Results 41 to 46 of 46
Thread: The nature of gods and religion
-
03-23-2002, 04:22 PM #41
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Gothenburg, Sweden
- Posts
- 949
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Ah, creationism against evolution again. Swell.
I find that most creationists are too bound up in three dimensions to really be able to imagine what a four-dimensional universe would look like; our concepts of "beginning" and "end" are limited by our ability to fathom the higher dimensions; there needn't really be a beginning and end in the way we view it; the dimensions themselves are theorethically infinite.
That said, creationists also generally don't understand the full implications of the Big Bang theory - it doesn't argue that the universe was some egg floating in a great void - the core is that _everything_, including time, "started" with a quantum fluctuation. There needn't be a "creation" because there was nothing "before" the Big Bang - not even time. The only way to conceive of this from a human perspective, though, is through math.
That doesn't exclude the existence of a creating being, either - it does rather exclude the possibility that he had a single son that got strung up on some cross a couple thousand years ago, though. The existence of such a creating being does not exclude evolution, either. Evolution is simply natural, and, contrary to what creationists tend to argue, it isn't a "theory" in the sense that it may or may not be - it has, generally, been proven beyond a doubt that that is how it generally works and how we came to be. It is a theory in the sense that it is a "work in progress" and not an absolute law that we have defined. It isn't a hypothesis; it's how things are.Jan E. Juvstad.
-
03-25-2002, 03:21 PM #42
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- In a house
- Posts
- 213
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel
That said, creationists also generally don't understand the full implications of the Big Bang theory - it doesn't argue that the universe was some egg floating in a great void - the core is that _everything_, including time, "started" with a quantum fluctuation. There needn't be a "creation" because there was nothing "before" the Big Bang - not even time. The only way to conceive of this from a human perspective, though, is through math.This is an adventure dammit! I expect to be rewarded for acts of homicide!
-
03-25-2002, 03:29 PM #43
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Gothenburg, Sweden
- Posts
- 949
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
That isn't actually entirely correct, but trying to explain the concept of "quantum soup" would likely make me seem like a madman, even more than I am.
Jan E. Juvstad.
-
03-25-2002, 05:40 PM #44
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- In a house
- Posts
- 213
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
What isn't exactly correct? That the theorists believe that the big bang came from within a primordial atom called a singularity?
This is an adventure dammit! I expect to be rewarded for acts of homicide!
-
03-26-2002, 11:42 AM #45
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Gothenburg, Sweden
- Posts
- 949
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Yes. The currenmost theories of Stephen Hawkings et al, points to the existence of an omnipresent "carpet" of a "quantum reactive" nature, that spawned the universe, and may have spawned others. Of course this is very far fetched as most people see it, but that is where the train of astrophysics thought has been headed lately.
The term "singularity" is a bit of a misnomer as well; it refers to a single point where gravity is so strong that it causes a collapse of everything - including the dimensions. Calling what came before the big bang a "singularity" of this sort is wrong, because it implies the previous existence of dimensions - remember that dimensions, as we know them, only exist within the universe - there is no time or space "outside" the universe, and time and space only came into existence with the big bang. The primary mistake of most is that they simply cannot imagine that *time* would not exist at some point - it boggles the mind.Jan E. Juvstad.
-
03-29-2002, 01:47 AM #46
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- In a house
- Posts
- 213
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Doesn;t Dr. Hawkings claim that there was no time before the universe? He claims that it was always around. So much for needing to think about a time before time.
This is an adventure dammit! I expect to be rewarded for acts of homicide!
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks