agree for now science isn't disproving a creator in anyway but it seems that sooner or later it will, the colador in Geneva went bust but if they succeed then the big bang theory will be proven
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
The "Created God" Paradox
- Thread starter grounder
- Start date
agree for now science isn't disproving a creator in anyway but it seems that sooner or later it will, the colador in Geneva went bust but if they succeed then the big bang theory will be proven
Mini Minun
Twin Bolts of Light
Oh yeah. Just replying to carouselambra's argument that "religious and sicentific theory are euqally meritous (or equally worthless).
Scientific theory is accomplished through thousands of data amassed over years of research. It fits with the real world, and is usually re-enactable (although some rare exceptions exist - although these have so much evidence supporting them), and is cross-examined by loads of other scientists before it is accepted as scientific fact.
Religious theory is accomplished through thinking, is never re-enactable, is not cross-examined, nor does it fit with the real world except by chance. It does not have data or research supporting it.
Scientific theory is accomplished through thousands of data amassed over years of research. It fits with the real world, and is usually re-enactable (although some rare exceptions exist - although these have so much evidence supporting them), and is cross-examined by loads of other scientists before it is accepted as scientific fact.
Religious theory is accomplished through thinking, is never re-enactable, is not cross-examined, nor does it fit with the real world except by chance. It does not have data or research supporting it.
Ok Ive been thinking a bit about this and thought Id give my 2 cents up for debate:
In the Big Bang Theory, it is hypothesized that objects (particles, asteroids, whatever else it could be) collided and made the universe. Doesn't this theory imply that the objects always were, floating around untill they colloded? If that is the case, why then is it so hard to believe that He always was?
Also in the particle collider, they are trying to simulate/recreate the Big Bang. If a group of scientists can put particles in a tube and possibly make a molecular-scaled universe, wouldn't this, in a sense, make them the creators of aforementioned universe (aka "Playing God")? If they can do it, why couldn't there be a Supreme Being that always was (and always is and will) create or universe?
Also, what happens if the collider experiment fails to recreate a Big Bang?
In the Big Bang Theory, it is hypothesized that objects (particles, asteroids, whatever else it could be) collided and made the universe. Doesn't this theory imply that the objects always were, floating around untill they colloded? If that is the case, why then is it so hard to believe that He always was?
Also in the particle collider, they are trying to simulate/recreate the Big Bang. If a group of scientists can put particles in a tube and possibly make a molecular-scaled universe, wouldn't this, in a sense, make them the creators of aforementioned universe (aka "Playing God")? If they can do it, why couldn't there be a Supreme Being that always was (and always is and will) create or universe?
Also, what happens if the collider experiment fails to recreate a Big Bang?
There are four dimensions of perceivable reality, with out any one of these dimensions, the Observed item cannot exist being it is not definable. these dimensions are Height, Width, Breadth, and duration... this will never change, because to not acknowledge any of these dimensions would be to not acknowledge the idea of existence... Duration being the fundamental aspect; lets examine the basic perception of time. if time functions infinitely, without a beginning or an end, we can deduce that a specified point in time, would be infinitely small, thus, we can conclude, that a specified beginning would be undefinable, and technically would have never existed, because of no definable qualities, other than perception...
And there you have it. A respectable Thesis explaining why asking, "who created god?" is Illogical.
And there you have it. A respectable Thesis explaining why asking, "who created god?" is Illogical.
RedJirachi
Veteran member
How could God be around without being born/created.it breaks all laws of reality
Wait,then how could creation be created if something needed to-BOOOM!
I think I just negated existence.or aybe God comes from a dimesnion beyond time where he is not bound from causality
Wait,then how could creation be created if something needed to-BOOOM!
I think I just negated existence.or aybe God comes from a dimesnion beyond time where he is not bound from causality
How could the universe be around without being born/created? and yet it is.
What magic will we use? DANCE MAGIC!! WHAHAHAHAHA
I hope this isn't considered a double post, but, That is how
Stockholm said:
I hope this isn't considered a double post, but, That is how
Time is measured as a constant, that cannot be stopped per say, but could be caught up to. additionally, we measure time by Parallel, in accordance with the speed of light in a Vacuum, beyond that, the measurement of time is based on perspective. this is Einsteins original thesis concerning fundamental relativity, which lead to the creation of special relativity...
Ill do the best i can because just thinking about it is kind of Crazy hard to explain...
Time wasn't ever created, because its entirely a matter of perception, ones point of reference, it does not simply begin, but rather has always been a contributing variable that functions without variation of itself. now if it functions infinitely, ever progressing, than any measurable point in time would be Transversely infinite, constantly getting smaller.
Concluding, being this is true, it cannot be defined, being duration is fundamental in defining existence. transitively, one could not define a solid three dimensional object without including all three initial dimensions, Height, width, and breadth, even more so if it never had a duration of existence.
so what im getting at, is that defining a beginning, would be insignificant on a scale that constantly increases, being what you measure would constantly grow smaller and smaller, to the point of virtual oblivion...
Last edited:
Sorry i Couldn't be of more help... Most of the time, Colloquialism is one of my strong suites...