Einstein did not die a believer in God. From his Wikipedia article: 'From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."'

Darwin also did not die a believer in God. At best he thought there might be a God. To quote the Wikipedia article, 'In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."'

Here are the Wikipedia links for your perusal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin

Please research before making such bold comments in the future.

In addition, please make sure that you understand the science behind the theories, to say nothing of what a scientific theory is to begin with, prior to making remarks such as these:



Such basic misuse of terminology indicate not only a lack of knowledge of the subject matter, but the unwillingness to do even the most basic of research that would have prevent such statements from being made in the first place..

thank you aquatus1.



There have been observations which show, BlackHoles, these points in space are collapsed Super Giant Stars, under there own gravity they became so dense that they literally pull Light waves and matter, then expell it is super hot gas, this gas can only be seen in the X-ray, and not the kind you find in your radiology center. They have even found evidence that at the center of our galaxy, is a super black hole, they even found stars orbiting it, which they thought was not possible, and forming stars were found near it. Look it up, go to any news agency and look through their science articles, i bet you will find it.

[quote name='angrycrustacean' date='Dec 14 2005, 12:47 AM' post='974502']
Einstein did not die a believer in God. From his Wikipedia article: 'From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."'

Darwin also did not die a believer in God. At best he thought there might be a God. To quote the Wikipedia article, 'In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."'

Here are the Wikipedia links for your perusal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin


Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."




What Einstein himself said :

Albert Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.

Albert Einstein
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Albert Einstein
A person starts to live when he can live outside himself.

Albert Einstein
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

Albert Einstein
God is subtle but he is not malicious.

Albert Einstein
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.


Albert Einstein
There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.

Albert Einstein
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.

Albert Einstein
The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

Albert Einstein
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

Albert Einstein
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Albert Einstein
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence



Isaac newton? I got his nice little item from Wikpedia's biography of Newton (you must have missed it sweety) -

"The law of gravity became Newton's best-known discovery. He warned against using it to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

His scientific fame notwithstanding, the Bible was Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture and Alchemy than to science, and said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." Newton himself wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. He also attempted, unsuccessfully, to find hidden messages within the Bible (See Bible code). Despite his focus in theology and alchemy, Newton tested and investigated these myths with the scientific method, observing, hypothesizing, and testing his theories. To Newton, his scientific and mythical experiments were one in the same, observing and understanding how the world functioned.

Newton is often accused of being a Unitarian and Arian, and not believing in the church's doctrine of divine trinity. However, T.C. Pfizenmaier argued that he more likely held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most Protestants.7 In his own day, he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian (as were many in the Royal Society and in the court of Charles II).8

In his own lifetime, Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. He believed in a rationally emanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason, but this universe, to be perfect and ordained, had to be regular."

tsk tsk tsk....

here is a list of famous scientists who believed in God:


Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered may areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)



Charles Darwin:

Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury on 12 February 1809, son of Robert Waring Darwin (1766-1848) and Susannah, daughter of Josiah Wedgwood. He studied with his brother Erasmus at Edinburgh University but disliked the idea of following in his father’s footsteps as a doctor. At Cambridge University he became very much interested in natural history and, instead of entering the church as an ordained minister, sailed on the ship HMS Beagle in 1831 to South America and the Galapagos islands. In 1839 he married his cousin Emma Wedgwood and they went to live at Downe, a small village in Kent. His famous work “The Origin of Species by natural selection” was published in 1859 and he continued working although his health was often poor. He died at Downe on 19 April 1882.

