympathies, pray for some logic.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 am
Oh, and since you appear to be such a devoted follower (nevermind you just stated an action you felt would send another person into a rage so you thought it would be the godly thing to both note that to said person before telling you’d be performing said action anyway – not a very christian approach, hmmmm), do feel free to peak your eyes out of El Book of Outdated Ignorance (aka The Bible) and actually read that long-winded post above. Or, yeah, just stick with the usual and live in ignorance.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
"You can only find God within you."
Yeah, okay, go ahead and jar up a bit of what you find then so we can end this kind of debate once & for all with what I'll call "the first shred of evidence".
"You need to love yourself first, why all the hate."
Are you truly deluded to think simply because someone doesn't follow your religion as (loosely) as you do that they somehow do not love themselves? I dig me, and it didn't take imaginary friends to accomplish that one.
As for "hate", before you open mouth/insert foot AGAIN with the more frequent, "I've been taught to hate the sin, not the sinner, and been brought up to love everyone, enemy or friend." To this I have to inquire, "Even though it says in the Bible cling to that which is good, hate that which is evil?" Promotion of hate. Gotta love it.
"I need my faith.."
And THAT'S the bit to feel sorry for.
"…and I respect your opinion but please let All the Sciences and Religion work together."
I never cared for that phrase as it holds as much truth as the document you worship. Religion cannot help science, other than stepping further out of the picture, as it's been doing for years thankfully.
"This will throw you into a rage, but I will pray for you."
I think he took it well enough, and I'm doing fine with it as well. Pray me up pasta while you're at it, I ran out of olive oil.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Why is it when science comes upon a mystery that it cannot explain or solve in the first two seconds of the question do some feel a need to revert back to "God did it!"?
Perpetual stupidity?
September 20th, 2008 at 5:28 am
How did the Bang take place. If nothing was in existence, not even space and time, at the time of the Bang, then, what triggered it off? Just insisting that it happened on its own is not acceptable. Then why not accept that God did it. Secondly, the Bang theory assumes that all matter and energy was already in existence. From where did it come? Just insisting that one day a huge universe exploded out of a grain of sand is not acceptable. Prove it. Show examples where similar phenomena has been observed. If you can accept that matter always existed, what gives you the right to sneer at others who believe that God always existed. The inter-relationship between the forces like gravity and others is very precise. Anything even marginally incorrect spells diaster. The gases after the big bang had to get their understanding of the laws of physics exactly right and that too within nanoseconds. (1) they did not have the luxury of apes who had millions of years to experiment before they hit it right and became men; (2) gases are non-living things and hence did not have the benefit of creative imagination which enabled the dogs to become horses and so on. Now there is only one logical and rational possibility. An intelligent Creator subjected the gases to the intricate laws of physics. The atheists explanation, if you can call it one, is that the gases got the laws right on their own. How stupid can people get? But the atheists rely on a string of miracles. Miracle (1) Matter and energy are already in existence – no explanations given about its origins; Miracle (2) This universe is the size of a grain of sand; Miracle (3) One fine day (oops there were no days then) for no apparent reason this grain exploded; Miracle (4) All the laws of physics also exploded into existence just like that – one moment there were no laws, the next moment, hey presto they were there with all their precision and inter-tuning; Miracle (5) these hot senseless gases which had figured out laws which thinking beings cannot figure out even today, cooled down and formed intricate stellar systems with planets and satellites, just like that. These arrogant gases dared to disobey the principle of entropy. When we throw away a TV set it rusts, breaks up and disintegrates. If we throw all the parts of a TV set, till date, at least I have never seen them getting together and forming a useful thing. But these gases were quite another thing. They cocked a snook at this law and went about building complicated systems. I have two options:- (A) Believe that a powerful almighty intelligent Creator created this universe and the laws of physics i.e. believe in one miraculous event; (B) Believe in a series of more than a thousand miracles and co-incidences which are based on illogical assumptions and are based on random events somehow coming together by chance to form a cohesive whole. I believe in God. I cannot stomach so many miracles. I think it is stupid and naive to believe that something as orderly as the universe just came about by chance.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:52 am
both sides make good arguments this still doesnt make sence
October 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Sam R. ~ For now I'm dumping an effort to reply to your entire post, mostly because my prior ones still stand & answers to most of your questions are readily available. If I decide at a later date, I might get around to specifics, but I'd hope you actually sitting down to educate yourself might prove more beneficial. As to the one line of "Then why not accept that God did it?" in fine company with your "Prove it" bit, you (since you seem keen on evidence – which, again, is available online in regards to science) may kindly do so yourself in regards to 'God'. Putting the mass amounts of man created gods, goddesses and other such entities aside for the moment; The 'God' of the Bible is a creation of fiction made by man, period. Whatever mysteries we have yet to learn about the cosmos, we do know quite a load and zero matches up with the story of the Bible which is the only document (nevermind Sumerian origins) that testifies to this 'God's claim on creating all there is. You say "why not accept God did it" when there is zero, zilch, nada in existence to make evidence the God of the Bible exists or is responsible for what we see today. In fact, the fact that what we DO know as a people about the universe so far contradicts EVERYTHING the Bible teaches about God supposedly creating all is simply more evidence, case closed type evidence, that the Bible, the entity it puts forward as God, and the account & teachings that produce all religious associated troubles today are false. Perpetuating ignorance, posts like yours remain pathetic. Seriously, of all things, some mindfluff religious nut having the nerve to step into an argument and say "I want proof!" in anything but regards to their own fairy tales. Ugh.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:00 am
What a pathetic reply, so typical of atheists. There is not an iota of evidence for the science fiction spun by atheists but your arrogance is unbelievable. It is you who need to educate yourself before you sermonize to me. The Big bang is just pure crap. Crap invented by creeps who are bewildered by what they see around them and are frustrated by their incompetence to explain it. One fine day something exploded out of nothing. What bull. Senseless gases which are incidentally non living matter acquire complex laws of physics for themselves. What a laugh. What a joke. How idiotic to see people who believe such yarns trying to sell the same to others. Come off it pal. Who are you trying to fool? Everywhere around us we see ordered things breaking down but these dumbos still claim that bits and fragments form complex systems on their own. What utter nonsense. Has anyone seen such a miracle? Stop talking down to us. Creation is something way beyond you. You are out of your league here. Atheists should stick to the beakers and vapours. What we know about the universe and every single thing we see around us contradicts EVERYTHING about the bang. Perpetuating ignorance, not offering any evidence, blindly parroting that something exploded out of nothing. What nerve to expect thinking people to swallow such crap. The 'bang' is based on the single observation that stars are moving away from each other. Nothing else. Talking as if they were present when creation took place. Spinning stupid yarns. And asking proof of God. Atheism is a pathetic doctrine. It gives me great pleasure to tear down mediocrity hiding behind the mask of science.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
*yawn*
You, sir, are simply the most well spoken but utterly clueless individual on these matters I've come across for at least a year's time.
For future drivel, please do reconsider using words like "pathetic", "sermonize", "incompetence" and the like with anyone but yourself. And I do wonder how much of a follower of God you really believe you are when you post such aggressive and insulting words. Me, I have no fantastic imaginary boss to hold me accountable when I thrash a religious idiot online, but you, you need hold yourself more closely in line with your doctrine's teachings or your just another ignorant troll wandering the internet until, say, he finds his way into a science website and starts yammering aimlessly.
Amatuer hour is that way, I'm off to better things. And you, for the record, are a complete idiot.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
My God has never told me to tolerate idiots and buffoons. Yes I will try to enlighten them if they will. But when a two penny atheist pretends as if he knows how the entire universe works, it is time I cut him down to size. Get an education from the gases of the big bang. You may be literate but you are way off from being educated. I love to tear apart morons like you. Yeah that's it. You are a complete moron. I know my doctrine well. I don't need lectures from you and your ilk. Ugh. Get lost to worse things. I care two hoots for the records maintained by duffers like you.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Well now, look at this.
