Our Universe

[PhAraOH]

Who agrees with the big bang theory and who doesnt? those who don't, what do you think happened?
I'd like to hear what some of you have to say

[0zzy]

I agree with the big bang theory, but what created that? and what created that?

[Mars Bars]

God

[GRAWRG.]

rofldick @ god. if you believe in a god, god is science. he didnt bowl with planets and stars to arrange the universe the way that it is. but you can believe god to be the force that started it all.

im no scientist, but i find the big bang hard to deny. ja, its a theory, but its a widely accepted one among people far more intelligent and informed on the topic than i am, lol. and it makes more sense to me than the alternative[s?].

[Mars Bars]

Screw you GRAWRG, sorry your atheist, but don't fudge with other people's beliefs. Darn Communist

[omlow]

"if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people"

don't go there grawrgy he might get vicious.

[Moleman]

Our universe had a beginning.

What was there before the beginning?

Where did it come from?

[omlow]

Screw you GRAWRG, sorry your atheist, but don't fudge with other people's beliefs. Darn Communist

this makes me laugh.

"if you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people"

don't go there grawrgy he might get vicious.

Whats wrong with religion? Is having a reason to do a sense of good in life a bad thing?

nothing at all wrong with religion. just like there's nothing at all wrong with communism.

it's the people who run it and people who are involved with it that i have a problem with, not religion/communism itsself.

in fact, religion and communism are a very interesting thing. other than the fact one was made as a structure by which to build a society and the other is a way of achieving eternal life (or so they claim), christianity and communism are extremely similar.

communism and religion on their own are both VERY good things, it's just past human error has made them both a bit infamous amongst non-believers/non-communists.

/begin debate
/hijack thread

[MadAce]

All you people who ask "what was there before the beginning of time" really illustrate the limitations of human imagination.

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

[omlow]

All you people who ask "what was there before the beginning of time" really illustrate the limitations of human imagination.

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

<3

[Moleman]

All you people who ask "what was there before the beginning of time" really illustrate the limitations of human imagination.

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

You do realise that your question itself is a perfect example of 'the limitations of human imagination'!!

[MadAce]

All you people who ask "what was there before the beginning of time" really illustrate the limitations of human imagination.

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

You do realise that your question itself is a perfect example of 'the limitations of human imagination'!!

Yes, that's my point exactly.

However, my example is a lot more poignant than yours.

[Moleman]

All you people who ask "what was there before the beginning of time" really illustrate the limitations of human imagination.

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

You do realise that your question itself is a perfect example of 'the limitations of human imagination'!!

Yes, that's my point exactly.

However, my example is a lot more poignant than yours.

Not an attempt to answer the question though!

Of course I realise that time as a concept could not exist before the universe came into being however the question 'what was before the beginning' is still a legitimate question.

[MadAce]

Of course I realise that time as a concept could not exist before the universe came into being however the question 'what was before the beginning' is still a legitimate question.

It really isn't.

It's like discussing trees and shrubs and then asking what trees grow in outer space. (crude analogy, I know)


One can only ask what was after the beginning. You couldn't even say there was "nothing" before the beginning because there wasn't even a "before".

For such deterministic and linear creatures such as ourselves it's pretty torturous to ask these kinds of questions.

[Moleman]

Of course I realise that time as a concept could not exist before the universe came into being however the question 'what was before the beginning' is still a legitimate question.

It really isn't.

It's like discussing trees and shrubs and then asking what trees grow in outer space. (crude analogy, I know)


One can only ask what was after the beginning. You couldn't even say there was "nothing" before the beginning because there wasn't even a "before".

For such deterministic and linear creatures such as ourselves it's pretty torturous to ask these kinds of questions.

It really is!

Also, is it torturous to ask these kind of questions or simply uncomfortable!

[MadAce]

It really is!

Also, is it torturous to ask these kind of questions or simply uncomfortable!

If you think it over, it's torturous. If you don't, no problem.



And I repeat, it really isn't.


I'd like you to explain to me how there is a "before" if time doesn't exist.

[Moleman]

It really is!

Also, is it torturous to ask these kind of questions or simply uncomfortable!

If you think it over, it's torturous. If you don't, no problem.



And I repeat, it really isn't.


I'd like you to explain to me how there is a "before" if time doesn't exist.

Time is the only reference that we can understand, after all we are creatures of time!

Though it may not be strictly accurate to phrase the question, ' what was before the big bang' you still understand the question.

To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

If you really have no interest in the question, then that's ok.

[MadAce]

It really is!

Also, is it torturous to ask these kind of questions or simply uncomfortable!

If you think it over, it's torturous. If you don't, no problem.



And I repeat, it really isn't.


I'd like you to explain to me how there is a "before" if time doesn't exist.

Time is the only reference that we can understand, after all we are creatures of time!

Though it may not be strictly accurate to phrase the question, ' what was before the big bang' you still understand the question.

To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

If you really have no interest in the question, then that's ok.

I have a lot of interest in the question. From a psychological POV. Not from a cosmological one.

The fact that we "understand" the question is the problem that stops us from understanding the answer.

The latter sentence might seem to be a platitude, but it really isn't. An excellent example of a real platitude:

"we are creatures of time

[ygvbBubblez]

Don't agree, I kinda think that theory is one of the biggest epic fails ever.

[MadAce]

Don't agree, I kinda think that theory is one of the biggest epic fails ever.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's... *sigh* fail.

[Moleman]

The latter sentence might seem to be a platitude, but it really isn't. An excellent example of a real platitude:

"we are creatures of time

Thats not an excellent example of a real platitude, this is!

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

Also, I have no interest at all in the psychological POV, just an answer to the question.

[MadAce]

Thats not an excellent example of a real platitude, this is!

No, it's not. Look up the meaning of a platitude.

Also, I have no interest at all in the psychological POV, just an answer to the question.

It's an inherently nonsensical question. It's a contradictus in terminus. There simply wasn't a "before". Which isn't the same as saying that there wasn't something, although "wasn't" doesn't apply to this situation.

Stop asking what was written on a piece of paper before the piece of paper even existed and ask a real question.

[Moleman]

Platitude

–noun
1.
a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound.

I humbly suggest that the following fits the bill nicely!

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

I'm not playing the semantics game with you Madace, you've got more patience for it than I have.

[JesusRocks765]

God did

End of Disscussion

Im with Mars Bars ALL THE WAY on this one

take your disgusting athiesm away grawrg

[DaPirate]

God did

End of Disscussion

Im with Mars Bars ALL THE WAY on this one

take your disgusting athiesm away grawrg

[nine-breaker]

Im on my droid at work with a 15 minute break... I will correct you all when I get back home

[omlow]

god doesn't exist.

[MadAce]

Platitude

–noun
1.
a flat, dull, or trite remark, especially one uttered as if it were fresh or profound.

I humbly suggest that the following fits the bill nicely!

How can there be a before if there isn't time?

I'm not playing the semantics game with you Madace, you've got more patience for it than I have.

And you're not very good at it either.

What you're quoting is unlikely to be a platitude. It's a question and not a remark.

If you want to see a real platitude:

"we are creatures of time"

That's a remark. Without actual meaning or significance, but attempted to sound otherwise by for example the word "creature".

[Moleman]

It's a rhetorical question at best and in my opinion is no less platitudinous than my 'creatures' remark.

I don't waste my time arguing semantics so you don't know how good or otherwise I am at playing the game.

You won't get me to bite, I've been here too long!

EDIT: I'm on my iPhone so not going to waste my time getting all the quotes in the right places, I'm sure you can work it out!

[MadAce]

It's a rhetorical question at best and in my opinion is no less platitudinous than my 'creatures' remark.

I don't waste my time arguing semantics so you don't know how good or otherwise I am at playing the game.

EDIT: I'm on my iPhone so not going to waste my time getting all the quotes in the right places, I'm sure you can work it out!

The question isn't rhetorical.

It's perfectly possible to answer the question and I more or less expect an answer as it is needed to further the discussion.

Frankly you'r opinion doesn't really change the basic meanings of words.


As for you not "biting"...


You're the one who started arguing semantics because you could't swallow my "platitude" remark.

Thats not an excellent example of a real platitude, this is!

Remember?