No, if you let two chemicals react they react (It does not mean someone has to be there every time chemicals react). Just becuase you set up the intial conditions in an experiement does not mean they can’t of occured naturally at some point.
What if God was the reason for all existence. Take out God and no reaction… no nothing either; the reason for reality. One can believe that God is the ultimate cause of everything and still accept the physical ‘how’ that science helps us find.
We must remember that there is nothing special about the energy state of the universe at our time, and that if we wish to re-create conditions similar to the early universe we must do so with a huge energy bill. It would have been just as hard for imaginary experimenters in the first minute after the Bang to “pre-create” the conditions prevalent in the universe today. From the fact that we need experimenters to artificially force these conditions, it does not logically follow that we need a Big Experimenter to create them naturally. There are better ways of proving God’s existence.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah ah aha ah haha ha lmbo!! ok ok so i wrote that at like, 2 am…i TOTALLY meant astronomy…lol…astronOMY…lol…sorry for the interruption…i’ll catch up on reading…You may wish to revisit your textbook for answers to the questions posed in the last paragraph, since you seem to have missed the point regarding the nature and purpose of cyclotron experiments.
- Astrology is a pseudo-science which tries to tell your fortune based on the position of the stars (a remnant from Aristotelian-based Renaissance determinism), while astronomy is the genuine science that studies the stars and cosmic bodies.
- The fact that the universe is expanding was discovered from the Doppler shift in starlight - light from the stars is getting redder as they move away (just like the noise from a siren on a fire truck gets lower as it moves away from you). I don’t understand what’s so “insane” about it, it’s just a fact about how the universe happens to be.
- This ring you’re talking about is a cyclotron, or particle accelerator. They do not create a “mini Big Bang”; what may have led you to this confusion is that before the particles collide they have been accelerated into energy levels high enough that they are imitating conditions shortly after the Bang.
I’m familiar with the whole doppler shift thing…took the class…the exam…passed. Whats ‘insane’ is the whole concept of whats going on in the universe around us…at least I think it is…totally tripped me out that there was sooo much out there going on…that our sun would explode one day and that’d be the end of us…religion/everything aside…i thought it was a trip…i think maybe you misunderstood my context sorry…
- The fact that the universe is expanding was discovered from the Doppler shift in starlight - light from the stars is getting redder as they move away (just like the noise from a siren on a fire truck gets lower as it moves away from you). I don’t understand what’s so “insane” about it, it’s just a fact about how the universe happens to be.
oh well then, ok. lol… everything i have ever read on it, and the movie where they showed the process of it in class, referred to it as a ‘mini bang’ and that the particles collided, made a mini bang, and yes, created a primordial goo, i think it was called that was the stuff our universe supposedly came outta…
- This ring you’re talking about is a cyclotron, or particle accelerator. They do not create a “mini Big Bang”; what may have led you to this confusion is that before the particles collide they have been accelerated into energy levels high enough that they are imitating conditions shortly after the Bang.
im pretty sure i could find some links that say exactly that too, but…im no scientist and dont want to waste too much time arguing over things i really dont care about
but even then…
"No, if you let two chemicals react they react (It does not mean someone has to be there every time chemicals react). Just becuase you set up the intial conditions in an experiement does not mean they can’t of occured naturally at some point. "
my mind reads this and wonders…how did those ‘chemicals’ get there to react in the first place?
i have a question you guys…ok … so like, you know how we can see the edge of the universe, or at least use some form of light technology (watever im bad with terms) to where we know its expanding right?? and when they look towards the center of the universe, were actually looking at the past…(( or is it the other way around, looking at the outer rim of the universe its the past? my head just went in full circle writing that sentance)) well…have they ever been able to see the center of the universe?? like how we know theres a rim, and that its expanding…and everything dies out as it spreads…have we seen whats in the middle? do you think its a black hole, like in the center of each galaxy?? or maybe a huge star…absolute magnitude -590,358… lol…??? and how do they KNOW that its the rim of our universe? and not just space between the next universe?? what if there are UNIVERSE globular clusters??
see how my mind goes with this kinda stuff??? insane
That’s where atheism becomes problematic. Science can’t tell us what caused the Big Bang.
No. There is no “edge” to the universe. You can imagine the universe as the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere or globe - there is no center or edge. The universe is not actually a four-dimensional sphere that we experience in three dimensions, but it’s geometry is not Euclidean, so we can’t really picture it in our imaginations in any better way. (I really think that Kant was right when he made Euclidean geometry a necessary facet of how our minds work - but it doesn’t follow that the universe as such is unknowable, since we discovered the non-Euclidean geometry of the universe anyway! Just something to think about and wonder for philosophers out there.)
Everywhere we look we are seeing light that has taken a very long time to get to us (how long depending on how far away the star is), so we are “seeing into the past” no matter where we look. (Even when we see the sun, we are seeing light that came from the sun 8 minutes ago. Starlight could be billions of years old by the time it reaches us.)
There is neither any rim or any center - if you keep going in one direction, you’ll eventually end up in the same place you started, just like if you sail west from California you’ll eventually (aside from a few continents in your way) get to Virginia. How the universe as a whole can be like this I can’t tell you because I can’t fathom it, but this is the way we currently believe the universe happens to be.
Yes i need empirical evidence for certian claims, and no science does not prove things.
What on earth does atheism have to do with the big bang?
How to science 101:
The planets orbit the sun because of gravity. Why are you asking such an idiotic question?
Exactly. Thank you.
I would also like to point out that the word “theory” does not mean - as is taught in some creationist textbooks - an untested model which has not been generally accepted yet. E.g., “the theory of evolution is just a theory so we shouldn’t be teaching it as fact.”Because atheism cannot explain why the Big Bang happened.
But you are demanding empirical evidence for claims which the empirical method is irrelevant for studying because those things are immaterial - God, the soul, and love.
Anybody can provide an explanation, Theists, atheists, worshippers of the Flying Spagheti Monster, and Democrats can all do it. But nobody can demonstrate it is correct.
Why do you consider it idiotic? Is it because you know the answer? I’m just trying to work out what kind of theist you are, and it seems you are the kind that evokes god at the edge of his knowledge.
LOL why would it? Do you know what atheism is? Should not collecting stamps explain the big bang?
Sorry but no. If god is the “origin of the universe” then that is a claim that can be addressed by science.
Awesome speach by good ol’ Neil. I always enjoy listening to him. Should be seen regardless of what you believe.
