The creation of the Universe.

[mystic brew]

Leprechauns can be disproven. Of course, I don't know much about them anyway. If they are supposed to be living on Earth, they can be disproven, or proven.

Not true.
Fairies, leprauchuns live in the 'Realm of Faerie', and only visit the waking world briefly. They can't survive here long, and when they die they return to the realm of faerie.

Disprove their existence... After all, thousands of people believed in the existence of fairys long before JC came along.

[Idaho]

What I don't understand about Genesis is that God lies and the Serpent tells the truth. (not defined as 'Satan' then - Satan being a Zoroastran word)

God says 'don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die'. The Serpent says 'This isn't true, you can eat it and you won't die'.

Which is the truth and which is a lie?

[mystic brew]

both are selective truths.

God leaves out the intervening time between eating the fruit and death, and the serpent leaves out the eventual death.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Let's hear it, how was the Universe created, and be prepared to be questioned.

I believe that God created it, but some Atheists and Scientists will say Big Bang and stuff, so bring it on.

-ZainDustin

Was the universe really ever created? And what is the definition of universe - matter and energy, only matter, or only energy? Or is it the very concept of space in which we can be positioned, or the concept of time, or both?

If God is defined as the creator of the universe, the universe was created by God. But why would that mean that that God concept will be the same as the God concept you pray to? And would they ever be able to be the same being? Or would the word God be defined as a collection of several distinct abstract and non-abstract phenomenons and concepts bunched together in a collection (and therefore have no function other than classifying distinct things into a group, rather than being a result of those distinct things being the same thing in reality) like classification of animals is done: every ape and human is a primate, but a primate shouldn't be comprehended as a single being. And if the universe was never really created, God would be a concept referring to something that doesn't necessarily exist, but doesn't necessarily not exist either, combined with phenomenons that might exist. Could God then be a comprehensible concept to model as a single being when you think of it?

[Brutus]

Nothing is really absolute.

You probably didn't mean this in a certain way, but when you mean Nothing, you mean Nothing, right?

So, you're telling me that I'm not absolutely sitting here, typing? You mean I could actually be walking in the streets of Sydney, Australia drinking a Cocktail?

-ZainDustin

This reminds me of a BBC documentary I once saw. In it, scientists stated that, in order to learn more about our own history (but time machines being an impossibility), it would be very likely that future generations would ultimately develop a computerprogram that would be able to simulate the entirity of earth's (or the universe's) history and all of its components. The 'occupants' of this program would, of course, be totally oblivious of the fact that they are simulations of the real thing. Because this simulation would develop along the lines of the real world, in it there would be developed another simulation for exactly the same goal, in which simulation the same would happen again, ad infinitum.

Therefore, the scientist reasoned, the chance of us ourselves actually being simulations is much, much greater than us being the 'real us', since there would be an infinite number of simulations and only one reality.

Thusly, the universe as we know it was most likely created by a computer programmer, who, for the sake of religion, shall henceforth be known as Bob.

(With regards to Old Thrashbarg).

[Viking]

God said: Let it blow! And so it was.

[Tribesman]

The laws changed after the crusifixion
So the Old Testament is thrown out of the window then , does that include the commandments ? It appears that you claim to believe in everything in the Bible , but are very selective about which parts you are willling to accept as Gods word . Why is that ?
Or could you point out the passages in the New Testament that specify which of the old laws are to be thrown out and which are to be retained ?
Also , if the O.T. is now "incorrect" then why are you sticking with Genesis ?

[Zain]

The laws changed after the crusifixion
So the Old Testament is thrown out of the window then , does that include the commandments ? It appears that you claim to believe in everything in the Bible , but are very selective about which parts you are willling to accept as Gods word . Why is that ?
Or could you point out the passages in the New Testament that specify which of the old laws are to be thrown out and which are to be retained ?
Also , if the O.T. is now "incorrect" then why are you sticking with Genesis ?

I found your passage...

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith. The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Curse is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

-Galatians 3:10-14 NIV

The Old Testament is not thrown out the window, unless the bible says so. And occording to this passage, some of it is.

I do believe in the bible, all of it. But, in some cases the bible says to disregard some of the things, mostly the old laws changed by the crusifixion.

Sadly this doesn't say which laws are thrown out, but it's pretty self explanitory.

I hope this answers your questions (all of you).

-ZainDustin

[Tribesman]

Galatians So , a letter by a bloke who didn't walk on water ?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

ZainDustin, your treading a thin line, the statement i have qouted below is vergeing on judgemental which is a very serious sin. I don't agree that your as bad as Nav but you must understand that god is the only one who may judge others beliefs.

