h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

BB, I hate to say this, but you sound like me. Sort of, anyway. Me when I'm just talking without thinking, or thinking too hard. I don't like it when I do that, even though I'm doing it now. I agree with Adelaide that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Heh. I'm wondering: if the Big Bang started the universe, and if what I understand about the Big Bang is correct (that a very tightly compressed thing of matter exploded), then where did the material for the Big Bang come from? This question could argue for either a universe outside ours or some sort of much higher being.

Hi mox.

<>



Which brings us to the question of what makes an explanation explanatory. And at what point does all explanation cease?

Noggin

Hi SD. I agree that the absence of a scientifically known (or knowable) cause of the big bang only demarcates the boundary of what *science* can discover and explain. Reason and philosophy can do more. Unlike science, we can consider what might be independent of time and space. By definition, this won't be any material thing - since all of the latter have temporal and spatial properties.

toxx

Hi SD. I agree that the absence of a scientifically known (or knowable) cause of the big bang only demacates the boundary of what *science* can discover and explain. Reason and philosophy can do more. Unlike science we can consider what might be independent of time and space. By definition, this won't be any material thing since all of the latter have temporal and spatial properties.

toxx

Hi everyone, I'm not convinced that the causes of the Big Bang are beyond the limits of a scientific explanation (in fact, inflation theory does say otherwise). I DO think, though, that we will never know, ultimately, where the universe/multiverse/totality came from, and that it will never be possible to scientifically find out.

Everything within the observable universe is different. It seems obvious (to me) that evolution is intrinsically random, and is therefore by definition undirected. Where does God fit in? Did he ensure that amoeba A ate/didn't eat amoeba B 800m years ago? And then made similar actions every single day since (never mind before). The great power of the evolutionary explanation is that it relies on things that happen here and now to explain what happened aeons ago. I just can't find room for God or any 'creator' within the universe. Creating the universe, who knows, but within it? A simple, uncontroversial 'no' for me.

erm that should be

Meh. That's a really good explanation, pedro, but I can't really find it in me to believe that there's no room for a God or greator within the universe. I believe that there is a distinct possibility of some sort of being higher than anything else, but still fallible, existing, and if one does, there is more than one. A polytheistic agnostic, I guess is what I'd call myself. Now, I may have missed the point altogether, in which case please forgive me.

A warm welcome to all the new kids on the block .

It's good to new blood joining this ongoing scrum. as you can see we've been around a bit so your first challenge is to come up with a completely new answer to the original question .

Bright blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Della ,

Having spent the best part of 15,000 posts calling you Della I have no intention of changing now. I think I have earnt that right as have quite a few of the old-timers. I can't be doing with people who change their names as often as their underwear.

Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but there you are.

Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

If you mean the one in the subject line, my answer is: both. There may very well be some sort of higher beings, but certainly not concentrated solely on humans; that aspect comes from our heads. And belief may be strong enough, in some cases, to create the object of said belief, in which case a God does exist, thanks to the powerful collective imaginings of millions of human beings.

Della:
Toxxin, I didn't use any statistical term! Blicky accused me of saying "85%", but I actually just said "probably most" ...In my opinion, BB is making a mountain.


Yes you did go back and look at the post in question then go to a dictionary to find out what "majority" means.

While you are re-reading some posts you could have a look at this and try to find where I accuse you of saying "85%".

F55607?thread=192835&post=5593961#p5594446

The line "85% of statistics are made up on the spot" was an old joke I made it in referrence to your *guess* that the majority of believers are not fundamentalist creationists.

I should stick to guessing because when you try reading and comprehension you make such silly mistakes.(This I could find charming and even pitiable if you werent quite so mindlessly spiteful with it)

Toxx, do you really favour compatability between since and concepts of a bigG?

The kalam makes it easy to keep a foot in both camps because there arent many contradictions to trip up on, if you will. The lack of scientific certainty about the creation of the universe leaves a nice cluture free place to put the bigG wtih fewer dissenting voices or internal worries about logical inconsistencies.

What do I put there? Nothing. I dont care if it was the big bang, the bigG or something just fell some place. The mystery of the creation of the universe is just that. Id rather see effort put in to developing sustainable energy sources and more fuel efficient vehicles. (stops before he starts really ranting)

one love

Hi Matholwich, you old timer you. Surely you don't expect me to READ the backlog never mind remember it all.....

Oh yes and high to all the new folks.

Sorry things look a bit messy here right now, this is because they are messy. Presently and for a quite considerable chunck of pastly too, I've trying to pin someone (who reminds me more and more of Tony Blair) to only telling us things they honestly believe and not just any old mangled rubbish they come up with that backs their current argument.

one love <rainbow.

Blicky

(re Adellaide)

Just ignore her.

So she makes up statistics, so what?

Just puts her in tune with every politician in the world.

Not worth getting in to in any way.

Forget it.

Jez

I don't think it's so obvious, Pedro. Working backwards: the evolution of any organism depends entirely on its environment; which, in turn, depends on the initial conditions and the laws of nature that apply. These laws and conditions (or their inevitable precursors) could have been built into the original 'big bang' event. Therefore, it is logically possible that evolution was directed, if rather remotely, from the beginning.

Of course, in order to do this it's rather handy to be omniscient and omnipotent.

toxx

Toxx:
You are omniscient and ominpotent.

What do you create?
A world that will take a jolly long time to get to the point where people are worshiping you
Or a microwave "ready in three minutes" world?

Why bother with all the slowly coalescing stars and not just get down to all the fun stuff. It dosent make sense to me but then I guess if I were the bigG I wouldnt have to worry about grabbing a quick bite before an evening meeting

Yeah Jez, you are right in a sense but I sort of find it fun. I get the feeling she cant change because she sees no reason to stop what shes doing. Della's done the same for years and to a range of different characters looking at the evidence on her PS. Part of me wishes we were friends and I could help her learn to change her ways, but the prankster part of me wants to be a bit like Loki(?) and enjoy the wind up

one love

Sure do, Badge. For a bit more detail see my reply (above) to Pedro.



Ah, the famous false dichotomy! It isn't either/or; we can do both. We can't all be engineers, after all.

toxx

Ah, the famous false dichotomy!

You've lost me, off side rule is about the most coplicated thing I can manage to understand.

We can't all be engineers, after all.

Why not?


Oh and the: Toxx, do you really favour compatability between since and concepts of a bigG?>

Should have been followed by a double strike and

Badge. An eternal being is in no hurry! Besides, it would be wrong of God to fool us with apparent evidence of a lengthy past, but if He didn't it would be too obvious what had happened to permit the realistic exercise of freewill. Since it isn't in God's nature to do wrong, and He wants us to have freewill, He had to do it the way He did.

toxx