#76
Posted: 2/20/06 at 3:55pm
Then I've completely failed. My attempt was to show that 'completely scientific' does not preclude creation.
How did it all begin? (the universe) I'm serious — Page 4
#77
Posted: 2/20/06 at 3:58pm
No, please, you haven't failed! I'm of little faith.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#78
Posted: 2/20/06 at 4:03pm
This has been a completely fascinating thread and as usual, I'm chiming in way too late, but two things:
The question of what (if anything) is extra-Universal has several mathematical and scientific speculations attached to it. One theory of mathematics says that there are numberous universes existing in separate dimensional spaces. We can grasp only four dimensions - height, width, and depth to perceive the things which are familiar in our universe, and time. Obviously, we perceive time as linear, but mathematical theory suggests that it might not be. There is a theory that everything that has ever happened or ever will happen exists as " the present" in some universe. Taken to its logical (or perhaps illogical) extremes, this would mean that nothing is ever lost; nothing ever really dies because it exists somewhere/sometime in some dimension.
Back to Jane2's question about endings and nothingness, the prevailing theory right now (until somebody comes up with the math for something else)for the end of our universe, is that it will go on expanding forever. The other alternative is that it will eventually reach a limit of expansion, then snap back like a rubber band that is pulled to its limits and then released. The problem with that one is that when the universe starts to contract, time would run backward, ending in a "Big Crunch," or a singularity - that infintesimally tiny point of dense matter that was censored earlier.
Those are just a couple of mathematical ideas. I personally believe in a God who has it all figured out, even if we limited human being, don't. I love playing with these ideas, though.
The question of what (if anything) is extra-Universal has several mathematical and scientific speculations attached to it. One theory of mathematics says that there are numberous universes existing in separate dimensional spaces. We can grasp only four dimensions - height, width, and depth to perceive the things which are familiar in our universe, and time. Obviously, we perceive time as linear, but mathematical theory suggests that it might not be. There is a theory that everything that has ever happened or ever will happen exists as " the present" in some universe. Taken to its logical (or perhaps illogical) extremes, this would mean that nothing is ever lost; nothing ever really dies because it exists somewhere/sometime in some dimension.
Back to Jane2's question about endings and nothingness, the prevailing theory right now (until somebody comes up with the math for something else)for the end of our universe, is that it will go on expanding forever. The other alternative is that it will eventually reach a limit of expansion, then snap back like a rubber band that is pulled to its limits and then released. The problem with that one is that when the universe starts to contract, time would run backward, ending in a "Big Crunch," or a singularity - that infintesimally tiny point of dense matter that was censored earlier.
Those are just a couple of mathematical ideas. I personally believe in a God who has it all figured out, even if we limited human being, don't. I love playing with these ideas, though.
"And the postman sighed as he scratched his head, you really rather thought she ought to be dead..."
#79
Posted: 2/20/06 at 4:07pm
Grizzabella-thanks for coming in! But my question isn't about endings-I'm questioning the beginning of everything. To simplify something which can't be simplified-I'm saying there had to be one day , or if we don't want to use measurements here-there had to be a time when there was nothing anywhere. then something happened. I'm asking who or what started it all. I know now that there is no definitive answer, but I'm in awe of the wonderful responses I've gotten here.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#80
Posted: 2/20/06 at 4:49pm
Grizzabella, as usual, I'm awed. You must never stop reading! And thanks for that word - singularity.
Mo (do you prefer Mo or Mama?), your dream was wonderful. I firmly believe in dreams like that - I believe in our dream state sometimes the universe reaches in and touches us with revelation about itself.
Mo (do you prefer Mo or Mama?), your dream was wonderful. I firmly believe in dreams like that - I believe in our dream state sometimes the universe reaches in and touches us with revelation about itself.
Salmon leap from the womb of the white sea you look on; they are calves, they are lambs of good color, in peace without slaughter.
#81
Posted: 2/20/06 at 5:36pm
I've always thought that Aquinas' theory about an unmoved mover was an interesting explanation for the existance of God.
But I would recommend people read "A Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. "A Case for Faith" is also great, though not as good as "A Case for Christ," but that doesn't deal too much with creation.
The thing that bothers me is that people think evolution and Creationism are incompatible. Go back and read the Creation story. It just says that God created the universe. It doesn't say HOW, just that He did. (Which brings me to the question; How do you teach creationism in a classroom? It's a four second lesson really. "God created the universe." That's all there is to it. God expected us to fill in the holes on our own.
But I would recommend people read "A Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. "A Case for Faith" is also great, though not as good as "A Case for Christ," but that doesn't deal too much with creation.
The thing that bothers me is that people think evolution and Creationism are incompatible. Go back and read the Creation story. It just says that God created the universe. It doesn't say HOW, just that He did. (Which brings me to the question; How do you teach creationism in a classroom? It's a four second lesson really. "God created the universe." That's all there is to it. God expected us to fill in the holes on our own.
#82
Posted: 2/20/06 at 5:46pm
There are lots of people who don't believe in God though.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#83
Posted: 2/20/06 at 6:08pm
I don't think it's necessary to start with God in this type of search for the beginning of all things. For many people, belief in a Prime Mover has been the result of this kind of questioning.
Salmon leap from the womb of the white sea you look on; they are calves, they are lambs of good color, in peace without slaughter.
#84
Posted: 2/20/06 at 6:48pm
justthefacts2 - I'm sorry, I just saw your note. You can call me anything you want. The 'Mama' is because I'm a lousy typist and I lost a "M" when I registered. (If you see one laying around - it's mine). The "Mo" is a nickname for Maureen.
#85
Posted: 2/20/06 at 6:58pm
Sorry I got it backward, Jane2, but you know, it was that line from Scripture where God says "I am the Alpha and the Omega," that kept going through my mind. As in no beginning and no ending, nothing is lost, nothing is wasted.
Becky, I completely agree that believing that God is the causative factor in creation, and evolution are not, in the mechanics of processes, mutually exclusive. There is a book called "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren which discusses the salient points. The only part of evolution that differs profoundly is the belief that it was an isolated and random event, without conscious volition by any higher being.
Becky, I completely agree that believing that God is the causative factor in creation, and evolution are not, in the mechanics of processes, mutually exclusive. There is a book called "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren which discusses the salient points. The only part of evolution that differs profoundly is the belief that it was an isolated and random event, without conscious volition by any higher being.
"And the postman sighed as he scratched his head, you really rather thought she ought to be dead..."
#86
Posted: 2/20/06 at 8:18pm
I'm joining this late also, and read most of what came before, but I wanted to add my thoughts.
Regardless of God or not, I've never been able to imagine "nothing" before the universe. If all the stuff we see around us wasn't here, SOMETHING would have to be here - "nothing" as I think we're thinking of it, simply cannot exist - or if it can, it's way beyond our comprehension. Plus, for nothing to exist, there has to be a SOMETHING to contradict it, or that nothing in itself becomes something. Therefore, since there had to be SOMETHING, couldn't there have been another universe here before this universe - and on and on and on? Just DIFFERENT somethings? - there may have been void (which is something), but there ALWAYS had to be something. Like I think Jane2 said before, there's can't be such a thing as the day before something existed. For that to be true, that "day" would be something, and therefore becomes a paradox itself.
My head hurts - and now I think I confused myself more than anything else.
Just ignore me.
Regardless of God or not, I've never been able to imagine "nothing" before the universe. If all the stuff we see around us wasn't here, SOMETHING would have to be here - "nothing" as I think we're thinking of it, simply cannot exist - or if it can, it's way beyond our comprehension. Plus, for nothing to exist, there has to be a SOMETHING to contradict it, or that nothing in itself becomes something. Therefore, since there had to be SOMETHING, couldn't there have been another universe here before this universe - and on and on and on? Just DIFFERENT somethings? - there may have been void (which is something), but there ALWAYS had to be something. Like I think Jane2 said before, there's can't be such a thing as the day before something existed. For that to be true, that "day" would be something, and therefore becomes a paradox itself.
My head hurts - and now I think I confused myself more than anything else.
Just ignore me.
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#87
Posted: 2/20/06 at 8:27pm
I prefer The Big Bang Theory, but I think, I just like saying the big bang. 
Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and serenely and with too high a spirit to be enbered with your old nonsense. ~ Emerson
#88
Posted: 2/20/06 at 8:29pm
It's funny, this has been one of the major topics I've been questioning lately. I've always been confused by people who unquestioningly believe in the Big Bang, "You just think it all got thrown together? Really??" but at the same time I'm reluctant to accept the Creationist point of view, regardless of my belief in God. Unfortunately, we can debate about it, but we'll never really be sure.
I have a similar dilemma with the idea of a closed universe. To me, saying that if you travelled in a circle, you'd just get to the beginning again seems like an easy way out, without questioning what's beyond the boundaries.
I have a similar dilemma with the idea of a closed universe. To me, saying that if you travelled in a circle, you'd just get to the beginning again seems like an easy way out, without questioning what's beyond the boundaries.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $71