Page 19 of 34 FirstFirst ... 9141516171819202122232429 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 675
  1. #361  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I thought they are valid questions for anyone, especially science. Am I wrong?

    The other discussion had nothing to do with God, it was looking at several aspects from a science point of view.
    Of course they are valid, and you have many people working an answering them, and many hypothesis exists. "God did it" doesn't come up much in the journals however.

    Surur
  2. #362  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    .......As I understand the gender of god is not defined in the Bible, however an argument as previously presented indicating that man (as opposed to woman) was created in god's image therefore god is likely to be male is compeling................
    A more convincing argument is that if God were female, men would have periods and deliver babies.
  3. #363  
    Quote Originally Posted by Surur
    Of course they are valid, and you have many people working an answering them, and many hypothesis. God did it doesn't come up much in the journals however.

    Surur
    Then don't answer them with God, I didn't imply that. It is not a trap. It is a discussion. If they are valid points then I am truly interested in the possibilities that they present.
  4. #364  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Here are some interesting points of interest that I asked on another forum talking about the wonders of the Universe:

    If the universe is 14 billions years old, as many Big Bang theorists suggest, that indicates a point of creation. Then these questions comes to mind:
    • Was everything created out of nothing?
    • If not then what was the Universe created from and when and how was that material and/or object(s) created?
    • Is there a point of an "Ultimate Creation"?
    • If not then has matter always existed having never been created?

    1) Don't know
    2) Don't know
    3) Don't know
    4) Don't know

    And I suspect, given current scientific understanding and technological limitations, anyone who professes to say otherwise is misguided or pulling your leg. People may have beliefs, hypothesis, or opinions, but it wouldn't surprise me if none of this could ever be known at all.

    As such, these questions aren't so much for science, but philosophy, IMO.

    Chris
  5. #365  
    The big bang is currently well accepted amongst scientists, ie. the universe started as a superdense particle that exploded. The next question is of course where this superdense particle came from. It could have arisen spontaneously, an idea which is not inconsistent with quantum ideas. It could have been left over from a previous universe which collapsed. It could even be a meaningless question to ask for beings inside the universe, because we cant access anything outside the universe itself. There may be billions of "universes" outside our light cone, so far away that we will never interact even gravitationally. Its an interesting area of research.

    Surur
  6. #366  
    Here's a nice web page addressing (if not necessarily answering) many of your questions.
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#BBB

    Surur
  7. #367  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    these questions aren't so much for science, but philosophy, IMO.

    Chris
    I disagree. If your answer to the last one is yes, then among other questions, a question of matter changing from one form or type to another comes up. This could lead to a drastic influence on how we understand the universe around us now today and in the past.

    If the answer to the first one is yes, then can it be recreated. Could we do it? Imagine the implications. If the answer is no the others questions fall into line as stated.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/02/2007 at 09:50 PM.
  8. #368  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    "God did it" doesn't come up much in the journals however.

    Surur
    All the answers not in current scientific journals are not proof against a possibility or concept.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #369  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    All the answers not in current scientific journals are not proof against a possibility or concept.
    ... Which gives equal credence to every religious/political cult since the dawn of time.
  10. #370  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1 View Post
    But when some will not believe, maybe it's better to quote Shop...
    " ".
    Shopharim didn't write nothing, he wrote "Luke 23:24" in white letters. Don't ask me why he wrote it, and why in "invisible" letters.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. Dim-Ize's Avatar
    Posts
    242 Posts
    Global Posts
    710 Global Posts
    #371  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Shopharim didn't write nothing, he wrote "Luke 23:24" in white letters. Don't ask me why he wrote it, and why in "invisible" letters.
    Intersting. I had missed that.

    Mark 6:11 or Psalms 14:1 would have been my references.
    Last edited by Dim-Ize; 05/03/2007 at 01:31 AM.
  12. #372  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Shopharim didn't write nothing, he wrote "Luke 23:24" in white letters. Don't ask me why he wrote it, and why in "invisible" letters.
    As always trying to mind-read shopharim, but I would assume he means we dont want to see the rage of god these days, and we better be thankful Jesus asked him not to unleash this for our sins against him, as he regularly did in the old testament.

    Surur
  13. #373  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Here are some interesting points of interest that I asked on another forum talking about the wonders of the Universe:

    If the universe is 14 billions years old, as many Big Bang theorists suggest, that indicates a point of creation. Then these questions comes to mind:
    • Was everything created out of nothing?
    • If not then what was the Universe created from and when and how was that material and/or object(s) created?
    • Is there a point of an "Ultimate Creation"?
    • If not then has matter always existed having never been created?
    Those are interesting questions. From what I have heard, matter and energy can come into existence spontaneously according to quantum mechanics. However that may be, I find it to be beyond what we can understand with our level of experience. The greatest mystery for me is that there is SOMETHING at all - even if the universe is just an illusion, there has to be something at least, otherwise there wouldn't be anything thinking about it. I find it inapprehensible that the universe exists, but obviously it (or at least something) exists, whether we understand it or not.

