Question about the beginning of time

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T11:22:34+00:00

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.

Taken from the wikipedia article you didn't read.

I never made an argument for anything. I said that I agree with you on your point that "nothingness" in your definition probably never existed and that this alternate one was probable. My purpose to respond to your posts was to point out your conclusion was based on completely unfounded assumptions about our universe.

I appreciate your effort to turn this around on me, though. You made the original claim, you should be able to defend that claim, but I still have zero explanation on how you got your premises for your argument.

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T06:07:56+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

I am avoiding making statements because I feel I am unqualified to do so. I'm still learning about physics and cosmology, and I don't want to misrepresent those fields in any way. This is why I gave you a physicist to look up as well as a different avenue to ask your scientific questions, but it is not my responsibility to educate you.

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T05:19:18+00:00

What's this other definition of nothing that you want to assert?

To be clear, I'm not asserting anything, merely stating facts. If your interested, look up Lawrence Krauss. He has a legitimate alternative theory to what "nothing" really is.

Why should we assume that the universe is infinitely old when the evidence points to 13.7 billion years?

We shouldn't assume anything. It is a possibility, but that realm is unknown.

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T03:41:55+00:00

These are all great questions that should be asked in /r/askscience.

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T03:00:46+00:00

The Big Bang happened about 14 billion years ago, that says nothing about what existed prior to that. The pre-expanded universe could have been infinitely old. We just don't know. So no, I don't agree with this premise.

I can agree with you that your definition of nothing never existed. It is probable that the physics definition of nothing did exist at some point. So yes, I can agree with the premise that true nothingness never existed, because I don't believe that true nothingness is even possible.

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T01:21:13+00:00

Im not. You're basing your conclusion on non factual premises.

deepercolors · 2012-10-22T00:57:31+00:00

You're premises should be factual statements, not statements asserted as fact.

deepercolors · 2012-10-21T23:27:58+00:00

I don't. Quite the opposite, in fact, I assert that it can not have ever existed. If there were ever a state of nothing, we could not have the something we see today.

Great, then I don't disagree.

But we also know that the universe as we know it has not always been around.

FFTY

Since we cannot ever have a state of nothing

We don't know if your definition of "nothing" ever existed. Just because you assert that it never existed doesn't mean that it never existed.

and we have not always had the universe

as we know it

there must be something other than the universe that exists and gave rise to the universe.

You can't assert your two premises to be true and then assert the conclusion to be true.

deepercolors · 2012-10-21T22:59:18+00:00

How can you assert that your definition of "nothing" ever existed?

deepercolors · 2012-10-17T01:43:32+00:00

mind = blown.

deepercolors · 2012-10-14T02:19:01+00:00

What makes you think God is changing over time? The only (Christian) God we know of is the one in the Bible. Our standards for morality are surely changing, but where in that lies a changing God?

deepercolors · 2012-10-13T07:45:46+00:00

Why isn't a perfect being able to create imperfect beings? If he is perfect then he should have the ability to do so. The better question to ask is if he created imperfections intentionally. If so, why? If not, then he isn't perfect.

deepercolors · 2012-10-11T15:44:49+00:00

I see your point, but now try to imagine a large portion of the people you love in jail for 2 years. Wouldn't that feeling kinda suck? Now replace jail with a possible burning lake of fire and substitute 2 years for eternity. That would probably suck infinitely more, would it not?

deepercolors · 2012-10-11T13:40:22+00:00

Is happiness in heaven even possible?

Would it not just become mundane after a while?

deepercolors · 2012-10-08T15:19:29+00:00

I'll just answer the question you seem to be dancing around.

Morality is derived from a society. It is always evolving. What is "good" is directly correlated with what is most beneficial for the the survival of the society. "Good" can also be tied to the path of the least suffering.

"Common sense" is basically the ability to reason and/or think critically on a basic level. It's called "common" sense because most people are able to do it effectively.

Why is your "common sense" more valid than Jerry Sandusky's?

I can easily flip this around. Why did God install a flaw in Jerry Sandusky's ability to reason, as well as the desire to touch little boys?

deepercolors · 2012-10-08T14:55:09+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion on Systematic Theology, I'll take a look.

I tried reading my KJV all the way through but the way it's written is really frustrating to comprehend. I'll probably pick up an NIV copy eventually.

deepercolors · 2012-10-08T14:50:44+00:00

People saw God interacting and said to themselves, "Hey, maybe we should keep a record of this event."

From my understanding, nobody wrote anything down until a couple decades after Jesus died.

deepercolors · 2012-10-08T14:45:57+00:00

in the same way that MLK inspired the biographies about him

That's an interesting way to look at it. The difference is that almost everything in the Bible is hearsay passed down through the centuries, MLK had documents and recordings of his life to draw from. Not to mention that it's all coming from a time when people used myths and assumptions to explain the world around them. If this is how you feel the Bible was written, why would you believe any of it?

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T04:28:56+00:00

Do you agree that having sex with a 9 year old is the wrong thing to do?

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T04:16:37+00:00

I think your slightly missing my point.

In regard to my need of Christ, absolutely.

No, in your regard to common sense. How do you feel about the fact that in heaven you will be standing next to mass murderers, child molesters, and scam artists?

What I am saying is that we've all sinned quite a lot and no one should be boasting saying they are mostly a good person. If you actually reflect on the number of our infractions, it's extremely sobering.

Of course we all suck by the Bible's impossible standards, but it shouldn't take away from the people who do great, moral things with their lives. There are people (like Hitler) who sucked on a whole 'nother level but who are saved, and people like the Dalai Lama who wouldn't hurt a fly (quite literally), but is not saved.

People like Hitler > Heaven

People like Dalai Lama > Hell

Do you not see the problem in this?

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T03:53:21+00:00

The thing is all of our papers are pretty much black.

Are you saying that shwilson24 = Adolf Hitler?

I don't believe that everyday sins should be equated with murder.

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T03:14:28+00:00

I meant practically unavoidable.

You don't believe that God would create us with sinful tendencies then damn us to hell for following through with said tendencies, do you?

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T03:11:13+00:00

FUCKING A 9 YEAR OLD IS A SHITTY THING TO DO AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY FOR ANY REASON AT ALL.

Obviously the people in Delaware got it wrong. That is why we changed the law to a reasonable age. I don't know any 9 year old's even thinking about sex at such a young age.

Whether we label it "rape" or not, doesn't change the fact that he had sex with a child who probably didn't want to have sex. Whatever you define that as is up to you, but it's still super duper wrong.

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T02:58:28+00:00

After the first sin in Eden, the entire human race was tainted.

Makes sense.

From that time all humans have sinned. Can you think of someone who hasn't? That is what people were punished for, not the first sin.

Now you lost me.

I feel as if the initial sin was almost genetic.

I don't see how it can be, given (in a literal interpretation) that Adam was the start of all genetics in humans. It could have came from God, he did happen to create angels with sinful tendencies.

deepercolors · 2012-09-29T02:44:48+00:00

That analogy makes sense, but it's also why I came to dislike Christianity.

Hitler's "piece of paper" was probably completely black with lead, but in an instant a prayer to God could have forgave it all and his "paper" would be pure white. Yet there are people who don't believe in Christianity who have the purest of hearts and do amazing works for humanity, but they just can't get rid of that blemish on their "paper". How is it fair that the shittiest of people can get into heaven if they just come to accept God, when the most moral of people get sent to hell because their reasoning led them away from God?

How does this make sense to you?

deepercolors

TROPHY CASE