ChatterBank3 mins ago
The First Cause.
92 Answers
Do we agree that the universe had an uncaused first cause?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// I see this went the way we all expected. A fruitcake theory with no foundation backed up by religious garbage. Standard for Theland.//
erm ed can we edit this to ...... standard for AB ... ?
// Quantum Mechanics shows us that the Universe has no need for a cause. // can you show me how that one goes
[one chemistry teacher said: second law of thermodynamics disporves Darwin.... christian needless to say. No it doesnt but it did make me think]
erm ed can we edit this to ...... standard for AB ... ?
// Quantum Mechanics shows us that the Universe has no need for a cause. // can you show me how that one goes
[one chemistry teacher said: second law of thermodynamics disporves Darwin.... christian needless to say. No it doesnt but it did make me think]
"There is a God. Past and future eternal. Get your head around that and everything else falls k to place."
It's a massive assumption without evidence. It doesn't mean it can't be so, but it actually explains nothing since all it effectively says is that some intelligence did it and we can't know more. It seems a long shot to have stumbled across the right explanation in ancient times when we knew little and guessed much.
"There is not other sensible explanation. Is there? If so, what?"
Folk have tried discussing scientific explanations before, which based on latest knowledge have a better chance to be nearer actuality. And there are a number of explanations depending on your favoured modern hypothesis. The thing is folk are trying to test ways to see which fail and which seem correct. Something attributing all to a God proves difficult to do. Consider quantum explanations. Or the distinct possibility that time does exist save as an emergent quality within a universe. Popular science articles can be fascinating.
It's a massive assumption without evidence. It doesn't mean it can't be so, but it actually explains nothing since all it effectively says is that some intelligence did it and we can't know more. It seems a long shot to have stumbled across the right explanation in ancient times when we knew little and guessed much.
"There is not other sensible explanation. Is there? If so, what?"
Folk have tried discussing scientific explanations before, which based on latest knowledge have a better chance to be nearer actuality. And there are a number of explanations depending on your favoured modern hypothesis. The thing is folk are trying to test ways to see which fail and which seem correct. Something attributing all to a God proves difficult to do. Consider quantum explanations. Or the distinct possibility that time does exist save as an emergent quality within a universe. Popular science articles can be fascinating.
Peter Pedant
// Quantum Mechanics shows us that the Universe has no need for a cause. // can you show me how that one goes
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Quantum is aware that at the dimensions typically associated with Quantum, particles continuously pop in and out of existence at random.
However there are no limits to the amount of energy that can be manifested in this way. It is just not very likely for larger items to appear and even less probable for whole universes. However those probabilities are not zero.
With limitless opportunity beyond the concepts of time and space, whole universes are bound to appear from the void at random. Infinite order would be required for it to not happen.
Theland actually accepts that the Universe did appear from the void. He is just stuck on the idea that a conscious mind was needed to "Let" it happen. In fact it is the other way around. A conscious mind would be required for it not to happen.
If there was a God involved, He was suppressing the manifestation of universe. When He "let" it happen .... BANG.
// Quantum Mechanics shows us that the Universe has no need for a cause. // can you show me how that one goes
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Quantum is aware that at the dimensions typically associated with Quantum, particles continuously pop in and out of existence at random.
However there are no limits to the amount of energy that can be manifested in this way. It is just not very likely for larger items to appear and even less probable for whole universes. However those probabilities are not zero.
With limitless opportunity beyond the concepts of time and space, whole universes are bound to appear from the void at random. Infinite order would be required for it to not happen.
Theland actually accepts that the Universe did appear from the void. He is just stuck on the idea that a conscious mind was needed to "Let" it happen. In fact it is the other way around. A conscious mind would be required for it not to happen.
If there was a God involved, He was suppressing the manifestation of universe. When He "let" it happen .... BANG.
Science does not claim to have the answers in the way that religion does - but science, by definition, continues to question and learn, not simply 'decide' and stop there.
For example, for generations, scientists pondered how a bumble bee was able to fly, since analysis of its wing dimensions measured against its body weight meant that its flight defied the proven laws of aerodynamics. Fortunately, no-one advised the bee that its flight was actually impossible.
Eventually, developments in photography proved that it was not the science or the laws that were wrong, simply the assumption that a bee operated its wings like all other flying insects, which of course it does not. It's ability to rotate its wings in flight is what enables it to fly.
There we have a perfect example of the questioning of science debunking a fact which on the face of it was believed to be true for hundreds of years, even though evidence to the contrary flew around the scientists' gardens every summer.
On that basis, there will come a time when science will explain the origin of the universe, but in the mean time, Christians will have maintained their dogmatic assertion that it 'must be God', and will have perpetuated it from this day to that - because that is how Christians operate - they just 'know'.
For example, for generations, scientists pondered how a bumble bee was able to fly, since analysis of its wing dimensions measured against its body weight meant that its flight defied the proven laws of aerodynamics. Fortunately, no-one advised the bee that its flight was actually impossible.
Eventually, developments in photography proved that it was not the science or the laws that were wrong, simply the assumption that a bee operated its wings like all other flying insects, which of course it does not. It's ability to rotate its wings in flight is what enables it to fly.
There we have a perfect example of the questioning of science debunking a fact which on the face of it was believed to be true for hundreds of years, even though evidence to the contrary flew around the scientists' gardens every summer.
On that basis, there will come a time when science will explain the origin of the universe, but in the mean time, Christians will have maintained their dogmatic assertion that it 'must be God', and will have perpetuated it from this day to that - because that is how Christians operate - they just 'know'.
