PDA

View Full Version : The beginning


IBO
17-01-2005, 04:57 AM
I know this is a lot to read, but trust me it's worth reading. :read:

Have you ever thought about the beginning? What is that, you say? You know--whatever it was that showed up first. Or whatever it was that was here first, at the earliest moment in time. Have you ever strained your brain to think about that?
Wait a minute, you say, isn't it possible that in the beginning there was nothing? Isn't it possible that kazillions of years ago, there wasn't anything at all? That's certainly a theory to consider. So let's consider it--but first by way of analogy.
Let's say you have a large room. It's fully enclosed and is about the size of a football field. The room is locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows, and no holes in its walls.
Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed room that's pitch black inside. Then what happens?
Well, let's say your goal is to get something--anything at all--into the room. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the room to do that. So what do you do?

Well, you think, what if I try to create a spark inside the room? Then the room would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as something. Yes, but you are outside the room. So that's not allowed.
But, you say, what if I could teleport something into the room, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowable, because you'd be using things from outside the room. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get something inside the room using only what's in the room. And, in this case, what's in the room is nothing.
Well, you say, maybe a tiny particle of something will just show up inside the room if given enough time.
There's three problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake.
In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed room with absolutely nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?

The second problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty room? It would need a reason why it came to be. But there is nothing inside the room at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There would be nothing inside the room to cause something to show up (and yet the reason must come from inside the room).
Well, you say, what about a tiny particle of something? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in the room than something larger like, for example, a football?
That brings up the third problem: size. Like time, size is an abstract. It's relative. Let's say you have three baseballs, all ranging in size. One is ten feet wide, one is five feet wide, one is normal size. Which one is more likely to materialize in the room?
The normal-size baseball? No! It would be the same likelihood for all three. The size wouldn't matter. It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any baseball of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty room.
If you don't think the smallest baseball could just show up in the room, no matter how much time passed, then you must conclude the same thing even for an atom. Size is not an issue. The likelihood of a small particle materializing without cause is no different than a refrigerator materializing without cause!

Now let's stretch our analogy further, literally. Let's take our large, pitch-black room and remove its walls. And let's extend the room so that it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now there is nothing outside the room, because the room is all there is. Period.
This black infinite room has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It's absolute nothingness. In fact, we can call it Absolutely Nothing.
So here's the question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing now?
Yes. For something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. We would still have Absolutely Nothing.

What does that tell us? That Absolutely Nothing never existed. Why? Because, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing!
If Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would not be anything outside it to cause the existence of anything.
Again, if Absolutely Nothing ever existed, there would still be Absolutely Nothing.
However, something exists. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, you are proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed.

Keep reading
________
Chevrolet el camino specifications (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_El_Camino)

IBO
17-01-2005, 04:58 AM
Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, that means there was always a time when there was at least Something in existence. What was it?
Was it one thing or many things? Was it an atom? A particle? A molecule? A football? A mutant baseball? A refrigerator? Some cookies?
If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.
So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?
Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.
What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls--no matter how much time passes--cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.

Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.
What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?
Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!
So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.

So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?
Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?
No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.
So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could--though it seems absurd--change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.

So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.
So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.
While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.
What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.

So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.
Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.
Third, to produce Something Else--out of nothing--requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?
Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.

Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.
Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing--which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.
But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2--enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?
There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.
Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.
Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.

What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

Keep reading
________
MOTORCYCLE TIRES (http://www.motorcycle-tech.com/tires/motorcycle-tires)

IBO
17-01-2005, 04:59 AM
The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but--no matter what--Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.
There is an Eternal Something. Something has always existed. Something has no beginning. If this Something has any needs, It can fulfill those needs for Itself. It needs nothing else in order to exist. And It cannot produce an exact equal or another who is greater. Anything that is produced is not eternal. Therefore, the Eternal Something cannot produce another Eternal Something. It will always be greater than anything else that exists.
Now, could this Eternal Something be plural? Possibly. Let's say that originally there were five Eternal Somethings. If that were the case, however, those five would be exactly the same with respect to time and power. All unproduced, all eternal, all able to do whatever is possible to do. This again shows us that quality, not quantity, is the real issue.
So, what do we know about the Eternal Something(s)? It is not alone. For Something Else exists. You, for example. Now you have to ask yourself, are you the Eternal Something, or one of the Eternal Somethings? If you are, then you have no beginning, no needs which you yourself cannot meet, and anything that can possibly be done can be done by you. Is that who you are? If not, then you are truly Something Else, not the Eternal Something or one of the Eternal Somethings.
Let's go back to our large, pitch-black, empty room. But now let's say that one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen are in the room. For argument's sake, let's say that these are the Eternal Somethings. They have always existed. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them.

