Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Your Right...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.o.Sofir on February 9, 1999 16:31:29 UTC

: : : : The static universe theory and the "mega-universe" theory are unrelated, as I understand them. The "steady-state theory" isn't widely held anymore, but it used to be popular earlier this century. The big bang is the widely excepted theory, and the debate now seems to center around the big crunch issue. Will the matter eventually become so great that the graviational force will cause a collapse, and thus a big crunch. : : But the "Mega-Universe" theory, or rather idea, simply states that our Universe may be one of many within something else, unknown. Its just an idea. This idea goes WITH the big bang theory, not against. The idea is that several "bubbles" exist in something else. Our expanding universe being one of those bubbles. And the idea makes sense, although there is no proof of it. I find it troubling that people are willing to accept some sort of "God" exists, when we need him for no explanations, but they are unwilling to follow the obvious patern in front of us. Name one thing that only 1 exists? Suns, no, although none of them are the EXACTLY the same size (like humans, many exist but none are EXACTLY the same, even twins). If you follow the pattern, you would end up at the universe. We can't observe outside of it, we are contrained by it (so far). But just by following the pattern, it is logical to assume it simply makes up a larger entity. Again, no proof, just an idea. I think it makes since, but I would never say its fact, not by a long shot. : : God was created to explain the unexplainable. Just read Genisus, you can clearly see what having a "God" accomplished. Where did the sun come from? God. Where did the animals, plans, and humans come from? God. He answered all the hard questions of the time, and settled peoples minds. Let us not forget Roman and Greek mythology. They had a polytheist religion that asigned one god to all of these seperate "unanswerable" questions of the day. And if one god was angry with the people, he would make it flood or storm or drought. : : I do not accept this anymore than I accept the theist religions of today.

: : H

: Oops, my bad...I didn't make the distinction between the two.

: However, this theory still is reaching beyond the cosmos for answers that just beg the initial question. Hence, none answered. The idea that the laws of : physics in our 4 dimensions explain in full detail our existence and purpose is a far cry from the idea of a creator. For one, the actual existence of 4 dimensions out of : nothing speaks volumes; out of what you ask? Does our existence and the creation that surrounds us speak volumes for what cause? If I may suggest... the cause : that caused. And you may say, "well nate, doesn't that just beg the question again?" I will say no, because of the following... Our dimensional existence follows : first principals and logic that follow such guidelines- cause and effect, cause and effect... Thus individuals will dream up ideas about static existence that supposedly : do away with the initial cause. BUT, because we are living in nothing (as physically observed) but a physical universe, the first cause cannot be buried and : ignored. A physical universe by itself cannot spark itself into existence out of nothing! It requires a first cause that is outside of space/time continuum, : that I might add is finite!

: -nåte

*** The problem I have with this argument is that it is assumed that there at some time was total nothingness, there is as much evidence to support this as there is that the universe is finite, both have zero credit. In my opinion, all matter/energy has always existed, there is no other logical way to explain its existance, I also have the opinion that the universe is infinite in its "nothingness" although it is nessisarily a function of "being" that the matter/energy is finite, for to state that it is infinite is to state that matter can spontaniously appear out of nothingness. What I mean by this is that nothingness is naturally infinite (has no borders or restrictions, but matter/energy does have these restrictions, there is always a limit to it, and this is shown by the existance of laws which regulate its existance, nothingness has no such laws, it is simply nothing. As far as time is concerned, we as aware beings can pretend such a thing exists, but in actuallity, when there is no begining and no end, then there is no such thing as time outside of our definition of it, thus to say that a God transends time and space... is to say that it trancends nothing, which is meaningless. Anything that lasts forever is a perptual entity, therefore in my account of the nature of matter/energy, all things are in there most basic form (energy) perpetual, and once we harness the ability of true recycling of energy, we will have discovered a perpetual ablity (machine), of course we as human beings will not last forever, so it is not a perfect thing unless it could allow us to exist forever. But then again, I have been sure of so many things during my lifetime, which when put to the test, all crumble, and forces humilty upon me, although I don't really want it.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins