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

Forums - Politics - Where did the Big Bang Come from?

o_O.Q on 29 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
o_O.Q said:

well for me ultimately i believe that our logical understanding of the universe is not enough to explain what caused it 

so it leads me to the conclusion that something outside of our understanding must have caused it or god 

something that as the saying goes defies logic

i also think that its quite likely that a lot of the conclusions we have drawn about the universe and the nature of reality itself are themselves wrong

 

then there's also the possiblility as someone said that the universe itself is infinite and has no cause or end

I don't think something outside of our understanding causing the universe defies logic at all. Just because time exists now as we know it does not (from a logical perspective) mean that time has always existed. Provided that time has not always existed, logic would say it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God has just always existed, or even that the beginnings of the big bang has just always existed.

just to clarify when i said defying logic and our understanding i mean't the nature of god or the cause not that its illogical to have a situation where time has a start but yeah i agree



Around the Network
Baalzamon on 29 August 2014
ICStats said:

The way I would imagine something endless is like a circle. A circle has no beginning or end, but it has points on it.

This reminded me of the Wheel of Time saga. At the beginning of every book is this:

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, and Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning, there are neither Beginnings nor endings to the turning of The Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning."



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

o_O.Q on 29 August 2014
the_dengle said:
I wish everyone would just recognize science and spirituality as the same thing.


people have become too materialistic believing that the only things that matter are the things we can measure with our instruments



SvennoJ on 29 August 2014

All interesting questions. However the attitude, oh fuck it, it probably was God has never advanced our understanding of the universe.

We don't really know yet how the universe works, so reverse engineering how it started has its limitations. Same with consciousness. We have very limited knowledge of what it is, so asking where it came from is a bit premature. We can't even say for sure what animals have consciousness.



justgames7604 on 29 August 2014
o_O.Q said:
KylieDog said:
o_O.Q said:
KylieDog said:
Mystro-Sama said:

Most Atheists i've spoken to dropped the smartass attitude after that question. Not to mention that they can't seem to answer the question of how an existence without consciousness can create an existence with consciousness.

What made God?

And what made what made God?

And what made that?

I assume most Atheists shut up because it is a stupid set of questions and the answer would be lost on the people asking.

what caused the universe was an entity that exists without an initial cause or what some people call god


And before that?

that means that nothing happened prior, that there was no start and will be no end


see youre already wrong, time is finite it has a start. It is tangible and can be persuaded and slowed with gravity.



Systems Owned: PS1, PS2, PS3,PS4, Wii, WiiU, xbox, xbox 360, xbox one

Around the Network
justgames7604 on 29 August 2014

Mystro-Sama said:

 Not to mention that they can't seem to answer the question of how an existence without consciousness can create an existence with consciousness.

 

but not all life has conscious and not all life has the same level of consciousness. for example jellyfish have no consciousness and live purely off of instinct, dogs dont recognise themself and their self awareness ends at their immediate senses. While humans take years to develop a sentient-level consciousness. 



Systems Owned: PS1, PS2, PS3,PS4, Wii, WiiU, xbox, xbox 360, xbox one

the_dengle on 29 August 2014
o_O.Q said:
the_dengle said:
I wish everyone would just recognize science and spirituality as the same thing.


people have become too materialistic believing that the only things that matter are the things we can measure with our instruments

Please, the other side is just as stubborn. Studying the Universe is a profound experience. Anyone who uses science to justify their atheism doesn't know the meaning of the word miracle, and is little more than a pretender. But the same is true of a religious person who faces the Universe with a closed mind, refusing to allow the truth to deepen their connection to the cosmos.

Scientific study is one of the most enlightening experiences available to people, no matter their religion or lack thereof, regardless of how many Gods they believe in, if any. Questions like the OP are important. It's also important to keep asking them, and not simply settle for an answer like "whatever, God did it." Maybe we will never find another answer, but it is through questions such as these that we have learned so much about our place in the Universe. The more we learn, the more questions we raise -- the more miracles we uncover.



VXIII on 29 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
VXIII said:

So one side only looking for counter argument without really trying to find the truth or get a knowledge out of it.

Is it really due to lack of effort to finding the truth though? In my case, the reason I approach the debate by shunning the logic of the religious is to get them to quit babbling at me regarding things I don't want to hear, as I have largely accepted it (the "beginning" of the universe) is something I will very likely never have the ability to understand in my lifetime. So there isn't really a reachable truth or knowledge to be had. There is a very high likelihood that no matter how many resoures we put towards attempting to discover the answer, we will still not know in any of our lifetimes.

Trying to find a truth is an attitude. Whether there is a truth or not is a different matter. The subject might not have a reachable truth, but that doesn't mean one should reject any counter argument without even taking a few seconds to think about it ( rather than thinking how to counter it ),  saying that the other side "babbling at you" shows that you have no acceptance to them to begin with, which is exactly what I was talking about.

So, carry on... warriors of triumph..



VXIII on 29 August 2014
Soriku said:
ikki5 said
VXIII said:

The first "cause", someone / something that is beyond the law of physics, timeless, and like no other thing that you can observe or fully understand.

 

Either you are a religious or "scientific", it requires you lot of faith to form a belief about this subject. The two debating camps have a lot in common and they never really realized it.


Not really, unless you take a deist perspective of god. Where some god created the universe but has since remained indifferent to it. The thing is we've always came up with a natural explanation for everything in science. There has never been one time where scientists concluded that something supernatural must have taken place. So if you just follow the pattern thus far, there's not much reason to expect a supernatural origin.


Waiting is your answer to the OP then? That hopefully scientists would come up with a natural explanation for the question in hand. Fair enough, but I call that faith in science.

Faith definition: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something" :)



etking on 29 August 2014

Our world could be a computer simulation.