MedVision ad

Does God exist? (20 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
guys speaking of the big bang. Recently theres been more evidence of the expansion.


------------------------------------


Scientists Find Evidence Universe Inflated in Less Than Trillionth of a Second By David McAlary
Washington
17 March 2006



Scientists report evidence that the universe was born in less than the blink of an eye, expanding instantly from sub-microscopic size to astronomical proportions. The conclusion comes from data gathered by a U.S. satellite that has been peering for clues to the origin of the cosmos in a faint glow of background radiation that is almost as old as the universe.

Inflation means one thing to economists and another to cosmologists. When applied to the universe, it means the expansion from its tiny origins nearly 14 billion years ago.


Time line of the Universe

Now, scientists have a better idea of how fast this happened, thanks to a U.S. satellite orbiting four times farther than the moon. It is called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP for short, launched in 2001.

The probe's chief investigator, astrophysicist Charles Bennett of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, says the data reveal that the infant universe just popped out suddenly from almost nothing. It inflated from the size of a pea to a volume larger than all current observable space in less than one-trillionth of a second.

"It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second, but we can," he said. "It appears that the universe had a growth spurt that would alarm any mom or dad."

This conclusion comes after three years of continuous observations of the oldest light in the universe. Bennett says it is the remnant afterglow of light that first appeared when the universe was just 300,000-years-old, a faint microscopic radiation that lingers at temperatures close to absolute zero, the temperature at which all atomic motion stops.



"WMAP measures the patterns of the light as a geologist might examine a fossil for clues of the past," he explained.


WMAP has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe. Colors indicate "warmer" (red) and "cooler" (blue) spots

The WMAP results give the most detailed picture yet of the minute brightness and temperature variations in this light, heat differences of less than one-millionth of a degree. Those variations, first measured in the 1990s by a previous U.S. satellite, are microwave fossils revealing the emerging structure of the infant universe.

The slightly warmer, brighter regions represent areas where matter began clumping together, eventually growing into galaxies, stars and planets. The cooler, darker areas were less dense, becoming the space between these structures.

It is in these patterns that the researchers discerned the details of the universe's beginning, aided by a new map of the polarization, or direction, of the faint microwave radiation.

The WMAP researchers say their findings, combined with other cosmology information, support established theories on the universe's expansion. These theories hold that at the outset, short-lived bursts of energy at the atomic level were converted during the rapid inflation into the fluctuations of matter WMAP has measured more precisely than ever.

"WMAP has subjected our basic cosmological model to its most rigorous test and passed with flying colors," said Princeton University team member David Spergel.



Content of the Universe


The new data also inform scientists that only four-percent of the universe is ordinary matter that we can see. Twenty-two percent is unidentified dark matter, and 74 percent is a mysterious dark energy. This is a force scientists believe counters the gravitational pull of matter and is causing another rapid expansion of the universe, although not nearly as forceful as the first one.

"The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning," he said.

This is Columbia University cosmology theorist Peter Greene, who was not part of the WMAP research team.

"Our species is one that seeks its origin, and the deepest of all questions of origin is, how did the universe begin? WMAP has certainly not answered this question, but WMAP's data is taking us one giant step closer to the answer by giving us a precise quantitative look at what happened literally at time zero itself," he said.

The WMAP data are to be published in the Astrophysical Journal. The WMAP satellite will continue to refine its data on a mission expected to last until 2009.

interesting read


http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-17-voa16.cfm
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
honestly, i don't think that science means that there can't be a god....though i do believe it removes the possibility of an activly involved god. were i to ever fall into the ranks of theistic thought, it'd be as a deist. the idea that there is a god, he just kickstarted things and then sat back and watched is something i could accept... i just don't since.... well, in a spiritual level, i've never felt anything to indicate tehre is a god.

anyway, i make that point just to say that there are some levels of coexistance.
 

transcendent

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
2,954
Location
Beyond.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
HotShot said:
The big bang theory - is basically scientists trying act full smart and nerdy. Radiation can occur from various sourcres, who knows it might still been there before the big bang.
that was one of the dumbest posts i have read so far and you've been a master of them. scientists dedicate their lives to further human understanding, advancing technology and providing a, most of the time, a better future. if you have such a problem with science why don't you take your silly religion and live in on a prairie with other backwards thinking people. you can live without religion, you can't live without science.
 

ur_inner_child

.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
6,084
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
let me remind people at this point that science, as far as i am concerned, was when man made fire.

yes hotshot, i AM having a cry. That people like you have the right to form an opinion, speak and breed.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
honestly, i don't think that science means that there can't be a god....though i do believe it removes the possibility of an activly involved god. were i to ever fall into the ranks of theistic thought, it'd be as a deist. the idea that there is a god, he just kickstarted things and then sat back and watched is something i could accept... i just don't since.... well, in a spiritual level, i've never felt anything to indicate tehre is a god.

anyway, i make that point just to say that there are some levels of coexistance.
Science only observes with observable/testable things... god is supernatural, we have no idea what sort of contraints there are on him (if he exists) and we have no possible way to observe something that is supernatural. Much like we have to answer to any other supernatural hypothesis...
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Dear lord, this thread makes me cry.

