Comments on MothRust: Movie and Myth: Has the universe always been here in some form, or...

The big bang and the world always being there are ...

2009-03-03T12:46:00.000+10:00

The big bang and the world always being there are only therios they havnt actuly been proved they just seem like logical therios (and i can't really say which 1 is right) when studied, and as for boobs lol there not nessicerely nice (what about gay people?) they just look nice to sum people (like me lol) like for exsample a dog will normally be attracted to another dog but we don't find a dog attractive (well sum messed up people probaly do), i don't think there is even such thing as attractive its just what people are attracted to, i don't believe in god, when i see the bibble i just see man made written all over it, and i would find life only being uniqe to earth very unlikly, i dno about ufo's an stuff but there will be sum life out there sum where intelligent or not just because sumthings alien doesn't really mean green slime and abductions an ufo's and stuff, i like this guy as his logic relates a lot to mine, sum people never think properly i don't really have a prob with religes people buts its so anoying how sum of them think that all good and evil is based on believe in god and call atheists stupid becuz we don't believe what they believe, and even if there is a god why would he condem lots of good people to hell to be burned in everlasting flames and reapetly riped apart by demons just because we didn't believe in his existence when there is absulotly no proof of him what so ever, and in the bibble it sais the world is only 6000 yrs old? what about all the fosils, did he put them in the ground for a laugh or somin? if the god from the bibble is real then hes pretty pathetic for all that, and i don't really know what happans when u die but ur consiness is caused by the brian and when u die ur brain dies so i think logicly ur consiness would just sease i know its hard to imagen but u never know, my dads died during surgery before but was resusitated (brought bk within 15 mins or somin) an he sais it was just blank nothing no consiness no memory it was instant to him but if u died u would even know anythin there would be nothin u would'nt even be able to think

"if our programming didn't allow"

who's doi...

2009-01-07T01:34:00.000+10:00

"if our programming didn't allow"

who's doing the programming?

One possible explanation for the appearance of the...

2007-07-08T17:49:00.000+10:00

One possible explanation for the appearance of the universe (assuming it began) is a vacuum fluctuation. If you haven't heard of this, have you heard of virtual particles? The former gives rise to the latter. Particles can--and have shown to--pop into existence from out of the blue. The important thing about this, though, is that their energy always totals zero. In other words, they don't add to or take away from the universe's energy. A negative charge pops up simultaneously with a positive charge. No harm done.

This phenomenon has been cited by some physicists and/or cosmologists as being a reasonable answer to the question of where the universe came from, and especially the question of why matter is not uniform. Unfortunately, at this point, it really is just speculation. All we can say for certain is that it appears--from the movement of galaxies--that everything was once clumped together.

As fascinating as knowing about what actually occurred 13-15 billion years ago is, it's not something to get hung up on, especially for atheists, since this particular argument from origins isn't necessary for debate. It's just really interesting to think about. :)

One of the knottiest problems in all of cosmology ...

2007-07-01T17:15:00.000+10:00

One of the knottiest problems in all of cosmology (with deep implications for theology and metaphysics) is why our universe is structured the way it is and what that particular configuration of laws and constants of nature means. As you will see in reading this brilliant summation and classification of the numerous answers to the question — “Why This Universe?” — there are many well-thought out answers but little consensus among the experts about which one is the most likely to be true. Here we see science on the borderlands between, say, physics and metaphysics, between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation. In the 15 years of publishing Skeptic magazine, I believe this is one of the most important articles we have ever published. Enjoy.
—Michael Shermer, Publisher

DOWNLOAD "Why This Universe"
article by Robert Kuhn (PDF)
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-27.htm

I like your observation on the universe. Some of t...

2007-06-28T00:04:00.000+10:00

I like your observation on the universe. Some of these interesting blogs people put out could be a book...

No worries. I'm not really arguing and I'm hoping ...

2007-06-26T11:37:00.000+10:00

No worries. I'm not really arguing and I'm hoping not to sound dismissive. I am not 'read up' enough to really go to much further. I was just putting it out there as I see it at the moment. Exploring at bit and seeing what other people think... so thanks for your thoughts and I'll add that book to my list of 'one day reads'... as long as it can be downloaded ;-P

I suppose I could write off the universe as god, but I'd have to say that 'he' would be a bit passive, in my opinion.

(I was going to add for the sake of the 'observers...

2007-06-26T11:35:00.000+10:00

(I was going to add for the sake of the 'observers' the obvious point that Christians would say that the 'something' that always existed was God.)

Have you read any of Ravi Zacharias' stuff yet? I'd be interested in your overall reaction to 'Can Man Live Without God'. I found it convincing and quite powerful, but I'm already basically a 'convert' to his perspective.

What I'm thinking is that magic doesn't exist. Per...

2007-06-26T11:34:00.000+10:00

What I'm thinking is that magic doesn't exist. Personal opinion and philosophy granted. Looking at the universe in the simple way in which I have done is looking at it in the same way that if I drop a rock, it never hovers in the air. If you crush it, then the sand will equal the matter it already had, if you melt it, the matter will still be equally proportioned. People can't walk on water and the planet is moving and spinning. I didn't really harbour on the idea that these things disprove god, but they certainly don't disprove my invisible pink unicorn either. I was really throwing an idea out there that it's imaginable that this creation is arguably not actually created. It's just moss gathering on a rolling stone.

FWIW... Physics has identified "fundamental forces...

2007-06-26T11:33:00.000+10:00

FWIW... Physics has identified "fundamental forces" other than gravity. If memory serves correctly, physicists currently identify four, one of them being gravity, but I'm happy to be corrected. Also, I think you'll find that science says that it's the combined total of matter and energy that's considered constant at this point in the history of the universe (e = mc2, stellar creation of matter and all that).

My understanding of what I've read of astrophysics is that science currently leads us as far as the singularity that was at the origin of the current "big bang", where there is doubt that the current laws of physics applied. My understanding of what I've read about the philosophy of science is that ideas about anything beyond that singularity are non-scientific speculation. In the language of Karl Popper, as far as I understand, they are not currently disprovable.

Are you sayingthat scientific evidencenow disprove...

2007-06-26T09:55:00.000+10:00

Are you sayingthat scientific evidencenow disproves "big bang" cosmology, or that the evidence now leads to adifferent model to better explain the data? (I sure would have thought that would be publicised in a way that evenIcouldn't miss!!)

Not at all, but there's good reason to think that the big bang is plural and that it will happen again in a long long time and has done many times before. I am saying that science doesn't lend to the idea that there was once nothing and then 'puff' something. The I dream of Jeannie scenario, or god, or magic man scenario just isn't rational. God comes into the picture if you believe there was once nothing and then something, because that's what a book said that was written before toilet paper came out on rolls.

Science has no reason to believe there ever was 'nothing' and I personally find it more believable to think there was always 'something' rather than 'nothing then something'. But as I said in my article, I empathise with people who prefer to believe that a magic man breathed the universe out in a verbal sound 6000 years ago - that's a pretty easy way out, and is much more fun.

The continuously expanding and collapsing universe idea is based on two basic principals:

1. Gravity and attraction are the fundamental forces governing all matter.
2. The amount of matter in the universe is constant.

Our understanding of the universe this world and e...

2007-06-26T09:54:00.000+10:00

Our understanding of the universe this world and everything on it and our understanding of ourselves and our thinking process and our mind is always changing. It's impossible to know everything all at once. "

Example of the cow:

"One person sees a cow the other kills the cow and a third cooks the cow and a forth eats the cow a fifth wears the cow and a six gives the cow away to a mate as a gift. Not to mention each and every step that it takes to make that cow into a pair of boots or a purse or a belt."

And that's just our very simple understanding of a cow and that took thousands of years for just a few cultures that had cows to see.

Now the universe is a little more complicated than a cow.

Cute rave, but OK I'll nibble the bait. I'm probab...

2007-06-26T09:49:00.000+10:00

Cute rave, but OK I'll nibble the bait. I'm probably taking you too seriously, but ... Are you saying that scientific evidence now disproves "big bang" cosmology, or that the evidence now leads to a different model to better explain the data? (I sure would have thought that would be publicised in a way that even I couldn't miss!! )

I think when the penis is doing its job it can't a...

2007-06-26T09:24:00.000+10:00

I think when the penis is doing its job it can't actually be seen, but not everyone thinks it's ugly, do they? Not as ugly as toads.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you somehow ...

2007-06-26T00:30:00.000+10:00

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you somehow managed to get a few boob remarks into a blog about creationism.

I am surprised, but I probably shouldn't be. :P

How do you explain the absolute ugliness of the male penis then??