Religion

[Only-virgins]

Ok, since no one is listening to me I am just going to leave but shh!, read the last sentence in your posted site.

[shh!]

What are you talking about? That it is a theory that will probably never be proven? So what? Gravity is also a scientific theory.

[Only-virgins]

What are you talking about? That it is a theory that will probably never be proven? So what? Gravity is also a scientific theory.

But gravity is a everyday experience that we can put through the scientific method of study, The big bang is not, just an assumption by a NASA scientist, The thing is, there are proof after marks that a bang did happen but what caused the bang? I already explained in my previous posts damn it. Don't value a person's knowledge more simply because he is a NASA scientist, think on your own. I do think that there was a big bang, it was NOT the creation, just the formation of our universe.

[shh!]

Don't value a person's knowledge more simply because he is a NASA scientist, think on your own. .

That is the funniest thing I read all day. Anyway, it wasn't ONE scientist who said that - that link was the NASA government website. They wouldn't post a random person's opinion on there. They are representing NASAs point of view as an entire organization.

I do think that there was a big bang, it was NOT the creation, just the formation of our universe.

What's the difference, other than the word you are using? Maybe you are simply tying to say you don't attribute this to a god-figure? If so, I wouldn't argue the point with you. I have no idea if god did it or not. I wasn't there.

[Only-virgins]

You don't know the difference between formation and creation?

It formed the universe through matter that was there already, creation would be making something out of absolutly nothing and that is impossible, humans do not create, we form, When even you paint you use existing materials. That is why art it self is though so unique and special because while the material is old the feelings and insperation that art piece makes it itself is creation. Anyways, one man in NASA..the entire NASA corp. , I don't care, I trust no one accept my own logic, I only use others as a standing stone to reach my knowledge.

[shh!]

You are arguing semantics. The thesaurus lists them as synonyms. Anyway, I guess we will let Hugo take the Christian view, I will take the scientific, and you can take the OV view.
:-)

[Mish]

NASA scientists, religious? Umm, I don't think so.

[url]http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html[/url]

Yes I saw that link in the past and yes very Religious. Their Religion being "Big Banganism", a theory that can never be proven and that draws many parralells with any other religion (Even having dieties, "the mysterious energies of the universe").

It's also a theory that can work in conjunction with any other Religion, due to so little being proven. I call it, the unporven assumptions of the observations and the human need to make some sort of sense of these (Even if not understood).

The sources and the cause of the gravitational force remains an open question, but the fact that gravitational force exists is not a theory. This is a very different situation to the origins of the universe.

I find personaly that Big Bang theory is flawed, because it suggests that everything came out of nothing and our scientific minds know that technically this is not possible.

[shh!]

I think religious people are divided on the big bang theory, and anyway, I don't have a problem with religious people accepting scientific theory and making it fit in with their world views. Why should I? I, in fact, encourage it. I wish they would get with the program with respect to evolution, too.

By the way, I think you may be confusing scientific theory and scientific hypothesis, but maybe not.

[indigosoul]

Until science can explain this, I will hold out hope for the existence of God.

Alice - I do think you are right on the money when you say, “people just can't face the idea that death really means "game over". This seems to me to be the best reason for the creation of religion.

::just passing through::

Consider the possbility that you are coming at it the wrong way. OVs comments about creating something out of nothing would apply. You can't. But you CAN create NOTHING from nothing. If you think about this enough, you can see this explanation completely negates the necessity for any higher being or creator. And it makes sense, tho it brings you back to Alice's comment. AND its completely consistent with what we know about atomic physics (there's basically nothing there-the spaces b/t particles, which are essentially only energy, are vast spaces of NOTHING). Ask OV to explain subatomic physics.

Oh, there IS a "religion" (more like a philosophy) that deals with this, BTW. And it quite old.

[Late_vamp]

ok back to the subject .

yes religions do get in the way of relationships .
i was a christian , then became atheist , then christian again , then muslim , now i do believe in god , but i dont follow anymore "religion" as to say , so i do pray but i dont really have any "temple" or "book" to follow , i basically judge what is good or evil in my own way .
the reason why im not muslim really anymore is that i learned that no matter how hard i try ,i will never be able to be like them completely (not that i wanted to emulate them but i cant think the same way they do) , because of my culture , our peoples ways are completely different and it is not the way im meant to be , i was brought up in a certain way and i have grown acustomed to those ways , my ancestors have had this for many generations , now i understand that it is my place .

btw , shh! (and everybody) , im not with the muslim girl anymore , we broke up yesterday , it was not bad at all , we are still friends , nobody was sad , its just that no matter how much we loved each other , we could not understand some things , some morals we have , 2 completely different cultures trying to live together , and this was one was a bit too different for each others liking , we loved each other as lovers but as persons we could not stay together , plus her family was a bit more than crazy . i dated only immigrant girls , greeks , italians , latinas , japanese , but afghanistan is just a little bit too ... different for me to understand properly without arguing all the time .

now i can date all i want , and i doubt i will want an other Afghan or other country wich has WAYYY to different ways of thinking than mine , ill just stick with americans (south and central , obviously north) europeans (favorites) and asians (least liked for me) ... sorry africa , me no likey the awimbawe awimbawe ... with the voodoo .