HotShot said:
The big bang theory - is basically scientists trying act full smart and nerdy. Radiation can occur from various sourcres, who knows it might still been there before the big bang.
What...the hell... That doesn't even make any sense? What has radiation sources got to do with the theory of the Big Bang? How can you dismiss the possibility of the Big Bang, but then go on to say the radiation could have been there before hand?
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
hotshot said:
as for daving, u make predictions on just about everything. IT may not have the big bang that caused radiation in the un iverse, there could be other reasons. i personally dont believe in the big bang theory, because it sounds stupid. the big bang did not create the universe, there was already a universe before. the big bang if it did occur, expanded the universe, but, how did the universe exist in the first place? if you keep asking this question how did that exist? and how did that exist? you will find that science is pathetic and so is religion.

essentially, who gives a fuck whether the big bang happened or not. because its not going to happen again. push to the future, i can assure u that the big bang did not create the universe.
I hate you for being so fucking stupid.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
The oldest rocks so far discovered on Earth have been dated to 4000 million years, so we can safely assume Earth was around before then. The moon has rocks that are around 4500 MYO. Anything before that time is known as the Heavy Bombardment period.
Evidence from the heavy bombardment period can be found on the Moon and Mars, because they have a signifcant absense of atmosphere. The massive craters on the moon that you can see on Earth are a result of the final stages of planetary accumulation.
One would assume that if the big bang DID occur, there would be large chunks of rocks floating through space at extraordinary speeds. Hence the heavy bombardment period.

kthxbye
 

Paris Hilton

New Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
9
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
ur_inner_child said:
let me remind people at this point that science, as far as i am concerned, was when man made fire.

yes hotshot, i AM having a cry. That people like you have the right to form an opinion, speak and breed.
But he has a point, like, big bangs just a theory...

i believe in it
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
the idea that if you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground every time is 'just a theory'.

There is no actual way of proving that this will happen every time. Just because it has happened everytime in the past doesnt mean that maybe oneday gravity will one day just not work. if that happens, then we will have to change our theory about apples falling to the ground all the time'. as it holds now though, it seems to be the best theory. similarly with the big band theory.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katie_tully said:
Dear lord, this thread makes me cry.



What...the hell... That doesn't even make any sense? What has radiation sources got to do with the theory of the Big Bang? How can you dismiss the possibility of the Big Bang, but then go on to say the radiation could have been there before hand?
i think it works the other way, i dismissed the theory of the big bang, which means that either somethin else caused radiation in the universe, or that radiation was always there.

Remember the big bang did not create the universe, rather the big bang lets say arranged all the rocks in the universe. dependin on ur definition of 'universe' of course.

oh katie, hate me all u want, ( i have a feeling everyone hates me).
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
You have no fucking idea what the big bang consisted of, I would appreciate it if you went and educated yourself, or just ceased making cockfag statements all the time.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
katie_tully said:
You have no fucking idea what the big bang consisted of, I would appreciate it if you went and educated yourself, or just ceased making cockfag statements all the time.
it basically consisted of all the small rocks into one big rock, which then explodes making small rocks and pushing them away.

weird analogy, i have a feeling scientists will figure out something different that may still mean that big bang did occur, but it probably didnt create the universe.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Just do us a favour and read them.

lolercoaster at this website. http://www.ucg.org/booklets/GE/index.htm

Many people who believe in God's existence feel compelled to defend their point of view in irrational ways. They hurt their cause by doing so. In like manner, many who believe there is no God refuse to give the evidence of His existence a fair hearing. In both instances, shallow prejudice is the real enemy.
Point taken.

However they ruin that nice little satement with the following.

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, nor foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker" (1986, p. 5, emphasis in original).

However, to avoid accepting uncomfortable evidence of God's existence, he reasons, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Dawkins, p. 1, emphasis added).

