By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

 

Who created everything?

GOD 184 41.82%
 
BIG BANG 251 57.05%
 
Total:435
Sri Lumpa on 12 July 2011
snakenobi said:
Sri Lumpa said:
snakenobi said:
i read it somewhere.

google it you will find it.

different scientists have different ways of proving it.

You are the one claiming it exists, the burden of proof is on you. You don't have to prove the theory, just that it exists.

If Hydrogen and Nitrogen collide you get ammonia. Sure, you could then use that ammonia as a feedstock to create a bomb but it is not the kind of bang the big bang theory talks about.

The problem about that theory and especially with claiming it to be a big bang theory is that the big bang theory is about the early stages of the universe whereas that theory talks about what would have been before this universe. Even if we were to find out that the universe would eventually stop expanding and start contracting in a reverse big bang (a big crunch) which would eventually explode again it still would have nothing to do with hydrogen and nitrogen atoms but would be due to the gravitational force.

burden,you make this sound like a war?

i gave it as of the reasons,never said its the correct one.

alrite,i would agree.never said you were wrong.

Not like war, like a debate.

If I was claiming that the sky was blue I would be unlikely to be challenged in that assertion; but if I was claiming that it was striped green and blood red with yellow polka dots I would be asked to support that assertion.

If I asserted the blueness of the sky and was challenged in that assertion I would first go into more details by qualifying my assertion as it is not always blue (it can be white or grey with clouds, orange and red at sunset...) and I would link to articles explaining the diffraction of sunlight in the upper atmosphere causing it to appear blue most of the time and red near sunrise/sunset.

If I asserted its green/red stripeness and yellow polka dotness and did not manage to support that assertion I would expect to be ridiculed for it.

Your assertion that the big bang was caused by Hydrogen and Nitrogen atoms colliding is of the polka dot variety, which is why it was met by such incredulity not only by me but also by others who have a reasonable amount of understanding of the big bang.

It is not so much a question of right or wrong, more a question of an outlandish claim that I would very much like to see a source for as if there is such a theory (and I mean a serious theory advanced by a serious scientist) then I would be interested in reading about it. However I suspect that you read something about the big bang and that not understanding much about it you misinterpreted to mean what you stated.

It wasn't even that central to your post, but it was just such a huge WTF moment when i read it that I had to read it a few more time to make sure I read it correctly.

Ok, time to go to bed for me. Good night everyone.



"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

 

Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 12 July 2011
nia-strain said:

God has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, as we now know the  galaxies are moving away from eachother at an tremendous speed, so rewind that and it's clear that some explosion has happened ...

 

But we know so little about the universe cuz it's so big so it's easier to say that god created everything , and just leave it at that...

Being an atheist is not good for a society, it usualy dies when it stops believing in a superior being, they get less and less babyies...

I doubt that has actually ever happened. No society has ever "died" for such reasons. And considering the current conditions (economic, higher life expectancy etc.), having many children is actually a bad thing.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 12 July 2011
MrBubbles said:
Allfreedom99 said:
Raido said:
Allfreedom99 said:

It seems you are ignoring what i am meaning. Regardless, we have the ability to understand, discern and use logic. This is my whole point, that the universe would not exist without intelligence. Space, time, and gravity does not possess intelligence or the ability to use Logic in and of themselves. The Universe and life cannot begin without it.

So there has to be an intelligent designer because there is intelligence? Wow, that's a ridiculous claim... 

And how did this intelligent designer came into being? Was there intelligence before? o.ô

Intelligence is something natural... It's nothing mystical!

Call it ridiculous if you want, but IMO it makes much more sense than anything else you can explain to me. How do you explain then that we have the ability of understanding? I would like to hear your explanation for how we can have complex thought? Because I dont see how anything complex can come about at all without a higher being possessing the intelligence to create it no matter if you have 100 years or billions of years for something complex to form. I would like to hear your explanation, Raido. And did I ever say intelligence is mystical? no I did not.

The only way I can explain a higher being is to say that Its eternal and has always been in existence. Your perception of God does not allow you to believe such a being could always be in existance.


if you accept the possibility of a being like god existing without being created, then you cannot deny the possibility of us existing without being created.  you cant say we are too complex when god would be infinitely more complex.

Way to point out the hypocrisy MrBubbles!



