|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted November 06, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:10, 06 Nov 2009.
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Ah well, you insulted me quite a few times and call that a level headed discussion.
For Pete's sake, man, you see insults where there are none intended.
Quote:
Yeah, I said some Buddhists are atheists. Many are not. Buddhism is not an atheistic religion taken as a whole.
The problem, my friend, is that Buddhism is *NOTHING* taken as a whole. You can't define it as a whole. You over generalize. The fact is that some Buddhists are atheists, and those Buddhists who are atheists have very deep spiritual beliefs. Therefore, it is quite possible to be an atheist *and* have deep spiritual beliefs, and SOME BUDDHISTS are examples of this. Therefore your gross generalization that ALL ATHEISTS *must* believe that the "universe was a cosmic accident" is just plain false. That is the point, and the only point.
Quote:
Oh, are you now defining yourself as an atheist or agnostic?
I'm not "defining" myself as anything. I don't lump myself into a category and say, "Look, I believe everything they believe in." Because my beliefs are unique. Beliefs are like fingerprints - no two people have exactly the same set. That's because beliefs are shaped by experience, and no two people have the same set of experiences. You can call me whatever you want, but I refuse to have what beliefs I'm required to hold explained to me by you or anyone else based solely on what label I choose to give myself (or what label you/they choose to give me) and what you believe that such a label is required to imply.
For example:
Quote:
Atheists believe that everything occured without a design, right?
Why is this required? If Joe is an atheist, he may certainly believe that there is no grand design to the universe. But Jack, another atheist, may have a very different opinion. Jack may believe that aliens with very advanced technology designed the Universe. You can't just say that all atheists are required to believe in X just because that's what you think atheism implies. Think of it this way. What if I told you that since all Christians believe in God, then therefore all Christians are required to believe that humans and chimpanzees did not evolve from a common ancestor. My guess is that you'd disagree with that statement. After all, many Christians do believe in evolution, and many do not. The mere belief in God does not predetermine every other belief or moral you are required to hold, does it? Assuming your answer is no to that question, why do you feel that NOT believing in God predetermines every other belief or moral you are required to hold?
Whether or not God exists is only one (admittedly large) facet of a person's complex belief system. It is important, but it is not everything.
Quote:
There was no intelligence guiding the universe coming into being and somehow "creation" came into being from absolute nothing without a cause (unless you contend that there is an infinite regression of causes.)
No, that's not what atheists are required to believe. I don't believe it, Buddhist atheists don't believe it. In fact, I'm not aware of any atheist that believes that, so it's curious that you keep demanding that that is what we are all required to believe.
Quote:
There was no guiding intelligence determining anything that would happen. Random elements came together or developed randomly and reacted randomly. Accidentally. Without purpose.
What makes you think that random events are accidental? The emission of light from, say, the chemicals in a firefly is a random process. Does that mean firefly light is "accidental"? You do know that accident implies a mistake, an unintended consequence, right? If I carry a bag of coins somewhere, I intend to not drop it, so if I do drop it at some point, that's an accident because it wasn't an intent when I set about carrying the coins. In fact, if there was no God, no purpose, no design, it's IMPOSSIBLE for cosmic events to be accidental. If there is no purpose to anything, then nothing can be an accident, because there's no intent involved. And also, just because there is no "planned design", that does not automatically imply that there can't be a predetermined outcome to the universe governed by the laws of physics.
What do I mean by that? You see, there's a localized context to the meaning of "random". By that I mean, just because a given, local event may have a random (statistical) outcome, the time-averaged result may be very non-random. Here's an example. If I mix hydrochloric acid with a lump of zinc metal, the acid will eat the metal, forming zinc ions and hydrogen gas. That is not a "random" result. You can predict it very well, and we know why it happens. Every time you mix hydrochloric acid with zinc, you're going to get that result. HOWEVER, at the quantum (microscopic) level, when a single hydrogen ion bumps into a single zinc atom, whether or not a reaction occurs between the two is a RANDOM EVENT. You can't predict beforehand whether an electron will be transferred from the zinc atom to a hydrogen atom. It's impossible. That's random. However, the time averaged result of zillions of zinc atoms bumping into zillions of hydrogen ions is quite predictable and quite non-random, as we see in our every-day observation. So you see, it is possible to believe that at the microscopic level, the universe is guided by random, unpredictable events, but that there is yet a very nonrandom, predetermined "destiny" (if you will) to where the universe is going. And there are no "accidents" anywhere to be found in such a belief system.
Quote:
See, I have seen a number of notable atheists debate theists. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. They all say everything is an accident and without purpose.
Fallacy of hasty generalization. You can't take what three people say about their beliefs, identify that they are atheists, and then leap to the conclusion that all atheists must believe that. Do you, for example, agree that all Christians believe exactly what Jerry Fallwell believed? After all, Jerry Fallwell was a Christian, and he believed some things, therefore all Christians must believe what he believed, right? I've seen a lot of Christians say a lot of crazy stuff, too, but I don't leap to the conclusion that all Christians believe what they believe. Remember also that Dawkins and crew are out to sell books and make money - they're TRYING to say stuff that is controversial, and they're TRYING to say it in the most controversial way possible.
Quote:
What percentage of atheists do you think believe in life after death, reincarnation, karma, or any sort of spirits? I've never seen athesits in any debate say he believes in any of those. I've always seen atheists deny anything but what is material.
So what? Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist. And the point isn't what kinds of atheists are out there. The point is that you are saying that atheists ARE REQURIED to believe certain things based upon a false premise. You are extrapolating atheistic believes based on the consequences of not sharing your beliefs.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 07, 2009 07:03 PM |
|
|
well, that's another thread killed due to someones refusal to explain themselves.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 07, 2009 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
well, that's another thread killed due to someones refusal to explain themselves.
your spam doesn't help much either.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 07, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
yeah, your probably right...
oh well, another fanatic has stopped posting here. obviously we are beyond gods grace.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2009 11:43 PM |
|
|
I gave up after apparently pointing out that an Athiest cannot believe they are a god or godlike and be an atheist, or they'd not believe in themselves somehow and it didn't stick. Wasn't even acknowledged in fact except with a repeat of 'nuh uh, they are too atheists'.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 10:23 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:29, 08 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
yeah, your probably right...
oh well, another fanatic has stopped posting here. obviously we are beyond gods grace.
More insults from "the other side." But yeah, I agree that a certain group bands together to drive away people of other points of view.
Sorry, I can't always post every day. I do have a life off the board to attend to.
Quote:
I gave up after apparently pointing out that an Athiest cannot believe they are a god or godlike and be an atheist, or they'd not believe in themselves somehow and it didn't stick. Wasn't even acknowledged in fact except with a repeat of 'nuh uh, they are too atheists'.
You said, "Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, they all had cults of personality, they all had fixations on themselves being god. They were no longer Atheists as they believed themselves to be divine at that point. "
(http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=30567&pagenumber=5)
That was just ludicrous. And you falsely said I said something I did not.
What I said was, "Nah, they never claimed to be divine. They were just atheists who liked power.....An atheist being self-centered does not make him no longer an atheist."
Quote:
For Pete's sake, man, you see insults where there are none intended.
Perhaps you should go back and reread your post.
Quote:
The problem, my friend, is that Buddhism is *NOTHING* taken as a whole.
The founder of Buddhism did not say God does not exist or that he does. Well, actually according to some Hidu writings, he said that there is a God but most Buddhists will say that Buddha said nothing about God. Buddhism is non-theistic for the most part though some individuals are atheist and some are theists, like I said before.
Quote:
Therefore, it is quite possible to be an atheist *and* have deep spiritual beliefs, and SOME BUDDHISTS are examples of this. Therefore your gross generalization that ALL ATHEISTS *must* believe that the "universe was a cosmic accident" is just plain false.
OK, I already said some Buddhists are atheists. I would say the vast majority of atheists do not believe in an eternal universe (like some Buddhist "denominations" teach because that is not accepted by science anymore. But atheists can't offer an explaination for where the universe came from. What caused the singularity taht caused the Big Bang if that is how the universe was produced?
You mentioned maybe an alien creating the universe. Who created the alien? The first cause had to be self-existant and eternal.
Without a guiding intelligence the univese could only be an accident.
Quote:
I'm not "defining" myself as anything. I don't lump myself into a category and say, "Look, I believe everything they believe in." Because my beliefs are unique. Beliefs are like fingerprints - no two people have exactly the same set.
Yeah, but I've never met anyone who could say "I believe in God," or "I don't believe in God" or "I don't know if there are any gods or not."
Ok, so how about explaining your basic beliefs if you don't want to describe youself as either an atheist or agnostic. Is there a God/gods, non-divine spirits, life after death? How did the universe come to be? Do people have a divinely given purpose? Is there absolute morality and what is it based on? That sort of thing.
Quote:
In fact, I'm not aware of any atheist that believes that, so it's curious that you keep demanding that that is what we are all required to believe.
OK, explain where the first cause of universe/multiverse came from.
Quote:
What makes you think that random events are accidental? The emission of light from, say, the chemicals in a firefly is a random process. Does that mean firefly light is "accidental"? You do know that accident implies a mistake, an unintended consequence, right? If I carry a bag of coins somewhere, I intend to not drop it, so if I do drop it at some point, that's an accident because it wasn't an intent when I set about carrying the coins. In fact, if there was no God, no purpose, no design, it's IMPOSSIBLE for cosmic events to be accidental. If there is no purpose to anything, then nothing can be an accident, because there's no intent involved. And also, just because there is no "planned design", that does not automatically imply that there can't be a predetermined outcome to the universe governed by the laws of physics.
What I mean of couse is if there is no intelligence behind the existence of the universe the univese is without purpose and occured accidentally (somehow.) When I use the term univese I mean everyting matter and energy. Substitute multiverse if you wish.
So do you believe that from the moment of the first instant space and time came into being that everything was predetermined purely by the behavior of the matter and energy at that instant? At that instnt it was predetermined that I would be sitting here typing on my computer and a couple of days ago the terrorist at Fort Hood would be a traitor and murder fellow servicemen? Dawkins say were are all just "dancing to our genes." Is that what you believe? Tht my life an your life was predetermined by the events that occured at the singularity that caused the Big Bang (or however the universe came to be.)
Quote:
So you see, it is possible to believe that at the microscopic level, the universe is guided by random, unpredictable events, but that there is yet a very nonrandom, predetermined "destiny" (if you will) to where the universe is going. And there are no "accidents" anywhere to be found in such a belief system.
Random events don't "guide" anything. Only an intelligence can guide something.
Quote:
Fallacy of hasty generalization.
No, becaue I did not say all atheists believe that. But they are the most notable atheists around and the atheists of the past have said pretty much the same thing.
Quote:
So what? Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist. And the point isn't what kinds of atheists are out there. The point is that you are saying that atheists ARE REQURIED to believe certain things based upon a false premise. You are extrapolating atheistic believes based on the consequences of not sharing your beliefs.
To make you happy from now on I'll say "most atheists" or something simiar. I have been saying all along that not all atheists hold to those things however. But I think you'd have to agree tht atheist that believe in karma and reincarnation are rare.
Oh yeah, that is one of the things I asked you to explain that you did not explain. How is karma "dished out" and reincarnation from the point of view of an atheist? Who decides that person has reached an acceptalbe karma to not have to be reincarnated again?
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 10:38 AM |
|
|
I want to kill everyone!
Lucifer is good
Satin is my pal!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 11:22 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:25, 08 Nov 2009.
|
Ok first I want to address the 'cause' of the universe. 1st, some people are assuming that our understanding of the universe is correct. Despite the fact that we only live and can observe a very small fraction of it. ((No I don't want to get into a scientific debate  )). Lets assume for a minute that indeed everything we know about the universe IS true, however. Keeping in mind that I myself am a believer that some force (or being) was behind the creation of the universe.
Ok, so where did the matter and enegy come from if not from some divine being? Since matter and energy can not be 'created' (but just change form) logically it would have to come from somewhere. Even if it was around trillions of years, at one point in time it would not have been there, and came into being SOMEHOW. Since I am not even close to a scientist, I can not answer that question.
So..if we are to think that a outside deity or force did not create that matter/energy then we have to then go on the premise that what we understand might not be true. That matter and energy can .. somehow and some way be created from nothing. How then, without an outside force, did this happen? As I am not a scientist, I can not answer that question. From what I understand, no current scientist can either (but I may be mistaken).
If the above is true (and Corribus will undoubtedly correct any mistakes in the statements) then I must come to the conclusion that indeed some outside force or being is responsible. I must note that I am under no obligation to believe it is a being named 'god' who had a son named 'jesus'. Without proof, which none is provided (and 'because my book (or because I say so)' is not proof).
So while the argument that an outside force helped I find legitimate, the argument 'My god did it' I do not. Further proof is needed for me. Again the argument 'Because I said so, or because my book says so' is not a valid argument.
Many religions claim to have the answer, but unfortunately when anybody argues with them they rely on the same answer. "Because my book (or I) say so." Even when brought face to face with the fact that every other religion claims the same, they stick with the same answer. Only they add 'The other religions are false, they can believe what they want, but we are better then them. Ours is the only truth."
Some notes. Speaking in tongues does not equal validity, some tribal shamans in africa speak in tongues also and worship 'spirits' not a certain single deity. Nor does 'feeling the spirit'. If you watch those same Shamans you would deffinately say they were 'feeling the spirit'.
So far there has been no proof provided. A couple of simple questions were asked, and all that was returned was insults and claims of insults. In hopes that somebody (Doomforge? Corribus? ANYBODY?) can answer these questions I will pose them again.
Why should I believe in what you believe? What makes your belief better then any of the other faiths (counting atheism as a faith in this context)? I am wanting to be convinced that you are right, so convince me. How is YOUR interpretation better then the Mormon or Buddist or Jehovas Witness, or ... Why should we take YOUR book (should you have one) as the RIGHT one?
Like Corribus I believe that belief is very personal. I also believe (I won't speak for Corribus on the following) that organized religion is not healthy. A lot have become warped, and some have become outright frauds. Money and politics rule them, not a 'higher power'. I don't ask you to believe as I do. If you want me to believe as you do..you are going to have to do better then you currently are. I have an open mind and an open heart, but I can't help but think the same tired things will happen. Either insults and claims of insults, or "Because I say so, or my book says so", or my questions just ignored.
____________
Message received.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 12:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You said, "Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, they all had cults of personality, they all had fixations on themselves being god. They were no longer Atheists as they believed themselves to be divine at that point. "
(http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=30567&pagenumber=5)
That was just ludicrous. And you falsely said I said something I did not.
What I said was, "Nah, they never claimed to be divine. They were just atheists who liked power.....An atheist being self-centered does not make him no longer an atheist."
Kim Il-Sung were raised as a christian, and when it comes to cult of personality he were extreme...
____________
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 05:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I gave up after apparently pointing out that an Athiest cannot believe they are a god or godlike and be an atheist, or they'd not believe in themselves somehow and it didn't stick. Wasn't even acknowledged in fact except with a repeat of 'nuh uh, they are too atheists'.
You said, "Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, they all had cults of personality, they all had fixations on themselves being god. They were no longer Atheists as they believed themselves to be divine at that point. "
(http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=30567&pagenumber=5)
That was just ludicrous. And you falsely said I said something I did not.
What I said was, "Nah, they never claimed to be divine. They were just atheists who liked power.....An atheist being self-centered does not make him no longer an atheist."
I never said you said that exactly, it was merely the spirit of what you have said. I also addressed further your topic of these leaders who created their own theistic views. These people were not merely self centered, they created their own religions.
Quote:
Nor does anything acting self centered make a person not something else... except humble. They wouldn't be humble. But just because a person doesn't claim that they believe themselves divine doesn't mean they do not. Actions speak louder than words. These men thought themselves the new God on the block.
Kim Jong-Il and Kim Il-Sung have a cult of personality in North Korea that teaches children that Kim Il-Sung created the world (and Kim Jong-Il is effectively the son of God). These leaders establish religions with themselves as the new God.
An atheist that believes in a god, no matter how big or small that god may be is no longer an atheist as atheism is the absolute disbelief in any sort of god.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I said was, "Nah, they never claimed to be divine. They were just atheists who liked power.....An atheist being self-centered does not make him no longer an atheist."
An atheist being self-centered does not make him no longer a human. Moreover, a human being self-centered does not make him no longer a human...
Therefore, humans are murderous tyrants who kill millions of people 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since matter and energy can not be 'created' (but just change form) logically it would have to come from somewhere.
Logically, this statement is a contradiction. It can't be created, so it was? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
|
|
Thermodynamics isn't really relevant here.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 08, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
|
Actually it is, cause it's the main "argument" Elodin uses to claim "God" created the universe..
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 05:59 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 06:04, 09 Nov 2009.
|
@Mytical
Quote:
I also believe (I won't speak for Corribus on the following) that organized religion is not healthy.
I'm not going to go so far as to make a blanket statement against organized religion. I think for many people it's a positive thing, when it's at a local level. However, when the organizations get political...
@Elodin
Quote:
Ok, so how about explaining your basic beliefs if you don't want to describe youself as either an atheist or agnostic. Is there a God/gods, non-divine spirits, life after death? How did the universe come to be? Do people have a divinely given purpose? Is there absolute morality and what is it based on? That sort of thing.
AND
Quote:
OK, explain where the first cause of universe/multiverse came from.
You asked essentially this same question several times in your post, so I'll only quote it once. I tacked on the second quote because it's related.
Ignoring for a moment what I personally believe in, let me say that I have no idea where the universe came from, presuming of course it came from anywhere at all. I don't know what happened in the Big Bang, I don't know what happened before the Big Bang. When you get down to it, I don't know much of anything. In fact, nobody knows. There are no empirical facts available. We can, of course, speculate. And naturally, we can have beliefs based on those speculations.
Of course, it's fairly clear why you direct such a question at atheists. You aren't stupid, and you know that atheists aren't going to be able to give you a straightforward scientific answer. And when the atheist says he doesn't know, you say, "Ah-ha!" The implication is that if a satisfactory scientific answer is unavailable, then therefore God must be the answer.
But I don't see the logic in that deduction. The lack of evidence for one theory is never evidence for something other theory. (I use theory here in a general, nonscientific sense.) The fact of the matter is that my inability to explain the origins of the universe is irrelevant to whether God exists or not.
As to what I personally believe in: well my beliefs have been stated many times on this board already. I would direct you here (First post: you can read the whole thing if you want; my personal beliefs are laid out pretty clearly about halfway down, starting with “As to what I believe” in bold print.)
Or here, or here.
I don’t think any added detail is necessary. In essence, I believe that the origins of the universe, like everything else, have a perfectly rational explanation that can be understood through a more complete understanding of the laws of physics. We may be a long way away from that, but I see no compelling reason to invoke an immortal being or supernatural entity as an explanation without a specific need to do so. A mere lack of knowledge is not an adequate enough need. I believe fundamentally in Occam’s Razor. Do I believe in God? No. Do I refute the possibility? Also, no. I admit that I find God to be uninteresting, an uncreative, disappointing answer to the Universe’s most intimate questions. And even if I COULD point to a scientific answer to the beginning of the Universe, that STILL wouldn't answer the God question. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I find God boring, and I'm really not interested in whether God exists or not. As for morality: I believe it is a human-made construct, necessarily brought out through eons of evolution. A survival mechanism. Just like religion.
I certainly could be wrong. But that’s why they call it a belief.
You want more details on my beliefs, just ask.
Quote:
So do you believe that from the moment of the first instant space and time came into being that everything was predetermined purely by the behavior of the matter and energy at that instant?
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know. I like to think I have some influence over the way time unfolds, if only for my localized chunk of it. I’m sorry, I just don’t have the answer to that one, and I’ve yet to see someone who has one that’s compelling.
Quote:
Random events don't "guide" anything. Only an intelligence can guide something.
Disagree. A ball is guided toward the ground by gravity, not an intelligence.
Quote:
Oh yeah, that is one of the things I asked you to explain that you did not explain. How is karma "dished out" and reincarnation from the point of view of an atheist? Who decides that person has reached an acceptalbe karma to not have to be reincarnated again?
Why should I have to explain that? I’m not an atheist who believes in reincarnation.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 06:20 AM |
|
|
That is the error in the 'logic' put forth. Just because there is not an answer, does not mean that the 'god' that had a son 'jesus' is the answer. Could be Allah, Chronos, Jupiter (the god), an Alien from another dimension, etc. However, as I have said before lets shake things up.
By the very logic given that everything has to have a cause, that would mean that even if the 'god' that had a son 'jesus' was in fact behind the creation of the universe..he had to come from somewhere. A cause BEFORE him. IE he was himself created by something. And that something was created by something. And that something was created by something. IE there still would be no logical 'first'. Saying 'oh be he is eternal and exist outside of time, and had no 'cause'' is identical to saying 'oh the matter and energy existed outside of time and had no 'cause'. Thus saying that the first matter in the big bang was a deity. Which I am pretty sure nobody believes. I could be mistaken however.
The law of thermodynamics does not prove that the 'god' that had a son 'jesus' is behind anything, or that he/she even exists
____________
Message received.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 07:20 AM |
|
|
Yeah, it has to be an alien from another dimension .. this puts everything in a new perspective 
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 07:36 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 08:24 AM |
|
|
I think, given the alternative to believe in a god OR in the big bang I'd pick god any day, because the big bang seems too be an extremely dumb explanation for how the universe came to pass.
I mean. just think about it. Let's imagine this iommensely vast black hole immediately before it's explosion. It would have to have been stable, otherwise it couldn't have be(come) so big. So something must have happened to destroy that stability and cause it to explode because the pressure of gravity would have gotten so big versus the core forces of the atoms (particle wouldn't be able to become more dense). This something would have to have been the last drop of matter of a then rapidly contracting universe causing the explosion starting the process all over again. (Or shall we imagine "god" sitting there somewhere, throwing pebbles into it, just checking how many more stuff the thing can hold before it will collapse/explode?)
If this was the case, then, this bang would have been number x of an unknown number of bangs because there is no reason to assume, that bang would have been different from those before in any way.
In this case, though, the expansion speed of the universe would have to be biggest at t=0 or explosion point, since from then on gravity would just have to brake expansion speed continually up to a point where everything came to a standstill and contraction began.
It doesn't look like expansion speed is diminishing, though.
If on the other hand the big bang is supposed to be a unique event, a singular birth of a universe that's ever expanding further - then how came that massive black hole containing all that matter/energy into being in the first place?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 09, 2009 08:35 AM |
|
|
Ok, but the question then becomes. "Which God?". There are more then one, and many many possibilities. All claim to be the correct one, but none are actually able to prove they are correct. Instead they resort to "Oh such and such expert said.." or "Theirs is obviously false because this book(old scroll, tv personality, jimbobfurlybob) says.." or the like when such is typically an opinion presented as fact.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
