[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]50KG is 50KG, no matter what way you swing it.[/QUOTE]
But 50 kg is based on perception. If you can't perceive 50 kg, you can't tell me what 50 kg is, now can you?

Why not? A blind person can't percieve the colour red, but can still say that it's the colour associated with a wavelength of about 650 nanometers.

I mean, if we want to get into a debate about how everything is based on perception... well hell, I'd rather just go watch "The Matrix".

And that information was based on someone else's perception.

What's your point? 650 nanometers is 650 nanometers whether someone's perceiving it or not. (Ignore the fact that humans can't see down to that resolution)

Guys I hate to quote Terry Goodkind quoting Ayn Rand, but you've forced me to do it.

"The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason. The first law of reason is this: what exists, exists, what is, is and from this irreducible bedrock principle, all knowledge is built. It is the foundation from which life is embraced.
Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts nor are they a means to discover them. Reason is our only way of grasping realty - it is our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss that we refuse to see. "
--Terry Goodkind

"Reality is that which, when you close your eyes, doesn't go away."

My point, sir, was stated with the post I made on the last page. What is frequently accepted as absolute is in fact relative to human perception. That which is perceived can be measured. That which cannot be perceived cannot be measured.

****ing win.

I'm not questioning the ability of biased scientists to perform their job. We're in agreement that ID is not science. I sincerely believe that ID is actually a right-wing conspiracy attempt, but I won't go any further with that.



Dictionary.com disagrees with you. However, you're probably correct.



Then what is the modern scientific consensus on pre-Big Bang? Big Bang in itself leaves much to be desired and only explains what happens during and after the beginning of the universe. Surely there must be more.



The word "before" may not be accurate, but it does the job. If there is a creator, it obviously exists within another plain of existence where time may not even be a factor. Use whatever term you'd like, but for a theory such as Big Bang to be correct, something had to be there 'before' the universe was created, or are we saying that 'something' can be created from 'nothing'?

I know that you folks get irritated reading posts by people such as myself, who have no science background whatsoever, but it seems to me that science can only answer things up until a certain point, and then philosophy takes over.



I must apologize for the terminology that I'm using. While it may be outdated to you, it's new to me because I thought it up without having ever read about such things. By 'spontaneous creation', I mean 'Big Bang' happening spontaneously and for no apparant reason, without anything to actually make it happen. My apologies for not being able to describe the concept more clearly, my knowledge of such things is limited, so I'm forced to put things in my own words.



We know that the universe somehow came in to existence, many believe via 'Big Bang', but the question is what made it come in to existence? We have no way of knowing if the universe is all that there is. While discussing things outside of the universe may not currently be considered science, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't explore the possibilities.

I'm starting to think that we need to turn this in to a philosophical debate instead of a scientific debate. I guess that's what many of you have been saying all along. Until science and religion can offer a reasonable explanation for what came 'before' (for lack of a better term) creation, it's really the only option.

Why?

If God exists, what was 'before' God?

[Predictable response - God has always existed]

But within the framework that God exists, there was a 'time' (for lack of a better term, as time doesn't exist yet) when God created the Universe and a 'time' when the Universe ends, so there must be some sort of 'time flow' (or else the Universe would begin and end at the same 'time'). Extrapolate backwards and there must be a beginnning of 'time', a beginning of God. What created God?


[When you're answering this question, try replacing 'this framework' with 'the Universe'. If God can exist without a creator, so can the Universe]

[I'm also ignoring the fact that you haven't even tried to address how anything can exist without time]

I won't go so far as to say that, but there is a good motivation behind what's happening now.... read the Wedge strategy



There will never be an absolute scientific consensus about pre-big bang I think, because of two reasons:
-Science can only attempt to explain things within the setting of the universe. Certain things have to be given (like a referential system of space and time - think Kant) for science to be applicable.
-Since time and space are two aspects of the same thing (correct me if I'm wrong) it's pointless to speak of a 'pre' big bang.



The difference between you and me, then, is that I find it acceptable to claim that we don't know and that we'll probably never know. And that's probably exactly the only difference. But by filling in the gap with 'god' you just moved the problem.




I think we should too... I'm not sure though if this reason for believing is a good one.



I feel the only real option is to say 'we don't know', and then try harder, till we hit that final brick wall (which I'm sure will be there).

And on a serious note, I wonder when you guys realize that every thread related to religion is exactly the same. Silly repeating people.

Well this one is better than most, you've gotta admit.

Much like evolution, Big Bang's theory depends on something pre-existing for it to build on. Evolution depends upon a single cell existing. Big Bang depends on (iirc) an infinitely or near-infinitely dense atom existing and exploding. It is important to make note of when one theory ends and another begins.

If you want a pre-Big Bang theory, check out the String Theory.

so then are you saying that there wasnt a big bang then? your running in a circle that defys(sp?) any sort of logic. there was nothing before the universe, nothing went bang, but there was a big bang, but it didnt come from anywhere... so are we to assume that the universe "magically" appeared... some sort of supernatural thing out of its own free will? this seriously makes no sense at all please enlighten me on this



i dont see why your asking what came before god, nothing had to come before god. the very nature of god dictates that he/she whatever exists outside of time, therefor it is perfectly logical to say he could have in fact created the universe because he is not bound by the constraints(sp again?) of time as we know it. the universe however is, it had a begining and im guessing it will someday have an end. you are talking about a finite universe vs and infinite god. there is no comparison.

on a side note... no DI in schools, at least not public. unless it was like an elective or something. and completly optional then i think it would be ok

*Exactly* the same for the universe.

its not the same for the universe, universe=finite, god=infinite. as i said before there is not really any justifiable comparison.

Yeah, but this god=infinite attribute you post there is absolutely arbitrary, plus it has nothing to do with space time. It's an emotional epitheton. It doesn't denote boundaries or something. The characteristic of the universe being finite also has nothing to do with the possibility that it came into existence out of nothing.

Except finite is a measure of time. Time exists within the universe therefore infinite and finite can only exist when the universe does. There is no before or after the universe since the universe is forever. (The beginning of time is the beginning of the universe.) 'forever' is contained within the universe.

hmm... i was doing a bit of reading and it turns out my beliefs are far more aligned with theistic evolution than inteligent design. so yeah just to clairify.

ok let me reiterate, time exists only within the universe, the universe had a begining and will have an end. the same is not true for god. the same rules do not apply to both, god exists outside time, outside of the universe. you cant apply the atributes of the universe to god and vice versa

Let *me* reiterate. The fact that the universe had a beginning does't exclude the very very real possibility that it came into existence from nothing, whatever that is. Using the god-excuse is extremely lazy IMHO and just moves the problem.

To elaborate, read this on the uncaused beginning of the universe (which is most supported by evidence so far): The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe

Written in '88, so I think there should be a better source somewhere.

well so far hes done a hell of a job at refuting the infinite oscilating universe theory... but he only deals with the cause, or lack there of, of the bang of the singularity(ies). he acknowledges its existence, but gives no explination for its origin.



there you go. god is not bound to the space-time manifold and therefor is not subject to the "nothing existed before the singularity." idea.

furthermore the fact that the "singularity" existed raises questions!
he acknowledges its existence, but gives no explination for its origin.
the singularity may not have needed a catalyst for the big bang to occur, but that has never been part of my argument, my argument is that it seems completly illogical that a singularity would have existed in the first place, unless it was created (enter god). using god as an explination is not lazy when it is a completely viable option

and it does not move the problem, because simply put there is no problem.

And because forever is contained within the Universe, one can just as easily say that the Universe is infinite (which suddenly verifies the comparison with God).

You (not you, JKWhoSaysNi, whoever you were quoting) are making the assumption that something, anything, exists outside of the Universe without any justification.

The alternative is that the Universe is everything, and there exists nothing that isn't the Universe (and so the Universe is for all practical considerations infinite). Then replace everything you'd attribute to 'god' with 'the Universe', and you've solved all issues without the additional unnecessary entity of 'God' (see Occam's Razor).

ok, that right there is the only thing so far that is relivent to the argument of god and weather or not he created the universe. however the concept of god and or religion, as it has already been established in theis thread, is not science. and is therefor not bound to rules applied to science. and aside from all that... no one has touched on the problem of the origin of the singularity. as was explained by this The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe every action does not need a cause, however it would still seem that every existance (unless you want to assign supernatural atributes to it) still must have an origin.

You're wasting your time. I've tried to explain this exact same thing many times.

And we explained to *you* many times that this current lack of knowledge doesn't need a god to fill in the gap. 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable answer. Saying 'god did it' by default is laziness.

Actually, "I don't know" is lazier because religion and the story required some time to develope. :p

And I've said that "lack of knowledge" does not in any way whatsoever relate to God's existence.

Have I ever given an answer of "God did it?" No. Wait, I've already explained this before, too. Nevermind.

No. Saying "God did it" and not investigating the matter any further is laziness. Saying "God did it" and then asking "What happened when He did it?" is not laziness, which I believe is the stance that many theists on this thread take.

So what is the point of the "God did it" statement, when you then have no idea what He actually did? You've now got two unanswered questions, rather than just the one.

You're in exactly the same position as the scientist that says "I don't know what happened." You're just saying "I don't know what happened (but I know God did it!)".

Right, so now I'm wondering, what comes up when you ask 'what happened when he did it'?

That which we call laziness by any other name would smell as mentally masturbational.

I don't know. Science will, I imagine, eventually be used to find out.

What do you think of this beauty by the way:

"Pre" Big Bang there were no laws of physics to be broken, so whatever happened, was 'allowed', including the singularity to exist out of nowhere

Kinda cool thought.

I looooooove the science.

As valid an idea as that God has always existed/created Himself. I simply choose to believe differently from you.

The difference being that you have one unnecessary entity incorporated into an otherwise identical argument, and by Occam's Razor, it isn't 'as valid'. The argument with the least number of additional entities is preferable.

Whoa, you guys are putting words in people's mouths.

'God did it' is not a cop out. People might say that because they don't know how they did it, but saying God did it does not mean he broke the laws of physics. It means I don't know how to explain it. If you ask how the solar system came into existence, they might say 'God created it'. This can mean two things.

1)That person believes God twitches his/her/it's (whichever you choose) nose and things spring fully formed from, well, his hand?

2)That person believes God arranged for a large amount of particles to be in the same place at the same time, they started spinning, started getting hot, melted, bubbles and so on and so on. See, this is it, I don't even know how to describe the formation of the Universe because that is not my specialty. However, saying 'God created the solar system' does not mean I am saying no. 1. It also doesn't mean I am saying the same thing as ID. ID is throwing lots of things out. I think God works precisely through science. Not our same methods, but he knows eactly how what he has made works, and so knows exactly what to do to do things.

This is an important distinction, that not everyone means the same thing by the same phrase.

God cannot be objectively proven or disproved. That is the nature of things like that. You can prove that maybe there was no global flood, but keep in mind that the scriptures were written by men, and men passed down traditions. If Noah is floating there, and looks around, and he sees water and no land, and he was over land a while earlier, he might think 'OMG THE EARTH IS FLOODED!' That doesn't prove any way any how that there is no God.

GOD IS OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE. That's the point, that is WHY ID should not be taught in schools. That is also WHY God cannot be proven or disproven until Jesus comes back and explains to me black holes, aliens, and the speed of light.

Perhaps not, but it does go a long way to show how the Bible is no different from the millions, billions, of other works also written by men.




I suppose the only real difference is that we're not waiting for Jesus.