jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (322 posts)

Please explain the beginning of the Universe using logic

  1. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    Whether your view is religious or scientific. And if you think the Universe is a steady state(as in, has no beginning or end),then try to explain that instead. Thank you.

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here you go it's already been summed up pretty nicely smile


      Genesis 1

      The Beginning

      1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
      3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

      6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

      9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
          11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

      14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

      20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

      24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
          26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

      27 So God created mankind in his own image,
         in the image of God he created them;
         male and female he created them.

      28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
          29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
          31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's just a bad translation of an interesting book.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But thanks for trying anyway.

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Glad you find it interesting. smile

        2. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is very interesting. I love religion. I am learning Hebrew so I can make my own translation eventually, for a start.

          1. 60
            Korky10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry for jumping in. But since you love religion why are you ready the bible

            1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
              WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Good to meet you. Go write a couple of hubs and come back later. Place some photos and a short video. If you are used to user friendly programs, good luck. This mixed media format is off the hook.

      2. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nice story. Not buying it because of that - a nice story.

      3. 68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        From Quran:

        [21:31] Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

        http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=30

        1. 68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We get that you like what you said, but the conversation has moved on.

      4. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think the OP was asking for what actually happened not some fairy story that was not even convincing 2000 years ago - except to the dimmest lights in the class.

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Glad I didn't post something like once upon a time, a small singularity exploded, and over billions of years all by chance, the exact atoms continued to build on each other.  Eventually the galaxies were formed, and once again all by coincidence so was earth.  Then, by more coincidence some fairy star dust fell down and created living organisms.  smile. Nope, still like the correct version I initially posted. smile

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How about you read your story the right way up - an as yet unexplained event started our current universe that fired up our star, collected up the gasses and made our planet and the conditions that made life possible, probably inevitable, and one day it will all attract itself back together and do it all over again.  Of course a giant hairy fairy could have created itself and then the universe and then people so that they could regress to some new dark age and die out like the dinosaurs and other critters that ruled this earth before.  But the odds are about the same as an evangelical christian thinking himself out of a paper bag.

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              All by reoccurring coincidence, magic gas, and magic star dust sprinkled around over billions of years.  lol

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Only the religious believe in magic - our universe runs on simple physics and each part is not hard to understand with the right education.  The parts that are actually difficult to grasp we use clever people to get their heads around it and then explain it to us in simple language - much better idea than inventing a magical fairy who diddit all to save the uneducated from having to think.

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Please enlighten us with your " simple physics". All the physic Ive studied and still study about  space and the universe wasn't and isnt simple at all. smile


                  Yes, because none of the "clever" people believe in GOD or religion.  :lol;



                  You keep telling yourself that.  It's your world, we're all just living in it.  lol

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps may be your basic problem, you think it is all so complex and yet it all boils to down to simple action and reaction.  You are thinking yourself dizzy and then seeing things where they are not to try and make sense of the confusion you are in.

                    Go back to school, but not in those states where the religious politicians have imposed stupidity in place of science.

      5. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hahahahaha that was like reading a childrens fairytale.

        Do you have a serious answer?

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That was my serious answer.  smile

          1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
            Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I love the part about man being created in gods image. Gays, murderers, rapists, theives and so on, are all made in gods image.

            Awesome. He was a great designer wasn't he?

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, that was another gift gave us, choice.  Additionally, what you read was before the introduction of sin.  Don't worry, I realize it's hard for some people to comprehend something they don't understand.  smile

              1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I knew the "incapable of understanding" insult was coming soon. What is so hard to understand that people created in gods image, designed by god (wait, created in his image or designed? It cant be both) choose to do bad things. Funny that.

                I would have thought people created by such a great being would WANT to choose good over evil.

                I guess he didnt want them to huh? I mean he can do anything, right? But he can't create people that would WANT to do good?

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course he could have, but he didn't.  GOD didn't want puppets, that's why he gave free will.  You may choose as you like, right or wrong.  smile

                  1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                    Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What you WANT to choose does not detract from your free will.

                    You can choose to do whatever you WANT but if you dont WANT to do wrong then you're not going to are you?

                    Free will is one of the most ridiculous arguments that ever came out of religion.

                    Will and choice are not the same thing. You seem to be deliberately confusing them.

                2. autumn18 profile image68
                  autumn18posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Jesus was a hippy, you're pretty much saying what I've been saying/asking. There always seems to be an answer that basically just ends up saying God is the right way and if you listen to logic and your own knowledge it is wrong. Those rapists, murderers, etc. apparantly denied God and went their own way. I'd like to point out that there are plenty people who are moral, ethical, charitable, etc. who don't follow a religion and/or don't know God exists.

      6. ThunderKeys profile image79
        ThunderKeysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It almost seems natural, doesn't it?

        1. ThunderKeys profile image79
          ThunderKeysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ....Creation that is....

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes it does seem natural.  More natural than magic star dust sprinkled down, that evolved into wiggle worms which evolved and evolved and evolved and evolved stop! Common ancestor! Start, evolved evolved evolved blah blah blah here we are on Hubpages  smile

    2. mom101 profile image61
      mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Creation/evolution.  Well,  its like this. I have studied both and I have come to the only conclusion that will be true. That my friend, is a question that will remain to be asked way after any of us leave this planet.

      The Bible,  as we have been taught, is God's Word.  But on the other hand, it has been rewritten so many times that at best only parts can be accurate. Which parts? The Bible, at best is, for the most part, someones opinion or idea.  I like to read, but I tend to form my own opinions. I:m kinda independent that way. 

      I have come to one conclusion. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory.  Science. I can see the reasoning behind those that follow the evolution theory. Chain of events. This causes that and that causes that. I do understand that, and agree with it totally.

      Creation. Religion..  It is clear that the big bang did take place. But, as before stated. Something, someone, somehow had to flip the domino that got everything started.

      In my way of thinking, we can't see wind. We can't see pain. We can see the effects of both and other things of that nature. Some people have a hard time believing in things that are not seen. That is what I can't figure out. Why can't they?

      For me, for example, If I have done something that I know is wrong, big or small, I get this "feeling" (I call it a conscience) that lets me know it wasn't right.  .............

      I will not allow myself to become so engulfed with the thought of one being right (Creation/Evolution) to the point of being closed minded. Being closed minded is a dangerous road to travel.