The Dean of Westminster, George Granville Bradley, was away in France when he received a telegram forwarded from the President of the Royal Society in London saying “…it would be acceptable to a very large number of our fellow-countrymen of all classes and opinions that our illustrious countryman, Mr Darwin, should be buried in Westminster Abbey”. The Dean recalled “ I did not hesitate as to my answer and telegraphed direct…that my assent would be cheerfully given”. The body lay overnight in the Abbey, in the small chapel of St Faith, and on the morning of 26 April the coffin was escorted by the family and eminent mourners into the Abbey. The pall-bearers included Sir Joseph Hooker, Alfred Russel Wallace, James Russell Lowell (U.S. Ambassador), and William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society). The burial service was held in the Lantern, conducted by Canon Prothero, with anthems sung by the choir. The chief mourners then followed the coffin into the north aisle of the Nave where Darwin was buried next to the eminent scientist Sir John Herschel, and a few feet away from Sir Isaac Newton. The simple inscription on his grave reads “CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN BORN 12 FEBRUARY 1809. DIED 19 APRIL 1882”. Although an agnostic, Darwin never disputed the existance of God in his written works and was greatly respected by his contemporaries and the Bishop of Carlisle, Harvey Goodwin, in a memorial sermon preached in the Abbey on the Sunday following the funeral, said “I think that the interment of the remains of Mr Darwin in Westminster Abbey is in accordance with the judgment of the wisest of his countrymen…It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God…”. A bronze memorial, with a life-sized relief bust, was erected by his family in the north choir aisle, near to the grave, in 1888. The sculptor was Sir J.E. Boehm. The inscription just says simply “DARWIN”.

For an atheist it is surprising Darwin never left clear instructions that he was not to receive such an evangelical send-off and memorial within Britain's holiest of shrines....

really?...now offer me incontrovertible evidence fior the existance of black holes, because there is not one scientist on the face of this planet that CAN.

ok then...then provide me with incontrovertible proof that black holes exist. If you can you will become more famous than both einstein AND hawking.

They can't

Thanks for the info^

Fantazum, once again you are putting words into my mouth.

First of all, I don't see the logic behind your 'sweety' thing but it is degrading to us both.

Isaac Newton? No, I didn't miss his biography, which is exactly why I didn't mention him at all. I am throughly convinced that he believed in God. I suggest you actually take the time to read my posts logically before jumping to conclusions about what I said.

Einstein? I'm impressed by your tenacity at finding quotes, however you'll notice that my quote from Wikipedia about him was dated 1954, only one year before he died. The issue I was addressing was whether or not he believed in God when he died, and this letter irrevocably answers this question. I sincerely doubt that Einstein suddenly had a change of heart and made all those quotes one year before his death; No, those quotes of yours were surely made BEFORE my quoted letter.

As for the rest of the scientists, I really don't care and I don't understand why you bothered posting all that. I'm sure there are and have been a lot of respectable Christian scientists.

And then there's your Darwin comment. Firstly, yes, it is surprising indeed, but I see no point to your comment as even within your own source it says Darwin was agnostic. You proved absolutely nothing, as is usually the case with you.

fantasam you do like to take things out of context, im not sure that i actually made any reference to newton or einstine, but then maybe you seen somehow my response was prevalent to such a matter of philosophiK phant'sy. One thing about Newton though, he was also a very powerful social-ite yes he loved to study the bible a great deal and did indeed make the watchmakers[wathcmaking having become very trendy and new during his time of presiding over the Royal Mint] of the time look like navies by comparison. But he also understood the importance of what religion u subscribed too. And changed accordingly with the new King/Queen, something that was more or less in an extreme amount of contention at the time.

But im sorry whats your point?

ummm yeah btw, this is an article from New Scientist stating Hawkings theory on black holes on how information does actually escape the black hole.


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6151

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_home.html

this is cambridge universities sort of introduction to black holes.

^sorry to answer before fantazum
I think his point is that even these geniuses struggled with the thought of God and the Universe. So its agree to disagree

I find it odd that there is no center to the universe... it seems if everything came about from a 'BIG BANG' there should be a starting point for the expansion but there isn't... just seems odd... JMO

Where is the center of the Universe?

Link to an alternative big bang theory i read a book on, essentially the universe expanding creates energy, when it gets too fast the energy created converts to matter. Which would explain the lack of a singularity.

