Do you believe in God, or Evolution?

[GameSnake]

The timeless question.

[BigAznDaddy]

Everything is proven through Science 

[Sidoh]

The important thing to remember when comparing God to evolution is this:

  According to Christianity (and many other religions), God didn't just create life.  He created the Universe.

  Evolution doesn't provide any sort of explanation as to where the rest of the Universe came from.

Everything is proven through Science 

False.  Unless necessary evidence is provided, Science produces theories, not facts.  For example, science does not answer why we are here or how we got here.

[rabbit]

Sty, you're forgetting religion is a bit wacky sometimes.  There are a lot of people who believe the world was created not so long ago, and a lot of them believe (IIRC) that God made everything appear as it is.  To them, scientific evidence means diddly-squat.

[BigAznDaddy]

The important thing to remember when comparing God to evolution is this:

  According to Christianity (and many other religions), God didn't just create life.  He created the Universe.

  Evolution doesn't provide any sort of explanation as to where the rest of the Universe came from.


False.  Unless necessary evidence is provided, Science produces theories, not facts.  For example, science does not answer why we are here or how we got here.

Ok i guess Science does not provide evidence of how the universe was created but it does provide evidence of how we are alive today.

[Sidoh]

Sty, you're forgetting religion is a bit wacky sometimes.  There are a lot of people who believe the world was created not so long ago, and a lot of them believe (IIRC) that God made everything appear as it is.  To them, scientific evidence means diddly-squat.

Regardless of everything science can do, it can not prove that evolution is the case.  They can't prove that it's more than a theory.  Therefore, anyone who believes in it is taking the same leap of faith that religious people do when they choose to believe that a deity created the Universe.

Ok i guess Science does not provide evidence of how the universe was created but it does provide evidence of how we are alive today.

No, it provides speculation and little evidence supporting that speculation.

[rabbit]

Azn, have you never heard of the Big Bang theory?  Hush please.

[ZeroX]

The important thing to remember when comparing God to evolution is this:

  According to Christianity (and many other religions), God didn't just create life.  He created the Universe.

  Evolution doesn't provide any sort of explanation as to where the rest of the Universe came from.

Everything is proven through Science 

False.  Unless necessary evidence is provided, Science produces theories, not facts.  For example, science does not answer why we are here or how we got here.

It provides enough evidence to determine that we evolved from some type of entity. Like why do bugs get Immune to some bug repelents after being sprayed? It shows that Natrual selection is possible and is still going on today. The only thing that proves this Theory wrong is the fact that why isnt a primative ape still evolving to a man. I cant answer that one.

Iam pretty much null and void on this one. There is so much evidence for both sides that you cant really tell. Maybe we will find out when we die?

[Kaleeko]

Science is not a set of definites, because it's constantly changing. Whether we rely on it completely for our basis of existance or not, it's not going to provide all the answers. Ever. Neither is religion, because there is such a vast range of religions in existance that have conflicting ideas.

Then, simply, both science and religion are a way to explain the world around us to the fullest possible extent we make it. Even if you view through the eyes of religion, science still does provide a way for us to explain things that happen in the world. Religion doesn't entirely neglect science. It does use it. The Catholic church, for example, has accepted a vast majority of scientific ideas because, well, the easiest way to put it is that science and religion deal with the same things. They can't be seperated.

If you take this view into light, then you can see science as a way of explaining some of the things "God" did. While it's said that he created the world in seven days, were they our days, or were they "God" days, which can be timeless? If that's the case, then evolution may be a way to explain how God created the earth.

It would make sense for God to create the planet with a history, even if he didn't actually let the history happen itself. If this "God" is all powerful, then he can do anything. Even put bones on the planet of dinosaurs that never actually lived, even though the evidence that they did is everywhere. He could do it.

So, in a way, I agree with Sty, but in a different way. Science and religion cannot be seperated, and I find that the best way to believe in any sort of "Creation" story is to believe in both.

