What did God do before creation?

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 23 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1284901 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 18:25:21 UTC - in response to Message 1284723.  

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?

Can intelligent design be even regarded as a hypothesis as it has failed every peer revue.


No so. Added peer review long ago.
ID: 1284901 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1284906 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 18:26:54 UTC - in response to Message 1284743.  

"Intelligent design" can be credited to Nature and the way that evolution works. The problem is when an anthropomorphic uber-being is given the credit. So you could then see nature as 'Intelligent" of even god-like.

So it's really a non-issue. one man's Nature is another man's god.


You said it was intelligent. That tells us that there must be some intelligence behind it. I believe in a God.
ID: 1284906 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1284908 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 18:28:11 UTC - in response to Message 1284723.  

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?

Can intelligent design be even regarded as a hypothesis as it has failed every peer revue.

Since a Merriam-Webster defines a hypothesis as conjecture it does not need peer review which reflects why it is not a theory.
ID: 1284908 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1284916 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 18:41:35 UTC - in response to Message 1284897.  

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?


LOL, no, it should be taught right along all the rest of the hypothesis being taught in school.

ID, conjecture is not being taught, theory is taught and a hypothesis IS conjecture.
ID: 1284916 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1284917 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 18:45:13 UTC
Last modified: 17 Sep 2012, 18:58:25 UTC

Speaking of God, we are also assuming creation at the same time.

Meaning the creation of the Universe since we assume it was created in the big bang.

We still have both God and the Devil, haven't we? The purpose of the Devil is to be the destructor of things. We do not make any comparison between the Devil and creation.

Is it hard to make science out of religion and theology?

In the end, these two elements are part of the creation, many of us apparently tend to wish it down the drain.

Again, the Universe is defined by means of matter, energy, space, time and the laws which govern it all. We assume it was created in the big bang.

Speaking of gravity, the Universe is expanding - in fact it is inflating, meaning that it is an inflationary Universe. It is expanding into infinity and oblivion and there is nothing we can do about it.

If there ever was a God, is he always supposed to be compassionate?

Is the Universe a random event, or is randomness (as well as order) something which is part of the existing Universe?

Should not all the elements we are able to see be recognized as separate or different frameworks of the Universe in its entirety or full?

Is it easy to just skip the definition of existence of energy for the existence of mass in the Universe (or the opposite way)? We take time for granted, still we do not know whether it exists at all.

We take both things for granted, all the time - or are we perhaps throwing away one thing for the advantage of another?
ID: 1284917 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24870
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1284939 - Posted: 17 Sep 2012, 19:53:22 UTC

A Philistine's view of what God did before the creation: -

Picture the scene: A large heavenly card table fit for Gods, more extravagant than Zeus & Mount Olympia......

The blare of trumpets ring out....

...2 long queues stride towards that magnificient table....

One queue led by God with all his angels, the other Lucifer & his minions.....

All previously bored out of their skulls until Gabriel thought up the idea of some card games & turn it into a tournament....

After sutiably wetting their whistles with some Golden Nectar, the games commenced....

.....god & the angels won the 1st game of poker which went fairly peaceably....

...Lucifer called for Bridge to be the 2nd set of games..... Getting close to the end, Lucifer did not wish to lose so slammed his cards on that heavenly table with such a force that a continuous stream of dust could be seen floating away into the nothingness.

Lucifer won that game, so God called for the final game to be "Snap".

Now God did not wish to lose either so kept his eyes on Lucifer - Lucifer did not like this & began to make mistakes, which god capitalised on & slammed his hand on the winning card with such a force that the dust was seen floating away for days!

Some time later, that Godly Dust intermingled with the Devilish Dust....

....which today, we now call the "BIG BANG"
ID: 1284939 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285070 - Posted: 18 Sep 2012, 5:09:15 UTC - in response to Message 1284916.  

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?


LOL, no, it should be taught right along all the rest of the hypothesis being taught in school.

ID, conjecture is not being taught, theory is taught and a hypothesis IS conjecture.



So, string theory is NOT being taught in University? There is not even a honorable mention of M Theory in say any of the top ten University?

Come now betreger...

...you really don't believe that do you?
ID: 1285070 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1285086 - Posted: 18 Sep 2012, 7:30:57 UTC - in response to Message 1285070.  
Last modified: 18 Sep 2012, 7:31:18 UTC

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?


LOL, no, it should be taught right along all the rest of the hypothesis being taught in school.

ID, conjecture is not being taught, theory is taught and a hypothesis IS conjecture.



