Evolution or Creation?

[O.S.T]

If someone says: there was some stuff there before, then obviously the big bang was not the begining really.

there was no stuff before the big bang, but after the big bang there was stuff
and this stuff formed gas-giants, which became so big that they became suns and the suns created all atoms(except for hydrogen), planets arised and on one planet, there was life
this life grew and grew until it had the technology to build god, so they built god and because god was almighty he made the big bang
you see, before the big bang is after the big bang and after the big bang is before the big bang

 

[shadow_dragon]

So... if whatever I believe is right, and no-one knows and understands everything about the universe, I think we agree. Religion is useless.

Your right we do agree that religion is useless but i think the matter of faith and belief is a different matter and has a great many benefits. I have the utmost respect for the people i know who believe in gods and grand beginnings.

there was no stuff before the big bang, but after the big bang there was stuff
and this stuff formed gas-giants, which became so big that they became suns and the suns created all atoms(except for hydrogen), planets arised and on one planet, there was life
this life grew and grew until it had the technology to build god, so they built god and because god was almighty he made the big bang
you see, before the big bang is after the big bang and after the big bang is before the big bang

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." - Pratchett

 

[W0RF]

... doesn't that violate a fundamental law of thermodynamics, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? We ARE assuming a closed system if we dismiss creator origins, yes?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Your analogy fails because learning from your mistakes requires you to be given a second chance after you realise the consequences of your actions in order to act on what you've learned. But when you do learn the consequences of your actions by going to Hell, according to religion that's it, you're f*cked.

Not true. Alot of people realize their "mistakes" before they even die. And who's to say you can't get your second chance after you die? Of course, I don't believe that immediately following your death you go to heaven or hell.

The theory of reincarnation makes more sense, but then again, if you don't have any memory of your previous lives, how are you supposed to learn from them?

It does? If anything, reincarnation is even MORE hard to believe than the Christian belief of death. If you can just be reincarnated, then why can't you just live forever and skip the death part?

 

[O.S.T]

... doesn't that violate a fundamental law of thermodynamics, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed?

god violates many things, including fundamental laws, common sense and minors
but only because we will build god, look out for it, it will be great! :tup:

 

[Metakill]

If you can just be reincarnated, then why can't you just live forever and skip the death part?

Because that would be interminally frickin' boring and prevent you from experiencing the other aspects of your Godhood.

 

[W0RF]

god violates many things, including fundamental laws, common sense and minors
but only because we will build god, look out for it, it will be great! :tup:

... okay... anyone care to provide a REAL answer?...

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." - Pratchett

"I am possibly made from figs." - me.

 

[W0RF]

god violates many things, including fundamental laws, common sense and minors
but only because we will build god, look out for it, it will be great! :tup:

I'm sure there's a reason you posted this response, which has nothing to do with my question in the first place, and then decided to make my response your sig. Did you have an extra glass of troll juice this morning or something?

 

[O.S.T]

Did you have an extra glass of troll juice this morning or something?

yes, you don't get that I'm only on BuF to annoy you, do you?

chill out, I thought your reply was good and funny, that's why it's in my sig
geez

 

[W0RF]

okay, no hard feelings

... we haven't exactly been on the same side of arguments in the past, I hope you can understand me being a bit jumpy at being put on public display.

 

[Renegade Retard]

... doesn't that violate a fundamental law of thermodynamics, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? We ARE assuming a closed system if we dismiss creator origins, yes?

Now, here's a really deep question that may blow some minds....If there was no creator, and before the cosmic explosion there was absolutely nothing, then how did these very laws that supposedly caused the big "pop" and now govern our universe even come to exist in the first place?

 

[MÆST]

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." - Pratchett

... doesn't that violate a fundamental law of thermodynamics, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? We ARE assuming a closed system if we dismiss creator origins, yes?

Most big bang theories assume that all matter was condensed to nearly an infinite density at a singularity point at the beginning of time. So technically, the theory doesn't explain where that singulararity point came from nor does it explain the cause of the big bang and therefore it doesn't violate the Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Metakill]

Thats right. Science never said nothing existed prior to the big bang. Only that is the beginning of OUR universe.

 

[Zarkazm]

I'm sure there's a reason you posted this response, which has nothing to do with my question in the first place, and then decided to make my response your sig. Did you have an extra glass of troll juice this morning or something?

CONS PIRACY!!!

... doesn't that violate a fundamental law of thermodynamics, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? We ARE assuming a closed system if we dismiss creator origins, yes?

I know the beginning of your post violates grammar. I hope that helps.

 

[W0RF]

But if the theory of Black Holes is that stars collapse to such a density that matter and light cannot escape (indeed, we observe their existence only through the gravity wells they create), then it seems reasonable that something infinitely dense would be infinitely gravitic and therefore nothing could have escaped it at all, much less so forcefully that we can now pretty much verify that the universe has expanded beyond the point where it can collapse back in on itself.

That aside, the lack of an explanation for where (or when) this singularity came from makes this an inefficient model for origin theory IMO. Some sites I've been to discussing the Big Bang discourage such considerations, saying that asking what was before the Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. Without addressing the spherical nature of earth versus the linear nature of time, the point is, our country is only so big, yet we continue to see beyond it. Our earth is only so big, yet we continue to travel beyond it (well, lately, we've been distributing interplanetary webcams more than anything). I don't find it at all unreasonable to consider existence outside the known realm of the universe. If the universe is 20 billion light years in radius, and our galaxy is somewhere sort of in the middle-ish, well then, what's 30 billion light years away?

Strangely, the basic form of this Big Bang phenomenon, and its preponderance in the formation of our space-time, sounds a little like something else I read:

The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.

Anyway...

I know the beginning of your post violates grammar. I hope that helps.

The ellipsis was a literary device to suggest that there was consideration given to the point but not included in the post.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Thats right. Science never said nothing existed prior to the big bang. Only that is the beginning of OUR universe.

Okay, then where did this other....stuff?....come from?

 

[Metakill]

Okay, then where did this other....stuff?....come from?

Dig this: NOBODY KNOWS! Even the people who say God did it don't really know, because they don't really know what that means.

Well, Jainism and some Hindu religions offer more detailed cosmology relating to the life spans of universes, but its nothing that you can really call evidence. There are also string theories and other multidimensional mathematical gibberish that nobody can understand except the people who wrote it. If even they really do.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Because that would be interminally frickin' boring and prevent you from experiencing the other aspects of your Godhood.

If we're talking about religions that don't believe in a God, then what's the point of that?

 

[Metakill]

If we're talking about religions that don't believe in a God, then what's the point of that?

I had no idea that's what we were talking about. I thought it was just a question about reincarnation vs. immortality. And even religions that don't believe in A God, often still have conception of divinity as a distributed state of being. I guess I don't really understand your question.

Science is not a religion. ? ! ?&?!@#!