[Only-virgins]

Haha, yea, we all got into astronomy some how with a religious thread.

[Mish]

::just passing through::

But you CAN create NOTHING from nothing. If you think about this enough, you can see this explanation completely negates the necessity for any higher being or creator. And it makes sense, tho it brings you back to Alice's comment. AND its completely consistent with what we know about atomic physics (there's basically nothing there-the spaces b/t particles, which are essentially only energy, are vast spaces of NOTHING).

The theory of relativity dictates that energy and mass (matter) are one and same in various stages of development, therefore energy is NOT nothing, even though it may have bits of nothing in between. The Bang Bang Theory forces us to believe however that nothing, not energy, not space not even time itself existed before Big Bang occured. Once again, coming back to the Big Bang Theory Timeline:

The Primordial Age - from 0 years to 379,000 years
[edit]
The Planck Epoch: 10-43 seconds
The Universe, which includes time, space, and everything in it, begins with the Big Bang 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years ago. Data that pinpointed the Universe's estimated age and when the Big Bang occurred came from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). Extensive supporting data comes from the Hubble Space Telescope, among others. The earliest point of time scientists can theoretically pinpoint is the Planck Epoch, or 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, so therefore this period is actually regarded as the Big Bang Era.

So if no energy, space, time or anything existed how could suddenly a big outburst of energy occur? I guess, we are coming back to creation don't we...

[Only-virgins]

The theory of relativity dictates that energy and mass (matter) are one and same in various stages of development, therefore energy is NOT nothing, even though it may have bits of nothing in between. The Bang Bang Theory forces us to believe however that nothing, not energy, not space not even time itself existed before Big Bang occured. Once again, coming back to the Big Bang Theory Timeline:

The Primordial Age - from 0 years to 379,000 years
[edit]
The Planck Epoch: 10-43 seconds
The Universe, which includes time, space, and everything in it, begins with the Big Bang 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years ago. Data that pinpointed the Universe's estimated age and when the Big Bang occurred came from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). Extensive supporting data comes from the Hubble Space Telescope, among others. The earliest point of time scientists can theoretically pinpoint is the Planck Epoch, or 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, so therefore this period is actually regarded as the Big Bang Era.

So if no energy, space, time or anything existed how could suddenly a big outburst of energy occur? I guess, we are coming back to creation don't we...

Well, some physicists believe that it is the gravitational singularity.

[indigosoul]

The theory of relativity dictates that energy and mass (matter) are one and same in various stages of development, therefore energy is NOT nothing,

So if no energy, space, time or anything existed how could suddenly a big outburst of energy occur? I guess, we are coming back to creation don't we...

There are huge assumptions in your statement, also you are completely ignoring the much more recent data coming from quantum physics and deep subatomic "structure" (which is more to do with energy states). Certainly Einsteins theory holds to some extent, but you are making huge assumptions about what matter actually is. The "bits of nothing" in between are actually astronomically HUGE relative to any actual measurable particles, the nature of whose existance doesn't have the same properties as the computer keyboard you are currently using.

You need to read more and learn the limitations and updates to the theories you are citing. My points still hold, we are not back to creation, except nothing from nothing, as I already said.

[Mish]

There are huge assumptions in your statement, also you are completely ignoring the much more recent data coming from quantum physics and deep subatomic "structure" (which is more to do with energy states). Certainly Einsteins theory holds to some extent, but you are making huge assumptions about what matter actually is. The "bits of nothing" in between are actually astronomically HUGE relative to any actual measurable particles, the nature of whose existance doesn't have the same properties as the computer keyboard you are currently using.

You need to read more and learn the limitations and updates to the theories you are citing. My points still hold, we are not back to creation, except nothing from nothing, as I already said.

What are these HUGE assumptions in my statement? Are you saying that energy and mass are not interelated? Are you suggesting that energy is NOTHING? And that if a scientist says that NOTHING has existed before Big Bang are you suggesting that they are in fact reffering to energy (As in when they say nothing existed they mean nothing but energy)? Because if you are, you realize what this means. You are suggesting that Bang Bang did not create space, time and the universe and these in fact exsited in various OTHER forms before the Bang occured. Thus you are in effect denying the whole theory