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

mchaza on 12 July 2011

the meaning of life like every other creature on earth is thus: Live to Reproduce



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

sapphi_snake on 12 July 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Allfreedom99 said:

Logic isn't something that exists? you must not be understanding me. You have logic and I have logic. We have the ability to give and experience reasoning. To discern and understand. yes, logic is something that exists. No scientific test that I am aware of suggests that dead matter will eventually obtain understanding, and the ability to reason. Dead matter is dead matter. You and I have the ability to understand and discern, because we were designed that way. If we look to Science then a universe with no intelligence to begin it is impossible.

You say I am giving limited possibilities, then what other possibilities do you suggest to explain the beginnings of our universe?

No, we have the mental capacity to utilise the tool that is called "logic". It is not something that exists independently. Also, the question you asked me, which I have put in italics, is so ridiculous given the extremely limited (yes, this is the truth) knowledge humans have of the universe, coupled with the inability to escape culture, and the reality it creates. I don't know much regarding the beginnings of the universe. It happened a long time ago, and I was not there to see it. Maybe sometime in the future people will develop a method to answer all these questions, but it ain't happening anytime soon, and quite frankly whatever answer I could provide you would be an assumption (more or less baseless, and probabyl proven wrong eventually).

That's actually totally true.

Hell for all we know the universe might of existed on a different dimension we can't see and was rotated to our dimension.

Kinda like the whole Flatland book.

One of the biggest challenges one has is accepting the limited knowledge we humans have regarding this issue (among many others).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Player1x3 on 12 July 2011
Sri Lumpa said:
Player1x3 said:
You'd be suprised how many people think otherwise to promote their agenda. Heck, the most of important scientists during the 18th-21st century were either theists or deists

Make that 1000BC to the 19th century and restrict it to theists and I would agree. A lot of deist of the time were more like closeted atheists in a time period were atheism was not considered to be intellectually acceptable (it's really Darwin that made it acceptable).

For the 20th and 21st century I would argue that while there are important scientists that believe in god, they were important because they manage to mostly separate their personal beliefs with their religious beliefs (though they will have some infuence on each other of course).

Those people that cannot separate the two are unlikely to become great scientists as if their experimental data contradict their belief they are likely to do the human thing of ignoring it (though it is definitely not restricted to religious beliefs, as nonreligious beliefs can lead to the same bad science behaviour).

Take Newton for example. He did his best work on optics and gravity by following the evidence he had, though inspired by his beliefs in alchemy (especially the action at a distance bit). But when his work was based mostly on his beliefs in alchemy it had no scientific merit.


I beleive you have no evidence to say that they were closet atheists. They clearly believed in higher power or in some form of God.

As for the rest of the post my only point was that a person can believe in God and follow science, and even be a great scientist himself.



Player1x3 on 12 July 2011
Sri Lumpa said:
Player1x3 said:
Sri Lumpa said:
Player1x3 said:
I keep asking you, what is this ''proof'' that doesnt allow one to have faith in God. You seem to act like there is some divine reason and proof that makes all faith in God irrelevant. Keep in mind that absence of proof is no proof of absence. You also seem to think that faith is belief in something that is wrong based on evidence, when every person even slighlty educated will tell you that faith is when you believe in something you do not know based on evidence exists/will happen, but something inside you tells you so. And you'd be suprized how big of a role faith plays in modern science

He doesn't claim that it is impossible, only that it is irrational.

Bolded: Faith it the belief in something in the absence of evidence. It can include belief in something in the presence of contrary evidence (like young earth creationists) but not all faith is like that.

Again, I gotta ask

...is it irrational to believe in God and follow science?

Well, I was just pointing out that you were asking the wrong question given that you were asking him to prove something that he didn't claim. However let me answer the new question you are asking now myself.

First, I would not say that it is irrational to believe in god an follow science; I would say that the belief in god itself is irrational.

Why? Because you cannot prove the existence of god from reason alone and you cannot prove it from getting knowledge of this universe (science) as he (if he exists) transcends it.

As such a belief is not based on reason but on faith, it follows the very definition of irrational. It doesn't mean that you cannot use reason in religion, as once you accept on faith a given religion you can reason on its various premises, but the act itself of believing is irrational at heart.

However, saying that belief in god is irrational does not mean that it is a bad thing; after all, love is irrational too: you don't go around saying "I decide to fall in love with that girl/boy because of this, this, this and that". Similarly, the fact that love is irrational doesn't mean that you have no reason to love the girl/boy you love; they might be a very nice person and/or physically attractive, which helps, but the foundation of love is irrational. 

I guess lots of scientific thoeries are also irrational because they are not proven right.Faith too plays a big role in science

Anyway, since this is a ''evidence'' debate, I am gonna say the same thing to you I say to every person when this kind of debate pops up. I dont ''believe'' or ''hope'' that God exists. I KNOW that God exist. How? Well, thats the tricky part. You (at least i) have to believe to see, not see to believe. And that differs from person to person. You choose the way. Thats why god gave us free will. God would NEVER allow humans to prove him or disprove him using reason scientific knowledge, its up to you and you alone weather you want to beleive in God or not. Thats why God gave us free will. He SPECIFICALLY created (or designed, if you will) man with free will and the ability to choose so that we could choose.       



ithis on 12 July 2011

Yes.



Rath on 12 July 2011
Allfreedom99 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:

I'm sorry for the length of this post, but I think it sheds light on this subject if you read what I have to say...This topic as seen will always ignite debates with different belief systems. Of course everyone is entitled to their belief system but ultimately something happened that caused us to exist. So the question will always be asked.

I am seeing some on here imply that the existence of God contradicts Science and that it is impossible for one to believe in a God if they adhere completely to Science. This is ABSOLUTELY false. I will explain my viewpoint. One can indeed believe in God as well as adhere to Science.

Science indeed will always be science. Man will continually learn more of what Science already knows as science develops with new tools, new methods, and new events allowing for man to study science using mathematics, physics, ect. I concur that Science has yet to disprove that a higher power exists. Also we must say that man using Science cannot simply use a platform that captures the energy of a higher being that they can use the scientific method on. All a Scientist can do when trying to answer the question of if God exists is base the result on circumstantial evidence they can gather in the universe for the basics of life to exist.

When you take the question of where the universe began you have to look at when and how it all began. We ultimately have two options to choose from here.

1. In the beginning there was only space, time, and gravity that existed. From a singular point over an undetermined amount of time the universe began to be formed. (Without an intelligent being through mathematical possibilities and chance)

2. In the beginning a vastly intelligent and powerful being either began the process or created everything we know in the universe. (With a vastly intelligent being).

So you have to choose which option you will go. No matter what theory you come up with  on how the universe began you will always get to the starting point when it was either an intelligent being or only space, time, gravity that started the universe through mathematical possibilities. To use Science one must have logic. Without logic existing there would be no understanding of Science, nor any way to utilize mathematics at all.

My argument is that we by no means can have what exists today without some kind of intelligent being that set these things in place.

One of the stumbling blocks for any explanation of the universe without an intelligent designer is the fact that we have logic. Time and Time again you cannot put dead matter into a test environment and eventually come out with something that has obtained logic. Science proves this, does it not? There are many other factors I could discuss but based on the existence of logic alone that is absolute evidence of an intelligent creator whom we would refer to as God of the Universe.

Why space, time and gravity?

Space-time is the first four dimensions of our universe and there is no reason to think it has to exist outside of it and gravity is one of four forces - why would that exist outside the universe and why would the other three be excluded (although at the start of the universe according to supersymmetry they were a single unified force).

If you are talking about electromagnetic, strong force, and weak force I did not necissarily mean to exclude those from the theory. My main argument is that I just dont see where the properties, laws of the universe, and matter within the universe can come about through a singular point without any direction or set code formed by a vastly intelligent higher being. Even for the first living cell to form through chemical reactions I just dont see how that living cell would have the properties and code to split and recreate itself without some form of intelligence designing that code for the living cell. This is part why I claim that having a universe where laws and forms of order exist without God is a contradiction, even though Im guessing it sounds ridiculous to you based on your posts. 



Well consider the possibility of infinite universes with essentially random properties - the vast majority of these universes are unable to ever support life - in many matter doesn't form, others collapse quickly under their own gravity back into a singularity. In one of these universes the laws of physics are just right for life to eventually form, evolve and become intelligent. That intelligent life then asks 'why do all of the universal constants seem perfect for life?'.

Jumpin on 12 July 2011

Where is the "neither" option? I don't believe in either theory. Mostly, I don't think enough research has been done to really accurately say that either theory is correct. For example, there are a lot of very mature galaxies that are more than 13 billion years old in a 13.7 billion year old Universe; when this should be impossible. Plus the big bang theory only works when huge adjustments are made with "dark energy" and "dark matter" that we can't prove do not exist, because they are impossible to observe. As for God or Gods, if any does exist, I doubt Humans accurately know the nature of such a being.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.