UOGamers Community

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • To obtain new Razor updates, please reinstall Razor from our new website.

Start of the universe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Afro Man said:
You can't believe anyone. Everyone thought Y2k would be the end of the world, then when the mayan calendar ended.. Let it just play out and we'll see what happens. Nothing will happen in our life times so who cares!!

The Mayan calender restarts in 8 years. 2012. But the cool thing is, everyone forgets they could die at any moment. It's not that you should live-it-up because you're going to live to be 90, you should live-it-up because your next moment could be your last.

fonis said:
No, it's a fact. You're wrong. I just read it in the book your half-brother gave me written in permenant pencil, thus pure law of the universe.
Happy?

No, but it's that mentality that makes these kinds of conversations so fun. It would be one thing if you actually believed what you said, but you don't, instead you believe another theory, invented by another man, trusting his proof, and his "facts" instead of mine. That's all.
 

Galgum

Page
There's no shred of evidence that any religion is correct. As for science, we have projections based off data. We can't know everything, if we did, what would the point of living be? We still have lots to explore. I've always thought of religion as a coping device used by humans to help cope with not knowing what happens in death, as to not go crazy not knowing. Science is fact based mostly. Sure, theories are made based on theoretical data, but that's why it's called theory, not fact. We explore these theories, get answer and try to explain things we don't understand. Science is vastly different than religion.
 
Galgum said:
There's no shred of evidence that any religion is correct. As for science, we have projections based off data. We can't know everything, if we did, what would the point of living be? We still have lots to explore. I've always thought of religion as a coping device used by humans to help cope with not knowing what happens in death, as to not go crazy not knowing. Science is fact based mostly. Sure, theories are made based on theoretical data, but that's why it's called theory, not fact. We explore these theories, get answer and try to explain things we don't understand. Science is vastly different than religion.

Only to the scientist, who has to hold himself above religion because in his mind religion is just a coping devise used by humans to help cope with not knowing what happens in death. Of course science is also a coping device! Only rather than try to ponder on the inevitability of death, it resolves itself to the conclusion that when I die, it's all over so I'll become obsessed with the details of life, in order to try and find some meaning to define my reality. It's not discovery, it's the propetuation of new, and unique illusions, fed to the masses as fact. Facts are fallible, not just theory. But the amazing thing is facts are only fallible in retrospect, "Wow, what dumbasses for thinking the world was flat..." No...to them, the world WAS flat, they believed it, and their science proved it.
 

Galgum

Page
Cebrious Arcane said:
Only to the scientist, who has to hold himself above religion because in his mind religion is just a coping devise used by humans to help cope with not knowing what happens in death. Of course science is also a coping device! Only rather than try to ponder on the inevitability of death, it resolves itself to the conclusion that when I die, it's all over so I'll become obsessed with the details of life, in order to try and find some meaning to define my reality. It's not discovery, it's the propetuation of new, and unique illusions, fed to the masses as fact. Facts are fallible, not just theory. But the amazing thing is facts are only fallible in retrospect, "Wow, what dumbasses for thinking the world was flat..." No...to them, the world WAS flat, they believed it, and their science proved it.

Well, regardless of what fact is true, it's that we try to figure it out what matters. I don't hold myself above religion, I just can't put faith in some random story that was conured up to brainwash the masses. I mean, thing about it, if you didn't believe a certain religion in the middle ages, you were killed for herecy. You kind of make it sound like any science is bolagna, that it's just an effort to avoid thinking of death. I don't believe that, exploring the unknown is a part of human nature. Most science it's just assumptions, it's proven fact. Religion is as it always has been, faith. It's never changed, just multiplied in the varieties. Science has made it advances. Religion is all about one thing, if you'll end up in heaven or in hell, and whether their God will be merciful to you or not. I'm not saying every religion is wrong, I'm just saying it's unlikely. I can't just believe some random story some old guy could have just came up to explain his existence as he sees the end of his own.
 
Galgum said:
Well, regardless of what fact is true, it's that we try to figure it out what matters. I don't hold myself above religion, I just can't put faith in some random story that was conured up to brainwash the masses. I mean, thing about it, if you didn't believe a certain religion in the middle ages, you were killed for herecy. You kind of make it sound like any science is bolagna, that it's just an effort to avoid thinking of death. I don't believe that, exploring the unknown is a part of human nature. Most science it's just assumptions, it's proven fact. Religion is as it always has been, faith. It's never changed, just multiplied in the varieties. Science has made it advances. Religion is all about one thing, if you'll end up in heaven or in hell, and whether their God will be merciful to you or not. I'm not saying every religion is wrong, I'm just saying it's unlikely. I can't just believe some random story some old guy could have just came up to explain his existence as he sees the end of his own.

I understand, but my point was that science is based on faith as well. I am not religious, I just like taking this side, hehe. Science is a religion that takes a different approach. In Christianity they have a fail safe of "God works in mysterious ways", in Buddhism their fail safe is "Karma", Hinduism "The Caste System." Science's fail safe is two-fold, it is better than religion because religion is just some guy talking out of his ass, and "If we don't know yet, we are discovering new things and new facts and some day we will have the answer."

Exploring the unknown is only exploring the unknown to science and scientists! If you were a Buddhist, there would be no exploration except the exploration deeper into oneself. The exterior would be only an illusion as everything is just part of one, big, infinite thing. Christians would say, "God has a plan, and we only discover what he has designed for our discovery and we will all be judged for our deeds in the end anyway." See? It's a mystery because science makes it a mystery and then perpetuates the mystery by trying to dig deeper. There will never be a smallest measure of matter. There will never be answers to all of sciences questions. There will never be any of the ultimate goals science believes they will eventually attain. Why? For the same reason there will never be a Judgement day, there will never be a reaching of enlightenment, there will never be a transition into Nirvana. Because it's all just faith. No theory is more valid than any other and no theory should be blindly followed without questioning it. Belief, and faith are choices, the choice of science is just as valid as the choice of satanism.
 

Monoxide

Sorceror
Cebrious Arcane said:
This thread kicks ass.

I'll play the devil's advocate, so we can keep this conversation going.

First, how is science any different than religion? When you boil everything down, how can you be sure about anything at all, ever? With science, they offer "facts" and "proof" but those facts and proof are based on perception, and on top of that, are based in a system founded on fallible theory. Theory is just that, and the cool thing about science is that it has this premise of "discovery" wherein if something doesn't agree with the "laws" that are in affect, through "discovery" (a fancy way of saying labeling) they come up with a new definition and thus a new "law of nature" is made.

Second, right now, you can't even be sure you are alive, or awake, in a coma, or dreaming. You believe you are. You even develop systems of proof to reinforce that you are. But how can you ever be sure? If you can't be sure you exist, how can you ponder on the infinite space of the Universe?

That's all for now, I have TONS more, just wetting the pallette...
I live for this kind of debate...
"We measure things by what we are.
To the maggots in the cheese, the cheese is the universe
To the worms in the corpse, the corpse is the cosmos
How then can we be so cocksure about our world?
Just because of our telescopes and microscopes and the splitting of the atom?
Certainly not!
Science is but an organized system of ignorance.
There are more things in Heaven than on Earth
What do we know about the beyond?
Do we know what's behind the beyond?
I'm afraid some of us hardly know what's beyond the behind."
Galgum said:
There's no shred of evidence that any religion is correct. As for science, we have projections based off data. We can't know everything, if we did, what would the point of living be? We still have lots to explore. I've always thought of religion as a coping device used by humans to help cope with not knowing what happens in death, as to not go crazy not knowing. Science is fact based mostly. Sure, theories are made based on theoretical data, but that's why it's called theory, not fact. We explore these theories, get answer and try to explain things we don't understand. Science is vastly different than religion.
You'd be suprised at how the Bible can be interpreted to match many scientific theories.

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the water, and let it separate the waters from the waters." Genesis 1:6

Our atmosphere and our bodies of water?
 

Galgum

Page
Cebrious Arcane said:
I understand, but my point was that science is based on faith as well. I am not religious, I just like taking this side, hehe. Science is a religion that takes a different approach. In Christianity they have a fail safe of "God works in mysterious ways", in Buddhism their fail safe is "Karma", Hinduism "The Caste System." Science's fail safe is two-fold, it is better than religion because religion is just some guy talking out of his ass, and "If we don't know yet, we are discovering new things and new facts and some day we will have the answer."

Exploring the unknown is only exploring the unknown to science and scientists! If you were a Buddhist, there would be no exploration except the exploration deeper into oneself. The exterior would be only an illusion as everything is just part of one, big, infinite thing. Christians would say, "God has a plan, and we only discover what he has designed for our discovery and we will all be judged for our deeds in the end anyway." See? It's a mystery because science makes it a mystery and then perpetuates the mystery by trying to dig deeper. There will never be a smallest measure of matter. There will never be answers to all of sciences questions. There will never be any of the ultimate goals science believes they will eventually attain. Why? For the same reason there will never be a Judgement day, there will never be a reaching of enlightenment, there will never be a transition into Nirvana. Because it's all just faith. No theory is more valid than any other and no theory should be blindly followed without questioning it. Belief, and faith are choices, the choice of science is just as valid as the choice of satanism.

So what do you suggest? Humanity just sit around and wait for whoever's plan to be fulfilled? You can't just call all science faith, it's just us trying to better ourselves and the world alike. Along the way we look for answers, as I'm sure any religion does. But you can't say the exploration of the universe is an illusion, there's no way to tell, but we'll do our best to find out. I don't think we're able to comprehend the true answer to our questions yet, but we'll sure as hell try.

Edit: Good Post Monoxide, it's all interperatation really. No one said the writer of the bible was an illiterate idiot, he/she probably wrote in some theories of our existence in there as well.
 
well id likr to introduce myself into this thred first by sayin a few thing, this is what im all about, i LOVE This stuff, 2) im total science nerd at heard i even won the nation science olympiad in 6th grade (not bragging just stating sci nerdiness) 3) its been something like 5 or more years since ive been in school so i havent heard most of this from a teacher but by reading and the science channel ( i watch it like 16yr olds watch porn, with out the masterbation) 4) im to lazy to quote posts but im gonna adress a few

ok first thing i saw that was contradictory to the current belief among scientists is the theory of a universe that will eventually colapse. we've all heard that the universe is expanding but heres the kicker. its speeding up! (according to hawkings latest calculations)
the origional theory of a colapsing universe was founded on a commonsence notion that if gravity between galaxies would pull them together.this theory was shot down when they found that the empty space between galaxies is itself expanding, the empty space being "dark matter" its not currently explainable but it called dark because of the absence of light and radiation .
another little tid bit is that they have discovered that the out most edge of the galatic mass's (the edge of the universe dosent exist) is curved. noone knows what this means yet but we know its curved.

on the subject of black holes, they are conceived when a star burns out and its gravity sucks celestial bodies around it into it and eventually creats a singularity. a singularity is an infinatly small infinatly heavy mass that pulls the "fabric" of space at suck a deep, steep slop that not even light can escape it. a cool thing about them is that at the event horizon (the area directly above the center) they theorize ( i forgot how) that time itself is altered (not forward or back but stands still) and that if a person were to "jump in" long after he was part of the singularity he would still be visable as he was at the exact moment he reached the event horizon.

as far as the bang itself, its theorized that the "dark matter" inside the mass that went bang began to expand and thus overtime greated the bang. as for the origin of the matter itself, the only way to theorize on that is by the use of psyclobin or another triptamein (sp?)

heres what get me... the universe and the masses withing the universe are 3D so there are mass's in every direction around the earth, including above and below. Hawking and Einstein both reffer to a "fabric" of space. wich is, in part, what creates gravity. imagine a stretched out peice of latex, the size of a trampoline. if you were to set a bowling bal on it it would stretch and some softballs around it would spin around and down the hole, the reason they say planents dont spin into suns is because they have there own depressions in space, and they even out somehow. so since space is 3D then we are inside the latex so wouldnt a sun above us push down on the sun under it? thus creating repulsion as a couterpart of gravity. and hes a bigger brain teaser, im in alaska so say when i look at the sun its depression is going up from the sides of it now say i goto antartica and look at it... spacially im upside down so wouldnt the sun's depression be the opposite way? like its falling out of its own gravity? the repulsion i mentioned earlier may be an explination (sp?) for "dark matter" but the upside down thing is makin me wanna go smoke a boul (gotta love AK legalization)

peace, and critique this post please but do it ina somewhat sane matter
 

Monoxide

Sorceror
Galgum said:
True, but new suns can also be created as well.
Although hydrogen is the must abundant element in the universe it would eventually run out which means that if the universe has always existed there could be no hydrogen. <- That was really weird to think about.
 

Galgum

Page
Monoxide said:
Although hydrogen is the must abundant element in the universe it would eventually run out which means that if the universe has always existed there could be no hydrogen. <- That was really weird to think about.

Hydrogen had to come from somewhere initially right? Right now hydrogen cell cars are proof hydrogen can be created, granted man-made. So it's not too far a reach to say there's some forces in the universe that can create hydrogen and create new suns. I don't recall the theorized process, but I'm sure it's possible.

ganjastarr: I find it funny how in Star Trek, they always made space seem like a body of water, traverable in a straight line. Never once did you see ships at different angles, or coming from below. Notice Voyager was 60,000 Light years from Earth, not ABOVE it? Just amusing.
 

Monoxide

Sorceror
Galgum said:
Hydrogen had to come from somewhere initially right? Right now hydrogen cell cars are proof hydrogen can be created, granted man-made. So it's not too far a reach to say there's some forces in the universe that can create hydrogen and create new suns. I don't recall the theorized process, but I'm sure it's possible.
Whatever creates hydrogen would run out. Unless there was a cycle where the waste of hydrogen is eventually turned into hydrogen again.
 

fonis

Knight
Monoxide said:

Your site's kinda wrong :/

It assumes the singularity before / during the big bang was the "beginning." It wasn't.

It assumes that hydrogen doesn't come from other matter / energy in the universe, it does. Radiatioactive decay of protons allows the atomic structure of atoms to change state from one to another, aka fission. Fusion makes it bigger (H to He), Fission makes it smaller (fission bomb). So, that's his next main point wrong.

Thirdly, his usage of the law of thermodynamics is very sophomoric, as it uses the part of the theory where heat/energy emanates to other frames of reference and is lost in the current frame to account for "friction" of a system. The universe is the only frame. All energy is conserved in totality during rebounds from bangs/crushes. Thus why they call it a "singularity." Entropy isn't really the case here :/
 
but with the heat created int he universe elements can be broken down to an infinate level and then come back together as something diffrent, with the heat the universe givs off iron can very well become oxygen

and on the science being faith thing, i think science is the only one with the balls to go find out. no to insult other religions, thats their perogative. but without science we wouldnt know that the world is not flat, we would not know that this continent exists,
get this
science created religion, without science there would be no bible
science is the byproduct of the human curious nature, ancient scientist theorized on what they did not know and they created gods. so on and so forth
 

Monoxide

Sorceror
fonis said:
Your site's kinda wrong :/

It assumes the singularity before / during the big bang was the "beginning." It wasn't.

It assumes that hydrogen doesn't come from other matter / energy in the universe, it does. Radiatioactive decay of protons allows the atomic structure of atoms to change state from one to another, aka fission. Fusion makes it bigger (H to He), Fission makes it smaller (fission bomb). So, that's his next main point wrong.

Thirdly, his usage of the law of thermodynamics is very sophomoric, as it uses the part of the theory where heat/energy emanates to other frames of reference and is lost in the current frame to account for "friction" of a system. The universe is the only frame. All energy is conserved in totality during rebounds from bangs/crushes. Thus why they call it a "singularity." Entropy isn't really the case here :/
It's just an example of how the Bible doesn't say anything that can be disproven by science and some of it can be confirmed.
ganjastaar said:
but with the heat created int he universe elements can be broken down to an infinate level and then come back together as something diffrent, with the heat the universe givs off iron can very well become oxygen

and on the science being faith thing, i think science is the only one with the balls to go find out. no to insult other religions, thats their perogative. but without science we wouldnt know that the world is not flat, we would not know that this continent exists,
get this
science created religion, without science there would be no bible
science is the byproduct of the human curious nature, ancient scientist theorized on what they did not know and they created gods. so on and so forth
I wouldn't consider myself a part of any religion because they use the Bible as they see fit. Think of it this way, if the Bible was written by God then it would have to be understandable by every generation which means it has to be vague to some degree. Being vague leaves room for interpretation which is why Nostradamus is famous, so it's up to you to interpret and decide if you believe in it.
 

Monoxide

Sorceror
fonis said:
7 days? How's that not wrong.
We base our days on our movement around our sun which means it's different depending on where you are in the universe and which point you're referencing. Measurements can also change, which would explain the first people living for over a thousand years.
 
galgum said:
So what do you suggest? Humanity just sit around and wait for whoever's plan to be fulfilled? You can't just call all science faith, it's just us trying to better ourselves and the world alike. Along the way we look for answers, as I'm sure any religion does. But you can't say the exploration of the universe is an illusion, there's no way to tell, but we'll do our best to find out. I don't think we're able to comprehend the true answer to our questions yet, but we'll sure as hell try.

No, the point was to realize that they're all equally fallible, and to further realize that it's a choice to believe what you believe. You believing in science is in no way different, or better, or more accurate and true, than anyone believing in their respective religions.

ganjastaar said:
and on the science being faith thing, i think science is the only one with the balls to go find out. no to insult other religions, thats their perogative. but without science we wouldnt know that the world is not flat, we would not know that this continent exists,
get this
science created religion, without science there would be no bible
science is the byproduct of the human curious nature, ancient scientist theorized on what they did not know and they created gods. so on and so forth

I disagree, Philosophy gave birth to science. You use science where a religious person would use God. Now this can get really good. You are a devout believer in science. When humanity developed consciousness, shortly after, the fear of death must have become a dominating factor, because that which is unknown is scary. Philosophers first pondered on the ideas, trying to develop methods to define their reality. Also, philosophers were usually financially set already, how else could they ponder on things instead of farming/taking care of their families, and as such, wealth gave them a position of authority, so the people would look to the philosophers to explain their realities. This is where the source of my "all science is religion" comes from. Both factions, (weird to use it not referring to UOG) were just divergences from the same origin. Where one person said, "The answers are somewhere inconceivable, I will try to draw my conclusions based on thought and personal experience," another said, "The answers are somewhere in this world, I am part of this world, what I know is part of this world, I will try to draw my conclusions based on observation and relation of my personal experiences to those of others."

Both are equal, because the foundations are equal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top