Pope banning gays (1 Viewer)

[Bat17]

spontaneous creation can be seen

and who was here at the time of the Big Bang to see it? (apart From God )

Peter

 

[Rich]

and who was here at the time of the Big Bang to see it? (apart From God )

Peter

We don't need to see the event to be able to prove it happened, who here saw the Pyramids being built?

 

[jsanders]

Col's right,
We should spend time saving the planet for our offspring, instead of arguing religion.

Big time waste.

Who cares if God exist or not?

Pray to God if you will, and go do something useful.

 

[seth_belgium]

Surley this had to be a finite amount of matter or the would have been no space? and it still begs the question of where the initial matter comes from? spontaneous creation from nothing?

Peter

Well, then change infinite to "an extremely large amount of".

Where did the initial matter come from : Big Crunch. The expantion of the universe might come to an end one day. When it does, matter will start moving back towards the absolute center of it all, thus creating a new super-singularity. Followed by another Big Bang, and so on...

I believe this continuous movement between big bang and big crunch exists to prevent the universe from dying out. This last thing will happen when the expantion does not stop.

Seth

 

[The Stoat]

Well, then change infinite to "an extremely large amount of".

Where did the initial matter come from : Big Crunch. The expantion of the universe might come to an end one day. When it does, matter will start moving back towards the absolute center of it all, thus creating a new super-singularity. Followed by another Big Bang, and so on...

I believe this continuous movement between big bang and big crunch exists to prevent the universe from dying out. This last thing will happen when the expantion does not stop.

Seth

Firstly

At present the scientific data points to the universe expanding till everything is ripped apart. The Universe's expansion is accelerating and it appears that the more it expands the faster it accelerates. As far as we can tell there isn't enought matter in the Universe to retard the acceleration and pull it all back together in the big crunch.

Secondly

I believe this continuous movement between big bang and big crunch exists to prevent the universe from dying out.

Why?

This idea suggests you believe that there is a controlling force that designed this mechanism. That there is a purpose to the Universe and that it cannot be fulfilled with a Universe that dies.
If there is no outside force controlling the development of the Universe or a creator that imbued the Universe with this property at the start then your idea requires the Universe itself is aware of it's state and that the Universe has the ability to order it's physics to prevent it's own destruction. i.e. that it is sentient or at the very least alive.

Fine by me if you believe that but an explanation would be interesting.

TS

 

[Bat17]

who here saw the Pyramids being built?

No one which is why they are still arguing about how they were created http://www.geopolymer.org/science_archaeology/pyramids_egypt/

Peter

 

[seth_belgium]

@Stoat:

-> I thought I read somewhere that it was decellerating... Misinformation on my behalf then. Damned!

-> I would find it logical that the universe would do that continuing movement because in nature, nothing exists without a reason. I'm not saying that it's sentient or alive... Anyway, my theory seems flawed when it's actually increasing in speed of expansion.

 

[Rich]

No one which is why they are still arguing about how they were created http://www.geopolymer.org/science_archaeology/pyramids_egypt/

Peter

How maybe, but not when and why

 

[Rich]

This idea suggests you believe that there is a controlling force that designed this mechanism. TS

Why, the fact that it didn't behave in the same way this time doesn't mean that it always had to surely. Maybe the crunch just gathered momentum over time

 

[Kraj]

What does it matter / who cares how the universe was created? no-ones going to know for sure so its an unanswerable question.

Surely, it would be better to focus on the problems currently besetting mankind.

Col

Cheers to that, Col! I applaud you for elegantly reinserting some sanity back into this thread.

I realize the thread has moved on from this, but I'd like to say a few words about the origins of behavior, or in this specific case, homosexuality. I honestly find it almost silly that the nature vs. nurture debate still rages. Since I am neither an expert in psychology nor genetics, feel free to completely ignore my opinion, but I think the answer is fairly obvious: all behavior is determined by the combination of genetics, environment, and choice. There have been volumes of studies that point to genetic causes of behavior and even more that show environmental influences. Choice is the monkey wrench that prevents either side from producing conclusive data. I'd be happy to elaborate if necessary.

 

[The Stoat]

Why, the fact that it didn't behave in the same way this time doesn't mean that it always had to surely. Maybe the crunch just gathered momentum over time

I'm not arguing that the Universe cannot have crunched at some point in a past cycle but it isn't crunching now and has non of the characteristics that would allow it to. It's doing the complete opposite with ever increasing enthusiasm. And it wasn't really my question. The Universe is either created from some so far undeterminable physics or by a creator. Seth suggested that there was a mechanism to prevent the Universe from dying. I suggested that in order to prevent death you needed self will. The Universe may have such a mechanism but it can be no more than a product of it's physics and is not designedto prevent death because design implies a designer. Unless of course that's what he was getting at and that's why i asked him. If you don't believe in a designer then the Universe and all it's mechanisms and properties are simply products of this Universe's structure and are without any purpose.

TS

 

[Bat17]

Why, the fact that it didn't behave in the same way this time doesn't mean that it always had to surely. Maybe the crunch just gathered momentum over time

I thought it would have to reduce at each crunch as it would lose energy each time?

Peter

 

[The Stoat]

What does it matter / who cares how the universe was created? no-ones going to know for sure so its an unanswerable question.

Surely, it would be better to focus on the problems currently besetting mankind.

Col

Cheers to that, Col! I applaud you for elegantly reinserting some sanity back into this thread.

Not really. Understanding how the Universe was created tells us what it has been, what it is and what it will be. We are a product of the Universe, we live in it and it will effect our continued existance. Just because you can't answer a question doesn't mean it's invalid. The questions that are asked may not lead to the absolute truth but they can tell us a lot about other parts of the bigger question. For example is there a fundamental rule that means we can't produce electricity by nuclear fusion at power station scale. I'd say that is a question that needs answering because people and Governments are banking our futures on it solving the worlds energy needs. Properties of atomic bodies are inherited from the way in which the Universe came into being and so answering questions about the Universe's origins could lead us to the answer. It also might tell us that a blend of cream cheese and sulphur is actually far more effective.

Another example are our brains. Researchers are now suggesting that they work the way they do because they make use of quantum mechanics. Again quantum mechanics is a fundamental property of the Universe and is related to the Universe's start. Reseach in quantum mechanics has told us much about the structure and properties of the Universe and understanding how our brains work is going to be crucial in help people with brain injuries or illness. Is that not a problem that besets mankind?


TS

 

[The Stoat]

@Stoat:

-> I thought I read somewhere that it was decellerating... Misinformation on my behalf then. Damned!

-> I would find it logical that the universe would do that continuing movement because in nature, nothing exists without a reason. I'm not saying that it's sentient or alive... Anyway, my theory seems flawed when it's actually increasing in speed of expansion.

As it happens i think that if there is no creator then everything does exist without reason. We read reason into things but in truth things just are. The sky is blue. The cause is interactions between light and gases in our atmosphere but that's just a -poor- description of the physics. There is no reasoning behind blue it just so happens that this is the property of light and gas interaction. Without a creator the Universe is just an engine that proceeds without purpose. It is more accurate to say that nothing exists without a cause. Perhaps i'm just reading to much into your use of the word reason?

TS

 

[Kraj]

Not really. [...]

I agree completely. But I also think there is something comical about zealously arguing an unprovable hypothesis (ie., whether God exists; whether the universe has a purpose; where the universe came from; etc.) as if it were fact, which is what the thread had generally become. Col's comment, in my mind, was a way of saying "chill out".

 

[ColinEssex]

Col's comment, in my mind, was a way of saying "chill out".

Thanks Kraj, or maybe a "get real" comment - lets sort out this planet before we blow it to pieces

As I said ages ago, mankind will destroy mankind - not some big rock from space

Col

 

[jsanders]

Thanks Kraj, or maybe a "get real" comment - lets sort out this planet before we blow it to pieces

As I said ages ago, mankind will destroy mankind - not some big rock from space

Col

It could go either way. We will most likely not destroy the whole of man kind, just the majority.

 

[Bat17]

We will most likely not destroy the whole of man kind, just the majority.

Lucky that I am in a minority then

Peter

 

[Kraj]

Lucky that I am in a minority then

Peter

Hehe... me too! (unless the republicans get their way )

 

[FoFa]

It could go either way. We will most likely not destroy the whole of man kind, just the majority.

I think yall' give man way to much credit. As soon as man steps over the line, Mother Nature will put him in his place. About the only thing man can do to really screw things up is a global, massive nuclear war. Short of that Mother Nature wins. And even given that, Mother Nature will win. What maybe thousands of human years to get back, is just a blink in the eye of Mother nature.