Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

So If you were to guess how long this universe has existed for, how long would you estimate this to be? Or perhaps you know how old it is? Some are of the opinion that it has always existed, what are your thoughts?

And another thing. How old will the universe be when it eventually dies? Many scientists believe this universe will eventually come to an end, as all the energy will be used up. Is there anyway the human race could escape this same fate?

Is there a possibility we could out live our universe?

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Religious beliefs and conceptions aside, I find it very hard to believe the universe would be anything but timeless. If it weren't, then it would have had to come into being at a certain time. This would imply a certain void, a zone where time stood still. And with no passage of time, there can be no end to this "no-time" zone, meaning the universe would have never began. This only allows two logical possibilities to exist.

1- The universe is timeless and has neither beginning nor end; it simple is, was, and will be.
2- There was something else before the universe.

However, 2 can easily be proven impossible with the above logic. If there were something before the universe, this something cannot be timeless as it would never have known an end in the first place (this end being the one during which "this" universe started.) There would have to be a chain of things coming and going from existence one after the other for eternity. And this mishmash of existences would basically sit in a whole which, quite frankly, would be the universe. Hrm. Back to the starting point, eh?

What does seem more likely is that the universe has, at various points through its infinit existence, changed. What we call the beginning of the universe is just one of these changes, and the end is just another change. After all, if the universe's existence were infinit, it could not have an end nor a beginning: infinity means it goes on forever. It can't start or stop somewhere along the line.

Wether we'll be swallowed up in a giant supernova and reduced to ashes within a few million years is another matter.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Anyone who didn't know will not be stunned to know this topic is one thats a battleground between the religious, athesists, and even in-fighting between the various groups. Some Christians still stick by the 6,000 year thing the bible mentions IIRC, others say that it's a metaphor like a lot of the creation theories in the bible can be interpreted as (For example, they say we're currently in the seventh day, and it's about teatime.). Others say other things but I can't recall them so thats where they come in.

Personally, I think it's currently about 14 billion years old. That's plenty of time in which evolutionary processes can occur.

I think in about 13 billion years or so, the universe will stop expanding, and commence contracting. All the debris of the big bang will flow back, and compress into the centre of the universe. Big splat. The resulting energy kicked out by the collisions of matter and anti-matter as well as graviational pressure causes... another big bang. It's always been here and it's stuck on loop. Time's immerssurable, perhaps even circular. Maybe there's been one universe in this existence, and this is the next universe.

I think we're never going to outlive the universe. It's been here a length of time incomprehnsible to us, so like we humans will ever be able to outlast it.

As usual, anything here I said you feel like debating, please PM me rather than drag this one off topic.

This post has been edited by Del S on 23rd May 2005 10:02

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

First of all, let me state outright that I agree with the most conventional forms of big bang theory, so virtually everything I say will be in line with that, or so I think. I'm probably going to talk for awhile, so stop reading now if you aren't interested or have a short attention span.

I believe the universe to be fifteen to sixteen billion years old. That gives enough time for most stars and planetessimals to form and cool off sufficiently, and for life to form on a tiny fraction of planets that are eventually formed. Our sun is around four and a half billion years old (there was a more specific decimal I learned in class for that but I don't remember it), implying that the solar system has been around for not quite a third of the Universe's age. A popular argument against the idea that the universe's age is infinite is the fact that the sky is dark. If the universe had been around forever, then we would have received light from stars for much longer than fifteen-plus billion years, suggesting that we would see so many stars that we couldn't see darkness in the night sky.

First of all, time and space simply didn't exist before the big bang. That assumption does sound kind of weird, but there is simply no good explanation as to what the universe was like before the big bang; the expansion of the universe and how that affects time and space is well documented and accounted for, but relativity and Hubble's laws and whatnot don't explain the universe pre-Big Bang.

The idea that Del S brings up about the universe contracting is a valid argument, which my astrophysics professor this past semester called the "fire and ice" argument. That is, does the universe expand forever with stars eventually going out and life fading away (the "ice" argument), or does the universe begin to contract after a certain point and eventually come together once again, possibly starting off another big bang (the "fire" argument)? I'm inclined to disagree with Del S and say that the universe will end in ice. The fact core to the argument is the aamount of matter in the universe and the question if that is enough matter to force a contraction. From what I understand, my professor demonstrated that most estimates of the matter in the universe (using critical density equations) is around 20 to 30 percent of what is needed to have the universe "end in fire" (20 percent is actually larger than you think, considering it could easily be a millionth of a percent; that it's as much as twenty percent is why the universe hasn't ended already).