Making the cocept of death easier to understand or cope with ? I think not... Death is merely moving on to the next plane of existance/acending, so what's the need for worshipping it and fearing it ? It is a definite constant that shall take place sooner or later and there's nothing to be done about it.

LOL ! Good One !

You wont hear any objections from me.

Well.......

Ockhams Razor makes (for me) 'Let there be Light' easer to believe than the coincidal or accidental universe.

excellent post.Some very interesting ideas. Do you know why science changed its mind about the big bang theory?....because by accepting the idea of a 'big bang' you have to accept the idea that energy can be created from nothing. and thats a big no- no.

oh so he's an agnostic now eh?

yes your right, but then people are pretty dumb. for example there should be no violent dispute between the creationists and the evolutionists for the simple reason that both ideas can live together perfectly. Perhaps god created the earth and then evolution took over....its perfectly natural (to coin a phrase) so why the dispute?
take the bible for instance and the way it is interpreted. The new testament was written centuries after the death of christ. It was copied and translated from numerous much older copies of ancient hebrew and aramiac texts. Much of the original work was never included because it had been lost (gnostic gospels for instance) what we have today is a very dubious mix of badly translated re-mixed recordings which modern religion has taken completely out of context and has cunningly concealed within it propaganda to further its own particular beliefs and prejudices. and despite the fact that disciples of the faith are fully aware of the age of the original writings and the context in which they were written, they insist on accepting their literal truth!
for example; in the new testament we call the omnipotent power "GOD' but in the ancient hebrew and aramiac texts - from which the new testament is taken - there is no word for 'god. That single omnipotent power is in fact described as "those who came from the heavens".......PLURAL! but then if you read the new testament you will see it clearly claims that 'god' is in fact a trinity of the father, the son and the holy ghost......PLURAL! so what are we supposed to believe? well the new testament claims that the father the son and the holy ghost are one entity but separate!
The messages delivered by christ and mohammed and all of the great prophets were simple and very clear - "live your life in peace harmony with your fellow man and nature and do them no harm and live in accordance with the basic natural laws that I/we set down on stone for you..."do not steal, do not murder,do not adulterate,do not covet,do not be greedy etc etc..."
but of course we siezed on their ideas and their following and turned them into weapons to entrap the minds of men within a web of deciept and manipulation for gain and power.religion became a tool of the state and of politics and the fuel for which to feed hatred.
And to judge from recent events I would say we intend to continue doing so.....

Once again you have not only misinterpreted but it seems as though you didn't even READ my original post. I clearly stated the following:

I think information escapes fantazum's head.

I assume you mean "Occam's" razor :-)

And if you are using Occam's razor then you would choose the scientific universe rather than one that was created.

Occam's Razor: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate - "multiples should not be needed."

Occam's razor basically says that that given the choice between any given hypothesis you should choose the one with the least assumptions. It does not say "choose one that's simplist" as most people translate Occam's razor to mean.

An example: You see an apple under an apple tree after a terrible storm. You are given 2 hypothesis as to why it's there. The first is that the storm shook the apple free. The second is that a passing elf put it there. Occam's razor would have you pick the former rather than the latter because you have observed wind and storms before and know they are a real physical force. You know it's possible for wind to blow things free. You know the laws of physics exists. To choose the second you would have to assume that elves exist, that one had a reason to put an apple on the floor, and you would have to assume the storm played no part even though it was reasonable that it would have.

Scientific universe has no asumptions. Sure, there are things we do not know, there are educated guesses at things that may or may not be - but there are no assumptions.

A created universes has an endless amount of assumption, the greatest of them being "there is a god."



You seem confused and misinformed on a number of things.

When scientists use the word "theory" it is not in the everyday sense that it's normally used. We have "atomic theory," after all. Maybe you want to believe that's not true, but don't expect the lights and power to go off any time soon

I'm going to quote from a great article regarding misconceptions of evolution. It says it all much better than I can

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty— above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. according to the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of
validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation
that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.


Evolution is a fact. If you choose not to accept that then it's your choice.

Actually, no. Accepting the Big Bang does not, in any way, shape, or form, require that energy come from nothing (unlike a certain story running along the lines of "In the beginning, there was nothing..."). If anything, the Big Bang comes closer to describing an eternal presence of energy.

Also, science has not 'changed its mind' about the Big Bang theory. It is still as valid as it was before, even though there are new theories that are promising to answer questions the Big Bang cannot. Whether it is correct or not, it is still the most well-supported theory concerning the origins of the universe.

Isn't it wierd if you try to work back to where we came from, it seems too worked out. I wonder if we were created but not by God in the everyday sense. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of evolution, the eye for example is extremely advanced, other animals like the complex heart-valve system on a giraffe surely would have to evolve at the same time otherwise it would not survive. Howcome there are so many diverse forms of life on Earth, almost as if we are being tricked into believing it's because of evolution, ie an assumption we would make. Atoms instinctively form molecules in specific bonds, forming more complex chemicals that make up everything around you inc. you! Even atoms are formed by smaller constituents, all matter appears to have a purpose...how do we explain our "being alive and able to think" from a collection of chemicals that have formed a brain!

From: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.



Does God Exist - Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?


Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

To read the rest got to; http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

I think the Koran sums it up nicely with the saying; "if it lives then it has purpose"

oh yes it does...at least acording tp professor hawking.

well i may have interperterd my feelings wrongly here earlier, see interpreting the bigbang as coming from nothing is not the correct veiw to look at it.

see aquatus1 here is correct, here, accourdin to physics as we know (i mean quantum, which im not a expert/nor claim to be). but it is most ceirtain, that in order for matter to apper, there must be some kinda energy avilable it is that energy according to quantum physycs that is at question..
now what is this is the question,,,god,the remants of god,are we all in hell searchen for god, lmao....but if you look at the history of man/ and science, youll see that this is merly the question to the question to the question, i do belive.

continue on

That is exactley our problem. Taking our mathematic, physic and logic to understand the universe. Stephen Hawking is WRONG. There was no Big Bang, at least not the way he thinks it happened. Our mind is to narrow to accapt the fact that there is something endless, that has no begining and no end. Mostly beccause we are used to live with with the thought of birth and death.
But what happens out there and around us is simpley a change in shape which occures thorough solar colisions. There was no Big Bang. From nothing you get nothing.

Anything to back you up other than your word on the matter? I hope you don't take offense that I don't take the word of a total stranger as the ultimate truth on any subject.

What is Hawkin wrong about? Why are you talking about nothing? What does nothing have to do with the Big Bang Theory?

Please don't tell me you made this rather bold post while under the impression that the Big Bang claims that the universe popped up out of nothing. That's just too basic an error for any person who has even read s imple overview of the theory to make.

WHat if the universe is like a beating heart...it beat and it exspands and then it retracts back, then back out again.

Sorry if this was already posted...i didnt read the whole thread.

No cheef, no ofense. But, Hawking is a stranger to me too. I do not know him personaly so why should I belive him?
I do not like the fact that he puts actualy a time frame when the Big Bang occured. That leaves an Impression that our Universe is ( sorry I am not sure about that) 14 (?) billion years old? Thats not the way it is. Those "Big Bangs" happen all the time out there. That is what I mean with solar colisions.
And then, sure enough, we have to ask ourselves what was before the Big Bang? Nothing?
I dont think so.
Please dont ask me for proof, those are only my thoughts.
However, I am sure that someday someone will prove that Hawking is wrong, but it's not going to be me - not smart enough, sorry.

The Universe like a Heart? Hmm, not a bad thought. As I said forget math, physic and logic as we know it, out there it's different.

