Buckeyegrad - Yeah, I was worried that I may "over doing it" when I was typing that diatribe. Didn't mean to offend, if I did. I guess I was using your post as a sounding board of sorts and hope I've made it clear that I wasn't trying to just bust your chops. Personally, I enjoy talking about this kinda stuff, and that's all i'm doing. I hope you don't think that what I said before, or what follows, is an indictment of your beliefs or that you need to justify anything to me. I just like hearing other viewpoints...buckeyegrad said:Kickbuttocks, I'm not sure how to respond to your entire message as your depiction of my understanding of God is so far off, it would take about a 10,000 word essay to clear up everything. However, I esentially believe our differences boil down to where we derive our understandings of God. I've stated many times on these boards that it is completely reasonable to believe in the existence of a "God", it takes the leap of faith to believe that a) "God" is benevolent and/or b) He has revealed himself to us.
My leap of faith is that God has revealed Himself to us through the writings of particular Jewish writings and the life of Christ, which is composed in the Bible. Therefore, I try to keep my understanding of God limited to what I believe He has revealed to us. I know this revelation is not complete...the Bible says so itself, but I do not feel at liberty to add anything the revelation simply because I can reason it (Revelation 22:18 actually says a curse will fall onto those who do such). As I can see no evidence of alien life in the universe through the Bible, I cannot assume it exists simply because reason can allow for the possibility. (And yes, I read von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods when I was in junior high, so I know the argument of a spaceship being represented in Ezekiel. However, von Daniken and others like him error in trying to straight-jacket the apocolyptic writing styles popular in the time period Ezekiel was written into their own modern mythology.)
I'd love to continue this, but the in-laws just stopped for a visit....I'll try to pick this up later.
Didn't see the show...Thump said:BKB,
How do you expect to get back ahead of me in posts when you make long posts that have thought-provocation and meaning?
By the way, did anyone watch that show on Area 51 last night on TLC?
Pretty good show.
From time to time, my employer expects me to work. Friday was one of those days.... Actually, I'll probably be limited for the next few weeks. Buncha junk to do.Thump said:Oh, I haven't forgotten. Where were you last Friday anyways?
The problem with the Big Crunch, that the universe will expand until gravity causes it to contract and cause another Big Bang is two fold. One, the universe appears to be well short of the necessary matter to allow for gravity to do its thing. IIRC, dark matter would have to make up something like 70% of the universe in order to have enough matter for a Big Crunch. Two, shortly after the Big Bang, the rate of expansion of the universe slowed, which seems somewhat logical. But astronomers now know that the universe is expanding at a faster rate! That is quite problematic if one wants to achieve a Big Crunch.I've heard a couple different theories of the BIG BANG. The first is that everything will continue to move away or spread apart endlessly from the point in space where the BIG BANG occurred, meaning time is only "infinite" in one direction. In other words, there was a beginning of time, but there is no end. This indicates the possibilities are in fact "infinite" and that all possibilities will in fact occur, but haven't necessarily occurred yet.
I've also heard that instead of endlessly moving away or spreading apart, at some point gravitational pull will actually slow this spread and eventually reverse this spread. Everything will once again meet back at the point where it all started, creating another BIG BANG and start the cycle all over again. This would indicate that time is/was "infinite" in both directions with a new "starting point" every so often. This would also indicate that even though time is "infinite" in both directions, there is only a "finite" time between "starting points" to achieve these "infinite possibilities" that I suggested in my first post. If this theory is correct, although time and space are in fact "infinite", the possibilities would not be "infinite" because of the repeating cycles of BIG BANGS, where everything is destroyed and recreated at the same instant. This indicates to me that, while every possibility may occur, they do not occur at the same time or don't have enough time to occur. So instead of there being an infinite number of Saw31s replying to this thread at the same time, there were and will be an infinite number of Saw31s who have replyed and will reply to this thread, since this possibility has occured at least once.
The concept of infinity can do this to most people. It has caused some folks to literally go insane. In my area, since I need to deal with infinity as well as its sibling infinitesimals, I have learned to have a great appreciation for it as well as realizing that common sense an intuition are no good when contemplating infinity. And when I find that I may have been thinking about infinity too long, the best thing to do is to drink....heavily.I may have just infinitely confused myself or will confuse myself in the future again, infinitely of course.....