User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/30/2023 10:39:53 PM EDT
[#1]
You’re really going to hate dark matter and string theory.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2023 11:02:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: But science chooses to ignore this vital question, and so it reminds me of beginning to read a book by starting in the Middle. Something's desperately missing in the story. Actually the very essence of science is to continually question itself. You can try to characterize that branch of science that studies astronomy as having an agenda to discredit the thousands of creation stories but really they have better things to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2023 11:29:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: You’re really going to hate dark matter and string theory. Quoted: Actually the very essence of science is to continually question itself. You can try to characterize that branch of science that studies astronomy as having an agenda to discredit the thousands of creation stories but really they have better things to do. This is the religion forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 8:15:43 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the religion forum. Actually the OP brought up science so opened the door to other aspects for discussion |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 9:36:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually the OP brought up science so opened the door to other aspects for discussion How about showing us some transitional fossils, or maybe the missing link, other than the many already debunked as being fake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 9:42:07 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about showing us some transitional fossils, or maybe the missing link, other than the many already debunked as being fake. You have to define the boundaries of your expectations and then apply that to what has been learned so far. For instance what time frame are you looking at and what species AND are your expectations realistic? From there you can draw personal conclusions about change however some species may illustrate more linearity than others mostly due to environmental factors. For the record I am not an archaeologist nor a biologist so would not be able to speak intelligibly how those in either field support evolution as applied to various species. It has been my observation however that because religion and science approach debate from very different methods of support there is never anything constructive that comes out of it. So if you're seeking to play stump-the-chump or whip out a "gotcha" utilizing the premise that only religion offers then I'm not interested. If you would like to debate the pro's and con's of 6.8 SPC vs. 5.56 I'm your huckleberry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 11:37:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Modern Physics brings up some interesting thoughts in light of the bible. We tend to think of time as a constant heartbeat. It is not. Time and space are a single thing that both bend and twist. At certain points, say within a black hole, events happen but there is no way to ascribe any differentiated "when" to the events. Certainly the math points to the conditions of he big bang not yet having differentiated space or time. You can't properly ask what happened "before" the big bang because time only exists with/after.
Similarly, matter and energy are the same thing, and at the big bang it's all energy to begin with, and matter only forming later. Almost like someone saying "let light exist", and from that moment space and light exist from which time and matter progress. It fits eerily enough that more than a few non-spiritual cosmologists have come to observe and wonder at the alignment between observation/mathematics and a concept described in an ancient text which also holds prophecies that tend to come true, a text that describes the earth as a globe suspended by nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 1:29:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually the OP brought up science so opened the door to other aspects for discussion Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is the religion forum. Actually the OP brought up science so opened the door to other aspects for discussion Just a reminder that this forum has rules specific to the subject matter. Behave respectfully. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 1:37:33 PM EDT
[#9]
It is a theory.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 2:10:31 PM EDT
[#10]
No matter what there had to be something in existence. Either it was some matter (but where did it come from?) or it was God (but where did He come from?). No matter what someone believes, it still requires faith of some kind because there are too many questions that don’t have answers because they are unanswerable by us in this age.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 2:27:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just a reminder that this forum has rules specific to the subject matter. Behave respectfully. Actually according to the COC there are no specific rules regarding subject matter and behavior e.g. no swearing in the Religion forum, as it is an expectation to behave respectfully regardless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 2:52:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually according to the COC there are no specific rules regarding subject matter and behavior e.g. no swearing in the Religion forum, as it is an expectation to behave respectfully regardless. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just a reminder that this forum has rules specific to the subject matter. Behave respectfully. Actually according to the COC there are no specific rules regarding subject matter and behavior e.g. no swearing in the Religion forum, as it is an expectation to behave respectfully regardless. We have rules both seen and unseen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 3:07:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Just about every religion claims to have the real story about how the world was created. I believe that many of the things we know now would have been disputed and rejected by almost everyone a couple thousand years ago. We will continue to learn as we go.
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have rules both seen and unseen. Unseen rules? What does that mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 3:18:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just about every religion claims to have the real story about how the world was created. I believe that many of the things we know now would have been disputed and rejected by almost everyone a couple thousand years ago. We will continue to learn as we go. Unseen rules? What does that mean? Quote HistoryQuoted: Just about every religion claims to have the real story about how the world was created. I believe that many of the things we know now would have been disputed and rejected by almost everyone a couple thousand years ago. We will continue to learn as we go. Quoted: We have rules both seen and unseen. Unseen rules? What does that mean? The entire site has them. Are you here to troll? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 3:39:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: It has been said that if a lie is told long enough, it will soon be received as truth. Such is the case with evolution and the so-called theory of the 'big bang'. The Bible clearly says that in the beginning, God created the heavens AND and the earth ( 'and', at the same time or period). It does not recount how he did it, other than to say in Psalms 33:6 - " By the word of the LORD the heavens were made; and all the host of then by the breath of his mouth". II is pointless to go beyond this as it is mere speculation and we are told in Job 33:13 " Why do you strive against him? For he gives no account of any of his matters". But science, and the world in general, have proposed the 'big bang' theory to try to refute God's word. The on;y problem is, the theory has a BIG hole in it, which science itself REFUSES to answer. Here's the BIG hole : In order for something to go 'bang', Something HAS to pre-exist. Evolutionary thought is then limited to the following two theories: 1. Whatever went 'bang' must have formed from nothing. Try explaining that science! Any takers? 2. Whatever went 'bang' must have eternally existed of itself, i.e. God-like in its nature. More impossible than the first. But science chooses to ignore this vital question, and so it reminds me of beginning to read a book by starting in the Middle. Something's desperately missing in the story. You're operating from some shaky ground to start off with. First, the "Big Bang" theory was not an attempt to refute God's word. Quite the opposite, actually. It was proposed by a Catholic priest (and scientist and astronomer) that was a result of solutions to Einstein's field equations, and was inspired by a literal reading of Genesis. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Georges Lemaitre turned the current hypothesis of the universe's origins on its head by showing that a literal reading of that is functionally correct. Whatever there was, if there even was anything, was formless and void until that moment, when the entire universe and everything in it exploded into being from a single point. Nearly all of Lemaitre's assumptions have proven correct over time as technology has progressed enough to test them. Far from refuting God's word, it's probably the most rock solid proof of it you will ever find. On your other point, evolution hasn't seriously grappled with abiogenesis. Not that some people don't try, even to the point of peddling pure speculative fiction like the "primordial soup" as though it's a legitimate theory instead of baseless hypothesis that does nothing in the lab except fail spectacularly. Science is the study of the creation, and the Creator and his creation are not at odds. If they are, it's probably a fault in your understanding of one or both. Much like the generally accepted belief in a static universe that had always been pre-Lemaitre. Genesis wasn't wrong, we just didn't have the math or the understanding to explain it, or the instruments to measure it. I'm from the Heisenberg school of thought on the matter myself: “Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.” ("The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.") That's pretty much how my journey went. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:12:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Microevolution as in the dandelions with the shorter stems dominating your yard in a few years because they are the ones that evade the mower blade allowing them to seed and pass on that trait? -yes. In a meadow with tall grass the long stems rule. Adaptation to the environment and survival of the fittest but still dandelions even the mutant looking ones.
Macroevolution as in we humans can call amoeba our great x's a trillion grandparents? -no |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:23:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ......... abiogenesis. Not that some people don't try, even to the point of peddling pure speculative fiction like the "primordial soup" as though it's a legitimate theory instead of baseless hypothesis that does nothing in the lab except fail spectacularly. . Funny thing is the same sentiment was expressed towards Tesla and Edison at one time or another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:27:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny thing is the same sentiment was expressed towards Tesla and Edison at one time or another. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ......... abiogenesis. Not that some people don't try, even to the point of peddling pure speculative fiction like the "primordial soup" as though it's a legitimate theory instead of baseless hypothesis that does nothing in the lab except fail spectacularly. . Funny thing is the same sentiment was expressed towards Tesla and Edison at one time or another. More like Charles Dawson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:31:09 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You’re really going to hate dark matter and string theory. And the newest theory that there were universes before the Big Bang each collapsing and then BANG, reforming again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:43:22 PM EDT
[#20]
The theories of evolution and creationism do not have to be mutually exclusive. I do not presume to know the ways of god.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:52:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The entire site has them. Are you here to troll? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just about every religion claims to have the real story about how the world was created. I believe that many of the things we know now would have been disputed and rejected by almost everyone a couple thousand years ago. We will continue to learn as we go. Quoted: We have rules both seen and unseen. Unseen rules? What does that mean? The entire site has them. Are you here to troll? I have no idea what you’re talking about which is why I asked. I don’t troll outside of normal gd stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 4:58:58 PM EDT
[#22]
