Do you believe in God?

[truthguild]

What is the natural process that caused the Big Bang? imo it'd have to be chance or something caused by an omnipotent being. I don't see any other option.

first we would have to cover if the big bang was even caused. causation implies time - but time wouldn't be present with the big bang.
as for other possibilities, there are many. it's still debated if the big bang is part of a repeating cycle of big bang/big crunch or a single eruption within string theory. there's also possibilities such as quantum fluctuations.

 

[ichwar]

What is the natural process that caused the Big Bang? imo it'd have to be chance or something caused by an omnipotent being. I don't see any other option.

actually, for the big bang to occur, an unnatural process would have had to been the cause. Think of it this way, the bigbang is supposed to have been the start of all matter. Now if matter was formed from the bigbang, you have to ask what it was created from. After all, it is a scientific law that you cannot create or remove matter from the universe. So something unnatural would of had to happen to override that law.

There are some who are now going around that by saying that there was already something there to start with, well you need to remember that saying that just leaves you with the ultimate question of where did all matter come from unanswered.

 

[fguy64]

and that definition would still be irrelevant since it only refers to events that are random - abiogenesis and evolution are anything but random.

That true enough, and I would tend to agree. But I think the point is that people who use the entropy argument to make a case for intelligent design or something like that, argue the following...

"If you believe in natural evolution, it follows that you must believe that at some point there was randomness, and out of that randomness some sort of order came about, maybe some sort of melecular interaction or something, that started life. And because of the law entropy, you either cannot, or is very very unlikely to, have order follow from disorder, without some kind of guiding force"

And I am saying that this argument rests on an incorrect interpretation of the law of entropy that deals with randomness and order/disorder.

 

[nightbandit]

Can you apply "normal" scientific laws to something that is not understood, couldn't it be an exception? Also as for creating/removing matter from the universe, I thought that dark-matter could destroy matter.

 

[fguy64]

Can you apply "normal" scientific laws to something that is not understood, couldn't it be an exception? Also as for creating/removing matter from the universe, I thought that dark-matter could destroy matter.

Are you responding to me nightbandit? I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you presenting a counter argument to my post?

I'm not trying to make a case against intelligent design, all I'm saying is that the law of entropy doesn't make it highly unlikely that it all started by chance.

or to put things another way, it is not at all impossible for order to arise from chaos without divine guidance. At least not by the law of entropy.

That doesn't make it so. it just renders invalid one argument that says it isn't so.

see what I mean?

 

[ichwar]

Are you responding to me nightbandit? I'm not sure I understand your point.

no, he's responding to me.
Edit:

Can you apply "normal" scientific laws to something that is not understood, couldn't it be an exception? Also as for creating/removing matter from the universe, I thought that dark-matter could destroy matter.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, all scientific laws either apply to everything or nothing. That is the whole point of any of these conclusions being laws.
So, yes, scientific laws apply to everything, otherwise they are no longer laws.

Secondly, dark-matter is purely hypothetical. It hasn't even been produced inside of laboratories.

 

[truthguild]

actually, for the big bang to occur, an unnatural process would have had to been the cause. Think of it this way, the bigbang is supposed to have been the start of all matter. Now if matter was formed from the bigbang, you have to ask what it was created from. After all, it is a scientific law that you cannot create or remove matter from the universe. So something unnatural would of had to happen to override that law.

There are some who are now going around that by saying that there was already something there to start with, well you need to remember that saying that just leaves you with the ultimate question of where did all matter come from unanswered.

that's not quite entirely true...
there is no law saying matter cannot be created - in fact there's one that says it can (E=mc^2).
the law of conservation states that E(total) must remain a constant, where E(total)=E(raw)+E(mass).
and it isn't "some" that say matter was always there - the current scientific view is that the current state of the universe started with the Big Bang, in which a singularity underwent rapid expansion of spacetime.
Oddly enough, it's the creationists that claim everything came from nothing - not scientists.

 

[ichwar]

E=mc^2 just says that matter can be created out of energy. Not out of nothing. This is what I've been saying all along, no matter how far back you go, you're still left with the question of where that energy came from.

Oddly enough, it's the creationists that claim everything came from nothing - not scientists.

Again, you prove my point: we are CREATIONists. We believe that the universe was CREATED. It's you others who deny any supernatural being, who are then forced to turn to finding natural explanations for how everything happened.

 

[truthguild]

E=mc^2 just says that matter can be created out of energy. Not out of nothing. This is what I've been saying all along, no matter how far back you go, you're still left with the question of where that energy came from.

exactly - matter can be created - there's no law of science saying it can't. as far as where the energy came from, there's no evidence that suggests it wasn't always there.

Again, you prove my point: we are CREATIONists. We believe that the universe was CREATED. It's you others who deny any supernatural being, who are then forced to turn to finding natural explanations for how everything happened.

and natural explanations work quite well, and much better than supernatural 'explanations' do. there is also so far no evidence to suggest any supernatural being.

 

[ichwar]

exactly - matter can be created - there's no law of science saying it can't. as far as where the energy came from, there's no evidence that suggests it wasn't always there.

nope, there's no evidence to suggest that the energy wasn't always there except for the fact that we all know very well that energy rapidly dies away because it is not a stable "object."

and natural explanations work quite well, and much better than supernatural 'explanations' do. there is also so far no evidence to suggest any supernatural being.

yep, natural explanations work quite well except for the little part about no amount of energy or lack of it being able to create life out of non life once that matter has been formed. But we can ignore that minor little detail can't we? We'll just stick to the main facts, namely: science hasn't been able to prove God's existence, therefore it is impossible that He exists. right?

 

[adamparkzer]

I'm actually doing something very similarly related to this topic for my final paper in AP Language and Composition. I'm arguing that instead of the concepts discussed in the Bible, the theories of Christianity can be better described when connections are made to the Fourth Dimension. Basically, the Christian "God" is actually a being in the fourth dimension.

 

[ichwar]

While I have to disagree with that because I believe the Scriptures to be infallible, I'd still be interested in reading that.

 

[adamparkzer]

While I have to disagree with that because I believe the Scriptures to be infallible, I'd still be interested in reading that.

My paper is still in the making - the presentation of my paper to the class is scheduled for this Friday, and the final paper is due next Tuesday. I should have it finalized by Monday evening at the latest, so I'll come back on this thread and post a link to a PDF of my paper, for everyone who's interested in reading it.

 

[ichwar]

Sounds great. Are you a theologian in the making? hehe

 

[adamparkzer]

Sounds great. Are you a theologian in the making? hehe

Nope, I've never really showed much interest in religion, politics, economy, or other topics of the like. I'm more of a math and science guy, but this fourth dimension connection to religion had a direct correlation with the scientific theories of the formation of life.

Another interesting thing I came across during my research: As most people know by now, the Mayan calendar has so far accurately predicted many events, including the infamous September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks. The calendar depicts the year 2012 as being the end of the world.

But, what does this "end of the world" really mean? Technically, "the world ending" essentially means that time will stop. Seeing as the fourth dimension is time, does that mean that it just basically means that in 2012, our four-dimensional creator is going to "turn us off," similar to how we "turn off" our computers? Or does it mean that we will somehow be transformed into four-dimensional beings, so the progression of the years will no longer affect us?

 

[ichwar]

or, maybe, life will keep on going after 2012 just the same way it happened after Y2K! ever thought of that possibility?

 

[adamparkzer]

or, maybe, life will keep on going after 2012 just the same way it happened after Y2K! ever thought of that possibility?

I didn't hear about life ending at the year 2000, and don't recall ever reading anything about the Mayan calendar stating anything bad will occur in 2000.

Either way, it's too boring to believe that life will just go on... lol

 

[ichwar]

You never heard about the Y2K frenzy? hummm. well, believe me, it was worse than this 2012 rumor.

 

[Smith6612]

You never heard about the Y2K frenzy? hummm. well, believe me, it was worse than this 2012 rumor.

Y2K was a mess for a lot of people. I for one didn't have to worry about a thing. All of my hardware and software on my PCs from back then passed Y2K tests that I ran using a program I still have handy called Fix-it Utilities 2000 from Ontrack.

 

[adamparkzer]

Are you talking about how all the technology in the world was going to crash because they didn't know how to put the "2" in the thousands place? This frenzy didn't really involve the world ending or an end of time; this seems more like an issue with the beginning of a new time.