So, string theory is NOT being taught in University? There is not even a honorable mention of M Theory in say any of the top ten University?

Come now betreger...

...you really don't believe that do you?

It is only taught in a few places, and all of these students would probably have a fit of giggles if you even mentioned I.D.

MIT’s 8.251, based on Barton Zwiebach's String Theory for Undergraduates,
Caltech has Physics 134
Carnegie-Mellon has Physics 33-652
and Stanford has Physics 153A and Physics 153B
ID: 1285086 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285163 - Posted: 18 Sep 2012, 15:00:41 UTC - in response to Message 1285086.  
Last modified: 18 Sep 2012, 15:01:11 UTC

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?


LOL, no, it should be taught right along all the rest of the hypothesis being taught in school.

ID, conjecture is not being taught, theory is taught and a hypothesis IS conjecture.



So, string theory is NOT being taught in University? There is not even a honorable mention of M Theory in say any of the top ten University?

Come now betreger...

...you really don't believe that do you?

It is only taught in a few places, and all of these students would probably have a fit of giggles if you even mentioned I.D.

MIT’s 8.251, based on Barton Zwiebach's String Theory for Undergraduates,
Caltech has Physics 134
Carnegie-Mellon has Physics 33-652
and Stanford has Physics 153A and Physics 153B


And it is hypothesis, NOT proven fact.

Just like Intelligent Design is best explained by intelligent cause, not undirected process.
ID: 1285163 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20084
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1285219 - Posted: 18 Sep 2012, 21:15:31 UTC - in response to Message 1285163.  
Last modified: 18 Sep 2012, 21:16:01 UTC

And it is hypothesis, NOT proven fact.

I suspect that you do not understand the descriptions "hypothesis" and "theory", nor appreciate the scientific method.


Just like Intelligent Design is best explained by intelligent cause, not undirected process.

Just as "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are blind suppositions, and just as religion is blind faith.


Also note that evolution is hardly 'undirected'... (Even if it is not 'directed' in the way that you might wish or believe.)

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285219 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1285314 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 2:43:54 UTC - in response to Message 1285163.  

ID, so you agree that intelligent design is a hypothesis and should not be presented as a theory?


LOL, no, it should be taught right along all the rest of the hypothesis being taught in school.

ID, conjecture is not being taught, theory is taught and a hypothesis IS conjecture.



So, string theory is NOT being taught in University? There is not even a honorable mention of M Theory in say any of the top ten University?

Come now betreger...

...you really don't believe that do you?

It is only taught in a few places, and all of these students would probably have a fit of giggles if you even mentioned I.D.

MIT’s 8.251, based on Barton Zwiebach's String Theory for Undergraduates,
Caltech has Physics 134
Carnegie-Mellon has Physics 33-652
and Stanford has Physics 153A and Physics 153B


And it is hypothesis, NOT proven fact.

Just like Intelligent Design is best explained by intelligent cause, not undirected process.


I'd like to know why one thinks it is only being "taught" in a *few* places.
Nonetheless, I suspect in lower level classes, it may receive brief mention. When brought up in upper lever classes, it would have to be in discussions of what could be done to further the theory or experiments that could be done to test it.
I could ask some colleagues in the near future.
ID: 1285314 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285507 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 15:08:49 UTC - in response to Message 1285219.  

And it is hypothesis, NOT proven fact.

I suspect that you do not understand the descriptions "hypothesis" and "theory", nor appreciate the scientific method.


Just like Intelligent Design is best explained by intelligent cause, not undirected process.

Just as "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are blind suppositions, and just as religion is blind faith.


Also note that evolution is hardly 'undirected'... (Even if it is not 'directed' in the way that you might wish or believe.)

Keep searchin',
Martin



A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

A theory is an unproven idea or speculation.

When some "proof" is added, like gravity bends light theory becomes more tangible. At some point theory moves into science fact.

String "theory/hypothesis" has no tangible proof and is more hypothesis then anything else and is being taught in University.
ID: 1285507 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1285518 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 15:43:33 UTC - in response to Message 1285507.  

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

A theory is an unproven idea or speculation.

When some "proof" is added, like gravity bends light theory becomes more tangible. At some point theory moves into science fact.


No, that's not correct. Strictly speaking, you have hypothesis correct, but theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is something that has been confirmed to be proven through observation and experiment. Once it has been agreed upon by peer-review, it generally becomes accepted as science fact, but there is no third stage of scientific ideology that goes Hypothesis -> Theory -> Science Fact. It is simply Hypothesis -> Theory. Any theory can gain new information as we constantly discover the world around us, and that theory can be changed, even if it was previously accepted as fact.

Gravity is a scientific theory, though not fully understood, but certainly it is not an "unproven idea or speculation".

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.
ID: 1285518 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1285534 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 16:39:03 UTC - in response to Message 1285518.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.

Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.
ID: 1285534 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1285539 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:00:04 UTC - in response to Message 1285534.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.

Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.


Agreed. I don't really like the name of it either, and generally it is bad form to put the word 'theory' in your hypothesis to make it sound like it is more accepted than it is.

Though I don't know who's fault it is for the naming. Was it the person that came up with the hypothesis or was it the media/general populous that named it a theory before it was proven?
ID: 1285539 · Report as offensive
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1285544 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:12:21 UTC - in response to Message 1285539.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.
Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.
Agreed. I don't really like the name of it either, and generally it is bad form to put the word 'theory' in your hypothesis to make it sound like it is more accepted than it is.
Though I don't know who's fault it is for the naming. Was it the person that came up with the hypothesis or was it the media/general populous that named it a theory before it was proven?

I guess the issue is that "theory" was a wrong choice of a word for use in the scientific concept of "accepted fact":

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
ID: 1285544 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1285552 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:23:46 UTC - in response to Message 1285544.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.
Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.
Agreed. I don't really like the name of it either, and generally it is bad form to put the word 'theory' in your hypothesis to make it sound like it is more accepted than it is.
Though I don't know who's fault it is for the naming. Was it the person that came up with the hypothesis or was it the media/general populous that named it a theory before it was proven?

I guess the issue is that "theory" was a wrong choice of a word for use in the scientific concept of "accepted fact":

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Quite the opposite. Science is actually using the term "theory" correctly. It is because science uses theory to mean an idea that has been proven through experiment and observation, but then theory can change based upon new information, that many people started using "theory" to mean an unproven idea, when that is really what a "hypothesis" is.

This happens to words all the time in the English language, which is what makes the English language so hard to learn, because meanings are rather fluid and can change over time to incorporate new meanings accepted by the general populace.

Most people from technical backgrounds in any field will of course prefer to stick to specific meanings that were previously agreed upon so that everyone is on the same level of understanding an idea or concept. This is why science is in fact using the term "theory" correctly, and the "common" use of the word is incorrect. It's a very common misconception that only a small percentage of the population actually understands.
ID: 1285552 · Report as offensive
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1285565 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:43:42 UTC

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Word Origin & History:
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.


While I agree that in the scientific use of the word, "theory" is still valid as all theories may change or be upgraded if there are new facts, I think that its not the right word to make enough difference in its meaning against hipothesis...
ID: 1285565 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1285583 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 18:14:17 UTC - in response to Message 1285565.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Word Origin & History:
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.


While I agree that in the scientific use of the word, "theory" is still valid as all theories may change or be upgraded if there are new facts, I think that its not the right word to make enough difference in its meaning against hipothesis...


Those etymologies are only confirming my point. The technical meaning is the correct one. The non-technical meaning is the layman's use of the term and is incorrect.

Because the technical use of the word is correct, it is the layman's term that has diluted it's meaning. Ergo, you cannot say that it is "not the right word" to convey it's difference from the term hypothesis. It only stands to reason that the word's meaning shouldn't be further diluted by allowing it to be used incorrectly without challenge.
ID: 1285583 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1285585 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 18:15:19 UTC
Last modified: 19 Sep 2012, 18:19:34 UTC

Einstein's special law of general relativity as well as general law of relativity are being called or thought of as being just theories.

Why? Because these theories are pure speculation. What these theories imply or are being meant to possibly be can generally not been proven or verified practically, therefore they are not being carried out in practise either.

Take an eclipse of the sun back in 1919. The position of the background stars where shown to be slightly off their known position because the gravity from the sun was bending the light which were coming from these stars.

So I have mentioned this thing before, perhaps? So what then about the notion or subject of time and the paradoxes it presents to us. Could it be shown or proven in practise? What about time travel? We assume that time travel is related to the subject of wormholes as well as gravity.

But what about time itself? Does time always need to be but into context with something else, like gravity, or may time perhaps be something that is on its own?

If time may be shown to be slowing up (or maybe even speeding up), this is because another factor, like gravity is inflicting its functionality. But if I was so lucky that I could travel either back or forward in time and showing up either at home or maybe somewhere completely else, I would be subject to the rules given by the properties of time and possibly thankful for the possiblities such time travel may be able to give me.
ID: 1285585 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 23 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.