Stop for a second and think about it....

neoANAGRAM4one

I love these discussions! lol

One thing that I don't understand, is how people can ask questions about anothers' beliefs and not direct that same question back to their own. the question, "how could god have been around forever. it just seems to me that if god created us, then something had to create god." great question! you've stumped all christians..... or have you?

I will answer this question as best I can but first, let's make the playing table even. Where did these protiens and atoms that are said to be able to evolve on their own come from? The answer commonly given is from the big bang and that it is a reocurring incident. Ok then, let's say that it's happend a billion times. Where did the matter come from an instant before the first big bang? You say from a different dimension? ok... where did the matter in that dimension come from? well it obeys different laws then those of our univers. Thank you for proving my point. in a different dimension, a being such as God could exist forever and have created matter. if you don't understand my line of reasoning here, message me or post and i'll clarify for you

Now as I'm criticizing you for not examining your beliefs, let me turn it around on mine. I know that matter had to come from somewhere. Everthing is cause and events. The only thing is, there had to be something to start the chain reaction. Since matter can not create itself from nothing, wouldn't it make much more sense to conclude that something that was beyond our understanding and capable of impossiblities was the cause of everything we know? And would it be so wrong if humans, seeking to describe this being gave him the lable of God?

I would love to see the posts to this. curious as to the replies. It might be until monday before I can reply so don't be impatient please.

WastedYears

Heres some random thoughts on the subject..

Perhaps if the discussion goes further, ill try to structure my arguement a bit better.

Ok, so the existance of 'God' you have told us: cannot be disproved by a single statement.

Anyway, let me get this straight , you belive that god has been chillin out in this other dimension where the concept of time does not exist, and then one day he says "I know, that paralell dimension seems pretty empty! Ill fill it with lumps of rock, exploding fire balls and clouds of gas, so as 15billion years later, a bunch of people in my image will evolve who I can preach to in the hope that they'll come to my dimension and keep me company." Or do you belive he said let there be light etc and did it in 7 days?

Anyway, what kind of being is your God? Does he have thoughts and emotions? Presumably the cristian god does, as we were created in his image.

If he doesnt have at least some thoughts then by what criteria do we classify him as a life form?

Why cant life be created by a simple formula... a single truth in the universe. I find this far more likely than an "original" life form.

Why do i find this more likely than a 'god' lifeform? Because all known life forms are born. The concept of nothing x nothing needs no birth ior nvention... it just exits and aways has/will. Just like if you punch 10 / 3 into a calculator. The calculator will say 3.33333r... that last three is infinate, yet it doesnt have to be born, it doesnt have to respirate and it doesnt have to grow old and die... its just infinate.

Ok, so maybe your saying that god is some kind of cosmic entity which exists within the fabric of all things?

In which case, why does he choose to manifest himself throuh humans which use trademark psycological manipulation techniques (ie. promise of afterlife) and fear (hell, damnation etc) to comand followers.

Why, whenever he appears in various forms, does he always seem to say "I am the true one.... all the others are fake!" And why- to some people- does he not appear at all? (children who die in their infancy for example... they dont get chance to go to church and be saved).

Further more, if God is able to steer the universes evolution towards the creation of the human race, surely he has prescience enough to see how it will all end up... iand if so, whats the point in creating it all in the first place? Its like watching a movie to which you know the ending.

Im not a scientist but I find it far more plausable that the origin of matter came from an equasion rather than a being.

mukimukkie

Any theory you come up with will have the problem, "Well, what made THAT happen?"
None of the religious arguments have merit. The thinking behind these is that God, if you believe in Her, must have created everything because it is all so wonderful and complex. Personally, having once been on this side of the argument, I think/know that it is just a lot of wishful thinking. Look at all the everythings that are imperfect and ugly! If we were created in God's image, She must have been high or drunk at the time.
None of the scientific arguments have merit either. It goes back to the same thing. What started the Big Bang? Why did this happen, why did that happen? Again, no clear answers. I know. I've spent enough time puzzling this out with my friends.
The thing you must understand is, THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER TO THIS. And there probably never will be. I would advise you to stop arguing and get it over with, but that would deprive me of the chance to come in here again and add more to this. I love this type of argument.
I believe in wht I call the Forces That Be. They inhabit everything and control everything. There is an infinite number of them. They have a wonderful sense of irony.

Blaise

i dont know if anyone has said this but it seems quite relavent with the whole who made god thing.

which came first the chicken or the egg?

in my opinion the chicken (obviuosly) because it EVOVLVED, just like us.

so if we were created by something for entertainment p'raps, they want a bit more than a light-hearted comedy...

:confused: but we all can have our own opinions...

l8r

ateisten

I think we have scientific proof that the egg was first - You need a chicken-egg-x to create a chicken-x, but a chicken-y can produce a chicken-egg-x. That was confusing, wasn't it....

Trinidad

"The explaination "God has been around forever" proves nothing and makes no sense to me. Obviously the question "Where did God come from?" will probably never be answered. It's pretty frustrating." -Val X

Mormons believe that we all have the capabilities to become gods, and create worlds f our own- if we achieve the perfect higher concsiousness. Also, this world is not the only test- there are many levels of heaven and hell. If you take that belief, than you can believe that the God we worship came from a long lineage of Gods before- and presumably- after Him. In this world, we will not be able to tell how far back that goes, but perhaps in the next life things will become clearer.

I- as any human- do not have concrete proof of God.

compass

wether you choose to believe in god or not is your choice, what is not your choice is the nature of our universe.

Our world system and universe is dominated by clear (if not painfully clear) cause and effect phenomenom. Take for instance water; if you play with it you get wet, if you heat it long enough it will boil, if you get it into your lungs, you die. obviously actions have consequences and not all concequences are positive.

My point is that your actions will determine what will happen to you regardless of your believe in god or not.

Their are those that say that since there is no god we should not be afraid, but I say: If you don't fear god fear your actions!

P.s God is light

WastedYears

ps. i want what your smokin.

compass

Dear wastedyears,

First of all, yes, you're right this leaf madness has to stop, but you must remember that the leaf is not independent of its environment, the leaf will create disturbances that affect other things in its environment. Likewise, no one person functions independently of their environment otherwise actions would have no effect on yourself or others. now we can look at leaf actions and human actions and say, ok their just actions, so what! BUT wait, they have consequences!!! The consequences of leaves falling are minimal, but the consequences of human actions can lead to pain, pleasure, or neither.

To wrap this up, just imagine that your actions could not only affect you both here on earth while you're alive, but also after you died; thus if you cause or caused great pain to others you can expect the same. Which brings me to the point I made in my last post: If you don't fear god, fear your actions!

-much peace!;)

neoANAGRAM4one

For me the greatest proof for the existance of an all knowing being is the problem, and a problem for scientist it is, of where all matter in the universe originated from. I have a much easier time attributing supremeness(is this even a word?? lol) to a being than to God. And whoever said that they'd rather believe everything comes from a formula.... formulas only describe physical interactions. surely you've heard the rule - matter can neither be created no destroyed. if this is true, then where did matter come from?

WastedYears

The other day, i looked in my washing basket and foud it was choc-a-bloc full!

'I dont have this many clothes!' I thought 'somebody must be putting all of these clothes in here!'

So after a back breaking trip to the laundrette, i set up a trap in in the bathroom (right next to the washing basket)

'ha ha!' surely this will catch the person who is putting all those extra clothes in my washing basket!

Strangely though, the following week, my washing basket had become full again and the trap remained empty!

'Thats it!' I thought, the person who is putting all these clothes into my washing basket, must be invisible! Thats why the trap (which was motion based) did not detect him!

So, on the third week, i bought a safe and put my washing basket inside. I opened it only to put my washing in and closed it straight after.

Guess what! Wash day came around and the washing basket was still full!

'Ok!' I thought 'these clothes CANT BE COMMING FROM NOWHERE and it seems impossible for me to own this many clothes!'

Then I concluded 'the person who is putting all this extra washing in my basket must be omnipresent and able to pass through solid steel. He must be very powerful... so from now on i shall worship him and pray for a happy life and maybe even less washing in the future!'

****

Ok so thats a silly story and from it you may simply conclude that Wasted Years is on crack.

But the point is that the man in the story may take years to count all of his clothes and may loose count many times along the way.

Sometimes he may see clothes in the basket which he definately cannot remember buying.

My conclusion is that science has a long hard struggle ahead of it and may never reach its ultimate goal, but this is certainly no reason to give up the search and start believing all sorts of preposterous stories.

neoANAGRAM4one

it is not preposterous and here is why. cosmologists have found evidence for more than our three dimensions(excluding time). All I'm saying is that scientists, in all their knowledge, can not tell me where all things in the universe came from. stephen hawking came up with a theory but it depended on the mass coming from somewhere else.

i still haven't gotten this idea across. i'm going to try one more time lol. matter is exactly that, matter. in and of itself it can do nothing. the only purpose for matter is to react. so, if you agree with what was just stated, how can you describe the very first event ever in our galaxy unless you bring in another factor?

and your example of the clothes is exactly like that of the universe. so what was the point you were trying to make? if you made that experiment and got those results, then a theory out of the ordinary is needed to describe the incident. do you not see this?

WastedYears

(1) cosmologists have found evidence for more than our three dimensions(excluding time).

- are these your christian scientist by any chance? (just checking)

stephen hawking came up with a theory but it depended on the mass coming from somewhere else.

- didnt you say god comes from somewhere else?

i matter is exactly that, matter. in and of itself it can do nothing.

- how do you know this? Have you divided matter small enough to discover the sole origin particle?

can you describe the very first event ever in our galaxy unless you bring in another factor?

- i said earlier, that factor could be an eqausion. eg. nothing x nothing

if you made that (clothes experiment and got those results, then a theory out of the ordinary is needed to describe the incident. do you not see this?

you missed the point, the man in the story owned the clothes but he would never find this out without careful investigation. (Of reciepts etc) Without that investigation he would continue to believe in the big guy in the clouds with the beard.

As i said - preposterous.

Helios

I think we have scientific proof that the egg was first - You need a chicken-egg-x to create a chicken-x, but a chicken-y can produce a chicken-egg-x. That was confusing, wasn't it....

No thers proof that the chicken was first because they say that the chicken was the result of a few too many mutations in some reptile and it started laying eggs and eventually there were more mutations to eventually become the present day chicken.

Helios

originally posted by neoANAGRAM4one
it is not preposterous and here is why. cosmologists have found evidence for more than our three dimensions(excluding time).

are you saying time is or is Not a separate dimension, because it is.

Helios

stephen hawking came up with a theory but it depended on the mass coming from somewhere else.

that somewhere else is parelell universe in which an exchange in matter and energy is constanly exchanging. quite interesting

BM1

i know everybody is entitled to their own belief but my opinion
man made god, simple as! Nothing in the bible about dinosaurs is there?

WastedYears

Well a friend of mine reackons that the bit about noahs ark is where the dinosaurs died out ie. ( they missed the boat and ended up in the drink)

But i think thats bull****.

BM1- Well done for going up, and all the best 4 next season.

neoANAGRAM4one

first off, i'm not a christian, so that should set some things at ease at least. just one comment - the bible doesn't say anything about alligators either. Just because it doesn't give an answer for dinosaurs does not mean that it is untrue.

something that totally blows me away is this formula explanation. to expect to get something from nothing (nothing x nothing).... now that is preposterous. anyway, i do not take my beliefs from christian scientists. why? well, because when they find results, they do whatever they can to bend it around to include god. i'd rather take an unbiased view and see what we can get from that. and yes, cosmologists have found reason to believe in 10 dimensions (superstring theory). In these dimensions, physics would not follow the same pattern as it does in our own limited 3. When I said earlier that scientists can only explain matter by assuming it comes from another dimension, does not rule out god. since physical laws are different there, it would only make it more likely that he would and does exist. and before you say, "I thought you said you weren't christian!"... there are many interpretations for god. i trust you can figure out the rest.

back to the clothes experiment. if i understand it correctly, you said that he put his clothes hamper in a secure safe and kept 24/7 watch over it without ever seeing another being enter it and deposit clothes. if this is right, and he doesn't sleep walk(in which case he'd show up on the monitors) then you can only attribute this to a paranormal event. so, I'm not really sure what you were trying to get at.

something else, time is considered to be a 4th dimension in a way, but there are some difficulties with this. to describe shapes of small size, faster than light travel would have to be possible. since this isn't, time as a fourth dimension has been largely abandoned as a good representation of a fourth dimension when describing shapes and such. anyway, curious once again to see all your posts.

eblah2

there are many dinosaur creatures alive today: Hugh Heffner, Barney, Dino, Spock (he's a terradactel), Michael Jackson (he's a pedasaur).

just lightening up the conversation :)

frost

why we cannot percieve time.

think of it like this: if we were two demensional beings, and could only move forward and backward, left and right, but had no knowledge of a third dimension (up and down), then we cannot percieve time as the fourth dimesion, cuz we have never moved through it. we have no control of ourselves as long as we are in a physical body, therefore, i believe we must expand to another dimension in order to truly know what that dimension is.

frost

also, god isnt anything more than yourself. hard to explain, but thats the truth.

neoANAGRAM4one

is this the end of this thread then?

frost

no, much can still be said.

Vyl'kaidyn

For one, my family is Christian. My oldest brother Doug is least religious besides myself. Christianity for this matter, is something that will be the basis, as most people here are probably either Christian, Lutheran..... or something like it. For those who are infidels, live on.

Christianity cannot erase man's need for pleasure, nor can it eradicate the various sources of pleasure. What it can do, however, and what it has been extremely effective in accomplishing, is to inculcate guilt in connection with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure, when accompanied by guilt, becomes a means of perpetuating chronic guilt, and this serves to reinforce one's dependence on God.

Christianity, with some exceptions, has never explicitly advocated human misery; it prefers instead to speak of sacrifices in this life so that benefits may be garnered in the life to come. One invests in this life, so to speak, and collects interest in the next. Fortunately for Christianity, the dead cannot return for a refund.

Through inculcating the notion that sacrifice is a virtue, Christianity has succeeded in convincing many people that misery incurred through sacrifice is a mark of virtue. Pain becomes the insignia of morality - and conversely, pleasure becomes the insignia of immorality. Christianity, therefore, does not say, "Go forth and be miserable". Rather, it says, "Go forth and practice the virtue of self-sacrifice". In practical terms, these commands are identical.

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

It's also worth noting that many, perhaps most, atheists deny that arguments against the existence of God are necessary to support or sustain atheism. They argue that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. It is then not up to atheists to prove that God does not exist; it is up to theists to provide proof of their own. Without such proof, it is not rational to believe in the existence of God, any more than it is to believe in the existence of fairies, dragons, demons or unicorns.

I have made my own decision to be an infidel. I have made that decision not uneducated as some of you religious followers might think. I have done research on all sides of the religion argument and atheism is my choice. I am an atheist because I feel that it is foolish and illogical to believe in a god that we have no proof of, no one has actually seen, and that we have never had one piece of tangible evidence to come up in his defense. I think that humanity has this urge to believe in god because we can not take responsibility for our own actions. Miracles are not really a supernatural act of god, but actually an example of what humanity is capable of accomplishing if we only tried. Some Christians seem to want to say that everything in the world is the will of god, and that leaves nothing for humanity, nothing for us to strive for, nothing to truly live for. It is even said to be comparable to slavery, we are completely at the will of god, we can only achieve what god wills us to achieve. I seem to think differently. I think that everything in the world is up to us, every decision, everything good or bad is ours and I think that is more valuable than to be worthy of some vengeful, omnipotent god that wants to punish anyone who practices individuality. Send those who do not agree with him to hell. Although all of you most will say I am going to hell if I continue thinking this way but I say hell does not exist. And if it were to exist I would gladly go to hell if only because I practiced individuality and made my own decisions on what to believe. Heaven would be my personal hell, because I do not want to have everything I've always wanted, because there would be no reason to exist, nothing to strive for, nowhere to expand. Belief in god only binds us, it is a boundary set by those who believe in him that limits what we think we can accomplish. It says that if something bad happens in the world, pray for god to banish it from the Earth, and if something good happens, thank god, for he has given us a gift. All this does is tell us that we need not take any action to improve our society, that we should just pray for god to improve it, and if he doesn't than we don't deserve it and that is the way it is to be. We are not to question god, they say. I question everything, this how I live. For everything we have ever known is the product of someone asking why or how. We could test that the fact of 100 degrees C again and again and get the same answer. If I test the existence of god, what do we get?. How can we be sure? How can you have such faith in things that only exist in a book that has been passed down through so many years that has no physical evidence? For if that is the criterion for us to believe in something, why do we not have faith in the Greek myths? Why do we not pray to Zeus on Mt. Olympus? Because it's a fairy tale you say? What separates it from the bible and all the absurd stories within it? Yes, yes, I know, you must have faith. But what is that faith based on? What have you to show for that faith? War, death, destruction, limitations on human expansion of the mind and of the entire society; it will not end.

frost

^^that sums up everything im trying to say^^

neoANAGRAM4one

christianity does not forbid or discourage comfort. I think the problem is that you guys grew up in bad families or churches. need better people to base your 'christianity' bias on.