[Sidoh]

It provides enough evidence to determine that we evolved from some type of entity. Like why do bugs get Immune to some bug repelents after being sprayed? It shows that Natrual selection is possible and is still going on today. The only thing that proves this Theory wrong is the fact that why isnt a primative ape still evolving to a man. I cant answer that one.

Correct, evolution is a reality.  However, it is evident and obvious that we are not speaking of evolution in this context.  Small genetic mutations that grant immunity to some sort of substance that was toxic to a former strain of said organism isn't "evolution" in the context of one-celled organisms evolving into complex beings such as humans, dolphins, whales or monkeys (and obviously a slew of other things).

In conclusion, I don't disagree that evolution is a sensible answer to how we got here, but it's important to realize that it is nothing more than a theory.  I do, however, believe that doesn't answer where the Universe came from (neither does the Big Bang theory.  It simply answers how the Universe as we know it originated).

Science is not a set of definites, because it's constantly changing. Whether we rely on it completely for our basis of existance or not, it's not going to provide all the answers. Ever. Neither is religion, because there is such a vast range of religions in existance that have conflicting ideas.

Yep.  As I already said, for answers as complex as existence, Science can propose little more than speculative theories.

The thing about religion is it provides answers to said complex questions involving things such as existence.  It does not answer all questions, but it does answer fundamental questions which science will never be able to answer beyond theories which have the inherent trait of doubt.  If you have faith and believe that, say, Christianity is the truth, otherwise impossible questions have been answered.

Then, simply, both science and religion are a way to explain the world around us to the fullest possible extent we make it. Even if you view through the eyes of religion, science still does provide a way for us to explain things that happen in the world. Religion doesn't entirely neglect science. It does use it. The Catholic church, for example, has accepted a vast majority of scientific ideas because, well, the easiest way to put it is that science and religion deal with the same things. They can't be seperated.

What do you mean by "the vast majority of scientific ideas?"  What kind of scientific ideas?  I really doubt they've accepted evolution or the big bang, which are two of the largest ideas in science (especially since they both encompass other ideas and conclusions to base their reasoning on).

If you take this view into light, then you can see science as a way of explaining some of the things "God" did. While it's said that he created the world in seven days, were they our days, or were they "God" days, which can be timeless? If that's the case, then evolution may be a way to explain how God created the earth.

Since a day is a unit of measurement invented by humans, I would easily conclude that 'seven days' is measured in 'human days.'

It's sort of a moot point, though.  What does it matter?

It would make sense for God to create the planet with a history, even if he didn't actually let the history happen itself. If this "God" is all powerful, then he can do anything. Even put bones on the planet of dinosaurs that never actually lived, even though the evidence that they did is everywhere. He could do it.

Or preemptively plan a series of events that deceive our imperfect methods of measuring the age of some object.

So, in a way, I agree with Sty, but in a different way. Science and religion cannot be seperated, and I find that the best way to believe in any sort of "Creation" story is to believe in both.

I don't understand what you mean.  Why can't science and religion be separated?  Especially for issues such as the creation and fate of the Universe, I don't see how the two can be used interchangeably or concurrently.

[BigAznDaddy]

Azn, have you never heard of the Big Bang theory?  Hush please.

No I haven't, but can you please explain it to me?

[Kaleeko]

What do you mean by "the vast majority of scientific ideas?"  What kind of scientific ideas?  I really doubt they've accepted evolution or the big bang, which are two of the largest ideas in science (especially since they both encompass other ideas and conclusions to base their reasoning on).

I'm unsure about evolution (I may have read something somewhere about the church declaring at least "recognition" of Darwin's theory, but I could be entirely wrong), but things like Galileo, for instance. In the past, scientific ideas like that were looked down on. But in today's modern world, science is taught in school, and children are brought up to both accept science, and if their family is religious, and religion, not choose one or the other. We often take for granted that our society lets us study science and accept it as well as accept a faith. In the past, this wasn't possible. Everything was explained through myths and "God only knows". We're very lucky we live in an age that grasps both.

I don't understand what you mean.  Why can't science and religion be separated?  Especially for issues such as the creation and fate of the Universe, I don't see how the two can be used interchangeably or concurrently.

If you seperate them, than you have to choose between two ways the Universe was formed. Both have their bright points, both have their downfalls. The unfortunate thing is, we can't surely know which is correct, and it leads to a lot of confusion, which may be holding us back. Is it wise, then to seperate two entirely good theories? You could think of it as how Einstein wished for the Unification of Gravity and Electromagnitism. While the matters are entirely different, finding a way to join the two together might prove both a way to simplify things, and might actually be a way for us to learn even more.

This is completely idealistic, though. There's really no proof that says allowing the two major philosophies of Creation to be joined will actually do much of anything but cause disruption. It's just an idea, though, and I personally have never believed in one or the other. I see both as good ways to explain our birth, and accept both of them in the same amount. I leave the rest up to speculation until there's more evidence.

[rabbit]

Azn, have you never heard of the Big Bang theory?  Hush please.

No I haven't, but can you please explain it to me?

No.  I don't really feel like it.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

[leet_muffin]

It's rather funny to hear, and can't be proven or disproven, but I've heard a few Christians describe that God created everything to look like Evolution occured, (i.e. dinosaur skeletons in sedimentary rock.) so that we would question God. Then, I asked why God would want us to question God, and they couldn't give a sensible answer. Closest thing I got was "To thin out the amount of people going to 'heaven'"

Seems like if he would want to thin out the people going to 'heaven', he could just up the prereq's. Oh well. I still don't understand why I refer to God as 'he'.

[Rule]

While it's said that he created the world in seven days, were they our days, or were they "God" days, which can be timeless? If that's the case, then evolution may be a way to explain how God created the earth.

If "days" are an unknown measurement, what's the point in talking about 7 of them?  Might as well say 242.94.  It also seems as though we accept that part literally -- "Sunday" being the day of rest.

--
What makes science powerful is its immense predictive capacity.  It is a constantly improving model for making predictions about things in our reality, that works better than anything else, which is why we use it when we're thinking soberly.  While it may be possible to accept a scientific theory (like Darwin's evolution) and some different more mystical theory, I believe most people who do so are practicing "Orwellian" double think; in a crisis or serious situation where the theory needs to come into practical use these people would quickly revert to solely believing in the scientific alternative, because they know, (on a usually supressed level of consciousness) that this is the theory that is more likely to make accurate predictions when put to the test in reality.  However, soon this is usually forgotten and the mystical theory re-takes the place of the scientific theory, so that life can continue comfortably.  Imagine someone who really wants to be like a famous actor.  He looks like the actor, he sounds like the actor, and he's the same age as the actor.  He wants this so badly, he himself believes that he is the actor, and will answer questions as though he's that person.  If anyone asks, he is that person.  Put a gun to his head and ask him and he's back in reality, to what he really is.

Religious engineers don't build rockets with mysticism, they build them using scientific theories.  Religious biologists don't assume intelligent design in their research, they work with Darwin's evolution: they assume what will get results -- what makes them useful in our world.  When they go home, science gets left at work, and the flaky beliefs take charge while the mind takes a rest.

I think most organized religions are inherently evil. 

[CrAz3D]

Both.

God -> universe -> us

Intelligent Design for me

[rabbit]

Sty, you're forgetting religion is a bit wacky sometimes.  There are a lot of people who believe the world was created not so long ago, and a lot of them believe (IIRC) that God made everything appear as it is.  To them, scientific evidence means diddly-squat.

[Sidoh]

I'm unsure about evolution (I may have read something somewhere about the church declaring at least "recognition" of Darwin's theory, but I could be entirely wrong), but things like Galileo, for instance. In the past, scientific ideas like that were looked down on. But in today's modern world, science is taught in school, and children are brought up to both accept science, and if their family is religious, and religion, not choose one or the other. We often take for granted that our society lets us study science and accept it as well as accept a faith. In the past, this wasn't possible. Everything was explained through myths and "God only knows". We're very lucky we live in an age that grasps both.

The church doing anything other than acknowledging anything evolution would be nothing short of mind numbing.  It's rare that churches adopt heresy or do much more than teach against them. I agree that science is much more integrated in education curriculum (that's extremely obvious), but that doesn't mean that science and religion are inseparable.

If you seperate them, than you have to choose between two ways the Universe was formed. Both have their bright points, both have their downfalls. The unfortunate thing is, we can't surely know which is correct, and it leads to a lot of confusion, which may be holding us back. Is it wise, then to seperate two entirely good theories? You could think of it as how Einstein wished for the Unification of Gravity and Electromagnitism. While the matters are entirely different, finding a way to join the two together might prove both a way to simplify things, and might actually be a way for us to learn even more.

Until science finds a way to prove the existance of God, it's little more than a false hope that the two will ever be inseparably united.  Most religions clash with science.  Conversely, most scientific theories contradict most religions.

This is completely idealistic, though. There's really no proof that says allowing the two major philosophies of Creation to be joined will actually do much of anything but cause disruption. It's just an idea, though, and I personally have never believed in one or the other. I see both as good ways to explain our birth, and accept both of them in the same amount. I leave the rest up to speculation until there's more evidence.

That's kind of like concurrently believing that the sun rises both in the east and the west.  At least in Christianity (and other similar religions), it completely rejects any idea that science has proposed in order to replace faith in an omniscient being.

Both.

God -> universe -> us

Intelligent Design for me

Do you believe in the Christian god, or some generic god that shares similar properties?

Rule: good points.

[d&q]

Do you believe in the Christian god, or some generic god that shares similar properties?

Well, I tried to get the Christian god, but since it was brand name, I had to settle for the cheaper generic from Wal Mart.

[CrAz3D]

Do you believe in the Christian god, or some generic god that shares similar properties?

Well, I tried to get the Christian god, but since it was brand name, I had to settle for the cheaper generic from Wal Mart.

I'm technically not sure.  I don't know what the Christian god is.  Also, doesn't that change for different Christian denominations?

I believe He is all powerful, knowing, and good (PKG).  I believe that He created the universe.  I believe that He created us in His likeness (not physical image though). 
I don't believe He created us and everything else directly.

[Joe]

@Christian god -- He knows everything, hears everything, sees everything, is everywhere, has good intent for all things, and is slow to anger, but assuming you make him mad he WILL kill you (or worse), no questions asked.

@Science: "In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. It was with Him in the beginning. Through Him all things were made. Without Him nothing was made that has been made." That being said, in my opinion, science is the study of stuff that was made by God, wether or not the scientists know what they're studying or not. Recently science learned to create matter and antimatter by accelerating and colliding particles. They claimed to have created their own mini-universe and were essencially god over their creation. Wrong! They discovered what God laid down in the very beginning when he created the earth and the physical laws that govern it, and then put them into action using the power God gave us over the earth. Genesis 1:28 says that God gave us the power to rule the world, and he never specified that we couldn't create things of our own though particle collision.

@Topic -- As if it isn't dreadfully clear yet, I believe in the Christian Gods Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. I believe they all existed from before the world began, and are still alive to this day, with the exception of Jesus dying and going to hell for two days and three nights to redeem us from our sins. I believe that everything in the bible is true, and that's the foundation of every sermon my pastors preach on Sundays and Wednesdays.

[Joe]

While it's said that he created the world in seven days, were they our days, or were they "God" days, which can be timeless? If that's the case, then evolution may be a way to explain how God created the earth.

That came up in a disucssion in church one Wednesday. I brought that up in a conversation with Sidoh and he put a good point. If God created the bible for us, and is benevolent, why would he use anything other than one full rotation of the earth, knowing that it would do nothing but confuse us.

