A talk about Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church

[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.