      Many of you know that I do not like to  label people. It is childish. Regardless of Creation or Evolution we are all from the same beginning.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you insist on a causal action for the big bang?  Yes, it goes against the grain for we who inhabit the macro world and live by cause and effect, but the quantum world has a great deal happening all the time with no cause.

        The best physists in the world have declared there is no need for a cause.  Not that there wasn't one, mind you, but there there is no need for one.  We don't know if there was one or not.

        1. mom101 profile image61
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not rational thinking little one. There is cause and effect with any action.

          "The best physists"  they too are human, trying to prove "persuade" their point.

          Get out of the box, and THINK.  The ground is stable. It will hold you up.

          The quantum world you speak of is where the battle is.  One shouldn't go there unprotected. There is a war being fought there. The cause is a great one, and the effect, well, we may never know.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            While we used to view electron "orbitals" around a nucleus as similar to the orbit of a planet we now know that to be untrue.  Electrons simply disappear from one place and reappear in another.  Can you provide proof that either 1) that placement of electrons is caused by a particular force or attribute or 2) that there is any cause at all, without naming that cause?

            Of can you provide proof of something that causes a particular uranium atom to degrade into a different element at a particular time, or failing that provide proof that there is something unnamed that causes it?

            Recognize that a statement that everything YOU are aware of and work with has a cause does not mean that these two actions do.

            If not, you have no reason to state that there is a cause and effect with any and every action.

            I seems that it is you that need to think outside the box of your personal experience.  That a rock falling has a cause does not have anything at all to do with any cause for activities of subatomic particles.

            1. mom101 profile image61
              mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Anything that causes movement of any kind has a reaction.

              A whisper travels    does it not.

              Ain't no box gonna hold me down. I gots common steps oops I mean common sense tells you that.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Common sense may be the most uncommon thing on this poor planet.

                Very often the more common it is the more wrong it is as well.

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do some seeds when planted next to each other not grow? Yet all the ingredients are right for growth. If we are to expect 100% results from science and yet not our own gardens, we must then expect less than 100% from science.

                  1. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Medical is said to be a science; if it would have been 100% accurate; nobody would die.

                    So accuracy of science is not the same in different branches of science.

      2. 68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
      3. Harlan Colt profile image86
        Harlan Coltposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mom101 - "For me, for example, If I have done something that I know is wrong, big or small, I get this "feeling" (I call it a conscience) that lets me know it wasn't right."

        Mom101, if we evolved, there is no wrong or right in terms of ethics or moral code. We are all animals. There is no moral code in the animal kingdom, there is only survival of the fittest. Some animals kill others just for the fun of it.

        The moral code began thousands of years ago, but we didn't have science to tell us that multiple sex partners spreads disease. My point is, why would anyone living in those days reason in their minds that promiscuity was immoral? If we evolved watching animals sexual habits, and as the gay groups claim there are gay animals - then why would a moral objection against sodomy evolve? In an evolutionary world I could see some morals coming about from understanding pain and suffering etc., but other social morals can not be validated from the same position of reasoning. I believe in creation, but in trying to give an answer in unbiased evolutionary scenario, I just don't see it.

        1. mom101 profile image61
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I too believe in Creation.

          I just can't seem to get a ticket to that big bang show that is playin.

          That was my point, science can copy what I look like and make many of that copy, but no two of them could have the same "senses"  I guess you could say.

        2. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The difference between man and the other animals is the ability to reason.  Morals and ethics are products of reason and so any comparison with other animals is incorrectly based.

          There was simple science all your thousands of years ago that illustrated clearly the dangers of multiple sex partners, it was common sense observation, just as it is today.  Also the ability to observe the conflict that arises from social actions is basic social science, jsut it didn't have a name at that time.  Interestingly, homosexuality appears to have been acceptable by every society up until christian societies, so I don't know where you get your homophobic reference from.

    3. LewSethics profile image60
      LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe the universe always existed, and that any discussion of where it came from is ridiculous.  Wherever this eternal god is supposed to have come from, that's where the universe came from, only without all the smiting and wrathfulness.

      1. LewSethics profile image60
        LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No one mentioned zero point energy and Hawking radiation.

        1. mom101 profile image61
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          elementary my friend. science

      2. LewSethics profile image60
        LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Science has the ability to adapt to new information.  Science will admit it theories were wrong when better theories are advanced to take their place.
        Science proposed the sun centered solar system four hundred years ago and the pope just recently admitted that this was true science.
        Science is able to adapt, religion isn't.

    4. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'd give you answer, but it's too likely other ignorant individual would jump at the chance to post other and more ignorant responses. So it's not worth the effort.

    5. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Easy. In the absence of a god, energy/mass is probably eternal. After all something has to be. So possibly a beginning of this universe but no beginning in general.

      That's the philosophical principal. Other than that there are a dozen hypothesis as to how all this came about;, none of which has been proven yet.  That, however, is irrelevant.

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why does it or any of it have to be eternal ?   Just because we don't 'know' the answer yet there is no argument that points to eternal I think ?

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well put in rather bad language, if there was ever a time there was nothing there would be nothing now. So something has got to have always existed. Can't get something from nothing. Make sense?

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You are making a presumption about the various terms you use I would say.  And we don't know yet that it is not possible to get something from nothing, the  idea of eternal is just the way we describe the blank wall at the end extent of thinking/imagination.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Tell me how you can get something from nothing. it is an absurd idea.

              1. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The truth is often bizarre. We are not the boss of reality, it is the other way around.

                I don't know if the big bang is real, but I would never be so arrogant as to say it is impossible.

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There are things that are impossible. A square circle for example. The BB does not mean a beginning for energy/mass. It just means a beginning for this universe. I don't know if BB is true or not either. But I do that if there was ever absolutely nothing there could not now be anything.

                  It is a matter of logic.  Just as you  can not make a square circle you can't produce something from nothing. Nothing is not something. It is the absence of everything. It does not exist. there is no such thing or state.

                  Nothing is an abstract idea or concept of convenience. There is no thing in the bowl. Meaning it is not holding anything but air.. But the absence of candy is not some thing called nothing.

                  Something is the default or you wouldn't be here. So regardless of how the universe came to be, it can not have been the beginning of something brought about but the absence of  everything.

                  It is simply logically impossible.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image79
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not saying that there are not impossible things.  I am saying that it is impossible to say in relation to an event so alien to the world we live in (in time, location, scope, and prevailing laws of nature) what is possible or impossible.

