Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While it may be a plausible assumption to say that the 'Big Bang' did, in fact, occur and resulted in the myriad of stars in the galaxies we can see, to say that it 'created' the Universe would be incorrect. It was an event which happened within the Universe, a small and insignificant event in the cosmic scheme of infinite Time and Space.
)
If I were to ask you how to create a cake, you would probably answer by telling me to add eggs, shortening, flour and sugar into a bowl, then bake it.
You probably wouldn't answer by explaining how to grow the wheat or how to raise chickens to lay the eggs.
By that same reasoning, the big bang created the universe, even though that explanation doesn't describe how the universes' "ingredients" came into being.
But just as the ingredients existed prior to the cake being created, so too did the "ingredients" that formed the universe.
how can you be spiritual without believing you have a spirit? There are different types of yoga, some are more focused on physical and some more spiritual but the spiritual involves a connection with forces of the universe, and it is through this in my opinion is seeking a connection with God without defining it as such. It does go on in your head as well imo 'mind body and spirit' all very connected
We are in a circular argument here. It is assumed that spiritual implies a spirit and that connection with the forces of the universe are requires an a priori supposition of forces of the universe' to link with before we even know that is what is going on. All that might be just what is natural to humans. We don't know for sure before some research has been done but it is only logical that we don't opt for one theory over the other before we know.
That might be the case but even a spirit (if we have one - whatever is meant by that) does not mean that a 'god' exists. A spirit might be as much part of our evolved bodies as our reactions to stimuli, thoughts and hormonal reactrons. connection with the 'forces of the universe' may be no more to do with a 'god' than listening to radio waves or loking at light waves.
You see, that you are taking an awful lot for granted is support of this god - concept. I accept that, until the research is done, the therapeutic effects can be used in a religious context. But that in itself, is no reason why the god - concept should be believed without good reason.
But note: ""That suggests that religion is not a special case of a belief system, but evolved along with other belief and social cognitive abilities,"
I quite agree. Thinking about these abstracts certainly stimulates the grey cells, but it is questions about it rather that unquestioning acceptance on faith that does the stimulation.
You will also note that there is not yet a 'control'; that other belief - systems (they were evidently starting of with Biblegod) equally stimulated the 'god - spot' and then, presumably, other mentally demanding questions would stimulate the 'god - spot'. In which case the term 'God - spot seems a very poor choice of terminology and perhaps 'intellect spot' might be better.
But note: ""That suggests that religion is not a special case of a belief system, but evolved along with other belief and social cognitive abilities,"
I quite agree. Thinking about these abstracts certainly stimulates the grey cells, but it is questions about it rather that unquestioning acceptance on faith that does the stimulation.
You will also note that there is not yet a 'control'; that other belief - systems (they were evidently starting of with Biblegod) equally stimulated the 'god - spot' and then, presumably, other mentally demanding questions would stimulate the 'god - spot'. In which case the term 'God - spot seems a very poor choice of terminology and perhaps 'intellect spot' might be better.
If one leads a religious/spiritual life though the 'spot' is regurally exercised agree?
If I were to ask you how to create a cake, you would probably answer by telling me to add eggs, shortening, flour and sugar into a bowl, then bake it.
You probably wouldn't answer by explaining how to grow the wheat or how to raise chickens to lay the eggs.
By that same reasoning, the big bang created the universe, even though that explanation doesn't describe how the universes' "ingredients" came into being.
But just as the ingredients existed prior to the cake being created, so too did the "ingredients" that formed the universe.
I think you've missed a large part of my point, which was that the 'big bang' did not create the Universe, it was merely an event within a Universe that already existed.
To go with your cake analogy, the Universe is a giant oven and the galaxies and other matter we can currently observe as a result of the 'big bang' are but one tiny little cupcake within that oven...perhaps just one little cupcake among a number of others.
I think you don't understand the meaning of the word "Universe." Perhaps you mean the brane, or something unknown that is larger, or something that existed before this one. But the Universe is observable, and all the science thus far points directly to everything coming from that singularity. How or why we can likely never answer.
I think you don't understand the meaning of the word "Universe." Perhaps you mean the brane, or something unknown that is larger, or something that existed before this one. But the Universe is observable, and all the science thus far points directly to everything coming from that singularity. How or why we can likely never answer.
If you are responding to me, then no. Yes, the Universe is observable...but we are limited in our ability to observe it. The part we can see may well have sprung from a single event, but we cannot see all of what there is. It is my contention that what we can see is only a small portion of an infinitely large Universe.
According to M-theory, a string of energy could grow...even up to a brane the size of the universe. A brane is thus contained within the 'set' of 'Universe' rather than vice versa. (Which is not to say that I am a subscriber to this theory, nor am I convinced of the existence of a fifth dimension...just clarifying that I do mean 'Universe' and not brane, and I correctly understand the use.)
So you claim to know what is meant by "the universe" but discount big bang theory? Even though all our science, even over the last 500 years, has supported it? This isn't like evolution where "theory" is just a century old.
I don't know any science that contends the universe is infinitely large.
The central idea is that the visible, four-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk".
I think you have your terminology confused. You can say a rose is a daisy, but no one else will know what you're talking about when you discuss flowers.
So you claim to know what is meant by "the universe" but discount big bang theory? Even though all our science, even over the last 500 years, has supported it? This isn't like evolution where "theory" is just a century old.
I don't know any science that contends the universe is infinitely large.
I am not discounting big bang theory, I consider it to be a likely scenario for the condition of the observable universe. But the observable universe does not equal the total universe.
The 'Universe' is commonly defined as 'the totality of everything that exists'. There is a difference between the Universe, and the observable universe.
Current science is uncertain as to the question of whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite, since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light. I stand on the side of an infinite Universe, as a logical necessity. Since it appears from your links that you are capable of finding Wikipedia, perhaps you should browse the definitions of 'universe' and 'observable universe and attempt to understand the difference between them. I do not have my terminology confused. I think it is you who is 'confused', and regurgitating quotes that you do not understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
