Tell me believers in science...

[pt9-9]

How was matter and energy created?

ROFLZORZ I STUMPED U

:Maybe I didn't, and in which case, I'm an arragont assfuck.

[cellardoor6]

Um duh!!!

It appeared from nothing, it came out of nowhere, and for no reason. It was created out of nothingness, by itself, and thereby defied the very laws of physics and science that people use to try and disprove God with in the first place.

[psycho-squirrel]

some would say god created it.

some would say it was created in the big bang.

some would say it was never created (energy is nether created nor destroyed)

no one really knows and no one will ever know.

[Boltrig]

At 4/16/07 05:50 AM, pt9-9 wrote: How was matter and energy created?

ROFLZORZ I STUMPED U

Such an unintellegent sentence in a post that had promise...

[Korriken]

if god exists I use the creation theory

if god does not exist i use the "it has always been there" theory

Big bang? bah.

[WillPostForFood]

There are many theory's about this. Go read up on the big bang. There is actually a ton of proof for it. Science is called science because its science. Its not a matter of faith, scientists would not present a scientific theory unless it was provable through science. And it would be kinda odd that the majority of the science community would really believe something unscientific when they have spent their life following science.

And people seem to have a twisted view that people that are interested in science try to disprove God. This is false. If there was proof for God I would accept that. Everyone would, you cant disprove the factual.

[Vaebn]

A) From nothing. Because thermondynamics say that we usually don't observe energy being created from nothing, this doesn't mean that there is a universal exception to this. Remember, laws are observation, not dogmas, if the universe doesn't seem to obey them, we change them. (But a change must be based on observation so don't try to include god there). So there might as well be a basic law, that randomly in an amount of infinite time, spacetime emptiness suddenly bursts with energy, and you wouldn't know that until the new big bang hit you in the face.

B) The Big Bang, is also just an observation. Because the more we look in space, the more back in time we look (because it takes time for light to travel) we are now reaching the instument power, that allows us to see the "afterglow" of it. And the more instruments (radiotelescopes etc) are made, the more we are going to see until the "glow" is so intense is no longer transperant to see something behind it.
But, this doesn't mean that this is "all" of the universe. The Big Bang might as well be a super-large, but local phenomenon. For example, in one theory M-brane theory, there are pulsing branes of spacetime, which when they collide, a Big Bang happens. This would make the Big Bang rather than the origin of the universe, just a little event of friction in a much larger universe, we have a lot to discover about. Just a bit of heat from friction. (albait enough to form tonnes of hydrogen, which then formed stars, which then formed heavier elements, which then formed planets and starts, to which simple and complex molecures appeared, from which complex molecures some were self replicating and some not, and the rest is evolution)

C) Philosophically, this argument also has the problem that it assumes that "Nothing" is the normal state for a universe rather than something infinite. For example, the problem of philosophers is why there is "something" insteed of "nothing". Except that God suffers from the same problem (why God and not nothing?) someone has to ask first what is "nothing" supposed to mean in the first place

And when you have nothing WHAT PREVENTS "something from appearing". for example. I have nothing. WHAT PREVENTS a big cookie jar from popping into existance? Normally the answer would be thermodynamics, that no energy can be created from something. But, waitaminute.

Thermodynamics is a law.

Why does nothing have laws? A law is already something, and someone can ask "why this law?" True nothing does not have laws or else it becomes something with laws.

But if nothing can prevent something to appear in nothing, then obviously suddenly everything would come at once.

Simply put, "nothing" if you think about it is a logical fallacy. In order for nothing to stay nothing SOMETHING must prevent it from becoming something else (eg, a teapot to appear) but at the moment "nothing" has even a single law, it is no longer nothing. And someone can ask, why this law? Phillosophers don't imagine nothing, they imagine a big empty black space, when in which case pal "why a big empty black space"? How did that get created, and how did the LAW this big empty black space has, that appears to prevent the existance of something else got created? And why that?

So true nothing can never exist. To stay nothing, it requires a law, and then its not nothing, if it doesn't have a law, everything can happen.

So insteed, the "natural" state of the universe is probably "everything" aka a manifestation of every possible possibility. We live in one of them.

Or else, I ask you, WHAT prevents nothing from becoming something and WHY would that thing exist and not something else?

[emmytee]

No-one knows. But at least science is trying to find out, as opposed to taking the word of one religous text of thousands on one of hundreds of millions of planets in one of the 80 billion galaxies (that we can see from here)

[morefngdbs]

At 4/16/07 05:50 AM, pt9-9 wrote: How was matter and energy created?

;
Matter & energy can be neither created or destroyed, they can only be changed.
;
Although I've read that Conservation of mass, is not true. Mass is a form of energy & that energy can be converted into different forms.

Does this help?
Or are you still gasping on the floor?

[Elfer]

You're right, one unanswered question invalidates all fields of science.

Who knows though, MAYBE IT WAS GOD. Science does not preclude that possibility, it merely doesn't consider it.

[Dre-Man]

There's a thread ON THE FRONT PAGE that has already been discussing this topic... (Questions about the Universe + God) let's hope that Proteas never sees this thing.

[Vaebn]

At 4/16/07 10:33 AM, Elfer wrote: You're right, one unanswered question invalidates all fields of science.

Who knows though, MAYBE IT WAS GOD. Science does not preclude that possibility, it merely doesn't consider it.

Actually it doesn't.

Because someone does not whip out a big bang in a bottle, this doesn't make fusion in the sun not working. Non proof of the ship's engines do not disprove the certain deck.

Same applies with evolution, which is an active phenomenon again, that would be the same with the universe got out of a big bang, or a big white whole that connected with another universe, that has as a physical law to create infinite energies (and white holes)

[Tomsan]

At 4/16/07 06:05 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um duh!!!

It appeared from nothing, it came out of nowhere, and for no reason. It was created out of nothingness, by itself, and thereby defied the very laws of physics and science that people use to try and disprove God with in the first place.

Time and time again you manage to prove your ignorance and dumbness at exponential proportions.

It's rather amazing.

[Brick-top]

What an entirly usless thread. It has no effort put into it. Very poor workmanship. This belongs in general.

If you refering to the Big Bang then that was created by Microwave ratiation, Matter and anti-matter. The idea goes that there is more ani-matter than matter, so when the Big Bang occures shortly after it contracts down again.

Now this isn't just happening to one Universe it's happening to many. Similar to boiling water however instead of the bubble exploding it shrinks back down to its origional size and does this process again.

HOWEVER our Universe has more matter than anti-matter. So it kept expaning and then time went on till it simmered down to us arguing about who created what and how this came to be.

[cellardoor6]

At 4/16/07 09:12 AM, WillPostForFood wrote: There are many theory's about this. Go read up on the big bang. There is actually a ton of proof for it. Science is called science because its science. Its not a matter of faith, scientists would not present a scientific theory unless it was provable through science.

Nothing as complicated as the creation of the universe is "provable" through science. Science itself isn't even entirely certain because those theories you talk about constantly evolve and keep getting contradicted, and reiterated over and over.

And even then, a human being, who can't even fathom a minuscule fraction of the universe can't be counted upon to claim anything with certainty. Hell, humans can't even prove that we exist, how then can humans claim to prove or disprove the existence of something as complicated as God?

Humans can't even control their own destiny, anyone could die tommorow and could do nothing about it. Humans are powerless, weak, and irrelevant in the whole scope of the Universe, how can something as fallible and intangible as human thought be counted upon as "proof"?

And it would be kinda odd that the majority of the science community would really believe something unscientific when they have spent their life following science.

Scientists aren't the final authority in everything. Scientists are just human beings with flaws and their own ambitions and deficiencies. Science is man made, it is just a reflection of the universe through the tiny, isolated, 3-dimensional perception of a human being.

And people seem to have a twisted view that people that are interested in science try to disprove God. This is false. If there was proof for God I would accept that. Everyone would, you cant disprove the factual.

"Proof" itself is meaningless when you're talking about God. Because usually people use certain scientific beliefs to disprove only certain INTERPRETATIONS of God by certain religions.

For instance, a lot of people will say "God doesn't exist because he didn't create the Universe, the Big Bang did" but this doesn't disprove the possibility that an intelligent being (God) facilitated and engineered the Big Bang. Another common point made by atheists is "The Bible is false, and therefore God doesn't exist because the Bible says God created the Earth in 7 days, when science shows the Earth was formed over billions of years".

But this is just using science against one single interpretation of the creation, it doesn't actually negate the possibility that the writer of the creation story used simple and figurative language in order to explain an occurrence that couldn't be explained in a more detailed manner due to the limited understanding of humans at the time. Maybe The Big Bang and Evolution are very much true, but they are governed and planned by God? These variables are never given any credence by people who are bent on bashing religion.

At 4/16/07 11:26 AM, Tomsan wrote:

At 4/16/07 06:05 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um duh!!!

It appeared from nothing, it came out of nowhere, and for no reason. It was created out of nothingness, by itself, and thereby defied the very laws of physics and science that people use to try and disprove God with in the first place.

Time and time again you manage to prove your ignorance and dumbness at exponential proportions.

It's rather amazing.

And you're such a dumb disgruntled little bitch that you have to devote an entire post just to insulting me. It seems you that your childish, mindless tactics just get exponentially more petty and pathetic as you go along.

[Brick-top]

Believers in Science? Science isn't a belief.

[Dre-Man]

At 4/16/07 12:04 PM, Brick-top wrote: Believers in Science? Science isn't a belief.

Oh isn't it? Maybe you should think a little bit harder about that statement.

[Drakim]

At 4/16/07 12:17 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/16/07 12:04 PM, Brick-top wrote: Believers in Science? Science isn't a belief.

Oh isn't it? Maybe you should think a little bit harder about that statement.

Science on Wikipedia:
Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Belief on Wikipedia:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition.

If you don't understand it, then let my try to simplify it for you:

Science is a way to get knowledge.

Belief is when you think you have the correct knowledge.

[Vaebn]

Nothing as complicated as the creation of the universe is "provable" through science. Science itself isn't even entirely certain because those theories you talk about constantly evolve and keep getting contradicted, and reiterated over and over.

Of cource they evolve. Science is the only self correcting ideology. It doesn't expect reality to fit to it, it must fit reality. If out of your protons and neutrons and truton pops out, then you have to include that one as well.

But until it does, trutons don't have any reason to be assumed as existing.

And even then, a human being, who can't even fathom a minuscule fraction of the universe can't be counted upon to claim anything with certainty. Hell, humans can't even prove that we exist, how then can humans claim to prove or disprove the existence of something as complicated as God?

They cannot disprove, because asking for negative proof is a fallacy anyway.

Society must always be based on objective proof. Building on what is know, starting from the "I think therefore I am" and 1=1. Stones fall downwards, magnet movement through copper coils appear to induce electron movements and so on.

Otherwise, anyone can come up with anything he wants and wait for "disproof". Prove to me that a pink invisible uniform doesn't exist. Prove to me that God didn't get eaten by a big God eating plant. Prove to me that I must not anally rape you every three hours or everyone once he dies will go to hell. Prove to me, that by kicking someone over a cliff his conciousness isn't suddenly transported through a portal, just before he hits the ground, into a magical place. Negative proof leads to insanity.

A civilized society must be built on positive proof. There is only the blank paper, when you bring something new to it, you have to prove it. I am not say that gravity exists, I am just unable to disagree with the fact that stones, do seem to fall down regardless of my wishes.

Humans can't even control their own destiny, anyone could die tommorow and could do nothing about it. Humans are powerless, weak, and irrelevant in the whole scope of the Universe, how can something as fallible and intangible as human thought be counted upon as "proof"?

If humans continue to think as pessimistic as that, certainly they wouldn't go too far. But the more scientific knowledge humans acquire, the more power over the physical world they acquire, as evident already. Clearly if this continues, this would mean an infinite progress, if the universe is finite, ultimately an end would be reached and the universe could be said to be completely understood.

And it would be kinda odd that the majority of the science community would really believe something unscientific when they have spent their life following science.

Scientists aren't the final authority in everything. Scientists are just human beings with flaws and their own ambitions and deficiencies. Science is man made, it is just a reflection of the universe through the tiny, isolated, 3-dimensional perception of a human being.

And so are the heads of the religious. Except that scientists also give space shuttles, electricity, ipods etc.

What have the scriptures been given us... and that is not morality, that existed before the Bible. That I can have without it as well. Its not that difficult, you simply don't harm the other one.

And people seem to have a twisted view that people that are interested in science try to disprove God. This is false. If there was proof for God I would accept that. Everyone would, you cant disprove the factual.

"Proof" itself is meaningless when you're talking about God. Because usually people use certain scientific beliefs to disprove only certain INTERPRETATIONS of God by certain religions.

God is simply another cosmological theory, brought into the "blank paper". It needs proof, or is just something someone made up. Like trutons.

For instance, a lot of people will say "God doesn't exist because he didn't create the Universe, the Big Bang did" but this doesn't disprove the possibility that an intelligent being (God) facilitated and engineered the Big Bang. Another common point made by atheists is "The Bible is false, and therefore God doesn't exist because the Bible says God created the Earth in 7 days, when science shows the Earth was formed over billions of years".

