Jerry Springer The Opera and religious zealots.

I'm amazed that with all the people here on this forum, that there are no Anglican or Catholic priests that could get stuck in on this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:

...And isn't it equally irrational to 'believe' in the Big Bang theory? Let's see now ...


There was nothing - not even time.

Then, suddenly, at an instant in the time that didn't exist ...

!BANG!

And here we are.


Rationally speaking, how does that work?

Steve M

---

Steve, you misunderstand.

The Universe, by its definition, contains everything that exists, including space and time.

If the Universe had a beginning, it follows that time began also, no? There is no point asking what happened or what existed "before" before the Universe began because the question has no meaning. Time is not a linear process which proceeds along in its merry way above everything, it is part of the fabric of the Universe, as Einstein and others have demonstrated. Indeed, Einstein postulated that time could be distorted by gravity and the quality of matter we call "mass" – this was later proved.

Incidentally, the Big Bang is not a matter of faith; given the evidence we can observe, and what we know about the laws of physics, it seems reasonable to assume that the Universe is expanding and that it expanded from a certain point (currently the laws of physics as we understand them do not allow us to look back to [or even speculate about] a time before what is known as Planck Time [ie, about 10 to the power of –43 seconds after the moment of the Big Bang]) and that, depending on the ddensity of the Universe (something we don't yet know) it will either continue expanding indefinitely or it will begin to collapse in on itself in a reverse Big Bang (or Big Crunch) - if that happens and the Universe is destroyed or compressed into a singularity then it seems reasonable to assume that time will end also.

All of the above may seem counter-intuitive but is certainly not irrational and to me sounds perfectly logical.

Kevin

PS The crucial question is whether an intelligence – call it God – was responsible for the entire process. I don't think so myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
It's absolutely true that many terrible things have been done in the name of religion. However, I'd like to quote something that Kevin-W posted because I thought it was insightful and deserves repetition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
These states failed and caused such misery not because they were atheistic or irreligious but because they were utopian. I have said elsewhere on this forum that utopianism is one of the most anti-human constructs that human beings have come up with to torture themselves.

What links the regimes/experiments of Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Jim Jones (of Jonestown Guyana infamy), Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and his Taliban, David Koresh of Waco infamy, Ayatollah Khomeni, Savonarola, those US survivalists and militias, the Terror after the French Revolution, etc etc?

They are/were all utopians. Nothing to do with their lack of religion.

---

And usually nothing to do _with_ religion either, even if they act under its banner.

Kevin, one question:

Is Democracy a Utopian concept too and are all Utopias necessarily bad?

Steve M

(well alright, that's two questions)

[This message was edited by 7V on Thu 13 January 2005 at 1:15.]

---

Steve

To answer your second question first, yes, I think all Utopias are by definition bad.

To answer your first: Democracy as a concept is inherently flawed and will always lead to flawed states, and so cannot think be called Utopian. However, as a means of organising complex human communities and human affairs, it seems to me to be the best system available to date.

Kevin

quote:

---

Incidentally, the Big Bang is not a matter of faith; given the evidence we can observe,

---

But you could also aknowledge our individual "souls" and use the same argument to qualify God.
No?

I really must do some work, but while I think of it....if the Big Bang is cause and effect of itself , and that has created eveything we know including our own spiritual awareness (or the illusion of it), then surely the Big Bang must be God itself. ?
After all, those that solve the question by aknowledging a God, do not then ask "What created God?"; so calling the Big Bang God, as an end to the question, must be valid.

My own theory of life on earth is untidy alien picnickers. That's proabably why the Brits still have it in their genes. Missing link?

Nime

quote:

---

I'm amazed that with all the people here on this forum, that there are no Anglican or Catholic priests that could get stuck in on this.

---

We could have a Confessional....

"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I have taken the mickey out of Mike Lacey. I have lusted after new speakers and was envious of Nick Lees' music collection..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
I think that to call myself an atheist would be arrogant. So I prefer to think of myself as agnostic,

---

Ponder that for a moment and look for the irony. (Maybe I am reading too much into it?)

