Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

and if that’s not a celestial accomplishment I don’t know what is

The same is what those prehistoric people said about the solar eclipse

If you can not understand something it seems "magical".

Here I am pointing out to you the most spectacular event ever... the very first particle that ultimately created the cosmos and you see fit to draw a "parallel" with the relatively insignificant solar eclipse that some idiot was afraid of???

Are you able to remove yourself from the realms of nature and place yourself just one second PRIOR to nature being formed or not?

[Simon]

[quote]No they do not. Do you have any sources on that? [/quote]


I am not exactly sure how you can dispute this. What do you think the Big Bang is about? It is about the beginning of the Universe and matter. Therefore, by applying the widely accepted Big Bang theory, matter had a beginning, the Big Bang. This is basic scientific knowledge. Scientists explain the Big Bang as occuring from a spontaneous explosion from NOTHING. I myself have heard Stephen Hawking use those very words.


[quote]Wrong, that theory is as valid as the one that considers the big bang the beginning. Actually the rate at which the Universe is expanding is declining [/quote]


This is simply false. The Big Bang theory is far more widely accepted and evidenced than this continuously exploding Universe. I am not too sure of your sources that indicate that the rate of expansion is slowing, I have always read that the rate of expansion is increasing. If you have up to date sources that contradict this, please post it, I would be interested to see it.



[quote]The creation of the Universe was also not subject to time since time exists only within it and not in whatever "contains" the Universe. So the Universe is eternal as well [/quote]


Please forgive me, I am not trying to sound patronizing, but you seem to misunderstand the theory of the Big Bang. The Big Bang created the Universe so Scientists believe, therefore, the Universe cannot be eternal. The matter within the Universe has an end, this is proven by scientists. Therefore, it must have had a beginning. If you are suggesting that the Universe is contained by something larger, then of course that may have existed forever. That something larger may be God.


[quote]Everything else from after the big bang to the appearance of man can be explained without the presence of a God.[/quote]


Can be explained - yes. Explained convincingly, I am not so sure.

[Kikapu]

It's good to know, now that we have solved the Cyprus problem, we can move onto less challenging work, like trying to figure out about the Universe as to how it got started.

If we can have "Virgin Birth" as Jesus was, then anything and everything is possible, I guess. The magic formula is of course, that you have to be a believer. If you are a believer, then all the answers to the origins of the Universe are CORRECT. Science can direct us in a certain direction to look for answers, but if the answers do not exist, then naturally we create our own answers, because Humans are not satisfied with "what is, is what is" for an answer. There has to be a reason for everything or else it should have never happened, we say without not knowing the real answers.

I use to lay on the deck of my boat at night in the middle of the Ocean and watch the Stars and the Milky Way and let my mind wonder off into the Cosmos and wondered where the EDGE was. After a very long journey, and having got to the EDGE, then I wondered what was BEYOND the EDGE. It is simply never ending.

Perhaps it is better that we do not have all the answers to everything, but just enjoy it to the fullest, while we are here to enjoy it. As far as GOD goes, well, again you will have to be a believer in GOD, or else nothing will make sense, without it.

[alexISS]

The creation of the Universe was also not subject to time since time exists only within it and not in whatever "contains" the Universe. So the Universe is eternal as well

If time exists within the universe as you say, and I agree with that, how can you then call it eternal? You are contradicting yourself here.

"Time" has a meaning for everything inside the "set" we call "the Universe", but of course the Universe itself is not in this set, therefore it's "timeless". If the big bang was the birth of the Universe, it was also the beginning of time. No contradictions.

Everything within the universe gets born and then dies such as planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies even, so ultimately the universe itself must also abide by this rule because all its contents certainly do.

Again, the universe is not "contained" in itself but in a container unknown to us so, as a single entity, the Universe abides by the rules of this container and not by the rules known to us.

When you say “whatever contains the universe” then you in fact support my theory that the universe is a package containing all that it needs so who is the inventor/owner of this package?

The existence of an "inventor" or "creator" is not necessary, these are human notions that have no meaning in the Cosmos, as is the notion of a "living" being

[Piratis]

Here I am pointing out to you the most spectacular event ever... the very first particle that ultimately created the cosmos and you see fit to draw a "parallel" with the relatively insignificant solar eclipse that some idiot was afraid of???

We are not talking about "some idiot" but about the whole humanity. At that time it was impossible to explain that phenomenon and that is why it seemed as something magical. At that time a solar eclipse was also probably considered as " the most spectacular event ever".

You assume that we know everything about nature so anything beyond what we can explain today should be supernatural. However this is not the case.

Are you able to remove yourself from the realms of nature and place yourself just one second PRIOR to nature being formed or not?

Of course not. And you can not do that either. We can only imagine and guess but nothing beyond that. If you want to make nice imaginary stories then fine, but I would consider that a different subject.

[Get Real!]

Here I am pointing out to you the most spectacular event ever... the very first particle that ultimately created the cosmos and you see fit to draw a "parallel" with the relatively insignificant solar eclipse that some idiot was afraid of???

We are not talking about "some idiot" but about the whole humanity. At that time it was impossible to explain that phenomenon and that is why it seemed as something magical. At that time a solar eclipse was also probably considered as " the most spectacular event ever".

You assume that we know everything about nature so anything beyond what we can explain today should be supernatural. However this is not the case.

Are you able to remove yourself from the realms of nature and place yourself just one second PRIOR to nature being formed or not?

Of course not. And you can not do that either. We can only imagine and guess but nothing beyond that. If you want to make nice imaginary stories then fine, but I would consider that a different subject.

Then how can you possibly ever ponder the existence of God if you are limiting yourself so much? Prior to that very beginning there was no nature my good man so then it can only have been unnatural or if you like… supernatural!

[alexISS]

I am not exactly sure how you can dispute this. What do you think the Big Bang is about? It is about the beginning of the Universe and matter.

Again, that's incorrect. The big bang was a TRANSITION from an unknown state of the matter to what is now known as the Universe. So, it was the birth of the Universe, but not the birth of matter

Therefore, by applying the widely accepted Big Bang theory, matter had a
beginning, the Big Bang. This is basic scientific knowledge. Scientists explain the Big Bang as occuring from a spontaneous explosion from NOTHING. I myself have heard Stephen Hawking use those very words.

Again, not from nothing. Actually what Hawking suggests that when the big bang occured, the matter was of infinite density and temperature.

This is simply false. The Big Bang theory is far more widely accepted and evidenced than this continuously exploding Universe.

You didn't understand me. The pulsating theory INCLUDES the big bang theory, it is not opposing it.

I am not too sure of your sources that indicate that the rate of expansion is slowing, I have always read that the rate of expansion is increasing. If you have up to date sources that contradict this, please post it, I would be interested to see it.

I can search for sources if you want, although this is not my main point. I'll have to get back to you on that

Please forgive me, I am not trying to sound patronizing, but you seem to misunderstand the theory of the Big Bang. The Big Bang created the Universe so Scientists believe, therefore, the Universe cannot be eternal.

please read my previous post on that, I said that the Universe is eternal because time started AFTER the big bang so to us it is in fact timeless

The matter within the Universe has an end, this is proven by scientists.

Actually it's the opposite that's been proven, through the principle of the conservation of energy. Energy (and, therefore, matter; see relativity) is never "lost", it's just transformed from one form to another.

If you are suggesting that the Universe is contained by something larger, then of course that may have existed forever. That something larger may be God.

Maybe, maybe not. What I've said is that there is no PROOF of God's existence (Hawkins is an agnostic too, by the way ).

Everything else from after the big bang to the appearance of man can be explained without the presence of a God.

Can be explained - yes. Explained convincingly, I am not so sure.

Every explanation offered is more convincing than one that includes the intervention of a divine being

[alexISS]

Then how can you possibly ever ponder the existence of God if you are limiting yourself so much? Prior to that very beginning there was no nature my good man so then it can only have been unnatural or if you like… supernatural!

Actually we have created the notion of God exactly because we cannot cross the limits our world imposes on us. "God" is nothing more than another life form, another being, only powerul enough to have created everything we can't understand.

[alexISS]

By the way, here's the agnostic's prayer... "Lord, if you exist, please save my soul, if I have one"

[Simon]

AlexISS I think you misunderstand many of my points.


[quote]Again, that's incorrect. The big bang was a TRANSITION from an unknown state of the matter to what is now known as the Universe. So, it was the birth of the Universe, but not the birth of matter [/quote]


Essentially, before the Big Bang, we do not know what existed. Matter as we know it is believed to have only emerged after the Big Bang. This is my point. Our known form of matter began at the Big Bang, therefore, that was its birth. This unknown state of matter you refer to is precisely that, unknown. Therefore, the Big Bang was the birth of the Universe and matter as we know it.


[quote]You didn't understand me. The pulsating theory INCLUDES the big bang theory, it is not opposing it. [/quote]


I did not say they oppose each other. They are two separate theories. One theory explains the formulation of the Universe, the other, the movements and possible ending of the Universe. Yes they are certainly related to each other, but also distinct, as you can believe in the Big Bang without believing in the 'pulsating theory.' Therefore, my point stands that the Big Bang theory is a more widely accepted theory than the 'pulsating' one. The reason I mentioned the Big Bang theory being more widely accepted, is that you stated the 'pulsating' theory is as credible as the Big Bang theory. I was just pointing out that the Big Bang theory is much more widely accepted by experts.


[quote]please read my previous post on that, I said that the Universe is eternal because time started AFTER the big bang so to us it is in fact timeless [/quote]


I understand what you are indicating, and while you are theoretically and technically correct, it is practical nonsense. I say this because we know the Universe had a beginning, therefore, while it is timeless in the strict definition of the word, it is not essentially eternal in the sense of always existing. Therefore, we must ask as inquisitive creatures, what was there before?


[quote]Actually it's the opposite that's been proven, through the principle of the conservation of energy. Energy (and, therefore, matter; see relativity) is never "lost", it's just transformed from one form to another. [/quote]


Yes, I understand the theory of relativity and energy cannot be destroyed etc. However, my point is, the Universe and matter as we know it had a beginning, therefore, it must have an end.


[quote]Maybe, maybe not. What I've said is that there is no PROOF of God's existence (Hawkins is an agnostic too, by the way ). [/quote]


That depends on what you consider as proof. (I know, kind of irrelevant though - re Hawking).


[quote]Again, not from nothing. Actually what Hawking suggests that when the big bang occured, the matter was of infinite density and temperature[/quote]

You are right, Stephen Hawking has explained it as the above. Although, I can assure you, he has said 'a spontaneous explosion from nothing'. Perhaps he regards this unknown matter as 'nothing' ? After all, before the Big Bang, Mr Hawking states there was 'nothing.'


You say that every explanation offered is more convincing than an intervention of a divine being - that is simply an opinion. I'm fine with that, but I tend to disagree.