So why is it so hard to believe God is.....

[HuskerShark]

Will your cornered market on humility allow you to respond to this post?

 

Really? Can you give me a critique of string theory, and how/why it doesn't explain the development of matter from nothing?

 

I'm all ears. Go.

 

Sure, I'll do that for you since you can't seem to grasp that concept. From skimming the site about string theory, it describes the development of matter from "elementary particles."

 

So now maybe you can answer a question for me, Mr. Know-it-all:

 

Where did those particles come from?

[HuskerShark]

Whether you believe in the Christian God or not, pure science will never be able to explain the existence of matter from absolutely nothing. Whether you believe in God, Allah, or even magic particles in space, at some point, a higher power was involved.

[sd'sker]

Whether you believe in the Christian God or not, pure science will never be able to explain the existence of matter from absolutely nothing. Whether you believe in God, Allah, or even magic particles in space, at some point, a higher power was involved.

you have to realize the inherent flaw in that argument. do you not? what created the creator then? you run into the same problem, but you rely on faith. a concept that rewards unquestioning belief in something and the stronger you believe is something and the less believable it is, the better.

 

and you say that pure science will never be able to explain the existence of matter from absolutely nothing just like the church used to that science will never be able to prove that the earth is round.

[Landlord]

Whether you believe in the Christian God or not, pure science will never be able to explain the existence of matter from absolutely nothing. Whether you believe in God, Allah, or even magic particles in space, at some point, a higher power was involved.

you have to realize the inherent flaw in that argument. do you not? what created the creator then? you run into the same problem, but you rely on faith. a concept that rewards unquestioning belief in something and the stronger you believe is something and the less believable it is, the better.

 

and you say that pure science will never be able to explain the existence of matter from absolutely nothing just like the church used to that science will never be able to prove that the earth is round.

 

 

That's not a flaw at all. If a Creator exists, that means they created the boundaries of space and time, and thus, are not subject to them. A Creator would be eternal, or at least would have some other time-based attribute that we are incapable of understanding, much in the same way that if cartoon characters were sentient, they wouldn't be able to understand how their drawers were not animated or limited to 24.9 frames per second.

[carlfense]

It's utterly worthless as an illustration. I can dream up any kind of story I want that proves my point by having caricature characters do what I think is right or reasonable. It's stupid and silly to think that illustrates anything.

But it hits all the high points . . . the smart but humble religious student . . . the arrogant liberal professor . . . it might not be true, per se, but it feels right.

[carlfense]

My room in the school sits right next to the science room. During my prep period one day, I heard the science teacher explaining to the class "how matter was created" and "how the earth was created." His explanation was something along the lines of "There were the gobs of ooze bouncing around so fast that BOOM! It created the earth."

 

Explain to me how exactly that is science based....

 

I realize that people who try to think scientifically usually immediately expel the notion of any higher power at work, but it's pretty laughable how things such as creation are taught in schools.

So . . . based entirely an apparently incompetent teacher . . . you've decided that science and religion are roughly the same?

[carlfense]

a wise man once said, "check yourself, before you wreck yourself"...

I, too, revere the wisdom of the Cube.

[sd'sker]

That's not a flaw at all. If a Creator exists, that means they created the boundaries of space and time, and thus, are not subject to them. A Creator would be eternal, or at least would have some other time-based attribute that we are incapable of understanding, much in the same way that if cartoon characters were sentient, they wouldn't be able to understand how their drawers were not animated or limited to 24.9 frames per second.

does the creator ever wonder who created him?

[knapplc]

Will your cornered market on humility allow you to respond to this post?

 

Really? Can you give me a critique of string theory, and how/why it doesn't explain the development of matter from nothing?

 

I'm all ears. Go.

 

Sure, I'll do that for you since you can't seem to grasp that concept. From skimming the site about string theory, it describes the development of matter from "elementary particles."

 

So now maybe you can answer a question for me, Mr. Know-it-all:

 

Where did those particles come from?

 

Sorry, I couldn't respond very quickly because I had to take some time out to laugh and laugh. That's how we do it, right JJ?

 

OK, so you skimmed a site on the concept of String Theory, and you're already discarding it. But you're explaining it to me, because I "can't grasp it." That's not how Jesus taught you to interact with your neighbor, but we'll ignore how easily you discard your faith when it doesn't suit you for the moment.

 

To answer your question, the particles came from near-massless building blocks which have the ability to transmute from energy to mass. They can combine and separate to form other particles, which can then form yet other particles. Depending on your grasp of physics, we can discuss the definition of matter and sub-matter, and what happens when you define the basic building blocks of the universe to their most finite solutions, but if your knowledge of physics and origin theory is a simple skimming of a page for a few minutes, such a discussion would be kind of worthless.

 

So, to make it easier, we can basically say that matter is a form of energy, and at its most basic definition, matter is not a finite point existing in the three dimensions we're familiar with, but rather a multidimensional bit of energy nearly impossibly small (by our reckoning) and which exists not only in one place (as defined by three dimensions) but in many places at once, including many dimensions (up to 26, as I recall). Now, such a bit of energy is necessarily hard to define, but they math/physics support this, and this concept is peer-reviewed and supportable. So we can take this as fact, barring new information - much like Einstein's Theory of Relativity was taken as fact until new information (String Theory being the latest derivative) came along.

 

Our bit of energy, which is massless, can combine with other bits to become a mass. Mass being, at its most basic level, energy, this isn't a difficult idea to grasp. From this massless energy you have different particles being formed and reformed in the primordial nothing, and out of that sprang sustainable bits such as quarks, muons, nuons, gluons and the like. One of these particles was, in theory, something we're calling a graviton today. Gravitons are the fundamental basis for gravity, and once gravitons formed, you suddenly had something that could warp the matrix around it. From there... BANG.

 

Once that warp happens, you have a place for the various particles to interact. That place becomes a space, and those particles agglomerate from the various bits of energy around them, and suddenly your place becomes definable, and you have what we call the universe today.

 

That's the basic, layman's description of my understanding of String Theory. I will not remotely pretend to grasp the physics behind this, nor will I pretend I fully grasp the definitions used or the why of it all. But I don't have to grasp it for it to be true - someone does (Brian Greene, for one, Stephen Hawking for another) and it's entirely logical. It's been picked at and prodded and dissected for two decades (more than that if you count its progenitor, Einstein's Theory of Relativity), and as we move forward the science and physics surrounding this becomes better understood. That's what we're doing at CERN with the LHC.

[Landlord]

That's not a flaw at all. If a Creator exists, that means they created the boundaries of space and time, and thus, are not subject to them. A Creator would be eternal, or at least would have some other time-based attribute that we are incapable of understanding, much in the same way that if cartoon characters were sentient, they wouldn't be able to understand how their drawers were not animated or limited to 24.9 frames per second.

does the creator ever wonder who created him?

 

 

no....

[Husker_x]

knapp, you remind me of a gossipy high school girl. Whenever you feel threatened, your first defense is to resort to cheap put-downs and snobby insults. I've never met a more pretentious, holier-than-thou person in my life.

 

But it's ok to berate some one who doesn't share your beliefs...

 

a wise man once said, "check yourself, before you wreck yourself"...

 

It's better to come out and say it rather than making snide remarks about others with the intention of demeaning them.

 

There's a little thing called humility that might serve both of you well.

 

Huskershark, as someone who started off basically in your position--having very little knowledge about science, the universe, or the voluminous body of research that has gone into constructing our theories and models of reality--to someone in knapplc's position of debating this stuff with people like I used to be, I can tell you firsthand how frustrating it is to have these discussions. I've had many meaningful conversations with Christians, and while I don't find that the rationality of their argument changes much from person to person regardless of their level of study, it's always and in every case easier and less hostile when the person in question has done some basic research into their own faith and what science has to say about our universe. If you fail to do that work--to really look at your own religion skeptically, or to consider the opposing view--you leave your opponent no alternative but to be blunt.

 

You give yourself away when you phrase things like:

 

My room in the school sits right next to the science room. During my prep period one day, I heard the science teacher explaining to the class "how matter was created" and "how the earth was created." His explanation was something along the lines of "There were the gobs of ooze bouncing around so fast that BOOM! It created the earth."

 

As if a (high/middle?) school teacher is the supreme authority on this issue. No self-respecting scientist would claim what you heard (or half heard, since you were in the other room) is the entire story. It's not even the story. It's an analogy. When you then latch onto one of the weakest conceivable accounts of the earth's formation as if it were the expert consensus, you have (knowingly or otherwise) jettisoned your own credibility. It's lazy. It's uneducated. It's not even worth our time to correct it. I don't think anyone doubts your able to learn about this stuff, but based on what I've read from you, there's very little reason to think you've actually taken the time to try. Without that effort, there's no fruitful discussion to be had. Your posts will continue to come off as self-justifying and misinformed.

 

I hope this isn't just more 'holier-than-thou' screed. I've been in your shoes science-wise. I only hope you won't let yourself be content with the understanding you've represented here.

[HuskerShark]

Will your cornered market on humility allow you to respond to this post?

 

Really? Can you give me a critique of string theory, and how/why it doesn't explain the development of matter from nothing?

 

I'm all ears. Go.

 

Sure, I'll do that for you since you can't seem to grasp that concept. From skimming the site about string theory, it describes the development of matter from "elementary particles."

 

So now maybe you can answer a question for me, Mr. Know-it-all:

 

Where did those particles come from?

 

Sorry, I couldn't respond very quickly because I had to take some time out to laugh and laugh. That's how we do it, right JJ?

 

OK, so you skimmed a site on the concept of String Theory, and you're already discarding it. But you're explaining it to me, because I "can't grasp it." That's not how Jesus taught you to interact with your neighbor, but we'll ignore how easily you discard your faith when it doesn't suit you for the moment.

 

To answer your question, the particles came from near-massless building blocks which have the ability to transmute from energy to mass.

 

Okay, so where'd those building blocks come from?

[knapplc]

 

To answer your question, the particles came from near-massless building blocks which have the ability to transmute from energy to mass.

 

Okay, so where'd those building blocks come from?

 

 

To answer your question, the particles came from near-massless building blocks which have the ability to transmute from energy to mass. They can combine and separate to form other particles, which can then form yet other particles. Depending on your grasp of physics, we can discuss the definition of matter and sub-matter, and what happens when you define the basic building blocks of the universe to their most finite solutions, but if your knowledge of physics and origin theory is a simple skimming of a page for a few minutes, such a discussion would be kind of worthless.

 

So, to make it easier, we can basically say that matter is a form of energy, and at its most basic definition, matter is not a finite point existing in the three dimensions we're familiar with, but rather a multidimensional bit of energy nearly impossibly small (by our reckoning) and which exists not only in one place (as defined by three dimensions) but in many places at once, including many dimensions (up to 26, as I recall). Now, such a bit of energy is necessarily hard to define, but they math/physics support this, and this concept is peer-reviewed and supportable. So we can take this as fact, barring new information - much like Einstein's Theory of Relativity was taken as fact until new information (String Theory being the latest derivative) came along.

 

Our bit of energy, which is massless, can combine with other bits to become a mass. Mass being, at its most basic level, energy, this isn't a difficult idea to grasp. From this massless energy you have different particles being formed and reformed in the primordial nothing, and out of that sprang sustainable bits such as quarks, muons, nuons, gluons and the like. One of these particles was, in theory, something we're calling a graviton today. Gravitons are the fundamental basis for gravity, and once gravitons formed, you suddenly had something that could warp the matrix around it. From there... BANG.

 

Once that warp happens, you have a place for the various particles to interact. That place becomes a space, and those particles agglomerate from the various bits of energy around them, and suddenly your place becomes definable, and you have what we call the universe today.

 

That's the basic, layman's description of my understanding of String Theory. I will not remotely pretend to grasp the physics behind this, nor will I pretend I fully grasp the definitions used or the why of it all. But I don't have to grasp it for it to be true - someone does (Brian Greene, for one, Stephen Hawking for another) and it's entirely logical. It's been picked at and prodded and dissected for two decades (more than that if you count its progenitor, Einstein's Theory of Relativity), and as we move forward the science and physics surrounding this becomes better understood. That's what we're doing at CERN with the LHC.

[HuskerShark]

That's not how Jesus taught you to interact with your neighbor, but we'll ignore how easily you discard your faith when it doesn't suit you for the moment.

 

So responding to you with the same amount of respect that you have shown toward me is un-Christian? Hmmm.... It must be impossible to live up to your standard of "what a Christian should act like."

 

Oh well I guess... Thankfully, I have a savior who gave His own life so that I don't have to be eternally punished for such an outrageous outburst.

 

 

 

 

Cute theory by the way.

[knapplc]

The tangent this thread is taking is this: Science cannot fully explain at this moment exactly how everything came to be - therefore, God.

 

But of course this isn't remotely true. We're on the path, not at the destination. We're finding this stuff out as we go. The Scientific Method as we know it today didn't even exist until the 17th century. We didn't know what electricity was until the 18th century. We couldn't harness it until the 19th century. But because we didn't know the uses and theory behind electricity in the 16th century does not mean that it was unobtainable knowledge. It meant that we had a way to go. And when we discovered the nature of electricity, that didn't mean we couldn't harness it, it meant we had a way to go.

 

And today, because we don't know every answer to how/why the universe exists, that doesn't mean the theories and physics we've developed aren't viable - it means we have a way to go.

 

Lack of intricate knowledge of the foundation of the universe is not evidence of God. It is evidence of our lack of knowledge. But we'll get there. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the knowledge is out there.