quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I was taught that the big bang may occur over and over again according to the rubber band theory, a theory which, to me, ties in nicely with some of the beliefs of the ancient Hindus. According to the rubber band theory gravity pulls all matter together and compresses it to the point it explodes with a "big bang" after which the new universe expands until gravity once again overtakes the weakening force of the explosion and draws it all back together again, then it all endlessly repeats.

quote:


(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Of course nobody can do that because there is no such thing as a man in the sky who created us and knows everything we do 24 hours a day.

You said,' science knows this?' And the answer is yes they do

There is not one link I can point to where they did an experiment and proved the nonexistence of God.

There is a meeting that I saw on the Internet however, where all of the major scientists involved in studying this matter were present and they found people's belief in God amusing.

<snip>

I would also like to add that they will not do such an 'experiment' because they are not interested in attracting attention from religious wing nuts...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

It took me a while to find your post but I was determined to do so because I think this is the first time I actually agree with you about something. I have actually for a long time believed this to be true myself but I didn't know it was called a rubber band theory. And I also didn't know it was a belief of ancient Hindus. I don't have a lot of time these days, who does, but if I can find the time I'm going to take a look at the beliefs of the ancient Hindus.

I'd like to say that I agree with you is a miracle and almost enough to believe in God but to do so would be dangerous because it would undermine significantly my efforts to drag people into the present and to stop believing 2000 year old nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I was taught that the big bang may occur over and over again according to the rubber band theory, a theory which, to me, ties in nicely with some of the beliefs of the ancient Hindus. According to the rubber band theory gravity pulls all matter together and compresses it to the point it explodes with a "big bang" after which the new universe expands until gravity once again overtakes the weakening force of the explosion and draws it all back together again, then it all endlessly repeats.

quote:


(in reply to Kirata)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: switch2please

There was some debate about my usage of 'belief'...
When I state that I absolutely believe in evolution, I mean that I personally have not proved the theory of evolution - it is not fact, it is just a theory, there is always another option - but from what I've read, it makes the most sense. If I were to have faith in one theory in the creationism vs. evolutionism debate, I have faith in evolution. I've yet to see either of these viewpoints proved conclusively beyond a doubt, but I choose to believe in evolutionism. 'Faith' and 'belief' can be used out of the context of religion, and are necessary when logic (esp. quasi-quantum physics logic) proves only that an abstract cannot be proved, or disproved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Essentially, the universe is a grand perpetual motion machine working on many different levels, from subatomic to cosmic.

If I were wandering through a primordial forest and found something far less complicated than all of this lying in a meadow somewhere I would have to wonder, who or what made it...

Life itself and all the associated spiritual aspects of creation such as art and sexuality and music, and all the other wonders of nature are merely bonuses. I can't prove that a God or something God-like is responsible, but neither can you prove that there isn't.

quote:



As a Believer, I am going to remember this last line.
We agree on a few things here Sanity!
Merry Christmas!
It is amusing the time and energy many put into, attempting to prove, there is not a GOD.
I guess it gives them something to do.


< Message edited by MzMia -- 11/29/2009 9:14:07 PM >

_____________________________

Namaste'
To Each His/Her Own
"DENIAL ain't just a river in Egypt." Mark Twain


What's your favorite fetish?
"My partner's whisper"--bloomswell

(in reply to Sanity)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Essentially, the universe is a grand perpetual motion machine working on many different levels, from subatomic to cosmic.

If I were wandering through a primordial forest and found something far less complicated than all of this lying in a meadow somewhere I would have to wonder, who or what made it...

quote:

Life itself and all the associated spiritual aspects of creation such as art and sexuality and music, and all the other wonders of nature are merely bonuses. I can't prove that a God or something God-like is responsible, but neither can you prove that there isn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.

What I always find interesting in these arguments is that we are to believe there is a God with no evidence to support that, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary as not being definitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.

What I always find interesting in these arguments is that we are to believe there is a God with no evidence to support that, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary as not being definitive.

The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

I would only quibble with the last thought. CERN is arguably a temple to mass/energy. A church where acolytes gather to try and learn more about their "god". I see no reason why physicists should be assumed to be totally objective and not protective of their own pet theories and biases. It is more difficult for them to blindly practice and proselytize their religion than it is for the AGW crowd, because climatology has not reached the level of a hard science, and physics can generally be experimented on in real time, vs climatology, where experiments will necessarily outlive the (honest) scientists who design them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent

There is also the need for humans to feel a sense of belonging.  So it is human to try to fit personal experiences into a larger body of similar experiences and out of such comes religion.  In itself, harmless.  I don't defend God, yes, I agree, It doesn't require defending.  I do however take some offense at being told that my personal experiences ARE delusions just because some non-believing zealot says so. 

The shear volume of what we do know about the universe in which we live is a speck of dust compared to what we do not know.  If Super-natural simply means above nature, then it can only be compared to nature as we currently know it.  So if nothing is Super-natural, just nature undisovered, it would make more sense to keep an open and curious mind.  Again, I refer to those earliest scientists who, thinking they could change lead into gold, provided us with detailed properties of the elements.  Does it really matter the motive for discovery as long as we continue to seeks answers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent

I would only quibble with the last thought. CERN is arguably a temple to mass/energy. A church where acolytes gather to try and learn more about their "god". I see no reason why physicists should be assumed to be totally objective and not protective of their own pet theories and biases. It is more difficult for them to blindly practice and proselytize their religion than it is for the AGW crowd, because climatology has not reached the level of a hard science, and physics can generally be experimented on in real time, vs climatology, where experiments will necessarily outlive the (honest) scientists who design them.