So, They decide to produce Something Else, for They are the only things that exist in the room. But wait, can hydrogen or nitrogen decide anything? Well, for them to be the Eternal Somethings, They MUST have the ability to make a decision.
Think about it. The Eternal Something must choose to change things. The Eternal Something is eternal. It has always existed independent of another. More importantly, It alone has always existed. What does that mean? It means that no event can take place without the say-so of the Eternal Something.
The Eternal Something is all there is, period. Therefore, the only thing in existence that can change the Eternal Something's aloneless is the Eternal Something Itself. There can be no force outside the Eternal Something because the Eternal Something is all there is.
Therefore, if one molecule of hydrogen and one molecule of nitrogen are the Eternal Somethings, no outside force can direct Them. They are all there is. They are the only force there is.
As the only force in existence, it is They alone who can change Their aloneness. There is nothing in existence that can arbitrarily, by chance, influence Them to produce Something Else.

Something Else could not be produced by chance. Why? Because, for that to happen, "chance" would have to overpower the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules. But They are all there is. Anything that can be done, can be done by Them. "Chance" is Something Else. Something Else cannot overpower the Eternal Something. In fact, at this stage, Chance does not even exist.
If Chance is something outside the Eternal Something, then it does not exist unless produced by the Eternal Something. But even if Chance were produced by the Eternal Something, Chance, since it is Something Else, would always be inferior to the Eternal Something.
So, if Something Else is produced, it is by the power and WILL of the Eternal Something. Something Else can be produced by Chance only if Chance is produced before that Something Else. But Chance itself cannot be produced by chance. It would have to be produced by the will of the Eternal Something.
What does that tell us about our hydrogen and nitrogen molecules? That They are not merely the Eternal Something(s), They are eternal persons. They have will. That is, They must have the ability to choose. Therefore, They are personal.

Again, why must the Eternal Something have the ability to choose? Think back to the empty room with only the hydrogen and nitrogen molecules in it. They are the Eternal Somethings. They alone exist in the room, and have done so eternally.
They exist totally independent of another. For survival, They need no other. Therefore, if They produce Something Else, it will not be out of necessity (as in instinct for survival as we see with animals). Also, if They produce Something Else, it will not be by chance -- unless They first produce Chance. Chance is a force, but the Eternal Somethings (the two molecules) are the only force that exists.
Furthermore, the molecules cannot be mere machines. Machines are built and programmed by an outside force of some kind. But the molecules (the Eternal Somethings) are the only force that exists. No force exists outside Them.
Therefore, if They produce Something Else inside the room, the reason for this production must reside within Them, for no other force exists. Nothing else exists within the room except Them.
They are not forced to produce Something Else by instinct, chance, necessity, or the will of another. They are controlled by no other. Whatever They do is done for reasons within Themselves.
This reason can only be Their will. They must choose to produce Something Else, or else nothing else will exist. They will remain alone forever in the room, unless They decide to produce Something Else. They must have more than the power to produce Something Else. They must -- at some moment which differentiates it from all the other moments that They've existed alone -- decide to use Their power to produce Something Else.
If they have no will (like the tennis balls we spoke of in a previous study), then Their power would never be used to produce Something Else. Their power would only be used to further Their own existence. And their aloneness would remain forever.

The Eternal Something has existed alone eternally. There must be a reason, therefore, within the Eternal Something, for that to change. If Something Else exists, it exists because of the Eternal Something, because the Eternal Something has chosen to end its aloneness.
If the reason for the Something Else is not within the Eternal Something, then Something Else will never exist. For the Eternal Something, at some point, was all that existed.
But we know that Something Else exists. Therefore, the Eternal Something must have the ability to decide to use Its power. It must have the ability to choose to produce Something Else outside of Itself. Since it has a will, the Eternal Something is personal. This means that the Eternal Something is actually an Eternal Someone.
This Eternal Someone is not controlled by instinct for survival, for It has no needs and cannot cease to exist anyway. Also, the Eternal Someone does not produce by Chance, unless It first produces Chance. Chance is a force that must be produced by the Eternal Something, or it does not exist. Finally, the Eternal Someone is not a machine. There is no other, outside of Itself, to force It or program It to do anything.
This is the final installment in a series that began with Nothing, followed by Something, then followed by Who. The primary points made in those studies are as follows:
(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.
(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.
(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

Keep reading
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

IBO
17-01-2005, 05:02 AM
Continuing on, what can we discern about the Eternal Someone, beyond what has been stated already? (It's necessary here to transition from using "It" to "He" or "She" because the Eternal Something is an Eternal Someone. "He" has been chosen but gender is not an issue in this discussion.)
Since the Eternal Someone has no needs that He cannot fulfill on His own, He can exist without need of any kind of environment, for He existed when there was nothing else but Him. Any environment would be outside Him, and therefore would need to be produced. But all there is, is Him.
It's likely then that the Eternal Someone is transcendent. Meaning, He can exist outside of time and space, since He is bound by neither one. He existed eternally, thus being outside of time. And He exists without need of an environment, thus being outside of space.
Being transcendent of time and space, it's possible that the Eternal Someone is what we would call invisible. Only that which takes up space is visible. If something is outside of space, how could it be seen? Just so, the Eternal Someone is likely invisible and can exist without need of any kind of body or form.
For discussion sake, let's say that the Eternal Someone decides to produce Something Else -- or rather, Someone Else. The Eternal Someone chooses to produce Someone Else who is like Him in some respects. Like Him, the Someone Else will have a self-consciousness, which is a necessary aspect of having will. So the Someone Else is a self and has a will.

What can we determine about this Someone Else? Will this Someone Else be outside of time? No, the Someone Else will not have existed eternally. The Someone Else will have a beginning and thus be bound by time.
Recall that anything the Eternal Someone produces will be inferior with regard to time and space. That cannot be avoided in any way. So, even if the Someone Else were to exist forever in the future, he would still have a beginning in time. Actually, his timeline would fall within the [infinite] timeline of the Eternal Someone.
What about space? Will the Someone Else be bound by space? Yes. Only the Eternal Someone can exist without any kind of environment. The Someone Else will need an environment to exist in, but what? Think of space like time. The Someone Else exists within the Eternal Someone's timeline. In a similar way, the Someone Else will exist within the Eternal Someone's "spaceline."
The Eternal Someone transcends space. Thus, just as He is everywhere in time, He is everywhere in space. So, when the Someone Else is produced, he will exist within the Eternal Someone's time and space. The Eternal Someone is the environment within which the Someone Else will exist! So now we've got the Someone Else, and the Eternal Someone exists all around him. But there's a problem. He cannot see the Eternal Someone, for the Eternal Someone transcends space. He does not take up a part of space because He is all of space. To see Him, one would have to be able to see all of time and space. Impossible.
So the Someone Else cannot detect the Eternal Someone. So what must the Eternal Someone do if He wants to be detected by the Someone Else? He must "untranscend." Some kind of untranscendence is essential. Is that possible? Yes.

Remember, anything that can possibly be done can be done by the Eternal Someone. It would be possible for Him to make Himself detectable by the Someone Else, that is, to "untranscend." How?
We detect the presence of another in our world through sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing. If the Eternal Someone gave the Someone Else the ability to see or hear, for example, then the Eternal Someone could (1) appear in a visible form, (2) speak to the Someone Else, or (3) do both simultaneously. These would be ways of untranscending so that the Eternal Someone could be detected by the Someone Else.
Remember, the Someone Else is produced. Thus, the Someone Else is bound by time and space. Whatever his makeup (nature) is, it will be detectable in time and space. Therefore, all the Eternal Someone has to do is assume whatever form He gives the Someone Else. That is one way to make Himself detectable.
But here's a question: if the Eternal Someone untranscends in order to be detected, is that the whole of the Eternal Someone? No! There would be more to Him that He had not made known. Though He could divulge much about Himself, the whole of Him -- that is, Himself in His transcendence -- could not be fully known or understood by the Someone Else.

Interestingly, the scenario described above is exactly what we see in the Bible. We are like the Someone Else. We are bound by time and space. God, however, is the Eternal Someone. And He untranscended in the person of Jesus Christ

Done, Know wasn't that worth it

I don't even expect a reply( thats not going to be spam) Hopefully this can start a very interesting conversation.
________
Black Gangbang (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/298/gangbang/videos/1)

deviljet88
17-01-2005, 07:04 AM
I was going to post spam without reading it until I scanned your last line... oh well I'll edit this post when I read it, but from the start it looks like one of those never ending around the circle over and over arguments, dominated by the few people who will find "facts" and put them here.

Edit: I'm pretty sure God could commit suicide if he felt like it. Then the Holy Trinity will become a Holy Dulity or whatever.

Liam
17-01-2005, 07:07 AM
Reading a post of that magnitude requires the sort of mental constitution that I don't possess unless I drink a couple of litres of coffee.

I'll get back to you shortly.

bob
17-01-2005, 07:51 AM
Edit: I'm pretty sure God could commit suicide if he felt like it. Then the Holy Trinity will become a Holy Dulity or whatever.
classic. i'm gonna steal this line for later purposes.

barrington
17-01-2005, 09:29 AM
It's good, but your fundemental reasoning about not being able to use anything outside the room is a bit flawed. In the creation of the universe, the dominant view is that two empty rooms smacked into each other. This caused bits of the wall to start to vibrate. Once you've got vibrations, then you've got "something". Then you figure that you just wrote 50 pages based on a flawed understanding of how spacetime operates; thus feeling foolish. Schoolboy error.

IBO
17-01-2005, 11:57 AM
It's good, but your fundemental reasoning about not being able to use anything outside the room is a bit flawed. In the creation of the universe, the dominant view is that two empty rooms smacked into each other. This caused bits of the wall to start to vibrate. Once you've got vibrations, then you've got "something". Then you figure that you just wrote 50 pages based on a flawed understanding of how spacetime operates; thus feeling foolish. Schoolboy error.


Two nothings can't create something. Read the article. And for two rooms to 'smack' into each other you would need force( which is something) to make them collide.
________
Body Science (http://bodyscience.ws/)

Dionysus
17-01-2005, 02:39 PM
our feeble human minds cannot comprehend everything thing we want it too
we can't understand or believe that something can forever be and we can't scientifically confirm if there is a god or not
i believe in evolution and where the original kinetic energy came from that smashed the atoms together that formed the organism that fromed on this rock i dont know, i dont particularly want or need to know, i am "comfortably numb" if you will
sure if someone actually knew the ACTUAL FACTUAL answers i'd like to hear them
but all IBO has done is give us reasons why one theory is irelevent
i only read half of your big ass post, but from that i take it your pushing towards a religious POV
personally i believe religion is the science of the old world, when we had no knowledge of diseases, weather, atoms, molecules, planets, gravity, a round planet or DVD players, we invented reasons why these things happened, in Homers Odyssey, he tells how the wrath of Poseiden is bestowed upon odysseus for not apeasing the gods after the triumph at Troy, where as it was probably just Cyclone Larry that threw him off course
humans have a thirst for knowledge and when we obtain it, and we don't really question it, no matter how good, bad or immoral it seems, a eg. is the flat earth theory, looking back it is completly silly but it was believed by everyone from peasents to kings, gods are present in just about every civilisation that ever existed, why arent these gods still believed in, you have to remember that someone came up with all religions including christianity, who where and when will never be officially confirmed, i believe it was just someone who had a theory and knew how to tell a good yarn and sell a story. "the bigger the lie the more people believe it" - Josef Gobbels; Nazi Propaganda chief, if anyone knows that to be true, its Gobbels.

noone will ever be able to tell you how and why we're here, perhaps as many releigions state, you will find out when you die, all these theorys are just confusing, if you have faith in a god, then i thats good, if you dont, thats good too, theres no wrong answer coz theres no real right one, do as you will and be happy while doing it
:)

PhoeniX
17-01-2005, 04:49 PM
Hmm.....


