A question or two that STILL need an answer...

Ok, it's my first thread and im still under the influence of u know wah. I've been reading all the threads about creationism, evolution, science, and athieism. I don't know how this stuff works, kind of new here but hopefully someone can help me out. I am trying to make up my mind just like everyone else. I am trying to figure out what to believe in. Before I make my decision I'd like to ask a creationist and an athiest a question or two (And obviously continue doing more research).

1. What caused the Big Bang? or Who created God? (What is the answer relgion and science give.)

2. Does your mother know you're gay??

lol juss messing, thought I'd put some humor in the thread so it could be a little more peaceful.

Please no name calling, no off topic stuff, and no pokemons. Just looking for the answer the two sides give and your opinion on the one you believe in to be true and why.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Tobeornottobe]

LOL you 'try' and inject some humor into the thread and then ask for no off-topic posts or name calling


Anyways, I don't believe in a god put forward in the bible.

If I can call anything god in my beliefs, it is the universe. Everything you see, smell, taste, touch and hear. I believe the universe is eternal, always has been and always will be. A natural, infinite cycle.

No chicken first, no egg first. They both have always been here, and always will be here in the (never-ending) cycle of the universe. I think a lot of people can't imagine infinity (neither can cats really) and therefore dismiss this thought immediately.

For those people seeking proof, prove to me my beliefs are wrong

PS: This thread needs more dragons.

[edit on 16/12/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Originally posted by Tobeornottobe

1. What caused the Big Bang? or Who created God? (What is the answer relgion and science give.)

2. Does your mother know you're gay??

lol juss messing, thought I'd put some humor in the thread so it could be a little more peaceful.

Please no name calling, no off topic stuff, and no pokemons. Just looking for the answer the two sides give and your opinion on the one you believe in to be true and why.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Tobeornottobe]

Okay, well clearly I'll be answering from the creationist viewpoint.

1) God isn't subject to a creator. In the sense that...let's just say the law of thermodynamics, doesn't need a governing law...It's there, by itself....Or let's say energy...conservation of energy states that energy(in an isolated system) remains constant...it's neither created nor destroyed....therefore ETERNAL...

2)Kind of...no just playing =) I'D NEVER TELL HER!!


A2D
(P.S - I'm straight....)

reply to post by Tobeornottobe


Science`s answer may not be so fancy or entertaining as religion`s answer, but at least its honest: We don`t know yet.

There are various hypotheses, and maybe LHC or working theory of quantum gravity will give us an answer. I think there was obviously something, since something can not come from nothing, but anything else about the nature of this pre-big bang "something" is just speculation now. There is no reason to antropomorphise it.

www.google.com...

Originally posted by Tobeornottobe

1. What caused the Big Bang? or Who created God? (What is the answer relgion and science give.)

The Big Bang is only a theory
God is more than a theory, it/he is a hope & a wish & a moral compass


~of course the scientists and clergy in the world will elaborate to no-end
on how God is the creator & savior of the world or how there are 'proofs' of Deity all around us...Or how the BigBang & 10 dimensions touched together at an event-horizon & spilt all these cosmic strings throughout all 10 dimensions...

but all they are really doing is defending their world-view and chosen profession in life & society~

these are nice, safe things to ponder, even pursue academically, perhaps to make a career around as a professional Theorist...


[edit on 16-12-2009 by St Udio]

Well I'd just suggest you read this thread I wrote a little while back before making up your mind...it didn't get one response...funny that...

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

It appears the SEARCH FUNCTION is broken.....

You can easily read through my thread and post for atheism and religion, bias though

Also, all you need is the search function to get through most of it.

Otherwise, just sort yourself somewhere in the recent posts, and try to find out where you stand, or don't stand, believe it or not, I was a strong republican

reply to post by Tobeornottobe

I am trying to figure out what to believe in. Before I make my decision I'd like to ask a creationist and an athiest a question or two (And obviously continue doing more research).

I'm not going to answer from either side, instead I'm going to answer with honesty and openness.

It doesn't matter what you believe in or what you want to be real. Reality will always undeniably still be reality and we will always still exist within the confines of reality bound by all its laws and rules.

If there is no God, then he isn't real and thus no reason to believe in him.

If there is a God, then he is real and there is a reason to believe in him.

Yet, until either has been proven, there is no reason to be closed minded to the possibility while still reserving judgment of blind belief in it's truth at either end.

If you want something to believe in, believe in what is absolutely known to be real, which is mostly nothing right now. So there isn't a whole hell of a lot there to believe in. So instead, just believe that reality is real and reality exists as we exist in it. This is the only thing we know to be absolutely true to reality.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Forgot to welcome you to ATS. I would also like to warn you about ATSIS. ATSIS is a nefarious group here on ATS, the ATS Ignorance Squad. They will tell you what is "true" and then demand you accept that truth without backing that truth up, without showing the work so to speak. If you ever ask them for evidence or research, they will attack you viciously, calling you ignorant and a troll. Their favorite argument is always "You just don't understand and this is something you just have to understand."


