What were the primordial building blocks that caused the universe so that we can....

[Iamme]

...get the show on the road in trying to determine if it is even remotely concievable that all the complexity here on earth, and including earth itself (which is like a living being more powerful than even ourselves, and has given us life... and therefore could be considered our God)...could simply have arisen on it's own accord, with no purpose or without any supreme mind behind it all.

I'm trying to imagine ONE law...one action...one energy ingredient...one ?... that set off the whole event, so that this one thing (or maybe two?) begat another and another that led to matter and energy that somehow bonded and made more compexities out of the original ingredients, leading finally to earth and us, so that literally a God was actually CREATED rather than a God doing the creating.

Sounds fantastic, right? Fantastically backwards. Or is it? Could it be that an infinite Godhead energy force both is the creatOR AND the creatED in the end?...because there is no true beginning or end, and it's all some viscious cycle like how a magnet behaves?

Be careful what you post, as I may ask ..."Where did THAT come from?!" :)

[athon]

In the beginning, there was darkness.

So we're all made of dark. I am at least.

And the dark was always there.

Athon

[Gord_in_Toronto]

...get the show on the road in trying to determine if it is even remotely concievable that all the complexity here on earth, and including earth itself (which is like a living being more powerful than even ourselves, and has given us life... and therefore could be considered our God)...could simply have arisen on it's own accord, with no purpose or without any supreme mind behind it all.

I'm trying to imagine ONE law...one action...one energy ingredient...one ?... that set off the whole event, so that this one thing (or maybe two?) begat another and another that led to matter and energy that somehow bonded and made more compexities out of the original ingredients, leading finally to earth and us, so that literally a God was actually CREATED rather than a God doing the creating.

Sounds fantastic, right? Fantastically backwards. Or is it? Could it be that an infinite Godhead energy force both is the creatOR AND the creatED in the end?...because there is no true beginning or end, and it's all some viscious cycle like how a magnet behaves?

Be careful what you post, as I may ask ..."Where did THAT come from?!" :)

Maybe?

or

Maybe not?

Any evidence for any of this? :shocked:

[Wolverine]

...could simply have arisen on it's own accord...

Please (http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html). Thank you.

It's

"It's" is a contraction. It is short for "it is". It's not a way to ascribe a property to some "it". Yes, I know that this would make sense given that the general rule for forming a possessive is to tack on "'s": fool's errand, brewer's yeast, horse's ass. "It's" is an exception to this rule, and I honestly apologize on behalf of the infuriating English language. I didn't invent this stupid rule, but it's hardwired into my brain like gender of nouns to French speakers.

Examples:


It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all.
You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around, that's what it's all about.


Its

"Its" is a possessive pronoun. Its interpretation is something like "that which belongs to it", where "it" stands for some previously defined object. In the previous sentence, the object being referred to is the word "its", and the thing that belongs to it is its interpretation.

Examples:

He left it dead, and with its head he went galumphing back
Love rears its ugly head.


Using them correctly

With practice, it's easy to tell these two devilish words apart. To help you keep them separate, here are some handy tips:

Try replacing your "it's" with "it is" in the sentence. If the sentence becomes obviously wrong, you probably meant to use "its". If it sounds okay, "it's" can stay.


Example: "Nothing can take it's place" can't be right, because "Nothing can take it is place" is nonsense. You probably mean "Nothing can take its place".
Example: "It's not easy being green". Well, "It is not easy" is right, so the original sentence is okay.


Try replacing your "its" with "his" in the sentence. If it comes out sounding right, "its" can stay.


Example: "That's just its way of making friends" must be okay, because "That's just his way of making friends" is grammatical.


In general, "its" as a possessive is like "his". You wouldn't write "hi's", would you? Well, maybe you would if you were talking about something belonging to Hiram...

Look at the word that follows "its" or "it's". A noun means that you want "its". An adjective probably indicates "it's". This isn't always true, but it's a half-decent rule of thumb.


Example: "The cat licks its tongue into the corners of the evening". "Tongue" is a noun. I probably don't mean "it is tongue", so I'll stick with "its".

[Apathia]

Please, not another bowl of turtles all the way down soup.

[Wowbagger]

First off, this should be in the Philosophy sub-forum, not in sci/tech/etc.

Second of all, why limit yourself to ONE and only ONE thing? There is no reason to insist on such a limitation. It could be possible (although I will be the first to admit there is no proof) that there was no single first cause. It could be possible (again, without claiming to have any proof) that many flucuations from many different dimensions are constantly churning out and disposing of different universes other entities would call home.

Third of all, (and this reiterates my first point), science only concerns itself with what is testable. If you want to write up ideas about Gods and other assorted creators, that is your business. But, please do not confuse those philosophical ideas with what constitutes real scientific rigor.

Forth of all: Your solution to where it all came from is no better than anyone else's philosophy. God is still a circular argument. The Big Bang still has mystery surrounding the Initial Condition "before" it occured. (The dimesion of time began at the Big Bang, according to our current understanding, which is why I placed "before" in quotes. Technically there is no "before", but there is still a mystery as to how it came about.)
The point of my forth point is thus: God is NOT a superior solution. You can beleive if you wish, but don't try to sell it to us, as some sort of be-all end-all solution to our problems.

Thank you.

[DRBUZZ0]

I think that most scientists would agree that: We don't know.

We have some ideas on what may have happened. We have learned much about the possibilities and what it probably was like shortly after the big bang.

However why "there is something and not nothing" is a question which goes beyond even the elusive unified "Theory of Everything," which the string theorists seem to be the furthest along on.

or... I could just pull something out of my ass. Here goes: GOD DID IT!

(there... that was easy)

[Dark Jaguar]

...get the show on the road in trying to determine if it is even remotely concievable that all the complexity here on earth, and including earth itself (which is like a living being more powerful than even ourselves, and has given us life... and therefore could be considered our God)...could simply have arisen on it's own accord, with no purpose or without any supreme mind behind it all.

I'm trying to imagine ONE law...one action...one energy ingredient...one ?... that set off the whole event, so that this one thing (or maybe two?) begat another and another that led to matter and energy that somehow bonded and made more compexities out of the original ingredients, leading finally to earth and us, so that literally a God was actually CREATED rather than a God doing the creating.

Sounds fantastic, right? Fantastically backwards. Or is it? Could it be that an infinite Godhead energy force both is the creatOR AND the creatED in the end?...because there is no true beginning or end, and it's all some viscious cycle like how a magnet behaves?

Be careful what you post, as I may ask ..."Where did THAT come from?!" :)

I for one don't know, and to the best of my knowledge, scientists don't have a good idea either. It's an unknown.

However, I will note your flaws in logic already. First of all, to say "we don't know what it is, thus it is god" is basically saying "my proof that god exists is my lack of proof that god exists". Secondly, you're saying "what caused THAT" is actually our argument against a creator god being an "answer" to creation. We ask you to tell us why a creator god is an answer to anything that doesn't just make us ask what created that god. Then you say "God just always was" and if you are going to say that, why not just say the universe always was and cut out an unnecesary and unproven entity in the process? Then the dance does the first movement all over again as you say you just can't imagine how the universe in all it's complexity could just "always be" and it had to have a first cause, then you say it's god, then we say if you say that of the universe, we can say that of god since it must be that complex, then you say god just always was, then we ask why can't we just say the universe always was and save a step, next verse same as the first...

[Gilmar]

We don't need to know "what were the primordial building blocks that caused the universe" in order to "determine if it is even remotely concievable that all the complexity here on earth...and including earth itself could simply have arisen on it's own accord". I can conceive of it just fine, without knowing the primordial blocks (Lego?).

[Zep]

1) I don't know how to make decent pumpkin soup. Therefore...

2) God!


This makes sense to you, Iamme?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What were the primordial building blocks that caused ...
You're getting ahead of yourself, my friend. First you have to determine whether there was any cause at all.

~~ Paul

[Iamme]

In the beginning, there was darkness.

So we're all made of dark. I am at least.

And the dark was always there.

Athon

Well. That is light-heatrted anyway. Excellent way to start out this thread.

And God was 'brooding' over this darknes (perhaps) and went..."Let there be light!"

Trouble is with this thinking though...one musters up in their mind this big man up in the sky that can actually talk and want to do things just like us. I think God is something way beyond that image. And it is that image that both God believing people and atheists alike conjure up in their heads. And atheists think surely that a God like that is something made up in man's mind.

[Dark Jaguar]

Well aside from that guy's Kingdom Hearts thing about darkness, what about the actual arguments we made?

[DRBUZZ0]

1) I don't know how to make decent pumpkin soup. Therefore...

2) God!


This makes sense to you, Iamme?

if decent pumpkin soups exists that something must be the cause of this. if you cannot explain it then since we need a firm explanation, it must be god. or maybe the flying spaghetti monster... oh wait.... he only makes pasta... but damn good pasta

[Schneibster]

You don't have to reason from first causes to determine whether it is raining or not. So why would it be necessary in this case? Are you arguing that the fact that water falls from the sky is proof of God rather than proof it's raining?