                    I think only someone with direct data and/or god-like omniscient could rule it out of hand simply because it is not commonplace and easily grasped based on having wandered around on the plant for a few years.

                    The beginning of the universe did not occur on this planet a few decades ago, ergo it is not governed by the rule that apply on this scale.

                    To apply logic to the beginning of the universe you have to know what rules applied to reality then, and you would need to know all the relevant data.  No short cuts.

                    But it seems that some people here are actively resistant to even know what the data is, or what those rule might be.  They want to invent the universe the same why they might create a recipe for nachos.

        2. mom101 profile image61
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          recommend1, you got a mouse in your pocket?

          In my mind, I know answer. You may or may not agree with it, but for me, yeah, my mind is clear. Crystal clear.

          It is eternal.

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What are you talking about ?

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Does that mean that you actually know that something is eternal or that you simply believe it without actually knowing?

      2. mom101 profile image61
        mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My my, are you saying in reality, science Is creation?

        How so if so? That's confusing to my little mind. 

        How can science be evolution and creation? Maybe I missed something.
        Either we evolved or we were created. Both have different meanings. Don't they?

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Existence evolved. YOU were created.

          1. mom101 profile image61
            mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, yeah, we are on the same page. Hot dog!!!!

            Cag, it puzzels me sometimes the way folks want to ignore that fact.

            Hope all is well with you.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              All is well. Right now it couldn't be any better. I've been drinking and celebrating. lol lol Hope all is well with you too. smile

              1. mom101 profile image61
                mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Whats the occasion. And yeah, it is going good. Enjoy your evening as mine is fixing to go horizontal, duty calls early.

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this
                  1. mom101 profile image61
                    mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They law!!!!!  Hope it is a happy one indeed. Enjoy it friend. Happy Birthday.

          2. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think so - evolution is just one particular effect of matter or existence and 'she' is an evolved creature.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Life(existence) evolved. YOU as an individual were created. Don't like? Oh well. Learn to live with it.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Evolution is exactly the series of creations just like her.  Don't like being disagreed with ?  well, learn to live with it.

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Apparently you don't understand. Good to know. It's expected, but not totally surprising. lol

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Good to know you are still stating nonsense then refusing to argue when it is pointed out to you big_smile

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It should be confusing as you seem to have made it up yourself. Where do you get "science is creation" from what recommend1 said?

          1. mom101 profile image61
            mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is amazing to me the way people get so carried away.

            Science is in NOOOOOOOO way creation.  That is as plain as the nose on a face.

            From creation, science evolved.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
              Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Carried away? lol... Of course science is not creation. Science is not evolution either. Science is a tool we use to study existence, not a philosophical point.

        3. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Science is just the study of things, evolution is one thing that science studies and provides answers for and creationism is just a fundamental christian controlled media cobble up of a kids science project based on a lack of reasoning ability and the ability to hold the idea of long periods of time and anything much outside of the self.

          1. mom101 profile image61
            mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's it.  Keep up the good work, You have half the battle won.

            I just love it when people think.

            You are correct, science is the study of things.

            And from my view, science will always be trying to "splain" creation.

            Kids science?  Yeah, I agree. The answer is simple. It is people who try to complicate it.

            Long periods of time? Okay, in honor of Cags Birthday today, I will say this, For the past 48 years, I have held to the same belief.

            Nite all, I gotta go check for holes in my eyelids.

    6. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A steady-state universe would show much different observations then what we see now, hence it isn't a valid theory.

      1. LewSethics profile image60
        LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  What?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this
        2. 0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Night would be as bright as day (and it would blind us!).

          In a steady state universe all the microwave background radiation (light waves from the big bang, elongated due to expansion) our radio telescopes receive omnidirectionally would not be elongated and would reach us as light from every direction and would fill every corner of the sky.

          1. LewSethics profile image60
            LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is no big bang in a steady state universe, but the rest of your sentence was very imaginative.

            1. 0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's true!

              The theory still stands though.

    7. 63
      wayne92587posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Prior to the beginning of Space-Time, the Creation of, the Reality of First Cause, of a Singularity of One-1, the First Singularity to have relative, numerical value, the Whole of Reality existed as the Transcendental Steady Quantum State of Singularity, as a State in which an untold number of Infinitely Finite, indivisible Singularities having no relative numerical value, existed as the Whole of Reality without being readily apparent, without being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time; Singularity to include Time, Space and Motion; the only materiality, matter, in existence being Secondary Matter.

      Upon the transfiguration  of a Singularity having no relative numerical value into a Singularity having a relative, a Numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of One-1 beginning its existence as the First in a Series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time as the beginning of a process such as Space-Time; the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of Ond-1, the Reality of First Cause being an affect, being born of a State or Condition, not being born of ordinary means, cause and effect, an uncaused cause, En being  the direct material cause of the Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens an the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7976861_f248.jpg

  2. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 5 years ago

    Sounds like a cop-out, but: I don't know. (I happen to believe it's the only honest answer)

    I suspect the beginning of the Universe can be explained - the Big Bang - but not the source of existence itself (i.e. where all the matter and energy that created the Big Bang came from).

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A cop out for what?

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        By the way, I suspect the same thing you do.

      2. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Meaning: most have definite beliefs on the matter.

  3. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    A similar thread was created recently>>>> http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/84920#top

    I have since done a little more research that is reinforcing my belief in the something from nothing scenario.

    That research has to do with the nature of photons and electrons having a particle-wave duality nature. Because particles are matter that have mass and waves are energy that don't have mass. Einstein says(in his wave-particle duality theory) that photons are both at the same time... hmm which sounds a lot like something from nothing to me.

    the research thread>>> http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85182#top

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You read that like 15 minutes ago for the first time and call it research? You obviously want to learn about it.  Why don't you just go enroll in a class or two? smile

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Michel

      It seems to me that no matter which way you look at it, it will ALWAYS boil down to "Something from Nothing".

      This is the point that I just can't get my head around, no matter which direction I might be coming from.

      I have studied quantum mechanics as much as anyone with an average IQ can (which means it's all Greek to me:)

  4. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Without 'something' there can be no 'nothing' to create the state of nothingness from.  Logically this tells us ONLY that we do not understand nothing or something, or the relationship between them,  properly.  Logically this means that the place to look for answers is in this relationship, where the same thing or things can be both something and nothing, have some kind of duality. Or we can look for things that appear from nothing or dissapear to apparently nowhere.  This is exactly what they are trying to do practically with the cyclon accelerators and theoretically through chaos theory and other hard to understand stuff.

    The possibility that some kindly old duffer created himself and then decided to create us and the whole universe is attractive at an infant mind level but loses its credibility a little when we reach the dawn of understanding at around 5 or 6.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am afraid my mind will never grasp quantum or chaos theories, or whatever else they come up with.

      But I'm not so sure that it takes an infantile mind to accept a God or religius explaination for the Universe.

      Being an athiest for the majority of my life,and now being an agnostic(I just don't know) I can safely say that having faith in a creator is MUCH harder to do than to be an athiest.

      I used to think the same exact thing that you do. I no longer think that belief in God equates to having an inferior mind, or copping out, or giving up on rational thought.

      Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Your answer was well thought out.

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The reason that it is harder to believe in a god for some people is that the idea is ridiculous when viewed without bias.

        It is not necessary for us to grasp chaos theory etc, it is enough to know that better minds than ours do grasp it and we can accept what they tell us as the best available knowledge because other 'better' thinkers are able to dispute what they say.  We can sometimes grasp a little of the argument and get a small insight, enough for day to day stuff like living I think.

        Infantile mind is the best parallel explanation for the inability to reason and the inability  to challenge that allows a person to be subsumed into religious thinking and so controlled by the religious puppeteers.  I seriously think that the lack of some reasoning ability may be a genetic thing that will show they are an evolutionary dead end.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree. Some people just aren't rational. They will grasp at whatever is the easiest available excuse for our existance. I don't know what that percentage of believers might be though. Perhaps fairly high, sinse the average IQ is fairly low.

          I think that there are several different reasons for belief though, including indoctrination (I know some very intelligent people who believe in God) and they just don't really ever care to think about it thoroughly. It isn't important to them.

          There is also psychosis.Many psychotic episodes are religious-related (this is in fact the case with me, I am bipolar, and have experienced religious themes in my episodes).

          There has to be a reason for the majority of the population to have religious views, more than I have named here,and that I  simply didn't think of at the moment.

          And then there is always the possibility that it could all be real:)

          1. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Don't confuse religion with spirituality. 

            When religion appears in 'episodes' it is because it is deep seated in our culture, and also MOST people are not 'religious', most people have religion in their cultural background, which is not the same thing at all.

            The visual world of childhood is often full of religious imagery, and by definition these relate to various myths or explanations of fundamental things personified.  It is hardly surprising that these things surface in dreams and episodes, I expect a Greek having an 'episode' thousands of years ago would have featured their own imprinted gods of war and chaos.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am not sure what you're saying.

              That most people who say they believe in God, don't really? They are just saying they do to go along with the crowd?

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know how you got that from what I wrote !

                Put another way, religion is part of the western cultural heritage, it is the default position, it is part of what has been around everyone over 40 years old or so, it is still appearing around the place as the last die hards fragment into over 1800 sects.  It is in your own deep memories

                none of this makes it any more than the misreading of those ancient myth stories that have not yet been explained by science and philosophy.

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Lol...I apoligize if I offended you. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth that you didn't say or mean. I just wasn't getting what you are saying. I am slow with understanding people sometimes.

                  You have very interesting ideas. I am enjoying this discussion.

  5. 61
    IBeaMposted 5 years ago

    Just to mix things up a bit, why all the disdain for "fairy stories" and "myths"?  If you read the original "fairy tales", or even if you just read Bettelheim's Uses of Enchantment, you'll see that they are dead serious ways of discussing dead serious ideas.  Like "stay out of the forest, children, there are dangers beyond what you and I know there, including cannibals (that's what ogres means)" and "You're going to have to go out in the world now, 'cause we haven't enough food to go around, and you'd best be on your guard and polite to people you meet as you go," and "Be brave and kind, those qualities seem to work well in getting on with your life," and so on.
    I'm reminded of a psychology class I took tens of years ago, in which a guest was brought in, an ex-drug user who had taken on a fundamentalist kind of Christianity to help him stay straight.  How anxious my classmates were to argue with the man, but what did they offer him that would help him as much as his religion? Nothing.  Why should he change his mind, what good would that do him? Why would you "disabuse" people of their beliefs if their beliefs help them live decent lives?
    I really don't understand militant atheists, except as people so insecure in themselves that they seek to bring others to the state they're in, so they can at least have company.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you took the trouble to wander around the world, as I have, you would soon realise that in most of the real hells on earth religion is conducting the proceedings.  There is no harmless religion.

    2. 61
      IBeaMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You do not know me, or anything about me; you jump to conclusions without data. Since you have demonstrated that,I cannot take you seriously in this discussion.

  6. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    You can;t explain the beginning of the universe using logic alone.  You need logic and sufficient data.  Once everyone is familiar with and understands the data, you can start in the logic part.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would say this is correct, and when we get more data we will know more and get a better idea of the possibilities.  I doubt any of the possibilities include a bearded old duffer making mountains, burning bushes and telling people to bow down to him  big_smile

      1. ediggity profile image61
        ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, please tell us what initial data you've recorded and applied toward the "accepted" THEORY?  Or, are you reffering to the scientific data you blindly swallow and regurgitate?  smile

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is only your chosen way of deliberately not understanding that works in this way - normal people have a grasp on what theory is, how theories are proven right or wrong which gives rise to new theory etc.  This is how knowledge is accumulated.  You wanting a definate, complete and absolute answer is just a reflection of your childish mind.  4 year olds do this, they cling to their father and believe everything said to them, and when it is a bit complicated their father might draw them a picture - when you get past those cartoon pictures of ideas you will find you have let go your fathers hand and are standing on your own two feet and your own thinking.  I know it is scary, but you really should try hard to grow up now.

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't "want" anything.  What is not known I actively seek. Unlike you, who swallows what they are told.  Tis you who doth not understand the concept of theory, hypothesis, law, and postulate.  You should write a philosophy book, instead of trying to understand science.  It's not for everyone.  The ones for it not, they swallow.   smile

            1. recommend1 profile image70
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you seem pretty sure about what I am, and you are making up all the stuff about me all by yourself.  I guess this is because you are unable to read the meaning in complete sentences.  One clue is the wierd language you  revert to when being particularly childish.

