A talk about Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church

[Jhony5]

There's alot of ways to look at it, and I've heard hundreds of different takes on the whole thing, but none of them jive with my experience of reality.

As for myself, I have no idea what the origion of all being is, if there even IS an origion of all being. Whatever it may be, it's surely not like humans. We are about as far away from infallible, non contingent, and infinate as my tiny brain can fathom. shrug

For a far advanced and ancient society of beings, it would be no more difficult for them to create humans then it is for us humans to create living tissue with stem cells. I've always found the 'petri dish' theory intresting. That we, as humans, are living our lives in a vast universe with unending boundaries. Which as it would turn out is just a small confined experimental platform being viewed and manipulated by beings so vastly larger then our minds can comprehend. Its about perspective.

if there even IS an origin of all being.

Well thats the kicker. Whether your a creationist or you subscribe to a spontaneous uncaused theory of life. There is an origin to all being. There is a starting point for everything. Every object that moves, has an original mover. And whatever moved the original mover, thus had something to move it...........and so on and so on..........

 

[somersetcace1]

Well thats the kicker. Whether your a creationist or you subscribe to a spontaneous uncaused theory of life. There is an origin to all being. There is a starting point for everything. Every object that moves, has an original mover. And whatever moved the original mover, thus had something to move it...........and so on and so on..........

Look at what you posted there...It doesn't make sense. An origion of all being, by definition, could have no original mover, or it wouldn't be the origion of ALL being. So, you have a couple of options. Either everything in existance is contingent, making the very chain of contingency its self the origion, or something exists/existed that had no original mover.

 

[Jhony5]

Look at what you posted there...It doesn't make sense. An origion of all being, by definition, could have no original mover, or it wouldn't be the origion of ALL being. So, you have a couple of options. Either everything in existance is contingent, making the very chain of contingency its self the origion, or something exists/existed that had no original mover.

I don't think ya understood what I said. According to a purely scientific purview, the origin of all being was a swirl of matter that compressed together under extreme gravitational forces, forming the first star. Eventualy the star swelled into a super nova. Inevitably, the star exploded thus the big bang was in effect.

But what moved the first molecule? What kicked the first spec of matter into motion? The original mover is what gave motion to this matter through its kinetic energy.

Something/someone moved the first spec of matter, right? This isn't a matter that can be settled here, as it is the most complex theorization possible. I'm ill qualified to tackle this as I could barely pass intro to algebra.
What I can theorize is that whatever/whomever moved the first matter known to our universe, is god.

 

[somersetcace1]

I don't think ya understood what I said. According to a purely scientific purview, the origin of all being was a swirl of matter that compressed together under extreme gravitational forces, forming the first star. Eventualy the star swelled into a super nova. Inevitably, the star exploded thus the big bang was in effect.

But what moved the first molecule? What kicked the first spec of matter into motion? The original mover is what gave motion to this matter through its kinetic energy.

Something/someone moved the first spec of matter, right? This isn't a matter that can be settled here, as it is the most complex theorization possible. I'm ill qualified to tackle this as I could barely pass intro to algebra.
What I can theorize is that whatever/whomever moved the first matter known to our universe, is god.

There are several problems with your statement, but I'll stick with the relevent ones. You're understanding of the Big Bang is inccorect, but that's okay, because it doesn't matter...pun not intended. ;-)

It's not really a problem, and it need not even be solved for us to reach some reasonable conclusions. A. Matter has either always existed or it has not. That's a simple concept that doesn't require any algebra. B. Matter has the property of attraction....It tends to stick together when it comes into contact with its self. C. it is believed the BB began because all of the matter currently in our universe was all in one point of time and space, and that event created a huge reaction.

Okay, so we're still on reasonable ground, and require no math yet. The question is why did that event occur? Was the matter required for the event already in existance? We don't know. We can only see back to the event its self, not before. Does that mean there IS no before? No. Does it mean there HAS to be a before? No.

On to the last thing. Let us assume that something DID set this universe (hubble volume..or that which we call the cosmos) into motion. Does that something have to be a god? No. Could there be other events prior to the BB that lead to the BB? yes. Does that mean there CAN'T be a God? no.

Bottom line: I don't know the origion of all being, if there even IS an origion. Make more sense now?

 

[Jhony5]

it is believed the BB began because all of the matter currently in our universe was all in one point of time and space, and that event created a huge reaction.

This was known as the singularity. Which is what I meant by "star". I apologize for my misuse of the term. There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Or at least that the common understanding astrophysicist have concluded using the red shift.

Does that mean there IS no before? No. Does it mean there HAS to be a before?

Actually many are claiming that there are objects and events, namely Quasars, that pre-date the 10-15 billion year time-line given for the BB. So the whole question of the BB isn't whether it happened, but whether it was in fact the start of our universe.

That's a simple concept that doesn't require any algebra.

Okay, so we're still on reasonable ground, and require no math yet

I was joking about the algebra Smarty McWiseass!

Let us assume that something DID set this universe (hubble volume..or that which we call the cosmos) into motion. Does that something have to be a god?

I disagree. Whatever/whomever created the matter contained within the singularity, is the creator. Be it a being or simply a reaction. Yes god can be a thing rather then a person/being/entity, whatever. To me, being free from the confines of religion, god is a subjective term. Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

There must be an origin to all being. Something cannot come from nothing. An object does not move, without energy being transfered to it by something else. Its a base law of physics.

Bottom line: I don't know the origion of all being, if there even IS an origion. Make more sense now?

It would, if you spelled Origin correctly. I kid I kid.

No but seriously you spelled that wrong.

I suck at algebra, you suck at spelling, hey we ought to get together and be stupid, maybe bake a cake or something.

You know what I love about this forum? We start out discussing some whacko ****tard pseudo-pastor, and end up debating the big bang and its scientific merit.

 

[somersetcace1]

There must be an origin to all being. Something cannot come from nothing. An object does not move, without energy being transfered to it by something else. Its a base law of physics.

This is the only thing I disagree with. No, something cannot come from nothing, which means something must have always been. Okay, fair enough, but why even create the confusion of calling it God, and why would that something have to be that which caused our universe? It's possible that the chain goes back much further than that. The thing about calling it God, is not even necessarily the religious implications, but the intelligence implication. I have a real problem with intelligent design. It's possible, but certainly not necessary, and the term "God," implies it.

Also, matter has the property of attraction. It doesn't require something to push it. It merely needs to be close enough, and dense enough to act on itself within the laws of physics. Of course, that begs the question: Why are there natural forces in the first place? I don't know, but assuming its a god of some sort is unreasonable..imho

 

[Jhony5]

matter has the property of attraction. It doesn't require something to push it.

I'm sure you will tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't gravity the force that drives matter together? If you placed two microscopic bits of matter on a table just apart from one another, they wouldn't conjoin. However if you dropped the two bits from high in the air they would most likely be drawn together through the force of gravity. So it would seem that there is always a natural force behind all motion.

Why are there natural forces in the first place? I don't know, but assuming its a god of some sort is unreasonable..i

It is indeed unreasonable, but not implausible.

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

A. Matter has either always existed or it has not. That's a simple concept that doesn't require any algebra. B. Matter has the property of attraction....It tends to stick together when it comes into contact with its self. C. it is believed the BB began because all of the matter currently in our universe was all in one point of time and space, and that event created a huge reaction.

A & B are true enough (although irrelevant), but C is erroneous because no one (not even Steven Hawking) has come up with a working theory on how the BB occurred it wasn't because all the matter in the universe was in a singularity, rather it happened in spite of all the matter being in a singularity. The problem is time doesn't exist at the point of the singularity (a clock does not tick, energy can not move anything and nothing can happen)

Okay, so we're still on reasonable ground, and require no math yet. The question is why did that event occur? Was the matter required for the event already in existance? We don't know. We can only see back to the event its self, not before. Does that mean there IS no before? No. Does it mean there HAS to be a before? No.

Since time does not exist in the singularity then it would be reasonable say. Hawking has prosed another theory called the "Big Crunch" (BC) marks the end of of the universe. While some have speculated that the universe has been going through the BC's and BB's since forever. I guess it is possible but it is hard to understand how anything can happen if time is stopped.

 

[somersetcace1]

Stephen Hawking is working, (reasonably I might add, from a scientific perspective,) with the premise that there is no existance outside our hubble volume. Everything he proposes changes if there is, and he will be the first to tell you that.

The problem is when you try to mix the philosophy/theology with the science. Hawking doesn't do that. However, if you're going to speculate about the origion of all being, you are going to have to move outside the current scientific understanding. What I am talking about is philosophical logic. If you want strict science, then we can't even talk about it. There isn't enough data.

 

[Jhony5]

The problem is when you try to mix the philosophy/theology with the science. Hawking doesn't do that. However, if you're going to speculate about the origion of all being, you are going to have to move outside the current scientific understanding. What I am talking about is philosophical logic. If you want strict science, then we can't even talk about it. There isn't enough data.

Thats why they call it 'theoretical astrophysics'. Basically genius' doing guess work.
Posted by MRIH:

While some have speculated that the universe has been going through the BC's and BB's since forever. I guess it is possible but it is hard to understand how anything can happen if time is stopped.

I like this theory best. That time is circular, as opposed to taking the form of a line, with a starting point, and an end game. The idea that the universe is expanding seems to support the fact that everything originated from a defined point.

It was only a few years ago when some had thought they might disprove E=MC, the foundation of physics as we know it. Which is the idea that an object cannot explode with more energy then what is contained within its mass.