|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:22 pm
That question has been tormenting me forever now..
L (We'll call her this for now) is a Jahova's Witness and beleives God created us. A (we'll call him this for now) says the Big Bang made the universe and such. I say I'm very confused.
L's theory is that God placed the world as a test for mankind to see if we were worthy of paradise. He then gave control of the earth to Satan to prove himself worthy. Now, if I were a Christian, this might make sense. But if I asked 'How was God created then? If he created us, something must've created him.' But her response was as simple as it was incomprehensible 'He was there before time, space or anything. He was just there' That doesn't stand..
A's theory is that there was nothing and BANG the universe was created after a devestating shock. That doesn't stand either because you can't creat something with nothing. I mean, you don't even have air, you can't even have the smallest breeze. How is there suposed to be a colosal explosion if there was nothing to start it?
Can some one please help me understand?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:11 am
Well I don't agree or disagree with them, but my view is different. And in the end all I can do is give my view.
In terms of God, well no one said he is alone. He can just be the only one that really matters to us because he is the only one with power over us. If I make some A.I. programs and made a whole little world for them in a game, dose that mean I'm the only human? No, I'm just the only human that has power over them because I made them. In a way I am their god and all they know is me. They know nothing of my friends and family because I have not told them or given them any hunts that I have one. All they know is that I was when I all started. Also note God never told us his name. He always speaks in the first person calling himself I or he. We made up the name God and Jahova and all the other things we call him.
In terms of science, well the one of the newest theories is that our universe was made when two or more other universes crashed into each other. Meaning that there was time and other things before this universe came into existents. Which maybe why the universe is uneven. It is the same way with Earth. Before our Sun was where there was something else and the what was leftover made our Sun and the Earth. Does it mean there was nothing before our Sun and Earth? No, but just because we was not around to see it was there before us most people just think there was nothing.
In my view of the universe. God made the universe form things he had on hand. Maybe other universes, after all no one ever said this was the only universe or the final one. Like a programmer making a pc game. You start with a idea then you make it. You may have to start over many times until come up with the one you like, and you may have to cannibalize other things for the stuff you need. I mean why does it seem only a few people note that D.N.A. is a binary code. Just like what we use for our things. rofl
I could've made a super long post about what I believe (a mix of faith and science) but I can only do that when talking face to face or on the phone. I can't seem to type it for the life of me. But remember they say we was made is God's image. That doesn't mean we just look like God, but we also think and act like him on some basic level. And that is why I know God is laughing his butt off somewhere knowing what is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:39 am
Ya, that could make sense, but like I said, I don't really beleive in a God..I see things in a more scientific way. But as for the scientific point of view, what was there that created the univeres? I mean, something must've been there that done it, or there was nothing and all of a sudden somehting? Im not saying there was nothign before, I just heard that before..But I also know that time and space are beyong human conprehension. So why does it intrigue me so much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:38 pm
True, I see things in a scientific way as well. But I also like look at things as if I never heard or seen those things before. That way you may learn something new about it or see something other people missed. Sometimes you need to see things through the eyes of a child to truly understand things. And even though I look at things scientifically the fact that still remains that the things I know about, study, and look for prof of are intangible and worthless as far as most of the world is concerned.
Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just like proving something can exist doesn't mean it is real. And just because most don't believe the truth doesn't make it any less real, just as believing in a lie doesn't makes it any more real. And just because you unaware or uncaring of something doesn't mean it has nothing to with you. Both faith and science has to deal with those thing and that is why both faith and science agree on some key things.
"The path to enlightenment is besiege on all sides by those who don't believe, those who wish to lead you off the path, and the ignorant." Something some old people told me once when I was a kid. I never forgot it, despite not knowing what it meant until I was about 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:41 pm
The problem with both theories- and with every theory- is that they cannot be proven definitely. I am a Christian and believe in the creation theory; things bumping around in space and just happening to come together into what we see today is just too coincidental for me to believe.
Unfortunately, I can't provide physical evidence to support my opinion. That's why arguments about God never really go anywhere. You can't provide enough proof, whether you're arguing for or against Him.
