right, i'm firmly in the atheist camp but.........
Discussion
when you think about the whole shooting match, the big bang, creation of the universe.......a long period of time until the first stars burst into life.....those first generations of stars die and explode causing all the exciting stuff to get everywhere.
eventually our sun is born and all the crap and debris amalgamates into the solar system. wind the clock forward a bit more and life just sort of happens and eventually a load of hairy arsed monkeys start to figure out what all these celestial bodies are. before you know it we've worked out what and where we are along with everything else we can see in the sky.
so essentially, everything explodes from nothing and all those random elements eventually bunch together in a pattern to form us. we are the universe, being made up of bits of dead stars. the universe is self aware through our eyes. the universe has become self aware by apparent random accidents over billions of years. from the standpoint of this planet (and possibly countless other planets) the universe can see and start to understand what it actually is......
........this occurred to me and subsequently fried my brain. I don't believe in "a god" in the traditional bloke with a beard routine. and up to this point I have never had to subscribe to the need for some sort of creator. but it does seem a touch far fetched that there was nothing, a load of stuff appeared from nowhere then lumped together into something that actually understood what it itself was......
my brain has just imploded again.
eventually our sun is born and all the crap and debris amalgamates into the solar system. wind the clock forward a bit more and life just sort of happens and eventually a load of hairy arsed monkeys start to figure out what all these celestial bodies are. before you know it we've worked out what and where we are along with everything else we can see in the sky.
so essentially, everything explodes from nothing and all those random elements eventually bunch together in a pattern to form us. we are the universe, being made up of bits of dead stars. the universe is self aware through our eyes. the universe has become self aware by apparent random accidents over billions of years. from the standpoint of this planet (and possibly countless other planets) the universe can see and start to understand what it actually is......
........this occurred to me and subsequently fried my brain. I don't believe in "a god" in the traditional bloke with a beard routine. and up to this point I have never had to subscribe to the need for some sort of creator. but it does seem a touch far fetched that there was nothing, a load of stuff appeared from nowhere then lumped together into something that actually understood what it itself was......
my brain has just imploded again.
alternatively said:
... but it does seem a touch far fetched that there was nothing, a god appeared who was so powerful he could create a load of stuff from nowhere which lumped together into something that actually understood what it itself was......
my brain has just imploded again.
Why replace something that is hard to understand with something even harder to understand? You still have the same question you need answering.my brain has just imploded again.
Yeah, but there are an infinite number of universes and only the ones capable of evolving sentient life will have sentient life to ponder such questions. So, even if it is extremely rare, it is inevitable that you'll only exist in the perfect conditions.
Disclaimer: whether or not there are multiple universes is cutting-edge physics and opinion is divided. It is entirely possible this is an untestabe hypothesis and therefore beyond the scope of science.
Disclaimer: whether or not there are multiple universes is cutting-edge physics and opinion is divided. It is entirely possible this is an untestabe hypothesis and therefore beyond the scope of science.
Eric Mc said:
Is this a "Science" topic?
of course it's a science topic. I have always been a firm believer in scientific discovery being the way to answer the difficult questions. i'm obviously not a scientist but I am massively interested in the "how and why are we here " topic. the multiverse theory, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, all these weird and wonderful attempts at solving the problems we have understanding the universe around us and how it works. and all along we are a random creation of that very universe. it's a fascinating concept but very scientific in nature.
oh, and i'm not writing a phd thesis, it's pistonheads and I can't be arsed putting capitals everywhere they should be. I think people can get the points i'm trying to make just fine.
alock said:
Why replace something that is hard to understand with something even harder to understand? You still have the same question you need answering.
I understand your point mate, and I agree that a "creator" of sorts is even more fantastical than a load of dust lumping together to then become self aware.......it still seems like such an insane chain of events to end up here and now typing this on a keyboard discussing this very topic.slybynight said:
Better than that, if et is out there, then it's seeing itself from different aspects and some of its reality avatars might be in communication.
the universe must be a very clever "creation"(??).....yeah, there's potentially billions of civilizations all with their own unique take on the universe around them. There is no real requirement to 'know' everything, its just a human desire.
Maths and limited reason based on limited observations suggest that everything appeared from a singularity.
The human brain for many people, views this as an impossibility/improbability..... so it is a reason why many will turn to a belief system based on a 'leap of faith' that derives from another human's reasoning based on placing other observations in an order.
As scientific equipment and technology improve it will open the door for better observations which can fit in to maths to form new explanations that may be better accepted by the wider population.
But the absence of a full and detailed mathematical model should not necessarily turn a rational person to choose 'leaps of faith'.
Science is fully open to be wrong, questioned and corrected, sometimes its just a waiting game.
Maths and limited reason based on limited observations suggest that everything appeared from a singularity.
The human brain for many people, views this as an impossibility/improbability..... so it is a reason why many will turn to a belief system based on a 'leap of faith' that derives from another human's reasoning based on placing other observations in an order.
As scientific equipment and technology improve it will open the door for better observations which can fit in to maths to form new explanations that may be better accepted by the wider population.
But the absence of a full and detailed mathematical model should not necessarily turn a rational person to choose 'leaps of faith'.
Science is fully open to be wrong, questioned and corrected, sometimes its just a waiting game.
AA999 said:
There is no real requirement to 'know' everything, its just a human desire.
Maths and limited reason based on limited observations suggest that everything appeared from a singularity.
The human brain for many people, views this as an impossibility/improbability..... so it is a reason why many will turn to a belief system based on a 'leap of faith' that derives from another human's reasoning based on placing other observations in an order.
As scientific equipment and technology improve it will open the door for better observations which can fit in to maths to form new explanations that may be better accepted by the wider population.
But the absence of a full and detailed mathematical model should not necessarily turn a rational person to choose 'leaps of faith'.
Science is fully open to be wrong, questioned and corrected, sometimes its just a waiting game.
great response mate, cheers, looks like I won't be able to have this all boxed off before tea time anyway! Maths and limited reason based on limited observations suggest that everything appeared from a singularity.
The human brain for many people, views this as an impossibility/improbability..... so it is a reason why many will turn to a belief system based on a 'leap of faith' that derives from another human's reasoning based on placing other observations in an order.
As scientific equipment and technology improve it will open the door for better observations which can fit in to maths to form new explanations that may be better accepted by the wider population.
But the absence of a full and detailed mathematical model should not necessarily turn a rational person to choose 'leaps of faith'.
Science is fully open to be wrong, questioned and corrected, sometimes its just a waiting game.
tuscaneer said:
Eric Mc said:
Is this a "Science" topic?
of course it's a science topic. I have always been a firm believer in scientific discovery being the way to answer the difficult questions. i'm obviously not a scientist but I am massively interested in the "how and why are we here " topic. the multiverse theory, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, all these weird and wonderful attempts at solving the problems we have understanding the universe around us and how it works. and all along we are a random creation of that very universe. it's a fascinating concept but very scientific in nature.
oh, and i'm not writing a phd thesis, it's pistonheads and I can't be arsed putting capitals everywhere they should be. I think people can get the points i'm trying to make just fine.
I love science too - especially anything related to space, astronomy and even cosmology. But "meaning of life stuff" to me is not science - it's philosophy - or even religion - for those so inclined.
I have no belief in an intelligent creator,though I know people whom I respect who do have a wide variety of sincerely held religious faiths.
My bigger problem is that I had relatively little hard science in my education,and while I have over the years heard the big bang,expanding universe,red shifts,quantum physics and so on, I truly do not understand it. I tried reading Hawking's Brief History of Time. "Ah, I thought, a simple little book for idiots like me"
This was a best seller.
I did not understand it. Maybe everyone else did, but I came away as uneducated as ever. I think a good science grounding is an essential part one's education and I regret that it was not part of mine.
My bigger problem is that I had relatively little hard science in my education,and while I have over the years heard the big bang,expanding universe,red shifts,quantum physics and so on, I truly do not understand it. I tried reading Hawking's Brief History of Time. "Ah, I thought, a simple little book for idiots like me"
This was a best seller.
I did not understand it. Maybe everyone else did, but I came away as uneducated as ever. I think a good science grounding is an essential part one's education and I regret that it was not part of mine.
tuscaneer said:
it's pistonheads and I can't be arsed putting capitals everywhere they should be.
I may not know much about religion, but that's heresy. On topic: we are here to contemplate the universe because this universe has exactly the right conditions to allow self aware individuals to evolve. There may well be an infinite number of universes where this could not happen, and therefore there's no one there to think about it. Perhaps it's remarkable to us that our universe resulted in us, because we still have a very limited perspective.
Or something.
There are LOADS of TV programmes these days covering such topics.
We've just had Brian Cox's new series on the bigger cosmological issues which was quite good. The most recent episode is still on iPlayer if you want to catch it - and there is a thread on PH discussing the series too.
If you scout around the satellite/cable channels such as Discovery Science, Eden, National Geographic, Quest etc you will find plenty of programmes on the universe.
Even though it is now 34 years old, I would still highly recommend the original Carl Sagan "Cosmos" series.
I too attempted to read and understand (failing miserably) "A Brief History of Time". However, there are still plenty of simpler and more readable books out there if you want a basic understanding of "where we are" on the origins and evolution of the universe.
I studied a number of science subjects in secondary school (in Ireland, in the 70s) and even though Physics was one of the subjects, we never really got into "Cosmology" as such. Anything I've learned on that topic has come from reading books and magazines, watching TV documentaries and listening to radio programmes on such matters.
We've just had Brian Cox's new series on the bigger cosmological issues which was quite good. The most recent episode is still on iPlayer if you want to catch it - and there is a thread on PH discussing the series too.
If you scout around the satellite/cable channels such as Discovery Science, Eden, National Geographic, Quest etc you will find plenty of programmes on the universe.
Even though it is now 34 years old, I would still highly recommend the original Carl Sagan "Cosmos" series.
I too attempted to read and understand (failing miserably) "A Brief History of Time". However, there are still plenty of simpler and more readable books out there if you want a basic understanding of "where we are" on the origins and evolution of the universe.
I studied a number of science subjects in secondary school (in Ireland, in the 70s) and even though Physics was one of the subjects, we never really got into "Cosmology" as such. Anything I've learned on that topic has come from reading books and magazines, watching TV documentaries and listening to radio programmes on such matters.
Eric Mc said:
Maybe we should have a "Philosophy"forum for all the waffly stuff.
I love science too - especially anything related to space, astronomy and even cosmology. But "meaning of life stuff" to me is not science - it's philosophy - or even religion - for those so inclined.
i'm not so sure mate, I can't separate the two so easily. i'm not so much after the specific meaning of life, more the most likely reason we are right here right now. and up to this point it's always been very easy for me to just accept that my atoms are from some far flung star explosion...............it's only at this point in the thought process that I find a need to look further back in the chain to the big bang and beyond. it seems almost too convenient to say "before the big bang there was nothing" .... i'm beginning to try and wrap my mind around the multiverse theory and that we may be the only one of an infinite number of universes that contain intelligent life but the actual concept of " infinity" doesn't sit well with me either.I love science too - especially anything related to space, astronomy and even cosmology. But "meaning of life stuff" to me is not science - it's philosophy - or even religion - for those so inclined.
Eric Mc said:
There are LOADS of TV programmes these days covering such topics.
We've just had Brian Cox's new series on the bigger cosmological issues which was quite good. The most recent episode is still on iPlayer if you want to catch it - and there is a thread on PH discussing the series too.
If you scout around the satellite/cable channels such as Discovery Science, Eden, National Geographic, Quest etc you will find plenty of programmes on the universe.
Even though it is now 34 years old, I would still highly recommend the original Carl Sagan "Cosmos" series.
I too attempted to read and understand (failing miserably) "A Brief History of Time". However, there are still plenty of simpler and more readable books out there if you want a basic understanding of "where we are" on the origins and evolution of the universe.
I studied a number of science subjects in secondary school (in Ireland, in the 70s) and even though Physics was one of the subjects, we never really got into "Cosmology" as such. Anything I've learned on that topic has come from reading books and magazines, watching TV documentaries and listening to radio programmes on such matters.
I hoover up all the universe related science shows I can but when it comes down to the nitty gritty I suppose none of us are anywhere near to anything other than guesswork on a pre-universe timescaleWe've just had Brian Cox's new series on the bigger cosmological issues which was quite good. The most recent episode is still on iPlayer if you want to catch it - and there is a thread on PH discussing the series too.
If you scout around the satellite/cable channels such as Discovery Science, Eden, National Geographic, Quest etc you will find plenty of programmes on the universe.
Even though it is now 34 years old, I would still highly recommend the original Carl Sagan "Cosmos" series.
I too attempted to read and understand (failing miserably) "A Brief History of Time". However, there are still plenty of simpler and more readable books out there if you want a basic understanding of "where we are" on the origins and evolution of the universe.
I studied a number of science subjects in secondary school (in Ireland, in the 70s) and even though Physics was one of the subjects, we never really got into "Cosmology" as such. Anything I've learned on that topic has come from reading books and magazines, watching TV documentaries and listening to radio programmes on such matters.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff