The Science of God

page: 13
57
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Also, the matter that is left is evident in the Universe, imagine how much there was to begin with!




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by DaMod
 


Antimatter is only destroyed when it collides with matter. Those that are still around simply havent collided ? Im not 100% sure on that, im very limited when it comes to my knowledge of physics. How could oscillating universe theory not happen due to this? Matter vs antimatter means matter is destroyed, but energy remains constant yes?


I should have been more clear. One theory that was brought up earlier is that the big bang was triggered by antimatter singularity colliding with matter singularity. The universe then contracts and starts over. I was pointing out a reason I don't think that is so.

And so people know where i've been going with this whole thing:

My argument is that the universe had a beginning and was caused by an outside entity.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I dont think we can reject your argument. However, the same logic must be applied to that entity. What caused that entity?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by DaMod
 


I dont think we can reject your argument. However, the same logic must be applied to that entity. What caused that entity?


Hence our paradox, but what if the entity always was? Or maybe (think quantum mechanics here) that creator has an infinite number of creators therefore each was created by a created creator..... That went really deep down the rabbit hole but it is an answer to the question no?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Hmm it does and it doesnt. Firstly, when you say that this creator just existed, why does that hold more weight than just saying the Universe existed?

Secondly, i would say it doesnt because if you are going on caused and effect, where all of them are dependant upon eachother, they must have all just popped up at the same time.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by DaMod
 


Hmm it does and it doesnt. Firstly, when you say that this creator just existed, why does that hold more weight than just saying the Universe existed?

Secondly, i would say it doesnt because if you are going on caused and effect, where all of them are dependant upon eachother, they must have all just popped up at the same time.


Ah but then we reach another dead end. For the universe to have always existed there would have to have been no beginning of time or the universe so therefore the universe would have had to rely on resources it already had. There is a huge problem with this.

Our universe is accelerating into the vastness of space. Something is pulling us into the void. The universe (this version if you still think so) is only about 15 billion years old. What came before that? If the universe always was then why did it just now begin? If there was no time before the universe that would entail that it had a beginning. Therefore in having a beginning something would have had to have caused that beginning. If the universe had no beginning then how would it have started such a short time ago 1. and two where is the cycle of regrowth? If there is no cycle then what has it been doing for the last infinity quadrillion years?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
Ah but then we reach another dead end. For the universe to have always existed there would have to have been no beginning of time or the universe so therefore the universe would have had to rely on resources it already had. There is a huge problem with this.

Our universe is accelerating into the vastness of space. Something is pulling us into the void. The universe (this version if you still think so) is only about 15 billion years old. What came before that? If the universe always was then why did it just now begin? If there was no time before the universe that would entail that it had a beginning. Therefore in having a beginning something would have had to have caused that beginning. If the universe had no beginning then how would it have started such a short time ago 1. and two where is the cycle of regrowth? If there is no cycle then what has it been doing for the last infinity quadrillion years?


For the universe to have always existed there would have to have been no beginning of time or the universe so therefore the universe would have had to rely on resources it already had. -- As it has been said, the total Energy + Matter within the system is constant.

Yes, we are accelerating but this doesnt disprove oscillating universe theory. Thing about it, BANG and everything starts acceleratig outward. We just havent come to the contraction phase caused by gravity yet.

Why does the system of bang and crunch have to be caused?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
BANG we accelerate, sure. But we would consistently decelerate if there is any force working on us at all.

Analogy would be, we fire a bullet straight up into the sky. It starts decelerating the moment that bullet leaves the barrel. The evidence of a force working against it can be seen right off the bat.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


No no, think about free falling, you keep accelerating until terminal velocity is reached. Then, its still got to be seen, if critical density of the universe is reached, gravity will begin to pull the universe back in.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Then we would be accelerating towards the center and not away. The latter is the case.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


No i was not talking about freefalling, i was showing you how the forces are acting. C'mon now...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
And I am telling you we are free falling away from where we should be.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


How? What is hard to understand about this? ()>> (X)>>(((())))), as it expands it is going to accelerate since, in relative terms, the Universe did not blow that long ago. Gravity will slow the acceleration and if density is high enough, will cause it to collapse back in.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
We would still see a force working backwards slowing us down consistently especially if that force is gravity. We would not be speeding up.

I should really illustrate it so you can see where I am going. This really should make sense to you.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


what im trying to say is that this concept of slowing down straight away is incorrect. I used the skydiving as an analogy for you. At the moment, the expansion in unbalanced against gravity, as we get areas of high density, such like black holes, dark matter etc this will eventually lead to either a plateau, steady state, flat universe. OR the Big Crunch.

The bang happened rather recent, so we are still accelerating because it did go bang....but gravity is working against it, and will continue to, until the acceleration =0 or the acceleration = -??.

Get me?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Toughiv]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
thats just the ultimate way it stay hidden saying pardoxes can exsist Id say both prove that the entity likes to stay hidden. atleast from structures that can themselves create on any level. with enough sophistication we could plausibly do the same thing to a single piece of matter or make it expand to encompass all of exsistance, just a was of hiding in my opinion from what though. In human terms hard to say you'd have to talk to the ruler of earth who had full knowledge acess, unless its a Bi-polar or muiltipoal planet often leading to suicide. oh yes and hiding is out of fear, what does anything fear death and change mostly death change can be scary also.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 



I dont think you can describe God. Beyond our comprehension. We cannot even begin to label things as good or bad, who are we to say which are which? Or even if they exist. I feel Good and Evil are two sides of the same coin



Actually this is where emotional intelligence comes in and not left brained logic. I do label things as good or bad as I do not feel they are as elusive as you might think, but this is for another thread and not this one.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by leomurray
 


That superior being remains hidden to allow true free will



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by SugarCube
 


Time would not be the only thing that takes a beating. Gravity bends space. You cannot conclude that gravity would play no part especially in association of matter at that scale and that theoretical density. Space time would bend alright.

You cannot say gravity did not play a role because you just do not know these things. However we do know that gravity associates itself with matter. If a supermassive star can create a black hole, why couldn't a super massive mass of subatomic particles pressed together under the immenseness of all the matter contained in the universe?
Why is everybody always picking on me.




[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]


id like to say i enjoy the thread and have been reading it off andf on for a couple days. . . . id just like to adress this statement

in the singularity before the big bang there was no space time to distort space time is a result of teh big bang. . . . so unlike a black hole cingularity that bends space time a big bang singularity is not a black hole doesnt have an event horizon and contains all of space time within itself therefore there is no gravity distortion of space time because there is no space time to distort

the big bang would have not only all space time in the singularity but also all the fundemental forces would become one super force so there would be no chemical reactions as each element would all become one unified element

this is often reffered to in physics as the "primordial atom" instead of the singularity. . . . upon the expansion of the primordial atom the super force became the 4 fundemental forces of gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic forces we observe today..

and until the forces were divided it was impossible for sub atomic particles to take on all these forces seperately and begin to form atoms and the matter we see i the universe

hope that was fairly clear. . .


[edit on 27-5-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Hence our paradox, but what if the entity always was? Or maybe (think quantum mechanics here) that creator has an infinite number of creators therefore each was created by a created creator..... That went really deep down the rabbit hole but it is an answer to the question no?



I personally feel that there are categories of Gods and different families of Gods just as we do. THEY created or developed us to follow a similar pattern to them.

Couldn't there be other sets of physics or realities than our understandings? How on earth are we to know how the Gods came into existence as we are barely figuring out how we came to be? Why would we expect to be able to figure this out?





new topics
top topics
 
57
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join