 FACT 2003 - Cosmic Codes - Part 1 - Chuck Missler  FACT 2003 - Cosmic Codes - Part 2 - Chuck Missler  FACT 2003 - Cosmic Codes - Part 3 - Chuck Missler  Beyond Time Space - Part 1 - Chuck Missler  Beyond Time Space - Part 2 - Chuck Missler |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 5:14:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No matter what there had to be something in existence. Either it was some matter (but where did it come from?) or it was God (but where did He come from?). No matter what someone believes, it still requires faith of some kind because there are too many questions that don’t have answers because they are unanswerable by us in this age. How do you define existence? The truth that all angles of an equilateral triangle are equal exists whether we notice it or not, whether we are here or not or if some alien species discovers it, it is absolute truth not dependent on time, space, or even material existence. It is true whether our universe exists or not |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 5:16:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Forgot where I was. My apologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 5:27:55 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Forgot where I was. My apologies. He is the Unmoved Mover. I see no need to apologize. It's a valid question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 5:39:50 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is the Unmoved Mover. I see no need to apologize. It's a valid question. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Forgot where I was. My apologies. He is the Unmoved Mover. I see no need to apologize. It's a valid question. It's a question we have all asked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 5:41:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just about every religion claims to have the real story about how the world was created. I believe that many of the things we know now would have been disputed and rejected by almost everyone a couple thousand years ago. We will continue to learn as we go. Unseen rules? What does that mean? There are certain individuals and groups that cannot be questioned. To many feelings get hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 5:45:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a question we have all asked. Yes, and still hard to wrap my head around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 8:19:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is the Unmoved Mover. I see no need to apologize. It's a valid question. Honest follow up; How can one have an issue with “what came before the Big Bang” but not an issue with “God always was and always will be”? Both things deal with unanswerable questions, but the cosmologists don’t have much trouble with saying “we simply don’t know” vs the theologians saying “because the Bible says so”. I would respectfully state that the theologians are the ones avoiding “facts”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 8:24:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just about every religion claims to have the real story... So do many secularists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 8:25:44 PM EDT
[#31]
I believe in God but I also realize there are million pieces of evidence and data to prove many aspects of evolution - fossils carbon dating etc..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 8:26:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:The entire site has them. Are you here to troll? Are you an authority figure in this community? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 9:11:58 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honest follow up; How can one have an issue with “what came before the Big Bang” but not an issue with “God always was and always will be”? Both things deal with unanswerable questions, but the cosmologists don’t have much trouble with saying “we simply don’t know” vs the theologians saying “because the Bible says so”. I would respectfully state that the theologians are the ones avoiding “facts”. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He is the Unmoved Mover. I see no need to apologize. It's a valid question. Honest follow up; How can one have an issue with “what came before the Big Bang” but not an issue with “God always was and always will be”? Both things deal with unanswerable questions, but the cosmologists don’t have much trouble with saying “we simply don’t know” vs the theologians saying “because the Bible says so”. I would respectfully state that the theologians are the ones avoiding “facts”. I think that's a very narrow categorization of those who believe in a Primary Cause. It is not only Christians who believe in a Primary Cause (Whom we call God). I specifically used an Aristotelian term in my previous post. Even pagans arrived at a rational conclusion that there must be a Unmoved Mover; otherwise, we have infinite regression, which to me seems less rational than the position a Primary Cause that exists outside of space and time. St. Thomas Aquinas explains it thus: The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. Disagreements over Who the Unmoved Mover, His Nature, His attributes, etc. seem more reasonable to me than disagreements over whether there is an Unmoved Mover. A short video on the subject:  Five Ways to Prove God Exists (Aquinas 101) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 10:03:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you an authority figure in this community? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:The entire site has them. Are you here to troll? Are you an authority figure in this community? Always, and never. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 10:04:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Always, and never. Are you the moderator for the religion forum? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 10:09:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you the moderator for the religion forum? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Always, and never. Are you the moderator for the religion forum? No. That distinction belongs to medicmandan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2023 10:15:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. That distinction belongs to medicmandan. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 7:37:55 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you define existence? The truth that all angles of an equilateral triangle are equal exists whether we notice it or not, whether we are here or not or if some alien species discovers it, it is absolute truth not dependent on time, space, or even material existence. It is true whether our universe exists or not Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No matter what there had to be something in existence. Either it was some matter (but where did it come from?) or it was God (but where did He come from?). No matter what someone believes, it still requires faith of some kind because there are too many questions that don’t have answers because they are unanswerable by us in this age. How do you define existence? The truth that all angles of an equilateral triangle are equal exists whether we notice it or not, whether we are here or not or if some alien species discovers it, it is absolute truth not dependent on time, space, or even material existence. It is true whether our universe exists or not Existence is the state of being. Whether it is known or unknown, doesn’t change the fact that it is. My point is that something was in existence. Either you believe it was some sort of matter that went “bang” or you believe it was God who spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. There is then the question of “where did it (or God) come from?” Neither is answerable by science at this point in time, however, the Bible gives us that God is the Alpha and the Omega. He was and is and is yet to come. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 8:20:03 AM EDT
[#39]
 Kent Hovind vs. Bill Nye || Intellectual SMACKDOWN |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 8:33:00 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're operating from some shaky ground to start off with. First, the "Big Bang" theory was not an attempt to refute God's word. Quite the opposite, actually. It was proposed by a Catholic priest (and scientist and astronomer) Now you did it  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 3:17:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to define the boundaries of your expectations and then apply that to what has been learned so far. For instance what time frame are you looking at and what species AND are your expectations realistic? From there you can draw personal conclusions about change however some species may illustrate more linearity than others mostly due to environmental factors. For the record I am not an archaeologist nor a biologist so would not be able to speak intelligibly how those in either field support evolution as applied to various species. It has been my observation however that because religion and science approach debate from very different methods of support there is never anything constructive that comes out of it. So if you're seeking to play stump-the-chump or whip out a "gotcha" utilizing the premise that only religion offers then I'm not interested. If you would like to debate the pro's and con's of 6.8 SPC vs. 5.56 I'm your huckleberry. So you want to argue, but are not trained in the opposing field? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 6:18:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The theories of evolution and creationism do not have to be mutually exclusive. I do not presume to know the ways of god. Yeah, this is one thing that there seems to be a lot of confusion on in the Christian world. Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Creation, and Theistic Evolution are all Christian perspective viewpoints. J.R.R. Tolkien for instance was an old Earth creationist. C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist. I'm an OEC, myself. The important part is which one of those you believe is most accurate is not what's necessary for salvation. If you take care of that part, God can always fill you in on the full story sometime down the road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 7:03:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you want to argue, but are not trained in the opposing field? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have to define the boundaries of your expectations and then apply that to what has been learned so far. For instance what time frame are you looking at and what species AND are your expectations realistic? From there you can draw personal conclusions about change however some species may illustrate more linearity than others mostly due to environmental factors. For the record I am not an archaeologist nor a biologist so would not be able to speak intelligibly how those in either field support evolution as applied to various species. It has been my observation however that because religion and science approach debate from very different methods of support there is never anything constructive that comes out of it. So if you're seeking to play stump-the-chump or whip out a "gotcha" utilizing the premise that only religion offers then I'm not interested. If you would like to debate the pro's and con's of 6.8 SPC vs. 5.56 I'm your huckleberry. So you want to argue, but are not trained in the opposing field? Please tell me what subject I was debating and what my position is in relation to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2023 7:12:25 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Existence is the state of being. Whether it is known or unknown, doesn’t change the fact that it is. My point is that something was in existence. Either you believe it was some sort of matter that went “bang” or you believe it was God who spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. There is then the question of “where did it (or God) come from?” Neither is answerable by science at this point in time, however, the Bible gives us that God is the Alpha and the Omega. He was and is and is yet to come. In modern physics, matter doesn't come into being until after the big bang. My issue is with the cavalier use of the term matter. According to theory the conditions immediately after the big bang resemble a photon gas, a cloud of light if you will. Matter only condenses from it after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 2:02:04 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Honest follow up; How can one have an issue with "what came before the Big Bang" but not an issue with "God always was and always will be"? Both things deal with unanswerable questions, but the cosmologists don't have much trouble with saying "we simply don't know" vs the theologians saying "because the Bible says so". I would respectfully state that the theologians are the ones avoiding "facts". I'm willing to believe that for now, but the skeptic and wannabe scientist in me isn't thrilled with that answer. Not because I don't believe it, but that I want to know how it works. The astrophysicists can demonstrate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Which implies that it started from one central location. A Big Bang idea works well here. But it doesn't explain what happened before this. In my particular line of belief (LDS), we're taught that the creation of the Earth involved the "organizing" of matter that was unorganized. When I was young, I didn't give it much thought. Now that I'm older (and have taken university physics), that phrase takes on a different meaning. Earth's matter wasn't created out of the void. It was organized from existing matter. But I don't understand how that works. I read a book written by an astrophysicist, Brian Greene. I don't recall if he considers himself an atheist. He'd probably consider himself agnostic. He talks about the concept of space-time and how, depending on our view and perspective of an event, it could appear that we are looking backward into history or forward into the future. Some of Einstein's Relativity comes into play