• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question for Darwinists

H

huberm

Golden Member
This is just something I have been thinking about lately and in no way am trying to offend anyone. I am not trying to be judgemental nor am I trying to force any beliefs onto anyone else. I am simply curious as to what others think.

So here goes:

Regardless of if the big bang theory, evolution, etc is correct, didn't the matter have to come from somewhere? You cannot have an effect without a cause, can you?
 
just because we can't answer it right now doesn't mean we should give up and turn to some mythical entity instead

ahh yes almost forgot my lawn chair
 
The wiki article on Big Bang Theory is pretty good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory

But it is irrelevant where the matter came from. Darwinism does not address the physics of the universe. Just living things.

"The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions analogous to the condensation of steam or freezing of water as it cools, but related to elementary particles."
 
Originally posted by: bum
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Where did god come from?
Click to expand...
God is eternal, he has always existed.
Click to expand...

That is (for me at least) an impossible concept to put my mind around.
Click to expand...



I truly don't think we as humans are capable of fully comprehending eternity. When I sit down and think about it, my brain hurts!
 
?If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?? Carl Sagan
 
Also, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe... just the origin of species.
 
God must be a lonely guy. Does he suffer from depression? Is he Emo? Has he ever attempted suicide by walking on water when he can't even swim?
 
Originally posted by: huberm
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Matter is eternal, it has always existed.
Click to expand...



is there any theory or scientific proof that supports this? (sorry I am very curious)
Click to expand...

the conservation of matter and energy. we can't really destroy or create either, or that's what we believe right now.
 
Originally posted by: Mucho
?If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?? Carl Sagan
Click to expand...

To me either statement without any kind of backing are of zero value.

For God, you would use evidence such as the Bible and other religious texts. For the latter, you could use science. But to simply conclude that either has always been as Sagan states is irresponsible.

It is correct that we can not prove with what would defined as hard scientific evidence that either is true, at some point it requires fait whether you want to admit it or not.

As research continues in the field of quantum physics I think we will end up with more evidence, it's only a matter of time (and funding).
 
damn theres no way any of us will ever know how it all started- I've stopped trying long ago.
 
Actually, the amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly being depleted (thermodynamics). Knowing this, we can determine that if we rewound time to the point where all matter was unused, we will have arrived at the beginning. We must then answer the question of how the matter was created or did appear.
 
Originally posted by: everman
Originally posted by: Mucho
?If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?? Carl Sagan
Click to expand...

To me either statement without any kind of backing are of zero value.

For God, you would use evidence such as the Bible and other religious texts. For the latter, you could use science. But to simply conclude that either has always been as Sagan states is irresponsible.

It is correct that we can not prove with what would defined as hard scientific evidence that either is true, at some point it requires fait whether you want to admit it or not.

As research continues in the field of quantum physics I think we will end up with more evidence, it's only a matter of time (and funding).
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding the quote. Sagan does not assert the unconditional truth of anything. He is saying that if one holds true that a being beyond space and time exists, then why not consider the possibility that the creation of the universe happened outside of space and time as well. Without time, causality is by no means assured.

Or, at least, that's what I think he's saying. Regardless, I hardly think that what he said was "irresponsible". If the first part of the implication is false (i.e., if "God has always been" is false), then the statement is vacuously true. And if the first part is true, then the worms are out of the can---who would then care about the truthfulness of this one little assertion?
 
I don't understand how people can believe a supreme being can create matter from nothing but can't even acknowledge that it could have just always been?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top