Sam, I do realize you come into here arms swinging for the debate going on, but your methods and demands, among other behaviors displayed, are bad form. You ask, how did the Bang take place? Due to cosmic microwaves, background radiation, the rate & direction of expansion within our universe, and many other detectable & observable criteria, brilliant scientists with minds that work through complexity better than mine can, and certainly better than yours could, have theorized that the universe started out as an infinitely dense ball of energy that exploded. What was the catalyst, you ask? That is truly unknown. It is but one, single, solitary unanswered question among many our species on this tiny spec of a mudball have fathomed about the vast and wonderful universe in which we will dwell for a short time. But applying God to the incident neither fits any scientific evidence to date, nor is it supported in your Bible. I, and others, do not and will not accept the God answer, nor – should you truly be the follower you claim to be – should you attempt applying the Big Bang to the Bible. You ask the usual questions like where did the matter & energy come from? The answer, simply put, is the point of explosion/expansion. As to where as in 'how' rather than 'location', there are many theories out on the subject, none of them definitive. But before that finger starts a'thumping just yet, do realize you're questioning analytical minds (those of the scientists behind the theories, not just us science enjoying folks here on this website) for evidence in theories that are based on the universe around us and what we can clearly learn from it and how it works, but you do so with a stance that carries absolutely no evidence itself. The idea that the entropy of the universe has somehow decreased in violation of the second law of thermodynamics is largely nonsensical. I would certainly suggest you brush up on its specifics before attempting to utilize it as a tool to disavow a big bang scenario. Should you wish this be a Q & A with evidence to back it, I would certainly suggest you scroll upward and have a better look at "Chuck R."s post beginning with "@MegaChrist's first post at least…" since it raises questions even I'd never thought of prior. The order in which our solar system was created, the creation of man (with nipples?), the validity of this fall from grace that was per the Bible implemented by the will of a harsh biblical God, the lack of foresight on the part of the biblical God on humanity through the ages, etc. There is certainly an inherent web-like beauty to the universe itself and the way its structured, works and expands, so I have no trouble with someone looking at such and believing in an intelligent design driving it. However, the biblical account of God and this mindless assumption its all his doing and it happened as he recounts is pure, unadulterated, uneducated idiocy. If some day science somehow discovers a mindful creator being lurking in one of those other nine or thirteen dimensions at play within the universe/reality, I'll accept that much. But until then I do not. And as for the God of the Bible account, all evidence, if by nothing more than timeframe perhaps, shows the Bible as fiction.
For the Bible to hold its authority as God's inspired word, it must be complete, literal, and infallible. Many out there who consider themselves religious have been attempting to merge what their work of fiction tells them with what science has learned, much as you are attempting. The problem lies in both cannot be right and in fact neither can work with another. Now I'm not saying the statistical possibility of some entity or entities at work in the universe is an impossibility, but I sure as hell will state the fact that the Biblical God and what he is written to claim, be and do are false and do not fit in the frame of reality. You wish to believe in a higher power? You go right on ahead if that's what you need in your life, but don't walk ignorantly into a discussion on a scientific website waving the banner of a being used as a front for hatred, intolerance and war for centuries and think yourself righteous or intelligent for doing so.
The problem lies in the justification for your religion. For ANY of the validity in hate against 'sin' & 'evil', the curse brought that brought death, sickness, degeneration and all the other little bad things into (what's claimed to be) "all creation" (that's all the universe) by Adam, Adam's sin MUST be true or Jesus died for no reason at all. For Adam's sin to be true, Genesis MUST be literal in its reading. The Bible states generation after generation, the lineage of mankind from cover to cover, marking events to have transpired in just a few thousand years. So some five or six thousand years ago, for the Bible and its claims in the ways of life to be held authoritative and true, the Earth MUST have been created before the rest of the universe, hell – before the Sun even. And in turn Adam, the first human MUST have been created just a few thousand years ago from dirt. He MUST have sinned against the Lord (by simply eating of an apple from a tree that perhaps God wasn't so wise to place in the garden in the first place, by the way) and brought this curse into existence that made some plants spring forth thorns, and some animals grow meat-eating sharp teeth, and brought death into the creation, and so on and so forth. All 'sin', death, carnivorism, sickness, etc MUST have been instigated by this. THIS is what YOUR Bible says. If for even a moment you try to apply the notion with "that section's not literal" then the entire meaning becomes worthless. There is no justification for your religion. And that is why things like the Big Bang and evolution will never fit with your God's claims. For if the Big Bang did occur, and the universe expanded until a disc formed around one tiny yellow star, and over the millennia the dust & eventual rocks came to form the planets, and on one of them through millions of years of evolution (that's a lot of death, natural worldwide disasters, and eating of flesh) before even the first man came to be, then there was no sin from Adam, no perfectly clean & innocent paradise to be thrown from, no evils for Christ to have died for, and no authority from the text you claim to worship.