You don't need to believe him. His theory may well be incorrect (incidentally, Hawkin is not the person who came up with the Big Bang). Hawkin's theory, however, and every other scientific theory out there, must be backed up with supporting evidence and logic. One does not need to believe in the man; one merely has to ensure that the claim that they make is scientifically valid by complying with scientific methodology. That is the advantage of science; you don't have to take anyones word on it, you can check out their claims for yourself.

Of course, I would recommend you find out which theory makes what claim first...



I'm sorry, but I must ask: What exactly do you think the Big Bang theory claims?



Good. Neither do proponents of the Big Bang theory.



That's entirely possible. No one has made any claim that Hawkin, or Hubble, or any scientist, has discovered the final answer to anything. Science will continue to gather data and revise its theories till it can no longer do so. It may well be that Hawkin's theories are correct, but simply insufficient, much like Newton's theory of gravity.

Regardless, I think you would do yourself a great service to read up a bit on what these theories actually claim prior to denouncing them so strongly. I'm not telling you that you need to go out and get a degree in physics, but much of what you have claimed these theories say is simply not so.

My argument as well. There must be a flaw in that theory somehow though, because the very first matter HAD to have been created, or it wouldn't exist.

Two things:

A.) Once again (fourth time on this page), there is nothing in the Big Bang theory that claims that the universe began in nothingness.

B.) The Laws of Thermodynamics explain physical effects in the space-time that we inhabit. They apply up to about one 16th millionth of a second after the Big Bang. Before that, we aren't sure what happened.

unles u could survive a big bang then we shall never know

What if we weren't created from nothing but are the creation of repetitive "big bangs" where all matter is attracted back to a single point (after a hell of a long time obviously)causing another big bang and the whole process to start again? In that case we evolved by an outside influence placing enough matter/energy into pure space to start the 1st big bang. I can't reason any further...

That is entirely possible. One of the extrapolations of Superstring Theory is that two dimensions could have 'touched', and the magnificent release of energy would have been the source of all energy in our universe.

I agree... if the Universe is only 14 billion years old, that doesn't leave room for the growth and expansion of what we see today. If you take a look at the average lifespan of stars, then I'd say about half of them are about to explode if the Universe is only 14 billion years old.

I believe in God and the big bang. Religion and science can compliment each other... but I'm not a frickin scientologist. Just making that clear : D

The thing I'm curious about though, is what's outside of the universe? If it's a giant sphere, then maybe something exists outside of it. Lots to think about.

Nobody knows at this time. We do not have the technology. DROP IT

My idea of the universe is this








another happens here---> O






(Its my opinion. Kinda like thinking were the only planet with inteligent life, our big bang doesnt have to be the only one.)

Outside the universe? Maybe another one? And again, and again, and........?
Honestley, can we immagine how huge the space is? Not easy, right? Even when we try to do so, there is always another thought of a border, one-way street, edge or end folowing.
I am sorry, but, except god, nobody can tell how old and how big our universe is.
14 billion, 25 billion.........those are JUST NUMBERS of human creation and they are valid only as long we follow OUR logic.
Out there, time, ( and TIME is NUMBERS ), does not exist, only space.

"what was there before the bigbang ?"

several small bangs


and Starbucks

Perhaps some here should consider that not being able to comprehend something yourself does not mean that no one else can comprehend it.

Before the 'Big Bang' there was....God and darkness.

And from that darkness, God called Adoil (a black hole) and commanded him to disintegrate and what came from his belly was light (nebulae containing our Solar system, and other galaxies), and thus preceeding that, the Earth was born. In short anyway.

To further prove this:



Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...blackholes.html

**shrugs**

Meh...

You can stick whatever decorative philosophy you want on the theory. Science doesn't care about the purpose; science just wants to know how it happened.

THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T EXIST. IT'S ALL A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

Look at the palm of your hand.....


then look closely......


and just realize that one little speck of space on your hand is earth....

now imagine how far it goes beyond the solar system and the stars (relating on earth)

Matter and Antimatter.

in my holy book, it says that before the universe existed, everything was just fog.