Just out of curiosity...

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by NUKE
Believing in God is no less logical than believing the Big Bang just "happened"

Hm.  If you believe in God, then surely you must accept that God had to start with something.  Who created God?  Was God infinite?  Why couldn't the Universe have been infinite then?

What caused God?  What caused the event that caused God?

Now you have chain of events stretching back into infinity. That would mean that God was "always" happening.  And that's just logically indefensible.

You can't say that "something" suddenly created God or that God is infinite without looking into the infinite chain of events that lead to the creation of God or His infiniteness.

Oops!  Do I sound familiar?  

Ceteris parebis, I'll go with the scientific approach over the faith-based approach.  But that's just me.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[GrimCO]

If I told you what my theories on what God is, I'd probably be laughed out of here... LOL

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Hm.  If you believe in God, then surely you must accept that God had to start with something.  Who created God?  Was God infinite?  Why couldn't the Universe have been infinite then?

What caused God?  What caused the event that caused God?

Now you have chain of events stretching back into infinity. That would mean that God was "always" happening.  And that's just logically indefensible.

Not necessarily. You're assuming that God must exist only within the framework of space and time. I believe that he created space and time but doesn't exist in the same linear fashion that we are accustomed to.

[GrimCO]

Originally posted by AKIron
Not necessarily. You're assuming that God must exist only within the framework of space and time. I believe that he created space and time but doesn't exist in the same linear fashion that we are accustomed to.

Same thoughts here AKIron...  

This thread sort of deviated from it's original intent, but it's nice to hear people's different ideas also...

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by AKIron
Not necessarily. You're assuming that God must exist only within the framework of space and time. I believe that he created space and time but doesn't exist in the same linear fashion that we are accustomed to.

So God is not bound by the laws of physical reality?  Now we're back to a question of faith.  And that's fine, IMO, but it's not the answer to NUKE's riddle.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So God is not bound by the laws of physical reality?  Now we're back to a question of faith.  And that's fine, IMO, but it's not the answer to NUKE's riddle.

-- Todd/Leviathn

You missed my point entirely. My point was to argue that the big bang theory was not logical and that it assumes an event "just happened". The thread's question was do you believe the BB created the universe.

I never said believing in God was logical, only that if you believe in the BB theory, it's just as easy to assume there is a God, because in both you are required to come to a conclusion that something has always been......only the BB theory dosn't even mention infinity nor does it question what caused the matter to be created in the first place.

The BB theory doesn't even answer how the matter exsisted in the first place, or what caused the explosion......it just makes a huge assumption and expects you to believe that the beginging of time was the BB.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe

Hortlund- that statement is incorrect. Visit the above website I posted in this thread and read up on the Big Bang universe by clicking on the "Universe" link on that page.

Well that sure as he** was a waste of time.

If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.

Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

LOL no **** they have a hard time developing a working theory. They are just guessing for crying out loud.

Scientist #1
"What if we imagine the universe as a movie and then run the history of the universe movie backwards, then everything will collaps back into one tiny point."

Scientist #2
"BRILLIANT! And by using my little calculator here, I have been able to determine the history back to 10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second after the Big Bang. I cant really explain how though, because all I have to go on is the fact that the universe expands, observations show that 25 percent of the total mass of the universe is helium, and there is a presence of cosmic background radiation. But I have a pretty vivid imagination."



You really have no idea how retarded that idea is do you?
Why dont you run a movie of an airplane crash backwards and come up with some brilliant theory on how an explosion creates life and an aircraft capable of flight.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
Are you a religious man Hortlund?

Yeah.

[MrCoffee]

Are their any real random events then in the universe? If everything started from one point and boom the universe was born, then there are really no true random events? Else the universe that has infinitely existed is based on ceasless complete and random events?

[CyranoAH]

Hortlund, they are far from "guessing" what happened. As a simplistic approach, I give it a 4 out of 10.

Daniel

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by NUKE
The BB theory doesn't even answer how the matter exsisted in the first place, or what caused the explosion......it just makes a huge assumption and expects you to believe that the beginging of time was the BB.

No, I got your point.  Your problem -- and it's a common one -- is applying different standards of logic for the Big Bang versus, say, some higher power.

How did matter exist in the first place?  How did God exist in the first place?  What created God?  Nothing?  Then why is it so hard for you to imagine that nothing created matter... that it has existed for an infinite amount of time condensed in a singularity that, in a massive explosion, created the universe.  I mean, surely God couldn't have just existed forever.  He had to begin SOMEWHERE.  It just takes a huge assumption to expect that He wasn't created from someone, somewhere, at some time.  And so it goes as the argument circles round and round and round and round again.

In the very least, the Big Bang represents a falsifiable theory with certain empirical expectations.  So even if the foundational aspects of the theory present some logical difficulties, we may actually measure the truthfulness of its assumptions through scientific research.  The same can't be said for the existence of God.

Really, this whole debate has always struck me as rather silly.  You can't scientifically disprove God, and even if God exists, it doesn't disprove the Big Bang theory.  He does supposedly work in mysterious ways, after all.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[GrimCO]

The big bang theory was also born from Einstein's Theory of Relativity and famous equation E=mc2 (energy = mass x the speed of light squared). This is also the same formula that allowed the development of atomic energy and the bomb. If mass can create huge amounts of energy, the reverse is also true... Energy can create huge amounts of mass (in the form of the most simple element, hydrogen)...

So God is not bound by the laws of physical reality? Now we're back to a question of faith. And that's fine, IMO, but it's not the answer to NUKE's riddle.

Well, God or no God, you're not considering the possiblity that something exists outside of our Universe. Because you can't see it from here, it does not mean it isn't there. We are unable to see black holes, yet it doesn't take faith for me to believe they exist. Though unable to be seen, their effects on surrounding objects make them apparent. Additionally, inside of a black hole, our laws of physics do not apply and go right out the window. They suspect this is do to the intense gravity actually tearing apart the fabric of our Universe inside of the black hole.

I'm not saying there is a God and he lives inside a black hole. But there are places inside of our own Universe where the laws of physics break down and do not apply. That leads me to believe there may be places outside of our universe where it is possible that the laws of physics we are constrained by don't even exist.

It's also easy to forget that time is not a fixed thing...  Clocks run slower the faster you go. Once you hit the speed of light, time completely stops. If an object is travelling at the speed of light, it doesn't experience time, therefore it has always been there and always will according to logic.

[NUKE]

No, I got your point. Your problem -- and it's a common one -- is applying different standards of logic for the Big Bang versus, say, some higher power.

You're not getting me.

In a nutshel my points


1. BB doesn't account for the logical fact that there is an infinite chain of events preseading each action, so it doesn't explain much and makes huge assumptions.

2. If you believe in the BB, it's no less logical to believe in a God based on "something" causing each to exist in the first place.

3. If you try to take the BB to it's logical conclusion ( rewinding if you will) then it goes into infinity and has always existed and was always happening. The same logic can apply to a God always existing.

I wasn't trying to prove god existed...how can you? I was pointing out that it's just as valid to believe in a God always existing as it is to believe in the universe or BB always existing/happening.

Those are my points.

[midnight Target]

The Christian equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.

[bounder]

Originally posted by NUKE
You're not getting me.

In a nutshel my points


1. BB doesn't account for the logical fact that there is an infinite chain of events preseading each action, so it doesn't explain much and makes huge assumptions.

[/b]

Whoa there. infinite chain of events? you seem to be living in a different, linear and deterministic universe to the one I am in.
The cosmological argument is a pretty safe bet, because it supposes things have a beginning, and that cause and effect do not break down when viewed very closely (quantum level).

2. If you believe in the BB, it's no less logical to believe in a God based on "something" causing each to exist in the first place.

[/b]
gotta call you on that too. It is less logical because the BB theory, however a nebulous and inexact it is as a theory , has been built from observable and repeatable experiments using accurate measuring instruments and exposed to constant and rigourous peer review.

The theory of God, well, I can't think of single repeatable experiment that I can perform that will give me any useful evidence to support the supposition that God exists.

Currently the theory of God seems to be that "God exists, now get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness." Nothing in there about the nature of God, or where God came from in the first place, or whether God didn't just die at the moment of creation.

3. If you try to take the BB to it's logical conclusion ( rewinding if you will) then it goes into infinity and has always existed and was always happening. The same logic can apply to a God always existing.

[/b]
nope. You gotta couple of options for this universe:
Heat Death  - if the universe isn't heavy enough
Steady State - if it is heavy enough.

The big bang isn't the beginning of the universe. By definition, the universe has no boundary or beginning, only the known universe has these things. It is the theorhetical point beyond which we cannot see.

I wasn't trying to prove god existed...how can you? I was pointing out that it's just as valid to believe in a God always existing as it is to believe in the universe or BB always existing/happening.

Those are my points. [/B]

Well I guess it's a valid point insofar as they are not mutually exclusive.

The corollary of which could well be that the big bang doesn't require a prime mover, and nor does god. Basically God and the Big Bang have little to do with one another.

god is a matter of belief that cannot be proven/disproven by virtue of its frame of reference, i.e. theological. Few, if any, researchers are actually looking into what constitutes God and how or whether God may have come into existence because it would be a bit like researching invisible friends; i.e one is likely to conclude that it is merely an internal property of the conciousness of a subject, rather than an external, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator God.

the big bang on the other hand is a theory that can be broken down and verified by anyone with the mental capacity and time to do so.