Vyl'kaidyn

I am actually one of the oddities that grew up in a church-surrounded environment. And on the biasness, of course. But, where would arguments go if someone wasn't at all bias? We are all entitled to our opinions, and they are to be shared here. I simply wanted to tell the world of my opinion. Perhaps as a bad dialogue would be done from Reloaded, "My opinion does not require you to agree with it." *shakes his head* That was a horrible line..

frost

id have to agree that val is right on. its amazing how many poeple just cant understand. thats alright, most of you dont exist anyways.

WastedYears

3 years ago, i joined a religious movement called Falun Gong. The movement is based around meditation and tai chi type exercises... at least thats what they tell you when you join.

Anyway, cut a long story short- i spent two years believing a lot of strange things about the universe.

I 'escaped' from the clutches of the group when I moved to a different city (spending time away from the group gave me a chance to examine my beliefs).

In credit of the Falun Gong movement, I have to say that during the 2 years which i was a member, I never once experianced depression and my mind was far calmer and more relaxed than it is now.

The reason I quit however was because I dont like to be conned. The day I threw away the falun gong 'bible' (called Zhuan Falun - Turing the Law Wheel) I set out on a long path of anxiety and fear (would i be punished for leaving, how could i cope in the world with out the Masters spiritual protection).

I suppose this is one of the reasons i like the matrix so much because it reminds me of my experiance. At times i miss the group and the security and warmth it gave me... sorta like living in a matrix of my own.

Anyway the point is that i dont believe all religions lead to unapiness as the 2 years i spent in the group where the 2 happiest years of my life.

So is the pursuit of truth more important than the pursit of hapiness? Or do i now just pursue a greater happiness?

Who knows.

frost

sweet. i suppose you like COLD to huh, since your name is one of their songs. a very good song i might add.

WastedYears

Indeed I know the song, but I actually got the name from a little number by a criticaly aclaimed sweedish experimantal funk progression group.

Oh, I cant tell lies, I got it from an Iron Maiden track.

neoANAGRAM4one

i think most people find peace in religion. now, I don't mean people who go only for social status and not those who are finatics and who want to kill all in the name of thier god. although they may be peacefull, thier actions sure are not.

on second thought, this rules out a lot of people lol. I do however think that it is possible to find inner peace in the majority of religions if peace is sought.

Xirtameht

This is the ages old "intelligent designer" argument.

The short answer is that there was a tremendous amount of design work that went into producing human beings. The kicker is that the design process was neither intelligently guided or purposeful.

Evolution is capable of tremendous feats of design... but it doesn't need an intelligent guiding hand to make it operate.

;)

neoANAGRAM4one

let's say that there is no guiding hand needed for evolution, you still have the problem of where all the chemicals and mass came from that was used in evolution.

I do believe that evolution , once set in motion, can overcome most any obstacle thrown at it.

Xirtameht

Big bang, stellar fusion. That's where all the mass and various elements came from.

neoANAGRAM4one

nice point

although to have a big bang, there has to be something to gat banged lol. I know about how you can pack quanta(think it's quanta and not strings) into a the same spot so that you could, with enough force, have all the matter in the universe packed into one of these quanta deals. but, again you have to have something there to work with. same with fusion.

so, how do you reply to this?

Xirtameht

There seem to be two reasonable alternatives at the moment:

(1) all the matter in the Universe has always existed, and the "Big Bang" is just a rebound from the previous "Big Crunch." In that case, the Universe is infinitely old and cyclical.

(1) our Universe is just a momentary quantum "bubble," i.e., a random fluctuation that momentarily borrows energy from the vaccuum to create "real" mass and energy. The odd things is that it is allowed for this "momentary" borrowing to actually be quite permanent. In other words, there is no need for the Universe to ever "repay the debt," since the vaccuum energy deficit + gravitational energy + existing matter and energy are already perfectly balanced.

WastedYears

Originally posted by Xirtameht
There seem to be two reasonable alternatives at the moment:

(1) all the matter in the Universe has always existed, and the "Big Bang" is just a rebound from the previous "Big Crunch." In that case, the Universe is infinitely old and cyclical.

(1) our Universe is just a momentary quantum "bubble," i.e., a random fluctuation that momentarily borrows energy from the vaccuum to create "real" mass and energy. The odd things is that it is allowed for this "momentary" borrowing to actually be quite permanent. In other words, there is no need for the Universe to ever "repay the debt," since the vaccuum energy deficit + gravitational energy + existing matter and energy are already perfectly balanced.

I like your arguement, its the one i would have put forward if i had that kinda scientific knowledge.

Although i find it dificult to visualize the whole origin of matter thing in my own head, i dont find that adding the thought... "Oh actually it must have been god that id it" makes things any easier.

neoANAGRAM4one

1) matter has always existed - band to crunch to bang to crunch
universe is cyclical.

it is impossible for matter to have always existed. go to very first bang. the instant before it banged it was a grouping of mass, doesn't really matter how big. where did that grouping come from? not another bang because we're at the first one. if anything, from your second explanation.

2) random quantum bubble borrowed from the void.

ok, i've been studying physics and quantum ideas for a little time, so as of yet, I don't have a lot of knowledge to go from, so before I go into this I'm going to ask you to answer some of my questions.

first, a quantum bubble means that quantum energy was borrowed to make that first big bang. one theory for a while (not sure if it is still the definition for quantum energy) was that the smallest individual space is a string which can be pack limitlessly inside each other. but, even though these strings are massless(have the properties of light) they still give off electromagnetic readings because they vibrate. so how do you get a massless vibrating string from nothing(void)? even if all the strong and weak nuclear forces do balance out, in the physical 0=4-4 is not to my understanding enough to reason getting something (the 4's) from nothing (the 0's).

I know that was a little foggy, just clarify a bit and i'll ask more questions.

Xirtameht

First addressing the cyclical universe... it isn't very settling to me either to imagine that the universe has just "always existed." That's what the cyclical big bang/crunch hypothesis says. Doesn't seem to explain a whole lot.

Addressing the quantum bubble: if people really knew how it just why it was possible, then we wouldn't still be searching for a unifying theory. :) To break it down fairly simply, the best example is a matter/antimatter particle pair. Quantum mechanics says that the vaccuum isn't really "quiet" but is rather teeming with energy fluctuations on the Planck energy scale. Because of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, every great once in a while one of these energy flucations will be much, much greater than the average. Great enough, in fact, to produce a particle/antiparticle pair. This particle pair "borrows" energy from the vaccuum to momentarily exist, and then annihilate, thus returning their energy to the void and "repaying the debt."

To the best of my knowledge, the "quantum flucation producing the whole universe" idea works just a bit differently, in that it wasn't just matter and antimatter that were produced, but the vaccuum as well. Or something like that... it gets confusing for me as well. The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that there is no need for the universe to collapse and annihilate to "repay the debt." Somehow, the total sum of vaccuum energy, gravity, and mass/energy is balanced to zero, so in reality nothing was "borrowed" permanently.

I think the true explanation is that there really isn't any "debt" to speak of when a fluctuation is large enough to produce actual matter or energy that can be physically detected. The "hole" left in the vaccuum balances the "extra" mass/energy introduced into the universe. It's all the same. From my research, vaccuum energy is negative relative to normal mass/energy. Thus, a hole in the vaccuum is the opposite of a physical particle, and the two precisely balance. They are interchangeable. There is no "law" dictating that the matter/antimatter pair annihilate one another (in fact, Hawking predicted a form of radiation around the event horizon of black holes that is due to rare cases in which these pairs don't annihilate).

So, bottom line, the entire universe could be a fluctuation large enough to produce rapid (inflationary ?) expansion, and it left a balancing "hole" in some greater vaccuum from which it formed. It is hypothesized that our observable universe is but a bubble in a larger multiverse. It could repeat ad infinitum... but that is about as unsettling as a cyclical bang/crunch universe.

McKnight

Chickens coming first?!

Colonel Sanders: What?! Did I miss one?!

Men & Machines: A logical reason

Understanding why We cant develop artifical intelligence to the human level Is the simplest explanation a human being could understand.

Artificial Intelligence & Artificial Life

Basically Artificial Intelligence is the logic where a CPU is programmed, or told to respond to its environment in a SPECIFIC way. i.e Move this way when I press left, jump back when I approach blah blah blah..... Viruses work the same; once they are executed, they are programmed to copy into whatever file was opened previously, and also perform a certain number (Pretty much universal) of actions to itself or adjacent entities. Why would any of this seem human as some folks have mentioned already? Cos we think, "wow it just reacted"... thats about IT!!

Now Artificial Life is where A CPU responds to its environment independent of its surroundings to make a decision; this is the hurdle which anyone must get over to make computers/machines like humans. Were irrational in thought & decisions in some cases; this is due to the "corruption" of action via emtions...... wed do something stupid or irrational for the sake of hatred, lust, etc....

<Continued>

neoANAGRAM4one

i guess once we discover the Big TOE, everything will become clearer. too bad it isn't coming in november also.

but, I do have some questions and you seem like the perfect person to ask.

i'm assuming that the quantum bubble runs on the same principle as the particle/antiparticle in a vacuum. this may go along with humans not being able to imagine infinity, but in order to have a vacuum, aren't dimensions needed? a vacuum is no the same as nothing. so if you don't have nothing then you have something. how did that something come about(the vacuum)?

Something else I feel gives credence to this question about where a vacuum comes from, is the energy contained inside. This also gives a 'somethingness' to the vacuum making me think that we're still at the same dilemma... how did we always have a something?

I admire that you can admit your confusion and disgruntlement. I have the same feelings about 'the supreme being' lol. I don't prescribe to any religion it's just that I am so totally amazed by the universe as to believe in at least something's out there.

but I sure enjoyed this discussion. hope you have more to add. unfortunately, the only 'proof' I have is the absence of a complete explanation for universal independance.

Originally posted by The Protector
Instead of thinking if there is a god or not how about focusing on something that is real.

Please somebody who believes in god give me a shread of proof.

oh and as for this Not The One

WOW so you're saying that this man Carl Sagan has actually proven what people have endlessly worked their minds about, from the beggining of our consious mind, in this book?????

Well while the man was alive (bless his soul) he was the one driving around in an expensive car with a licence plate of a moon that he discovered while you where still trying to pick your nose with one finger whislt trying to play with your sega master system.

UT,

Siron

that's a great thread BoWillis.

But it looks like we got a little off-topic. When you really concern yourself with such questions about God and the creation of the universe, the "why" in our life and so on, you come to the point where you stop it because your mind could never give you an answer.

The topic was started by flowers and oxygen, yet you all came to God - funny, 'cuz it has been said that we could only find reality if we concentrate on the moment...
___________
some of you read "Zen & art of archery" or something like that, the german title is "Zen in der Kunst des Bogenschießens" by Eugen Herrigel.

Xirtameht

Originally posted by neoANAGRAM4one
i'm assuming that the quantum bubble runs on the same principle as the particle/antiparticle in a vacuum. this may go along with humans not being able to imagine infinity, but in order to have a vacuum, aren't dimensions needed? a vacuum is no the same as nothing. so if you don't have nothing then you have something. how did that something come about(the vacuum)?

I'll start by saying that none of the possible explanations offered to this date are very satisfying to me. However, the one that seems the least objectional to me is the one offered by Stephen Hawkings, so I'll briefly outline his theory.

Hawkings points out that, in general relativity, time and space share a very close relationship, and the dimensions can be "transformed" from one to another with some simple mathematical manipulation. Measurements of relativistic effects reveals that, in reality, time and space are intimitaly related as well. Just how, precisely, no one really knows, but that isn't quite the point here.