here. I really can't explain it well. But to my surprise, this book did much to help my understanding of God knowing all things from beginning to end. I'd recommend the book to anyone interested and although Greene didn't write it with any religious perspective, it's a very interesting read from a Biblical/Genesis point of view. It's called The Fabric of the Cosmos and it's about $9 on Kindle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 3:32:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't have an issue with either statement. Both the theologians and the cosmologists are trying to explain what we consider the beginning of the world or beginning of time. I was raised with the concept of "God has always existed and will always exist, from eternity to eternity. He's an infinite being that can't be fully understood by a finite mind." I'm willing to believe that for now, but the skeptic and wannabe scientist in me isn't thrilled with that answer. Not because I don't believe it, but that I want to know how it works. The astrophysicists can demonstrate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Which implies that it started from one central location. A Big Bang idea works well here. But it doesn't explain what happened before this. In my particular line of belief (LDS), we're taught that the creation of the Earth involved the "organizing" of matter that was unorganized. When I was young, I didn't give it much thought. Now that I'm older (and have taken university physics), that phrase takes on a different meaning. Earth's matter wasn't created out of the void. It was organized from existing matter. But I don't understand how that works. I read a book written by an astrophysicist, Brian Greene. I don't recall if he considers himself an atheist. He'd probably consider himself agnostic. He talks about the concept of space-time and how, depending on our view and perspective of an event, it could appear that we are looking backward into history or forward into the future. Some of Einstein's Relativity comes into play here. I really can't explain it well. But to my surprise, this book did much to help my understanding of God knowing all things from beginning to end. I'd recommend the book to anyone interested and although Greene didn't write it with any religious perspective, it's a very interesting read from a Biblical/Genesis point of view. It's called The Fabric of the Cosmos and it's about $9 on Kindle. Check this one out, and the series of videos further up on this page are excellent.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 5:28:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In modern physics, matter doesn't come into being until after the big bang. My issue is with the cavalier use of the term matter. According to theory the conditions immediately after the big bang resemble a photon gas, a cloud of light if you will. Matter only condenses from it after. Ok, so what went bang? No matter what you want to call it, something must have existed to be able to cause a big bang and make your photon gas-like stuff, right? You’re getting really hung up on it (and remember, it’s a theory so there may have been “matter” beforehand… who is to say?) when my point is that something was there, either to cause the bang or to create everything. Something can not come of nothing. You must first have something for some other thing to happen. Call it what you will. Believing in the Big Bang and believing in a creator both require faith in something because neither has been proven and both require something to be there at the beginning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 11:07:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, so what went bang? No matter what you want to call it, something must have existed to be able to cause a big bang and make your photon gas-like stuff, right? You’re getting really hung up on it (and remember, it’s a theory so there may have been “matter” beforehand… who is to say?) when my point is that something was there, either to cause the bang or to create everything. Something can not come of nothing. You must first have something for some other thing to happen. Call it what you will. Believing in the Big Bang and believing in a creator both require faith in something because neither has been proven and both require something to be there at the beginning. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In modern physics, matter doesn't come into being until after the big bang. My issue is with the cavalier use of the term matter. According to theory the conditions immediately after the big bang resemble a photon gas, a cloud of light if you will. Matter only condenses from it after. Ok, so what went bang? No matter what you want to call it, something must have existed to be able to cause a big bang and make your photon gas-like stuff, right? You’re getting really hung up on it (and remember, it’s a theory so there may have been “matter” beforehand… who is to say?) when my point is that something was there, either to cause the bang or to create everything. Something can not come of nothing. You must first have something for some other thing to happen. Call it what you will. Believing in the Big Bang and believing in a creator both require faith in something because neither has been proven and both require something to be there at the beginning. Whether you believe in a creator or not, if you maintain something must come from something pre-existing, then you have to logically work backwards. If the Big Bang came from something pre-existing, then there was another universe before this one. And that one had to come from something. So there was another universe before that one. And before that one. And before that one. And before that one. You can work back ten quintillion years and you still have the same problem. There must be a point at which something existed without coming from something else in order for the ball to get rolling. There is no option B other than to work back to a certain point and then just handwave it away without thinking about it. It was one of the main arguments behind the prevailing thought pre-Lemaitre where there was the theory of a static universe that had always existed and always would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2023 11:16:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No matter what there had to be something in existence. Either it was some matter (but where did it come from?) or it was God (but where did He come from?). No matter what someone believes, it still requires faith of some kind because there are too many questions that don’t have answers because they are unanswerable by us in this age. Science doesn't require faith in the unknown. Science simply says, "I don't know, here are some ways we could find out." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2023 12:00:19 AM EDT
[#50]
Threads like these make me question everything and delve into nihilism.
How will we ever know? The only way to know I guess is at the end. It’s such a wild thing to think about and always makes me feel very small. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
