How did the Universe get here?

[edthecynic]

Since Einstein.

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Yeah, you've posted that link already. I honestly don't know why you are throwing out Einstein here to support your lunatic arguments. Einstein coined the phrase "spacetime" and established that time IS a dimension, the fourth dimension of physical reality.

You are ass backwards.

I know what physics says. e=mc2. IF M=0 (it has to if space = 0) and C2=0 (has to if T=0) then E=0x02, or ZERO! It doesn't matter how much you use caps on ORDER or CHANGE... Order of change, rate of change... it cannot happen without TIME. Nothing can happen without TIME. It would seem like this is a really simple concept that even a total retard could grasp, but apparently you are having trouble with it.

You just keep making shit up and then pontificating. Hermann Minkowski actually coined the term.

Einstein changed his view of time by the 1950s. Time is no longer a separate dimension.

From the link you ignored:

In such a model, what we call time is created purely out of space.

Eddy, what you are doing is total intellectual dishonesty here. You are morphing my arguments into some bizarre perversion of what I have said, then running to Einstein in order to refute my argument which is based on Einstein! Maybe you are just too fucking retarded to understand what you are reading... you see my name at the top and immediately decide that I am spewing nonsense, and for whatever reason, the words translate into your brain as the total opposite of what they appear.... Fuck if I can figure out what your problem is!

Einstein's fabric of time is at the foundation of virtually EVERYTHING that I have posted in this thread! Our little "debate" began when you tried to claim energy can exist without space or time. I said it was impossible because e=mc2. That's energy, that's the formula for energy. Then you started yammering about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.... not Einstein's fabric of time. I responded by saying, if time and space do not exist, neither does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. For there to be any kind of physical law or physical energy, there has to be space and time in a physical universe for it to exist. Then we get into the debate about time travel, and the fact of the matter is, Einstein proves time travel is possible with the Theory of Relativity... Time is Relative.... means it is relative to the observer. The second video, which you claim you posted first, clearly demonstrates this principle... but you tried to claim this is bullshit when I said it.

All I can figure is, you either don't understand Einstein's physics at all, or you aren't comprehending what I am posting. I've not refuted Einstein, my argument began with me stating e=mc2! Energy is mass times speed of light squared... that is what energy IS. If there is no time, you can't measure speed of light, and if you have no space, light or mass has no place to exist. What is so fucking complicated about that for you? If there is no time or space (space-time) then there is no energy, there can't be, it's not possible. Energy requires a physical universe to exist in, unless you are talking about spiritual energy. Are you making an argument for God?

All you have done is pontificate and then through out stupid stuff you made up like Einstein coined spacetime and c2 = 0. c2 never = 0, c is a constant. Time (t) is not part of the equation e=mc2 and you can't insert it by pontification no matter how long you stamp your feet. In the equation for time t = d / r, c2 is r not t. if t=0 c2 still = c2 not 0.

There is no pontification in physics and you can't add a factor like t to the equation e=mc2 by pontification, there is no t=0 in e=mc2. PERIOD.

 

[jon_berzerk]

OK, the top video is time DILATION, not really time travel, though you will never admit it.

You can call it whatever you like, if you dilate something, you've gone from point A to point B...or
"traveled" a distance. I never said you could go back in time, you conjured that up in translation somehow.

We've proven with atomic clocks that we can "travel in time" to the future, right here on earth. You need a really fast jet and a couple of atomic clocks. Put one on the jet and one on the ground and fly around the earth one time. If you don't have a jet, you can use the space shuttle, it works just as well. The experiment will show the atomic clocks (most precise time measurement we know of) have a slight differentiation at the conclusion. PROOF that you went forward in time. Apparently, you think going forward in time renders you invisible in the present or something. It doesn't, you still experience the future as if it is present time, nothing will ever change that perception. But the time on the jet slowed down, and when it returns to earth where everyone's time remained constant, it arrives in the future. It's a very small amount, a fraction of a second... but it IS in the future. To the observer on earth it's not in the future, because remember... time is RELATIVE.

Of course, if you want to go YEARS into the future, this is more problematic. You need to go near the speed of light, and the problem with that is the dynamic principles of matter traveling at near the speed of light. The faster you go, the more you weigh. Physics will not allow us to travel at or near the speed of light at this time, we don't know how to overcome the dynamics. Still, it IS a theoretic possibility. We can't do it yet, we may never know how to do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

In order to go BACK in time, you need to find a wormhole... at least, according to Hawking. But the point still remains, theoretical quantum physics certainly says it is POSSIBLE to travel back in time.

dilation is much like zooming in and out a camera


as the clock slows for one everyone else time passes faster

when they hook up the slow clock guy has skipped over

the time lapsed of everyone else and arrived in their future

 

[edthecynic]

OK, the top video is time DILATION, not really time travel, though you will never admit it.

You can call it whatever you like, if you dilate something, you've gone from point A to point B...or
"traveled" a distance. I never said you could go back in time, you conjured that up in translation somehow.

We've proven with atomic clocks that we can "travel in time" to the future, right here on earth. You need a really fast jet and a couple of atomic clocks. Put one on the jet and one on the ground and fly around the earth one time. If you don't have a jet, you can use the space shuttle, it works just as well. The experiment will show the atomic clocks (most precise time measurement we know of) have a slight differentiation at the conclusion. PROOF that you went forward in time. Apparently, you think going forward in time renders you invisible in the present or something. It doesn't, you still experience the future as if it is present time, nothing will ever change that perception. But the time on the jet slowed down, and when it returns to earth where everyone's time remained constant, it arrives in the future. It's a very small amount, a fraction of a second... but it IS in the future. To the observer on earth it's not in the future, because remember... time is RELATIVE.

Of course, if you want to go YEARS into the future, this is more problematic. You need to go near the speed of light, and the problem with that is the dynamic principles of matter traveling at near the speed of light. The faster you go, the more you weigh. Physics will not allow us to travel at or near the speed of light at this time, we don't know how to overcome the dynamics. Still, it IS a theoretic possibility. We can't do it yet, we may never know how to do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

In order to go BACK in time, you need to find a wormhole... at least, according to Hawking. But the point still remains, theoretical quantum physics certainly says it is POSSIBLE to travel back in time.

dilation is much like zooming in and out a camera


as the clock slows for one everyone else time passes faster

when they hook up the slow clock guy has skipped over

the time lapsed of everyone else and arrived in their future

Nope, arrived in their present.

 

[Mr Natural]

The universe has always been here.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can call it whatever you like, if you dilate something, you've gone from point A to point B...or
"traveled" a distance. I never said you could go back in time, you conjured that up in translation somehow.

We've proven with atomic clocks that we can "travel in time" to the future, right here on earth. You need a really fast jet and a couple of atomic clocks. Put one on the jet and one on the ground and fly around the earth one time. If you don't have a jet, you can use the space shuttle, it works just as well. The experiment will show the atomic clocks (most precise time measurement we know of) have a slight differentiation at the conclusion. PROOF that you went forward in time. Apparently, you think going forward in time renders you invisible in the present or something. It doesn't, you still experience the future as if it is present time, nothing will ever change that perception. But the time on the jet slowed down, and when it returns to earth where everyone's time remained constant, it arrives in the future. It's a very small amount, a fraction of a second... but it IS in the future. To the observer on earth it's not in the future, because remember... time is RELATIVE.

Of course, if you want to go YEARS into the future, this is more problematic. You need to go near the speed of light, and the problem with that is the dynamic principles of matter traveling at near the speed of light. The faster you go, the more you weigh. Physics will not allow us to travel at or near the speed of light at this time, we don't know how to overcome the dynamics. Still, it IS a theoretic possibility. We can't do it yet, we may never know how to do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

In order to go BACK in time, you need to find a wormhole... at least, according to Hawking. But the point still remains, theoretical quantum physics certainly says it is POSSIBLE to travel back in time.

dilation is much like zooming in and out a camera


as the clock slows for one everyone else time passes faster

when they hook up the slow clock guy has skipped over

the time lapsed of everyone else and arrived in their future

Nope, arrived in their present.

yes as far as one is concerned he landed in the future

 

[edthecynic]

dilation is much like zooming in and out a camera


as the clock slows for one everyone else time passes faster

when they hook up the slow clock guy has skipped over

the time lapsed of everyone else and arrived in their future

Nope, arrived in their present.

yes as far as one is concerned he landed in the future

Nope, he was always in the present.

 

[edthecynic]

You, who are extremely careful about making proclamations of FACT regarding various theories because they are NOT facts, just made a serious error in declaring that 96% of the universe is made up of, which you can't possibly actual know.

Missing: 96 Percent of the Universe | Dark Matter & Dark Energy | The 4% Universe, Richard Panek

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves continue to elude all detection.

"The overwhelming majority of the universe is: who knows?" explains science writer Richard Panek, who spoke about these oddities of our universe on Monday (May 9) at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) here in Manhattan. "It's unknown for now, and possibly forever."

"Dark Matter Might Not Exist" (Weekend Feature)

This past 4th of July 2013, a European team of astronomers led by Hongsheng Zhao of the SUPA Centre of Gravity at the University of St Andrews presented a radical new theory at the RAS National Astronomy Meeting in St Andrews. Their theory suggested that the Milky Way and Anromeda galaxies collided some 10 billion years ago and that our understanding of gravity is fundamentally wrong. Remarkably, this would neatly explain the observed structure of the two galaxies and their satellites.

In 2009, Zhao led An international team of astronomers that found an unexpected link between 'dark matter' and the visible stars and gas in galaxies that could revolutionize our current understanding of gravity. Zhao suggested that an unknown force is acting on dark matter.
The team believes that the interactions between dark and ordinary matter could be more important and more complex than previously thought, and even speculate that dark matter might not exist and that the anomalous motions of stars in galaxies are due to a modification of gravity on extragalactic scales.

"The dark matter seems to 'know' how the visible matter is distributed. They seem to conspire with each other such that the gravity of the visible matter at the characteristic radius of the dark halo is always the same," said Dr. Benoit Famaey (Universities of Bonn and Strasbourg). "This is extremely surprising since one would rather expect the balance between visible and dark matter to strongly depend on the individual history of each galaxy.

"The pattern that the data reveal is extremely odd. It's like finding a zoo of animals of all ages and sizes miraculously having identical, say, weight in their backbones or something. It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes."

Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. Astrophyisicts Neil Degrasse Tyson has stated that dark energy soould in fact be renamed dark gravity.

In the image above above dark energy is represented by the purple grid above, and gravity by the green grid below. Gravity emanates from all matter in the universe, but its effects are localized and drop off quickly over large distances.

Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter."

The implications of the new research could change some of the most widely held scientific theories about the history and expansion of the universe.

snip/

For example, the Big Bang theory is the idea that at a particular moment things suddenly started exploding and growing, and that our universe got bigger, which Verlinde finds illogical to think it came from this one moment.

"It’s illogical to think there was nothing and then it exploded. We use concepts like time and space," he adds, "but we don’t really understand what this means microscopically. That might change. The Big Bang has to do with our understanding of what time should be, and I think we will have a much better understanding of this in the future. I think we will figure out that what we thought was the Big Bang was actually a different kind of event. Or maybe that we should not think that the universe really began at a particular moment and that there’s another way to describe that."

Verlinde believes that the information we have today and the equations we now use only describe a very small part of what is actually going on. "If you think that something grows, like our universe, than something else must become smaller," he observes."I think there’s something we haven’t found yet and this will help us discover the origins of our universe. In short, the universe originated from something, not from nothing. There was something there and we have to find the equations. It has something to do with dark energy and how that is related to dark matter. If we understand the equations for those components of our universe, I think we’ll also have a better understanding of how the universe began. I think it’s all about the interplay between these different forms of energy and matter.

 

[BreezeWood]

Without time there is no "before" for a creator to have created the universe.

It is correct there is no "before" in a physical sense.

In a spiritual sense, there is no such thing as time.

Spirituality like religion and god is a human construct. It exists -- in the mind

define mind - as spirituality is not physiological.

.

 

[sealybobo]

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.

If you Google "can something come from nothing" you get around 230,000,000 hits. That's nearly a quarter of a billion links to this query in some variation. This tells me it's not a concluded fact of life that something comes from nothing. It's very much a debatable topic.... not a fact.

Now... I am going to shock you here, because I do believe that something can come from nothing! After all, we ARE here, we DO exist. The entire universe is in motion and did come to exist some way. But unless you are willing to dismiss the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed, the observations of virtual particles or quantum vacuum fluctuations have to be explainable. Sure, it does appear that some subatomic particles and electrons seem to 'pop' into existence and out of existence throughout our universe... gee whiz, that almost sound like "magic sky fairy" poofing things into and out of existence, doesn't it? But I digress. Still, if a virtual particle appears, it probably came from something somewhere, unless the principle of energy not being creatable is wrong. I don't believe that is the case because the laws of physics seem to be reliable in a physical universe. But some people do believe in magical appearing particles out of nowhere, poofing into and out of existence.

So how can something come from nothing? Well, it depends on how you define those two terms. If we can agree that the "something" we are referring to is something physical in physical nature, we are half way to solving the dilemma. If we can also agree that "nothing" simply means nothing physical that we are aware of in physical nature, this gives us the simple answer to the question. The "nothing" is nothing physical, it is however, metaphysical. This is something beyond physical nature which "created" physical nature, along with all the various physical laws and universal constants.

Oh nooo.... we can't have that! It sounds too much like GOD! So what we have to do is adopt faith in a belief that magic happened. There was no physical nature, no time, no space, no universe, no reality... and miraculously out of nowhere, something just poofed into existence all by itself. No explanation or cause, it just randomly happened... and not only did this happen, but it just so happens that all of these precise functions of physics and math, chemistry and biology, all operate to perfection in a predictable way... and not only that, but all of the various elements, energies, compounds, forces of nature, atoms and subatomic particles, all provide the essentials for life and intelligence as we know it. And if all of that isn't enough to blow your mind, some people actually claim that this whole entire thing is a CYCLE! Yes... the magic just continues to happen over and over with no end... Kind of like... Immortality...except, shhh... let's not use THAT word here!

Ok, I thought about this on the way home. No, I don't know what I'm talking about and neither do you. What I do know is I've listened/watched/read enough work from people that do to know you don't know what you are talking about. What you are doing is arguing the same nonsensical theist arguments that I hear when I watch debates between my guys and yours. Of course your side thinks they won the debate. Of course you think your theories are right because we can't prove them wrong. But you also can't prove them right.

So yes, I go to that site a lot because it has laid out pretty much every rebuttal to every argument a religious person can make. In almost 99% of the times I can go there and find the exact words I want to use to reply back to you. To take the time and type it out in my own words when it won't come out as good as they have written it? Why would I waste my time? So PLEASE you can stop telling me you believe in god because we always believed. That's not proof.

Oh, and I was watching 300 last night and thought about you. The Persian King killed off every elder that ever mentored or taught him so he wouldn't have anyone who remembered him young and he said he was a god. That's all the proof I need that god(s) must have existed.

OH YEA, one more thing. I'm a Spartan. Even the Persians believed that Greeks were the direct descendents of the gods. ESPECIALLY the Greeks. You know what Boss? I am starting to re think this whole god thing now. I believe in god(s) because after all, I am the ancestor of them so they must be real. You can't disprove this so we agree. Now start praying to me

 

[sealybobo]

I took the quiz and I came from Apollo

Apollo
God of music and healing. He is also Artemis' twin brother, and Zeus' son. Also god of light, truth, and archery. Drives the sun across the sky, and his bird is the crow and animal the dolphin.

What greek god/godess descendant are you?Quiz | Quotev

 

[Boss]

All you have done is pontificate and then through out stupid stuff you made up like Einstein coined spacetime

You're right, Minkowski coined it, Einstein proved it. My bad!

and c2 = 0. c2 never = 0, c is a constant.

In a physical universe that exists, this is true.

Time (t) is not part of the equation e=mc2 and you can't insert it by pontification no matter how long you stamp your feet.

I'm not stomping my feet, but speed is a measurement which uses time. You cannot have speed until you have time, and space for that matter. It's like claiming the speed of a race car is 200 mph... whether it is on a track or encased in concrete. Sorry if the pontification is over your small-minded head.

In the equation for time t = d / r, c2 is r not t. if t=0 c2 still = c2 not 0.

And none of it matters until you have a physical universe which exists with space and time.

There is no pontification in physics and you can't add a factor like t to the equation e=mc2 by pontification, there is no t=0 in e=mc2. PERIOD.

Well, I am sorry but that is exactly what you have in physics, constant pontification. I didn't add a factor. We are discussing the absense of time and space. In that condition, there is no physics formula that doesn't equate to zero. Physical reality does not exist. All physics is meaningless until there is space and time. I've patiently tried to explain this to you several times, and you keep rejecting it. Try to get it through that thick head... Physics is dead in the water until a physical universe exists for it to function in.

 

[Boss]

Nope, arrived in their present.

yes as far as one is concerned he landed in the future

Nope, he was always in the present.

LOL... The only way we can experience time is in the present. If you go back in time, you still experience it as present. If you go forward in time, you still experience it as present. The people around you also experience time in the present. There is no other way for human beings to experience time except present. That does not mean your place it time remained the same.

According to Einstein, time is relative to the observer. In my scenario, the traveling twin's time is behind that of the stationary twin and he is in the future relative to his perception of time. The stationary twin's perception has not changed. Both experience time as present, there is no way for humans to experience time any other way. If we could do that, time travel is irrelevant, we'd just decide we want to experience the future or past time.

Look... think of it another way. Both twins have atomic clocks and digital calendars tracking their time. They both experience time passing the same. However, since the traveling twin's time slowed down as he traveled, when he returns, his calendar says it's 2012. The stationary twin's calendar says it's 2014. So is the traveling twin in 2014 or 2012? If he is in 2014, then he has traveled to the future. His perception, clock and calendar all say he is in 2012. Yes, both are experiencing time as "present" because that's the only way we can experience time.

 

[Boss]

You know what Boss? I am starting to re think this whole god thing now.

Well Praise the Lord and Hallelujah! I am so happy you've come around... I had my eye on this pair of nifty golden wings, and the reward points I'll get for converting you will be just enough!

Seriously, I kinda like you, silly boob. You remind me of this poster I knew on another board named "Brent." He was constantly changing his persona. For about a year, he was a devout Christian, constantly preaching The Word to the masses. Then he changed to an Agnostic. Then he believed in Confucianism for a while. He found some website talking about Hollow Earth and believed gnomes were running around inside the Earth, unbeknownst to the rest of us. But each time he changed, he also changed his screen name, then he would eventually fess up as to his true identity. A real piece of work, that guy was!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

It was placed here by the liberals as part of their global warming conspiracy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

Scientific methods can and have been used to
demonstrate how "spiritual healing" works by FORGIVENESS
to facilitate therapy and treatment to cure people of
conditions that medicine alone could not cure.

This does NOT rely on any explanation of "GOD"

You can consider this natural energy and healing process.
The mind/body work naturally to heal themselves.
So it is facilitating THAT process, which already exists,
by FORGIVING any obstacles in the mind/spirit
otherwise blocking the "natural healing process."

So none of this requires religion or faith in God
to prove the same process works that is represented in the Bible.
You don't have to believe in God, Jesus or the Bible
to receive healing as long as you understand how
FORGIVENESS works and facilitates natural healing
and how
UNforgiveness blocks the process and causes conflicts and obstruction.

Agreeing how FORGIVENESS works to overcome unforgiveness
is the same process as anything God/Jesus is used for.

So it does NOT require religion.
It does require a "leap in faith"

to CHOOSE FORGIVENESS.

You can study the process scientifically all you want.

But making the choice to forgive
is still faith based. The positive effects of forgiveness
are demonstrated AFTER it is chosen on faith.

So the faith "to try it" comes first
and the science documents it afterwards.

Einstein just turned over in his grave!!!

Uhm.. Einstein is who discovered time is relative. If he turned over it's because some idiot called 'bullshit' on that 109 years later.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

You don't need to refer to God to agree how
universal laws work, and to agree on universal truth by consensus.

Jesus represent the process of establishing equal justice for all people.

So you don't need to use the term Jesus
to agree on Justice and how to establish that peacefully to save the world
from war, oppression and suffering and cycles of poverty and abuse.

the process revolves around forgiveness,
so if you study that and understand how it works,
all other issues/conflicts can be resolved and corrected
in the spirit of forgiveness.

so that is the key, and it does NOT depend on using terms God/Jesus.
it helps to agree what is meant by those terms
but that will take care of itself as long as people
agree to forgive one another and our differences

all other things can be worked out.

 

[sealybobo]

Dear [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]

Scientific methods can and have been used to
demonstrate how "spiritual healing" works by FORGIVENESS
to facilitate therapy and treatment to cure people of
conditions that medicine alone could not cure.

This does NOT rely on any explanation of "GOD"

You can consider this natural energy and healing process.
The mind/body work naturally to heal themselves.
So it is facilitating THAT process, which already exists,
by FORGIVING any obstacles in the mind/spirit
otherwise blocking the "natural healing process."

So none of this requires religion or faith in God
to prove the same process works that is represented in the Bible.
You don't have to believe in God, Jesus or the Bible
to receive healing as long as you understand how
FORGIVENESS works and facilitates natural healing
and how
UNforgiveness blocks the process and causes conflicts and obstruction.

Agreeing how FORGIVENESS works to overcome unforgiveness
is the same process as anything God/Jesus is used for.

So it does NOT require religion.
It does require a "leap in faith"

to CHOOSE FORGIVENESS.

You can study the process scientifically all you want.

But making the choice to forgive
is still faith based. The positive effects of forgiveness
are demonstrated AFTER it is chosen on faith.

So the faith "to try it" comes first
and the science documents it afterwards.

Uhm.. Einstein is who discovered time is relative. If he turned over it's because some idiot called 'bullshit' on that 109 years later.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

You don't need to refer to God to agree how
universal laws work, and to agree on universal truth by consensus.

Jesus represent the process of establishing equal justice for all people.

So you don't need to use the term Jesus
to agree on Justice and how to establish that peacefully to save the world
from war, oppression and suffering and cycles of poverty and abuse.

the process revolves around forgiveness,
so if you study that and understand how it works,
all other issues/conflicts can be resolved and corrected
in the spirit of forgiveness.

so that is the key, and it does NOT depend on using terms God/Jesus.
it helps to agree what is meant by those terms
but that will take care of itself as long as people
agree to forgive one another and our differences

all other things can be worked out.

I picture you in a white robe and long hippie hair.

 

[sealybobo]

You know what Boss? I am starting to re think this whole god thing now.

Well Praise the Lord and Hallelujah! I am so happy you've come around... I had my eye on this pair of nifty golden wings, and the reward points I'll get for converting you will be just enough!

Seriously, I kinda like you, silly boob. You remind me of this poster I knew on another board named "Brent." He was constantly changing his persona. For about a year, he was a devout Christian, constantly preaching The Word to the masses. Then he changed to an Agnostic. Then he believed in Confucianism for a while. He found some website talking about Hollow Earth and believed gnomes were running around inside the Earth, unbeknownst to the rest of us. But each time he changed, he also changed his screen name, then he would eventually fess up as to his true identity. A real piece of work, that guy was!

