Big Bang ain't got no religion


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Big Bang ain't got no religion

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251451 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 18:18:59 UTC

Controversy
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11644
Credit: 1,734,778
RAC: 1,419
Syria
Message 1251462 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 18:38:35 UTC

Nice link, but it doesn't answer the "big" question, it just starts the whole argument over again.....

So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."

So in that kid's universe, does his parents & friends argue about the big bang/religion?
____________

Message 1251484 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 19:03:13 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 14:35:16 UTC

--

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251519 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 20:12:56 UTC - in response to Message 1251484.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.




And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,915,568
RAC: 2,801
United States
Message 1251528 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 20:32:06 UTC - in response to Message 1251519.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.




And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]


What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,915,568
RAC: 2,801
United States
Message 1251530 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 20:32:39 UTC - in response to Message 1251484.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.


You do understand the difference between the sentences "The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe" and "The Big Bang didn't have God to start universe" don't you?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251542 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 20:49:15 UTC - in response to Message 1251462.

Nice link, but it doesn't answer the "big" question, it just starts the whole argument over again.....

So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."

So in that kid's universe, does his parents & friends argue about the big bang/religion?

It's proof that too much SETI can be hazardous to your mental health.
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11644
Credit: 1,734,778
RAC: 1,419
Syria
Message 1251553 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 20:59:39 UTC - in response to Message 1251542.

Naw, in my case, too much Guinness.....
____________

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251556 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 21:01:15 UTC - in response to Message 1251553.

Naw, in my case, too much Guinness.....

So what you're saying is when you mix Guinness with SETI you get...
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11644
Credit: 1,734,778
RAC: 1,419
Syria
Message 1251569 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 21:23:56 UTC - in response to Message 1251556.

S.A.M.S.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251612 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 23:08:43 UTC - in response to Message 1251528.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.




And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]


What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).


I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,915,568
RAC: 2,801
United States
Message 1251619 - Posted: 25 Jun 2012, 23:24:06 UTC - in response to Message 1251612.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.




And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]


What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).


I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.


OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251625 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 0:21:22 UTC - in response to Message 1251619.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.




And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]


What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).


I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.


OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?


Because we are in the here and now.

Why do you believe in chance after I have shown you that is impossible?

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,915,568
RAC: 2,801
United States
Message 1251628 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 0:51:13 UTC - in response to Message 1251625.

How can you start with:

"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"

and then end with:

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

And expect to be taken seriously?

Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.




And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.

I don't think they get it? [smile]


What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).


I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.


OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?


Because we are in the here and now.

Why do you believe in chance after I have shown you that is impossible?


So the supreme being made the laws of physics for us after all?

If you have shown chance to be impossible I missed it, can you provide a link?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251828 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 21:51:33 UTC - in response to Message 1251628.

Can something as clearly defined and exacting as the laws of physics and mathematics come about by chance?
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2519
Credit: 5,275,055
RAC: 7,241
United States
Message 1251835 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 22:04:53 UTC - in response to Message 1251828.

Can something as clearly defined and exacting as the laws of physics and mathematics come about by chance?

I think math has rules not laws and there is a difference.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12814
Credit: 7,394,526
RAC: 18,385
United States
Message 1251845 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 22:49:29 UTC - in response to Message 1251828.

Can something as clearly defined and exacting as the laws of physics and mathematics come about by chance?

The infinite number of monkeys ...

____________

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2519
Credit: 5,275,055
RAC: 7,241
United States
Message 1251859 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 23:27:40 UTC - in response to Message 1251845.

+1
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1251866 - Posted: 26 Jun 2012, 23:52:59 UTC

-1

and back to zero you are.

http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2519
Credit: 5,275,055
RAC: 7,241
United States
Message 1251872 - Posted: 27 Jun 2012, 0:11:51 UTC - in response to Message 1251866.

ID, it is good to see that you are processing SETI data again, your contribution to the project was missed.
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Big Bang ain't got no religion

Copyright © 2014 University of California