Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
The fact everything came from one particle is so childish to me!
psssss: Where did the particle come from?
What are your views?
What are you talking about?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The fact everything came from one particle is so childish to me!
psssss: Where did the particle come from?
What are your views?
Funny stuff time.
Wouldn't this also work against bringing up Hawking?
wa:do
right... so it's an appeal to authority....
wa:do
The fact everything came from one particle is so childish to me!
psssss: Where did the particle come from?
What are your views?
Everything has to come from something, but that would be impossible because that would be a never ending cycle until you meet the beggining, so there has to be a God
Funny stuff time.
Wouldn't this also work against bringing up Hawking?
wa:do
Gödel essentially constructed a formula that claims that it is unprovable in a given formal system. If it were provable, it would be false, which contradicts the fact that in a consistent system, provable statements are always true. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement.
...
Gödel was a convinced theist and a lifelong Christian. He rejected the notion that God was impersonal, as Einstein believed. He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."
Everything has to come from something, but that would be impossible because that would be a never ending cycle until you meet the beggining, so there has to be a God
Hi, in thread late. So I gather that our creationist friend remained clueless, and did not return to learn anything, and that we are done evaluating the merits of Jayhawker Soule's posts? Would that be about it?
Well, as to the argument from first causes, I think that it has not been established that the universe ever had a start. It may well be eternal, in which case the argument fails there.
Agreed. From what I gather, the Big Bang theory itself is based mainly on observations of distant stars that appear to be moving away from us due to a phenomenon called "red shift". But they're moving away at the same speed in every direction, so there's something dodgy about the proposition that the red shift indicates the universe is expanding in a manner that is similar to an explosion. Wouldn't we have to be in the geographical centre of the bang for everything to be moving away from us at the same speed? I think the red shift is caused by something else - maybe some force other than velocity is acting on the light of distant stars - but I will wait for cleverer monkeys than me to tell me what that might be.
Imagine dots drawn on the surface of a balloon. As you blow the balloon up, and the surface expands, every dot moves further away from every other dot. There is no center.
Sure, but what about the dots on the inside of the balloon in relation to the dots on the outside (picture a really thick balloon)? I'm pretty sure the red shift indicates the same velocity in every direction, not just on a single plane. Maybe the saddle-shaped universe works better than the balloon.
Forget about the inside of the balloon. What this analogy is doing is trying to explain a three dimensional expansion by comparing it to a two dimensional expansion.Sure, but what about the dots on the inside of the balloon in relation to the dots on the outside (picture a really thick balloon)? I'm pretty sure the red shift indicates the same velocity in every direction, not just on a single plane. Maybe the saddle-shaped universe works better than the balloon.