" the universe made itself " but---

by prologos 111 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • KateWild

    To quote Einstein "science without religion is lame"

    Kate xx

  • jgnat

    Half the quote, Kate! "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"


  • jgnat

    How could God evolve over time if time did not exist? Evolution, generation, creation, time...none of that existed. There was a lump. Then the lump exploded and complexified. Only in this complex universe can we cogitate on time, life, evolution, individuation, and growth.

    If the Higgs-Boson is the only element of its kind that is found (which allows for an accelerating universe by the way), the elemental construction of the universe becomes quite simple. And scary. It means we're living on the razor's edge of chance.

  • KateWild

    Half the quote, Kate! "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"-jgnat

    Good catch, I blame Max Jammer, for quote mining Einstein on pg 56 of "Einstein and Religion". It's just arrived I am flicking through. But it still makes my point clear.

    Thanks love Kate xx

  • prologos

    As to the origin of life, a question closer to home,

    once we have the basic material, conditions, energy sources,

    it is concievable that life could spontaneously erupt, a very lucky shot, not yet replicated at the level of

    the COLLIDER experiments, where basic forms of matter appear at least for very short times.

    On the other hand the coming of that matter, energy is the BIG question. because

    once one recognizes that there is no nothingness, no energy potential free vaccuum, that was the pre-condition to the universes beginning, then

    The possibility of a creator existing in that realm can not be totally waved as out of hand.

    thank you for links, but at my age, bad hearing, personal descriptions, arguments are more compelling.

    cant leave, we are filling the gaps all the time, with knowledge HOW it works. Gaps becoming smaller and smaller which means more numerous.

    The gaps are ours.

  • bohm

    Prologos: you are making a big leap when assuning there was once nothing and then everything came into existence. How do you know that? How could we know that?

    Compare to the theistic explanation. Here it is simply assumed something always existed and that something could do anything and so it made our universe. I cannot see why thats an explanation at all.

  • prologos

    My mind is hung up on the word THING in nothing.

    when I quoted from another thread "--The universe created itself--", I assumed we were talking about stuff.

    If we understand the theorists right, there never was a vaccuum void of energy, potential fluctuations, broiling virtual particles. but

    stuff can be traced to a beginning, to energy, so

    it opens up the way for the concept of a concentrating, selecting event in that pre-big band realm, and

    a creator if you will.

  • KateWild

    Here it is simply assumed something always existed and that something could do anything and so it made our universe -bohm

    You make a good point. The universe is always expanding, thats a fact we can agree on that. We can now spectulate, is there something beyond the universe, as infinity is a concept, we need to think about it in an abstract way.

    How did the universe evolve? Did the universe have a begining? Perhaps God evolved from unknown matter over billions of years?

    Who knows it's all speculative, and that's the real point. Kate xx

  • bohm

    Prologos: you misunderstand big-bang theory. read this article and keep in mind how we could know on an atheistic view there was nothing before big bang.


    or my summary: no theories that do not break down, no observational evidence, no way to tell.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    I've lost interest already, we are going round in circles.

Share this