In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.

Anyone who can tutor physics gets MY respect!
Lam, did you and your students ever get philosophical? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-22-2005 03:53 AM

Does this logic apply to the understanding of God? I would say that belief is not science.
BTW, Jacen, you are more of a puppy than a kitten!

Guido may not have the basics, but that is the beauty of freethought thinking. A religious question such as What came first? Creation or a Creator? asks what the first event was? A Creating Mind or eternally existing matter? So if the Laws predated the universe, were these laws formed by a mind? Or were the laws merely later defined by later minds that are made out of matter?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine first. If the cobalt bomb exists, would you say that it would be the most powerful bomb in the universe? If so, how would you find out for sure?

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

You know, I really think you should familiarize yourself more with the logical fallacies. I've been noticing that you tend to use these fallacies a bit much. Try to guess which one you just used in that quote.

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

Actually, very rarely. I usually keep them busy if all the questions have been answered. If all the homework questions have been answered in a session, I tend to give them new ones based on the old ones to do on the spot to see if they really understood the material we covered. It helps them do better when dealing with new stuff, which professors often give on exams.There's nothing in physics that we cover that directly challenge religious beliefs... unless a religion teaches people that things fall upward. Well, in this case I seriously don't know. What I can say is it doesn't really help my case if I were to say "I know for sure that blah blah blah... but I can't really explain it... you just have to take my word for it."This message has been edited by Lam, 03-22-2005 02:33 PM

Well..I looked here first: http://www.rense.com/general40/dooms.htmThen, having grasped a bit of the theory behind the Cobalt Bomb, I considered your question: And now for my Final Answer,Regis: If a cobalt bomb exists, it would be as dumb as two guys in a jail cell possessing hand grenades and squaring off to fight! By no means would such a bomb even be seriously considered to be the most powerful bomb in the physical universe...but perhaps currently in our world,no?Now...as to how I would find out....hmmmm....I could ask you, Lam!

Which logical fallacy did I use? Lets briefly discuss....

The Big Bang theory is a myth and junk science. The universe has always existed and will exists for all eternity. There is the infinitely small and the infinitely large. There is no god. To read more, go to rael.org and check out a free e-book.

the Raelians. Hee hee hee.

quote:

---

In conclusion, based on all the logical evidence presented, it is possible that since infinite past, although hard to comprehend, could have held a law witch was conscious of itself and was able to make decisions, such as to create the universe. According to the logic, we are forced to draw this conclusion, because there is no way that anything will happen without something causing it to happen. To assume this would be to assume that your computer will suddenly transform into a cat without reason. Without a cause, there can be no effect.

​

Therefore either god is real and:
1. Caused the big bang,
2. Created the world in 6 days. (My prefered belief) or
3. Did it another way.

---

I think Guido posed a valid question that was misunderstood and included a conclusion that was not the product of logical deduction. Removing from his debate the reliance on a definition of the physical laws of nature his initial point has merit. If the big bang is thought to create the time and space we inhabit and the physical laws of science that act upon these dimensions then something would in theory need to be a catalyst to start the imbalance that created everything around us.However to make a logical jump to his requirements that because there must have been a physical law acting for there to be a catalyst that began the big bang there must be a consciousness to this catalyst. Guido, if there was a physical law of nature in existence before our big bang (which I whole heartedly endorse) there is no evidence that this must be by conscious design. It very well could be cyclic and all matter may someday merge back together to start the process anew. Or maybe everything we call our universe as created by our big bang is nothing more than a pocket of space time, localized uniquely to every vantage point within. Maybe this pocket of space time is just one of an infinite number of such pockets and what we call our big bang might be nothing more than the byproduct of two of these pockets colliding.I also strongly believe that you are on the right track in that an infinite length of time likely existed before the event that created all we can see in every direction. An infinite length of time for an infinite number of such pockets of space time to be created, exist, and perish in the vast infinite fabric of Space and Time in our whole Universe.This message has been edited by nipok, 04-28-2005 09:40 PM

Hi,I'm new to this forum so please excuse me if my remarks have already been made and dissected.Homo sapiens has trouble grasping the notion of infinity, i.e. something with no beginning and no end, both time-wise and space-wise. A very simple representation of cosmological infinity is one in which there is not just one big bang "universe" but an infinite number of big bang universes each alternately expanding and contracting infinitely into the infinite future from the infinite past within a boundless Super Universe. In a SU of this kind, every form of conjecture about a divinity is possible and any form of faith-based relationship between the accounts of the Bible and the world is perfectly valid, because in an infinite SU every possible scenario actually exists, and in fact exists an infinite number of times. In such a SU, there is a scenario in which God exists and His existence is proven not just once but an infinite number of times. On the other hand, in such a SU, there is also a scenario in which God does not exist and His non-existence is demonstrated an infinite number of times.
As humans, we can theorize, conjecture about, measure and try to understand only whatever pertains to our immediately observable universe, its laws of physics and our place in that universe. We shall never fathom, nor need we ever have to fathom the workings of the Super Universe.
The only scenario I can think of that can't be found in an infinite SU is one in which nothing exists.
As Descartes said: cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am.Oscar

We're glad you found your way home. Pull up a stump and set a spell.A couple things that may make your stay here more enjoyable. First, there are two ways to respond. In the lower left you will find a reply button. It posts a general reply to a thread. Beneath each message in a thread, on the right, is another reply button. If you click on that your reply is tied to a specific message in the thread. For example, your post was tied to message two, my initial message when this topic was opened.When you use the later method (as you did) it also sends a mail message to the person who authored the message you are replying to if they have selected notification in their profile.At the bottom of this message you will find several links to other tips and hints that will help you enjoy your stay.Again, welcome to EvC.

---

You can't have multiple UNI-verses, but I understand your idea.Perhaps you should call the Superuniverse a Polyverse, or Multiverse, which is composed of many Verses, or maybe ?Monoverses?.I prefer the idea that our universe is one of an infinite that have occured in a cyclical pattern of big bangs and big crunches over and over again.

You ask why create now instead of later or earlier. Why 15 billion years ago instead of 50 years ago. You use this to say that God must exist, becasue choosing that specific time is not random, but an active, conscious decision.That is not the case. Random events are real. Chance events are real. The universe may have been created fifty years ago, but 15 billion of our years could still have passed. Just because an event happens does not mean that there was an active decision to do it. COnsider shoving your hand into a jar of marbles, with many colors. Yo do not know which one you're going to get. You only know the probability, which is chance, of what you will get if you know how many marbles and how many of each color. But in the end, the one you get is random. That does not mean that God must exist.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences