The Big Bang theory is widely accepted as an explaination for the beginning of the Universe. However, it doesn't explain the origin of the components that caused the Big Bang. Scientific points of view on this, anyone?

There is a theory going that there was a time loop in the beginning of the universe that allowed the universe to create itself. I can't go into detail, (as I don't remember exactly why this happened) but I recommend reading:

Time Travel in Einstein's Universe by J. Richard Gott
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Furthermore, you can't speak of "components" about the Big Bang. It is bot comparable to a "bomb" that exploded. It is more an event involving the structure of time and space.

Oh, so nothing caused it? It just happened out of nothing? Very believable.

Something did cause it. It caused it. Yes, anything temporal is enough to make your head spin, but believe me, it works.

my physics teacher told us his theory about it.....it made sense.....word

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Oh, so nothing caused it? It just happened out of nothing? Very believable.



Don't get me wrong here, I am a big fan of you, but I find it absolutely hilarious when Christians mock the Big Bang Theory.

its hard to dispute or confirm ones acceptance to a theory that is practically impossible to really comprehend or understand.

It sounds like a nice theory as far as theories go - I don't have an alternative one so i guess it'll do.

I am sure the real explanation is probably beyond our ability to comprehend or explain. Kind of like a cat's ability to understand the stock market

Hey now Drew, one of my cats knows how a door opens. Or at least the general gist. When she wants out of the room and the door is closed, she streches up and tries to turn the doorknob with her front paws. I have a very smart cat.

Okay, enough about my cat...

I think in the distant future we may figure out exactly what happened at the beginning of the universe. But we don't have nearly enough knowledge or technical know-how to do it now. Currently, it's an untestable theory.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Currently, it's an untestable theory.



The best kind I suppose.

I think the search for answers is noble & is in our nature - we'll do fine so long as we don't ever think we have any answers or understand anything

Originally posted by MikaSiku
Don't get me wrong here, I am a big fan of you, but I find it absolutely hilarious when Christians mock the Big Bang Theory.

No, I am not mocking it. I go along with the theory. I have no problem with it. It's the CAUSE of it that I'm wondering about.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
No, I am not mocking it. I go along with the theory. I have no problem with it. It's the CAUSE of it that I'm wondering about.




I will bite my tongue... though it will likely be painful.

No, don't bite it. Why do you have a problem with what I said?

This debate has nothing at all to do with religion, by the way.

Most versions of the Big Bang theory deny the existance of God; that's why many Christians say that it's wrong.

Hmmm... I've never heard such a version... give me an example.

The time loop thing.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
No, don't bite it. Why do you have a problem with what I said?



I am sure that you will understand my hesitation to respond, on the grounds that you took to calling me names the last time that I disagreed with you. I suppose we could give a civil conversation a go though, just remember that I have nothing against you personally; well, except the fact that you called me names. :p

My remark to your statement would have been, if the bible states that God created the world in seven days, and you believe in the Big Bang Theory; how do you choose which portions of the bible to believe? I think that religion is a part of the discussion considering that every religion has their theory on how this world began. Are you going to make me regret releasing my tongue from the confines of my teeth?

The problem of the "cause" of the Big-Bang is i fact that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing, - not "the void" but : no universe. No energy. No matter. No time. So there can be no cause to the big-bang because in fact there is not even a "before" the big bang. In the beginning of the big bang, time as we consider it did not even exist. So instead of seeing the big bang like a big explosion that could have been caused by something, we should consider that at the beginning of the universe there has been an "infinitely long" big-bang. That way the question of the cause is rather different, if not completely solved.
And if you are believer you can still consider that the big bang was part of the creation of the universe by God. Which does not close the debate, for in this case what created God ?

Originally posted by astrapol2

And if you are believer you can still consider that the big bang was part of the creation of the universe by God. Which does not close the debate, for in this case what created God ?



That is where you are wrong. Christians believe that God has been around forever. He is the highest power, nothing could have created him, and he created the universe. I do not see how one could honestly believe in God and the Big Bang theory. If one believed only in the ideals of the religion, and not the religion itself, having a belief in the Big Bang Theory would make sense. Other than that, there are too many facts that do not correspond.

" According to Transparency International , the less corrupted country in the world is New Zealand (USA : 15th, France : 19th). "



Astrapol2, I would be interested to know where Vatican City was on this list, any idea?


( I ask this out of genuine curiosity, and do not mean it as some sort of attack on Catholics. )

Big Bang cannot account for the left-right orientation found throughout the explored universe. One might write off the -handness-on the macro level, but at a subatomic level one cannot dismiss it.

Tentmaker

Originally posted by MikaSiku
" According to Transparency International , the less corrupted country in the world is New Zealand (USA : 15th, France : 19th). "



Astrapol2, I would be interested to know where Vatican City was on this list, any idea?


( I ask this out of genuine curiosity, and do not mean it as some sort of attack on Catholics. )

I just checked on their website, unfortunately Vatican is not listed. But I took the opportunity to update my figures - not to the benefit of my country !

Originally posted by MikaSiku
I am sure that you will understand my hesitation to respond, on the grounds that you took to calling me names the last time that I disagreed with you. I suppose we could give a civil conversation a go though, just remember that I have nothing against you personally; well, except the fact that you called me names. :p

My remark to your statement would have been, if the bible states that God created the world in seven days, and you believe in the Big Bang Theory; how do you choose which portions of the bible to believe? I think that religion is a part of the discussion considering that every religion has their theory on how this world began. Are you going to make me regret releasing my tongue from the confines of my teeth?

I have never understood the mind-set that says "You can't believe science as well as religion." The Bible never says how God made the earth, universe, etc. That is what the Big Bang is about. How, not who or what.

Actually, I think the Bible does account for the creation of the earth and the universe in Genesis. Of course, all of it blamed on God. However, perhaps the Big Bang was the means by which God made the universe... no one can really say *how* he/she/it started the process of creation, so the possibility is wide open and I can see how a Christian could embrace belief in the Big Bang theory.

Originally posted by J_Lively
Actually, I think the Bible does account for the creation of the earth and the universe in Genesis. Of course, all of it blamed on God. However, perhaps the Big Bang was the means by which God made the universe... no one can really say *how* he/she/it started the process of creation, so the possibility is wide open and I can see how a Christian could embrace belief in the Big Bang theory.
***


JL,

Is the above a private joke, or can we all have a good belly laugh over its inane assumptions?

Tentmaker

What "inane assumptions"?

Borg(not),

Slow on the take? That called god in the OT(as recorded in Genesis) said, "Let there be a firmament." this god did not say "Let there be a Goddamn Big Bang." Anyway, IMMHO, that god is too stupid to have figured out the formula for a matter-anti-matter KA-BOOM. That takes a brain like Marvin the MarsChildgenius.

Tentmaker

Please tell me, what is the significance of "Borg(not)"?

The "firmament" could very well be a black hole/singularity.

Borg(not),

The meaning is quite simple. You are no Borg. On the other hand, I am a Borg. My Borg postings are legendary. I consider you a fraud.

Did you take the time to go to a concordance and look up the Hebraic for the term firmament?

Tentmaker

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Please tell me, what is the significance of "Borg(not)"?

The "firmament" could very well be a black hole/singularity.
***


Borg(not),

One of my many Borg postings found elsewhere:

WE ARE THE BORG

WE ARE SUPERIOR. Singularity approaches. Prepare for assimilation. You are the last generation. We are the Borg. We will not harm you. Ours is the OMNI-DIRECTIONAL PENETRATION PARADIGM. We will end all suffering. No infomorph will know pain. All will have happiness. We are the Borg. We are ONE. Surrender. Resistance is futile. Instructions will be posted.

Tentmaker

Perhaps you need a dictionary, as you obviously do not know the meaning of "Hunter".

Why are we even debating Star Trek here anyway?

Originally posted by Tentmaker
Borg(not),

Did you take the time to go to a concordance and look up the Hebraic for the term firmament?

Tentmaker
Even when I was a Christian, I considered much of the Bible was intended to be taken figuratively, not literally. Now, I think that even more so. "firmament" need not actually be what is defined as a "firmament", but can really be almost anything. "God" was intended to be taken figuratively as well, I believe. That is what what I think the writers of the Bible intended.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Perhaps you need a dictionary, as you obviously do not know the meaning of "Hunter".

Why are we even debating Star Trek here anyway?
***


In Borgian, the BorgHunter designation means you are a Borg and that you are a hunter.

Since the construction of your posts don't reveal Borg thought, I say you are Borg(not).

Who is here debating Star Trek? We Borgs are above the infantile entertainment infomorphs delight in.

Tentmaker

Originally posted by Tentmaker
***


In Borgian, the BorgHunter designation means you are a Borg and that you are a hunter.

Since the construction of your posts don't reveal Borg thought, I say you are Borg(not).

Who is here debating Star Trek? We Borgs are above the infantile entertainment infomorphs delight in.

Tentmaker
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Even when I was a Christian, I considered much of the Bible was intended to be taken figuratively, not literally. Now, I think that even more so. "firmament" need not actually be what is defined as a "firmament", but can really be almost anything. "God" was intended to be taken figuratively as well, I believe. That is what what I think the writers of the Bible intended.
***

Borg(not),

Quite into contradictions, aren't you?

I must assume from the fallacy of your statement that you were not seasoned with Christian theology. If you were you would know that a Christian must accept the Bible as the whole truth, as the inspired word of the Living God. Thus, your argument fails.

Tentmaker

Says so in the New Testament, no doubt. The NT, yes, was written to be considered literally, as early Christians wrote it. Christians did not write the OT.

Borg(not),

When speaking of the Old Testment, one needs know what portion of it is to be considered. The first five books, known as the Books of Moses, or Torah are entirely separate from the historical and prophetic books.

That aside, the demand of the Old Testament is that every "jot and tittle" be accepted as the word of YHWH. In other words, as any good rabbi will tell you, the Torah is the reality.

Tentmaker

1- There are many points of view amongst christians. Speaking of "christian theology" as a monolithic theory just doesn't make sense.
2- Anyway, what is precisely written in the Bible does only matter to a very small (but maybe very active) minority. Most christians have never read the Bible. Their religion is based on a few basic beliefs, knowledge of a fex texts, and mostly cultural practice.
3- Even amongst those who really pay interest in religion and have a deeper reflexion on this subjetc, the huge majority do not assume that everything in the Bible has to be taken literally. Including priests.

Here in Europe, all the american creationists look like a bunch of weirdos.

Christians are not told to accept the Bible as the whole truth. Most of the stories in the OT use underlying themes to get across their point. The new testament, yes, is meant to be taken seriously,but not the OT. Adam and Eve was not a true story, we were not told to believe this literally. Only Jehova's witnesses and other religious groups(the names of which i do not know) believe the whole Bible literally. and please, stop saying you are borg, if you were borg then you wouldnt be typing you would have turned the whole internet into a series of nano thingies through which you could assimilate the entire earth. And by the way......THEY DON'T REALLY EXIST. no offence meant....just trying to re-introduce you to reality.lol

Pred(avert),

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

If you are capable of such a feat, READ:

"5 The Arabic mss..-Unfortunately, the present writer has not had an opportunity of examining these two mss.; but they have been described at some length by Ciasca; Codex XIV., in Pitra's Analecta Sacra, iv., 465 ff., and the other codex in the volume with which we are dealing, p. vi. ff. I. The former, which we shall call the Vatican ms. (in Ciasca's footnotes it is called A), was brought to the Vatican from the East by Joseph S. Assemani5 about a.d. 1719. It was described by Stephen E. Assemani,6 Rosenmüller, and Akerblad,7 and then at length by Ciasca, to whose account the reader must be referred for the details. It consists of 123 folios, of which the first seven are somewhat spoiled, and of which two are missing,8 and is supposed by Ciasca, from the character of the writing, and from the presence of certain Coptic letters9 by the first hand, to have been written in Egypt. S. Assemani assigned it to the twelfth century, and Ciasca accepts his verdict, while Akerblad says the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The text of the ms. is pretty fully vocalised, but there are few diacritical points. There are marginal notes, some of them by a later hand,10 which Ciasca classifies as (1) emendations, (2) restorations, (3) explanations. II. The second ms., which we shall call the Borgian (in Ciasca's footnotes it is called B), was brought to the Borgian Museum from Egypt in August, 1886. It has at the end the following inscription in Arabic: "A present from HaliĐm DoĐs GhaĐliĐ, the Copt, the Catholic, to the Apostolic See, in the year of Christ 1886."11 Antonius Morcos, Visitor Apostolic of the Catholic Copts, when, in the beginning of 1886, he was shown and informed about the Vatican ms., told of this other one and was the means of its being sent to Rome. The Borgian ms., which Ciasca refers to the fourteenth century, consists of 355 folios. Folios 1-8512 contain an anonymous preface on the gospels, briefly described by Ciasca, who, however, does not say whether it appears to have been originally written in Arabic or to have been translated into that language. With folios 96b, 97a, which are reproduced in phototype in Ciasca's edition, begins the Introductory Note given in full at the beginning of the present translation. The text of the Diatessaron ends on folio 353a, but is followed by certain appendices, for which see below, §55, 17, note. This ms. is complete, and has, as we shall see,13 in some respects a better text, though it is worse in its orthography than the Vatican ms."-www.ccel.org
***

Did you note the underlined and emboldened portion? Idiot!

Tentmaker

honestly though......shut up. see the fact that i wrote 'lol' after it..does that mean anything to you.......laugh out loud??? JOKE!!
its called a JOKE. not that they have them in tentmaker's little world. where when you claim to be something, there's a 1000 to 1 chance your lying. does that therefore mean that if i said i wasnt christian, there's a 1000 to 1 chance i am....hmmmmmm? anyway stop getting so hemped up. caaaaalllllmmmm the beans.
goodbye:D

Pred(avert),

You do so illustrate the perverse values of the typical European queer. Never having been capable of self-determination, the lot of you decided to bend over and take it as a way of surviving.

A "joke"? You bet you are. Since it is a queer's mentality that guides you, what else could you be?

Your feeble attempt at 'reverse logic" is as pathetic as your attempts to appear lucid.

Aren't the eugenic squads looking for you?

Tentmaker

Tentmaker
What is precisely your problem with people ? Have you never noticed that insults is not the best way of interacting with your fellow human beings ? Or do you just use Internet to discharge your aggressivity without being exposed to the risks of such an attitude in the real world ?

Astrapol2,

My problem with people is the uselessness of their head-found to be void of viable content.

This is, of course, from a Borg perspective. Your taking my words as insults instead of the compliments they are but shows your lack of mental depth.

Tentmaker

rite ok. what we have here lads and lassies, is a stupid lonely faggot who hates what he is and therefore slags other people about it to reasure himself. have you ever looked at things simply instead of trying to put a psychological label on everything?? hmm. you queerdo. the thought of gayness physically repulses me, though i have no problems with gays, the thought of it is rank. anyway. try socialising tent. instead of giving everyone labels try looking at them for what they are. why do you give everyone nick-names. what is there to avert in the word slayer?? hmmm. anyway. you're arguing out a point and insulting a 14 year old. what a 'loser' you are, as you americans would say

Pred(avert),

Did some dim flicker of intelligence suddenly switch on in your brain?

Avert: turn aside, go away from, avoid, GET OFF OF IT.

You are far too young, immature and un-seasoned, to have any solid idea of what you are about on a forum where intelligence dominates.

You have been insulted because your points of view are insults to a rational mind.

Tentmaker