2007-07-07 02:59:17 · 19 answers · asked by lifescircle 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
My own theory:
I believe the Universe was never created, and time does not exist. Energy was never born and energy never dies. What we call the birth of the universe is simply a transmutation of energy to comprise a form. The energy was already in existence in latent form it simply had not combined to transmutate into a form. Energy in any state is in constant transformation. What we call time is our linear thinking (imaginery line) we put on transmuations of energy.
Example - Before birth the energies which make u .. YOU where already in existence.
Birth - Is the transmuation of energy.
Life - The energy is in constant transformation, it just keeps on changing.
Death - The transforming energy reaches yet another point of transmutation.
Time - Is our linear straight lined thinking we put on periods between transmuations of transforming energy.
I have exhausted the word "energy" to an unecessary degree so lets change focus to the Big Bang and Creation Theories..
Big Bang/Creation is in the same boat because they share the same logical fallacy. Both share the property of believing in "Nothing." Ask a Creationist what was the universe before it was created the answer is "Nothing." Same question when posed to Big Bangers yelleds the exact illogical response "Nothing." Do you believe in "Nothing?" As I have come to understand it Nothing does not exist, for if it did it would not be nothing....correct? Therefore nothing never was and never will be, because it simply does not exist. Something coming from nothing??? This is a contradiction.
2007-07-07 03:55:55 · answer #1 · answered by Future 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
particularly that's believed that the universe became smaller than a pea. under the size of the atom to be precise. almost none existent. something like a "Singularity" it is got here upon on the middle of Black Holes. So in some way there's a similarity between the great Bang and Black Holes. the place does God come into this you are able to ask? To me God and the Universe are one and the comparable. the only distinction is one makes use of faith and the different makes use of technological awareness to be defined. With that pronounced. the great Bang could have not been a beginning up of something yet portion of yet another or a continuation of something else. So the Universe in basic terms like God could have been around consistently. like a circle going around on itself. infinite. God made us in his very own image and that's actual. we are the universe as nicely. we are an factor to it and that's an element human beings.
2016-10-20 04:17:58 · answer #2 · answered by antonovich 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bing Bang-Inflationary Theory.
2007-07-07 03:30:10 · answer #3 · answered by semyaza2007 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not convinced the big bang sufficiently explains the universe, nor that the existing evidence and the data accumulating daily even argue for it convincingly.
The theory, however, with all the flaws it carries as baggage, does represent attempts to examine evidence accumulated more recently than, say, 1000 bc.
I don't believe the returns are all in, might never be. Thus far I have no theory of my own.
2007-07-07 03:10:38 · answer #4 · answered by Jack P 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The sages say the Universe was created(Creatio Ex Nihilo), and the scientists say it began with a Big BANG. So basically, they're both saying the same thing; that the Universe had a beginning, so it's not eternal, which does not mean it's not infinite or unlimited...
I personally think it began(not eternal-created-had a beginning) probably with a bang nobody heard, an implosion, so the Universe is actually inside the Black Hole created by this implosion...!0!
Good luck!
2007-07-07 03:51:41 · answer #5 · answered by Alex 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our universe is a constituent part of a multiverse, and we are only a mere bumb in this multiverse fabric... Actually, all matter is made of energy, and this energy manifest itself first in frequencies and then become physical (E=MC2). So my guess is that everything that exist is linked together, but divided in physical expression and locations. The Big Bang never really occur in this case, and the Creation (involving the age of the planet to only 10000 years) is completely false...
2007-07-07 17:51:00 · answer #6 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imagine if we were a fish that lives at the bottom of the ocean where it's always drak. If you ask this question to those fish it will probably have a theory based on what it sees around it and how further it can see. It will be a miracle if they could imagine beyond the ocean and to the land. But still they have no idea how further it goes beyond land and sky and beyond the moon and stars. And this is only the begining.
I believe we are that fish. We have absolutely no idea how this world came to be and how further it goes, unless we venture out and see beyond the world we imagine.
2007-07-07 06:44:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think these two theories have to be opossed to one another. Science has done great deal of good for people but it falls short on explaining the ultimate questions of the meaning of life.
Creation as expossed in the bible is not to be interpreted literally. The creation story lays the ground to understand the transcendental reality of God and ourselves in relationship to our creator and creation itself.
I believe God created the world but we just do not know how. To accept one theory at the expense of denying the other is not to be faithful to seek the truth.
2007-07-07 03:15:29 · answer #8 · answered by Adan 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would say the big bang, but that still begs the question, what created the materials needed for the big bang?
2007-07-07 03:27:51 · answer #9 · answered by Bekka 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I beleive in the creation account as told in Genesis.
But I also believe the world is older thatn 6,000
2007-07-07 03:46:29 · answer #10 · answered by drg5609 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