Good luck and hope you enjoy your stay here, but always be on the look out for ATSIS and please never join their ranks. ATS is about denying ignorance, not joining the squad.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by St Udio


Not to be ironic, but... Jesus hopping Christ, would you people stop with the "it's only a theory" crap? It doesn't get you anywhere, and it just proves that you have no flipping clue what the hell it is you're talking about.

A scientific theory is something that is backed by every available shred of evidence. Evolution, gravity, heliocentrism, the big bang, they're all "theories" in the same way that the Pythagorean theorem is.

Tell you what. If you can find me a right triangle that doesn't adhere to the pythagorean theorem, I'll accept your "just a theory" horsepie. deal? Grt cracking.

First I'd like to apreciate and thank everyone for the contributions and inputs with no insults or flaming. (feel like I've won an award, really digging ats btw)

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
LOL you 'try' and inject some humor into the thread and then ask for no off-topic posts or name calling

[edit on 16/12/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]

Thank you for pointing the mistake on my part. It's just a joke / sarcasm to keep the atmosphere of the thread in check that if someone says anything foolish dont take it seriously. When I say "no off topic and no pokemons" it's just another joke since pokemon are off topic if u know what I mean .

Republican08, it's not that the search function is broken it's just that most if not all other threads on these specific topics are really chaotic. They eventually lead me to a headache. That's why I made this thread. To understand both points of view in a peaceful and reasonable manner. So far it's been smooth, just hope it stays that way .

reply to post by Tobeornottobe


Yeh I know, I'm just a grumpy kitty sometimes. Welcome to ATS

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


HOLD UP JUST A MINUTE...

so you're equating pythagorean theorem...WHICH WE CAN APPLY IN DAILY LIFE...and the BIG BANG...WHICH WE CAN'T REPLICATE....tell me...how do you do this!?

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

HOLD UP JUST A MINUTE...

so you're equating pythagorean theorem...WHICH WE CAN APPLY IN DAILY LIFE...

This isn't quite exactly what he said, seems your sensationalizing through misinterpretation.

As he said, a scientific theory is backed by empirical evidence.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

source

A theorem is derived from a theory.

Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation.

Same source.

Despite general applicability, it may or may not be true. For hundreds of years it was assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe based on observation. Yet a theory called heliocentrism overturned this erroneous belief. So, despite the label of theory, this label should never be used as a negative derogatory insult of science.

and the BIG BANG...WHICH WE CAN'T REPLICATE....tell me...how do you do this!?

Given the above definition of a theory, there is no real problem here as the theory is a theory, not a proof. Man in ancient times couldn't figure out how to fly and pronounced that heavier than air flight was impossible because they couldn't figure out how to do it. Lack of know how or inability to replication should never be considered an end all.

Don't misconstrue me, I'm equally against the big bang myself, but possibly for different more valid reasons than your of it's only a theory. Use critical thought a little more, it'll help.

reply to post by sirnex


I'm sorry the big bang is not a theory in the same sense that:

The atomic theory of matter: all matter is made up of atoms.
The law of conservation of mass and energy: in chemical and physical reactions, mass and energy stay the same, in atomic reactions, mass is changed to energy or energy to mass according to the formula E = mc2.
The cell theory of living things: all living things are made up of cells.
The theory of evolution: all life on earth evolved from simple forms.
The tectonic theory of geology: the surface of the earth is composed of tectonic plates, which move slowly.
The galactic theory of astronomy: planets orbit stars, stars cluster in galaxies.
The periodic table of elements: atoms are distinguished by their atomic number and atomic weight, and can be arranged in a table which illustrates their properties.
The theory of relativity: scientific laws hold in different frames of reference.
Quantum theory: the smallest amount of energy is a "quantum unit", and all energy comes in multiples of this amount.

are...If it is and I'm wrong...show me the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...

simple.wikipedia.org...

You see... a scientific theory must be a TESTED and EXPANDED hypotheses.....tell me then...how was the big bang "theory" TESTED???

edit to add:

To be a scientific theory, a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in many different places, and must pass the test every time.

same source as above...
A2D


[edit on 16-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

I'm sorry the big bang is not a theory in the same sense that:

The atomic theory of matter: all matter is made up of atoms.
The law of conservation of mass and energy: in chemical and physical reactions, mass and energy stay the same, in atomic reactions, mass is changed to energy or energy to mass according to the formula E = mc2.
The cell theory of living things: all living things are made up of cells.
The theory of evolution: all life on earth evolved from simple forms.
The tectonic theory of geology: the surface of the earth is composed of tectonic plates, which move slowly.
The galactic theory of astronomy: planets orbit stars, stars cluster in galaxies.
The periodic table of elements: atoms are distinguished by their atomic number and atomic weight, and can be arranged in a table which illustrates their properties.
The theory of relativity: scientific laws hold in different frames of reference.
Quantum theory: the smallest amount of energy is a "quantum unit", and all energy comes in multiples of this amount.

are...

simple.wikipedia.org...