So that's what I think. I'll now end with two poems: Fire and Ice from Robert Frost, which is surprisingly appropriate to ask the question of how the universe will end, and the last four lines from The Hollow Men by T. S. Elliot (no known relation to the Comedy Central sketch comics of the same name). My aforementioned professor used these same two poems in his lecture about the end of the universe.

"Fire and Ice"

Some say the world will end in fire

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those of favor fire.

But if I perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

-Robert Frost

[The last four lines of] "The Hollow Men"

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

-T. S. Eliot

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Next Sept. 24, the universe will be exactly 20 years old.

--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

Quote (fatman @ 23rd May 2005 03:58)

So If you were to guess how long this universe has existed for, how long would you estimate this to be? Or perhaps you know how old it is? Some are of the opinion that it has always existed, what are your thoughts?

And another thing. How old will the universe be when it eventually dies? Many scientists believe this universe will eventually come to an end, as all the energy will be used up. Is there anyway the human race could escape this same fate?

Is there a possibility we could out live our universe?

Most of these questions are better answered by modern scientific theory than by the random opinions of CoN members...

...except for the last, which is completely and utterly ridiculous to the extent that I don't even feel the need to explain why.

Moderator Edit

If you don't have anything to add to a thread, don't post to make everyone else feel bad. That's trolling, and against the rules.

This post has been edited by Neal on 23rd May 2005 16:54

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

Quote (karasuman @ 23rd May 2005 11:31)

Quote (fatman @ 23rd May 2005 03:58)

So If you were to guess how long this universe has existed for, how long would you estimate this to be? Or perhaps you know how old it is? Some are of the opinion that it has always existed, what are your thoughts?

And another thing. How old will the universe be when it eventually dies? Many scientists believe this universe will eventually come to an end, as all the energy will be used up. Is there anyway the human race could escape this same fate?

Is there a possibility we could out live our universe?

Most of these questions are better answered by modern scientific theory than by the random opinions of CoN members...

...except for the last, which is completely and utterly ridiculous to the extent that I don't even feel the need to explain why.

Moderator Edit

If you don't have anything to add to a thread, don't post to make everyone else feel bad. That's trolling, and against the rules.

Actually I think dji is alluding to his birthday so it's not as rediculous as you might think. After all, his universe burst into existence the day he was born and will cease the day he dies.

Of course we could always argue that his conciousness developed before he left the womb, but I don't think we wanna get into one of those discussions.

Edit

Fair enough.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 23rd May 2005 19:10

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 23rd May 2005 12:39)

Actually I think dji is alluding to his birthday so it's not as rediculous as you might think. After all, his universe burst into existence the day he was born and will cease the day he dies.

I wasn't referring to his post. I thought his comment was clever and PMed him to say so.

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

Quote (karasuman @ 23rd May 2005 18:01)

I wasn't referring to his post. I thought his comment was clever and PMed him to say so.

Indeed, you were referring to my last question, "Is there a possibility we could out live our universe?" which may sound ridiculous at first but with some thought, it may be realised that there may be a possibility of us escaping this universe, if you consider the theory that there is a multiverse, where all universes are connected. To be honest, it's probably beyond our comprehension at this point in time but I was interested to see what the reaction would be.

Quote

"Fire and Ice"

I agree with your ice argument laszlow.

Of course the inevitable question came up, since we are asking how old the universe is, what came before it? That's where the multiverse theory comes in right? This universe was perhaps, born from another and that one from another and so forth...

I do find the theory that the same big bang basically happens over and over again very interesting though.

The thing is, our concept of time, makes us ask "but how and when did it all begin? as in everything?" That's a tough one, maybe past universes do not adhere to the same rules of time, I wonder if we would be able to understand the answer?




--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Quote (fatman)

So If you were to guess how long this universe has existed for, how long would you estimate this to be? Or perhaps you know how old it is? Some are of the opinion that it has always existed, what are your thoughts?

I believe the universe is somewhere around 5,000-15,000 years old, and that God created it. It's common thought that such a belief is old, outdated, and completely out of touch with science. Old it is, but outdated it is not. If you're quick to dismiss the book of Genesis in the Bible then creationism looks like ancient science. But it's that same science that's actively exposing the flaws of billions-of-years-old evolution ideology today while building a case of it's own based on physical observations as seen through a Biblical perspective. I believe the Bible is God's Word and that it's a better basis for science than a different set of ideas of which I don't believe are inspired by God.

Quote (fatman)

And another thing. How old will the universe be when it eventually dies? Many scientists believe this universe will eventually come to an end, as all the energy will be used up. Is there anyway the human race could escape this same fate?

I don't believe it will die, but that Jesus will come down from heaven and lift the curse set upon the universe during the fall of man. Afterwards I believe that a Kingdom of God will be set up, and that his people will live on this earth for eternity. Or, it could be for just a thousand years whereas something else happens after that. I'm getting conflicting messages from multiple sources on that one.

Quote (fatman)

Is there a possibility we could out live our universe?

If we're sent to another universe maybe, but I doubt it.

This post has been edited by i90east on 24th May 2005 02:22

--------------------

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

Quote (fatman @ 23rd May 2005 03:58)

So If you were to guess how long this universe has existed for, how long would you estimate this to be? Or perhaps you know how old it is? Some are of the opinion that it has always existed, what are your thoughts?

From a scientific perspective, our own planet is theorized to be several billion years old. If you take into account all the other planets in existence, including any out there that may support lifeforms, as well as the ones that, at some point, possibly sustained life that has since died out and how long it would take for these planets - many of which have likely been around much longer than Earth - to form and their (possible) lifeforms to evolve, then throw in the "birth" and lifespan of all the other ancient cosmic matter, I'd say the universe is probably older than numbers can say and the time period in which the "big bang" happened is far outta our comprehension.

Quote (fatman @ 23rd May 2005 03:58)

And another thing. How old will the universe be when it eventually dies? Many scientists believe this universe will eventually come to an end, as all the energy will be used up. Is there anyway the human race could escape this same fate?

Since I doubt we'll ever have the means to find out the exact age of the universe, at least anytime soon, it's unlikely its age will be known come when/if it dies. As for if it'll end or just be "reborn" by compressing and decompressing infinitely or by some other means, who's to say? If it's constantly expanding then logic would state it has its limits. However, that doesn't necessarily suggest when that time comes it'll mean the end for all the gaseous and semi-gaseous balls floating happily in space; there's a chance it could simply dawdle 'round in a static state, building up more and more mass through new celestial bodies until it eventually collapses within itself. What happens at that point is anyone's guess.

Quote (fatman @ 23rd May 2005 03:58)

Is there a possibility we could out live our universe?

Personally, I think it'll be freakin' astounding if the human race manages to go on for another million years, and that's allegedly not even enough time for the sun to die and our solar system - let lose from the sun's "leash" - to erupt into chaos, let alone for the universe to end. Also, if this universe is in fact just one part of an even more gigantic multiverse (after all, if our universe has "barriers" as they say, are we even capable of fathoming what could lie beyond them?), I doubt we'll be around long enough to discover such a thing along with a way to transcend it.

Edit

Fixed an error.

This post has been edited by SilverFork on 24th May 2005 04:31

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

From a hardline Biblical standpoint, the Earth is around 10,000 years old.

I've no idea about the rest of the universe. It's a lively debate in Christian circles on whether or not God has placed other "colonies" elsewhere out there.

As to the particular end of this Earth we inhabit, God destroyed it once before with the flood. He then made a covenant with man that He would never do this again, and created the rainbow as a symbol of this promise to man that He would never use water again to destroy it. He goes on later to say that in this second age in which we live now, the world will be consumed by fire and brimstone.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

content removed in the interest of preserving civility.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 27th May 2005 16:11

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

If we go back to the first question, the age of the universe, I notice that there is huge difference of opinion here. I have read the latest scientific theory as to it's age, is 17.1 billion years old, to a 1% variance. This information was brought to us using one of the latest satellites invented.

I like the idea that every fraction of a second, the universe is totally destroyed and the next fraction of a second, it is rebuilt and this cycle happens constantly! Thus meaning, the universe is no older than any of us..

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

If I remember correctly, the answer is 42 right? Or was it 46...? It was 40 something...

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (Narratorway @ 25th May 2005 06:52)

If I remember correctly, the answer is 42 right? Or was it 46...? It was 40 something...