[Warrior]

Do you believe in the Christian god, or some generic god that shares similar properties?

Well, I tried to get the Christian god, but since it was brand name, I had to settle for the cheaper generic from Wal Mart.

LOL YOU GOT ALLAH!!

[ZeroX]

Do you believe in the Christian god, or some generic god that shares similar properties?

Well, I tried to get the Christian god, but since it was brand name, I had to settle for the cheaper generic from Wal Mart.

LOL YOU GOT ALLAH!!

[Joe]

Do you believe in the Christian god, or some generic god that shares similar properties?

Well, I tried to get the Christian god, but since it was brand name, I had to settle for the cheaper generic from Wal Mart.

LOL YOU GOT ALLAH!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sidoh]

@Christian god -- He knows everything, hears everything, sees everything, is everywhere, has good intent for all things, and is slow to anger, but assuming you make him mad he WILL kill you (or worse), no questions asked.

Benevolent, omniscient beings don't get "mad."

@Science: "In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. It was with Him in the beginning. Through Him all things were made. Without Him nothing was made that has been made." That being said, in my opinion, science is the study of stuff that was made by God, wether or not the scientists know what they're studying or not. Recently science learned to create matter and antimatter by accelerating and colliding particles. They claimed to have created their own mini-universe and were essencially god over their creation. Wrong! They discovered what God laid down in the very beginning when he created the earth and the physical laws that govern it, and then put them into action using the power God gave us over the earth. Genesis 1:28 says that God gave us the power to rule the world, and he never specified that we couldn't create things of our own though particle collision.

Don't try to use scripture as logic.  It doesn't work.

Investing insurmountable amounts of energy into a single particle will do things like that.  It makes perfect sense.  I have no idea where you read that scientists thought they were governing some sort of universe, but I highly suspect that that portion of your statement was either adlib, false or fudged.  Under the correct conditions, "conjuring" matter is as simple as investing large amounts of energy into the system, just as annihlating matter produces large amounts of energy (matter anti-matter 'explosions.').

@Topic -- As if it isn't dreadfully clear yet, I believe in the Christian Gods Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. I believe they all existed from before the world began, and are still alive to this day, with the exception of Jesus dying and going to hell for two days and three nights to redeem us from our sins. I believe that everything in the bible is true, and that's the foundation of every sermon my pastors preach on Sundays and Wednesdays.

I think that it's completely obvious that any sort of omnipotent god is present in every point in time, and consequentially, every point in space.

It is intuitively obvious that no omniscient being can transfer the entirety of his consciousness onto something as fragile and finite as a human body and mind.  The physical appearance of Jesus was a manifestation of a deity.  He didn't "die" in any sort of sense that we will die.

Honestly, Joe, I think you're pulling stuff out of your ass.  It makes you look like a retard.

[leet_muffin]

@Topic -- As if it isn't dreadfully clear yet, I believe in the Christian Gods Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. I believe they all existed from before the world began, and are still alive to this day, with the exception of Jesus dying and going to hell for two days and three nights to redeem us from our sins. I believe that everything in the bible is true, and that's the foundation of every sermon my pastors preach on Sundays and Wednesdays.

Was the thought that the universe revolved around Earth taken directly from the Bible? Or did Christians just manage to get that from God? What about sphearical vs. flat earth? Or germs? Evolution?

If they got all that from the Bible, you're a fool for believing everything it says. If they just 'got it from God', That's another example of failure @ organized religion.

[Sidoh]

Was the thought that the universe revolved around Earth taken directly from the Bible? Or did Christians just manage to get that from God? What about sphearical vs. flat earth? Or germs? Evolution?

If they got all that from the Bible, you're a fool for believing everything it says. If they just 'got it from God', That's another example of failure @ organized religion.

That being said, in my opinion, science is the study of stuff that was made by God, wether or not the scientists know what they're studying or not. Recently science learned to create matter and antimatter by accelerating and colliding particles.

