Do you believe in God, or Evolution?

[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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84010#msg84010 date=1153709317]
@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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84010#msg84010 date=1153709317]
@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.  :P

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.

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84010#msg84010 date=1153709317]
@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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84010#msg84010 date=1153709317]
@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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84014#msg84014 date=1153709765]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84010#msg84010 date=1153709317]
@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.

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84010#msg84010 date=1153709317]
@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.  :P

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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84040#msg84040 date=1153713728]
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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84040#msg84040 date=1153713728]
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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84343#msg84343 date=1153873933]
"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]

x86] link=topic=6743.msg84463#msg84463 date=1153932421]
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 :P)

[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.