Yea, I'm a totally normal guy in person but here I get to come blurt out all the things I'm thinking or want to say. It is therapy for me. Sometimes I have a bug up my ass about politics and lately it's been all religion. You know, the two things you should never discuss? Well thank god (there I go again acknowledging him) for USMB.

Did you see the post I wrote admitting you are correct I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to space/time e=mc2 or science. I just know what I hear or read. I listen to both sides and then I decide who I believe. But you could totally be right. But then that would mean all these brilliant atheists I watch on the web schooling religious bible thumpers are not as smart as some guy who spends all day on USMB trying to convince people god exists because our ape ancestors made it up. That's it. That's all he has.

I'm assuming like right wingers have a right wing wikipedia site you guys probably have a right wing science site too? Or are those all within the right wing wiki?

Imagine the dolts that go here instead of the regular wikipedia Main Page - Conservapedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was placed here by the liberals as part of their global warming conspiracy.

[/SIZE]

Thanks PooPooDooDoo, that's as useful as virtually ALL of your posts...

 

[Boss]

The universe has always been here.

Well, this is a possibility. However, according to Newton's Laws of Motion, some force set the universe in motion at some point. We know for a fact, it is indisputable, the universe is in motion. So you need to resolve what was the cause of this motion the universe has.

If you can't come up with anything, don't worry, it's a real tough problem. Especially when you believe the universe is eternal and has no beginning. Back in the days of Aristotle, many people believed this because the stars never seemed to move. When phenomenon like comets happened, they believed these were omens from the Gods. Then Isaac Newton said, wait.. some things are moving in the universe and we can calculate their movement. Then Einstein came along with Hubble and others and showed the universe is all moving, we just don't notice it because we are moving too. Then, many scientists believed the universe was moving because of a Big Bang that started it, and eventually the velocity would decline and the universe would contract due to gravity. In the past 30 years, we've discovered the velocity is not decreasing but increasing. So "cosmic inflation" has been a bugaboo for a long long time.

Of course, your statement is along the lines of the saying "no matter where you go, there you are!" Certainly, the universe has "always been here" as long as the universe has "been here." There has never been a "time" when the universe wasn't "here." ...This gets really DEEP!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, this is a possibility. However, according to Newton's Laws of Motion, some force set the universe in motion at some point. We know for a fact, it is indisputable, the universe is in motion. So you need to resolve what was the cause of this motion the universe has.

Gravity.

Part of the quest for an answer mush be formulating the correct question.

If you can't come up with anything, don't worry, it's a real tough problem. Especially when you believe the universe is eternal and has no beginning. Back in the days of Aristotle, many people believed this because the stars never seemed to move. When phenomenon like comets happened, they believed these were omens from the Gods. Then Isaac Newton said, wait.. some things are moving in the universe and we can calculate their movement. Then Einstein came along with Hubble and others and showed the universe is all moving, we just don't notice it because we are moving too. Then, many scientists believed the universe was moving because of a Big Bang that started it, and eventually the velocity would decline and the universe would contract due to gravity. In the past 30 years, we've discovered the velocity is not decreasing but increasing. So "cosmic inflation" has been a bugaboo for a long long time.

Of course, your statement is along the lines of the saying "no matter where you go, there you are!" Certainly, the universe has "always been here" as long as the universe has "been here." There has never been a "time" when the universe wasn't "here." ...This gets really DEEP!

The issue is that no one really knows, or can know the origins of the universe. I stated earlier that branes solve the problem of the weak attractive force of gravity. But IF this is 100% correct, we will never know, because it is simply not possible to detect or experience higher dimensions, particularly if they are contained in branes. Further, the concept of micro-dimensions is prevalent in theoretical cosmology, meaning that stacked dimensions are a possibility, accounting for the erratic behavior of the charmed and strange quarks. So, if our universe is the result of interaction with another dimensional brane, we will never know it, we can only postulate based on the physical effects that these branes exert.

Asking about origins is pointless, we have no way of ever knowing. Evidence suggests that our universe is cyclical, expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat. I'm not going to rehash what Ed has already covered, but what he presents IS valid.