---

Hee hee, maybe. It was late and I was trying to be serious and profound (after some earlier 'indiscretions' shall we say and clearly failed miserably. OTOH if it proved to be unintentionally funny then what more can I say?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
In the meantime, a religion is otherwise known as a faith. Faith, by definition, implies a _belief_ in god. That does not in my opinion necessarily imply that followers of that faith are all _certain_ that the god they follow exists.

---

Nah..One either has Faith, or one doesn't. But my understanding (and I'm usually wrong anyway), is that a Faith is Christianity for instance, and a religion would be a sub-culture of that ie; Roman Catholic, Baptist, Mormon etc.

---

I think that like a lot of these things, it's all open to lots of different interpretations, of which the above is clearly yours, and no less valid for that. It's just that I look at things slightly differently....

Cheers,

JR

quote:

---

You cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than I can prove he does exist.

It is a question of personal faith and everyone has the right to that faith without being criticised for it.

Mick

---

I agree with you (wow! ).

I also think that people who do not believe in god also have the same right.

However, until relatively recently we weren't just criticised; we were burned at the stake.

Regards

Stephen

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on Fri 14 January 2005 at 9:56.]

On Today this morning, there was a woman creationist from the US who managed to get a sticker posted in her childs school science book stating; 'Evolution is only a theory and shold be viewed in a critical light.' I wonder how she would have felt if someone had gotten a sticker posted in the bible with the statement; 'This book is a only a story and should be viewed as such'.

Does anyone on the forum really believe the world was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago? Or know anyone who does?

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
...And isn't it equally irrational to 'believe' in the Big Bang theory? Let's see now ...


There was nothing - not even time.

Then, suddenly, at an instant in the time that didn't exist ...

!BANG!


Steve M

---

Steve

Imagine if you could look at an atom with a microscope that could see charge.

You wouldn't see any.

Now strip off an electron from the atom.

Bloody hell; suddenly there's a positive charge. From apparantly nowhere!

Rationally speaking, how does that work?

Just because you personally can't see how something could have come to be, doesn't mean that 'in that case, god exists'.

There's a lot of empirical evidence for the big bang theory(background radiation, universe expansion et al). As there's none for the existence of a god, I know where my money would be if I were a betting man...

Stephen

Stephen
You just can't resist, can you. You are so shocked that you agree with one of Mick's comments that you spell Criticized with a "Z", intentionally trying to put distance between you again, and now when all is tranquil, you chuck that one in! Peace and calm are just not to your taste, are they.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
PS The crucial question is whether an intelligence – call it God – was responsible for the entire process. I don't think so myself.

---

Not very intelligent then was it? Light the (universe) blue touch paper and retire....



Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Stephen
You just can't resist, can you. You are so shocked that you agree with one of Mick's comments that you spell Criticized with a "Z",

---

Whoops! It was right *before* I spell checked it.



I like a good argument.....

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
:
After all, those that solve the question by aknowledging a God, do not then ask "What created God?"; so calling the Big Bang God, as an end to the question, must be valid.

---

If the big bang has a beard, I'd go with that.



Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Imagine if you could look at an atom with a microscope that could see charge.
You wouldn't see any.
Now strip off an electron from the atom.
Bloody hell; suddenly there's a positive charge. From apparantly nowhere!

---

apparantly nowhere yes, but not actually. What you have done is upset the equilibrium between two attracted particles of matter. It's like putting two people on a see-saw, nicely balanced, and then telling one to get off and claiming you have created movement from nowhere. It is only an illusion; because you are not taking into account the potential that already exists in a state of equilibrium.
There's me with that potential word again

quote:

---

I like a good argument.....

---

I've noticed
Me too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
It is only an illusion; because you are not taking into account the potential that already exists in a state of equilibrium.
There's me with that _potential _ word again

---

I guess what I was trying to say, in my bluff northern way, is that you can, if you put your mind to it, see somthing created apparantly out of nothing.

I wasn't suggesting the BB was like that; just that you can't look at things in such a simplistic way - your eyes (and logic) can decieve you until you understand the underlying mechanisms.

I was trying to do for the BB what Mark Steel did with Jo Brand on a trampoline for space -time.

Oe, er missus

Maybe god upset the equilibrium between summat and accidentally let the universe off?




Stephen

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on Fri 14 January 2005 at 10:14.]

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on Fri 14 January 2005 at 10:14.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Does anyone on the forum really believe the world was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago? Or know anyone who does?

---

No. Even amongst those who call themselves religious Christians or Jews, I think that there are very few (outside the American South) who believe in the 7 day creation.

The creationist versus evolution argument so beloved by the media is a bit of a red herring (day 5 ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Just because you personally can't see how something could have come to be, doesn't mean that 'in that case, god exists'.

---

I didn't say 'in that case, god exists'.

The point that I was trying to make was that the big bang theory seems as implausible as any other. Something is still being made out of nothing.

A bit like this thread really.

Steve M

quote:

---

Does anyone on the forum really believe the world was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago? Or know anyone who does?

---

Yes, I know someone. A boss of mine from years ago believes this. He is a Baptist, is amazingly intelligent, does't use a calculator unless things get very complicated, finishes the crossword every day, is probably the best Architect I have ever met (and I work with loads of them for a living); but believes this which I find astonishing. I had a conversation on a long car journey with him about it once, and came to the conclusion that he must be barmy. I think we started off talking about dinosaurs or Jurassic Park or something, and it all came out that it wasn't real; it was just made to look that way by God. I have come to learn to respect his view, but don't share it. I can even talk to him about it without becoming frightened. I find it to be a very rare view and out there on the boundary of religious extremists. His wife & children follow the same path and his children married people within their church. He met his wife through their church.
I see no reason why he shouldn't have his views and live the life in the way that he does. It can't be easy, so respect to him.
Not only is he an ex-boss, but he is a very good friend of mine now and an extremely good guy. The best in fact.

Something out of Nothing

This is theoretically sound provided you end up with nothing. I think the fact that the sum-total energy of the universe is precisely zero is what gives us gravity: if you imagine putting positive energy in to separate two massive objects, then you get the equal but opposite energy out when they collapse back to their equilibrium point - like stretching an elastic band and then letting it go: the net energy change is zero. Remember also that matter and energy are interconvertible as E=MC2.

In fact, the big bang theory is entirely plausible. Even without getting into mathematical territory, you have to admit that the universe does indeed seem to be the result of an explosion: it is flying outwards from a singularity and becoming increasingly diffuse... rather like what happens when you blow something up. And if when the expansion runs out of steam it collapses in on itself and goes back to being nothing, then you’ve had something for nothing for a finite time. The net energy change is zero.

Then perhaps it’ll do it all again!

This is all clever stuff, and tracing the history of the universe isn’t easy, but that’s no excuse for giving up and saying, oh well it must have a creator then. Just take a look at it: it doesn’t look very created to me!!

The singularity is an unstable state that cannot exist, but it resolves itself by exploding, and when the explosion is over, the matter at the centre pulls it all back by gravity, which creates too much matter and a black hole, which then collapses back to a singularity that that cannot exist because it is unstable (being something that exists in an environment that doesn't). The whole thing must have been going on forever.
So you are right that the sum total energy in the universe is zero, but not that you end up with nothing, as the matter that caused all the trouble in the first place always exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
The whole thing must have been going on forever.

---

And, according to this theory, is it identical every time?

Does each universe have Jerry Springer and are we doomed to have this exact same discussion every few zillion years?



Steve M

Stop the universes, I want to get off.

quote:

---

Stop the universes, I want to get off.

---

Me too!!

Earwicker