To answer your question:

In The Hitch Hiker Guide to the Galaxy, the question "What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?" was asked. And the answer "42" was given, because simply, the initial question doesn't actually make sense. Oops! But that's off topic. It's a good book though, definately worth reading in my opinion.


--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

We've already been over this.

Possible spoilers: highlight to view

42 is the answer, according to the computer Deep Thought. Benjy the mouse makes up the question "How many roads must a man walk down," which is taken from a Bob Dylan song. The last survivor of Earth, the greatest computer of all time, says that the question is "how much is six times nine?" So, either Deep Thought was wrong, Earth was wrong, or the question is in base thirteen. End of silly discussion.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Okay, If I remember well, our universe has around 14 billions of years ( more or less... ) According to the Big Bang theory ( which basically says All the existing energy in the Universe was concentrated in a point smaller than an atom. The temperature was very high and therefore the matter did not exist as we know it today.). The true question is: But before this? Some theories say that Time, Space and Matter didn't exist before, or consider an cuantic theory..(I don't know that much, but it says ( according to the classic theory of electromagnetism) the energy of a hot body would be infinite...and according to the Law of Hubble, the universe is finite.( because it expands ). Some of the older stars in the universe have around 6-10 billion of years,(which can be calculated by the amount of fuel that has consumed and its temperature... ) so the Universe must be older than this. .

--------------------

"Its no cheating if you don't get caught"

Quote (The Ancient)

If you are real religious and don't wanna think of things that way, don't worry there are ways to frame it so that it still jives with your theology. Religion is funny that way, there is almost always another way to look at things so that it still makes sense in the context of your scriptures. That is, of course until everyone starts taking things too literally. Religion is funny that way, there is almost always another way to look at things so that it still makes sense in the context of your scriptures. That is, of course until everyone starts taking things too literally.

Why should religious people make evolution jive with their beliefs? That would suggest that religious ideas regarding origin have been proven false and that macro-evolution has been proven true. To you maybe this does seem to be the case, which is fine, but please, please, have respect towards religions ideas and their integrity.

Quote (SilverFork)

From a scientific perspective, our own planet is theorized to be several billion years old.

There's only one scientific perspective? Why are alternate scientific perspectives illegitimate?

This post has been edited by i90east on 26th May 2005 03:01

--------------------

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

They aren't illegit. After all, there are several conflicting scientific theorys and views on the universe. I just explained one. In this case, I only meant "scientific" by its most generally recognized definition (falling under physical science, here) and to point out that my post wasn't influenced by religion, hence not specifically calling it a "creation scientific" or "creationist" perspective, or any variant.

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

I really have no strong belief on the age of the universe one way or the other at this time. It must be pretty old though. Hmm..let's say the universe was 16 billion years old. First we have a nice long period in which planetary bodies form, lotta heat, lotta cooling, pretty boring. Now let's say we get a planet where life develops I dunno..4 billion years ago. You go through all the macro-evolution and all and an intelligent life form comes into being (such as homo sapiens) but somewhere else in the universe. Give an intelligent race a million years! Just look at what we've done in 6,000! Look what we've done in the past 100 years! Imagine this level of technological advancement and carry it out over a million years. I mean, statistically, this would have HAD to have happened somewhere right? A.) The race obliterrated itself. B.) They've transcended what we know as life. Think about this rate we're on. If there was no stagnation, not even the loss of a supernova'd star should slow them down. Shouldn't we have been able to come in contact with other life forms? Think about it statistically here. A lot of people think of an alien life form, and put it on par with our basic time structure, at least within a few thousand years. What if it was a million? What if it was 50 million? A billion? The possibilities are incomprehensible.

I believe that God (a supernatural force at least in some way, shape, or form) created the Universe. People dismiss this belief quite quickly because it's not "scientific". But come on, are you trying to tell me that a little atom of energy is just sitting around chillin, and for SOME REASON decides to explode resulting in our current universe is MORE likely? Why? Because the Universe is expanding? Is that it? Why couldn't God have done that?

At the least, SOMETHING would have had to coerce this little atom into exploding. Some kind of exterior force. However, I don't believe the human race will ever have to deal with the universe dying on them. Haha, imagine "Oh no, here comes the universe! The big wall is coming to shrink us back up! Fire a rocket full of nukes or something!"