    However that may be, simply saying "god did it" doesn't solve the problem at all. You just push back the need for explanation one step more, and into a more improbable direction. If one cannot understand/accept that matter simply started existing or that it has existed forever, why should one assume an all-powerful being simply started existing or has existed forever?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #374  
    The problem with any analysis of those questions is that they are framed WITHIN THE CONFINES of our universe. We are bound by our laws of physics, by our understanding of "reality". And since those questions deal with matters beyond our universe, it is entirely possible that there are different laws of "reality" that we have no concept of.

    I certainly think it should be discussed, and I think it is possible to come up with some hypothesis about the origin of our universe, what existed before it, etc, but I think it is all but impossible to test them to any great degree.

    Having said that it is perfectly fine for people to come up with conjecture and hypotheses, but since they can't be objectively tested (at least with our current level of technology and understanding) IMO it is more for the realm of philohophy (and yes, I think that there can be a "scientific philosophy" where you discuss scientific possibilities that are out of the realm of experimentation).

    I beleive many scientists certainly believe time in never ending/never beginning. But since space/time is related, who is to say that our concept of time is only frames within our universe? "Outside" our universe, "time" may be something competely different.

    As for the creation of our universe, I think most scientists believe it was formed somewhat spontaneously in a "big bang" with a sudden appearance of a microscopic "particle" that contained all of the mass of our universe - but as to what (or who) caused the big bang, or if it was just a random event, I don't know if there is anyway to determine that.


    Chris
  15. #375  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    However that may be, simply saying "god did it" doesn't solve the problem at all. You just push back the need for explanation one step more, and into a more improbable direction. If one cannot understand/accept that matter simply started existing or that it has existed forever, why should one assume an all-powerful being simply started existing or has existed forever?
    Interesting point. At various times in our history, there have been things we haven't understood - ranging from geological phenomenon and astrological events (even just the sun rising). And usually the answer has been "God does it" or something to that effect.

    Yet as we learned more, we have understood how and why things can happen.

    So I agree in a sense, simply saying "God does it" is something of a cop out, it works to prevent a scientific analysis of who/what/where/when/why/how.

    However, there may come a point where we have a question that simply CAN'T be answered by science - such as the beginning of our universe. In that case, saying God did it might be a reasonable response for some, while others would simply choose to say "we don't know."

    Chris
  16. #376  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    As for the creation of our universe, I think most scientists believe it was formed somewhat spontaneously in a "big bang" with a sudden appearance of a microscopic "particle" that contained all of the mass of our universe - but as to what (or who) caused the big bang, or if it was just a random event, I don't know if there is any way to determine that.
    But the "sudden appearance of a microscopic "particle" that contained all of the mass of your universe" is not something I find comprehensible. Also, it violates the scientific law and the everyday experience that mass/energy are constant. I cannot truly "understand" that mass can suddenly just appear, or that mass has always be there without a beginning (e.g. cycling through eternal series of big bangs and big crunches).

    I have not problem at all imagining or accepting how life started spontaneously and how it evolved over billions of years. This is something we can test or at least extrapolate from experiments, common sense, experience, likelihood etc. Matter suddenly appearing from nowhere and from nothing is not.

    Again: none of this points to the existence of a devine being, because explaining how an all-powerful, omniscient being came into existence is even more difficult than explaining how simple matter/energy came into existence.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #377  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    But the "sudden appearance of a microscopic "particle" that contained all of the mass of your universe" is not something I find comprehensible. Also, it violates the scientific law and the everyday experience that mass/energy are constant. I cannot truly "understand" that mass can suddenly just appear, or that mass has always be there without a beginning (e.g. cycling through eternal series of big bangs and big crunches).

    I have not problem at all imagining or accepting how life started spontaneously and how it evolved over billions of years. This is something we can test or at least extrapolate from experiments, common sense, experience, likelihood etc. Matter suddenly appearing from nowhere and from nothing is not.

    Again: none of this points to the existence of a devine being, because explaining how an all-powerful, omniscient being came into existence is even more difficult than explaining how simple matter/energy came into existence.
    Many bizarre things happen on a submicroscopic scale e.g. things like quantum tunneling of photons, or virtual particles popping out of nowhere exerting casimir pressure and leading to the evaporation of blackholes etc.

    Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing" (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again. Such particles permeate space, mediate particle decay, and mediate the exchange of the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and—in accord with quantum theory—gravititational forces). Virtual particles are real and have measurable effects, but the same uncertainty principle that allows them to come into existence dictates that they cannot be directly observed.

    Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which explains the virtual particle phenomenon, is most commonly stated as follows: It is impossible to exactly and simultaneously measure both the momentum and position of a particle. There is always an uncertainty in momentum and an uncertainty in position. More importantly, these two uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero together.

    One consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the energy and duration of a particle are also characterized by complementary uncertainties. There is always, at every point in space and time, even in a perfect vacuum, an uncertainty in energy and an uncertainty in duration, and these two complementary uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero simultaneously.

    The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time—an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so "empty" space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval. Although these particles cannot be observed individually, their existence can be demonstrated.

    Normally, a metal plate experiences a storm of fleeting impacts from virtual particles on both of its surfaces; this "vacuum pressure" is equal on both sides of the plate, and so cancels out. If, however, two parallel metal plates are too closely spaced to allow the formation of relatively large virtual particles between them, the vacuum pressure between the plates is less than that on their outer surfaces, and they experience a net force pushing them together. This force is termed the Casimir effect after Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir (1909–2000), who predicted its existence in 1948, and was experimentally measured in 1997.

    The Casimir effect is only one manifestation of the reality of virtual particles. Virtual particles also mediate the exchange of all forces between particles. For example, when an electron experiences electrical repulsion from another electron (electrons are negatively charged, and like charges repel), it is actually exchanging virtual photons with that other electron. Higher-energy virtual photons are only allowed by the uncertainty principle to exist for shorter periods of time, as shown by the uncertainty equation, and thus cannot travel as far as lower-energy virtual photons; this explains why the electric force is stronger at short distances. (In fact, all the basic forces—electric, strong, weak, and gravitational—diminish with distance for this reason. Gravity, however, has not been satisfactorily integrated with the equations that describe the other three forces.)

    A third role for virtual particles is in decay mediation. When an unstable subatomic particle decays (i.e., breaks down into two or more other subatomic particles), it does so by first taking the form of a virtual particle. The virtual particle then completes the decay process. In some cases, the intermediate virtual particle has more mass than the initial particle or the final set of decay products; this does not violate the conservation of mass because the intermediate particle is virtual, that is, exists for such a short period of time that it falls within the uncertainty bounds prescribed for the system's energy by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    This list of phenomena does not describe all the properties of virtual particles, but does indicate their prevalence.
    http://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/...Particles.html

    Again Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is a good guide. Virtually nothing is impossible, and some things are just very improbable, but if you wait long enough they will eventually happen. Like the universe popping out of nothing...

    Surur
  18. #378  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    But the "sudden appearance of a microscopic "particle" that contained all of the mass of your universe" is not something I find comprehensible. Also, it violates the scientific law and the everyday experience that mass/energy are constant. I cannot truly "understand" that mass can suddenly just appear, or that mass has always be there without a beginning (e.g. cycling through eternal series of big bangs and big crunches).

    I have not problem at all imagining or accepting how life started spontaneously and how it evolved over billions of years. This is something we can test or at least extrapolate from experiments, common sense, experience, likelihood etc. Matter suddenly appearing from nowhere and from nothing is not.

    Again: none of this points to the existence of a devine being, because explaining how an all-powerful, omniscient being came into existence is even more difficult than explaining how simple matter/energy came into existence.

    That's my point. It is an IDEA how the universe began, but it really doesn't answer a lot of questions (including the ones posed here - what was before it, how did it spontaneously generate, etc). And I am not sure if those questions can EVER be answered sceintifically. It is all speculation, IMO.

    Chris
  19. #379  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    The problem with any analysis of those questions is that they are framed WITHIN THE CONFINES of our universe. We are bound by our laws of physics, by our understanding of "reality". And since those questions deal with matters beyond our universe, it is entirely possible that there are different laws of "reality" that we have no concept of.

    I certainly think it should be discussed, and I think it is possible to come up with some hypothesis about the origin of our universe, what existed before it, etc, but I think it is all but impossible to test them to any great degree.

    Having said that it is perfectly fine for people to come up with conjecture and hypotheses, but since they can't be objectively tested (at least with our current level of technology and understanding) IMO it is more for the realm of philohophy (and yes, I think that there can be a "scientific philosophy" where you discuss scientific possibilities that are out of the realm of experimentation).

    I beleive many scientists certainly believe time in never ending/never beginning. But since space/time is related, who is to say that our concept of time is only frames within our universe? "Outside" our universe, "time" may be something competely different.

    As for the creation of our universe, I think most scientists believe it was formed somewhat spontaneously in a "big bang" with a sudden appearance of a microscopic "particle" that contained all of the mass of our universe - but as to what (or who) caused the big bang, or if it was just a random event, I don't know if there is anyway to determine that.


    Chris
    These questions belong to those fields of discourse called Metaphysics and Theology. I gave up even considering those spaces when I realized that the best one can do there is to speculate. Even Physics and Cosmology, where we can at least test our hypothesies, are so far beyond my ken that I need all the help I can get.

    All those who claim to know "The Truth" are mere pretenders, not to say, charlatans.

    Some here seem to find comfort from their ignorance in metaphors, myths, and special revelation to prophets.
  20. #380  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    I cannot truly "understand" that mass can suddenly just appear, or that mass has always be there without a beginning (e.g. cycling through eternal series of big bangs and big crunches).

    Again: none of this points to the existence of a devine being, because explaining how an all-powerful, omniscient being came into existence is even more difficult than explaining how simple matter/energy came into existence.
    Your two points are at odds with each other, though very understandably which is why I find these questions very intriguing. It basically seems to boil down to I don't know. I don't how to prove it. So there has to be some leap of faith that there is a scientific explanation as matter is here.

Posting Permissions