Does anyone know anything about all of those Biblical facts which say when the world is going to end? Because apparantly it's really soon and all of the other stuff that The Bible has said in this ancient language have happened like Hitler. But I don't know, it was on Horizon once.

frodo1511
17-01-2005, 07:56 PM
Big Bang theory: look it up yourself, I'm too tired to inform you all.

chillyfrog15
17-01-2005, 08:59 PM
I have one question. How can you have walls and a ground if you have nothing? Aren't they made of particles, too? I mean, your examples work, but instead of using an empty room, you can't get anything out of space unless something occupies it.

In space there has always been particles, bits and pieces of stuff. To explain why this stuff was even around is not even possible using real facts and proof, hence the reason for religion: the explanation of what we cannot understand, like Dionysus stated. There is no need for an Eternal Someone to make these things react, they just do. It took time for these particles to create cells, and for these cells to build up and work with, and react with one another. To create oxygen, water, heat and cold [which is the speed in which atoms move], etc... It was argued that time alone cannot change something, but it is the environs that allows it to change. That doesn't apply here. If you started building a model, you had to figure out how to get it all to go together and work together to make the big picture. Then you have to give it more time to put it together and whatever else you wish. Now just apply this to microscopic particles. Mind boggling, I know, but an Eternal Someone is not needed.

IBO
18-01-2005, 02:47 AM
[QUOTE=chillyfrog15]I have one question. How can you have walls and a ground if you have nothing? Aren't they made of particles, too? I mean, your examples work, but instead of using an empty room, you can't get anything out of space unless something occupies it.

In space there has always been particles, bits and pieces of stuff.
QUOTE]

The room symbolizes the universe is not a real room i was just setting some bounderies. I was shrinking the universe to make it easier to understand. There are not any walls.

Where did these magical particles come from that have always JUST been there?

Its funny how everyone criticizes the theory. instesd of just building on it. Also, why do people focus on the less important facts like the representaation of the universe (the room)

Anyways, There is no real answer just theories, this one just makes the most sense. If you really think about it how can there just be particles since the beginning. What started everything? Why did something start everything?





the big bang

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.


WHAT ARE THE CHANCES

we were not created by chance. We are to complex to just form over time .

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"9

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.
________
Body Science (http://bodyscience.ws/)

Dionysus
18-01-2005, 03:34 AM
the universe is infinate and has probably infinate galaxys, there must be MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of planets all up, all with diffrent weather, diffrent air, diffrent soil/ground, diffrent gravity. the earth is probbaly just one of the (i believe) few that has been able to get all these particles right to sustain some kind of life form, and from that, life finds its own way, animals and plants etc just addapt and thrive. i know i won't be able to prove that, but IBO can't prove his/her theorys either, so we're back where we started from

bob
18-01-2005, 05:13 PM
Does anyone know anything about all of those Biblical facts which say when the world is going to end? Because apparantly it's really soon and all of the other stuff that The Bible has said in this ancient language have happened like Hitler. But I don't know, it was on Horizon once.
i find this interesting. so like... god practically planned and planted hitler? what was he, the crappy toy surprise within the milk chocolately goodness?

IBO
18-01-2005, 05:23 PM
i find this interesting. so like... god practically planned and planted hitler? what was he, the crappy toy surprise within the milk chocolately goodness?


God gave everyone free will, so he knew some people would make wrong decisions.
________
LovelyWendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

bob
18-01-2005, 05:33 PM
in that case, doesn't it kinda suck that he's watching us fall to our doom? that's kinda like building a sand castle close to the water and watching as the tide destroys it. nice.

btw, i'm not religious/spiritual in any way. i'm not bitter, just not serious.

barrington
18-01-2005, 06:12 PM
we were not created by chance. We are to complex to just form over time.
Rubbish. Nothing is too complex to form if you give it long enough. Take the junkyard, take the tornado and run the procedure every day for long enough and I guarantee that eventually you will have your jumbo jet. It's a mathematical certainty. Just because the odds are astronomical doesn't mean they're impossible.

hasselbrad
18-01-2005, 06:14 PM
I know there is a God.
Not because I went to church as a child or from what I've read in the Bible.
I used to have a full head of hair. Straight and hard to manage, but thick, nonetheless. One day, I said "God I hate my hair." And, now it's not so thick.
He is apparently a practical joker, as well.

IBO
18-01-2005, 06:52 PM
Rubbish. Nothing is too complex to form if you give it long enough. Take the junkyard, take the tornado and run the procedure every day for long enough and I guarantee that eventually you will have your jumbo jet. It's a mathematical certainty. Just because the odds are astronomical doesn't mean they're impossible.

are you seriously trying to tell me that a tornado could asemble a 747. like the article said "The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!" the tornado would have to srew ever bolt perfectly and plaus fill it with gas. And putting all those gauges into place with perfect precison. HELL NO
________
FREE VAPORIZER (http://howtomakeavaporizer.info/)

apoggy
18-01-2005, 06:54 PM
negligable probability (np) >0

infinitity(time) x np = event is certain to happen

think of it logically

barrington
18-01-2005, 07:01 PM
er... hell yes. You need to brush up on your statistical knowledge, IBO.

Given an infinite number of junkyards, an infinite number of tornadoes, an infinite amount of time then EVENTUALLY you WILL have the aircraft. Of course it's a poor analogy because nature can't assemble things as complex as a jumbo, but for the purpose of life it holds true. Human Beings were a MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY waiting to happen; there's not really anything mysterious about it.

Given the scale, scope and age of the universe, almost anything is possible. It's just a numbers game. As poggsy said, if something is not an impossibilty then it is a certainty given enough time.

To quote someone else:

There's something that has bugged me about the notion of Intelligent Design in Creationism for some time. As it often happens with me, my understanding of this feeling, and my counter-argument, crystallized all at once after a long, long incubation.

The thrust of Intelligent Design (at least in my understanding) as a scientific argument is that the chances of the universe producing the Earth and life and intelligence by chance are so low that someone *must* have planned it. To me, this seems an awful lot like drawing five cards from a deck and then shouting that the odds of drawing those five cards in that particular order (one in 379501200) are so low that it couldn't have possibly happened by chance! But people do it all the time. Feeling a certain way about the hand you were dealt isn't proof that someone fixed the deck. Even assuming that all the math in favor of Intelligent Design is correct and the chances of intelligent life evolving on a planey by chance are so low as to be prohibitive even in the vastness and history of the universe, in other words saying that every other card in a deck of ten billion was a sterile universe, but we drew the one with life on it, why is this proof that someone must have slipped us the card? The alternative is simply that if we had drawn any other card, we wouldn't be here to think about the situation.

marine
18-01-2005, 07:28 PM
I know there is a God.
Not because I went to church as a child or from what I've read in the Bible.
I used to have a full head of hair. Straight and hard to manage, but thick, nonetheless. One day, I said "God I hate my hair." And, now it's not so thick.
He is apparently a practical joker, as well.

now that's a great demonstration

frodo1511
19-01-2005, 12:10 AM
We are here because of choice, because we choose to be here. I do not believe in chance. I believe in destiny.

...or some other bullshit from the Matrix:P

deviljet88
19-01-2005, 01:00 AM
God is dog backwards if that helps.

Dionysus
19-01-2005, 02:52 AM
God is dog backwards if that helps.

AHHHHHHH

IT ALL MAKES SENCE NOW!!

IBO
19-01-2005, 04:25 AM
live = evil
lived = Devil


so if you live you'll be evil, and if you have really lived you'll be the devil :icon_conf
________
HERBALAIRE VAPORIZER REVIEW (http://herbalairevaporizer.com/)

SimplyKnightley
19-01-2005, 05:03 AM
http://www.tidmus.com/blog/pop_ups/weird_science_01/weird_science_lo_rez.html

Dionysus
19-01-2005, 05:14 AM
http://www.tidmus.com/blog/pop_ups/weird_science_01/weird_science_lo_rez.html

:err:

i am so very very confused