*I would like to point out the misspelling of "Jehovah"*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 6:56 am
To me the oddest thing is when both faith and science says the same thing people still fight over it. Like creation and evolution, why are people still fighting over this? No better yet what are they fighting in the first place? What does creation says? Life was first made in the sea, then on land, and then the air (things that fly). What dose evolution says first life started in the sea, then moved to the land, and then learned to fly.
When I say I believe in evolution people say that I don't believe in God, but in truth they don't understand that most people who believe in evolution do believe in God. We just feel evolution gives a more detailed account of what happened and is still happening. It is like someone asking how a car works. The one person is going to say you turn it on, push this to go, push this to stop, and use this to turn. But another person can show you the blue print of the car for a more detail and deeper understanding of it.
People like me don't believe things like evolution disprove God, we feel that things like evolution proves there is a God. There are very few scientist who are atheists. Most of the ones I've seen and know of believe in a god and do the things they do in hopes of understanding him or his work better. We sometimes joke that some of the best scientist or theories are trying to read the mind of God. Because then we'll know and understand everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:19 pm
JaelValentine The problem with both theories- and with every theory- is that they cannot be proven definitely. I am a Christian and believe in the creation theory; things bumping around in space and just happening to come together into what we see today is just too coincidental for me to believe. Unfortunately, I can't provide physical evidence to support my opinion. That's why arguments about God never really go anywhere. You can't provide enough proof, whether you're arguing for or against Him. *I would like to point out the misspelling of "Jehovah"* Yaa...I don't know how to spell that.. Yaa. The lack of proof is probably what intruiges me most. And the lack of proof is what keeps me from agreeing with any theory. I guess humans arn't supposed to know how we came to be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:42 pm
Yeeah, see, this is a prime example of how people don't understand the Big Bang Theory.
It is NOT an illustration of how time and space began. This is a purely theoretical description of our universe, not a point at which time sprung into existence.
If you can believe in the existence of an eternal, infinite god, you can believe in infinite time and space. How do you create a god from nothing? How does a god create something from nothing? It never happened--the universe was just always there.
And "things bumping around in space" may be improbable, but not impossible. And it's a lot more likely when you consider that they had an infinite amount of time to bump into each other. (E.g., the idea of an infinite number of monkeys poking away at an infinite number of typewriters eventually writing Shakespeare.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:12 pm
There's really no way to prove one over the other. The method involving actual physics and scientific process can be explained and demonstrated, but not concretely proven. By contrast, the 'divine interference' is really just what it sounds like- there is no mechanism behind it, and the driving force can't be proven or observed in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:15 am
According to science, no matter can be created nor destroyed.
Along with what everyone else has said about their being no proof to either way. Its seems like something that we just can't explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:51 am
Twice Scarred According to science, no matter can be created nor destroyed. Along with what everyone else has said about their being no proof to either way. Its seems like something that we just can't explain. Depends on what you see as matter. Combining two equal masses of matter and antimatter should result in no matter left and Energy in the amount of E=mc². So unless you count this energy as matter too, you can destroy matter and there should also be a way to create it from energy (though I think we can't even create a quark yet). Back to the original question: AFAIK no accepted theory has yet been able to get back to the time of the bigbang itself (or in other words for the first few fractions of time there is no scientific theory that's able to describe what happened in detail). So if you rather believe in science to give you the explanation or in religion is just your call. If you believe in divine intervention though the question if mass and energy can be created and destroyed seems to be out of scope to me, unless you are pretty sure that which divine being it did is bound to our physics constraints too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:21 pm
Azmodean Twice Scarred According to science, no matter can be created nor destroyed. Along with what everyone else has said about their being no proof to either way. Its seems like something that we just can't explain. Depends on what you see as matter. Combining two equal masses of matter and antimatter should result in no matter left and Energy in the amount of E=mc². So unless you count this energy as matter too, you can destroy matter and there should also be a way to create it from energy (though I think we can't even create a quark yet). Back to the original question: AFAIK no accepted theory has yet been able to get back to the time of the bigbang itself (or in other words for the first few fractions of time there is no scientific theory that's able to describe what happened in detail). So if you rather believe in science to give you the explanation or in religion is just your call. If you believe in divine intervention though the question if mass and energy can be created and destroyed seems to be out of scope to me, unless you are pretty sure that which divine being it did is bound to our physics constraints too. See, anti matter is something that we produce, as well as something that occurs naturally in the universe, however, either way it has nothing to do with creation of matter. I correct myself saying that matter can't be destroyed (I was just pointing out that by Newton's laws, the big bang shouldn't have happened ), yes, but it remains that it cannot be created. This is random and rather thoughtless but, what if there are other sorts of matter? I haven't taken quantum physics to its full extent as of yet, so I'm probably just repeating basic knowledge, if I am, sorry. I know theres anti matter and matter, but what if there were like, pro matter (or something) that when combined with anti matter or matter duplicate the matter? Sorry, just contemplating. Excuse me for my ramble. Anyway, I was raised catholic, and I am still a somewhat believer. To me though, the whole idea of "God" sounds too fantastic to be creditable. I mean, its possible yes, but really now, "and God said, let there be light, and there was". I am skeptical. However, until any real proof of either theories, I choose to believe in divine intervention with my doubts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:20 pm
I've been raised Catholic too, so Genesis was never something to take literally for me. I won't dive further into that as I've never seen a discussion involving God as well as physics get far (as IMHO you never really can argue against faith with physics and vice versa).
I'm no physics pro so my understanding of it is pretty simplified. But I thought of matter as just another form of energy (kind of like potential energy in Newton's physic when you lift something against gravity) and I thought the total amount of energy in the universe would have to stay the same (else some interference with something outsinde our universe would have to happen).
I'm not sure though if I really understood the concept behind pro (or pre?) matter. If I consider matter like '+' and antimatter like '-' would that promatter be something with an undecided sign? Or rather just another kind of energy? Would it change the total amount of energy in the universe? As matter seems to me to be more structured than "free" energy, wouldn't that break the second law of thermodynamics (as entropy would be decreased that way)?
Don't mind my questions please smile My understanding of BigBang and possibly involved processes doesn't even get to BaryoGenesis or CDM, HDM and Baryionic Matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:52 pm
Well, just so you know matter doesn't make up much of anything in the universe. In the past few years we've noticed that most of our universe is missing. And what I mean by that is after to account for all the matter and energy in the universe that we know of it only makes up about 4 - 24% of the whole universe. We still have no clue as to what the make up the rest of the universe. Yes, there is dark matter and dark energy but no one knows for sure what they really are or how much there is. There can be other things besides that that we have yet to think of.
Hey, if you thought we was small before of that now, you should feel even smaller. I mean all we see and know of the universe is less than 25% of the whole picture and really only just now learning about it. And we still barely understand the things we see and know about, rofl .
If you was to take age of the Earth (as we know it) and put on a clock. Humans have only been around about 10 seconds (rounding up). Next to the age of the universe (as we know it) we'll have to be going into fractions of a second I can't name. Remember the human race is still new. Next to the other lifeforms on this planet we are still babies. That means we still have a really long road to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:15 pm
Yukki Kirra L's theory is that God placed the world as a test for mankind to see if we were worthy of paradise. He then gave control of the earth to Satan to prove himself worthy. Now, if I were a Christian, this might make sense. But if I asked 'How was God created then? If he created us, something must've created him.' But her response was as simple as it was incomprehensible 'He was there before time, space or anything. He was just there' That doesn't stand.. If he created the world as a test for mankind, then we can infer from that that he either does not know or is not sure if humanity is worthy of paradise. That means that God is not omniscient; that he is limited. Try pointing that out to your friend. ArchWarrior In my view of the universe. God made the universe form things he had on hand. From that we can infer that God is again limited; not omnipotent. Quote: But remember they say we was made is God's image. That doesn't mean we just look like God, but we also think and act like him on some basic level. That also points to finitude. Omniscience and omnipotence aren't even comensurable to finite knowing and acting, no matter how great those finite qualities may be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
