Printable View
Just wondering what you guys here thought about the begining of the universe... Big bang has been basically knocked out of being a good theory by most astrologists due to the huge superclusters that do not follow the "equal spreading of matter" in the big bang theory.
I am not really sure what to believe, I haven't seen enough turning evidence for any one theory to get me to believe one thing... Oh well, gives me a more open mind towards new theories I suppose.
Still fan of the big band/followed by infinite spreading of matter in the universe with an 'end' result of a gigantic mutlpile times the size of the current unisverse semi-vacuum.
Hi The Grunt,
Well...that depends on how you define the word universe? As the " known " universe or the unknown universe? Everything that occupys Space, known or unknown? Or...the possibility that there exists something beyond space that may include Space as simply an element in itself? Etc...
Eg ;)
Astrology and Astronomy are two VERY different things. The big bang theory is flawed but so is electron theory. At first it was though matter would be distributed fairly uniform. And it seems to be but time and gravity shape and warp space.
I look at the material universe ...that is...everything that exists with substance regardless of how miniscule or of unknown fabric in terms of a single body that works upon the same basic principles of a single body...
that is...it is born, it grows, it dies...it has a genetic makeup...a DNA...that forms it and determines it's existence...
inside this body there are bodies...that seemingly work independantly of each other but are in reality very interdependant...
and we...are not completely unlike the various forms of cells and viril that exist to work, feed and use the body in which we survive.
Kinda puts a cramp in the superior being theory doesn't it! Have we greatly misunderstood the value of our own existance? cough!....Yea!
Man's concept of god arises from this natural feeling that we are connected to something much larger than ourselves...
think in terms of us being a cell in the body, with the ability to think and form opinions, our world ( our universe ) would be massive in terms of our size...we would move independantly of other cells yet not be independant of them or our universe...if we pondered our existence we would come to believe that there is nothing beyond what we see in our world...yet still feel that something larger exists beyond us...the fact we cannot see the body of the human that contains us does not negate it's existence.
Just a thought to ponder.
If you look at the universe from the perspective that it is essentially the internal organs and body of that which we refer to as god...and we were created not by god persay but as a direct result of it's own DNA...then the concept of god, our place, and our universe seems so much different than we originally thought.
Thing is, according to the big bang theory the universe is one time old, and scientific calculations say that those large masses of galaxies could not have formed in that time range.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Astrology and Astronomy are two VERY different things. The big bang theory is flawed but so is electron theory. At first it was though matter would be distributed fairly uniform. And it seems to be but time and gravity shape and warp space.
The age of the universe is also in constant arguement. What is the general basis behind your statement Grunt? I am curious. You realize there are also theories that the universe was formed in a very short time?
Egal, what if god is a seperate body outside our universe. The keeper of Bags. (reference to another thread). Wait, you will argue we are also part of that body. I retract my statement. :D
First...just to clarify my stand for those who don't read my posts and see this out of context ( this is not a reference to yourself...but others )...I do not ever say whether god is an entity of a personal or non-personal nature...because we simply cannot know that...
if you believe that god is a personal entity then you will pray to it, adore it, and worship it...if you believe it is just an intelligent orderer of all that exists then you will not...if you don't believe in either god, that everything is just random unrelated incidences, then you obviously haven't studied the subject in any form...and are just relying on your own, obviously, superior opinions.
Hi RoadClosed,
In the context of the above statement, and statements that I have made previously, there is no question that god exists...whether or not you can personally interact with this god is a matter of opinion...whether or not this god really cares whether you live or die, get rich or suffer endlessly is also a matter of opinion.
Essentially we live, as cells live inside of us, inside of the body of god...everything that exists lives within this body...and everything that exists is created essentially from the DNA ( for lack of a better term ) of this body according to it's own structure...there is no thing that exists outside of this body, known or unknown.
Eg
;)
Got ME down pat :DQuote:
...if you don't believe in either god, that everything is just random unrelated incidences, then you obviously haven't studied the subject in any form...and are just relying on your own, obviously, superior opinions.
I should also point out that I always use the word god in lower case letters for a reason...because the word itself is wrought with many falicies and fantasies...in most cases I prefer to use the word Order, but then most people don't know what I'm talking about. :D
When I say " god " I'm not speaking in terms of common usage.
Hi foxyloxley,
Blasphemy! :D
We can get a decent view of the timeframe for the universe by looking at our own planet... You know that the universe would have to be created a while before the creation of our own planet...Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
The age of the universe is also in constant arguement. What is the general basis behind your statement Grunt? I am curious. You realize there are also theories that the universe was formed in a very short time?
Egal, what if god is a seperate body outside our universe. The keeper of Bags. (reference to another thread). Wait, you will argue we are also part of that body. I retract my statement. :D
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm I would like to read some of the material that guy references, as that would give me a better outlook, as I'm sure he's twisting it to disprove the big bang even moreso.
Most of the theories that the universe was formed in a very short time have been disproved from what I've seen, so that pretty much throws that away.
Hey Grunt, Universe creation and planet forming are NOT synonymous. Planets are forming now in other nebulus clusters. However the theory of our own solar formation is not long after the big bang only about 6 billion years. The age of our solar system is determined by dating objects and the oldes object found so far is around 4 to 5 BILLION years. 4.6 if I remember correctly.
There are many theories for the "Big Bang": dark matter to matter, all the matter that is here existed, new matter was formed etc. However background radiation that is measurable seem to indicate that the Universe is 18 BILLION years old or so. This would point to matter regeneration? That facts are: The universe is expanding, and we can see backgroud radiation with modern equipment; and one other: helium levels as as predicted. Why is universe expansion that important? If you reverse the time scale, like playing a movie backwards the universe would come together and collide into a massive object.
The universe was not created in a day, or 7. For hundreds of thousands of years (and this is Steven Hawking) the universe was too hot for atoms to form. Upon greation of our universe the temperature went form a few trillions of degrees down to a few billions of degrees. All in a few seconds. At this point there are at least two good working theories that light could not escape because the matter, that is the atoms where too dense. So picture this dark cloud of matter, not like we see today just nuclei, electron, protons and photons.... etc. It wasn't until a BILLION years after the formation that temperatures cooled enough to allow atoms to form into molecules and molecules to form into heavy elements that would begin the process of forming the universe we see today. At this point the cloud lifted as room was given to allow light to escape! That light is what we see today as background radiation. And it wasn't until the 60s that we could see it.
Getting long, but I wanted to point out some misconceptions in cosmological history.
//EDIT as you can see the "big bang" happened in a short time, the universe took a LONG time to form and there are other less accepted theories. We will never get beyond the big bank because we do not know or will never know what laws were in effect.
My theory? Hmm...
Somewhere in a little room there is a very old creature who lies sleeping. So long as he sleeps, he dreams of our existance and the universe in which we live. When he wakes, everything we know to be reality is destroyed.
Creationist here.
I believe in a Creator as the "first cause" of a domino affect of affects, falling back on the age old cosmological argument that places us at either accepting a first cause or an infinite regression of causes and affects. Mind you, before I cause an uproar of objections, it is by no means an end-all argument which cannot be countered, but in my mind, it is sufficient when combined with a multitude of other factors, and it also ties in rather nicely with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I understand it.
You CANNOT leave it hanging there :)Quote:
and it also ties in rather nicely with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I understand it.
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
The Second Law of Thermodynamics. by Brig Klyce
:D
I'm just really trying not to write my usual six paragraph philosophical posts. Honest. :DQuote:
You CANNOT leave it hanging there
G or no G, ehtereal body or none: there is significant evidence that all things universal popped into being from a central location. It's interesting to see religion morph as scientific discoveries are accepted. Wait until I get started with Egal <-- humor. But I am going to a U2 concert to party and act foolish among particular pop star fans like me. See ya!
AGHGGGHHHHHHHHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHHH
Hi
Although I am a physicist, I do not want to defend
the physical point of view, nor do I want to attack
the creationists. I think, whatever approach one chooses,
the most important point is to try to build a consistent
argumentation (even religion bases its arguments on
fundamental assumptions). However, let me try to
summarise as correct as it possible for me, what there
is believed to be the best model(s).
There are a lot of physical models describing the "start"
of the (material) universe(s) (if there was a start at all).
The most famous and still most believed one in the natural
scienctific world could be called "Big Bang" theory, as it was
mentioned here. The original Big Bang theory had its first success
1966 with the prediction of the correct helium abundance.
However, a few inconsistencies still remained based on
this simple theory. The so-called inflation-theory[1], which
is an "add-on" to the Big Bang theory was invented 1981 -
and it could explain all these measureable shortcomings of
the Big Bang theory. Among them "fluctuations in the" CMB
(cosmic microwave background. recent, beautiful picture[2]),
flatness, clustering (galaxies etc), magnetic monopoles
(Dirac monopole), ...
I am not a cosmologist, so I am not an expert. There are
a lot of problems left there, like the search for an
explanation of dark matter, dark energy, asymmetry of
matter / antimatter, etc. These may be solved by another
modification of the inflation theory and/or assuming new
particles and/or a modification of our theories in the
very-high temperature regime.
Another theory is the ekpyrotic one - it bases on vibrating
"branes", where branes are generalised "strings" - yes, those
strings, which are part of that infamous "string theory".
Brane cosmology is quite a new theory, which "effectively"
describes a Big Bang, but also a Big Crunch, maybe endlessly.
It was, maybe still somewhat is, popular, because it gives a
hypothesis of the origin of dark energy. It is not very well
understood, only qualitatively, because string theory itself
is not well understood yet, and can predict as good as nothing,
unfortunately.
So much to the scientific world. It is one approach - an
approach, which is based on predicitions. These predictions
must be measured, otherwise the theory is proven false. The
hard thing of developing new theories is to be able to make
predictions.
Cheers :)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ave_background
Since I wasn't there, i won't be presumptuous. Genesis is as good as Hawking, IMO,
maybe better.
:cool:
Well, my position is really pretty simple, and I have stated it in a couple of different discussions over the years. That being said I will be glad to repeat it! :D
What we know...
1. Matter probbably came into existence via one of the two following ways.
a. God
b. Big Bang
2. We fleshy beings cannot create matter or anything else out of nothing.
Therefore I think that you may need to reavaluate your original question/statement of "I am not really sure what to believe,". Instead I think you should ask/state "I am not really sure what to place my faith in." Because when you get right down too it you are either placing your faith upon either a sentient supreme being that has somehow always existed and created the universe, or you are placing your faith upon a giant mindless ball of mud and gas that somehow created itself.
It's really your choice though. Both the question and the answer that is.
Have fun.
Do Christians ever wonder what greated god, who then created us? Because that statement about mud would apply to the being that created our universe.Quote:
or you are placing your faith upon a giant mindless ball of mud and gas that somehow created itself.
//EDIT Genesis is better, it's easier. God created the universe and all things known, don't worry about how and don't question it. :p
Quote:
//EDIT Genesis is better, it's easier. God created the universe and all things known, don't worry about how and don't question it
hahahahah...I like that one...
This is my favorite though....
:eek:Quote:
My theory? Hmm...
Somewhere in a little room there is a very old creature who lies sleeping. So long as he sleeps, he dreams of our existance and the universe in which we live. When he wakes, everything we know to be reality is destroyed.
MLF
Hi
Just today, I stumbled across two articles, written last month.
a new model
One[1] proposes a modification of the inflation theory, which
allows to get rid of the whole concept of dark energy - if the
calculations are done correct (the leader of the team is working
in the theory division at Fermilab). Essentially, they suggest that
perturbations (quantumfluctuations) in the beginning of the
universe have grown very quickly - and do influence the gravitational
properties of our universe. Like dark energy does.
the new thing is
that one does not need a postulated dark energy, but one can
explain todays finding using first principles.
However,
it did not take long, until another group of people claim[2] that
it is not possible to have such kind of acceleration. Also these people
are not nobodies - and have supporter from nowhere else than
the MIT.
The discussion is going on :D
Cheers.
[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503117
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503582
All you can do is read educated guesses and apply (your) command of math to them and hope to absorb the information, in return to retain a more advanced cognitive process when it comes to this enigma. At the end of the day, math holds the best explication that we have of the Universe. And those my friends are expressed in math termonology; the only communication that allows us to insure the resultants! Theories have to be modified with time. “Big-Bang” is no exception. That being said, it stands on two major theories, Cosmological Principle and General Relativity. On top of that, it’s not even complete. *hence The origin of galaxies, clusters etc…
Anti-matter mixing with regular matter E = m*c^2. Where art thou? See, we don’t know much about a lot of things, and if you think about it, we don't even know (1‰) permille about our being . The universe is not built on a human scale of time or size. There really is no way to get outside for some perspective. So I wouldn’t start marking theories off so quickly.
The laws of physics shall support any expression.... any opinion whatsoever.;)
At the end of the day we need quantum computation and nano-everything. We need to build stronger super-computers so we can have more advanced models. We need to build smaller satellites and probes for deep-space data recon etc... Nano tech is the key, imho, to millions of unanswered Universe questions. So my advice, learn all the math you can and read all the books can on the subjects.
These are old but they are great reads.(Hawking's requires no math)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...363573-8289516
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...89516?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...89516?v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...89516?v=glance
More often than support, the laws deny expression as faulty.Quote:
The laws of physics shall support any expression.... any opinion whatsoever
I support most politicians who represent the importance of scientific discovery. In fact I am watching the project to map genetics of all the major cancers to see who supports that....
It took a long time to map the human genome and now we are looking, as a people, to see what benefits that can bring. The next major step, and it will be VERY expensive is to take about 10 years to map and catalog the VERY essence of cancer, and manipulate theire genetics to detect and destroy this vile disease for possible the first time....
anyway, I put it on my big list.
//EDIT Figured a link was in order. Good on Britain for comming up with the details. Its not only the external universe we should look at and ponder with curiosity. NY Times
Unless you can throw a third option at me, there are only two conclusions to come to:Quote:
Do Christians ever wonder what greated god, who then created us? Because that statement about mud would apply to the being that created our universe.
//EDIT Genesis is better, it's easier. God created the universe and all things known, don't worry about how and don't question it.
(1) There is an infinite regression of causes and affects, or
(2) There is a beginning, or first cause, and that cause is by nature causeless.
The christian suggests that God is the First Cause, thus uncaused. You could say that's crazy, but so is an infinitely regressing past of causes. So whatever the truth is, it's not easy to swallow.
I'm sure that many do, just as many physicists must wonder what created the big bang, which in turn, eventually created us. Maybe God created the big bang, but then again, what created God?Quote:
Do Christians ever wonder what greated god, who then created us? Because that statement about mud would apply to the being that created our universe.
Personally I am for the theory of an infinite repetition of cause and effect, in which the big bang eventually becomes a big crunch and the whole process starts all over again. This is mainly because although I like to believe that I have a mind open enough to accept the possibility of realities which I can not understand, much less envision, I simply cannot accept the possibility that before the big bang there was simply nothing; neither time nor space nor matter. If the universe shall never shrink to a big crunch, then there must be a beginning of time, before which point time, space, and mater can not be measured and do not exist. There would be nothing. But without some kind of reality to define what nothing is, nothing cannot exist. Therefore something must exist. Nothingness cannot exist without a reality to define it, which is why I think the universe must have an end, which is also the beginning.
Of course, if there is in fact an infinite loop created by the big bang, then we must repeat what we are doing now at some point after the next big bang, meaning we have no free will, and our future is already decided for us.
But maybe what happens between the bangs has no effect on subsequent realities, which would necessitate some kind of random chance for which I can see no physical law ever explaining. This would imply the existence of God to create that random chance.
In other words, I have no idea what to believe.
mathematical expression Ex. (JJ)G1^=(O0+A0) = 7T(JJ) God/Time/Alpha/Omega/jehovah jira ...Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
More often than support, the laws deny expression as faulty.
I support most politicians who represent the importance of scientific discovery. In fact I am watching the project to map genetics of all the major cancers to see who supports that....
It took a long time to map the human genome and now we are looking, as a people, to see what benefits that can bring. The next major step, and it will be VERY expensive is to take about 10 years to map and catalog the VERY essence of cancer, and manipulate theire genetics to detect and destroy this vile disease for possible the first time....
anyway, I put it on my big list.
//EDIT Figured a link was in order. Good on Britain for comming up with the details. Its not only the external universe we should look at and ponder with curiosity. NY Times
Btw, do you donate your bandwidth to Folding@Home? http://folding.stanford.edu/
It's like the SETI@home project, but it's for a good cause. :) http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" ~ jehovah jira the lion of the tribe of judah. That ones for you Angelic. :)
Used to give SETI a crunch. But I haven't in a long while. In fact I haven't turned my computer on at home in a long long time. Spend too much on them at work, and when I do bring home a laptop it's running pen tests. I do flip on the xbox though. Right now I am babying about 100 tomato plants and various peppers in my free time. Oh along with training a new puppy.
Striek, you pretty much summed up and excellent point, I too don't know what to believe. But a book written by man is not the word of the universal creator in my mind. If such a being did exist, it would be so far out of our reality and understanding that we would have to make him up. And there is a good possibility that we will not contract back into a big crunch and the universe will go on forever.
Angel there is an infinite regression. That is the essence of physics and possibly why times arrow does not reverse. It's easier to regress. If you break an object, say smash a lamp into a million pieces, the fragments scatter off in random places regressing into chaos. That is infinitely easier than bringing the fragments into order by tracking their position in time and space to bring them under control as a single object. Returning them to another order.
Scientist vs. God
The scientist approached God and said,
"Listen, we've decided we no longer need you. Nowadays, we can clone people, transplant hearts and do all kinds of things that were once considered miraculous."
God patiently heard him out, and then said, "All right. To see whether or not you still need me, why don't we have a man-making contest?"
"Okay, great!" the scientist said.
"Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said.
"That's fine," replied the scientist, and bent to scoop up a handful of dirt.
"Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval.
"Not so fast, pal. You go get your own dirt!"
from www.goofyfun.com
On August 6, 1987 I was born--and it was good. As far as I'm concerned, this is when the universe became relevant to me, so I try not to worry about what happened some odd billion years ago.
This reminds me of the Texas sharpshooter tale. Are we just drawing bullseyes?
hi Evil Moo,Quote:
Originally posted here by Evil Moo
On August 6, 1987 I was born--and it was good. As far as I'm concerned, this is when the universe became relevant to me, so I try not to worry about what happened some odd billion years ago.
Now...I'm saying this without actually implying how I feel myself on this issue...but it has been brought up by me in conversations with various members of the cloth...
this is an issue that is usually ignored and flies in the face of official beliefs...in brief...
jesus said that john was elijah
john denied that he was elijah
both cannot be right
so...in order to avoid calling jesus a liar...or john stupid...the very un-official stand is that john was elijah but didn't know it himself...
which is the natural state of being re-born...not knowing that you previously existed...
if this is true then early christians did in fact believe in a form of reincarnation/rebirth which is against church dogma...
how does this apply to you?...
the past then becomes relevant. ;)
Eg ;)
We don't worry about it... we are driven by a curisoty of how thing are. A passion.Quote:
this is when the universe became relevant to me, so I try not to worry about what happened some odd billion years ago
[True]
jesus said that john was elijah
john denied that he was elijah
both cannot be right
[/Quote]
This does a pretty good job at explaining your question .....
Quote:
John the Baptist was asked by the Jewish leaders, "Are you Elijah?" The answer of John could not be plainer. He said, "I am not" (Jn. 1:21). John the Baptist was not Elijah reincarnated. What Jesus meant is that John the Baptist was like Elijah. Someone like Elijah was supposed to come and that someone was John. Elijah and John were both prophets. They both spent time alone in the desert. They both preached repentance and were persecuted by hostile government rulers. The two men wore similar clothing. John and Elijah were similar, but not the same person. That this is what Jesus meant rather than teaching reincarnation is certainly the case if we will examine the prediction made about John before his birth. It was foretold that "he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk. 1:17). The two men were similar, but they were not the same person.
There is no evidence in the Bible for reincarnation and the law of karma. Not only does the Bible not teach this, there are passages in the Bible which teach contradictory to reincarnation. One example is John 9:1-3.
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.
If Jesus had believed in reincarnation and the law of karma, he would have answered entirely differently. He would have said the man was born blind because of sins he had committed in his past life. Jesus clearly denied such a possibility, though. As the story progresses, Jesus heals this man of his blindness. If Jesus believed in reincarnation and the law of karma, he would not have done this. This man should have been left blind so that he would receive his just punishment for his sins. It is manifest, then, that Jesus Christ did not believe in reincarnation.
Finally there is one extremely clear statement in the Bible which shows that the Christian faith is not compatible with a belief in reincarnation. In the New Testament we read, "It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgement" (Heb. 9:27). According to this verse, how many deaths do we die? Only one. According to the transmigration of souls we die many times, are reborn many times, and suffer for our sins many times in many lives. The Bible, though, says we live one life and die once and then face God in judgement. As Jesus said, "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgement" (Jn. 5:29).
It's easy to make a prediction or a "theory". But in an area such as Physics, for it to qualify as a valid scientific theory and not crackpottery it undergoes mathematical rigor and consistency, with previously held models such as Relativity.Quote:
Originally posted here by sec_ware
So much to the scientific world. It is one approach - an
approach, which is based on predicitions. These predictions
must be measured, otherwise the theory is proven false. The
hard thing of developing new theories is to be able to make
predictions.
Cheers :)
About the who created God question. That's an infinite question. Ok, I see now, who created that God. Well, who created the God that created that one and that one and that one? etc.... Eons pass, and the question still remains strong...who created that one and that one and that one? I guess only personal faith in "one being all" can stop it.
About the time direction. All the undefeated equations of physics are symmetrical in time. Someone famous said that. <----- ------>
Ahh, see, we need deep thinkers with enquiring minds in COSMOS. It's an old school hobby. Google archaeocosmology or archaeoastronomy. Halley's Comet: "Its appearances have been recorded at least 30 times over the past 2000 years"! ~ Girl from NASA. If you think about it, almost all of our planets, objects, Suns, Moons etc... are named from or after the Greeks and Greek words. Orion/Heaven Kosmos.Cosmos/order etc... That being said, I wouldn't waste too much time in studying the Greeks. I had a friend who, like a jackass wasted his parent’s money in college studying the Greek philosophers. Didn't really learn any skills for the real world. He probably takes a 30 grand hit each year for that blunder. But when I see pictures like these http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...spirit_big.jpg http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.htmlQuote:
On August 6, 1987 I was born--and it was good. As far as I'm concerned, this is when the universe became relevant to me, so I try not to worry about what happened some odd billion years ago.
my mind automatically starts asking questions.
Some of us actually care about how many parsecs those celestial objects are away. How many petameters away? We want to know the interstellar distances between galactic halos and globular clusters. Parallax (Greek) etc... Is light heavy? ya... inertial mass (mi) ggravitational mass (mg) rest mass... some of us are into it, deep brotha, deep like a black whole.
***edit*
Just for kicks, if your evil cow could moo, his muh, in the form of sound. In space you wouldn't be able to hear your evil cow moo, because sound needs a medium to travel. Maybe that will jumpstart the inquisitive portion of your brain.
lol. I didn't realize my (intended to be obvious) jest would recieve so much attention. Existenstialism is an infinite subject matter that is only limited by a person's willingness to discuss it. So, these threads are meandering and extremely lengthy--my post was a poke of fun at this. Please don't mistake my dabble with humor for a short-sighted apathy.
Even with that said, I opt for the scientific over the metaphysical. Religion for the most part has merely been a composite of dogmas and supersitions used to explain difficult questions and/or establish order (whether it be legal, moral, etc.). So, I opt for the tense that everything is infinitely divisible, and that it is either impossible to find an absolute beginning, or that we as human beings have not evolved mentally far enough to understand and explain with scientific support that there is an absolute.
Hell, I hope we never do discover the exact origins of the universe. Existance becomes pointless without a goal to it. I've said it once, and I'll say it again; The pursuit of perfection is so much more noble than the achievement of it.
I've got to say I really like:
I think he broke wind and produced a universe. It expands much like any other fart to fill the room until everyone leaves or opens a window. I just hope he doesn't follow through.Quote:
Somewhere in a little room there is a very old creature who lies sleeping. So long as he sleeps, he dreams of our existance and the universe in which we live. When he wakes, everything we know to be reality is destroyed.