You are right, Snowbird. I forgot to place the adverb "only".
Everything In The Universe Was Created By Absolutely Nothing.
by Philadelphia Ponos 97 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
ballistic
You could further your discussion by saying, what triggered the Big Bang, how such a seemingly disorganised action led to such an organised universe, etc. etc.
=FAIL
I think this is a left over of JW doctrine. The universe isn't like a clockwork watch at all. It's extremely disorganised. The big bang was far more organised than the current state of the universe. Second law of thermodynamics.
Forget all those JW images of the solar system as clockwork - IT IS NOT TRUE.
-
Star tiger
Greetings,
This is a planet full of animals, plants, micro organisms to be defeated for our survival we have only 1% drinkable water and only 25% of the vegetation edible, we can't even digest cellulose in grasses, with our puny human frame easily defeated, the ant has more defence than we have against accidents and falls, trees that live twenty times our lifespan, and yet our intelligence is the most advanced on the planet!
I'm not feeling the love from an all caring God!
Star Tiger
-
Maze
The question becomes, is the Big Bang itself non-contingent. Paul Steinhardt (Professor of Science at Princeton University) and others are working on models, using deeply abstracted tools in mathematical physics (built on ideas that are extrapolations of other ideas that seem to be implied by other ideas that might be a mathematical, maybe even physical consequence of other ideas - none of which have been observed, that might possibly account for some of the things that we see.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/
There is not now nor could there possibly be (in any remotely meaningful way) anything that qualifies as genuine evidence for these types of theories. They are somewhat elegant theories, but they are not remotely "science" - it is mathematical philosophy at best. String theory alone may one day find some evidence, but the pre-Big Bang models based on string theory are fundamentally un-empirical.
Furthermore, as it currently stands, those models appear to be fundamentally incompatible with current cosmological observations, hence the enormous number of non-empircally based ideas that go along with them.
And, the Ekpyrotic/Cyclic models that they are working on end up positing extraordinarily complicated mathematical "entities", or "bulks" (fancy word for bigger universes) that require a tremendous number of non-trivial assumptions that are based on nothing other than "to make it work out".
So sure, you can hold out for one of these theories. But you don't get to pretend that you're sticking with empirical or scientific ideas. You're at least as religious as any hyper fundamentalist in any religion.
I am a theist because I believe it provides the greatest metaphysical explanatory power with the fewest non-trivial assumptions. I feel that naturalism, while a plausible and logically consistent worldview, ultimately runs into too many difficulties to be taken seriously.
If one insists on holding out for a scientific answer, then you will never find the answer. Any proposed explanation for the origin of the universe will be metaphysical and outside the reach of empirical science, whether it is theism, a string derived model, or turtles all the way down. -
bohm
(wonders how you go from: (a) we have absolutely no idea how this happened to: (b) therefore we know for certainty how it happened, goddidit!).
-
unshackled
The universe isn't like a clockwork watch at all. It's extremely disorganised.
Agreed ballistic. Whenever one claims that the universe full of order they clearly haven't examined our own planet.
Earth is peppered with craters, some measuring kilometres across, from massive meteor impacts. Wiping out life, with some near full extinctions.
AND one will hit again...whether we're here or not. -
ballistic
thankyou unshakled, there's a lot of things wrong in this thread, but that one I couldn't keep quiet about. There are several close earth encounters coming up with rather large objects!
-
JamesThomas
"I just thought of something. If God is omnipresent, that means he's hiding in our peanut butter, under our bed, in our brains, inside the universe, every part of it. If God takes up an infinite amount of space, nothing else can exist because he is taking up all that space. Unless he's INSIDE everything. But, then again, does he exist at the quark level? Is he subatomic? If he is that small, he can't be that big anymore, can he? And the weirdest part of him being inside and outside of everything is this: he is VERY intimate with us. In more ways than one."
Look at my past posts in this thread, and you will see your answer.
-
The Oracle
Hi.
It doesn't make sense because you used the word created.
Plus, the sentence structure is grammatically incorrect.
Bye.
The Oracle
-
frigginconfused
Nothing on this plain. Look at the work they are doing with dark matter and dark energy these days. Maby the pinpoint where all matter, energy, space and time came from a pinpoint from another realm.