where did the original "matter" that caused big bang come from?

[Brandon 805]

very true camel, if it werent for science and evolution then why do people live such routine lives? if there was a god and he controlled everything why wouldn't we all just pray to him and ask for 22 in arms? We do things on a daily basis that we don't even think twice about and this is because science has aloud us to do this.

[Army of One]

no we cannot control what reality we see, its the same for everyone based on obvious accounts. what is interesting is that when not observed matter acts as waves and creates an interference pattern but obsevation collapses the wave function into a particle or "spot" aka reality. we cant choose what we see and we cant change reality, that is a huge leap in logic and has no evidence. another cool thing is that anything moving at the speed of light is timeless or doesnt age, it also is everywhere and at no points(god maybe? ). and the universe is mostly empty which is strange.

So what happens when Matter isnt observed by naked eye but say on video camera, and not live?

[Camel Jockey]

very true camel, if it werent for science and evolution then why do people live such routine lives? if there was a god and he controlled everything why wouldn't we all just pray to him and ask for 22 in arms? We do things on a daily basis that we don't even think twice about and this is because science has aloud us to do this.

But you see the fallacy that religious people have? They just make something up when you question them.. Like, "Oh god wouldn't just give you 22 arms and reveal himself as he's hidden, and that's what makes it faith." After this line of defense fails, they say that faith is such a thing that it cannot be questioned. hahaha

[The Master]

Interesting questions for religious nut jobs:

What has contributed the most to the human condition? One religion (meaning: An organized religion with its scriptures, not the general "seek for meaning) or science (including all forms of science, from the simplest of mathematics and the simplest housing techniques, to the most advanced computational systems and large hadron colliders)

[Brandon 805]

agree 100%. Religion is the last hope for people that don't live a happy life, and religion is their last resort. For example racism aside where do you see more churchs in the deep south or in Beverly Hills?

[stormshadow]

So you can shape your future with your thoughts?An extreme example, but what I think the new theory is getting at,Negative thoughts will lead you to a shit life, positive to a life beyond your dreams?Or am I reading too much in to it?

Yes it is true.  Negative thoughts will manifest a negative reality.  You cannot escape the negative though, because our universe is one of duality.  Meaning you cannot have positive without a negative, or an up without a down.  Our perception is based upon the contrast between the two, so you will always experience both in your life.

The principle to learn is that when you focus on the negative, or more specifically, the things that you don't want, you will get more of that in your life.

Studying metaphysics gives scientific proof that we are in essence all made out of "nothing" as when you accelerate subatomic particles and collide them into each other, you open the lid to observe and there is nothing there.

[tweeter]

This thread is just dying for TA to chime in...

[Top Dog]

I love all the scientific geniuses who are so smart that they're spending their time posting on a bodybuilding website in the middle of the day.

[Brandon 805]

that is because we have jobs that give us that luxury. maybe you should try one out.

[boonstack]

Anybody heard of the watchmaker argument? IN my phil. class, it was discussed and made "sense" for intelligent design:

basically- a wrist watch disassembled into all its components in a sandwhich bag- u can "shake up" the bag and all the components could possibly fit together perfectly after X amount of tries (random chance)Or, does it make more sense to be "intelligently designed" ? to me it does.. just my 2 cents

[BroadStreetBruiser]

who cares really? knowing will not solve anything. better to worry about current issues like skunk beer and pussy.

[the Pure Majestic]

who cares really? knowing will not solve anything. better to worry about current issues like skunk beer and pussy.

Actually, knowing the answer to a question does solve it. 


As for skunk beer, I fuckin bought Beck's again.  That damn green bottle, coupled with the fact that no one buys it is a recipe for disaster.  By the time I get it the store light has permeated that damn green bottle enough to turn the beer to shit. 
I'm sticking to seasonal beer for the next few weeks.  And maybe some Killian's.

[WEAPONX]

boonstack
Getbig II

Posts: 415


    Re: where did the original "matter" that caused big bang come from?
« Reply #34 on: Today at 01:25:49 PM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody heard of the watchmaker argument? IN my phil. class, it was discussed and made "sense" for intelligent design:

basically- a wrist watch disassembled into all its components in a sandwhich bag- u can "shake up" the bag and all the components could possibly fit together perfectly after X amount of tries (random chance)Or, does it make more sense to be "intelligently designed" ? to me it does.. just my 2 cents
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___________________


True enough kind of like a choosing 6 numbers in a lottery of 49 numbers, the possibility to hit 1,2,3,4,5,6 more than once out of 10,000 draws would be unlikely, but possible in every one of those 10,000 draws.

The only way I would bet on these numbers hitting 1,2,3,4,5,6 every time out of these 10,000 draws would be if designed to do so.

"Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Clause"

 
X

[BroadStreetBruiser]

Actually, knowing the answer to a question does solve it. 


As for skunk beer, I fuckin bought Beck's again.  That damn green bottle, coupled with the fact that no one buys it is a recipe for disaster.  By the time I get it the store light has permeated that damn green bottle enough to turn the beer to shit. 
I'm sticking to seasonal beer for the next few weeks.  And maybe some Killian's.

budweiser man. Born on Date. Beer goes weird after 90 days and who knows how long imports sit at docks and distributors.

[Camel Jockey]

budweiser man. Born on Date. Beer goes weird after 90 days and who knows how long imports sit at docks and distributors.

Canned Fosters and Hieniken = good stuff.

Milwaukee's best is like the greatest, totally better than any imported german or belgian premiun $5 a bottle stuff. 

[Camel Jockey]

But really, I think the Samuel Adams varieties are the best mainstream(meaning you can buy it at some arab gas station) beer.

[James Phoenix]

was it "just there"?

It always existed.

Matter can't be created or destroyed.

[MisterMagoo]

Canned Fosters and Hieniken = good stuff.

Milwaukee's best is like the greatest, totally better than any imported german or belgian premiun $5 a bottle stuff. 

nectar of the gods. $7.50 a bottle in PA, $20 for a 1pt 9oz bottle. had one on sunday.

[Vince B]

The intellectual students must be on Christmas vacation from college because we have a philosophy thread on Getbig. The usual suspects have contributed already.

Darwin's theory is still a theory. Most scientific theories in the past centuries have been false. What is important is that there has been much progress in science and the technology based on scientific theories. We wouldn't have the internet and the digital domain if scientific theories were all false.

Some questions cannot be answered by science and most of these questions continue to be controversial. Since there is no test of truth for these unscientific questions it allows all manner of conjecture about what is right. For example, 'Why am I here?' is not a scientifc question.

Those who want to see a refutation of intelligent design arguments can read Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion". A good read once you get past the first few chapters. Essentially, evolution is guided by natural selection which is not a random process but a definite physical one. There is no need for a higher power to account for life and the species on earth. The complex can evolve from the simple. It is not a mystery or an unusual event. Things happen slowly and given enough time quite complex phenomenon can evolve from simple origins. This also explains the variety of species.

The origin of the universe is still controversial. There are two camps. One believes in a steady state universe and the other believe in a Big Bang. The latter theory originated because of the red shift of distant galaxies. The more the red shift the further away the galaxies are. If you reverse engineer this expansion it seems as if all matter came from a singularity. This is not quite nothing but virtually so as it is a vanishingly small point that 'contained' all matter and energy. Some physicists have come up with an account of how everything could have originated from that point of almost nothingness. Seems to me this is close to being a religious explanation. The mind doesn't accept that something can come from nothing. Religious people have no trouble with that concept. Religion provides many answers but no explanations at all. The thinking person relies on science and then has to decide what to believe after that. I think there remains many unexplained things and that isn't so bad to accept.

http://richarddawkins.net/

[MisterMagoo]

vince, calling evolution a "theory" is misleading, because scientific "theory" isn't the same as others. consider other theories we use regularly.

- gravitational theory

- atomic theory

- quantum theory

- plate tectonics

in order to be a theory, it must both explain the past and predict the future, which evolution has done. however, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe, that's abiogenesis. so arguing against evolution as theory in a discussion of the origin of matter is pretty moot aside from the completely misrepresentative argument over the word "theory".

[James Phoenix]

The intellectual students must be on Christmas vacation from college because we have a philosophy thread on Getbig. The usual suspects have contributed already.

Darwin's theory is still a theory. Most scientific theories in the past centuries have been false. What is important is that there has been much progress in science and the technology based on scientific theories. We wouldn't have the internet and the digital domain if scientific theories were all false.

Some questions cannot be answered by science and most of these questions continue to be controversial. Since there is no test of truth for these unscientific questions it allows all manner of conjecture about what is right. For example, 'Why am I here?' is not a scientifc question.

Those who want to see a refutation of intelligent design arguments can read Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion". A good read once you get past the first few chapters. Essentially, evolution is guided by natural selection which is not a random process but a definite physical one. There is no need for a higher power to account for life and the species on earth. The complex can evolve from the simple. It is not a mystery or an unusual event. Things happen slowly and given enough time quite complex phenomenon can evolve from simple origins. This also explains the variety of species.

The origin of the universe is still controversial. There are two camps. One believes in a steady state universe and the other believe in a Big Bang. The latter theory originated because of the red shift of distant galaxies. The more the red shift the further away the galaxies are. If you reverse engineer this expansion it seems as if all matter came from a singularity. This is not quite nothing but virtually so as it is a vanishingly small point that 'contained' all matter and energy. Some physicists have come up with an account of how everything could have originated from that point of almost nothingness. Seems to me this is close to being a religious explanation. The mind doesn't accept that something can come from nothing. Religious people have no trouble with that concept. Religion provides many answers but no explanations at all. The thinking person relies on science and then has to decide what to believe after that. I think there remains many unexplained things and that isn't so bad to accept.

http://richarddawkins.net/

Evolution is highly overrated.

Mutation is much more important. Change is quick, not gradual.

[Vince B]

I am a student of the philosophy of science. Karl Popper wrote about the possible refutation of all scientific theories. There might arise something in the future that refutes accepted theories. Therefore, all scientific theories are refutable. That some theories are not challenged does not mean they are free from possible future refutations.

One theory that isn't challenged anymore is the explanation of colour play in opal. The electron microscope solved this puzzle back in the mid 1950s when it showed regular arrays of certain sized silica spheres. If those spheres were large you had red and all the colours of the rainbow. If those spheres were small you had green and blue. No one has questioned this explanation since.

Evolution has been challenged but not so much by scientists who continue to find supporting evidence for it. That doesn't mean that it can't be refuted. That you or anyone else considers some theories established fact doesn't mean they cannot be refuted. I think if we have technology that works based on accepted theories that is good for the truth of those theories. What has happened in scientific research is that more questions arise as more is learned. Surely there will be a limit to what can be discovered but at the moment there is still a lot left to be discovered and explained. We still don't have all the answers as far as muscles go, although there has been a heap of studies done at the molecular level. Most muscleheads still debate how to make big muscles even bigger. Unfortunately, the drugs play a part and theories of hypertrophy have been abandoned which is a real pity.

[James Phoenix]

I am a student of the philosophy of science. Karl Popper wrote about the possible refutation of all scientific theories. There might arise something in the future that refutes accepted theories. Therefore, all scientific theories are refutable. That some theories are not challenged does not mean they are free from possible future refutations.

One theory that isn't challenged anymore is the explanation of colour play in opal. The electron microscope solved this puzzle back in the mid 1950s when it showed regular arrays of certain sized silica spheres. If those spheres were large you had red and all the colours of the rainbow. If those spheres were small you had green and blue. No one has questioned this explanation since.

Evolution has been challenged but not so much by scientists who continue to find supporting evidence for it. That doesn't mean that it can't be refuted. That you or anyone else considers some theories established fact doesn't mean they cannot be refuted. I think if we have technology that works based on accepted theories that is good for the truth of those theories. What has happened in scientific research is that more questions arise as more is learned. Surely there will be a limit to what can be discovered but at the moment there is still a lot left to be discovered and explained. We still don't have all the answers as far as muscles go, although there has been a heap of studies done at the molecular level. Most muscleheads still debate how to make big muscles even bigger. Unfortunately, the drugs play a part and theories of hypertrophy have been abandoned which is a real pity.

If evolution played such an important role in human development,
why haven't the great apes evolved with us?
It's because the change from apes to modern humans was a mutation or genetic manipulation(possible interference by e.t.s?) amongst some population of apes.

[Deicide]

If evolution played such an important role in human development,
why haven't the great apes evolved with us?
It's because the change from apes to modern humans was a mutation or sudden change(possible interference by ets?) amongst some genetic cluster of apes.

Stick to cutting yourself, ok? 

[beatmaster]

the flying spaghetti monster did it...... he's as real as any other god, no proof, no science, nothing... fit perfectly!!!