1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    03 Feb '09 17:17
    If there ever was nothingness then there would still be nothing. Nothing would ever have existed. Existence would not exist.

    Therefore , there must always have been something.

    Eternally.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    03 Feb '09 17:32
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    If there ever was nothingness then there would still be nothing. Nothing would ever have existed. Existence would not exist.

    Therefore , there must always have been something.

    Eternally.
    So are you claiming that the universe has always existed?
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Feb '09 18:09
    Originally posted by rwingett
    So are you claiming that the universe has always existed?
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth! look how completely and utterly incontrovertibly scientifically accurate that statement from the book of Genesis is, 'In the beginning', yes it is now scientifically accepted that the universe had a beginning, something the writer of the book of Genesis stated over three thousand years ago! read it an weep rwingett dude, read it and weep!
  4. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    03 Feb '09 18:17
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth! look how completely and utterly incontrovertibly scientifically accurate that statement from the book of Genesis is, 'In the beginning', yes it is now scientifically accepted that the universe had a beginning, something the writer of the book of Genesis stated over three thousand years ago! read it an weep rwingett dude, read it and weep!
    Does that mean you agree with the big bang theory?
  5. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    03 Feb '09 18:25
    Originally posted by rwingett
    So are you claiming that the universe has always existed?
    If the universe is all that exists then yes. However , we have no idea that the universe is all that there is. The history of cosmological exploration suggests that there is probably a hell of a lot more to discover.
  6. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    03 Feb '09 20:33
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    If there ever was nothingness then there would still be nothing. Nothing would ever have existed. Existence would not exist.

    Therefore , there must always have been something.

    Eternally.
    If I may suggest, you may have missed the idea that God works in ways in which we mortals cannot understand or explain, because of this, there may be no printable explaination for many of God's works.
    We just have to take a few things on faith
  7. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86727
    03 Feb '09 22:06
    I've heard it proposed that the definition of eternity is "not the never ending extension of time, but mearly the absence of time."

    Given that time as we understand it is linked to the fabric of space and matter, could we further propose that eternity is another physical dimension devoid of the dimension of time?
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Feb '09 23:09
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Does that mean you agree with the big bang theory?
    mmmmm, i dunno Andrew, what is the big bang theory? all i can say with certainty at this point is that i have yet to perceive anything remotely resembling harmony existing as a direct consequence of a chaotic, uncontrolled, chance occurrence, have you?
  9. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    03 Feb '09 23:313 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    mmmmm, i dunno Andrew, what is the big bang theory? all i can say with certainty at this point is that i have yet to perceive anything remotely resembling harmony existing as a direct consequence of a chaotic, uncontrolled, chance occurrence, have you?
    …mmmmm, i dunno Andrew, what is the big bang theory?
    .…


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    “…the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some FINITE TIME in the past, and continues to expand to this day….”(my emphasis)

    -so it is the big bang theory is mainly where science gets its notion that the universe had a beginning.

    …all i can say with certainty at this point is that i have yet to perceive anything remotely resembling harmony existing as a direct consequence of a chaotic, uncontrolled, CHANCE occurrence,
    ….


    The big bang theory does NOT imply that the universe came into existence as a "result of" a “CHANCE occurrence”. Also, it may have been “chaotic” in the sense that it would have been difficult if not totally impossible to predict in advance where each galaxy etc would end up in relation to each other but it definitely was NOT “uncontrolled” because it was “controlled” as it is now by the laws of physics -you could say it was a kind of “controlled chaos” just as it is still controlled chaos today (for example, the Earth's weather is chaotic but it is still controlled by the laws of physics).
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    03 Feb '09 23:45
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…mmmmm, i dunno Andrew, what is the big bang theory?
    .…


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    “…the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some FINITE TIME in the past, and continues to expand to this day….”(my emphasis)

    -so it is the big bang t ...[text shortened]... r example, the Earth's weather is chaotic but it is still controlled by the laws of physics).[/b]
    yes i completely agree with the first part, the universe is certainly expanding and from some finite time in the past and also the second part that it was not uncontrolled, that the margin of error was so slim that had the magnitude of the forces been greater (i dont know the percentage, but its small) it would have expanded too fast and exploded like a balloon that we put too much air pressure into and also that if the magnitude of the forces involved were too small, (again i do not know the percentages), it would have imploded in on itself, is this not the case?
  11. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    04 Feb '09 00:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yes i completely agree with the first part, the universe is certainly expanding and from some finite time in the past and also the second part that it was not uncontrolled, that the margin of error was so slim that had the magnitude of the forces been greater (i dont know the percentage, but its small) it would have expanded too fast and exploded lik ...[text shortened]... again i do not know the percentages), it would have imploded in on itself, is this not the case?
    no
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 Feb '09 00:21
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    no
    why not?
  13. Break-twitching
    Joined
    30 Nov '08
    Moves
    1228
    04 Feb '09 06:02
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    If there ever was nothingness then there would still be nothing. Nothing would ever have existed. Existence would not exist.

    Therefore , there must always have been something.

    Eternally.
    Yes, God has always existed.....
  14. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    04 Feb '09 14:431 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    why not?
    Not sure where you got your information from -Apart from the force of gravity , which other particular “forces” are you referring to?
    Can you give me a web link about this?
  15. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    05 Feb '09 11:55
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Not sure where you got your information from -Apart from the force of gravity , which other particular “forces” are you referring to?
    Can you give me a web link about this?
    he refers to most fundamental forces, to all the nice coincidences that have made life possible.

    like if the strong force had been a little weaker, there would have been no atoms heavier than hidrogen. if the earth would have been any closer to the sun, no water would have formed and had it been any farther, it would have been a frozen desert. if it would have been any smaller, the atmosphere would have had a different composition or maybe not exist at all and so on.

    these are nice things that testify to god's awesomeness if god already exists. but they are no proofs of god's existance. these things happened and if they would have been different, there wouldn't have been an intelligent being(a stretch in this case seeing as we are talking about robbie) asking himself about them. or it would have been a silicon or sulphur based lifeform asking itself about if things were any different how would a carbon based lifeform would have looked like.
Back to Top