Does God Exist?

[RidleyRockets]

Like you said, everything WE KNOW suggests time started with the big bang. The problem is, we don't know very much about this universe besides our solar system and Earth.

All I'm saying is Earth is not a one hit wonder considering how many planets are out there and how long the universe has existed for. People will say "time" started with Big Bang, but that is a highly subjective opinion. Big Bang means, in simplified terms, the expansion of the universe. The time you gave (13.4 to 14. billion years) is simply the age of the universe AFTER big bang. We do not know what was before Big Bang, nor how long it has existed for.

By the way, the estimated age of the universe after Big Bang is filled with "Ifs". We made assumptions for this estimation to happen.

You don't understand.

Time is a product of the big bang. You cannot describe anything pre big bang using time so you are talking nonsense.

Talking about what was before the big bang is like talking about what is north of the north pole.

 

[flamingdts]

You don't understand.

Time is a product of the big bang. You cannot describe anything pre big bang using time so you are talking nonsense.

Talking about what was before the big bang is like talking about what is north of the north pole.

You are just being plain subjective, you can't say my statements are nonsense and your's are not. There is no solid proof that states time is a product of Big Bang. There are theories. but they are just theories. There is no way (at least not at this stage) to say what was before Big Bang.

This is all very philosophical, there is no "right answer".

 

[Eejit]

Go back to school.

 

[RidleyRockets]

You are just being plain subjective, you can't say my statements are nonsense and your's are not. There is no solid proof that states time is a product of Big Bang.

Let me try again.

THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ITS PROPERTIES STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

TIME IS A PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSE AND THUS STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

We simply have no reason to think otherwise.

There are theories. but they are just theories. There is no way (at least not at this stage) to say what was before Big Bang.

Gravity is just a theory, if you want to test it i know a selection of nice bridges.

This is all very philosophical, there is no "right answer".

There is no right answer to anything in science but just probabilities. All the measurements taken, experiments performed and data collected on the subject suggest that it is very, very probable that time started with the big bang.

If you have contrary evidence please share it and collect your Nobel prize in physics.

 

[Baserape>]

The big bang is a theory. The universe has no beginning and no ending so therefore I am right. I win.

Waits for prize.

 

[Shakermaker]

The big bang is a theory. The universe has no beginning and no ending so therefore I am right. I win.

A theory with proof.

 

[KagePrototype]

A theory with proof.

I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

 

[Sheepo]

"To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge."

 

[Captain M4d]

My answer is no, but I don't care if you agree! YARGGHHH

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I feel like Job right now, and you know what, God was a real dick to Job.
GOD...DAMN....Wait that doesn't work.

God :fist:

 

[Krynn72]

Let me try again.

THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ITS PROPERTIES STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

TIME IS A PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSE AND THUS STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

Is time not a human construct?

 

[flamingdts]

Let me try again.

THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ITS PROPERTIES STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

TIME IS A PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSE AND THUS STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

We simply have no reason to think otherwise.

Gravity is just a theory, if you want to test it i know a selection of nice bridges.

There is no right answer to anything in science but just probabilities. All the measurements taken, experiments performed and data collected on the subject suggest that it is very, very probable that time started with the big bang.

If you have contrary evidence please share it and collect your Nobel prize in physics.

The universe did not start with the big bang, it began expanding with the big bang. I also don't get why you presume time had a beginning at all.

You and I did not provide evidence, just theories and probability. I don't know why you seem to think you provided evidence nor do I understand why you stress so hard to tell me "OMG YOU'RE WRONG". Chill out and leave the animosity out of this, it's just a philosophical debate with no right answer.

And Krynn is right. Nothing stops time from being a human construct.

 

[RidleyRockets]

The universe did not start with the big bang, it began expanding with the big bang.

There is no way to get information on what happened before the big bang so you cannot say this without looking silly.

Also anyone who is anyone in physics disagrees with you on this point.

I also don't get why you presume time had a beginning at all.

Time is a fundamental property of the universe like mass and charge. It came into existence with the universe.

You and I did not provide evidence, just theories and probability. I don't know why you seem to think you provided evidence nor do I understand why you stress so hard to tell me "OMG YOU'RE WRONG". Chill out and leave the animosity out of this, it's just a philosophical debate with no right answer.

All the evidence points towards a finite universe with a starting point and nothingness before it. Just google it or read a book on it.

Again, talking about what was before the big bang is like talking about what is north of the north pole.

And Krynn is right. Nothing stops time from being a human construct.

Time is no more a human construction than mass, charge or length.

Time is a scalar quantity and can be observed and measured. It is there wether you like it or not.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Eejit]

flamingdts your 'philosophical ideas' (i.e. unsupported hunches) are nowhere near being on the same level as scientific theory consensus based on observation and mathematical formula. Stop trying to act as if they are and go write a pulp sci-fi novel if you want to promote them.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Is time not a human construct?

You may be thinking of the measurement of time. Admittedly we may often confuse that with time itself. But it's not arbitrarily connected.

 

[flamingdts]

There is no way to get information on what happened before the big bang so you cannot say this without looking silly.

Also anyone who is anyone in physics disagrees with you on this point.

Time is a fundamental property of the universe like mass and charge. It came into existence with the universe.

All the evidence points towards a finite universe with a starting point and nothingness before it. Just google it or read a book on it.

Again, talking about what was before the big bang is like talking about what is north of the north pole.

Time is no more a human construction than mass, charge or length.

Time is a scalar quantity and can be observed and measured. It is there wether you like it or not.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, you don't even know what your argument is anymore.

You yourself just said there is no way to get information before Big Bang, so what makes your ideas more credible than mine? What makes you think time was created with Big Bang and was not something that has always existed? Plus, you are completely off. You think the universe started with the Big Bang.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

To quote

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe."

Let me try again.

THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ITS PROPERTIES STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

TIME IS A PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSE AND THUS STARTED WITH THE BIG BANG.

Do you see the contradiction?

My point is time could be something that has always existed, which at this stage is unprovable by any means. However, you insist on saying the above. The universe did not exist after the Big Bang, it began expanding after the Big Bang.

flamingdts your 'philosophical ideas' (i.e. unsupported hunches) are nowhere near being on the same level as scientific theory consensus based on observation and mathematical formula. Stop trying to act as if they are and go write a pulp sci-fi novel if you want to promote them.

My very first point in this thread is not philosophical. If you spent more time reading what I said rather than being a smartass you would understand. My first point (which I've now digressed) is that Earth is not a one hit wonder. Some may agree, some may not. There are scientific observations for this.

My second point is the possibility of life before the Big Bang. Again I could very well be wrong, but we have no clue at all what was before Big Bang, so anything is possible.

I never did say philosophy is on the same level as science. That's what you said. Why don't you at least read what I wrote rather than think what I wrote?

And no, for your information I'm not promoting any ideas here. In fact I've repeatedly stated that my ideas could be wrong, unlike someone here.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Can you please explain what "Earth is not a one hit wonder" means?

 

[Eejit]

My very first point in this thread is not philosophical. If you spent more time reading what I said rather than being a smartass you would understand. My first point (which I've now digressed) is that Earth is not a one hit wonder. Some may agree, some may not. There are scientific observations for this.

Oh, your first point was pretty much a truism, good for you! "There must be other planets similar to earth, k?"

I never did say philosophy is on the same level as science. That's what you said. Why don't you at least read what I wrote rather than think what I wrote?

Actually yeah you were clearly implying that.

You are just being plain subjective, you can't say my statements are nonsense and your's are not. There is no solid proof that states time is a product of Big Bang. There are theories. but they are just theories. There is no way (at least not at this stage) to say what was before Big Bang.

Putting your hunches on the same level as scientific theory.
i.e. "I can blow smoke out my ass because science is just theories too!"

 

[Seppo]

flamingdts your 'philosophical ideas' (i.e. unsupported hunches) are nowhere near being on the same level as scientific theory consensus based on observation and mathematical formula. Stop trying to act as if they are and go write a pulp sci-fi novel if you want to promote them.

lord will always forgive and have mercy on your soul. even in death and beyond it's not too late to repent and beg for forgiveness. even though the lord doesn't manifest himself in physical form his spirit is strong and i feel it. i can't prove this but i assure you i have felt his presence through phenomena that can't be described. he is real. even if everyone else abandoned their faith and i was left alone in the dark, i would still stay true to the lord and pray not only for myself but for the souls of the weak minded who so easily fell into the depths of a delusion we call science.

would you like to know more? click here and start the road to redemption, only $13,59

 

[CptStern]

Can you please explain what "Earth is not a one hit wonder" means?

ya they have tons of hits besides September

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iknEJf9cPeY

 

[RidleyRockets]

No, you don't even know what your argument is anymore.

You yourself just said there is no way to get information before Big Bang, so what makes your ideas more credible than mine? What makes you think time was created with Big Bang and was not something that has always existed?

Because i am not making a claim about anything pre big bang.

I am saying that all the evidence points towards the big bang as the starting point of everything, time included. We have no reason to postulate that time, which as i have said before is a fundamental property of our universe, existed before the big bang and in effect without the universe.

Plus, you are completely off. You think the universe started with the Big Bang.

To quote

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe."

Do you see the contradiction?

The universe is about 13.5-14 billion years old, find me a physicist who isn't a clown who disagrees.

My point is time could be something that has always existed, which at this stage is unprovable by any means. However, you insist on saying the above. The universe did not exist after the Big Bang, it began expanding after the Big Bang.

I'll illustrate the problem with this line of thinking by changing some words

"My point is Space Dildos could be something that has always existed, which at this stage is unprovable by any means."

However, you insist on saying the above. The universe did not exist after the Big Bang, it began expanding after the Big Bang.

So the universe did not exist after the big bang?

My very first point in this thread is not philosophical. If you spent more time reading what I said rather than being a smartass you would understand.

I don't think even you understand what you are saying.

My second point is the possibility of life before the Big Bang. Again I could very well be wrong, but we have no clue at all what was before Big Bang, so anything is possible.

Possible and probable are two very different things.

 

[flamingdts]

Oh, your first point was pretty much a truism, good for you! "There must be other planets similar to earth, k?"

When you get called on carpet for mistaking what someone said and then mocking them about it, the least you could do is grow up.

Actually yeah you were clearly implying that.

Putting your hunches on the same level as scientific theory.
i.e. "I can blow smoke out my ass because science is just theories too!"

When I say they are just theories, I'm saying there is no right answer to this. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a widely accepted theory for how we came to be, but is that the RIGHT answer to how we came to be? There are theories that suggest time existed before Big Bang, but there are also theories that suggest time has always existed. Which one is right? The answer is none, because they are just theories.

Can you please explain what "Earth is not a one hit wonder" means?

I'm just basically saying how the creation of Earth is not a phenomena, since there could be many other planets out there that can sustain the rich life source like Earth.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What you just said makes no sense.

What do you mean by "a phenomena"?

Also you guys talking about 'theories' should maybe cite or link to them.

 

[flamingdts]

I am saying that all the evidence points towards the big bang as the starting point of everything, time included. We have no reason to postulate that time, which as i have said before is a fundamental property of our universe, existed before the big bang and in effect without the universe.

But there are also evidences that suggest time has always been present.

The universe is about 13.5-14 billion years old, find me a physicist who isn't a clown who disagrees.

I can find you tons. Now I know wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable source, but their definition of the age of the universe is "The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day", which is 13.5-14 billion years old.

I'll illustrate the problem with this line of thinking by changing some words

"My point is Space Dildos could be something that has always existed, which at this stage is unprovable by any means."

Exactly. Nothing is provable, only theories are available. So what's your point?

So the universe did not exist after the big bang?

I don't think even you understand what you are saying.

Possible and probable are two very different things.

Way to put words in my mouth and ignore the mistake.

I said the universe did not exist after the big bang, it began expanding after the big bang. How do you interpret that as the universe not existing after the big bang? It has to exist to expand doesn't it?

What you just said makes no sense.

What do you mean by "a phenomena"?

Also you guys talking about 'theories' should maybe cite or link to them.

I'm making it overcomplicated. Basically there could be a lot of planets out there that can sustain life like Earth. So we shouldn't be too surprised by Earth's creation.

 

[Eejit]

I do not think "theory" means what you think it means. Like I said, go back to school.

 

[flamingdts]

I do not think "theory" means what you think it means. Like I said, go back to school.

Theory is not a proven fact, but it is an idea meant to explain something. You seriously believe a theory is the right answer? Really? Like you said, go back to school.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Theory is not a proven fact, but it is an idea meant to explain something. You seriously believe a theory is the right answer? Really? Like you said, go back to school.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by a plethora of research by different scientists, all pointing towards one answer. They are nearly always fact, but the point of a theory is that you can improve upon it, unlike Laws.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Which one is right? The answer is none, because they are just theories.

No, the answer is the one that adequately explains all the data gathered by observations made, with as few holes and question marks attached to it as possible, preferably none. My theory for how the universe was created is that it was originally a pie that got out of control. It would be just as valid as the Big Bang theory, except the Hubble Space Telescope hasn't found any pie remains slowly expanding along the curvature of the universe, nor have we detected that the universe is comprised of 70% Dark Matter and 30% cream filling, so there's a pretty big chance it isn't. Consequently, not many research institutes have agreed to publish my thesis on the role of pies in cosmology.

You seriously believe a theory is the right answer?

A theory supported by observational data and confirmed by many peer-reviewed independent scientific groups? Yes. Yes I do.

 

[Krynn72]

Theory is not a proven fact, but it is an idea meant to explain something. You seriously believe a theory is the right answer? Really? Like you said, go back to school.

Do you seriously believe the theory of gravity explains why things fall down? Man, go back to school. Theories don't mean shit.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm making it overcomplicated. Basically there could be a lot of planets out there that can sustain life like Earth. So we shouldn't be too surprised by Earth's creation.

Is this supposed to imply a creator or something?

 

[CptStern]

which begs the question ..why are humans so special and made in the image of the lord when so many aliens want to be feel special too and godlike!

obviously god is a huge bigot

 

[Acepilotf14]

Shiit I forgot to do this

Spoiler

inb4 10 pages

BAM.
chars

 

[Shyam]

I've always wondered why God was referred to as a man. God is described as merciful, kind and yet vengeful to those who have wronged god. Also God needs to be worshipped and need constant approval from others. Don't know, sound like woman to me.

 

[Eejit]

which begs the question ..why are humans so special and made in the image of the lord when so many aliens want to be feel special too and godlike!

obviously god is a huge bigot

Aliens look a lot like us, and by implication, The Lord. Haven't you ever watched Star Trek?

 

[PvtRyan]

Yes he does.

 

[Sheepo]

ITT hl2.net is much more knowledgeable than you.

 

[flamingdts]

Do you seriously believe the theory of gravity explains why things fall down? Man, go back to school. Theories don't mean shit.

As a matter of fact I do believe the theory of gravity explains why things fall down. In fact I believe in a lot of theories, like the theory of evolution, the big bang theory etc. I don't get where you're going with this, so ermm There you go. (I may have just failed to detect sarcasm)

No, the answer is the one that adequately explains all the data gathered by observations made, with as few holes and question marks attached to it as possible, preferably none. My theory for how the universe was created is that it was originally a pie that got out of control. It would be just as valid as the Big Bang theory, except the Hubble Space Telescope hasn't found any pie remains slowly expanding along the curvature of the universe, nor have we detected that the universe is comprised of 70% Dark Matter and 30% cream filling, so there's a pretty big chance it isn't. Consequently, not many research institutes have agreed to publish my thesis on the role of pies in cosmology.


A theory supported by observational data and confirmed by many peer-reviewed independent scientific groups? Yes. Yes I do.

I completely agree, a theory always have observations, facts and evidences to support it. Like you said, the most plausible theory is always the one with the least holes in it. However, a theory remains a theory because of contradictions, the unexplainable or the unprovable. Of course, some theories are widely accepted as almost facts because there are so little flaws in it, and many of these theories I agree with.

However, when it comes to something like the pre-Big Bang universe, there are so little evidences and observations yet so many different theories. Hence, the reason why I think time may have always existed and the possibility of life (which could potentially be very very different to us) even before Big Bang.

Is this supposed to imply a creator or something?

To be absolutely honest, I do believe in a creator. Though I wouldn't exactly call it that. I believe that something or someone, whether that be the very first "thing" or atom or a spirit or even God, started everything. Everything that comes after, like the Big Bang, the creation of Earth and living organisms are all due to nature and chances. Though honestly speaking, I also try not to think about how this very first thing/spirit/atom/God came about because my head goes boom.

The reason why I don't think a planet like Earth is rare is due to our massive universe and the amount of time it has been around (pre-Big Bang and post-Big Bang). However, I absolutely do not think Earth is a result of a creator.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Krynn was being sarcastic yeah.

So basically, you believe that the big bang happened but with the addition that it just happens to have started with indescribable magic. Fair enough?

 

[flamingdts]

Krynn was being sarcastic yeah.

So basically, you believe that the big bang happened but with the addition that it just happens to have started with indescribable magic. Fair enough?

Pretty much.

It's really confusing to describe, but it's not necessarily magic. It could be an atom that exploded by chance and somehow created the very first universe. In fact, it could be anything at all. I think Big Bang is what came after, and by absolute chance well.

 

[xcellerate]