Kimi's Potty Mouth

[bajo39 0]

Indeed, my friend, indeed.

I believe it started a certain way, but I have no proof. I can describe the theory of an expanding universe, but that doesn't explain what happened at that moment before the 'expanding' happened. Describing the process of universal creation does nothing to prove, or disprove, the existence of a 'creator'. I know a person can't prove a negative, but I wonder how a concept of 'god' would come into being without a frame of reference.... Why attribute the lightning one day to a new concept of 'god' when for millions of years the lightning was simply lightning...?

So without indisputable proof of a given theory it is only as good as the next? I don't think so... The Big Bang Theory is far from proven but it is the best theory yet with considerable scientific evidence in support thereof and certainly better than creationism for which there is very little, if any, scientific evidence for. All theories are not of equal merit - that's absurd.

[Max Mosley 2]

I don't think so... Most scientists agree with some form of the Big Bang Theory.

Yes you're right but I think there are some outstanding issues to do with eg the laws of physics very early in the universe, or whether there was something before the Big Bang.

Indeed, my friend, indeed.

I believe it started a certain way, but I have no proof. I can describe the theory of an expanding universe, but that doesn't explain what happened at that moment before the 'expanding' happened. Describing the process of universal creation does nothing to prove, or disprove, the existence of a 'creator'. I know a person can't prove a negative, but I wonder how a concept of 'god' would come into being without a frame of reference.... Why attribute the lightning one day to a new concept of 'god' when for millions of years the lightning was simply lightning...?

The way I think about the creation of the universe is this. Before talking about proof either way, do we have any reason at all to think that postulating a God would make it simpler or better understood in any way? I don't think so. I don't understand your "frame of reference" bit - this sounds like anthropology talk.

[Autumnpuma 0]

So without indisputable proof of a given theory it is only as good as the next? I don't think so... The Big Bang Theory is far from proven but it is the best theory yet with considerable scientific evidence in support thereof and certainly better than creationism for which there is very little, if any, scientific evidence for. All theories are not of equal merit - that's absurd.

The Big Bang theory is valid. We know the universe is expanding and we know from where. We can describe the process of gravity and matter recombining. How does that explain away a 'creator'?

You could measure the length and breadth of a football field; analyse the dirt and grass; weigh it all and still not discover who built it. That doesn't disprove the creator of the field, it simply proves a lack of quantifiable information to answer that question.

Now the Big Bang theory is viewable by all who know how. The math makes sense when looking at the expanding universe. It's believable because more than one person can verify it. The case against religion is that people cannot simply go somewhere and point to a set of mathematics or a complex model and say 'there is God'. With this in mind, how does one explain things like Fatima? I'm not catholic, but I cannot explain some of the eyewitness accounts of that incident. There are many other incidents throuough history, but we are left with the same question: believe the accounts or wait until we can point to that 'something' and say 'there is God'.

[Autumnpuma 0]

[quote name='Murray Walker' post='151201' date='Oct 31 2006, 03:42 PM']I don't understand your "frame of reference" bit - this sounds like anthropology talk. [/quote]

No, just my inability to put my thoughts into words I'll try that one again. Go back far enough in the hominid line and we become animals. We live by instinct. Living by instinct means we thing of eating, screwing and staying alive. An animal may have a concept for 'God' but I doubt it. Likewise our ancestors didn't have a concept of 'God' either. Now progress up through time, millions of years, and picture each year lightning and thunder happening. To all animals the thunder is frightning, but only in the sense that the loud sound activates the 'self-preservation' instinct. The more we evolved, the better we could understand that the thunder always happens and there is little to fear in it as it never kills a person.

Keep progressing up through time, tens of thousands of years. Everything around us would be normal and we would have seen uncountable thunderstorms, death, disease, avalanches, etc. We would accept these as nature. As you point out, Murray, that would be the easiest way; simply accept it as nature. Why then did the concept of 'god' come about? Anthropologists say it was to explain away aspects of nature; but why would we need to come up with a whole new concept for that? We would have gotten through millions of years without needing that 'god'. Indeed, how could such a concept even occur to us? It's much like trying to imagine a new color. How would you do that?

A concept of 'god' would need something seen or experienced to give us the initial idea that a 'god' even existed.