Clearly whatever you believe disallows you to read. ¬_¬

[leet_muffin]

Was the thought that the universe revolved around Earth taken directly from the Bible? Or did Christians just manage to get that from God? What about sphearical vs. flat earth? Or germs? Evolution?

If they got all that from the Bible, you're a fool for believing everything it says. If they just 'got it from God', That's another example of failure @ organized religion.

That being said, in my opinion, science is the study of stuff that was made by God, wether or not the scientists know what they're studying or not. Recently science learned to create matter and antimatter by accelerating and colliding particles.

Clearly whatever you believe disallows you to read. ¬_¬

How does that answer any of my questions?

[Sidoh]

How does that answer any of my questions?

It actually answers all of your questions, if you were paying attention.  Since you're clearly unable to understand the implications of his statements, I suppose I'll make them more explicit for you.

As Joe said, it can validly be said that science is the study of what God has created in the Universe.  He did not make Biology, Physics or Chemistry books and hand them to us.  He did not have the bible created in the image as a "The Universe for Dummies" book.  He gave us the minds to discover part of what the Universe is construed of, which is what we have been doing since science (and philosophy).

Joe isn't saying science hasn't successfully answered many questions we have had about our Universe, he's saying that it is a separate entity which has been granted to us to understand the Universe.

You're right.  There's nothing in the Bible about the Earth being round, but God certainly gave people the minds to determine that this is the correct model of our planet.

[Joe]

@Sidoh: Science claims to have proven the big bang theory by creating matter and antimatter from that large amounts of energy. That's what I was saying. The book Angels and Demons lays out the battle between scientists trying to prove the big bang theory, and the Vatican trying to prove that the ability to 'reinact' it was given by God.

EDIT -
@muffin: I'm not sure what you were asking, but if I understand correctly, this should answer it. If what the Jews and Christians believe, the book of Genesis (as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were handed to Moses by God on stone tablets.

[MyndFyre]

@muffin: I'm not sure what you were asking, but if I understand correctly, this should answer it. If what the Jews and Christians believe, the book of Genesis (as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were handed to Moses by God on stone tablets.

..............

And he carried all of that down Mt. Sinai?

[Sidoh]

@Sidoh: Science claims to have proven the big bang theory by creating matter and antimatter from that large amounts of energy. That's what I was saying. The book Angels and Demons lays out the battle between scientists trying to prove the big bang theory, and the Vatican trying to prove that the ability to 'reinact' it was given by God.

Joe, news flash: ANGELS AND DEMONS IS A FICTION BOOK.

I've heard more convincing books claiming that ball lightning are constituents of huge atoms. 

There is very convincing evidence for the big bang theory, but it has nothing to do with matter-anti-matter explosions.  It lies in the undeniable existance of cosmic background radiation.

@muffin: I'm not sure what you were asking, but if I understand correctly, this should answer it. If what the Jews and Christians believe, the book of Genesis (as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were handed to Moses by God on stone tablets.

What the hell are you talking about?

[leet_muffin]

@muffin: I'm not sure what you were asking, but if I understand correctly, this should answer it. If what the Jews and Christians believe, the book of Genesis (as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were handed to Moses by God on stone tablets.

Totally unrelated. Ok, simply put, Why did Christians believe the universe revolved around the sun? (just an example) Did they get that from the Bible?

[Joe]

@muffin: I'm not sure what you were asking, but if I understand correctly, this should answer it. If what the Jews and Christians believe, the book of Genesis (as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were handed to Moses by God on stone tablets.

..............

And he carried all of that down Mt. Sinai?

I don't see any other way for him to get it down, except perhaps asking God to throw it.

@muffin: I'm not sure what you were asking, but if I understand correctly, this should answer it. If what the Jews and Christians believe, the book of Genesis (as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) were handed to Moses by God on stone tablets.

Totally unrelated. Ok, simply put, Why did Christians believe the universe revolved around the sun? (just an example) Did they get that from the Bible?

No. Science discovered that. God gave us the ability to discover it.

Joe, news flash: ANGELS AND DEMONS IS A FICTION BOOK.

I've heard more convincing books claiming that ball lightning are constituents of huge atoms. 

There is very convincing evidence for the big bang theory, but it has nothing to do with matter-anti-matter explosions.  It lies in the undeniable existance of cosmic background radiation.

So what if it's fiction? If a fiction book takes place in, say, Texas, does that mean Texas doesn't exist? The plot in the book was fictional, yes, but the physics explained in it was nonfictional (minus the spaceplane, and Robert surviving the million foot fall). When two accelerated particles collide it will create matter, proving that the Big Bang could have happened.

[leet_muffin]

ARGH! Stupid muffin. I meant "Why did Christians believe the universe revolved around the earth? (just an example) Did they get that from the Bible?"

[Sidoh]

So what if it's fiction? If a fiction book takes place in, say, Texas, does that mean Texas doesn't exist? The plot in the book was fictional, yes, but the physics explained in it was nonfictional (minus the spaceplane, and Robert surviving the million foot fall). When two accelerated particles collide it will create matter, proving that the Big Bang could have happened.

You don't get it.  Scientists would never believe that "conjuring" either matter or energy is in any way possible.  Please take 6th grade Physical Science and learn the elementary laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

In order for a collision of elementary particles to produce another set, they must have IMMENSLY high energy (momentum).  Since energy is matter, the universe couldn't possibly be a series of chain reactions.  There had to be something to start that.  If a recently graduated senior in highschool can realize that, I'm positive graduate-level professors can.

The Big Bang theory doesn't propose that the universe was "conjured" by a series of particle collisions.  That doesn't make any sense.  The Big Bang theory states that the Universe was a point demension: that the entire Universe was compacted into a 0-deminsional world.

[MyndFyre]

So what if it's fiction? If a fiction book takes place in, say, Texas, does that mean Texas doesn't exist? The plot in the book was fictional, yes, but the physics explained in it was nonfictional (minus the spaceplane, and Robert surviving the million foot fall). When two accelerated particles collide it will create matter, proving that the Big Bang could have happened.

That's like trying to say Christianity is false because of The DaVinci Code, which my brother attempted to do.

"When two accelerated particles..."

You have to have particles first.

[Rule]

"When two accelerated particles..."
You have to have particles first.

Just jumping into this small portion of the thread...

What is the problem with this?  Why do we always insist that there must be a beginning?  That seems much more confusing than assuming that something has always existed.  It is now a popular belief that the big bang started from a black hole in another universe.  Well, what started that universe?  Perhaps another black hole.  But it would make sense that if we trace these creation points backwards, we'll just end up with something that always has been (or we will keep tracing back for an infinite amount of time which would be effectively the same).  I don't think there are any other appealing and logical explanations.  For some reason people just seem so terribly troubled by the idea of "no beginning," or they (even strictly secular thinkers) intuitively feel that no beginning is so unlikely it is dismissed without even  much conscious thought, and everyone starts arguing about "what started it all."  Why are people so insistent on beginnings? It really seems short sighted to me.

[MyndFyre]

What made the black whole in the other universe?

Still, I'm glad you admitted it that it's a popular belief.  I mean, I wouldn't want to just go on faith about the entire thing...

[Rule]

What made the black whole in the other universe?

An incredibly massive star that collapsed in on itself.   What made that other universe?  Another black hole possibly.  What made that second other universe?  Another black hole in yet another universe?  We could just trace this back through an infinite number of black holes, and infinite number of universes, going back through an infinite stretch of time. No starting point.  I'm not really trying to argue science vs. religious faith here.  I just find it incredibly frustrating that people insist on a beginning to everything.  I do find though that often religious advocates like to question scientific thinkers down to a point where they are asking "what started the big bang?", or "what created the first hydrogen gas?".  It is so appealing to think some higher power did.  But of course, this can be turned around on the fanatic, and he can be asked "what created God?" 
The religious thinker would probably then say "no-one needed to create God, he has always existed."  Surely this answer is entirely hypocritical!  Didn't the fanatic just try to corner the scientist into accepting that there had to be a beginning to everything?

