DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 They have no answer to what came before the "Big Bang". They have no clue what they are talking about. We're having a reasonable, intelligent, respectful, and interesting conversation here for once. So go back to your Klan meeting, !@#$head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 We're discussing the theoretical creation of the universe. Nobody knows what they're talking about. That's sorta the point. We may have an idea, inkling, or thought...but nobody truly knows. It's really a beautiful mystery. Liberals claim there's a creation without a creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Liberals claim there's a creation without a creator. Go watch your racially charged debates on youtube, asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 We're having a reasonable, intelligent, respectful, and interesting conversation here for once. How was I not being reasonable, intelligent, respectful, and interesting? I was just making a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Ok, this makes sense. You believe in a higher being that may or may not have created the universe in a certain way. I can buy into that. No, I believe he created the universe in everything in it. If I didn't the belief in Jesus Christ would be meaningless. But this thinking does not quite mesh with your earlier quoting of Genesis. Because if you're going to literally interpret Genesis, doesn't this also imply belief that you DO know how God created everything? Here's my exact thinking. The "days" of creation are not 24-hour days. I believe that these refer to time periods, yes. I think God created things in order, but not necessarily immediately after one another. For instance, the Bible says that the Earth was "without form..and void." This leads me to believe that God created the physical frameowrk of the cosmos long before he populated the Earth. I could be completely wrong as I am neither a scientist or a theologian. But I am a student of the Bible, and seeing as it's the only reference for the Almighty, I have to interpret it the best I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Liberals claim there's a creation without a creator. How was I not being reasonable, intelligent, respectful, and interesting? I was just making a point. No, you're trying to make it into a politically charged issue, when it's not. This has nothing...and I stress NOTHING to do with liberal vs. conservative. If you believe it does, then your perception is irrevocably damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 No, you're trying to make it into a politically charged issue, when it's not. This has nothing...and I stress NOTHING to do with liberal vs. conservative. If you believe it does, then your perception is irrevocably damaged. Even Einstein said that you can't have a clock without a clockmaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 No, I believe he created the universe in everything in it. If I didn't the belief in Jesus Christ would be meaningless. Here's my exact thinking. The "days" of creation are not 24-hour days. I believe that these refer to time periods, yes. I think God created things in order, but not necessarily immediately after one another. For instance, the Bible says that the Earth was "without form..and void." This leads me to believe that God created the physical frameowrk of the cosmos long before he populated the Earth. I could be completely wrong as I am neither a scientist or a theologian. But I am a student of the Bible, and seeing as it's the only reference for the Almighty, I have to interpret it the best I can. My mistake on the first part, sorry for misunderstanding. As for the second part, that's an interesting thought. I went through a lot of Bible study when I was younger and never encountered this theory from my pastors, vicars, teachers, etc....It certainly meshes better with science than the old "ZAP ZAP ZAP ZAP the universe is created in 144 hours" hokum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Well, actually... First off, if the net energy of the universe is zero (possible - if the gravitational attraction of all the mass in the universe precisely balances out the expansion of the universe, the net potential + kinetic energy is then zero), then one could argue the entire universe is simply a quantum vacuum fluctuation...and hence, nothing exploded and made everything. (It happens all the time, in fact: nothing suddenly becomes a particle and an anti-particle, which quickly collide and become nothing again. It's where Hawking radiation comes from, around black holes). Second...without getting into the esoterica of quantun field theories, at high temperature/pressure/density/energy, physical laws as we know them start to "change" or "break down". It's entirely possible that "nothing" existed in the Big Bang singularity, simply because physical laws didn't even exist to describe the existence of "something". Very weird concept, I know...but "existence" of any particle is determined by physical observable properties (mass, spin, charge, chiriality, "colour", etc.) that aren't even definable until after the Big Bang is in process...therefore, it's not unreasonable to say "nothing" existed before the Big Bang. Man I love these discussions! Simply because physical laws didn't exist to define it (i.e. our so-called "laws" of physics), doesn't mean that the "something" that banged was "nothing". Nor does it mean that "nothing" becomes a particle, for the same reason. "Undefinable" I'm okay with. BTW, as an aside....I always chuckle when I hear scientists spouting off about how things must be so and so in some other part of the universe, based on what they think they know about our little corner of the yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Go watch your racially charged debates on youtube, asshat. You don't know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Okay....going along with that theory, where & what did all of that matter and energy, enough matter and energy to create the entire universe (known and yet to be known), come from? Please bear in mind the staggering magnitude of the known and yet to be know universe. I honestly don't