I don't see how you can reconcile a claim to be a rationalist with disparaging remarks about SH who epitomises rational thought.

 

I personally think that the big bang is as close as any as a way to describe the beginning of the Universe, but they can't prove it yet. How do you think it started up? Incidentally all the scientific explanations are still theoretical. They are a possibility but not fact.

It is up to the individual to decide whether to believe that the scientists may or may not be right or whether to follow a religion or even just to believe that there is an all powerful being anyway. We all have that right.

Whichever way, no one is justified in insulting another person for his beliefs. It is immature to do so and also particularly poor manners. Even if you don't think so, there is still a place in this world for decent behaviour. Most people who behave like that do so because they are short of a real argument or just confidence.

You don't even know what my own beliefs are anyway.

Les

 

My best guess is that the universe didn't "start" up - it has always existed.

Why must everything have a start - If you assume that then you are also assuming it must have an end - and I don't think that's coming either.

It's always been here - unlike you, me or anyone else.

Humans are insignificant blips in universal terms - and someday we will cease to be (Like the dinosaurs before us).

Have a rational discussion with someone with their fingers stuck in their ears while humming "I'm a believer" by the monkees only leaves you with one place to go to describe them.

Goddites

As you don't like retards

 

This is the hardest thing to get my head round though.

That and how the heck can we be the only ones floating around in this infinity

Anyway,my head is going to explode if I think to much on a Tuesday morning

 

I think we are possibly the only ones floating around at this time in this infinity.

Once we get hit by the big comet or whatever and we are blasted into the cosmos - some bits of us will land on another planet far away and the cycle will begin again.

Just a theory - I don't "believe" this in case someone thinks i'm a fruit loop

 

Given what is out there, there is a greater chance of life existing else where than life only existing on this blue dot in the whole universe.

 

Please can you explain this in detail???

There are probably billions of other planets like ours that support life. We must be very ignorant or way to far up our own self righteous ***** to think that "We are alone" to JonC

 

Morning Les,

Here's a re-post of a question I posed earlier. Additionally, are you sure you understandstand the definition of a theory? You rightly catagorise name calling as immature yet there are some who would suggest the use of the phrase "it's just a theory" is intellectually immature. Virtually the whole modernity has been built upon the verifiability of theory.

 

So in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of Big Bang and against the view of virtually the whole of the scientific community, Prof. Jasey is going to have a 'best guess' at something else. Why?

 

Thank you jonc and fosticles for saving me having to head off the other nonsense. Don't these people investigate their possible opinions before forming them?

 

I couldn't give a flying **** about how the universe "started" to be perfectly honest !

 

Nice trolling again JT keep up the crap work

 

No I have not read that book. I might do but I can expect the answers given by those authors, and supported by the most "holy" of all atheists clutching at yet another straw!

Can't see why you are going round in circles over the term "theory". When related to scientific pronouncements it is surely the resulting possible explanation for something from studies of scientific facts but lacking the full proof of full accuracy. This leaves us mere mortals the choice whether to accept it or to say that it might possibly be right but no one can say for certain. Can't accept it as "gospel" without "verifiability" can we?

Your last sentence is highly impressive, and who would argue with it? But you must have the "verifiability" of course! With the subject in hand, it is not there yet!

There is no reason why an all powerful chap could not have set it all off in the first place. The existence of the singularity followed by the big bang, the formation of the stars and the planets etc., the existence of the laws of nature, and the really clever bit, the start of life which no one can start off independently followed by evolution as we see it! How did life begin? They can do the chemistry but they can't create life!

Now you can argue about "theory" and what it means as much as you like, but to my mind once someone has to get into semantics it means they are losing the ability to extend the argument.

My points are that you can discuss it until the cows come home, but nothing can be proved either way. You have to make up your own mind as ever in such cases. The other thing is that I really don't see the need for losing one's rag about it and getting into the unpleasantness. It is indeed childish and shows the futility of the argument anyway. No one likes to be called mentally deficient by someone who hardly knows the day of the week anyway as far as the subject is concerned.

Incidentally you have fallen into the trap of making assumptions about my personal beliefs! Why call me a Deist? I have never said that I am.

Les

 

Yes I can but whether there is any point is a different matter.



I would really not like to comment either way (assuming you're talking about life similar to ours and not just a form of something like bacteria) as working out the probability and likelyhood that would give me anything resembling an educated guess would be best left to people far far cleverer than me.

It does my head in thinking about the statistical probabilities that have lead to life as we know it on Earth let alone thinking about duplicating and offsetting it against the vastness of the universe.

 

I had to comment on this. Don't you see that even this form of life, one which you dismiss so glibly, would be an absolutely monumental thing to discover? And your reference to statistical probabilities is pointless too - all outcomes of evolution are equally improbable if yoo try to specify a particular outcome from a set of starting conditions. I tire of repeating this, but it's just as true every time I do repeat it.

 

Yes it would.

Well then dont as what you are saying is on a slightly different line to what I was getting at, but thanks for that all the same.

 

Sorry just realised you were referring to the bacteria comment? Have we not found bacteria on Mars yet? I vaguely remember something on the news about this and another moon that would most likely be home to a living bacteria. It would be interesting but monumental?

 

I can imagine science retreating from the theists' growing momentum and shouting desperately, "quick, wheel him out, it's our only chance!"

I have to say, it was an expertly laid trap, Leslie.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism?wasRedirected=true

 

Discovering life outside of our solar system, bacteria or not, would be absolutely astounding. It would show that life here is not unique and no doubt bring into question the bible and existence of god. Given the age of the universe and countless stars and galaxies out there, chances are that there have been many civilisations that have been and gone and perhaps life forms far more advanced than our own and if there are, we could be to them like bacteria is to us.

 

WE ARE NOT ALONE













My mum says so!

 

God & the bible being in question is the whole point of this thread .

There is absolutely no doubt that not everyone believes in all that mumbo jumbo

Discovering a bunch of highly advanced lamas on planet zoog will not change the minds of the believers

 

No but it might rattle their brains when they consider that life could have been brought here by metorite or a comet fragment and not created by God as in the bible. We already have evidence that this is a possibility. The Martian metorite discovered in Antartica contains fossilised micro organisms. Earth has been subject to countless extraterrestrial impacts.

 

Correction

Just playing devils' advocate here, but is it possible that the bacteria on Mars were from an earlier meteorite strike from Earth and then they in turn were blasted back in to space to arrive 'home'?........

Geezer

 

How big is the universe? Does anyone know what scientists have generally estimated it to be, because they have. So whats outside that?

 

What makes you think there's an "outside"?

 

Did you not realise that I was giving a possible scenario for the start of the Universe, and any other one which might be around as well, but I did not say that was the actual answer. You might even mention"Devils advocate", except that is likely to get the atheists all jumping up and down again!

I was quoting the other side of the argument to Hawking's statement that science has rendered God unnecessary.

Since neither side of the equation can be proved or disproved, don't you think that all the shouting and unpleasantness is rather futile?

I am not in the habit of setting traps, I find that to be pointless, One upmanship proves nothing. I did say however that assumptions can be dangerous.

Les

 

Just a term explaining that if there is a measured volume there must be something 'outside' the measured volume. Im not saying there is anything else or not, I have no idea, just interested.

Is it where all matter stops existing and all you have is an endless vacuum? I believe that scientists have estimated it to be 10 to the power of 27 miles wide, so what does this mean?

Interestingly Ive heard that the smallest existing particle, the sub atomic particle is 10 to the power of -26 making the average human hight slap bang in the middle of the two.

I love science, it is so interesting.

 

IIRC our Galaxy has approx 200 billion Stars and the known Universe has approx 170 billion Galaxies.

Its taken about 5 billion years from the birth of the Sun to get humans along to the party, the Universe is approx 14 billion years old so given the odds there must be life out there, some with perhaps a billion years head start on us. However popular theory says rocky planets like ours can only be made from heavy elements created from the death of a large Star, so perhaps 14 billion years is the minimum time it takes to get carbon based life...

Or perhaps it takes 7 days

 

170 billion Galaxies. There is definitely other life out there, but the interstellar distances are so vast we will never know about them, even those within our own Galaxy. I find that unimaginably sad and frustrating.

 

Damned by faint praise.