Naturally we have this idea that there must be a beginning based on intuition built from everyday life experience.  This intuition is horribly misleading, because as humans we observe such a tiny fraction of reality.  For example, macroscopic slowly moving bodies.  This is why when we look at a situation that is out of the ordinary to us, our intuition almost always fails!  For example, we find that time is not absolute, that velocities are NOT additive (ever!), and so on, in special relativity.  These properties become more easily measurable as we speed things up much faster than we are used to observing them.  And when we go down to a microscopic level, we have all sorts of other counter-intuitive things happening, like quantum-tunnelling -- non-zero probabilities of particles surpassing energy barriers that are greater than the particles' kinetic energy.  Also consider the double slit experiment, etc.

Using everyday intuition, and thinking "there has to be a beginning" seems like an horrible way to approach thinking about the creation of our universe: something more far removed from everyday experience than special relativity or quantum mechanics!

Further, there are many infinite patterns (like the black hole one I described at the beginning of this post) that we have found in nature.   Fractals are a good example.


btw: (black *hole )

[Rule]

After a little thought, I'd like to clarify one point.  Everything can still have a beginning, and there can be no beginning to time.  Imagine standing in the middle of a pebble path where there are an infinite number of pebbles infront of and behind you. There is always another pebble, but no end to the pebbles; there is always a beginning, but no finite number of beginnings.

[rabbit]

Hm.  Religious fanatics won't understand that, Rule, they will just say "There is a beginning, but only God knows about it."  Anyway, time requires space, and in a 0 dimensional universe (pre-big bang), there was no space, and so there was no time.  There was no beginning, there was just was.

[Rule]

Hm.  Religious fanatics won't understand that, Rule, they will just say "There is a beginning, but only God knows about it."  Anyway, time requires space, and in a 0 dimensional universe (pre-big bang), there was no space, and so there was no time.  There was no beginning, there was just was.

Sure, but then they have no answer to God's beginning.  Time doesn't require space; it just doesn't make sense to refer to the timing of an event alone.  Besides, pre-big bang we could say there was space and time in another universe.  Likewise, pre-big bang in that universe, space and time in another universe.  And we could keep going like this forever.

[MyndFyre]

Hm.  Religious fanatics won't understand that, Rule, they will just say "There is a beginning, but only God knows about it."  Anyway, time requires space, and in a 0 dimensional universe (pre-big bang), there was no space, and so there was no time.  There was no beginning, there was just was.

Sure, but then they have no answer to God's beginning.  Time doesn't require space; it just doesn't make sense to refer to the timing of an event alone.  Besides, pre-big bang we could say there was space and time in another universe.  Likewise, pre-big bang in that universe, space and time in another universe.  And we could keep going like this forever.

However, if we understand that time is a property of the universe that we perceive, and that God is an entity distinct from the universe (hence why we say God is "eternal"), the notion of a "beginning" for God becomes meaningless.

[Rule]

Hm.  Religious fanatics won't understand that, Rule, they will just say "There is a beginning, but only God knows about it."  Anyway, time requires space, and in a 0 dimensional universe (pre-big bang), there was no space, and so there was no time.  There was no beginning, there was just was.

Sure, but then they have no answer to God's beginning.  Time doesn't require space; it just doesn't make sense to refer to the timing of an event alone.  Besides, pre-big bang we could say there was space and time in another universe.  Likewise, pre-big bang in that universe, space and time in another universe.  And we could keep going like this forever.

However, if we understand that time is a property of the universe that we perceive, and that God is an entity distinct from the universe (hence why we say God is "eternal"), the notion of a "beginning" for God becomes meaningless.

Well, I think the notion of an ultimate beginning is meaningless anyways -- without having to make special exceptions and defying reason.