But this is just using science against one single interpretation of the creation, it doesn't actually negate the possibility that the writer of the creation story used simple and figurative language in order to explain an occurrence that couldn't be explained in a more detailed manner due to the limited understanding of humans at the time. Maybe The Big Bang and Evolution are very much true, but they are governed and planned by God? These variables are never given any credence by people who are bent on bashing religion.

Problem is, evolution doesn't need any governing. The whole idea is that mutations happen, and can be either good or bad.

When a mutation is bad. You die. Therefore you don't replicate.
When a mutation is good. You survive.

And so on, until after a lot of time, the end species looks completely different from what it originally started.

And that process goes a long way back, not only to the single cell, but the structure of the cell itself, all the way down to the DNA, and in the end, complex molecures.

Complex molecures that did not replicate did not become life

Complex molecures that do replicate... replicate. There are also structures that replicate (eg, crystals) that are too rigid to ever change into something more complex, in which case again the same process applies. To rigid replicating molecures, never changed to something more complex. Eeasily mutatable replicating molecures, that could have many things stick to them and try many combinations (eg, carbon based ones) could.

But nowere in all these, no more guidance that the mere electric forces that makes chemistry stick together is needed. If anything, if life was made of perfectly places crystals, that don't change with anything, never mutate, and can never evolve, that would have been strange.

[Dre-Man]

At 4/16/07 12:25 PM, Drakim wrote: Science is a way to get knowledge.

Belief is when you think you have the correct knowledge.

But Drakim, do you not BELIEVE in the theory of evolution, the big bang, and abeogenesis?

[Drakim]

At 4/16/07 12:28 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/16/07 12:25 PM, Drakim wrote: Science is a way to get knowledge.

Belief is when you think you have the correct knowledge.

But Drakim, do you not BELIEVE in the theory of evolution, the big bang, and abeogenesis?

I do.

But, don't think that the word science means the same as evolution, the big bang, and abeogenesis. Those are the products of science.

Science can't be a belief, evolution, the big bang, and abeogenesis can.

Just like reading can't be a belief, but the stories of scripture can.

[Ravariel]

At 4/16/07 09:38 AM, Vaebn wrote: C) Philosophically, this argument also has the problem that it assumes that "Nothing" is the normal state for a universe rather than something...
Or else, I ask you, WHAT prevents nothing from becoming something and WHY would that thing exist and not something else?

HAH! Fucking brilliant! And apparently shot about 2 miles over nearly everyone's head in here. You don't mind if I nab this little argument for future references, do you?

You are officially invited to Heathenry. A place where intelligent discourse about all things (religious, philosophical, etc) can be discussed. Be sure to read through it all, the first post is not indicative of the entirety of the discussion. Pardon it's death-like appearance, most of the folk in it are currently in exams, so it's hit a bit of a slump.

[Ravariel]

At 4/16/07 05:50 AM, pt9-9 wrote: How was matter and energy created?

Also: this and this.

[Brick-top]

At 4/16/07 12:40 PM, Drakim wrote:
Science can't be a belief, evolution, the big bang, and abeogenesis can.

Just like reading can't be a belief, but the stories of scripture can.

Your right science has nothing to do with belief.

I wouldn't go any further with Dre.

[TehChahlesh]

If you realized the Darwinism makes no effort to explain the ogrigins of life itself, you'd realize you are definitely a pompous jack-ass.

[Dre-Man]

At 4/16/07 01:50 PM, Brick-top wrote: Your right science has nothing to do with belief.

I wouldn't go any further with Dre.

I agree with him, in a way.

You're bashing me for no reason, why?

[Makaio]

it wasn't created, it just always was, and don't say that doesn't make sense because its an argument some retard priest tried to use on me once when i said who made god.

[Brick-top]

At 4/16/07 02:03 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/16/07 01:50 PM, Brick-top wrote: Your right science has nothing to do with belief.

I wouldn't go any further with Dre.

I agree with him, in a way.

You're bashing me for no reason, why?

Because when people disagree they start off with a casual shunt, you go in head first guns blazing.
Metaphorically speaking.

[AntiSkeptic]

the blind arrogance of atheism never ceases to amuse me

[Brick-top]

At 4/16/07 03:26 PM, AntiSkeptic wrote: the blind arrogance of atheism never ceases to amuse me

Look at your text and tell me who is arrogant?