If you don't, you need help. (You meaning anyone). Christians who believe in Big Bang are definently not on the same page as God.
-ZainDustin

Don't forget this is a games forum, not many people here are being veryserious (apart from the aformentioned Nav) the bible has a great creation story that mirrors the big bang as much as any bronze age text could and more then you would expect it to. although the big bang is not a hole proof theory.

There is not danger in debating trust me on this i have never lost my faith in a debate but i have gained perspective which is very important. You should know the difference between Peter and Paul they were different people with different perspectives.

evolution also fits in with the creation story in genesis, look at the order in which the species are created.

[Zain]

ZainDustin, your treading a thin line, the statement i have qouted below is vergeing on judgemental which is a very serious sin. I don't agree that your as bad as Nav but you must understand that god is the only one who may judge others beliefs.


Don't forget this is a games forum, not many people here are being veryserious (apart from the aformentioned Nav) the bible has a great creation story that mirrors the big bang as much as any bronze age text could and more then you would expect it to. although the big bang is not a hole proof theory.

There is not danger in debating trust me on this i have never lost my faith in a debate but i have gained perspective which is very important. You should know the difference between Peter and Paul they were different people with different perspectives.

evolution also fits in with the creation story in genesis, look at the order in which the species are created.

You've been following this discussion, haven't you? :detective:

As I have been talking with everyone, I realize now saying that was wrong, although I still see the Big Bang as wrong.

-ZainDustin

[mystic brew]

glad you acknowledge a mistake. it speaks well of you.

But can we investigate why you think the big bang is wrong? In the original form, the creation is in poetry, in figurative language, yes? and Jesus spoke in parables all the time... I don't see how the bible supports this creationism.

I'd just be interested to hear why?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

As I have been talking with everyone, I realize now saying that was wrong, although I still see the Big Bang as wrong.

-ZainDustin

im sceptical of the theory myself, heck i started a thread about it once:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59837

[Moros]

okay I haven't read the whole thread but anyway

I thought the Huble had made fotographs wich still shows some evidence about the theory. (And it's by Lemaitre, a Belgian, so it can't be wrong .
And what about the cosmic microwave background radiation? WMAP has made pictues of this.

Tough I don't get all about this, and there might be some questions and perhaps some contra dictions there's a reason it is accepted by most Astronomors. And there seems to be some proof. (perhaps not much but still.)

[Zain]

glad you acknowledge a mistake. it speaks well of you.

But can we investigate why you think the big bang is wrong? In the original form, the creation is in poetry, in figurative language, yes? and Jesus spoke in parables all the time... I don't see how the bible supports this creationism.

I'd just be interested to hear why?

Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.

I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.

It is true that the bible is poetic, and doesn't always mean what it says, in gramatical terms.

-ZainDustin

[Papewaio]

Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.

I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.

It is true that the bible is poetic, and doesn't always mean what it says, in gramatical terms.

-ZainDustin

I can create a French Toast with a thought... that is the design process.

The implementation process has to be done in order and has a time dependancy attached to it.

Souffle's are even harder... interrupt the process at the wrong point and you have a muffin.

[Rodion Romanovich]

A question to both big bang and God supporters: if the universe was created, what existed before universe?

[InsaneApache]

Nothing.

[Rodion Romanovich]

So how could something be created out of nothing? That nothing must have caused the something in some way, and unless the nothing was a changing nothing, it couldn't have had built-in the potential of once giving rise to something.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So how could something be created out of nothing? That nothing must have caused the something in some way, and unless the nothing was a changing nothing, it couldn't have had built-in the potential of once giving rise to something.

In my limited understanding of the mathematics, the assumed logic that there must be something to give rise to something is a fallacy. The question of what was there 'before' is redundant, because time was created along with the big bang.

Counter-intuitive, I know, but then much of what we know about physics is.

[mystic brew]

Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.

I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.

ah, the backroom is just that... it's a low ceilinged smokey bar and you can expect to take a few bruises. The thing to watch out for is people flogging their own point of view without listening. It's best not to debate with those that don't have open minds. You listened, you realised you were mistaken, you apologised. Good on you!

So, back to the big bang.
but... if i can paraphrase something you said earlier in this thread.
"God exists outside time".
This answers your query with the big bang in one simple step. god didn't have to wait for anything. if he's outside time, then length of time means absolutely bugger all.

The elegant simplicity is astounding...

[mystic brew]

A question to both big bang and God supporters: if the universe was created, what existed before universe?

another counter intuitive answer, i'm afraid, but the thing we have to understand is that 'time' is a dimension...

