How many foreign languages do you speak?

It was quieter back then, before the physics of sound.

 

Good job, Xz, but I missed this quote by Frigo:

Which doesn't really seem to agree with the first law of thermodynamics (at least not if you exchange the "exist" to create, because that was really what we were talking about back then and it makes no sense for someone to state that "God exists 'by itself'").

If I misread your post, Frigo, doesn't my point about the Universe not creating itself according to the first law of thermodynamics still hold? Which makes your extremely intelligent and logical post about the creation of God 1, God 2 and God 3 completely meaningless.

So do (you?) atheists believe that things, like energy, could just create themselves?

 

My main belief about God is that he exists as an entity above physics, physics being his rules for this experiment.

 

I believe planets are made through debris and different materials, created as a result of the big bang, simply clumping together. Extremely slowly. Could be wrong though, I wasn't really paying that close attention when that program was on national geographic.

 

Large star explodes and sends debris out. Debris then pulls itself together into planets and stuff.

 

I'm partial to the "Pocket Universe" idea myself. As a black hole reaches a certain mass, a tear is created in the space-time continum and a wormhole of sorts is created. The end of this then expands rapidly with whatever matter manages to make it to the wormhole instead of being crushed by the black hole and thus ultimately creates a new universe.

The major flaw with this idea is - Where did that first universe come from?

 

I have a question... if we were to calculate the mass of all the matter in the universe, including the mass of all black holes, obviously the sum would be tremendous, correct?

Einstein's theory of relativity is only a theory due to several specific situations, one of which being a black hole. The singularity is hypothetically a point where no known physical laws apply, although that cannot be proven, but suffice to say when time dilates to infinity, etc, everything else might get a little screwed up.

The mass required for a black hole is indeed tremendous, but not as great as that of the ENTIRE universe. Imagine, if you will, the ENTIRE universe contained inside a single singularity, no pun intended. Such a singularity, when it ruptured, would send energy out in an explosion so large it could destroy a universe. Or create one. If all the matter of the universe were condensced to a single infintesimal point, the question of exactly how it got there can only be answered physically that it happened as a result of another, FAR larger black whole in some other universe, as a result of some technological side affect using machinery we could not hope of presently understanding, or divine intervention. We could argue that one until the cows come home and the sheep leave for vacation, and still be no nearer a conclusion, but whatever the reason, I know what the result is. Mmmm, beeeer.

 

The way I see it, the things were never created at any one point. They simply were.
The law of conservation of matter, and the law of conservation of energy state, quite simply, that neither can be created or destroyed. It can be reduced, sure, but it just turns into something else when the day is done.
The question becomes, then, where did all of the matter and energy come from?
Hell, it could have always been there. We might be in a cyclical universe, where everything expands to a point, and then collapses upon itself in regular intervals. And if you're about to say something along the lines of, "But there's no way to know that the universe has enough matter and energy to collapse upon itself."
Well, there's no way if knowing that won't happen. The first person who can definitively tell me how much crap there is in the universe will get a cookie.

 

I bet somebody here have already played Mage: The ascension?

Well, if anybody hasn´t, their theory of the universe is that Everything is created from "quintessence", the brute state of all existence.

According to them, the quintessence took and still takes form from the willpower and the common sense, just like the "colletive thinking". (But if you ask me from where did this original colletive thinking came from, then I would´t exacly have the answer, since Im not a M: tA geek, but I believe that it is stipulated that the first beings weren´t exacly "living bengs" and more like "meanings", born from the enthropic state of the brute quintessence, like "rage", wich eventually created the chaotic base for the cosmos. And that, my friends, was a big parenthesis. ).

And Initially the world was a pretty "magic" one, with the willpower of anything already being able to distort the very fabric of existence. Eventually, with the rise of the "sentient beings", the aforementioned "common sense" began to grow in intensity, so, common theories like "you can´t fly without wings" started to really become true, and the quintessence began to be bent into a "weave", wich is pretty much our "common physics".

Nowadays our sheer willpower can hardly affect the cosmos, because the weave is very, VERY strong. Only a mage, a believer who can confidently actively put aside all logic and physics is able to do that, and still, under some circunstances that I am sure no one is really interested in hearing. That would explain why the past looks so "mystic"; It forms a bizarre prospect in wich those legends are not forged through sheer ignorance, and that they were really true, in a time when the weave weren´t so strong.

So, to cut a long story short: The quintessence ALWAYS existed, Just as Grossenschwamm(man, u really gotta tell me from where did that name came from) suggested. And the universe as it is exists because he WANTED TO. It is a pretty phylosophical and abstract explanation, but in mage, science is just a consequence of the weave, it cannot be used to explain something that existed before even the weave was created.

I don´t totally believe that, but it´s at least quite cool to use in a RPG scenario.

 

Prove it. Oh wait, actually I don't care, don't believe everything, or really anything, you see in a video game kid, they aren't made to be factually accurate.

 

Entropy is reversable young padawan, all one needs to do is try.

 

Cool, it´s the second time people reject what I say, and then say the same thing.

 

Actually that was exactly pretty much the answer I wanted, and is pretty close to what I believe myself.

Since my first point with this whole thing was to point out Frigo's stupidity when claiming that God 2 (created by God 3) had to have created God and then going on to say that religious people can't accept that the universe exists "by itself" when they accept that God does.

I hope that this makes sense outside my head too.