Hawkings goes on to hypothesize a "shape" to the time/space evolution of the universe a bit different than the traditional one.

Here's a brief description of the "old school" description, typically referred to as a "light-cone." Imagine the three spatial dimensions are represented by the two dimensions of X and Y, and time as represented by the spatial dimension of Z. As the universe expands, it forms a circle (in the X-Y plane) that expands. As time progresses, the "current" circle moves further up the Z axis. Thus, at the "beginning" of time, we are at Z = 0, and the "size" of the circle in the X-Y plane is 0 (a point). As we move further up the Z axis (later in time), the size of the universe increases, resulting in increasingly large circles as we go further up in the Z direction. We are sweeping out a cone (called a "light cone"), with it's point at the big bang, and it keeps growing larger and larger as time goes on (as we go further and further up).

Hawkings genious suggestion was recognizing that, due to relativistic effects, the "beginning" of the cone need not be a point at all. Instead, he imagines that at the high energy densities that are present in the big bang, time and space dimensions "look the same." What this does to our cone is to round the bottom off into a nice hyperbolic nub. So, what happens as we try to trace "going up in time." Well, we quickly realize that there is no starting "point." If we tip the "cone" just a little bit one way or another, a new "point" resides that the "bottom" of the cone. There is no reason to prefer one particular orientation over another... at least not at those earliest moments in time. So the picture we get is that there is no beginning in time at all, but a rather odd condition in which space, and time, always were.

If my description up to this point seems lacking, this will probably help clear things up. Start further up Hawkings' round ended light-cone... perhaps at the present day. Now start tracing down the side of this cone, moving further "back in time." The size of the universe is shrinking. Keep going, moving closer to the "end" of the cone. As you approach the rounded end, the universe shrinks smaller and smaller, until you find that you are no longer moving "back in time" but completely horizontally... you have hit the point where time and space converge into a common set of dimensions. You keep tracing along the same path, and realize you are now going "up" in time.

You never hit any clearly marked "beginning." There was no abrupt ending to time. There were no abrupt beginnings of space. There is simply an area at the "bottom" where time and space are one, and both are arbitrarily small (and undefined, since at that point tipping the cone slightly produces an equally undefined position... i.e., there is no reason for our orientation of the cone to be "correct," it just is simply the one we observe).

The conclusion, according to Hawking, is that time and space have always existed. It is tempting to say that "for a long time, space was very small," but this woud be innacurate. Remember that, at the bottom of the rounded cone, moving up quickly enlarged the size of the universe, so cearly things bloomed out rather quickly. How then do we interpret this theory? Though it is difficult to visualize, the closest to common sense we can make of it is that, during the earliest moments of the universe, "time" itself was undefined, and didn't "move" at the same "rate" as it does today. Thus, the universe was in a lingo of pre-big bang state for a practically infinite period of time, relative to time as measured at the moment of creation (thus, it has always existed), and yet it "began" a finite length of time ago in our past, relative to time as measured today.

It's easy to make an analogy to purely spatial dimensions. The surface of the Earth has no beginning, no end, yet is finite in surface area. We can calculate how much area there is, but will never find the beginning. We can define the North pole as the beginning if we like, and say that as we move further North, we are moving closer to the beginning. Once we get there, however, we realize that our definition was completely arbitrary: the North pole looks just like the spot two feet to the left of it... it is all a matter of perspective. When you hit the arbitrarily defined North Pole, you stop traveling North and start traveling South. Did you pass the "beginning of the Earth?" Of course not.

Now, try to carry that analogy to include time as another spatial dimension, and you have the situation as described by Hawking. The universe can have a finite age (analogous to the finite surface area of the Earth), and yet have no beginning. It just always was.

Again, this answer is a bit unsatisfying to me as well. It leaves you with the obvious question "if the universe always was, then WHY was it always this way? Why exist at all?

Oh well... baby steps. :)

neoANAGRAM4one

so far as I see, he's explained away time, but still where did the mass come from? I do understand what you were saying. I read 'a Brief history of time' also. but to me, the question still arises where did it all come from. I don't like bringing god into everything, but at least it should be a little easier for people to understand how god could have exited forever.

i'm sure that i have the same questions as you, and neither of us have the answers so it's pointlesss to keep on

Xirtameht

To ask where did it "come from" implies that it had a creation, or a beginning. Taken literally, Hawkings is suggesting that the universe simply is, and always was. Every moment that time has existed, the universe and all the mass in it has existed.

Of course, you can dig deeper, which I think is what you are doing, and ask "but who or what created time, and how and why?" Well, I'm not sure that is a question that is logically answerable. I'd sure like to hear a good attempt though!

yanka

Please don't think I'm stalking you; really, I just appreciate your knowledge... or intelligence... whatever those might be, and would like to learn from you... probably much like neoANAGRAM4one :)

I think what Hawking was trying to resolve by introducing the "No Boundary Proposal" is "the big crunch" and his own visions of how time would start going in the opposite direction :(. All of this is very hard for me to understand, but this much, I think, I have managed: There is the "real time", in which we "see" the Big Bang as a singularity - a spacetime "period" in which the laws of physics break down. In the "imaginary" (or, rather, real time) there is no singularity, and the universe just always "is".

In this imaginary time, there is never a Big Bang - just a 3 (or 4?)-dimensional sphere with some extra dimensions possibly shrunk (really just not expanded), twisted, and packed "inside". Those who live in the "real" time, see EVENTS as occuring "in time", but from a higher perspective - they are all already there, all "having happened" according to the same set of laws. If there was a bird who could somehow fly above the earth, it would see it (earth) differently - and more COMPLETELY - than a frog living on the earth. A frog might see it as "infinite", but the bird, whose perspective is more complete, sees it as finite, but not bounded.

That, I gather, is why he keeps referring to the holographic principle - the universe we experience is one D less than in the "imaginary" (or, rather, the real) perspective. We "see" the Earth sweeping out a light cone as its worldline; in the imaginary time the worldline of the Earth would be "seen" as a very twisted and complicated string - the combined path around the Sun, around the galactic center, etc.

Funny thing is, none of that explains "where everything came from".
neoANAGRAM4one: did you notice how in Hawking's writings directed at the general public (don't know what he says in his technical papers) God is mentioned about every 4 pages? In fact, it would be relatively easy to imagine some intelligence residing in this imaginary time, and... well, you get my point. What I read every time Hawking mentions "God" is "there is room for a Creator".

I think Linde's approach is much more "atheistic" (not surprising, given where he's coming from). Unfortunately, I am utterly confused about what he says...
Something about scalar fields. The energy of any given field is never 0, as it would violate the uncertainty principle. The field oscilates near 0, and the potential for matter/energy is always there; during inflationary periods the potential is realized or something - and there you have it... matter, and positive energy.

Here is where I hope Xirtameht would set me straight (well, with Hawking as well). :confused:
What I'm getting out of it is the scalar fields do not need to "come into existence", just as the potential for electric current is always there, and once it is realized, electricity is produced... or something.

I just think that where we are now in terms of beleif is where we've always been - you cannot and SHOULD NOT prove your faith, and if you try to either prove or disprove "God"... well, you'll just fail either way.
Whether there is a "God" or there is not... we probably won't know... but we can try and figure out that which IS within our grasp.

Xirtameht

I find a rather fundamental shortcoming of all analogies (including my own) that make reference to "seeing the world from a higher dimensional existance." It does help to relate all of space time to a viewpoint much like that of a bird seeing the Earth... finite but unbounded. The critical stumbling block is that, for the bird, there is actually another physical dimension through which the Earth can be observed from a distance. Relativity makes use of much the same imagery, in that space-time is warped "in a higher dimensional whole."

Well, it is fine to think of three-dimensional space being warped in a four-dimensional geometry, because Einstein has show us (ala Minkowski) that there really are four dimensions; time being intimately related to the common three spatial dimensions. We can also get a bit more adventurous and consider another seven or so spatial dimensions, all curled up too tightly to observe, and we have the picture as presented by the various string and membrane theories.

And then we venture into discussions, much like this one, where we start perceptualizing a "finite aged but always existing universe" from a perspective of that all so convenient "extra dimension." But wait... we have now stumbled, or so it would seem at least. Whatever physical dimensions there might be, including time and any tightly curled spatial dimensions, are all a part of this physical reality. Unless we begin talking about a mulitverse (and this ultimately doesn't eliminate our dissatisfaction), then we aren't allowed to postulate another, higher dimension through which we can attempt to visualize a true "beginning" of our universe. It is tempting, but there are no higher dimensions... our reality is all we have.

OK, so what about the multiverse? It is rather easy to assume that our universe is but a bubble of space-time that formed from quantum fluctations in a "higher reality," and that may very well be the case. But it still doesn't answer the question, which is being expored here, of "where did reality come from?" You simply shift the question from the creation of our universe to the creation of the multiverse, and in the end we are left equally puzzled. It's much the same as postulating a god to explain the creation of the Earth and all that we observe, to only then be left with the sticky problem of who or what created God, and when, and for what reason. If you can imagine a god that has always existed, and just accept that as a truth, it simplifies the explanation to drop that aspect and just accept that our universe has always existed.

Perhaps the static time-slice aspect of the quantum multiverse is the ultimate way to settle the issue. Though Hawking's proposal neatly fixed the problem by scaling time in a manner that, as measured by us, the universe has a finite age, but as measured by a relative clock (relative to the nature of time and space) is infinitely old, it still leaves many difficult questions to be answered. A static multiverse simply says the question is meaningless, because there is no such animal as time. Time, according to that theory, is an illusion caused by the quantum relationships of "nearby" universes. The arrow of time, entropy, creation, randomness... all are, in one way or another, explained by simply eliminating time altogether.

I don't feel like tackling that one at the moment though. :) And still, I find even that a bit unsettling.

Xirtameht

And though you may be correct about scalar fields never being allowed to have a value of zero, I think it's still a bit unclear how that aspect of string/membrane theory is going to work out. That fluctuation around zero was traditionally the achilles heel of all attempt to combine quantum mechanics and gravity. I'm not sure if the final solution will eliminate the problem that gravitational fields have with such fluctuations, or simply eliminate the fluctations on some sufficiently appropriate scale. I'd have to go back and do some refresher reading to see what direction the current work is taking us.

yanka

Lol... I wouldn't be "correct" about scalr field values - because I hardly know what the whole concept means! Don't give me too much credit by taking what I say as an ARGUMENT - it is a mere attempt to GRASP some sort of understanding...

However (and keep in mind that I'm not stating anything other than "my attempt at understanding"), there would be no need to reconcile with gravitational fluctuations, as the symmetry would not be broken yet, so there would be no such thing as "gravitational" fluctuations vs. "other" fluctuations... they would all be the same - scalar field fluctuations... Or not? I don't know, maybe I misunderstand the whole thing.

I hope you do feel like tackling static multiverse at some time... I'd like to read your explanations... so, I guess, this is a "thanks in advance" ;)

Xirtameht

On the surface, it would seem that using symmetry to combine gravity with the other forces shouldn't be so difficult. It sounds good, anyway. Unfortunately, the mathematics seem to have some serious problems, and physicists have been more or less stumped for decades trying to do what you are describing. In laymen's terms, the problem is that gravity acts over very long distances, and if you just force gravity and quantum mechanics together, you get predictions of micro-gravitational fluctuations (just as you do with other forces) that sum to infinity. That infinity manifests itself in numerous ways throughout the various attempts of deriving a quantum gravity theory. It just keeps popping up here and there, and appears to be a real ***** to get rid of.

Mathematically, just about the only trick in town is to use extra dimensions to "hide" the infinities. Sounds bogus, I know, and no one is really sure yet just how bogus it is. However, the physical picture that results is really quite beautiful... string or membrane theory is a solution much in line with what Einstein spent the end of his life pursuing. It is a geometrical solution, which seems inherently elegant.

The multiverse discussion will have to wait for a couple of days. Perhaps I'll start a new thread.

neoANAGRAM4one

I went to Hawking's supposed web page and read a bunch of his public lectures. I read the 'beginning of time' and 'space and time warps'. in these he covered the virtual particles and how they relate to fields. since a field can not equal zero, or one would know the exact speed and location of the particles, (still kind've fuzzy on this so take with grain of salt) virtual particles. now, i think he said that virtual particles are not measurable, but their effects can be measured (in his time warp lecture, he talks about how possibly when space is severly warped, these particles would become real particles thus causing something like a wall to form barring an individual from travelling into the past. dam* this is cool lol).

anyway, i guess i'm lining all these points out so you know what I understand so you can better answer my question.

I know that he proposes that the universe always existed (and he does refer to god a lot, but he's so sarcastic I can't tell if he's serious on some of them lol), but he talks about how even a vacuum contains these virtual particles.. how do we know that before the universe came into existance there was a vacuum? that's how we relate nothingness to the physical, but without anything to base your views off of, could you even say you had a vacuum? basically, he says that in a vacuum there are virtual particles that arise because the vector can not have both speed and position precisely known. this seems to allude that there is something to know where it is and at.

I hope that you see what I'm trying to get at. It's probably just that I don't understand the theory correctly. I used to wonder how, if light is massless, it could be bent. and then I realized that gravity warps space; thus light is not pulled(which would be impossible with no mass) but it rather follows the shortest path which happens to be curved.

I'll try to check back this weekend and reply to your posts. thanks

Xirtameht

Originally posted by neoANAGRAM4one
he proposes that the universe always existed...

...how do we know that before the universe came into existance there was a vacuum?

:)

It's difficult to accept that the universe came into existance a finite time ago, yet there was nothing before it, not even time. Kinda hard to wrap your noggin around. Hopefully, more satisfying explanations will eventually arise than those Hawking has given.

The position/velocity stuff is based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that there are some complimentary variables (like position and velocity) that can't both be known to arbitrary precision simultaneously. Any increase in accuracy in determining one results in an unavoidable loss in the accuracy of determining the other. It's not (only) a fault of our measurment, and doesn't really require someone to actually do the measuring... it's just the way the universe (apparently) is.

neoANAGRAM4one

I understand what you're saying. just because we're not here to measure doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm sure you got what I was trying to say, but if not here goes lol.

to my understanding, the uncertainty principle requires for there to be something there to measure. my problem with this as it pertains to explaining 'the' beginning(and I know that you're not. you've acknowledged along with myself that satisfactory explanations will likely never happen in our lifetimes) came about. as for my reasoning, you had nothing. if you have nothing, you can not know the exact position and speed because there is nothing to know. so would this fall within the guidelines of the principle.

I may be deluding myself, but I think that I can imagine at least the concept of nothingness. in nothingness, there are no magnetic fields, there are no virtual particles.. there is nothing. another words nothing to build off of.

I think that if anything, hawking and the bunch are just trying to step their way through this. and then again, maybe their theories can not be completely understood in laymen terms. I guess that's why you guys are here. to help my feeble mind lol

have a good weekend all

deo

god is simply the creator and most complex being in an infinite line or circle of other complex creations....no one created god...for he is creation it self-look at everything in the universe. now take creation out of every equation and u end up with nothingness.us trying to picture him is like an ant visualizin the backyard-house city country continent planet and so forth that he lives in. in order to see god you probably have to be him. thus there is not enough scintific evidence to calculate a positively uncalculable mass.the reason why there is something instead of nothing is because of the creator, or god we could not have been created with out a creator.and that is how, nothing could have made god because as he is fondly know, he is simply the creator of ALL things.

deo

nothing other than god was in the univrs, until he decided to create it.time and space didnt xsit because he is infinie. the seven days of creation can de represented as any span of time by an infinite being.think about it...god says himself that in the beginnig there was nothing(other than himself)and then he proceeded to create our beginig of TIME=we have a beginig because we are creations.god has and always will be there-he knows no time beginig or end all those concepts came as-of-his creation of them.yes there was emptiness in spce but that does not mean that there was noting to create it or no SPACE for it exist in-in order to measure nothing ness the nothigness needs a container, albeeit an infinite one.how do u know if a bag is empty?get a BAG and look in it...in the beginig nothig xsited but god/creation himself...and his will to create everthing ELSE eternity.all of us are just what he made us to be...perfect imperfections.

deo

Originally posted by the seeker
But even if god made the universe then for what reason. Are we a scientific experiment or just a sick joke. People often talk about the will of god but I have never undetsood the point. Is there no sense in "gods" ways or aren`t we just seeing the entire picture. i think god created everything,simply as by being perfect-allpowerful-allknowing-allloving-allseeing being....then he was probaly the only person with the qualifications for the job. if not by a being with this resume? how is the universe still here? and if everthing is now,thanks to creation,in exsitance -including the idea of xsistance and evolution also, then it can never and need not ever be done again.there is no more powerfull force than power of a/the creator all exsting things following after it-seeing as though when/if everything else dissapears he will still be here."everthing that has a beginig has an end-except the creator of everthing- he is infinite,no beginig no end. can anybody give me a scentific explanation, as to
why creation it self would need to be created?how can you destroy creation itself it is the power of creaton an recreation-endless
how do you create creaton?if u could then that would mean u already harness that power.

we as humans can create-but we are not creation it self...just products of it.

SHOUT OUTS TO-AUSTIN AND BOWILLIS... because they understand god-"to be a scientist is to be a genius but to overstand god is to pass science for they still do not know"really really thought provoking topic people,great theories by all.