While admitting that living things give the appearance of purposeful design, Professor Dawkins does not consider the obvious—that, if they appear to have been designed, maybe they were designed.
They are taking the hard work of Darwin and other scientists, and are trying to use it for their own agenda. Appearing to be designed is a crock of shit, especially if he had bothered to write a paragraph on microbiology, and about the inner workings of all eukaryotes.

Professor Dawkins' backhanded acknowledgment that living organisms "overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker," as he put it (p. 21), is not dismissed so lightly by many other scientists. They see the overwhelming presence of intricate design in the universe as a powerful indicator of an intelligent Designer.
Makes me sick. They have no proof of an Intelligent Designer, so instead they twist the words of scientists to make it seem like they too agree with the prospect of "intelligent design".

Is our complex universe really the work of a blind watchmaker, as some contend? Is that what we view about us every day? Is life on earth simply the product of chance, with no purpose and planning, no control or consequences?
This is the basic argument of Creationists. They cannot seem to accept that perhaps the Earth is just a coincidence, and that maybe there is no other purpose for life except to "live". Why does a dog lick its arse? Because that is its purpose in life, or because it wants to have a clean butt?
Gaaah. I cannot believe some people are so ready to accept this baseless shit, so that they may have meaning in their lives.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
some scientists say that the possibility of a similar planet to earth is almost certain in the galaxy, what do u think?

do u think there other humans on other planets? or is it just not possible? the probability of getting the conditions for humans to live is too low?

there is nothing to prove, that god doesnt exist at the same we cant prove that he does. or if we do none will believe it.(miracles and stuff)

The following is a list of various religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory:

* A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established.
* Some students of Kabbalah, deism and other non-anthropomorphic faiths concord with the Big Bang theory, for example connecting it with the theory of "divine retraction" (tzimtzum) as explained by the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides.
* Some modern Islamic scholars believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47). Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).
* Certain theistic branches of Hinduism, such as in Vaishnavism, conceive of a theory of creation with similarities to the theory of the Big Bang. The Hindu mythos, narrated for example in the third book of the Bhagavata Purana (primarily, chapters 10 and 26), describes a primordial state which bursts forth as the Great Vishnu glances over it, transforming into the active state of the sum-total of matter ("prakriti"). Other forms of Hinduism assert a universe without beginning or end.
* Buddhism has a concept of a universe that has no creation event, but instead goes through infinitely repeated cycles of expansion, stability, contraction, and quiescence. The Big Bang, however, is not seen to be in conflict with this since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillating universe.
 
Last edited:
K

katie_tully

Guest
Excellent, so you can copy and paste biblical exerts that correlate with the theory of the big bang.

Which proves what? That the big bang occured, or that God exists?

Neither. But I know what we have evidence for, and it ain't no intelligent creator.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
there is nothing to prove, that god doesnt exist at the same we cant prove that he does. or if we do none will believe it.(miracles and stuff)
But I've dealt with this 1000 times man.... even tho, we can't ultimately prove god does or does not exist, currently, based on the information we have, there is no reason to believe in God HOWEVER there is reason not to believe in God. Now, even if this turns out... ultimately to be false, it does not matter, because based on the facts we had on hand, based on the logic best understood at our time, we were correct and it was provisionally true that there was no god.

For instance... if we wanted to prove that the santa claus myth isn't real, what would we do? Perhaps we'd try to first prove that reindeer don't fly... now to do this we might push them off a building... now how many should we push before we reasonably conclude that reindeer can't fly? We can't push them ALL so there's always some uncertainty, maybe the reindeer we didn't push CAN fly! I mean even if the ones we didn't push can fly, at the time, if we said they couldn't... we'd be provisionally correct, even if ultimately some reindeer can fly.

So as you can clearly see, whether something is ultimately proven or not, we are creatures of induction and it makes logical sense.


Edit:

As for your religious quotes pointing to corrolations between what a religion has said, and the big bang theory - who cares. I know that there are many more reputable scholars who have translated these texts that could tell us exactly what those verses mean (in their pure form) and give it some historic point of reference, but I don't know. All I can say is that they're very vague and could mean anything, so the fact that these verses have only been intepreted to mean what you say they mean, after the fact, then they're essentially very shonky to prove any sort of predictive power. I mean, you are doing what the nostradamians do, they apply entirely new meanings to things, then bank on the fact that very few people will bother to understand the true history behind it.
 
Last edited:

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.
See this is a very tricky statement and you can tell they wrote it to be so... because essentially I agree with them, but at the same time see they say it had no 'purpose in mind', however purpose was created. See all things, have evolved for survival, and that is the key guiding factor.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
I am hearting both of you. Except hot-shot. But there is no cute ascii image for a dagger.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 20)

Top