You see... a scientific theory must be a TESTED and EXPANDED hypotheses.....tell me then...how was the big bang "theory" TESTED???

edit to add:

To be a scientific theory, a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in many different places, and must pass the test every time.

same source as above...
A2D

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

There are contrary theories to a lot of those theories you listed that have 'evidences' for them as well, both observed and experimental. BBT is claimed to correct due to predicted observations. What the theory predicts is what is observed, but in my opinion I find those predictions to be based on certain assumptions which is why I don't personally subscribe to it. But my opinions are not the end all of scientific inquiry and could be wrong. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, isn't BBT derived from relativity, or at least some of the observed predictions of BBT?

Big Bang:
The universe as we know it is expanding outward from what we think is a galactic center.
en.wikipedia.org...

As for God:
Maybe a long dead entity that left no trace of itself.

I guess "it" (God) could be alive or omni present and may be one of many but that just asks the question of "who created God(s)".

There's absolutely no proof of Gods existence other than blind faith. When I say God, I mean the all powerful not some group of rogue aliens that bio-engineered us the be worker drones like some would think.

I like the questions, but, unfortunately, I have no answers other than speculation.

Live free or die.

I am still new here as well, but you (OP) have posted something I have been spending a lot of time studying and wondering about.

First, I would like to point out that though many members of ATS are very intelligent and very well read, not all of us think the same way. I happen to know for fact that many people seem to get "theory" and "idea" mixed up. They define them the same way. A theory is an idea yes, but it is not JUST an idea. This is important to recognize when debating and learning.

A few posters above have stated all that I personally feel to be truth, in varying ways. I was raised Jewish, went to Hebrew school for much of my life- then was left wondering what that meant. There were many precepts of Judaism that I could not agree with on a moral level. There were too many unanswered questions and contradictions in the Torah for me to feel sure.

I became a Catholic, tried Baptist churches, Pentacostal, Lutheran, and Universalist. Then I became a pagan. Though I learned much from all of this, I still could not get straight answers to my questions. So I looked outside religion. Science seemed to answer many of my questions. Logic, and awareness of psychology, answered even more. So at present, I have my own "ideas".


Such as, the idea of "God" is a coping mechanism. We are only human, we can only understand abstract concepts to a limited degree. We can theorize and experiment to try to understand some things, and we have a rational mind that allows us to say "Well, we don't know for sure, but the most logical assumption is..." I believe what is tangible, or what can be made apparent via tangible means. Anything else is too complex for me to understand now. For some, their way of handling what they cannot understand, or what their moral fibre demands, is to be dependent on "a power greater than ourselves". For is we can;t figure it out- someONE had to. Very few people can handle the knowledge that they cannot explain something. There MUST be an explanation! Hence, God.

We are fragile in these thin skins. What happens after we die? The idea of a void and nothingness quite frankly, is terrifying to most. There HAS to be more- else- what is the point? God.

Societal pressures and norms are psychologically based. As is everything the electricity on our brains portrays as thought and will. Yes, there is a reason we feel the way we do, the way we think, the things we believe. Chemical reactions happen, there is a cause and effect. But that seems too simple for we complex creatures. Define emotion. Can't just be chemicals! God. Or '___'. Which is a chemical...>.> I digress...


I am not an atheist or a religious person. I am a realist. I believe in reality, as was so eloquently stated above. I know what I know because I can see it, feel it, taste it, and test it. I am not comfortable putting my destiny in the hands of an unseen creator who has had no tangible evidence in my life. Unless by creator you mean cause and effect, in which case, I am a believer.

So reality it is, but what defines reality. We fallible humans? What if we are wrong? Does it really matter? We live for whatever reason. I prefer to live without guilt and negativity. It has nothing to do with sin or redemption, but everything to do with what feels good to me. Bottom line, all we can believe in is what we know. And fact- we don't know everything yet.

reply to post by sirnex


They can claim whatever they want about the big bang...the simple fact of the matter is that it is postulated from observances that we make AFTERWARDS...we have no way of knowing that what we THINK caused what we observe is really what happened....so technically, it can't be replicated or validated scientifically...it's just a well-thought out guess....unlike other theories...that can be validated scientifically....

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex

 

They can claim whatever they want about the big bang...the simple fact of the matter is that it is postulated from observances that we make AFTERWARDS...we have no way of knowing that what we THINK caused what we observe is really what happened....so technically, it can't be replicated or validated scientifically...it's just a well-thought out guess....unlike other theories...that can be validated scientifically....

A2D

This comment only raises more questions, which might derail the topic.

How do we know what we guess is even real? How do we know that what we think we see, is really what there is? We can prove theories only with what we know to be fact, But what if the facts are misunderstood or not at all like what really is? What is the definition of reality? Who defined it? And how do we prove they were right? What if right is wrong? I know, silly questions, my apologies. But what if?

reply to post by cjcord


The point is...the theory of relativity...observed...through our observations it's deemed "correct"....atomic theory...observed...through our observations it's deemed "correct"....etc etc

big bang theory....not observed...cannot be deemed "correct" through our observations...because our observations aren't relevant to the timeframe....the big bang happened in an instant...relativity...atomic theory...they persist...there's no 'one' point in "time" when they happened......

A2D