• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Something from nothing, the big bang, science has it all.

Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
'mud said:
'Time' isn't 'physical', it's mathematical.
It's the difference between two points in distance for a single entity.
Motion results in differences in position of a single entity.
Those differences in position are measured as elapsed inertia.
We call it 'time' as a method to measure those positions.
Everything is in motion,
sometimes without inertia,
but the motion is in the past.
There's no such entity known as 'time'.
But you will argue...and I will hear.
'Time' is always in arrears, it's always a past occurance.
And there's never enough of it, no matter how fast we go.
~
'mud
Click to expand...
Agree..time is a human derived mathematical construct.
But the present in the sense of now otoh is not in time, it is just the persistence of existence existing... :)
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Of course when we say nothing, we don't really know what we are talking about, for what on earth is nothing, is there such thing ?.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
disciple said:
Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to God.
Everything about Science is God.
Everything is about Science, and is about God.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
When I grew up, science taught the vacuum of space was thought to contain nothing....a vacuum, and the intra-atomic space also. Now science knows it is full of dark energy, zpe. Occupies the same space as spirit and aether....I think they are blended...:)
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
That 'weirdness' starts with the concept of Santa Claus and the egg laying rabbits,
not to mention angels dancing on pin points.
Not quite 'born' with it, but it starts early !
~
'mud
 
Last edited by a moderator:
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
disciple said:
So, what is your theory.
Click to expand...
I commonly use two different but compatible appraoches, and they can be best summed up by the next two statements:

Whatever happened, happened.

and

Whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
disciple said:
Most religious beliefs cannot be ''proven''; do you question every ones beliefs in this manner? Do you not believe any religious beliefs that cannot be proven? Not sure what your point is, really.
Click to expand...
As a scientist, I pretty much question everything. What someone else may believe is what they believe, and who am I to say that they're right or wrong if they posit a theistic creation. At this point, it is virtually impossible to know if there was a theistic or non-theistic cause, so why would it be necessary to take a position one way or another? Even if there was a theistic cause, where exactly does that leave us, largely because the vast majority of questions would still be left unanswered?

So, I really do not have any religious beliefs, but I have a leaning in the direction of Spinoza/Einstein's thoughts on this, namely that if there is a creator-god, we tend to drift in the direction that it's likely to be so intrinsic to our universe, and maybe multiverse, that they cannot be separated. No other approach makes much sense to me, but then I certainly don't know "the answers" but do have a lot of "the questions".
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
disciple said:
I clearly state in that earlier post, as if it isn't obvious enough, that what I am presenting is theology. So, my beliefs are neither really a ''hypothesis'', nor stated as ''fact''.

Is religious commentary the only focus of your criticism, here, or all 'hypothesis''? "Theory", like the scientific theory presented in this thread, is also not ''fact''.
Click to expand...

As been posted many times, "theory" as used in the scientific community is quite different than what's used in lay terminology. The evidence for the BB is significant enough to hang our hats on, but myriads of questions are still left hanging, such as what may have caused it. And let me just qualify the above to say that at no point do we in the general scientific community feel that something is so far beyond the pale that it cannot be questioned and/or revisited.

You state your position is theology and not a scientific hypothesis, and I think that's a good position to take if I were to be in your shoes (you don't have athlete's foot, do you?).
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
hey Metis, #95
I really do like your deep down knowledge of your own gnosis.
Knowledge gaining wisdom gaining contentment.
A big fat star for that post....:boom:
~
'mud
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
'mud said:
hey Metis, #95
I really do like your deep down knowledge of your own gnosis.
Knowledge gaining wisdom gaining contentment.
A big fat star for that post....:boom:
~
'mud
Click to expand...
That's so much for your kind words. Have a great weekend.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
disciple said:
Yes, I do. Since Deity is self created, it goes to figure He created the matter, earth, etc.
Click to expand...

How can anything self create itself, if it needs to be already existing in order to do that?

Ciao

- viole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top