RE: Christ's birthday
November 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2009 at 5:09 pm by rjh4 is back.)
(November 8, 2009 at 10:26 am)Darwinian Wrote: If you don't mind, I'll just tackle the whole, "where did all the energy and matter come from" question.
Obviously it all came about as a result of the big bang. However, this poses a further question which is what was before the big bang? There are two answers to this that I can see. The first is of course that all the energy of the Universe was wrapped up with the singularity that subsequently went 'bang' (technically it didn't actually go bang but I won't quibble about that now).
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the singularity was just energy? What about matter? Did that exist in the singularity?
(November 8, 2009 at 10:26 am)Darwinian Wrote: Now, there is no reason to presume that this singularity didn't always exist. There are two reasons to suppose this, firstly it may well be that there was never a time, now matter how far back you travel, that either the singularity or universe or something else didn't exist, the universe that we currently inhabit simply being the form it happens to take today.
This seems to be true only if the universe or singularity constitutes some sort of perpetual motion machine, which would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, if the universe existed in eternity past, the energy would no longer be useable energy. So are you suggesting that the singularity (whatever that is) or the universe or the combination constitutes some sort of perpetual motion machine (for a lack of me thinking of a better description)?
(November 8, 2009 at 10:26 am)Darwinian Wrote: Secondly, if, as some suspect, time itself came into existence along with everything else at the point of the big bang then the whole question of what was before and where did it all come from become meaningless questions.
This, you must realize, is merely coming up with a scenario such that you don't have to answer the question. Isn't this what Christians get accused of all the time here?
(November 8, 2009 at 10:26 am)Darwinian Wrote: Personally I favour the string theory argument from which M theory is derived whereby the big bang that brought about our universe was as a result of two colliding membranes floating around in the multiverse. If this is true, and it seems pretty plausible and is certainly supported by the maths then there would have been multiple big bangs not only on the membrane that this universe exists but also on our partner membrane. The multiverse of course may have always existed.
How does this help? Now I need to know what a multiverse is, what it consists of, what these membranes are, what they are floating in, how they collide, etc. Can you explain those things for me?
(November 8, 2009 at 10:26 am)Darwinian Wrote: Any of these answers seem far more probable than simply saying "God did it."
What brings you to that conclusion?

(November 8, 2009 at 3:35 pm)Craveman Wrote: So far the existance or non-existance of a creator has not been proven. Therefore I will call myself an agnostic atheist. I believed that civilisations have tried to use various religions to try and explain the unknown. Many people, especially philosophers, have tried, speculated and used various philosophies to try and explain where it (us/universe/life/etc) all came from but have failed. All we can do is guess and wonder... I will however not settle for religion to try and explain the unknown, especially the Christian God. My believe is that Christianity is yet another man-made religion and it gets used to control the masses and to fill the coffers of the rulers. Our fear of our mortallity and the unknown keeps us from asking too many questions which obviously helps to upkeep the Christian followers
I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator. I hope this answer your question
It really does not explain what your presuppositions actually are. It does, however, indicate that your presuppositions are such that you will never accept Christianity. This is clear where you say:
Quote:I will however not settle for religion to try and explain the unknown, especially the Christian God.
This seems to me to be totally contradictory to where you say:
Quote:I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator.
If you would like to elaborate, that would be great but if not, I will not press things.
I do thank you for continuing discussing things with me. I do appreciate your time (and I am not being sarcastic here