Oh, and about the 6,000 year biblical thing: The Bible doesn't actually come out and say that anywhere. A Christian Philosopher in the 3rd century (or thereabouts, can't remember his name) studied the first 5 books and used both the direct words from scripture and tracing back the family lines (though I don't know how that could be accurate. Some people have kids when their 20, some 30, and alot when they were very young 13-14. Even a median age would have significant discrepencies) and came up with a round about figure of 6,000 years. Before this, Aristotle hypothesized the world at about 10,000 years in his day.

This post has been edited by Tidu-who on 26th May 2005 07:52

--------------------

The clouds ran away, opened up the sky
And one by one I watched every constellation die
And there I was frozen, standing in my backyard
Face to face, eye to eye, staring at the last star
I should've known, walked all the way home
To find that she wasn't here, I'm still all alone

-Atmosphere "Always Coming Back Home to You"

I honestly did not intend to create a great debate on, which is correct, science or religion?

But science and religion can actually live side by side. Some of the world's most intelligent scientists, who study things such as cosmology, which we are currently discussing, are very deeply religious.

So how do these people avoid constantly arguing with themselves? It's up to you, if you want to find out. I find what some of them have to say on the subject very interesting. They are very open minded. Finding that some scientific views are correct, does not prove religion wrong, or vice versa (did I spell that correctly?)

At least that's my opinion anyway.

This post has been edited by fatman on 26th May 2005 09:34

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

content removed in the interest of preserving civility.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 27th May 2005 16:11

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 26th May 2005 08:39)

I do have respect for religious ideas and their integrity. I don't have respect for people who deal with absolutes and are unwilling to accept new ideas or perspectives.

i always find it at least a little bit amusing when someone comes out and quite absolutely declares they have no respect for individuals who buy into absolutes (read: religion) and are unwilling to accept "new perspectives" (read: non- or even anti-religious perspectives), and yet assure us that they have utmost respect for the religious ideas (which, of course, are not to be respected unless in the context of those "new perspectives").

of course, i always find it extremely amusing when i find someone who *still* buys into darwin's evolution so many years after the original hype -- years which have not, as darwin guaranteed, even filled a *single* gap in the fossil record to give us the student verification of such an off-the-wall testament to the apparent perfection of nature. no, instead of presenting us with evidence *for* darwin's macroevolutional fancies, modern science has rather crippled darwin's original theory in the light of such biological phenomena that "could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive modifications," leading us to believe, in darwin's own line of thought, that his "theory...absolutely [has broken] down." (now, the invitation to debate the scientific validity of irreducible complexity that i extended to pinknu a while ago when he brought it up in the "thoughts on religion" from which i recused myself still stands.)

"but goz," you might say, "so many scientists still cater to this dinosaur of a theory, even if it hasn't stood the test of time! doesn't this mean it has some merit?" and there are so many answers i could give. but instead of discussing the subconscious bias toward a 100% naturalistic worldview that permeates the modern scientific community (incidentally, more biologists than anyone else), let's recall that in the earlier parts of last millenium, the scientific community was convinced that the earth was flat.

science and religion can absolutely live side-by-side. i in fact consider myself both religious and a scientist (i am studying bioengineering and nanophysics in uni). it is when science attempts to formulate theories that have toward religion a necessarily demeaning conclusion that science breaks down. it's really a shame so many contemporary scientists are so "anti-God," to put it in a politically familiar format.

to answer the original topic question, i can only say i'm not especially sure and i could really care less (not that it's unimportant, just seems a useless tidbit to me). i've heard 17B, i've heard 6k. i learn far more toward the old-earth numbers these days, because i can't find any reason to believe that such numbers are contradictory to the Faith, and because i believe the physics behind the old-earth numbers more than i believe that in the original hebrew, "day" had necessarily to be 24h rather than just an analogy to the 7-day-week old jewish tradition dictates. of course, were you to ask me how long mankind has been around, i might say 6k.

Quote

I like the idea that every fraction of a second, the universe is totally destroyed and the next fraction of a second, it is rebuilt and this cycle happens constantly! Thus meaning, the universe is no older than any of us..

so far physicists have not been able to convincingly suggest that space can tear outside of the calabi-yau component. it is very interesting to note, however, that under string theory, expanding and collapsing universes are subject to *identical physics* (!). so as not to go into an overly complex explanation behind the wound- and ordinary-string physics here, we can say simply that this means that instead of a "big crunch" -- some physicists have hypothesised that as the universe continues expanding (and given that its mass is constant), the density of matter will eventually reach a point that will cause the entire universe to collape back upon itself to a "point" -- instead the universe would undergo a "cosmic bounce;" i.e., expand to critical density, then collapse upon itself until the size of the plank length, and once again begin expanding from there! it's pretty interesting stuff. from a naturalist perspective, we could be in the middle of one of a series cosmic bounces *right now.*

and, of course, the size of the universe at t=0 was much, much smaller than an atom. the quantum model tells us it was sizeless (i.e., a point); string theory tells us it could have been no smaller than the plank length in at least one dimension. but the idea is correct. at the big bang, all of the condensed, ultra-high energy matter in the universe exploded out into the still-expanding universe we live in today. and how, really, could the big bang have perpetuated *itself?* voltaire himself (a known God-hater) once said that he "shall always be convinced that a watch proves a watchmaker, and that a universe proves a God."

You might call me egocentric and such, but the Universe for me ends with me. When I was born, the Universe was born from my perspective, since till then I knew of nothing, neither life, nor death, nor any other thing possible. The Universe for me will end the moment I die, that's why i don't fear death, cuz i'm never gonna actually know it.... As always my reply is short and doesn't quite make sense

--------------------

Here lies a great and mighty king,
Whose promise none relies on,
He never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.
of Charles V

I believe that the Universe is a never ending cycle when the universe died it began at the beginning again.

content removed in the interest of preserving civility.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 27th May 2005 16:11

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

The universe as we know it could only be a few days old.
If we take an idea that is similar to what we see in the film The Matrix, our entire memories could be false and everything our senses tell us could be lies, because we are hooked up to machines that are there to test how we react to situations.

How could you disprove such a theory? Thus we know nothing of the universe, interesting stuff.

Oh and I'm no moderator but if people want to have arguments, could they do it in PMs, to save this very interesting thread? I would appreciate that.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Quote (fatman @ 26th May 2005 15:36)

The universe as we know it could only be a few days old.
If we take an idea that is similar to what we see in the film The Matrix, our entire memories could be false and everything our senses tell us could be lies, because we are hooked up to machines that are there to test how we react to situations.

How could you disprove such a theory? Thus we know nothing of the universe, interesting stuff.

You can't disprove that theory but you can't prove it either. You can "disprove" any physical or psychological law by making generalizations similar to that, but it's only theory. I don't think it's the greatest idea to forge an eclectic beliefs system out of a work of science fiction, but whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

I'm with conventional scientific theory on this one. The universe is 15+ billion years old and was begun by the big bang, with all of the matter and energy in the universe beginning at a single point. Before the big bang, neither time nor space existed and there is no good explanation or counter-explanation to explain the universe before the big bang. Goodbye.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Quote (SilverFork)

They aren't illegit. After all, there are several conflicting scientific theorys and views on the universe. I just explained one. In this case, I only meant "scientific" by its most generally recognized definition (falling under physical science, here) and to point out that my post wasn't influenced by religion, hence not specifically calling it a "creation scientific" or "creationist" perspective, or any variant.

Thanks for the response SilverFork. I asked that question to find out whether or not you fit a stereotype creationists often describe of. That is, the assertion is made that most people are brainwashed into accepting evolution theory and other mainstream scientific ideas without any skepticism or open-mindedness what-so-ever. You've stated that you are aware of other scientific viewpoints and that's fantastic.

Quote (The Ancient)

There is of course the possibility that we evolve to the point that we become Celestial Beings. If you are real religious and don't wanna think of things that way, don't worry there are ways to frame it so that it still jives with your theology.

I think I get it now. You're saying that religious people should learn to deal with the fact that evolution theory exists and be contempt. Right? Well when seeing things through a Christian perspective, evolution theory can go one of two ways. I heard a preacher on the radio the other day say that Satan started evolution theory in an evil plot to bring people away from God by promoting a materialistic agenda. I think it's a plausable concept, as crazy as it may sound to non-Christians. Evolution is either the truth or a deception, and Christians look at Satan as a deceiver. The only way for Christians to not see evolution as being a product of the devil is by adopting the theory and becoming theistic evolutionists. Then the theory is the truth, a good thing. There is no middle ground here, unless I'm missing something.

This post has been edited by i90east on 27th May 2005 04:14

--------------------

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin