|
On June 28 2011 00:34 deathly rat wrote:
One thing I've learned from talking to religeous people is that belittling their beliefs is counter-productive. They just think you are arrogant and don't fully understand what they are trying to tell you.
Vice versa is also available.
In the end, every person with each owns belief.
I however can't understand how rational people can believe that something can happen from nothing. Is that what science tells us? Is there any evidence that that can happen? Why believe that than?
|
The big bang theory does not ever posit that something came from nothing. The question "then what came before the big bang?" is about as pointless as asking "then what came before/created God?".
|
Before the big bang was another big bang, and so on. Until when? Forever? Is something forever around us? Why believe that?
And life came from nothing.
|
I'll just show you exactly why your question is nonsensical and shows that you're not applying your logic consistently.
Before God was there another God, and so on so forth? Until when? Forever? Is God forever around us? Why believe that?
|
Really now, and matter is not "nothing". In Biblical scripture God created Adam out of a handful of dust and his breath.
|
You did not show me anything lol.
Gods work ,to call it that, can't be rationalized and does not go by the same rules as exact science goes, and therefor the beliefs of atheists and others.
I am not a religious person. I don't go to the church and I don't cross my chest when I pass in front of one. But pure logic can't make me think that there is no God. Not by what we know so far of the Universe.
EDIT: God is to people what the string theory is to science. An explanation of everything that can never be proven.
|
You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot.
I am a religious person, but seeing people use these shoddy bullshit arguments frustrates me to no end. Some people are just fucking insane. It's really no wonder Kierkegaard withdrew from society. Trying to get to God through logic?
Merde.
|
You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot.
Because EVERYTHING else around us has. Nothing is eternal, or at least we don't know it. The whole Universe has a beginning and an end.
And you can be a religious person for the wrong reasons. We are not in the same boat.
|
On June 28 2011 01:44 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot. Because EVERYTHING else around us has. Nothing is eternal, or at least we don't know it. The whole Universe has a beginning and an end. And you can be a religious person for the wrong reasons. We are not in the same boat.
Actually everything is eternal as far as we know. Matter can't be created or destroyed.
|
You are misunderstanding the concept of time. A person is born and dies, but this only proves that the biological organism has a limited lifespan; it doesn't show in any way that time has a beginning and an end. When you watch a star expire, this doesn't show in any way that time has a beginning and an end. If the universe expands and collapses, ad infinitum, then its beginning and end is simply one of many beginning and ends of which there is no "true" beginning.
There is nothing to say that time has a beginning or end. You can only say this by using the concept of a Creator as an axiom, but this axiom has no rational grounds.
|
On June 28 2011 01:44 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot. Because EVERYTHING else around us has. Nothing is eternal, or at least we don't know it. The whole Universe has a beginning and an end. And you can be a religious person for the wrong reasons. We are not in the same boat.
You don't know that. We assume that our immediate environment is not eternal, we don't know it.
Eternity is just as nonsensical as a beginning. We cannot comprehend nor imagine a "beginning" of times, because we cannot imagine nothingness. And if we do, we cannot explain how something can happen out of nothing; it's deeply illogical. Those are the limits of human perceptions you're trying to solve in a couple of sentences.
|
There is some evidence to suggest that the universe is expanding, and it is clearly in motion. The big bang is a theory which explains many observations, but nobody thinks it is complete and accurate. It is our best model for the information we have.
As for before the big bang, we have no evidence that I am aware of what there was before the big bang if there was anything. Any theories are pure conjecture, indeed it is a suitable time to bring in the philosophists.
I am happy to realise that there are limits to our collective knowledge. When we have such little information it is foolish to derive too many conclusions.
I understand that it is this knowledge vacuum that is occupied by many religeons, but I think it is disingenuous to claim that science can currently explain everything we see. There is much more to be discovered about the universe than all of our collective knowledge to date.
|
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote:
Life has no inherent meaning.
Can someone please present the axioms and the reasoning that leads to this?
Because while i cannot present study evidence, i can logically reason for a set meaning of all life based on the axiom that all what we declare as live must obey physical laws (mainly thermodynamics, but i think it's best to include all, although i am not really sure).
btw:
On June 27 2011 18:45 ceaRshaf wrote:
You do know that one of Gods gifts is free will right?
There is no free will. I have great trouble understanding why people cling to it so much. It's a product of our mind, just like any object/situation in a dream. But unlike with dreams, many people still see free will as a given.
Granted, many law systems are based on it, but if you apply rigor logic, you don't really need it as an axiom for them.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big bang theory does not ever posit that something came from nothing. The question "then what came before the big bang?" is about as pointless as asking "then what came before/created God?".
Actually the theory at this stages gives no reason to believe that there was something before the moment of the Big Bang.
"Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation."
So the follow up questions are not the ones you described, but:
1) Can something come from nothing?
2) By the 3rd law of Newton:
"The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous."
So by the above law, the cause and effect, we must question our selves what immense force can trigger an Universe to expand, because as science proves nothing triggers without a trigger. THIS ARE FACTS!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't provided any reason to show why time has to have some definitive beginning, and so your entire argument is moot.
As science tells it now, time starts with Big Band and ends with it. It's not me telling, but smart people.
From wiki about time:
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[43] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything that was before the Big Bang is just speculation, so I don't see how it's relevant to discussion.
What I find really interesting is the arrow of time.
In the exact moment of the Big Bang everything was one dens point and all forces were one (theory of singularity).
"In scientific terms, a gravitational singularity (or space-time singularity) is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. In other words, it is a point in which all physical laws are indistinguishable from one another, where space and time are no longer interrelated realities, but merge indistinguishably and cease to have any independent meaning."
This first moment is perfect order. PERFECT. The arrow of time is the law that claims in any isolated system (including the Universe) time passes through order to disorder.
I find this really interesting. Why is this? Why we get to go from order to disorder?
Is this last question making you guys happy? These are facts,not my opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not trying to make a point, just discussing.
EDIT:
Actually everything is eternal as far as we know. Matter can't be created or destroyed.
This is false. You are confusing matter with energy. And it starts with the Big Bang.
- The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
- Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 18:45 ceaRshaf wrote:
You do know that one of Gods gifts is free will right? There is no free will. I have great trouble understanding why people cling to it so much. It's a product of our mind, just like any object/situation in a dream. But unlike with dreams, many people still see free will as a given.
What? The only other way around free will is determinism. Check it out.
Bottom line the human race doesn't know much for certain. It's a lot of theory.
|
You all need to read Gödel's theories, guys.
|
Show nested quote +The big bang theory does not ever posit that something came from nothing. The question "then what came before the big bang?" is about as pointless as asking "then what came before/created God?". Actually the theory at this stages gives no reason to believe that there was something before the moment of the Big Bang. "Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation."
And so the question is pointless, which you agree with.
So the follow up questions are not the ones you described, but:
It wasn't a follow-up question. That entire post was simply to show you how absurd your question was by returning it to you with your obsession in putting God into every little gap that is available.
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[43] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
The fact that no information of the events before the Big Bang are accessible has no meaning onto whether or not there actually was time before the Big Bang. It may be meaningless to the present universe, but not meaningless to the question. The last sentence is funny to me in light of his recent book that champions M-Theory and multiverses. There may not have been time in this specific universe before this specific Big Bang, but as one universe amongst many does it not stand then that the concept of time does not have a beginning in itself? There was time in other universes before our Big Bang. So time may have a beginning and end in the context of each singular universe, but the concept itself has no beginning and end.
|
How do you know there are many Universes?
Also I am not trying to prove the existence of God, I'm only showing why other's arguments are false by known facts.
|
I don't, I was talking about what Hawking said in his book.
|
On June 28 2011 05:35 ceaRshaf wrote:
So by the above law, the cause and effect, we must question our selves what immense force can trigger an Universe to expand, because as science proves nothing triggers without a trigger. THIS ARE FACTS!!!
And what was the first mover then? I doubt we'll ever know and god is no answer to that question.
"Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[43] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless."
That does not mean time did not exist before the big bang it just says we would not be able to access to any information on what happened before it. It's a pretty big difference.
This first moment is perfect order. PERFECT. The arrow of time is the law that claims in any isolated system (including the Universe) time passes through order to disorder.
I find this really interesting. Why is this? Why we get to go from order to disorder?
Is this last question making you guys happy? These are facts,not my opinions.
Read about vacuum energy and virtual particles, it's pretty complicated stuff. I think Hawking actually made a documentary about it, if you don't like reading.
This is false. You are confusing matter with energy. And it starts with the Big Bang.
- The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
- Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Sigh, ever heard of e=mc2? It doesn't start with the big bang, it is already there inside the singularity where the whole universe is.
|
United States161 Posts
I was really hyped up to see some Philosophy of knowledge, but I see no references to it except one to Kant in the beginning. No Gettier, no Plato or JTB, no Goldstein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
