Originally posted by Gordon Gekko
i agree with the concept of the big bang. the red shift phenomenon does suggest a center point that the universe has been expanding from.
actually, no. as far as i know, the universe is believed to be a "hypersphere" -- ie a sphere, only in 3D, not 2D. so there is no central point to the universe -- all points are equal, just like on the surface of a sphere.
(i'm not an astrophysicist though, so i i'm not really familiar with all the competing theories and their acceptance levels.)
while i do understand that space and time were created from the big bang, the most puzzling thing for me is this: what was before the big bang?
there is no consensus on this yet. instead there are several competing theories, most of which involve QM.
if nothing, how did we get something from nothing?
that's not a problem, actually, as "things only come form other things" is just an everyday notion that does not apply to all scales. for example, in QM there is an
observed phenomenon (called vacuum fluctuations) that involve pairs of particles spontaneously emerging from, well, nothingness.
just did a quick google search and found this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
by quick skimming it looks like an article arguing how the universe could have emerged as a quantum fluctuation from nothing, without breaking any (known) natural laws in the process, and - fittingly to the context of this thread - without needing a helping hand from god.
Originally posted by Josh_B
That why the question: how can you have something without the nothing around it to define it?
yes, counterintuitive, isn't it. however, it's actually not so hard to imagine: again, just look at the surface of a sphere, and imagine yourself being an ant on it -- there really is no "edge" around your "world" then, so the question "where's the edge of my world, and what comes after it?" becomes meaningless.
Originally posted by darkhorse
I believe in the existence of electrons, though I have never actually seen one. I believe in God, though I have not actually seen Him (yet). A critical point to highlight is that it requires a degree of faith to believe in both, and that there are arguable evidences of reason for both. One is simply more controversial than the other.
well, i think the above is - while technically correct - a bit misleading. the leap if of faith requred to believe in electrons is all but nonexistent. all one has to "believe in" are a) the macro-level phenomena, and b) logical reasoning.
if one does accept A and B, then the fact that "electrons exist" can be broken down to simple statements to which one can only answer "yes, that's correct".
if one denies either A or B, then - i'm sorry - there's a certain institution for such people, with white walls, relaxed atmosphere, and a bunch of medicaments served 3 times a day.
arriving at the belief in the existence god, on the other hand, requires a lot more than A & B. you need that elusive C to go with them, be it personal religious experience, an act of brainwashing, or something else.
- jaan