God

[Uncle Arly]

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it...

...but what do you personally believe, if you don't mind me asking? BEFORE the Big Bang (which we've already established both of us find to be the most logical explanation for as far back as science can form educated theories about)?

Quite funny actually, as both me and my friend we're up at 3am this morning discussing this.

We both agreed that we had no idea what was before the big bang. But, I then I had a thought; Scientists say that the universe will end with the big Crunch. Well, what if the big crunch is the big bang, on rewind. What if all resistance is on a continuous loop.

Of course, this was probably the Vodka talking.

 

[Pokemaniac]

^Actually, I have a quite intersting and most likely wrong theory on that one. Feel free to correct me later, as I don't like the idea of saying wrong things to everyone:

Look at the laws of physics. Feel free to split them up, see what makes them work, in turn. After a while, you get them boiled down to a few quite basic principles.

One of these principles is that equal charges push each other away (there is a fancy word for it, but I have forgotten it). Thus, everything in the universe with a charge is trying to escape other things with the same charge, and sticking to the opposite charge. Due to the ways of the system, it can never settle, as there's always another thing with the same charge to move away from, always another thing with the opposite charge to get pulled towards.

But what it it was different?

Say that something happened so that equal charges were attracting each other. After not a lot of time, huge clusters of positive and negative matter would start to appear, pulling other clusters towards them at breakneck speeds, pushing others away even faster. Even neutral particles (who just consist of one positive and one negative charge (if I'm not mistaken) would be torn into positive and negative pieces, who would zoom towards their respective heaps of same-charged matter.
Those heaps would be insanely compact too. Atoms as we know them are actually quite spaced out, due to charges keeping them from collapsing completely. But in this hypotethical situation, atoms would never form. It would just be clusters of particles laying close against each other, very, very tightly. The Earth itself wouldn't be bigger than two small dots of unimaginable tinyness.
After a few "then"s, everything in the universe would form two clusters. One purely positive, one purely negative. And between them, nothing. Nothing at all, as everything has a charge, that's either positive or negative. I think (this is where the theory stands or falls). So if my theory is correct, the distance between them would actually be zero, even though they would be at opposite ends of the universe. A small cluster of positive and negative, and insanely much energy.

Then imagine that somebody* flipped the switch again.

We'd have an absolutely insane explosion of unimaginable proportions, as the particles suddenly decided to move away from equal-charged particles. Of which there would be lots nearby. Sounds familiar?

*now, who, what or when is this somebody? Here, I think, is where we meet the questions.

 

[jokerman]

That is a very interesting theory, but the evidence for the big bang shows everything moving away from one point in the universe, not from two different points.

Unless you have the two lots of particles collide before exploding, but this is unlikely to have happened since the particles on the edge of these two masses of particles would have been pushed away so strongly that it would have taken them some time to "catch up" with the other particles of a similiar charge.

 

[Pokemaniac]

^Perhaps I should have explained a bit better. One of the major stand-or-fall points of this theory is that there's a perfect vacuum between the two clusters. Between them, nothing. Beyond them, nothing. So in theory, they would actually lay quite close to each other. A few nanometers, perhaps even less. Yes, a Googleplexwatt or so of energy would be pushing the clusters away from each other, but there would be nothing to push the other one into. No matter, no antimatter, no nothing. The entire universe would consist of these clusters. So they would in this theory lay practically on top of each other. Yes, particles would collide epically just after the "switch", but even more forces would be pushing them further, just like when you kick a heap of sand. Not every grain comes into contact with your foot, some are pushed by other grains as well. And they fly almost as far as those you personally kicked.

Perhaps this about as good of a theory as that one of these guys, but the best that I can produce on a sleepless night.

 

[Uncle Arly]

You see, no matter how far back you try to explain anything, it really comes down to one of two things:

1. "It was just there."

2. "Some being put it there."

I simply don't believe #1.

Yes. This is where I give up. I refuse to believe that there was no beginning. Everything has a beginning and an end. But, what was the beginning?

My head hurts.

 

[Ploddish]

http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infini ... pic=7586.0

This was a very interesting topic, along the lines of whether everything in the universe was reducible to physics. It turns into a lovely religion topic, and is excellent subject matter.

 

[furie]

So what was there before God, and who created God? Or is there a separate world we're not aware of where there are no rules or laws governing anything - just the will of God?

 

[nadroJ]

Yes. This is where I give up. I refuse to believe that there was no beginning. Everything has a beginning and an end. But, what was the beginning?

See you only have to believe something has a beginning and an end etc because that is the way the human mind is programmed and how discoveries over our time on Earth have lead us to believe.

Technically everything that we believe to be true could actually be a fabrication created by humanity itself and not actually truth. Therefore, the Universe could have just 'been' and not been created by something, it's just that the human mind is programmed so that that very concept seems implausible.

 

[Uncle Arly]

That is actually very interesting.

I've never really thought of it like that.

 

[Ploddish]

More interesting reading, written by the guy who does Dilbert.

http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf

I don't agree with it, but that's the point. The foreword asks you to pick flaws, but of course, that's just him covering his backside.

 

[Anonymous]

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!

 

[nadroJ]

Would you believe I've never seen the Matrix? Sci-fi bullcrap if you ask me, so I don't know what it's about or anything.

I just always thought of my concept as a very plausible idea and it would help to explain a lot of things in this world that we don't understand.

 

[furie]

^Well, if you believe in God, than he's always existed, and his existence is on a plane that we cannot comprehend.

If you don't believe in God, then, well, I don't know really. I've never been in that situation.

This is where I struggle you see.

It's all very "convenient". Science can't answer what was there before the Big Bang the question "what created the universe" - so a believer can say "science can't answer that, it must be feasible for there to be a God".

However, a non-believer can't use the question "so what created God?", because the answer is "God is forever and incomprehensible."

It's a bit of an unfair situation. A non-believer can't say "what happened prior to the Big Bang is incomprehensible". The believer asks for proof, but is never required to deliver any.

This isn't knocking why you may personally believe, it's just a lovely way of getting out of any potential questions science may ask (which it too doesn't have an answer for).

I think quantum physics has a lot to say here. Theoretically there are many dimensions around us which we have no understand of, or ability to measure or quantify. This is no different really to believing in God and heaven, only the math works

So, if there are layers of dimensions we can't comprehend, could the Big Bang have been a leak from one dimension, or a split from one dimension which created ours?

Nobody knows, so there's just a big question mark. Personally, I have no idea. I just know that 13.7 billion years ago our universe came into existence. Until a few thousand years ago, God was just hanging around, whiling away the millennia waiting for people to evolve. Of course, in deity scales 13.7 billion years might be half an hour...

I think the other science (we're all looking for answers to universal questions here) that needs to be looked at is history and psychology.

ten thousand years ago people worshipped the natural Gods. They didn't have a clear grasps of how the world worked, so there was an inherent belief that nature needed personification. The sun and moon where god and goddess. Gods lived in the trees, the rain, the sea, the earth.

As humans discovered more about the world around them, and came to understand how things worked, religion changed. There's always been a desire to worship things we don't understand. As we learn more, the old religion dies and we discover something new we don't understand to worship. It's a very interesting human behaviour. We could be programmed to worship God as one of his, or it could just be our sentient minds trying to come to grips with a wider world we cannot fathom.

I do think we're on the edge of a new shift though. Despite a resurgence of more "hardcore" religious views recently, most religious people are actually quite accepting that the older scriptures aren't true. Science has essentially proven a lot of the Old Testament to be wrong, or woefully inaccurate. Most people now view it as a symbolic text, rather than a history.

Does anyone else think there'll be a paradigm shift within most organised religions in the next twenty or thirty years to formally accept the inaccuracies in most holy texts and formalise them into a more acceptable, modern form?

 

[nealbie]

You mean a sort of third "Newer Testament"? :lol:

 

[Ollie]

Would you believe I've never seen the Matrix? Sci-fi bullcrap if you ask me, so I don't know what it's about or anything.

I thought I was the only one who hadn't seen it.

 

[furie]

You mean a sort of third "Newer Testament"? :lol:

LOL! Not quite. Just the churches kind of formally accepting the symbolic meaning of the old testament. Let's face it, most of the problems caused are due to problems with the way the bible is used as a weapon. The reason this can be done is because it's taken as law, even though it often contradicts itself. People will cherry pick the part they want for their own ends.

Of course, therein lies the problem. The different interpretations of the bible have essentially created the many different versions of Christianity we have - so it's doubtful there would ever be a "universal modern Christianity". It would be nice if the Catholics and CofE left the middle ages though

 

[Blaze]

Anyway, it's been over 2009 years (the calender is 4 years ahead of Jebus's actual birth), and God has not made another son, so he is either non-existant, or a jaffa.

That argument is just weak, because you're saying "He hasn't shown up yet, so he must not be real" - to which I could simply respond, in kind logic, "God must exist, because you can't prove otherwise!"

No, that was a joke to round of my argument, and any way, if God is perfect, he can not be seedless, I think you missed the irony there.

Make up your own mind by all means, but your just following what someone else thought up, and for all we know Scientology could be true, and don't call them nutters if your religious, because you believe a 2000 year old zombie is coming back to save us. Normal people can call them mad though, thats fine.

Once again, attempting to lump everyone in with a single religion that you apparently find easy to target.

You need to learn to understand, amidst your atheist ranting and mis-information, that not all people share the exact same beliefs as mainstream religions. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who associate with a particular religion don't believe in every aspect of it (though some religions are stricter than others).

We all have our personal beliefs, and the fact that we do allows us - to OURSELVES - determine what WE, OURSELVES believe - it is then with that belief that we make judgements on other beliefs and faiths.

After all, you obviously believe very strongly that Jesus didn't exist - could I not just as easily call you totally ridiculous for thinking the way you do? "And you'd better not call other religions nutters, because any one who thinks God doesn't exist is clearly off their rocker..."

Jesus did exist, they found his body, I just do not believe he was the son of God or a prophet or anything. Many people at the time were hailed as prophets, and Jesus had so many followers because he was peacefull, smart and not quite a deranged lunatic, and that is why he is so important to religions, even though he was the bastard son of a 14 year old 'virgin'. I wonder how Joseph feels, if it happened today he would probably join fathers for justice.

I have to say, you made some very good points, and yes, I did direct most of my opinions towards Christianity, but that might have something to do with my dislike towards the religion, because Jesus was a Jew, so shouldn't Christians be Jewish if the religion is so heavily influenced by the teachings of Christ even the name is for Christ's sake (no pun intended, honest).

Ok, I have strong anti-religious views but this is an open argument, and I am simply putting them out, although I do agree that I could be a bit less mean to Christianity and spread my argument out, but it is kind of justified, as most of the discussion is about Christianity, and to a lesser extent, the other Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism), while Hinduism and other religions have not been touched on.

I understand the concept of religion and the idea of God, it's natural and human. It's comforting to believe that up there there is somebody looking down on you caring for you, but I just think the idea, especially organised religion is deeply flawed, up it's own arse too much and can actually be fairly sisister and intimidating. I don't have that much against private, individual religion, and if I became religious, thats how I would do it, privately and in my own way, not going to church begging forgivness and protection or whatever.

 

[Slash]

I can't believe I haven't posted in here. Well, here it goes.

I believe in God, the reason I believe in God is simple.

Try to understand this if you will, if something Supernatural, something bigger, more important and more amazing than anything the Universe has to offer did not create this, then what did?

Evolution is always the Atheists answer to God not existing. They say "If God exists why do we evolve? If he existed, he would have made us perfect!".

Well its simple really isn't it.

A. Evolution is a THEORY not FACT, no one knows if it is true, no one will ever live long enough to realise if it is true.

B. If evolution does exist then it may be God's way of trying to improve himself, changing beings to fit their environment and making those which he has made too weak extinct.

The other things Atheists say is "If God exists, why the hell is there suffering!".

Well, I believe that suffering and natural caused death is all God's way of stabilising the population, maybe thats a bit harsh to people to think that God chooses a mass of people to die but that is what I believe.

If God does not exist, what made this, I mean if you can tell me that we came from single celled organisms, then where did they come from?

I'm not saying that anything I said is right, or wrong.

But I'm going to say one last thing, if you want proof of God, look around you. Look at the perfection that you can see, the way each Organism works in harmony and is perfectly equipped for their purpose. Then tell me, can you honestly say this was by accident?

 

[Ollie]

I find it funny how a "Do you believe in God" Yes or No poll has turned into 22 pages off people arguing. :lol:
I've not bothered to read through most of the posts here as it's just people trying to prove each other wrong when you can't when both sides have different ideas, it's just not going to work.

I can't remember if I've posted in here or not yet. But anyways...

I believe in God. But I don't go to church or stuff (used to weekly when I was young).

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I find it funny how a "Do you believe in God" Yes or No poll has turned into 22 pages off people arguing. :lol:

How can a question like "Do you believe the universe was created intelligently?" be a yes or no question?

I've not bothered to read through most of the posts here as it's just people trying to prove each other wrong when you can't when both sides have different ideas, it's just not going to work.

You have no right to an opinion either way... If you think it's so unimportant, why post? The poll is for people incapable of using their brains to back up their opinions, so just vote in that.

Wtf is funny about people using their brains to come to conclusions?

A. Evolution is a THEORY not FACT, no one knows if it is true, no one will ever live long enough to realise if it is true.

Well done. Evolution is a theory. Do you understand what a "theory" means in scientific terms...? Maybe you do, but I doubt it, since you're not also arguing the case that Gravity, too, is a theory.

FACTS are observations... We don't fall off the Earth. THEORIES explain why we don't fall off the Earth.

Evolution has a mountain of evidence for it. A mountain of things we have observed which are facts. Those facts, like Whales having leg bones for example, are only explained by Evolution.

B. If evolution does exist then it may be God's way of trying to improve himself, changing beings to fit their environment and making those which he has made too weak extinct.

You're a rare breed if you're a Christian and think this statement works. God is infallible, all knowing and all powerful, so he cannot improve himself, which means he isn't all powerful... Eugh paradox.

I don't really have too much of an issue with it. God, being all knowing, could foresee the changes in the environment that, being all powerful, he would be making in the first place.

But this sort of statement, however rare, is based on a misunderstanding of evolution. Most people accept "micro" evolution... The adaptation of individual species. Less people accept that those individual species become new species.

And this is the issue. The Biblical stories denounce evolution. Adam wasn't the descendant of a evolutionary process, he was just poofed into existence...

If God does not exist, what made this, I mean if you can tell me that we came from single celled organisms, then where did they come from?

I don't know where they came from. But I'd like to know. Which is the point of science. You cannot possibly think it's logical to assume that what we know now is the limit to our knowledge and that we will never explain what we currently do not understand... so, let's just make up a story that fits?

Now you answer me this. Where did whatever made those single celled organisms come from, then?

God begs more questions than he answers. Simply not knowing something and asserting that the answer must be supernatural is complete idiocy. You only have to look back at human history to see that.