that's a question i hope to one day get the answer of. i believe there is a god. but how did it all begin? where did god come from? was there someone or something before god? how did the universe begin? because there is a beginning to everything. what was there before the universe began? there can't be nothing before because nothing is something. many times i have thought of these questions and all the time i get a headache because all the complex thinking. i was wondering what all your opinions are on how it all began, and what was there before.

Its a paradox. It cant be answered because. I think its beyond our comprehension but comprehension is finite too isnt it? Its truley a mind boggling concept. If God created us, then who created God and does he ponder the way we do? It goes along the same lines of where does the universe end..can it end in the sense we know? Outer boundries block have two sides dont they? Then there is the opposite. How can we have a building block? Arent building blocks made of something? Time, space, existence...ugh.

How did it all begin? Man, I have no idea.

 

I'll say this. Life and this earth as we know it are much too complex and beautiful to be evolved from a few cells, billions of years ago. I see this in so many things.

hopefully one day if heaven exist and we all do get to go there we all find the answers we need.

How did it all begin? Man, I have no idea.

 

I'll say this. Life and this earth as we know it are much too complex and beautiful to be evolved from a few cells, billions of years ago. I see this in so many things.

592496[/snapback]

 

Why not?

 

Seems just as plausible.

This question has driven many brilliant minds insane. Of course, most truly brilliant minds are insane as a rule.

My favorite answer to this question:

 

Q: What was God doing before he made the universe?

 

A: Creating a special place in Hell for people who ask such questions.

 

Actually there's a new addition to the big bang theory where our sun caused the explosion and broke up as a part of it (since all planets seem to share characteristics of the sun in some small way and have the same elements); don't bust my hump, not sure of the name... Anyways, the further the planet is, the further it's big peice of rock was driven away from the sun. Plus, between every planet there are asteroids, meteors and such that share these characteristics (kind of like cookie crumbs share the cookie's characteristics).

 

BUT... The question you have to ask with any big bang situation is who banged the bang? I believe there's the possibility of a God. I mean, say what you will, nature has a basic order to it.

Actually there's a new addition to the big bang theory where our sun caused the explosion and broke up as a part of it (since all planets seem to share characteristics of the sun in some small way and have the same elements); don't bust my hump, not sure of the name...? Anyways, the further the planet is, the further it's big peice of rock was driven away from the sun.? Plus, between every planet there are asteroids, meteors and such that share these characteristics (kind of like cookie crumbs share the cookie's characteristics).

 

BUT...? The question you have to ask with any big bang situation is who banged the bang?? I believe there's the possibility of a God.? I mean, say what you will, nature has a basic order to it.

592649[/snapback]

That addition to the theory is pretty laughable.

Actually there's a new addition to the big bang theory where our sun caused the explosion and broke up as a part of it (since all planets seem to share characteristics of the sun in some small way and have the same elements); don't bust my hump, not sure of the name...? Anyways, the further the planet is, the further it's big peice of rock was driven away from the sun.? Plus, between every planet there are asteroids, meteors and such that share these characteristics (kind of like cookie crumbs share the cookie's characteristics).

 

BUT...? The question you have to ask with any big bang situation is who banged the bang?? I believe there's the possibility of a God.? I mean, say what you will, nature has a basic order to it.

592649[/snapback]

That addition to the theory is pretty laughable.

594106[/snapback]

 

Yeah, it almost sucks as much as your opinion.

 

At least there's evidence to support it.

Actually there's a new addition to the big bang theory where our sun caused the explosion and broke up as a part of it (since all planets seem to share characteristics of the sun in some small way and have the same elements); don't bust my hump, not sure of the name...? Anyways, the further the planet is, the further it's big peice of rock was driven away from the sun.? Plus, between every planet there are asteroids, meteors and such that share these characteristics (kind of like cookie crumbs share the cookie's characteristics).

 

BUT...? The question you have to ask with any big bang situation is who banged the bang?? I believe there's the possibility of a God.? I mean, say what you will, nature has a basic order to it.

592649[/snapback]

That addition to the theory is pretty laughable.

594106[/snapback]

 

Yeah, it almost sucks as much as your opinion.

 

At least there's evidence to support it.

594744[/snapback]

Our sun wasn't even around when the big bang occured. Thats why its laughable. Unless you meant that our sun had a mini big bang and thus the solar system is little pieces of it. I'll grant you that.

 

 

The flipside is that the sun formed in a dust cloud as all stars do and the planets formed from the dust and didn't get hot enough to become stars. The meteors, comets, and asteroids are what was left over from the planet building.

From The Ultimate Hitchhiker's guide:

 

"In the beginning the Universe was Created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as bad move."

I heard a very interesting theory the other day that attempts to prove the existence of an omnipotent and omnipresent force or a god if you will. Someone please help me out if i didnt explain the science behind it too well, its called the multiverse theory. Anyway an experiement was done where sceintists sent beams of light into an object with several walls made of mirrors. I dont remember how they reached the conclusion exactly but they concluded that as the light is reflected by the mirrors it exists in other alternate universes. However, in order for these other universes to exist they must be observed (very vague on meaning of observe), meanign the light they saw reflected meant these alternate universes existed as they were beign observed. Later another group used the multiverse theory to prove the existence of god. Who is observing the alternate universes, its not humans, so who? They realized for these universes to exist at a constant an omnipresent force must be observing them. And this force is omnipresent and omnipotent so it observes itself, thus existing, and allowign all universes to exist

The THEORY (not proof) of multi-universes is necessary to make some of the multi-variate mathematical formulae work. It's a mathematical exigency, not a philosophical stance.

595360[/snapback][/right]

 

 

i didnt say it was a philosophical stance, i said it was a scientific formula that was used to scientifically attempt to prove the existence of god. The existence of god is not just a philosopichal debate but also a scientific one

No one that I know of is using the mathemathical proofs necessary to get to GUT to prove the existence of God. It's just something that a few lay-observers look at and say "Hey, if this is true then maybe that is true." If I'm wrong, please let me know.

No its not that oversimplified, its actually philosophers and people in the clergy trying to use this scientific evidence to prove the existenc eof God, but the clergy in particular is using scienctific research for this not just speculation

Maybe it's just me, but when I see a clergy trying to understand and utilize a complex mathematical problem to 'prove' the existence of God, I think, "Something's very, very wrong here."

595402[/snapback][/right]

 

 

While people in clergy have always tried to use scientific means to prove faith based cased. In fact in the middle ages the argument of how many angels would fit through the eye of a needle, was one that many clergymen tried to explain with the science of the time

From The Ultimate Hitchhiker's guide:

 

"In the beginning the Universe was Created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as bad move."

594820[/snapback]

I need to read that book chew...I heard its like existentialism type stuff...true?

I prefer the anthropic approach as it's easy while their are others out their that are just as good.

 

We live in an existence that is so tailored, so perfect, so precise it's almost unimaginable that it could all be a coincidence. So many variables all tailored to the human race. Almost as saying for our existence to come from coincidence. It would be the same as having every piece(every detail to the core, not one piece could be missed) you would ever need for an entire fleet of bombers in your local junkyard than out of some fluke all those parts would come together as one without any other aid other than nature.

I prefer the anthropic approach as it's easy while their are others out their that are just as good.

 

We live in an existence that is so tailored, so perfect, so precise it's almost unimaginable that it could all be a coincidence. So many variables all tailored to the human race. Almost as saying for our existence to come from coincidence. It would be the same as having every piece(every detail to the core, not one piece could be missed) you would ever need for an entire fleet of bombers in your local junkyard than out of some fluke all those parts would come together as one without any other aid other than nature.

595655[/snapback]

right on man. I almost feel sick thinking about how nuts our existence is...mind boggling stuff.

God was just always there..

then he got lonely from the aliens leaving him alone so he made earth

Philosophical logic uses deductive proofs (basically inferring based on a physical law, or after the fact) to prove the existence or non-existence of God. But, in order for the proof to be true, you still have to believe in the first two statements that come to a true conclusion.

 

Here's a basic argument:

If A is true, then B must be true. A and B equals C. So, therefore, if and A and B are true, then C must follow.

 

Or two true premises equal a true conclusion.

 

Unforunately, I don't believe the world is that black and white and you can say, "Well, that premise is false," which immediately makes said statement invalid. There are things about a higher being that we cannot know whether or not they are true, so you can see that our little systems of Logic, Math and Science fall short of finding the answer of whether or not there is a God. However, the most convincing arguments FOR God are going to come from Philosophy (and from the Apologists) because, unlike Science, it doesn't require empirical evidence to state that something CAN be true. You can take one true statement, and another true statement and if you have a valid conclusion that follows from the other then said statement is true. However, in the case of God, it's hard to say that the initial premises are true because, in many cases, said premises rely on faith.

 

It's a flawed science, but no more so than Mathematics. Actually, a lot of the work in Philosophy in the 20th century was to repair the schism between Math and Philosophy and so Linguistic Philosophy eventually came to be. But, like I said, Math and Logic are human constructions so they're bound to be flawed.

595402[/snapback][/right]

 

Not all clergymen follow the stereotype of the science haters. One of the old Jesuits from my high school was researching several different scientific notions to try and prove when life begins when I graduated. Not sure if he completed his work.