your theory for the beginning of the world?

[grimsprice]

(can't remember Genesis 1 at the moment, sorry)

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was moved on the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

ie. Big bang -> Space and matter. Matter =/= Planets & Stars; Darkness + Hydrogen > other elements. Stars and planets started to form.

That's just my take.

Except for the part where it says there was water before their was light. Which is impossible, because H2O requires the whole O part. Fussion of light elements into oxygen would give off light. Light was one of the first things after the big bang.

But if you ignore that, then sure, it..... kind of..... fits..... almost like..... some desert wanderer made a poetic guess...

 

[Arluza]

There is no answer. It's impossible to definitively prove what created this universe, because if we did, we'd have to ask what created it? It's a lot like the "who created God" question. "If God made us, than who made God?" Same thing goes for the Big Bang. With our understanding of this world, you can't ignite something with nothing. You can't just 'poof' into existence. There is no actual answer and trying to figure it out will just drive you mad, I know I did...

NO NO NO NO NO! "There is no answer" IS NOT a true statement. In reality, there IS an answer. Science does not allow for 100% certainty. Science can ONLY state as fact that which has evidence that shows something t be true, and then more scientists attempt to disprove those statements held as true.

"Who created God". First, you have to define what a god is. and after you do that, you have a problem of not having evidence FOR such a being. And you have stated this questions in a horrible manner. WHO created something is not always a valid option. It could very well be that space, time, and space time could all have been created through a NATURAL process, in which the question would be "what process created space, time, and space time". NOT a who.

"Same for Big Bang". No. Big Bang is our best explanation for the expansion of the universe. See my previous post explaining this one to the best of my ability.

Your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

 

[figday]

God (a higher entity or whatever it is), googled 'how to make world'. got 10.000 hits, picked the one from filehippo, and started downloading.
it took a lot of time because he hadn't got IDM, and after intalling, comes the patches and DLC's.

and voila...

 

[Wintermoot]

the world formed due to a fusion of debris (stuff like space dirt), it formed around a star called the sun.
As for the universe, it,s a coincidence, a alternate universe would also have been created with ENTIRELY different laws of physics.

 

[Spacewolf]

Just a question, mind you. Science and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They actually are. Science is fact based, religion is faith based. Science describes how something occurs, religion can describe why something occurs. They are completely exclusive to eachother in a way that they should never conflict.

except he never said religion he said god

 

[BGH122]

So, if God is real then it cannot be proven, but if he isn't real then there is a way to observe this. That's what you're saying, right?

If so, then why can he not be proven?

I'm saying there's no way to observe either the proof or the disproof of God's existence which makes him scientifically worthless and thus at odds with scientific theory. If one agrees with empiricism and falsificationism as a means of understanding objective reality then one necessary disagrees with ideas, such as God, which are at odds with this theory.

EDIT: As for seeing the Big Bang Theory - I haven't brushed up on it. I'm no scientist either, so I don't know a lot of these things. Though with the handy power of Google I can learn quick enough.

I'll save you the bother.

The strongest argument for it is that there's otherwise inexplicable background radiation (radiation with no obvious source) across the universe that appears to be anisotropic i.e. it comes from a particular direction. The anisotropy of the observed radiation is consistent with the theory that the universe was once much, much smaller and almost entirely plasmic. The anisotropy of the radiation supports the theory that the photons (units of light) are x years old by absorbing them onto a black body (a completely energetically empty body that absorbs all energy e.g. light shone upon it) and measuring their features (e.g. wavelength) to determine their age and thus universal approximate age. I'm not a physicist, my speciality is biology (and some chemistry), but this is my understanding.

 

[Mr Wednesday]

There is no answer.

...yes there is. There's an excellent explanation of how our planet was formed. It's not the origins of the "universe and everything" but it provides an adequate model of how Earth was formed and came to be how it is.

If I ask you "how did you get that bike" the answer "I bought it at a bike shop" is sufficient. You do not have to reference
A)God
B)The Big Bang
C)Anything other than the bike shop.

 

[Woodsey]

I believe God made it all.

I've got a question: what if the Big Bang, or something else, is true, and it was directed by God? Who says God couldn't have said "let there be Earth" or whatever (can't remember Genesis 1 at the moment, sorry) and then proceeded to guide the events with his mind or something?

Just a question, mind you. Science and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The problem with the whole idea of "someone must have created it", is who/what then created god, and so on and so forth. As for them not necessarily being exclusive, I would say that becomes more and more the case every day as our understanding grows and religions die out, as one of the reasons people invent gods (as a default answer when we don't have any other) begins to diminish.

Religion is far less about "answers" now then it is about comfort.

 

[Keava]

I believe God made it all.

I've got a question: what if the Big Bang, or something else, is true, and it was directed by God? Who says God couldn't have said "let there be Earth" or whatever (can't remember Genesis 1 at the moment, sorry) and then proceeded to guide the events with his mind or something?

Just a question, mind you. Science and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

That's what the few of priest-scientists came up with so far. Even more so with the fact, that for something as unpredictable like Big Bang the chance for creating a universe like this, with a solar system like ours, with a planet like ours was so incredibly small that even slightest change in the initial reaction could cause it to never exist.

My personal view however is: I don't really care. Human life is way too short to be bothered by it and i don't feel need to find some 'greater' meaning in the whole 'existence'. The moment i'll die it will become irrelevant. It's enough that it happened, whatever caused it i can only hope it won't make that mistake again.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Just a question, mind you. Science and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They actually are. Science is fact based, religion is faith based. Science describes how something occurs, religion can describe why something occurs. They are completely exclusive to eachother in a way that they should never conflict.

except he never said religion he said god

Religion is the worship of deities known as gods, believing in a god is a purely faith based thing. Believing in the religion that believes in god can give purpouse to things, thus why they happen.

According to atsibl that is (captch FTW!)

 

[RatRace123]

Well, it all began with a mommy world and a daddy world...

 

[Christian Lerche]

Chuck Norris.

 

[yanipheonu]

Well there's the whole why is there more matter than anti-matter thing. I honestly don't know, no one really knows, but I like to pretend that it has something to do with giant robots and drills.

But yeah, the First Cause, what was it? We may never know.
Personally I like to entertain the idea of it being an expression of the will of the universe to expand or something like that. Unfounded, just sorta of an artsy thing I use sometimes, but it's fun to think about.
There's also always the possibility that the universe is infinite, with beginning or end.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Just a question, mind you. Science and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They actually are. Science is fact based, religion is faith based. Science describes how something occurs, religion can describe why something occurs. They are completely exclusive to eachother in a way that they should never conflict.

They aren't, actually.

Science is a method of proving or disproving. And, as most atheist like to say, just because you can't prove something now, doesn't mean its not real.

It's not so crazy to think that one day, science will actually be able to disprove or prove god (No, science has not disproved god. It's only shown that a God doesn't HAVE to exist, as far as we know).

Evolution, Big Bang Theory... none of these things say anything about God, other then perhaps disproving some or all aspects of some religions.

 

[flametoad9]

quite obvusly the world is a save in the sims27893017849310783290 on 2012 the save will be deleted

 

[Jonabob87]

My own PERSONAL (as in, don't feel like I think people should adopt my views) view on the beginning of the universe is that the big all-powerful being we English speakers call "God" (Yahweh, Elohim, whatever) caused the big bang.

Simple enough, I don't presume to be intelligent enough to make claims on how old the universe/earth/galaxy is but I believe that's how it came in to being.

As for the existence of God, there's a philosophical concept of the "uncaused cause", something that exists continuously without beginning or end. That's God.

(Not here to argue, just answering the OP's question :])

Just a question, mind you. Science and God aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

They actually are. Science is fact based, religion is faith based. Science describes how something occurs, religion can describe why something occurs. They are completely exclusive to eachother in a way that they should never conflict.

That post has so much brain-win.

Well done, good sir.

 

[9Darksoul6]

i want to know your theory.

I find the concept of the origin of the universe a complete paradox.
My argument is purely philosophical, but: if God created us, who created God? If the universe is the result of a massive explosion, where did that energy come from? etc. Any possible 'answer' to this (ultimately pointless) question must be based on a axiomical pre-existing thing, and in consequence, is not a real answer to it; there's no answer to that question, because that question does not make sense.

Note: I believe that if science (quantum physics) says that time began at a specific point in time, it's irrational not to think it's calling "time" to two different things. I can't see act of conceiving a point that's (either) before (or after) all the other points in a sequence that presents itself as going both ways to infinity, as anything but pure arbitrarity.