«

[Flop]

First of all, it seems to me that you're trying to apply the big bang theory on a computer, and seeing that it can't be done you use that as proof against the big bang ((Edit: proof that there must be a maker, to be correct). You can not compare a computer with the universe, since you (or anybody else) don't know enough about the qualities óf the universe to do that. What if the universe is infinate? It's not a closed system then, and it can't be said to have an outside.

Besides, you can argue that the computer is simply a byproduct of nature, and that the maker of a cell (or whatever) is simply the process that creates that cell (in the same way that mankind is only the catalyst that helps make computers).

Just my two cents.

[Quintopotere]

Originally posted by Flop@Jun 17 2005, 03:09 PM
What if the universe is infinate? It's not a closed system then, and it can't be said to have an outside.

If universe was created by a big-bang it must tu be close, because it can't interact with everything is out of its border travelling at light-speed... maybe...

[Tulac]

Computers and cars have their uses, we however are not used by anyone/anything...

Also on the point of existance of God, oriental religions are much wiser IMO, because they don't reffer to the creator as a person, something supernatural, but something natural, a balance which is not a material, but energy that flows through all of us, and is a part of everything, but it doesn't control us! That's why I don't believe in God, because all of western religions say, hey if you've been bad you can go and tell it to a priest, God will forgive you, while in eastern religions, it's more like, hey you've been bad, something bad will happen to you...
The whole eastern religious concept just seems much more logical to me, and the although are religious are either politheist/atheist...

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by VERTICAL PIG@Jun 16 2005, 11:37 PM
who and when? there was a time durning the renaissance when both christian and anyone was killed for not complying to the so called faith in god. further back you can read this throughout the bible. guess im asking if you have a particular time in mine.

Where shall I start...
Maybe right after the 393 council that made christianiy the state religion of Rome and they started masacring all the pagans who wouldn't convert???
Or should I go on to the slaughters made during the crusades???
What about the genocides (yes in plural) against the jewish population in Europe from years between 700-1945 (that's over 12 centories)?!?!?!
MAybe you'd like to hear about the slaughter of native Americans, or would you prefer the horrid tales from the African continent (they were actually denying these ratial groups to be humans - they said that native Americans can't have a soul and neither can black African population)???
Or would you just simply wanna skip to the 20th century where cloraborators (mostly catholic preists) were having people executed for believing in communism???

And then there's the witch hunting... Not to mention how many peasons were killed because they defied the will of god (if they disobayed their landlord - who was made their lord by the power of his majesty who ruled in the name of the god and had full support of the local church)...

Or should we start talking about individual cases...
Gallileo was the one that's known (but he wasn't killed), but there were others. Ever heard of Jan Hus? He was sort of Martin Luther before Martin Luther.

Want me to go on - or will you finally start reading history for your self?

@Indignus - If you're a christian and are reading the bible yourself - and not following what you hear at church- that's a step forward. I've nothing against belif. People have the right to believe what ever they want to - but I'm agains most of religions, because their main focus is on how to make people believe. If that is lost there is no more need for that religious structure (if there were no let's say KRTQULBS - there would be no need for KRTQULBS priests or churches).

[TheGiantMidgit]

Actually, the universe, in a sense, is finite. There isn't anything outside it, because "outside" of the universe is nonexistance. If you were to travel in a straight line, you'd eventually come full circle to your starting point.

Bill Bryson explains it much more eloquently than I'm willing to at the moment.

[Flop]

Originally posted by TheGiantMidgit@Jun 17 2005, 08:32 PM
Actually, the universe, in a sense, is finite. There isn't anything outside it, because "outside" of the universe is nonexistance. If you were to travel in a straight line, you'd eventually come full circle to your starting point.

Bill Bryson explains it much more eloquently than I'm willing to at the moment.

I haven't heard of Bryson before, but I googled him and found out that he's an American best selling author. Well, I haven't read his book but if he makes the claims you say he does, he's either making a number of assumptions or he has access to information that the rest of the human race does not.

Everything we know about the universe is based on the observable universe, which is constrained by the speed of light, the age of the universe and so on. We know absolutely nothing about the rest of the universe, and while Bryson may in fact be right, there is no way to prove it. So...the universe may well be infinate but it could also be finite. There are good arguments either way, but the bottom line is that we don't know.

And, BTW, I think we're way off topic.

[TheGiantMidgit]

He has access to many researchers and scientists that most of us do not. He offers perfectably reasonable explainations, and even goes as far as to translate them from technical garble to laymans terms. Do not make assumptions.

[Flop]

Originally posted by TheGiantMidgit@Jun 17 2005, 09:20 PM
Do not make assumptions.

With all due respect that was the entire point of my last post. I have nothing against theories that concludes that the universe is finite (or infinite for that matter), and I'm not saying Bryson isn't right, but none of those theories have ever been proved. Saying otherwise is making assumptions.

[Sebatianos]

Don't worry about being !

Everybody who stoped poking fun and really started discusinb religion got off topic. This was meant as a joke thread - but turned out to be serious.

But isn't the universe ever-expanding? So you couldn't actually reach the end of it - unless you were to travel faster then it's speed of expantion...

[Sly]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Jun 17 2005, 02:39 PM
But isn't the universe ever-expanding? So you couldn't actually reach the end of it - unless you were to travel faster then it's speed of expantion...

If the universe is expanding, what/or where is it expanding into? At the moment of creation or the big bang (depending on which side of the coin your on), time, space, and matter have to come into existence simutaneously.

This is totally mind-boggling from a big bang perspective, to say its an open system.

Take for instance, if you were able to be outside time/space/matter and freeze frame the big bang 10 seconds after it happened. Wouldn't the space, time, matter and energy that was expanding be a finite distance from its origin, contain a fixed amount of energy, and contain a fixed amount of matter? The same would hold true today if it were really expanding. At any given moment it would be at a fixed distance from its origin. No additional matter is being created. No additional energy is added to the system. Therefore it would be a closed system, even by big bang theory standards.

According to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, the amount of matter and energy in the universe is a fixed amount. Neither one is created nor destroyed.

There is no reason to believe that for evolutionary purposes that the universe is an open system, because something would have to be supplying the universe with additional energy, thus violating the conservation laws.