know that I can explain that without some serious math. Best I can think to start you off with is to suggest you look up P.A.M. Dirac's equations describing the existence of the electron, which is such a brilliant theory that no one's ever heard of it (it doesn't exactly capture the public imagination). But it does at least suggest the existence of "something" (an electron) from "nothing" (the gauge field defined by the equations of state). Plus...you're operating under a set of assumptions that break down - severly - when you start talking about quantum or relativistic physics, never mind both at the same time. On the level of the normal world, a bowling ball exists - you can touch it, see it, throw it at some pins, you can even argue about global warming with it judging by conner's posts. But when your talking at a "creating the universe" level, you're talking about equations that allow for the existence of "negative energy" of a sort, so that when the stuff that makes up the bowling ball was created fifteen billion years ago it was counter-balanced by the creation of something else that results in a net creation of nothing. But again...serious math involved (I'm getting a headache just remembering it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 No, you're trying to make it into a politically charged issue, when it's not. This has nothing...and I stress NOTHING to do with liberal vs. conservative. If you believe it does, then your perception is irrevocably damaged. Yo, there is politics in this debate. It's not the root principle, but it totally exists. The politics of the civil liberty and practicing of your "creationist v. evolution" idea is a deeply debated and hot political topic. Many states face pressure to remove evolution from their curriculum by religious extremists. Now, I'm not going to touch what wisconsinbillzfan was getting at, but I believe there is politics in the issue, and my perception is not "irrevocably damaged". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Even Einstein said that you can't have a clock without a clockmaker. Don't be so dense. I don't reject the notion of a creator being. I reject the popular notions of God that human beings have invented, and recognize that I personally will never know the truth, unless something is revealed after I die (which I also view as highly improbable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Even Einstein said that you can't have a clock without a clockmaker. Anthropomorphizing bull ****. Now go away, little boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Don't be so dense. I don't reject the notion of a creator being. I reject the popular notions of God that human beings have invented, and recognize that I personally will never know the truth, unless something is revealed after I die (which I also view as highly improbable). The truth is out there and available. It's up to you to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Yo, there is politics in this debate. It's not the root principle, but it totally exists. The politics of the civil liberty and practicing of your "creationist v. evolution" idea is a deeply debated and hot political topic. Many states face pressure to remove evolution from their curriculum by religious extremists. Now, I'm not going to touch what wisconsinbillzfan was getting at, but I believe there is politics in the issue, and my perception is not "irrevocably damaged". You're correct. This general debate does have political implications. But the specific debate we're having here at PPP does not. That's what I was referring to. Wisconsin was trying to derail the conversation into a divisive political issue by introducing the whole "stupid liberals believe...." nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Man I love these discussions!Simply because physical laws didn't exist to define it (i.e. our so-called "laws" of physics), doesn't mean that the "something" that banged was "nothing". Nor does it mean that "nothing" becomes a particle, for the same reason. "Undefinable" I'm okay with. Doesn't mean it was "something", either. Really, it doesn't mean anything other than "we don't know". And it actually is possible for "nothing" to become a particle. Physical laws (Heisenberg uncertainty principle, specifically) allow the creation of small amounts of energy for a very brief period of time. In fact, the mass of the electron can be predicted (not just measured) precisely based in part on that principle - and becomes infinite in its absence. Physics can get very, very weird. BTW, as an aside....I always chuckle when I hear scientists spouting off about how things must be so and so in some other part of the universe, based on what they think they know about our little corner of the yard. Yeah...but you kind-of have to do that in science. Unless differences are observable, you have to make the assumption that two different things are otherwise the same until otherwise demonstrated, if only because it's difficult to operate under the opposite assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 The truth is out there and available. It's up to you to accept it. Elitist schmuck. Why is your magic book any more magic than mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Nope. I have no opinion or theory. It's empirically unknowable, therefore I simply accept that don't know. Seriously. It's probably difficult for you to accept, or even believe, but it's the truth. I can't know, so I don't worry about it. Well, I hope in about 2 weeks you start waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and start........just kidding. Worry about it?...okay, no. But no wondering about it? I sort of look at it as the ultimate, unsolvable riddle. But still, I can't help but poke at the wrapper every once in awhile. Of course, I'm no closer to solving it and the Bills OL and QB will be a wreck this year and see......I turned this into a football post! ME ME ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 We're having a reasonable, intelligent, respectful, and interesting conversation here for once. So go back to your Klan meeting, !@#$head. Should someone tell him that God is black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts