此站点大量使用JavaScript。
请在您的浏览器中启用JavaScript。
正式服
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Pre- Big Bang? and The Big Rip?
发表回复
返回主列表
发布者
Septimus
I remember a thread like this before...pretty sure it turned into Religion vs Science, and got locked.
I personally prefer a theory where God created the Big Bang and let things go from there. I prefer this as I like science yet am religious. This is just my personal opinion.
发布者
Hyperspacerebel
Gotta love how you just throw Descartes out the window without a second thought :P
I'll read it more in depth once I've had my coffee.
发布者
TheMediator
I personally prefer a theory where God created the Big Bang and let things go from there.
I could accept this, but if worshiping him doesn't in any way correlate to real experiences, I don't see what reason one would have for worship. The way I see it, the only faith that really matters is faith in oneself and one's own abilities.
发布者
MyTie
From my Q&A Thread:My question is this: If God made the stars 6000 and some yeas ago we would not be seeing the light from these far away galaxies yet, (we could only see the light from stars less then 6000 light years away)
Two different schools of thought contradict each other here and I believe both.
What do you think?This is something I've thought a lot about. I'm glad you asked.
I don't believe they are contradictory at all. I think it is completely possible that the two are both true. It is possible that BOTH of these things are true:
The universe is only 6K (about) years old as the Bible says
Light is reaching us that would have taken over a million years to get here. I mean, our galaxy alone is over 100,000 light years in diameter.
But the question really is, how can these both be true at the same time? In all honesty, I don't
know
if and how they are both correct. I would like to say that it is possible, and to propose a way how:
Let us suppose that the Bible were 100% true. Now imagine you build a time machine, and go back in time to 5 minutes after Adam had been created. What would he look like? Would he look like a microscopic sperm inside of an egg laying on the ground. That is possible, but doubtful. What is more likely is that God would have created Adam at the proper age to sustain himself in the open atmosphere. So, 5 minutes after Adam were created, he might look 20 years old. From an observable standpoint, you would say, that human being is 20 years old. Then when you asked God, He might say, Adam is 5 minutes old. You could present all of the observable proof you wanted that Adam was older than 5 minutes (puberty over, height, weight, adult teeth), but the fact would be that the observable proof is wrong, and that Adam would only be 5 minutes old.
So, why not the universe? If God were an omnipotent being, and created the universe so that he could spend time with humans, why would he create the universe at our conceived starting point, and then wait around for millions of years until it were a more inhabitable place? Why couldn't He have created it
already aged
? It seems very possible to me. I'm not saying that is the way it happened, I'm just saying that the possibility is there.
The most common arguement against this theory is that God doesn't lie, so why would he create light showing something that didn't really happen? This is a weak arguement. Just because God didn't choose to disclose the mysteries of the universe, does not mean that he is either deceptive or non existant. Those can't be the only arguements. Perhaps He thought it was not important for us to understand the speed of light, and how the age of the universe. If He had, then perhaps Jesus would have been a physics instructor, instead of the savior of humanity. It seems His priorities are not your understanding of the speed of light and meaning of time.
Edit:
Skitzorob - why don't you come up with one. It's my saturday, and my wife has errands for me to run.
Modibybob - I decline math questions. Heaven forbid I make a mistake, and people accuse me of being unfit to teach my kids. (I'm looking at you Laihendi)
发布者
Patty
But....isn't Earth's written History much over 6,000 years old? :|
发布者
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
发布者
MyTie
But....isn't Earth's written History much over 6,000 years old? :|
Try explaining that to a devout christian or catholic. If the bible says the Earth is 6000 years old. Then the earth is 6000 years old. Anything older is a lie or a forgery
I'm 100% certain that you didn't read my post.
I feel like I bend over backward to admit that I don't know how things go, but I'm willing to keep an open mind, and then, as SOON as I finish, an atheist always comes up and slaps me with a stereotype. It's grating on the nerves, to say the least.
发布者
Hyperspacerebel
But....isn't Earth's written History much over 6,000 years old? :|
Try explaining that to a devout christian or catholic. If the bible says the Earth is 6000 years old. Then the earth is 6000 years old. Anything older is a lie or a forgery
You sir know nothing about Catholics if you think we think the world is 6k years old -_-
发布者
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
发布者
TheMediator
But....isn't Earth's written History much over 6,000 years old? :|
Try explaining that to a devout christian or catholic. If the bible says the Earth is 6000 years old. Then the earth is 6000 years old. Anything older is a lie or a forgery
You sir know nothing about Catholics if you think we think the world is 6k years old -_-
You don't speak for all Catholics. I've seen plenty of Young Earth Catholics.
Anyways MyTie, I think the point he's making is, the universe could be an elaboratly constructed lie to mislead everyone but the most devout Christians, but its so far fetched that there's not much reason to believe it - best just to go with Occam's Razor until evidence points towards Young Earth theory.
发布者
Hyperspacerebel
Try explaining that to a devout christian or catholic. If the bible says the Earth is 6000 years old. Then the earth is 6000 years old. Anything older is a lie or a forgery
You sir know nothing about Catholics if you think we think the world is 6k years old -_-
You don't speak for all Catholics. I've seen plenty of Young Earth Catholics.
I speak for Catholicism.
Ciallister was equating being a devout Catholic with thinking the world is 6k years old. They have nothing to do with each other. There are Catholics on all sides of the debate.
People have a habit of equating everything a Catholic does with Catholicism.
发布者
129077
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
发布者
TheMediator
There are Catholics on all sides of the debate.
Yes, so you can't say that all Catholics believe one way or the other about the subject. So he's wrong in a way, but you're wrong too.
You don't speak for anything on the subject except for your own point of view. Of course, I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong, so I suppose this post is somewhat pointless.
And Mediator, Couldnt EVERY religion we know be an elaborate lie?
That's what I'm saying, you could say that "X is misleading, the evidence is simply a trick" for everything, so you can't say for sure what is and isn't true, but at some point you have to draw a line and say "I accept that this evidence might not be true, but until something emerges that contradicts it, I'm just going to have to believe that the evidence is reliable."
发布者
Hyperspacerebel
There are Catholics on all sides of the debate.
Yes, so you can't say that all Catholics believe one way or the other about the subject. So he's wrong in a way, but you're wrong too.
How am I wrong? All I've been saying is that you can't generalize Catholics on this topic. You're agreeing with me and then saying I'm wrong...
发布者
TheMediator
There are Catholics on all sides of the debate.
Yes, so you can't say that all Catholics believe one way or the other about the subject. So he's wrong in a way, but you're wrong too.
How am I wrong? All I've been saying is that you can't generalize Catholics on this topic. You're agreeing with me and then saying I'm wrong...
You sir know nothing about Catholics if you think we think the world is 6k years old -_-
Your use of "we" is misleading.
发布者
Hyperspacerebel
How am I wrong? All I've been saying is that you can't generalize Catholics on this topic. You're agreeing with me and then saying I'm wrong...
You sir know nothing about Catholics if you think we think the world is 6k years old -_-
Your use of "we" is misleading.
We (Catholics),
qua
Catholics, don't think think the world is 6k years old.
Bob (who happens to be a Catholic),
qua
independent rational person, may think so.
That better?
发布者
Skyfire
Gotta love how you just throw Descartes out the window without a second thought :P
I'll read it more in depth once I've had my coffee.
The reason I note that is that I didn't want to get into the epistemology in this paper, and further, I didn't want to deal with the existence of God.
发布者
313143
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
发布者
Hyperspacerebel
Chances are, there were an infinite amount of Big Bangs before us, since time never began, and never ended. The universe is still expanding, but the black holes are slowing it down, and eventually they will start pulling it back in. Until the universe becomes another tiny sphere, and another Big Bang comes. Rinse and repeat.
The whole point is that time
did
have a beginning. If time really is bounded by the universe, then there is no "before" the universe. The issue is, could be other universes from other big bangs with their own time and their own matter.
The short answer. We'll never know. There is nothing connecting our universe with any others that might be out there. They don't exist in relation to each other.
Now Skyfire said in his paper:
To further the goal that possible other universes exist, we turn to the laws of probability theory, and consider the probability of the emergence of a new universe. Even should the probability be near zero, it is still possible that a universe could be created due to the
law of large numbers, which says that, over time, something with a stated chance to occur will occur, even if the number of trials it takes for it to occur is greater than the probability of occurrence would suggest.
Consider the amount of time there has been for at least one universe to be created – this amount of time is excessive when compared to the requirements of probability. I would deem it likely that there has been at least one other universe created alongside this one.
You can't use LLN because these "big-bangs" don't occur in time--rather they are the start of their respective times.
发布者
Skyfire
To further the goal that possible other universes exist, we turn to the laws of probability theory, and consider the probability of the emergence of a new universe. Even should the probability be near zero, it is still possible that a universe could be created due to the
law of large numbers, which says that, over time, something with a stated chance to occur will occur, even if the number of trials it takes for it to occur is greater than the probability of occurrence would suggest.
Consider the amount of time there has been for at least one universe to be created – this amount of time is excessive when compared to the requirements of probability. I would deem it likely that there has been at least one other universe created alongside this one.
You can't use LLN because these "big-bangs" don't occur in time--rather they are the start of their respective times.
Let me consider your point for a bit, as I've got the formulation of something to counter your point and I just have to let it bake, so to speak.
发表回复
您没有登录。请
登录
发表回复或
注册
如果您还没有账号。