Since time is only a creation of the universe, there was no before!
and no, i don't really get it, either

[Rodion Romanovich]

In my limited understanding of the mathematics, the assumed logic that there must be something to give rise to something is a fallacy. The question of what was there 'before' is redundant, because time was created along with the big bang.

Counter-intuitive, I know, but then much of what we know about physics is.

No wait! I meant that assuming the cause-and-effect system is true, every state is a result of the previous state. If the state just before big bang was "nothing", and "nothing" causally gives rise to "something", then "nothing" would have caused "something" immediately after it started existing. Which means if "nothing" was the state before big bang, then time can't have existed before big bang, and the state "nothing" only existed in an infinitesimal time period, which could be the same as saying it never existed. However, if "nothing" existed for a longer period of time, then the "nothing" must have been of different kinds all the time, otherwise the special "nothing" state that caused the "something" state would have caused the "something" state earlier. All this is assuming cause and effect principles are true, which I believe also the big bang theory assumes, and God theory also assumes.

The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.

[InsaneApache]

Try and look at it like this. Where do your thoughts come from and what are they made of? Before you had the thought what was there before it. The thought only started to exist when you had it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.

[InsaneApache]

No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.

That's not true.

Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them. The brain is a very complex thing and only now are we beginning to understand it.

Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them.

Of course they were! To simplify things a lot, the system is very much equivalent to a module where you process data, and one module where you store it, and one module for receiving impressions (data) through senses. His theories stemmed from his fantasy, his prior knowledge in the subject, and his abilities to compare the memories he had to each other, drawing new conclusions. Then he had to store these new insights as memories, from which he could deduce new theories. His prior knowledge came from processing and storing the impressions from the outside. His processing ability came from earlier experiences (from the outside) and earlier thoughts.

Essentially the brain is actually built up much like a computer, the only difference is that it's a computer that is a million/billion/trillion times more complex than a normal computer, and that it can rewire its own hardware when needed, and that most of the constant wiring is part of a billions of years long evolutionary process. Can you really give example of a single thought that isn't built on memories, impressions and processing of those impressions and memories?

Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?

Either to the memory, or it reaches a dead end and is discarded, or it is transformed into output in the form of say a movement, something you say, or something else.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.

Time is a property of this universe. There is nothing to say it is an essential property of any other universe. For this universe, it was created at the Big Bang. Therefore there is no concept of before in relation to the creation of this universe.

Matter and energy are inter-dependent. Time as a dimension is a property of this universe, as are length and breadth. The Big Bang deals neatly with them all, insofar as the creation of the universe goes. It currently has nothing to say about before, because there is no before.

If you apply your own assumptions as detailed, of course the Big Bang doesn't seem to fit the observations. But your assumptions need to be changed if you want to understand - which is what cosmologists are finding right now. The maths is very hard to follow, but interesting when explained, even if counter-intuitive.

I'm a biologist by training, so physics makes my brain hurt.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, but apparently if you look far enough away, you'll see light sent out as early as from the time when big bang was supposed to happen. If you look further away, you're supposed to see... what? Will there be an edge there?

Also, I've still not seen the proof that time couldn't exist before big bang. A bunch of matter and stuff goes boom and therefore no time could exist before...? That's an assumption if anything. I too made an assumption, but it was an assumption that the big bang theory also uses. I use but one assumption, the big bang theory uses that assumption plus at least one more. I personally think big bang is as little trustworthy as the God model. Both are after all models, there's no skilled scientists that would say big bang is the truth, only a model of truth until we can find a contradiction in it and new observations and/or thoughts require a change of model, much like the case has been in quantum physics where we've changed model at least 5 times the last century. So - if big bang doesn't in any way whatsoever motivate, theoretically or by some observation, that time couldn't exist before big bang, then it's obviously not a complete theory.

[mystic brew]

well, for proof time is a dimension, well, it's a tricky one. But i'lll try.

we move through the universe in 4 dimensions. the normal 3 plus time. though for some reason we can only move in one direction in time. when we move faster and faster in three dimensions, then we are expending less of our 'energy' by travelling in time. this is, apparantly, even measurable at the speeds humanity can travel in, though it is infinitesimal.

as we move faster and faster, getting close to the speed of light, we are expending less and less of our energy to time- hence the time dilation effect so beloved by the sci-fi writers.

So it's demonstrably true that 'time' is an artefact of the universe... 'before' isn't a word that can ever be applied to the universe, since it only came into being with it.

I think that's pretty much the flavour of it.