And I say 'claim to worship' simply from the behavior you display. You bounce into a topic for universetoday.com with subpar questioning on scientific theories only to claim the greatest fictional character of all time must somehow be clearly responsible, though all you've done is raised questions that are either with answer (which is why Chuck R. there didn't bother with the likes of you) or have already been asked by the people responsible for the science that will ultimately find the reasoning as our knowledge as a race grows. You offer nothing to explain exactly how your God fits into this all other than to say since you don't know, you assume its a godly act, which is quite regressive mentally. Other than that you insult, and it matters not if you wish to claim you were provoked or not, attacking with insults is neither godly or righteous. Don't like the fact? Shouldn't have aligned yourself with a religion that calls the obvious pride you show in your insulting, non-explanatory posts one of seven deadly sins. You did manage to get one thing right by far in that your "God has never told (you) to tolerate idiots and buffoons", being he's never told you anything, ever. You wish to call 'bull' on scientific method? Don't be shocked when those of us who can fathom right from wrong without imaginary friends call the same for uneducated fanatics like you. Yes, uneducated, as no matter how much regular school you may have managed to attend in your days you very clearly do not "know your doctrine well" as you say. You are simply another tally mark of what most religious people are in modern day. You run through the ceremony motions once a week or less in the closest church to your house, maybe just because you're dragged along by family. You sing the bits to the songs you know, recite the couple of prayers you've been taught, and if you can recall a line from scripture you'll gladly thump that Bible to someone you don't agree with, even if in the end it turns out to show you don't know what you're talking about or where you're really coming from. You like having a stance against the grain, one that tells you you're righteous (though for that fictional label to be applied you need actually follow the rule book you thump), even though that's nothing but that pride again, one of those nasty little sins you're not suppose to possess. A true follower of the word of God as laid out in the Bible, one who actually believes they've found Jesus and Christ lives in their hearts, would not hop online asking for evidence in an argument when he or she holds none themself, hurling insults at others, calling them idiots, duffers, uneducated, and acting high & mighty as though they themselves are God's will. Those of us who do not follow such outdated doctrine fortunately do not have such a limitation. And should you feel a need to state you have your own beliefs, then you have stepped out of your Bible's claim on matters and are now proclaiming from your imagination rather than scientific theory or the fictional teachings of scripture. For when you start to follow your own beliefs you become compromised in your faith. You cannot step out of the Bible to support it, and unfortunately there's no words on any of the pages it holds to help you here. You, I'm sorry to point out, do not know what you claim to worship, have angst within you apparently having Jesus in your heart did not cleanse, and are a prideful liar to yourself and others.
I'm sure you have much to say in reply. I'd ask you don't bother, but I know you will. I know the post pending will likely be insulting, I know you'll keep asking for simply described evidence when all you need do is delve into the theories, equations and teachings that can easily fill an entire bookshelf (something as grand as the universe cannot be explained within a few pages of a Bible and certainly not one post on a message board, I'm afraid). I know you won't actually read the post I suggested above, nor will you actually attempt to provide evidence for what your Bible claims. And I know any points brought up specifically here won't be responded to definitively. But have at it, if you must. Roll your eyes and get upset once again and hit those keys until another poorly written, highly ignorant response can be submitted so you can feel better about badly defending your claimed faith in a way that could hardly be described as godly. But, should you hesitate, I provide for you an alternative. If you truly feel the need to go against what science hypothesizes and delve into your religion for what it is, well its an ignorant move to me but do read your Bible, take your time, and perhaps start looking into some of the more hardcore Creationism websites available since that's the only brand of "science" that will allow the authority of the Bible to have ground for you. Otherwise, perhaps be the next among many who in their lives have found the issues within the book filled with stories some of which are actually Sumerian in origin and see the flaws & false claims for what they are and begin to delve into the true workings of this universe, our world and our history, all of which are found through the sciences.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:52 am
I think that before Big Bang was a Big Slurp
December 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Covenant,
Well said. Why is Mega looking outside of his religion for answers when he claims that all of the answers are in the bible, unless it is to incite, which means that he's not practicing what he claims to believe. You don't have to believe everything that science tells you but to put down the scientific process as inferior to the religious non-process is obsurd. The next time you have a high fever I want you to only pray. After you can't take it any more go ahead and take the medicine. When you feel better you can thank science. If you ever lose a limb, again, pray. After you find that your limb will never grow back, call a doctor. I could go on forever but I have my own kids to tend to.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Sam, take a course in grade 12 biology and physics, maybe read up on general relativity, perhaps visit a museum or two, and then post here. Just because your professor in Theology 101 told you so, doesn't mean its true.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:12 am
no body knows..but if mr gods so great how was he created..u religous ppl tell me tat….(seriously id b dieing 2 know) oh yer…does anyone know what was before the big bang..(if ur wondering about how dumb i sound its because im in year 5)
January 21st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Please if you atheists can believe in the theory or countless universes poping into existance, why not believe in one where there is a heaven and a hell. We do not have to take Genesis as but a type. At some time in man's existance he made a decision of good or evil.
Wouln't Ocman's Razor conclude that everything being equal it would be easier to believe that an Almighty force that we Christians call God created time by willing it to be so. I think Stephen Hawkings even makes up his theories by using imaginary time to start with. How stupid can Carl Sagan be to say the universe is all there is and all there ever will be?
As for me, I will believe in God , my Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, that God who is Spirit ,gives me. I am not perfect and sin but I know if I have a choice I will be happy and not like you bunch of hatful atheists.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Look, the religious issue about this scientific research is ONLY present in the US. All other countries don't mix these stories with scientific research. Get real, there is a world out there.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
As atheists and religions have their own beliefs, it's generally futile to dispute each other. Respect of each persons belief should be observed.
It's easy to form belief by falling into whichever camp suits you best, but taking the hard road to discover for yourself is the only way. Otherwise you are just following other peoples ideas! Either the church or the scientists.
Personally I like to keep my mind wide open, we are too insignificant in the universe to believe we can understand it all. As for the subject of low entropy at the big bang, for me this does point in the direction of a creator, that being said I'm not religious at all.
Keep it real and let our wondrous discoveries only guide you!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I've been thinking about the fact that cosmologists have two probems. First, there is too much matter in the known universe and second, what happened near the time of the big bang. I think this two problems might somehow be related. Could the extra matter in the universe be related to a condition predating the big bang that has (as yet) not been considered or at least has not been understood to a point of fitting with any reliable data.
Of course scientists will go on testing theories and hopefully, we will continue to grow in our understanding of the universe. I feel, though, that we ultimately are limited by Goedel's hypothesis that you can't explain a system from within the system. And since we are intinsically "in the universe" it makes it impossible (if Goedel is correct) to ever fully explain the universe.
Those who argue, however, that the big bang couldn't have just happened are ignorant of basic quantum physics. Events do "just happen" all the time in quantum physics. Perhaps that's due to our lack of understanding, but then that is an argument to continue to fund cosmology, rather than an argument to just claim "It's turtles all the way down."
March 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I am looking forward to the day that science provides irrefutable proof that all the mysteries of The Universe, Creation, etc. have a rational, logical explanation. On that day, will all of those who erroneously believe in God finally lie down and admit they were wrong?
Conversely, it would be equally amusing if science were the means of proving that God really did create everything.
The main difference, I suppose, is that science will relentlessly pursue every possibility in the search for those answers, whereas religion believes the 'answer' has already been provided, and discourages any further discussion or thought on the matter.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
What if science proved without a doubt there is a God? Would you atheists accept it?
March 31st, 2009 at 7:00 am
"Please if you atheists can believe in the theory or countless universes poping into existance, why not believe in one where there is a heaven and a hell."
Namely because you're attempting to take one theory regarding a calculable possibility of multiple realities that would exist overall in the same function as this one we know and say the fairy tales of the Bible should be allowed credence, no, not just allowed credence but RULE in THIS existence due to a make-believe chance there might be some parallel where they exist. The problems in that notion are unending, its very 'fantasy writing' of you to suggest. But, then, you are into that Bible now aren't you. Snide, I know, but it's well deserved, sorry. And I realize you're one of those holy text thumpers that must immediately attack at any angle to those who don't believe in 'God' or the Bible (not so much the other Gods, Goddesses, mystical creatures that were once facts, not the Odins, the Cerberus, the Heras, the Vishnus or Wraiths, right – those would just be CRAZY!), but to even attempt and speak of the word theory (an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations) as though its a scientific form of faith (a belief in an assumed truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof) is ludicrous.
"We do not have to take Genesis as but a type."
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with "take it as but a type", but I do hope you're not implying (like many other Christians who are compromised in their beliefs do nowadays) that Genesis is not to be taken as fact. I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree and would immediately take that notion to any of the supernatural acts or authority over man the rest of the Bible claims as well. But what I'm saying is that in modern times the lax grasp on Genesis as a work of God is detrimental to the Christian. Actually, as has been said multiple times, you – as a Christian – MUST take Genesis quite literally. Adam's sin isn't to be held, by Christians – that is, as some metaphorical item, as some poetic decline in man. It's a sin, it's THE sin that kick started it all. For ANY of the validity in hate against 'sin' & 'evil', the curse brought that brought death, sickness, degeneration and all the other little bad things into (what's claimed to be) "all creation" (that's all the universe) by Adam, Adam's sin MUST be true or Jesus died for no reason at all. For Adam's sin to be true, Genesis MUST be literal in its reading. The Bible states generation after generation, the lineage of mankind from cover to cover, marking events to have transpired in just a few thousand years. So some five or six thousand years ago, for the Bible and its claims in the ways of life to be held authoritative and true, the Earth MUST have been created before the rest of the universe, hell – before the Sun even. And in turn Adam, the first human MUST have been created just a few thousand years ago from dirt. He MUST have sinned against the Lord (by simply eating of an apple from a tree that perhaps God wasn't so wise to place in the garden in the first place, by the way) and brought this curse into existence that made some plants spring forth thorns, and some animals grow meat-eating sharp teeth, and brought death into the creation, and so on and so forth. All 'sin', death, carnivororism, sickness, etc MUST have been instigated by this. THIS is what YOUR Bible says. If for even a moment you try to apply the notion with "that section's not literal" then the entire meaning becomes worthless. There is no sin Adam committed, there was death eons before Eden, and there is no justification for your religion. So, way to stand up for your religion. Allowing a doubt in the authority of the text you thump, a possibility that Genesis isn't literal perhaps, so you can gain ground? So that a sudden possibility of science can prevail and you trample the validity of the text you worship? If you're going to attempt to be a devout Christian, one that screams his God's authority and will from that soapbox, you cannot allow a doubt in your scriptures. Not ever. And that is why things like the Big Bang and evolution will never fit with your God's claims. For if the Big Bang did occur, and the universe expanded until a disc formed around one tiny yellow star, and over the millennia the dust & eventual rocks came to form the planets, and on one of them through millions of years of evolution (that's a lot of death, natural worldwide disasters, and eating of flesh) before even the first man came to be, then there was no sin from Adam, no perfectly clean & innocent paradise to be thrown from, no evils for Christ to have died for, and no authority from the text you claim to worship. And can I just say its sad that the majority of arguments that seem to go on between atheists and Christians go about like this? Where the atheist knows both his truth and the truth the Christian side should be speaking from better than the Christian themself?
"At some time in man's existance he made a decision of good or evil."
You mean socially acceptable and socially unacceptable. That varies on year, location, age, genetics, cultures etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, since our ancestors first began their stride from herds to tribes. What's good and what's bad is different from person to person, country to country, era to era. Everyone is the way they are, period. Like animals, we have social groups and the more unpopular behaviors become undesirable, illegal or "sinful". For someone to change to fit in, such as with Christian groups, is it not denying what they really are? What God has DESIGNED them to be? If they don't fall in line with these outdated notions, then they're to be punished eternally for that? Is that ever rich. If so then there is no compassion for humanity from Him. Just because this "Satan" convinced the first two people to eat an apple doesn't mean they are suddenly sinful. They are the way God made them. They are "flawed" and "sinful" because of Him and His design. They have NO reason to be held maliciously accountable for what HE made of them. And if something as simple as eating a fruit would bring the Fall and the Curse into all existence, I must demand the logic behind God putting that tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place.
"Wouln't Ocman's Razor conclude that everything being equal it would be easier to believe that an Almighty force that we Christians call God created time by willing it to be so."
*Sigh* OCCAM'S or OCKHAM'S Razor is a 14th-century created principle that states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. You're talking about observational, testable scientific theory versus grand invisible man in the sky. Eliminating science from your existence phenomenon because you feel it will make no difference or valid prediction in this existence phenomenon's explanation is a giant crock of dumb. Sorry. In science, where Occam’s razor is used as a rule of thumb more than anything, the principle is utilized in guiding scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. Occam's Razor, I'm afraid, doesn't suddenly allow for the magical fiction of the Christian's & Catholic's Bible to true/possible.
"As for me, I will believe in God , my Savior Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, that God who is Spirit ,gives me. I am not perfect and sin but I know if I have a choice I will be happy and not like you bunch of hatful atheists."
Yikes! Two things.
Number one, so you believe in God, Jesus, el spiritu santo, and additionally you say you're not perfect and that you sin. Now, nevermind for a minute that continuing lack of God, a divine Jesus, or the Holy Spirit in reality where us mortals (and you) all dwell; Per your Bible I am going to Hell and you (let's say) will be going to Heaven. Right? Why is that? Because you've been forgiven? Because you asked if it was okay that you're not perfect? That you're exactly what He made you to be? God supposedly cannot withstand the presence of a sinful person (which denotes a lack of almighty), and yet that's part of the Christian ideal, no? That you've been forgiven. You're a sinful human, imperfect, but he's forgiven you so you get to be in His presence? You're not perfect, just forgiven, right? But why? What makes you think you're forgiven? What makes you believe you need even ask for forgiveness for being exactly what He both made of you and knew what you would come to be? Eh? Takes us right back to that sin bit.
And two, for the love of your own God, for future reference do feel free to stop typing (or if in person, stop talking) the moment you feel the need to place a word like "hate" on anyone else outside of your religion. It's wrong on so many levels. For giggles, I'm apparently going to Hell when I die. That's Hell, this fiery inferno of pain & suffering set to last all eternity that was created by YOUR GOD. I mean, I could ask things like, why should I go to Hell? What do I have to be forgiven for? Why should I be punished in the first place? For being exactly what I am? But it all boils back down to "God HATES me because I don't fit His profile". And how can you believe God to not be hateful himself, but totally compassionate when something such as Hell even exists? And this Holy God is the same one that supported war for a time in the Old Testament, yes? The same one that subjected a dear man and faithful follower to every bad thing in the book with Job. Oh sure, He rewarded him, what, ten fold later yeah? But where's the holiness in killing off a man's wife and children, his stock, plaguing him, all to prove a point? To another fallen and entirely 'evil' creation of His own no less! Batting a thousand! What did the wife and children do? I'm, for one anyway, getting some mixed signals here. Would you argue such behavior, documented in your own holy book, does not denote a sense of worthlessness and hate for humanity if He does such things? Oh, I know, you're all about that ever-popular "I've been taught to hate the sin, not the sinner, and been brought up to love everyone, enemy or friend." To this I have to inquire, "Even though it says in the Bible cling to that which is good, HATE that which is evil?" A biblical promotion of hate. Gotta love it. People have been killed and persecuted in the name of God, the name of Jesus, and the assumed authority of the Bible since the religion began. Millions of dead folks. And I'm not speaking of Bible thumping followers killed in the dark ages for believing in Christ, but the killing in the name of God, holy wars, massacres throughout our history before, during and after the Bible's publication (what, you don't recall Jericho or one of the uses with the Ark of the Covenant?), and the persecution against those who do not believe or didn't fit in both in olden times and today. Don't dare speak to other people as though your religion is clean, pristine and good. In case you've never paid attention, it's not all peace & love, pal. Christianity has caused more pain, suffering and death than you can apparently imagine, and is a ministry of intolerance, hate and bigotry wrapped in lies and fairy tales. But I guess in the end it's easier to open your mouth and praise Jesus if you don't know and don't care about the finer points and facts of the matter.
"What if science proved without a doubt there is a God? Would you atheists accept it?"
If science were to somehow prove someday that there is a form of entity sitting outside the universe, or streaming throughout it, guiding the winds of fate, enforcing karma, etc, I would happily accept proof positive as fact. But that being would obviously work in the same reality, the same rules, the same cycles as our world and as the rest of the universe does. The biblical God, the being written of in the Bible that speaks, that punishes with eternal damnation, that has no trouble with hypocrisy when it comes from his rulebook, that has no apparent compassion, foresight or true power in modern day, the one that is used to promote ignorance & intolerance by the book-thumping followers of his related religion; He cannot exist, he does not exist, he is an impossibility.
And, end note back atcha for giggles; What if science proved without a doubt there is a God, and it's Brahman? Would you Christians accept it?
April 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Doubtful. The collective knowledge of science proves the Bible's claims false and look at them now.