Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo
The quick answer? The universe was created from random fluctutations. Matter and energy exist because nothingness is inherently unstable. The reason there is something rather than nothing is because nothingness is a physical impossibility. Or you could say that nothing is something in and of itself. Mathematically you take zero, which represents nothing, and make it a single element of a set which then ends up being equal to one. So S{0} = 1 and presto! We've just made something from nothing. Isn't that cute?
Theoretically there are "micro bangs" which occur in nature all the time as a result of random fluctuations. The vast majority of these bangs do not have the characteristics necessary for forming a full-fledged universe capable of supporting life. Our universe may seem unique and special, and it would be if it were the only possible universe, however statistically speaking the creation of a universe such as ours is an eventual certainty.
People ask where all the energy came from, but in a sense it doesn't really exist in the first place. If you add up all the positive and negative energy in the universe you end up with a big fat zero. Essentially we are all living on borrowed energy.
While physics does not need God to explain the creation of the universe or anything in it, I believe there is still hope arising from the theory that information(consciousness too, if you will), like energy, cannot be destroyed. Rather it can only change form and evolve. Physicists are increasingly viewing the universe in terms of information (1's and 0's) with matter and energy as incidental constructs.
|
How exactly is any of what you described more plausible than God creating the universe? It all sounds well and good, but in the end it can be perceived as being just as much gibberish as you perceive creationism. Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. Once again, you're just replacing one aspect of faith for another based on taste.
Remember string theory? How amazing that was? Now it's widely considered as crap. I think its "membrane theory" now, which actually fits in with a lot of what Tesla theorized in his later years. But give it five years, and membrane theory will be crap as well.
I'm not saying to stop trying to discover new ideas and aspects of the universe and its creation, but to rule out God as a possible source is bad science. God doesn't have to be the end of the discussion. It can be the beginning of a new one. One that is not greater less than that of "no God", but a companion to it.
Quote:
Typhoid, you're a very hard person to discuss with. You keep implying stuff without really saying it, so you can always state "I never said that".
Example:
You say you don't want to talk about God, because you don't want to hear that the world is made in 7 days. When we tell you we don't believe that, you reply that you didn't say we did. But that really wasn't the point and you know it.
|
You hit the nail on the head, Angrist. Typhoid, say what you mean and mean what you say. You lie to do all of this semantic dancing, and the sad part is you're not very good at it. It doesn;t come off as clever, just confusing to the reader.