              I do write what you would call philosophy, and as an engineer by trade I have a grip on the universe that you will never achieve all the time you think the earth is flat and the universe revolves around you..

              I have rarely seen any poster in these threads quite so dim in terms of reasoning ability and in conjunction with an alarming propensity to exhibit your teeny intellect for all to see.

              1. ediggity profile image61
                ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Congratulations, clap clap.  Lol, no one can "grip" the universe. More philosophy zzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz smile

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Your intelligence level is showing through.

                  1. ediggity profile image61
                    ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Save your flattery, it won't help you understand science any better.  Don't you have some software to write? smile

                  2. psycheskinner profile image79
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow. why did this guy start a thread about something he refuses to actually do? very bemusing.

  7. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Um, scientific data is data collected under specified circumstance and checked by a third party.  That is exactly the sort of data that is reliable.  Now, the scientist's idea of what it means it up for debate, but the data itself generally is what it is.  Data such as the age of different material, the distance between galaxies and rate of expansion of this distance etc.

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is it?  Wow, and all third parties always agree, don't they?  I guess that's why all third scientific parties agree about the creation of the universe, and all third parties agree about Global Warming, and vaccinations.....the list goes on.  Way to stick up for science, you've also been deceived.  lol  Don't worry, science will keep telling you what's right and wrong, and everything will be ok.  lol

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am not talking about conclusions (logic), I am talking about data (observations).  And yes, most people who are interested in the data agree which data exists.

        Most people capable of understanding the data agree the universe is expanding, for example.  The increased distance between galaxies over time is data.

        Some apply logic to suggest that this means the universe expanded explosively in the distance past, but that is subject to debate.  It might for example go through cycles of expansion and contraction. Ir it might have already existed with significant mass before the explosive event. etc.

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You do realize that assumptions are factored in with data to make conclusions. That's right, just press the I believe button, everything is fine. smile

          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I realize that if you read the actual research reports you know what the raw observations are.  If you don't buy the conventional explanation you need to offer another explanation to explain the same raw data.  Such as light not moving at a constant rate or something.

            The observations themselves are about as subjective as reality gets. If we cant agree on at least a few pertinent facts logic is not even possible.  Logic can only be used when mutual starting assumptions are agreed upon.  Logic is a process by which you start with some facts and you extrapolate other facts based upon them.

            I think, in fact you are doing what you suggest I am doing.  I am just trying to see if there are any starting facts here. Then we could consider applying logic to them. Otherwise you are just telling myths and fables and *calling* it logic.

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am doing what you think I suggest you are doing.  The difference is I am doing it through faith in GOD, not science.  Faith is for religion, facts are for science.  smile

              1. Evolution Guy profile image60
                Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No logic here then. That is for rational thought. This is why your religion causes so much ill will. sad

                I sure jeebus be dun prowd

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Same old lines, Mark.  Don't worry, I know you press the I believe button also.  That's right, blame all the worlds problems on religion, while you eat scones on the Riviera. smile

                  1. mom101 profile image61
                    mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I jnew it. I knew it.

              2. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am trying to determine whether we share some agree facts and so can even begin to apply logic to the issue.

                e.g. Galaxies are moving further apart over time. Specifically the first evidence ever suggested for this idea that other galaxies are moving away from us over time is the red shift of their the electromagnetic spectrums.

                Are you capable of answer a logical, fact based question and/or have any idea whatsoever what the relevant data would be? Or do you seriously think Hubble and every professional and amateur astronomer since the 1930 did not actually observe red shift and you could not observe it to with the right instruments unless you prayed to Science first?

                Because if you don't believe in "facts" you cannot believe in "logic" and this whole exercise is moot.

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If You, or anyone for that matter can agree on this, Λ, (now thats a "fact") then we can begin with your "logic".  More assumptions.,.. Tick tock tick tock.  Since that won't happen anytime soon,  most likely not in our lifetime, we will just have to agree to disagree.  smile

                  1. psycheskinner profile image79
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I made no assumptions at all, I specified a phenomenon you could check for yourself.  If you are incapable of answering a simple question about a specific fact (red shift as evidence of expanding universe) then you clearly don't even know what logic is and this whole thread is a complete waste of time.

  8. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    No beginning.
    No end.
    Just change.

  9. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    The answers are coming very soon with the LBT. smile

  10. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    With the Large Binocular Telescope going to work, we may soon have the answers to many of our questions.

  11. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Come to think of it, let's avoid the LBT and the latest scientific discoveries and go with the usual highly intellectualised argument.

    Goddunnit!

  12. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    "Please explain the beginning of the Universe using logic"

    It's simple. I was bored one day, so I created it. Sorry about those pesky asteroids...

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol The best answer yet!

      P.S. Please keep black holes away from our solar system.

  13. 68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Coming to the topic.


    "mom101 wrote:
    Religion.. It is clear that the big bang did take place. But, as before stated. Something, someone, somehow had to flip the domino that got everything started. In my way of thinking, we can't see wind. We can't see pain. We can see the effects of both and other things of that nature. Some people have a hard time believing in things that are not seen. That is what I can't figure out."

  14. 0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    Well, there was a "hmmmm" then came a "Swooosh!" followed by a "clink-clank-clunk!" and then there was light along with a "TA-DAH!!!"

                        hmm There was no BANG if that's what you're asking.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You forgot the fanfare of angels standing each side of the exit path and the cocky grin on the big magicians face as he whipped the cloth off it !

    2. mom101 profile image61
      mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, is what you are saying that we just happened"

      In easy language,  If we were a fly on the wall when everything started coming together "in the beginning" I can almost guarantee you there was a big bang. Make fun of it if it makes you feel big or whatever, but during a storm, what happens when cold and hot air collide?

      Heads, have brains.   Boxes keep them limited.

  15. Friendlyword profile image61
    Friendlywordposted 5 years ago

    Using logic; I have to say I believe in the big bang theory.  But, logic also has me asking myself who struck the match and lit the fuse?  And, since we're in the middle of a large explosion, we are evolving until the explosion ends in a puff of smoke? The universe is colapsing back on top of itself just like the air around a struck match or firecraker. And, I just think God is smiling like a big kid watching it burn.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is not necessary to light a fuse to get a big bang going.  Even on a small scale we can put stuff together and wait for it to explode or catch fire apparently spontaneously.  With regard to the universe we know there are black holes where matter apparently is compressed to the point where it seems to disappear, it is not beyond imagining that this universe will all collapse back on itself and 'explode' again, and maybe it has already done that many many times.   This still leaves the issue of where all the matter and energy comes from, or more correctly why it 'happens' at all.  Also it has not been proven that there is not some old guy hanging out around the edges of the universe who makes it all happen, but no evidence of him either.

      1. Friendlyword profile image61
        Friendlywordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why does God have to be a old man?  Maybe he's just really powerful kid playing with fire and making a big mess. Don't make your head hurt trying to figure it out because you never will.  Just have faith in what you're comfortable believing in.  You're never going to figure out, because I don't think we will be able to see out side of the universe in our lifetime to know for sure what's out there.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know how long you intended staying around, but it doesn't need to be too long. smile


          LBT is here now.

          1. Friendlyword profile image61
            Friendlywordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            LBT AND VLT ARE NGE(not good enough) We're still blind babies walking into walls and wasting time.

            1. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              A link please? smile

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "I don't know how long you intended staying around, but it doesn't need to be too long".

            you are so full of












            love

        2. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Of course we all know since the iron age that he is just a projection of your own ego.

          If the idea of getting something from nothing is absurd then how do you account for the god thing you claim comes from nothing ?  now of course if time and space are not what we think they are - and that you understand courtesy of science - then things might not be as we expect or understand at this time.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            and we also know He is not just a projection of anything.

            plus you answered your own question

      2. LewSethics profile image60
        LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, black holes are one of those things we never actually saw, we just think they are out there because the math is right.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So, it has nothing to do with the incredible gravitational effects observed from candidates of black holes?

          http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativ … table.html

  16. 0
    Cromperposted 5 years ago

    Our universe is no larger now than it was at the beginning. Contrary to what we see and perceive, our universe is 'shrinking' or 'condensing' - NOT expanding! (we see it expanding because we are shrinking too, at the same rate)
    Therefore, our universe is simply a 'specific state' at a 'specific time' (or period). Physical laws that we obey change over time but we cannot possibly conceive this because our lives are so short.
    Light particles do not move. They are frozen in time and space whilst everything around them (including us) shrinks at a rate equivalent to the speed of light.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This sounds like such convincing bu!!s@!t that I really like it big_smile

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As long as you don;t care about what direct observation of our universe shows, it's brilliant!

    2. LewSethics profile image60
      LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Now we're getting somewhere.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is definitely something strange about light speed. For matter it is like hitting a brick wall. And the closer matter can get to it the more mass increases. Almost like light speed is full stop.

      I don't think Cromper has the answer. But I think it may be a good direction to start thinking in.

      Thats is to say that if all things shrank or expanded at the same rate, no change would be felt or noticed and rulers would measure the same as they would shrink or expand proportionally as well. This is tackled in Relativity.

      I've been mulling this over for years and keep getting glimpses of something. But it hasn't jelled yet.

      1. 0
        Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Glad I've got you thinking smile

        The thing about my theory is that light does not need to travel, so there is no need for a medium for it to travel through. This has always been a head-scratcher for scientists: "How does light travel through nothing?"

        It doesn't - WE travel to the light as we shrink!

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The problem is, doesn't the light shrink too? wink

          The thing is photons have no rest mass so they can't stop or come to rest. They are pure energy.

          I don't think we have to be shrinking or expanding. If when you shine a light you produce photons and they stay at full stop while the world goes by, why does light not trail behind in one direction? Why when you shine it in any direction does move forward relative to the light source in the case of a flashlight and illuminate what is in front of you no matter what direction you turn?

          Like I said, there is something strange about light speed, but shrinking and standing still don't seem to logically fit the bill. wink

          1. 0
            Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What we see is light waves, not the actual photons. I'm no expert on photons, etc. but I'll attempt to explain my way of thinking (which could be completely wrong).

            When a particle is excited to the point it gives off light (or any electromagnetic wave) it 'burns' itself into the fabric of space (whatever that is). Alternatively, you could say it burns itself into the history of the universe (it cannot be undone). Other matter which does not give off an electromagnetic wave does not become immortalised in history (we cannot see it) unless it is illuminated by light, in which case the matter illuminated becomes immortalised (to some extent) by light waves.

            Now, the particle that emmitted the light wave can do whatever it wants and continue to shrink, but the history of it is frozen in time and space and remains the same size. Each oscillation of a light particle gives off a light wave which could be imagined as spherical in shape, and as observers we see this sphere growing in size at a rate equivalent to the speed of light.

            1. LewSethics profile image60
              LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wow, I need to get my boots on , the BS is really getting deep, haha.
              If any of your articles are as bizarre as this theory of yours then I will be your fan for life, haha.

            2. LewSethics profile image60
              LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Haha, if your hubs are as imaginative as this you have a fan for life, haha.

              1. 0
                Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Fact is stranger than fiction. And that's a fact! lol

  17. brotheryochanan profile image61
    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago

    4 billion years and our sun will burn itself out.
    Galaxies thousands of light years wide.
    complex dna chains on the head of a pin.
    Chemicals producing thought; logic and faith

    Nuclear power plants instead of solar energy
    Gasoline engines instead of electric assist
    Rockets punching holes in the ozone
    and chemtrails to fill the gaps in our atmosphere.
    plastic Packaging and a plastic island off south america

    and we think we can comprehend the big questions?
    Man, He awes me and i am fine with that, lets save all that money on this stuff and feed the starving, woo hoo! or at least send them to disney land.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No worries, you would never be asked the big questions as we already know your answers.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Quality
        keep it coming lol

  18. Alastar Packer profile image84
    Alastar Packerposted 5 years ago

    Explain the beginning of the  universe using logic. How 'bout this just for the sake of it: the visible universe, with which humanity occupies, is only a small spot in this marvelous, unlimited spiritual existence of the Creation. There are millions of universes like this one within the infinite spiritual existence of the Creation. What is not visible to the eyes of humanity represents only a little jot in infinity. What is not visible to the eyes is immeasurable, inconceivable, and unthinkable for the non-spiritual human intelligence of limited capacity. This universe is only one of many universes within the original, powerful, and all-creating spiritual intelligence of existence of the Creation. With this huge spirit and these original forces of existence of the Creation, the spiritual intelligence is connected to humanity because this spiritual intelligence of Creation lives as the spirit in human beings and enlivens them. There is a material, fine substance that penetrates through everything existing, know as the "Ether" or as Einstein called it "The Aether." Interesting take from this source, maybe.

    1. LewSethics profile image60
      LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like reading fiction, especially if yo make it up as you go along.  I especially like that 'or as einstein called it the aether' thing, as if the added 'a' made it more believable.

      1. Alastar Packer profile image84
        Alastar Packerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You flatter me LewSethics. But this comes from another source. Why don't you give the BS a try, you know, make it up as you go along like you said. Surely your creative powers would be a sight to behold. Seriously, give it a whirl Lew.

        1. 0
          Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There's no difference between believing your own BS or someone else's. It's still BS!

          At least you should gain satisfaction in believing your own.

          1. Alastar Packer profile image84
            Alastar Packerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Didn't ask anyone to believe anything Crumper. Read the line that's got "for the sake of it" again. Over n out.

            1. 0
              Cromperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, fair enough, but anyone who capitalises 'Creation' kind of gives the game away.

  19. 0
    Wilfionposted 5 years ago

    I believe in the Big Bang theory, because it is based on the observations of science.  However, I have given up trying to actually understand it, because it needs quantum physics to explain it.  And if someone believes they understand quantum physics, it probably means that they don't understand quantum physics. 

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne … 622751.stm

  20. WD Curry 111 profile image60
    WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago

    Logically . . . the beginning of the universe led to this discussion.

  21. emrldphx profile image59
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    I'm not even sure if I've posted in this thread and don't care to look.

    Logically, or scientifically, we have no method to explain how the universe started. We are trying, but we can't yet.

    The closest we can get is to hypothesize and discuss.

    1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image77
      Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you want to tell us what you think, but not read what anyone else thinks?

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Am I required to read every post to write my own ideas?

        1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image77
          Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is considered polite, yes. This is a conversation.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you at all on that. Not everybody has the time to read every post in every thread they want to contribute to. I don't consider it disrespectful for somebody to add their opinion to a question without reading 100, 200, or 10,000 posts first.

            1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image77
              Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If the conversation is too long to follow it needs to die and new one start that you can be bothered following.

              I don't see how you can see the attitude of : 'I won't read what you said, but I want you to read what I said' is reasonable unless you are innately more wise and important then us.

              It is basic nettiquette.

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Nouveau, does basic nettiquette involve critiquing someone for contributing their idea to a question?

                Beside, my post says I don't care to look to see if I've posted anything in it or not... in other words, I can't remember. I've read most or all of this thread.

                If you want to participate in a community, I suggest you be kinder to people. Don't add to our pool of rude citizens.

                1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image77
                  Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So you've gone from 'I don't need to read the thread' to 'I did read the thread'.

                  Interesting.

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow, did you just sign up to pick a fight?

                    My first post you got upset about, I said I didn't know if I had already posted. I had been following the thread, but it's possible I missed something.

                    When you came in, I asked you(to understand your position) if I have to read every post to be able to contribute. I was just trying to clarify what you meant.

                    But, you didn't bother to ask me if I had read the thread, you just came in and called me impolite and unreasonable.

  22. WD Curry 111 profile image60
    WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago

    The universe? The onesong? It is. Therefore, it was. It was, so it could not have been was not. It always has been. Sing it forever.

  23. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    there will be many assumptions before you can do that

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Before you can do what pretty? smile

  24. 60
    Korky10posted 5 years ago

    I completely agree. It really does not matter what I or anyone else thinks is right. Truth will always be truth. It is right before your eyes.

  25. Levertis Steele profile image83
    Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago

    Such Hub questions usually attract much traffic, comments, and end with lots of opinions and disagreement. No consensus will ever occur. I suppose the traffic is what is really wanted. Clever, I suppose.

    1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
      WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's the name of the game.

  26. Levertis Steele profile image83
    Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago

    Sometimes visitors just want to respond to the author's main idea or question if there is one. Some others want to read the article and all, or some,  comments. Besides, the author has the task of capturing the readers' attention and keeping them engaged. That requires skill.

  27. Levertis Steele profile image83
    Levertis Steeleposted 5 years ago

    "In the beginning God created" the universe.

    1. 68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who states that and on what authority/evidence?

      1. 60
        Korky10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Better question would be on what authority would you disagree with "in the beginning God created the universe"

        1. 68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Since you cited the quotation; you have to mention who said that and on what authority?

          1. 60
            Korky10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, by his own authority and witness of his own son Jesus Christ as spoken through the word of God. The bible is the only book ever to have stood the test of time and no one has ever been able to erase or destroy the word of God. My question again. What authority would prove the bible wrong?

            1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
              Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The bible doesnt have to be proven wrong. It has to be proven RIGHT.

              Can you prove the koran wrong? How about the ghita? Does that mean they are both right bercase you cant prove them wrong?

              Oh and by the way, there was never a global flood. Genesis is CLEARLY untrue.

              1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
                WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey! You might cut down the traffic to my hub. Keep that mum.

              2. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                proof vs persuasion
                Too many times people look for proof but what about persuasion.
                Thousands of theologians believe jesus existed.
                Thousands of historians believe jesus existed.
                1.5 million christians have no problem with jesus existing.
                If jesus lived as he said, the son of the father, then is a resurrection and almah birth hard to accept?
                The NT is birthed off the back of the OT including biblical prophesies fulfilled.
                IF the bible were a made up book by the minds of man, then why does it contain embarrassing information? Wouldn't it have been a whole lot more prudent to skip the creation of the world like so many other religious books? Would it not have been wiser to make the disciples seem more unlike knuckleheads and more like heroes - for instance the parts of Peter denying christ 3 times, when jesus spake of the temples destruction they misunderstood, etc. Many disciples leaving when jesus expounded concerning the passover meal (eating his flesh)?
                The bible contains much historical data and this demands a different kind of scrutiny than any other religious books. Archeology has done much to confirm the historical data of the bible. And the bible is not meager in its revealing scrutable geography, names and dates.
                Christianity is not a comfortable path. It changes lives and demands a commitment to it unlike other paths to enlightenment, one has to deny self and keep stringent principles. Yet flourished in spite of roman persecution even unto the deaths of devotees.
                Every other time a leader has been killed the movement ended but not so with Christianity, so there had/has to be more.
                There is far more textual evidence of Christianity than any other religion. Copies (not rewrites - but copies) of copies of copies.. these were well used and therefore speak of themselves as being useful to the cause, therefore we have NT in many other languages that if we lost the greek completely we could still make the NT from these other languages. There is so little textual information about alexander the great, Mithrasim, Josephus has only a few texts that date back in time, but the bible OT and NT has survived.
                To be a jesus follower in the midst of OT judiasm was to lose family, friends, jobs, and social credibility - yet many were converted.
                If one can read the stories of the bible and surmise an acceptable understanding of those stories, can one then be persuaded that perhaps they do not have all the answers but have enough to further investigate and even participate? Do we ever have all the answers at the beginning of something as compared to the end of something studied?
                food for thought.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Proof would have all humanity agreeing, while persuasion, like the persuasion you are offering shows that 1.5 million people will never agree with the rest of humanity, and will fight with their lives to make sure they remain divided against the rest. smile

                2. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Every single religion on the planet requires persuasion. Why? Because none of them can demonstrate thier religion to be true.

                  Persuasion is cheap.

            2. WD Curry 111 profile image60
              WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Good point. Are you putting off the hubs, or do you have an interest in that?

  28. tekken55 profile image60
    tekken55posted 5 years ago

    At some point in the distant pass there must have been nothing. How do you get something from nothing?????????

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why must there have been nothing? There's no point asking how you get something from nothing until you first establish that there actually was nothing.

  29. tekken55 profile image60
    tekken55posted 5 years ago

    what i am tryig to say is. where did the material come from to make the universe, atoms etc.

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe it always existed. Maybe it is eternal. Maybe time goes round in circles and therefore has no beginning or end.

      Who knows?

      1. 60
        Korky10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your right you have no idea!  Your lost and  Walking aimlessly in this world.
        Jesus is the way. Do not respond because you have no idea

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          roll

    2. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Big Bang theory says all the matter and energy in the universe were compacted into a tiny point(smaller than a pinhead, probably) of pure energy. Where that came from, nobody knows. Perhaps a Big Bang in reverse...

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        or a little bang?

        Who banged?

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Can we show that energy is borrowed and sometimes returned and sometimes not returned, in which case it becomes matter?

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure I understand what you mean by borrowed and returned. We can show in labs that energy can be transformed into matter-antimatter pairs, yes.

          One hitch is, we always see exactly 1 anti-matter particle for every particle. At some point in the big bang, there had to be 1 more matter particle than anti-matter particles... we don't know how that could happen yet.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A very common concept in physics. As long as the conservation of energy is maintained, it can be borrowed and returned ad nauseum.



            So what?

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I know about borrowing energy, but in reference to the big bang, a singularity of energy, was that what you were referring to?

              I simply asked for clarification on your question.

              1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
                WD Curry 111posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is a good point. Face it brother A Troubled Man . . . this guy has an extraordinary, analytical mind. He has a God given gift. Other than that, he has been working out and injecting steroids. We may amuse ourselves with a debate. We may be able to hold our own and think we are winning. At the end of the bout, we will watch the judges raise his hand and give him the belt. I wonder what his secret is?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol An undying penchant for hoisting his own petard. lol

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Of course, what did you think I was referring? If the BB started out as energy, it could have been borrowed and never returned, hence it expanded and cooled, eventually forming matter.

                1. emrldphx profile image59
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You said "Can we show that energy is borrowed and sometimes returned and sometimes not returned, in which case it becomes matter?"

                  You didn't specify what energy being borrowed from what. The energy couldn't have been borrowed in that sense, because there was nothing else to borrow it from. It's like saying the universe borrowed from itself and never returned it.

                  Only two situations make sense to me. One, the universe collapsed on itself, forming the singularity, and then exploded again. Two, something put that energy there.

  30. tekken55 profile image60
    tekken55posted 5 years ago

    does sound travel in a vacuum? no big bang, just a happening.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      'Big Bang' doesn't describe the sound. It describes the action. Like an explosion.

  31. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Typical Babble thumping answer : God dun it.

    It is explained in human written book with reference from stone tablet. Unfortunately god wanted kindle fire to be released after 6k or so years, any previous religion and civilizations are supposed to be discarded or ignored. Hail jesus, kill atheists, love Mary.

    1. 63
      wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Prior to the Moment of Reality Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, First Cause being the First Singularity to have meaning, to have relative, numerical, value, to carry any weigh, the Reality of Everything existing as a Steady State of Singularity, a State or Condition in which an untold number of Individualities, Indivisible Singularities existed with none being relative to another, each alone in the Emptiness of the undifferentiated Singularity of Time and of Space; Time, Space, and Motion, each existing without meaning; Cause and Effect, the Evolutionary Process not being a factor in the existence of the Reality of Anything.

      The State or Condition of the Reality of Everything, the Steady State of Singularity, a state in which an untold number of the Individual, of an Indivisible Singularity existed, a State in which nothing was readily apparent, nothing was measurable as to location or momentum in Time and Space, nothing having relative, numerical value, The Steady State of Singularity, the Reality of Everything existing without meaning.

      Prior to the Moment the Creation, the Creation of the Reality of First Cause it was Impossible for the Universe, Reality as we now know it to be to become a Manifest Reality; The Probability of the Universe, Reality as we now know it to be, to become Manifest Reality was made possible because of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Reality of First Cause being a product of a particular State or Condition was the First Singularity to have a dual quality, to have, relative, numerical, value, to have meaning, to carry any weight; the  relative value of the Reality of First Cause  lying in its Dual Quality.

      The Reality of First Cause being an Creation, was an  Effect born of an Affect, born of a State or Condition,  The Reality of First Cause being an Effect that became First Cause, the First in Series, being the beginning of, the direct cause of Space-Time, the Relativity of Time, Space and Motion, the Beginning, the Start, the First in a series of events that began the Process that made Manifest the Universe, the Reality of Everything as we know it to be, according to Natural, ordinary, the usual means, the Evolutionary Process born of the Dual Quality, Nature, of the Reality of First Cause, Cause and Effect.

  32. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    http://bestsmileys.com/hitting/3.gif

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like this. smile

    2. ThunderKeys profile image79
      ThunderKeysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why do they keep hitting each other?

    3. 63
      wayne92587posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner; explain yourself

      criticism welcome

 
working