Big Bang explained in 2:20

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by RKitagawa

That's actually a really cool way of looking at things. So you basically don't believe in anything that isn't a fact, right?
I'm a little confused though. Do you completely disbelieve in all theories, or do you consider theories to be a possible truth?

cause theories are potential facts right? If you dismissed all theories before being able to prove them as truths then you wouldn't ever gain any knowledge really...
Just curious what you think.

Haha, dismissing theories because they are theories would be stupid to do. Theories, have the potential to be facts. I'll give you an example. There is turtle, that lays about hundreds of eggs on a beach. Each egg is a theory.

Only a handful of the baby turtles make it to the water, and then in turn, only a few become fully out grown turtles.

There are millions of theories, many being made up each day. They range from tiny ones, to huge epic ones that could change the course of the world's thinking.

Only a few make it though.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

A theory is a theory. All theories are equal in the truth factor, unless proven to be total facts.

This is why we're at a stalemate in what created the universe. Because at this moment, no one can show proof and facts.

Maybe.. but not all theories are equal in the PROBABILITY of them being true.

Rationally speaking. The theory of the big bang is more probable than the theory of creationism (I'm assuming you agree that the scientific method is the most rational way to investigate a hypothesis). Therefore they are not equal.

Also I find your black and white position regarding true and false to be quite nihilistic if you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion.

Because even so called "truths" are only truths because the probability of them being false is essentially nil (and I'm talking about things like the sky being blue or gravity etc.) and vice versa.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Haha, dismissing theories because they are theories would be stupid to do. Theories, have the potential to be facts. I'll give you an example. There is turtle, that lays about hundreds of eggs on a beach. Each egg is a theory.

Only a handful of the baby turtles make it to the water, and then in turn, only a few become fully out grown turtles.

There are millions of theories, many being made up each day. They range from tiny ones, to huge epic ones that could change the course of the world's thinking.

Only a few make it though.

The problem with that analogy is that it is implied that all the eggs are considered equal from the outset and that there are only two outcomes for the egg. That they hatch or they die.

In the modern world, theories are constantly modified and tweaked as more evidence is discovered.

Off the top of my head I would say a theory is more like a virus. If it is not eradicated by it's conditions (i.e. incompatibility with the real world) then it evolves.

Your analogy may be better suited to explaining hypotheses.

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Maybe.. but not all theories are equal in the PROBABILITY of them being true.

Rationally speaking. The theory of the big bang is more probable than the theory of creationism (I'm assuming you agree that the scientific method is the most rational way to investigate a hypothesis). Therefore they are not equal.

Also I find your black and white position regarding true and false to be quite nihilistic if you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion.

Because even so called "truths" are only truths because the probability of them being false is essentially nil (and I'm talking about things like the sky being blue or gravity etc.) and vice versa.

You have a point. (And aye, I do agree that the scientific method is the way to go for investigating such things)

As for the nihilistic point, I have been called that a few times, although personally, I do not see myself as one.

For the last paragraph however, gravity is an iffy subject, and the sky being blue isn't a good example. For example, the sky looks blue, but who says, we as a human race, cannot see it's real colour and are actually blind to it's real colour? It's a very vague experience, but it's possible.

Also, many "facts", like the one above, do not have a nil chance of being false. Because many truths can, in fact be proven incorrect.

An example, is that we claimed that mercury was safe to handle. It was a fact at the time. However, now we know it can cause cancer.

I think one of the main "truths" out there is that everything is made by atoms. The truth can still be expanded, and saying that atoms are infact made up of smaller things.

The problem with that analogy is that it is implied that all the eggs are considered equal from the outset and that there are only two outcomes for the egg. That they hatch or they die.

In the modern world, theories are constantly modified and tweaked as more evidence is discovered.

Off the top of my head I would say a theory is more like a virus. If it is not eradicated by it's conditions (i.e. incompatibility with the real world) then it evolves.

Your analogy may be better suited to explaining hypotheses.

Good point. It was the best analogy I could think at the top of my head.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Atheism is a lack of religion. It`s very very hard - dare I say impossible - to discuss atheism as *atheism* without bringing religion into it.

Either way - if the derailment to religion/lack of religion discussion continues, the thread WILL be closed.

Atheism is not believing in God. It does not mean you're not religous.

Just, most religions involve a God, so people just assume that.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Him: What's your belief about God?

Me: Don't believe there is one.

Him: Really? How can you not? Is your faith that weak?

Me: Nothing to do with faith. I simply cannot believe that something that is just... there, can create the world simply with a snap of his hand.

Him: Oh, and so the Big Bang Theory is so much more better, is it?

Me: Who said anything about the Big Bang?

Him: Well... I thought since you don't believe in God that...

Me: That I automatically believe in the Big Bang theory? Don't be an idiot. the Big Bang theory is just that. I do not believe in it, nor do I dis-believe it. Until it has been proven, it is still a theory. Our mind and science is still very insufficient to prove such things as the creation of the world, let alone the universe. We still have at least a few more hundred years before coming close, and who knows what other theories will come up?

Him: But, why do that when you know God created the world?

Me: because even that, is a theory. An old one. But as I said before. It took us this long to get away from God creating the world, to the Big Bang. It'll improve.

I've an interesting story, too:

Evo dude: "I can't believe we evolved from monkeys!"

Muzzie dude: "Think so? Where's the proof?"

Evo dude: "Here is a skeleton of the monkey we came from..."

Muzzie dude: "That's only where you think we came from, where are the links?"

Evo dude: "Here's a skeleton of a slightly more ape like creature!"

Muzzie dude: "There's still links missing..."

Evo dude: "Here's a skeleton of a ape like man!"

Muzzie dude: "But that does not link us to him..."

Evo dude: "Here's a skeleton of a cave man who looks almost identical to us and is genetically linked!"

Muzzie dude: "Not good enough... there's still pieces missing..."

Evo dude: "WTF? What else do you want? Birth cetificates?"

Muzzie dude: "... yes... I also want dental records to prove the monkeys listed are those who match the names on the certificates..."

Evo dude: *Goes and drinks coffee*

The big bang "theory" is the same. It's pretty much proven. Asking for more evidence... I think some people will settle for nothing less than photographs of the exact moment...

Originally Posted by MMM

She is telling the basics of Big Bang theory. Nothing more, nothing less. It is interesting you would guess she participated in the video for personal gain.

No. This is the big bounce. It's a little more advanced and newer.

Originally Posted by alanX

I have a question.

She said something like the Big Bang could possibly be the result of another universe collapsing or something along the lines of that...

I'm curious as to where that universe came from. And if the answer is "it came from another universe collapsing," then where did that universe come from?

Perhaps it was God?

It's up to you. Science has not got this far yet, and there will always be an essence of mystery as to what the real heart of existence is.

For me, I think it is the void element; an element construct that is beyond our comprehension simply because we're not physically made of that element, so have no direct connection with it aside the intuitive.

Originally Posted by iPhantom

If you give me proof that everything needs to have a start (source), I'll answer you.

LOL. If you give me proof it even has started...

Of course, our universe had to have a start. Everything has a source. Everything comes from somewhere. Nothing just magically pops out of it's own arse and exists oneday.

All dirt, fire, water, air, it is all the result of something. It's a reaction. As is space and time, clearly. The mere fabric of existence must have a source, a creator. That's just science.

Give me one thing that exists today that you know for a fact does not have a source. I know you can't.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Thinking about this really hurts my head.

You're so cute...

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

LOL. If you give me proof it even has started...

Of course, our universe had to have a start. Everything has a source. Everything comes from somewhere. Nothing just magically pops out of it's own arse and exists oneday.

All dirt, fire, water, air, it is all the result of something. It's a reaction. As is space and time, clearly. The mere fabric of existence must have a source, a creator. That's just science.

Give me one thing that exists today that you know for a fact does not have a source. I know you can't.

Wrong. Your logic doesn't make sense, because the very first source needs to have something that created it too, thus making it not the source and so it goes into infinity. There is no source to anything. Dirt, fire, water, air, is the result of chemical reactions which made them to be that way, and obviously there was something else before that, and something else before that and so on.

Tell me why something needs to have a source, when not even the 'science' (don't know about what science you are talking) you mention can prove it logically like I did.

Same goes for religious people, if God was the creator, who created God, using the logic everything has a source it goes into an endless course.

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Wrong. Your logic doesn't make sense, because the very first source needs to have something that created it too, thus making it not the source and so it goes into infinity. There is no source to anything. Dirt, fire, water, air, is the result of chemical reactions which made them to be that way, and obviously there was something else before that, and something else before that and so on.

Tell me why something needs to have a source, when not even the 'science' (don't know about what science you are talking) you mention can prove it logically like I did.

Same goes for religious people, if God was the creator, who created God, using the logic everything has a source it goes into an endless course.

But do you know what the very first source even is?

The basic way elements work (and I know it's much deeper than this, but this is the basic concept of the pentagram that represents the deeper thing that is too complex to explain in a symbol) is; fire creates earth (ash, soot, so on), earth creates air (as it releases its good and produces gas), air creates water (as the gases combine and make it rain), water creates void/life (that which has essence; the body is made of things that fall entirly in the other categories; fire and air, earth and water, yet life has spirit, it has essence; it's this same essence that is used to describe existence). So, cycle of life = Void - Fire - Earth - Air - Water - Void.

The cycle of destruction follows the star, not the circle; fire destroys air (burns gas), air destroys life (you know, even though we breath oxygen, it's actually bad for us; the introduction of oxygen into the planet killed 99% of all species at the time; this is why air sealed food lasts longer), life destroys earth (like, plants sucking the vitamins dry from the earth), earth destroys water (dries it up some), water destroys fire (... you get it). So, cycle of destruction = Void - Earth - Water - Fire - Air - Void.

Anyway, this cycle basically includes all things that exist and sums them up simply in five elements. It never ends.

However, each time a new dimension is born, it must have come from the fifth element; the void. There's no other explanation. The dimension can not have been created by any other element, as none can exist without the life/void element, that creates the fire (the big bang) to seed a new dimension ready for existence.

We're all a product of the fifth element; void. To put it simply, we were made by spirit, life, or, as Alan so carefully puts it; God (yet, I don't at all believe the concept in the way religous dudes who go to heaven believe it).

But the idea is, since the body (including the brain) is made entirly of the other four elements, we're perpetually unable to understand the void/Gods power. The only way we connect to it is on the level we have spirit, and elusive essence.

Saying "the source must have had a creator" is fairly niave. That is to say dumbly that you know everything, and can see evey factor that is present. I don't believe for a second you know next to anything about the real way this world works, so I'll stick with my way.

Basically, time is an illusion of the dimension; it's been proven, like gravity, that it's actually a partical thing, rather than just a reality. Time is not real. It does not exist in the way you think it does. Saying, if we go back to the beggining, where there is only the void/God, and then what created that BEFORE, is dumb, because there was no before, there was no time, there was no existence, there was only void/God.

Fact is, when this dimension dies, there will once again be no time... will we ever have even lived?

It seems to me the original source of our existence has fooled us quite well. We, in reality, have never even left its grasp, because time is not real to have taken us anywhere; we're still in "Gods" hands...

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Saying "the source must have had a creator" is fairly niave. That is to say dumbly that you know everything, and can see evey factor that is present. I don't believe for a second you know next to anything about the real way this world works, so I'll stick with my way.

You're so wrong. I'm not naive at all. If you say we MUST have had a creator, then it's safe to apply them to the whole tree. I'm talking based on logic. What you said is an example of religious fallacies that religious people say all the time (I don't know if you are or not but I'm just saying your argument is something created by them to justify the existence of God).

Als you ask me do you know what's the very first source when on my quote I wrote there is no first source? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

You're making a rule that everything that we see now has a creator and apply it to some nonsense which does not need a creator? This is just dumb. And your elements explanation, that is what religion and old philosophers said, modern science is different File:Particle overview.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia =D

the theory that we always existed is very well thought. I guess you need to check it out.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Rationally speaking. The theory of the big bang is more probable than the theory of creationism (I'm assuming you agree that the scientific method is the most rational way to investigate a hypothesis). Therefore they are not equal.

What are you talking about? Rationally speaking, The Big Bang theory is science fiction at the moment. All modern science(Physics) is NOT rational. It takes a lot of imagination to think up of all the probabilities that make up modern science! How is nothing becoming something more rational than a power creates something? Both are farfetched rationally speaking and neither can be proven using Scientific method.

The Big Bang theory is based on the universe expanding which in turn is based on the doppler effect which in fact is not that conclusive nor is it accurate when studying space!. If it were, they would have been able to tell us something as simple as; in which direction the centre of the universe is

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by noodle

What are you talking about? Rationally speaking, The Big Bang theory is science fiction at the moment. All modern science(Physics) is NOT rational. It takes a lot of imagination to think up of all the probabilities that make up modern science! How is nothing becoming something more rational than a power creates something? Both are farfetched rationally speaking and neither can be proven using Scientific method.

The Big Bang theory is based on the universe expanding which in turn is based on the doppler effect which in fact is not that conclusive nor is it accurate when studying space!. If it were, they would have been able to tell us something as simple as; in which direction the centre of the universe is

Yes.. modern science is the product of our imaginations... we just made it all up. *sarcasm*

I'd like you to tell me the method of investigation which is more rational than the scientific method since you seem to believe that science is all made up...

And the hypothesis that nothing became something can be foreseeably tested if humans develop a sufficient understanding of time and space perhaps. Creationism could never be tested because in the minds of the creationists, the inconspicuousness of their creator is merely "not proof of non-existence" (which is completely irrational).

Also I'm not saying that the big bang is true... just that it is a more probable theory than creationism.

Oh and by the way... I'm not emotionally attached to the big bang theory... so it doesn't bother me if a more plausible theory is developed later on when more about our universe is discovered. So please don't come at me as though I made up the theory or I have any sort of investment in the theory.

Furthermore... you're not a scientist. Therefore anything you say about science which you deem irrational I will put down to perhaps your misunderstanding of something in which you are out of your depth.