[pabloh20 1]

The Big Bang theory is valid. We know the universe is expanding and we know from where. We can describe the process of gravity and matter recombining. How does that explain away a 'creator'?

You could measure the length and breadth of a football field; analyse the dirt and grass; weigh it all and still not discover who built it. That doesn't disprove the creator of the field, it simply proves a lack of quantifiable information to answer that question.

Now the Big Bang theory is viewable by all who know how. The math makes sense when looking at the expanding universe. It's believable because more than one person can verify it. The case against religion is that people cannot simply go somewhere and point to a set of mathematics or a complex model and say 'there is God'. With this in mind, how does one explain things like Fatima? I'm not catholic, but I cannot explain some of the eyewitness accounts of that incident. There are many other incidents throuough history, but we are left with the same question: believe the accounts or wait until we can point to that 'something' and say 'there is God'.

This makes perfect sense to me, Mike.

I think there is as much proof/evidence for either side if you choose to believe in it. Ultimately, both require a leap of faith. What does amaze me, however, is that people who believe in the big bang theory and then say the idea of God is far fetched and vice versa.

The only thing I would say, for example, is that having all the maths, etc for an expanding universe is great....if the universe is expanding. However, if it's not expanding........All the theory, the maths, everything is based on a condition that might not be happening. Now, I am not saying that the big bang theory/expanding universe is rubbish or wrong, I am just pointing out that basically scientists are using their 'best guess'.

[bajo39 0]

The Big Bang theory is valid. We know the universe is expanding and we know from where. We can describe the process of gravity and matter recombining. How does that explain away a 'creator'?

So in other words the creator created the matter that then exploded in the Big Bang? Seems convenient if you are keen on believing in a creator as such. I'd have to look into whether there are any theories of where said matter came from - I'm not sure of any off-hand - but the absence of such theories would not lead me to believe that it was the work of a God...

[pabloh20 1]

No, just my inability to put my thoughts into words I'll try that one again. Go back far enough in the hominid line and we become animals. We live by instinct. Living by instinct means we thing of eating, screwing and staying alive. An animal may have a concept for 'God' but I doubt it. Likewise our ancestors didn't have a concept of 'God' either. Now progress up through time, millions of years, and picture each year lightning and thunder happening. To all animals the thunder is frightning, but only in the sense that the loud sound activates the 'self-preservation' instinct. The more we evolved, the better we could understand that the thunder always happens and there is little to fear in it as it never kills a person.

Keep progressing up through time, tens of thousands of years. Everything around us would be normal and we would have seen uncountable thunderstorms, death, disease, avalanches, etc. We would accept these as nature. As you point out, Murray, that would be the easiest way; simply accept it as nature. Why then did the concept of 'god' come about? Anthropologists say it was to explain away aspects of nature; but why would we need to come up with a whole new concept for that? We would have gotten through millions of years without needing that 'god'. Indeed, how could such a concept even occur to us? It's much like trying to imagine a new color. How would you do that?

A concept of 'god' would need something seen or experienced to give us the initial idea that a 'god' even existed.

Is this why we invented the power screwdriver?? Ohhh, not that type of screwing!!

Seriously, though, I find this quite an interesting post.

[Autumnpuma 0]

So in other words the creator created the matter that then exploded in the Big Bang? Seems convenient if you are keen on believing in a creator as such. I'd have to look into whether there are any theories of where said matter came from - I'm not sure of any off-hand - but the absence of such theories would not lead me to believe that it was the work of a God...

Ah, these are all just my musings and not meant to convince anyone of anything.

Cav has said his specialty is physics, so perhaps he can be a bit clearer than me, but the theory goes that the matter has always existed. That matter is in a continual state of motion, from one 'end' (for lack of a better word) to the other 'end' of the universe. All matter is now racing towards one point and when all the current matter gets there, it compresses and compresses until it explodes again, heading in the opposite direction.

I'm sure that in the 10 years since I've taken a college course on it, theories have changed....

EDIT: I believe that current (?) theories say matter was energy or somesuch. Quite frankly, this taxes the limits of my knowledge. Suffice it to say, I have no reason to doubt those theories; even though I'm a believer in a religion. My beliefs work well with science (so far... )

[Autumnpuma 0]

Okay, Murray, lets think about this question (maybe it will get us somewhere interesting):

Wait, before I type it, I want it firmly understood that I'm not trying to convert anyone to a religion. I find that sort of thing a bit distasteful. We're just sitting in our virtual pub, beer in hand, having a chat. Just to refresh memories, the question was:

I'm yet to hear a good example of something religion can answer.

"What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?"

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Guys, very interesting viewpoints, I like it, I like it alot... You know within the first chapters of Genesis we will find why some people are believers and others not....But not to offend, I will not mention what really happened, because what took place in the garden of Eden is very very disturbing....you guys will hate me if I bring out the TRUTH.....

lets it be....

[monza gorilla 1]

Damn! You had a discussion without waiting for me! I shall now sulk.

[pabloh20 1]

Damn! You had a discussion without waiting for me! I shall now sulk.

And it was quite civil too, MG.

[Schumikonen 2]

You all are not allowed to have this kind of thread without me. I would like to have this thread in spanish is a little difficult to me to answer some of you in english but I will try.

Big bang theory says that all the matter it was concentrated in just one point in space and had a volume zero and an infinite density, so the matter was there before that, this doesn't explain the origin of the matter or universe because it there already, but who can say that the matter really had a volume zero what means that had that time a property that can not have now and is the property of use any amount of space, that's what volume zero means zero space, and we were told in school that all matter it occupies some space, that will lead us to another question, what could had happended in that nonexistent space contening all the matter of the universe (because matter can not be created) to "create" such explosion, its inexplicable that something can happend in such tiny point (nonexistent volume zero with a force like infinite density nothing can even move so everything in there is suppose to be in the same place forever (inertia) until an external force make it move but how can be an external force if everything was in there, so if we belive in science we have to believe in the inertial force and if we do, we have to discard the big bang.

inertia Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. (Impressed means from the outside) so if everything is inside it's just impossible that the big bang can just happend, it was a good try, but it's just impossible.

[Autumnpuma 0]

"What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?"

I have more time so I'll explain this a bit. I'm choosing one instance from a religion that we all are familiar with. I could talk about Yajnavalkya, but I doubt only a few would know what I'm saying....

So, Paul is an historical figure, not a myth. He was brought up as a Pharisee and was taught by one of the most respected Pharisees of that day, Gamiel. Paul hated the Christian church with a passion, as most Pharisees did. He even held the coats of fellow Pharisees as they stoned a Christian named Steven. Imagine that! He stood by and watched a man die simply for following the teachings of Jesus; and Paul agreed with the stoning. Paul was a man very unsympathetic with Christians, no?

The best term to describe Paul would be 'zealot'. He had a good reputation, a good career ahead of him and was in good standing with the political leaders of the day. Indeed, he was on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians.

Let's eliminate the divine from the equation now and progress past it a short way...

Paul never did arrest those Christians in Damascus. He abruptly turned his back on his former beliefs, his good career, his good standing in society to start preaching the teachings of Jesus. This gets him stoned, beaten, thrown in prison and persecuted. He is financially poor and a wanderer for the rest of his days, to end up convicted and killed.

Now here is what I cannot explain by science: Why did he do this? Why would a man, suddenly, turn his back on a good life and a solid religious belief, in exchange for hardship and death?

[cavallino 2]

Hmm if we could do an autopsy we might get a clue.

So how does religion explain it?

[Autumnpuma 0]

So how does religion explain it?

A divine intervention. I'm more interested in how science (perhaps psychology?) can explain it.

[cavallino 2]

Don't think it can, not in any black and white way at least, we don't understand the human mind well enough.

Still no reason to credit it to divnie intervention.

[Max Mosley 2]

Wait, before I type it, I want it firmly understood that I'm not trying to convert anyone to a religion. I find that sort of thing a bit distasteful. We're just sitting in our virtual pub, beer in hand, having a chat. Just to refresh memories, the question was:

Indeed Mike.

"What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?"

Well, I suspect he just became convinced that Jesus' teachings were true at some point. I don't think he ever met Jesus but perhaps eventually the Christians he met while torturing them were so persuasive that he felt theirs' was the better interpretation of Judaism. Perhaps their devotion was a factor. Perhaps he finally realised how unjust persecution of other beliefs is and his subsequent guilt was also a factor.

Anyway, once converted he may have made up the miraculous incident to convert others (a worthy white lie), or he may have had a sudden moment of inspiration and enlightenment that he either used metaphorical language to describe, or perhaps he genuinely believed God had spoken to him in that moment.

I don't mean to be facetious but maybe he was on drugs, maybe he hallucinated (dehydration?) maybe he was dreaming. Even today people have experiences we can't explain, like alien abductions, sightings of the Loch Ness monster or ghosts etc and normally I would say their minds are playing tricks on them. In the past this was evem more the case: I bet most people centuries ago would have claimed to have seen ghosts say. That doesn't mean they're mad or that they can't be good people. What about miracles that support other faiths, should we accept them? If not the net evidence in favour of any religion from miracles is very low.

Finally remember that the oldest surviving copies of these documents date to several hundred years after the events and most weren't written by eye-witnesses in the first place. Do you know where in the Bible the story is from? David Hume argued that by definition any argument from miracles was flawed. Define "miracles" to be events considered extremely unlikely to have happened in the normal course of events. Suppose someone then tells you about a miracle - to believe or not to believe? Well normally we would choose on the basis of what is most likely or plausible in our opinions. By our definition of miracles and the fact that people lie or get things wrong all the time, it is normally better to assume they are lying or mistaken.

[cavallino 2]

Keep progressing up through time, tens of thousands of years. Everything around us would be normal and we would have seen uncountable thunderstorms, death, disease, avalanches, etc. We would accept these as nature. As you point out, Murray, that would be the easiest way; simply accept it as nature. Why then did the concept of 'god' come about? Anthropologists say it was to explain away aspects of nature; but why would we need to come up with a whole new concept for that? We would have gotten through millions of years without needing that 'god'. Indeed, how could such a concept even occur to us? It's much like trying to imagine a new color. How would you do that?

A concept of 'god' would need something seen or experienced to give us the initial idea that a 'god' even existed.

Not really, most people simply don't understand what is possible and what isn't. Even today millions of people would accept pre-explained phenomena as divine events simply because they haven't seen them before, or they never knew it was possible. Take that back millions of years, and just about everything was unexplained.

Guys, very interesting viewpoints, I like it, I like it alot... You know within the first chapters of Genesis we will find why some people are believers and others not....But not to offend, I will not mention what really happened, because what took place in the garden of Eden is very very disturbing....you guys will hate me if I bring out the TRUTH.....

lets it be....

Brad, just because you don't have the stomach for this debate doesn't mean other shouldn't.

Big bang theory says that all the matter it was concentrated in just one point in space and had a volume zero and an infinite density, so the matter was there before that, this doesn't explain the origin of the matter or universe because it there already, but who can say that the matter really had a volume zero what means that had that time a property that can not have now and is the property of use any amount of space, that's what volume zero means zero space, and we were told in school that all matter it occupies some space, that will lead us to another question, what could had happended in that nonexistent space contening all the matter of the universe (because matter can not be created) to "create" such explosion, its inexplicable that something can happend in such tiny point (nonexistent volume zero with a force like infinite density nothing can even move so everything in there is suppose to be in the same place forever (inertia) until an external force make it move but how can be an external force if everything was in there, so if we belive in science we have to believe in the inertial force and if we do, we have to discard the big bang.

inertia Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. (Impressed means from the outside) so if everything is inside it's just impossible that the big bang can just happend, it was a good try, but it's just impossible.

You obviously never got as far as studying relativity, but yes, our understanding of that point of time is very vague, however at those levels, classical physics simply breaks down (and this is an observed, not hypothetical phenomena). We can read the timeline of the universe better from around 10^-20 (orso, I forget)of a second, but the further back you go the more problems you run into, and those situations are swtill impossible to recreate in experiments.

However the achievements of the theory beyond that time and the correlation with observed data is amazing.

[pabloh20 1]

Indeed Mike.

Well, I suspect he just became convinced that Jesus' teachings were true at some point. I don't think he ever met Jesus but perhaps eventually the Christians he met while torturing them were so persuasive that he felt theirs' was the better interpretation of Judaism. Perhaps their devotion was a factor. Perhaps he finally realised how unjust persecution of other beliefs is and his subsequent guilt was also a factor.

Anyway, once converted he may have made up the miraculous incident to convert others (a worthy white lie), or he may have had a sudden moment of inspiration and enlightenment that he either used metaphorical language to describe, or perhaps he genuinely believed God had spoken to him in that moment.

I don't mean to be facetious but maybe he was on drugs, maybe he hallucinated (dehydration?) maybe he was dreaming. Even today people have experiences we can't explain, like alien abductions, sightings of the Loch Ness monster or ghosts etc and normally I would say their minds are playing tricks on them. In the past this was evem more the case: I bet most people centuries ago would have claimed to have seen ghosts say. That doesn't mean they're mad or that they can't be good people. What about miracles that support other faiths, should we accept them? If not the net evidence in favour of any religion from miracles is very low.

Finally remember that the oldest surviving copies of these documents date to several hundred years after the events and most weren't written by eye-witnesses in the first place. Do you know where in the Bible the story is from? David Hume argued that by definition any argument from miracles was flawed. Define "miracles" to be events considered extremely unlikely to have happened in the normal course of events. Suppose someone then tells you about a miracle - to believe or not to believe? Well normally we would choose on the basis of what is most likely or plausible in our opinions. By our definition of miracles and the fact that people lie or get things wrong all the time, it is normally better to assume they are lying or mistaken.

It's from Acts and didn't Paul write his own accounts like the letters to the Corinthians, etc ?

Just curious Murray, have you read this particular story in the Bible ?

[pabloh20 1]

You obviously never got as far as studying relativity, but yes, our understanding of that point of time is very vague, however at those levels, classical physics simply breaks down (and this is an observed, not hypothetical phenomena). We can read the timeline of the universe better from around 10^-20 (orso, I forget)of a second, but the further back you go the more problems you run into, and those situations are swtill impossible to recreate in experiments.

However the achievements of the theory beyond that time and the correlation with observed data is amazing.

Have they actually managed to get the theory of relativity to work yet, Cav? When I studied physics I think they had experimented with accelerating electrons, but they couldn't get them to be anywhere near the mass they should have been - it's all very vague to me now after all these years!!

[Max Mosley 2]

It's from Acts and didn't Paul write his own accounts like the letters to the Corinthians, etc ?

Just curious Murray, have you read this particular story in the Bible ?

Thanks for the info. It is quite likely that Paul wrote Corinthians but not Acts, traditionally attributed to Luke, a follower of Paul, although Wikipedia claims this is questioned by modern thinkers. As I say I believe Paul, and thus Luke or whoever actually wrote Acts, never met Jesus. Apparently most scholars put its date of composition about 50 years after Jesus died and the earliest complete copies of the Bible to survive are from hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and thus should not be uncritically accepted as even telling us what Paul et al thought.

Fwiw I've been to Church for most of my (relatively short, so far) life and have certainly had this story drilled into me. I can't remember the details now and I doubt they matter - has anyone read all the claims of alien abductions before dismissing them? Who here has listened carefully to what suicide bombers say about their religious experiences before deciding they are probably not divinely inspired? People can genuinely believe and be mistaken - it happens all around us.

My biggest problem with organised religion is that they have an anti-education attitude. How many Churches even tell you what biblical scholars say about the Bible's composition? I know many Xians who justify their beliefs by testimony in the Bible, but then turn out to think that the Gospels were actually written by the disciples themselves! (For a start how many profoundly well educated, or even literate, fishermen would there have been 2000 years ago I wonder?) How many churches tell you all possible viewpoints and let you make your own mind up, rather than drilling their own beliefs into you? In my experience, none. That attitude would be enough for any uni in the western world to be shut down, but religion gets away with it by exploiting followers' fears and hopes (and understandable ignorance at times).

Have they actually managed to get the theory of relativity to work yet, Cav? When I studied physics I think they had experimented with accelerating electrons, but they couldn't get them to be anywhere near the mass they should have been - it's all very vague to me now after all these years!!

Relativity works just fine pabloh! We still experiment using it of course but mainly to test other theories.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Well, I suspect he just became convinced that Jesus' teachings were true at some point. I don't think he ever met Jesus but perhaps eventually the Christians he met while torturing them were so persuasive that he felt theirs' was the better interpretation of Judaism. Perhaps their devotion was a factor. Perhaps he finally realised how unjust persecution of other beliefs is and his subsequent guilt was also a factor.

Anyway, once converted he may have made up the miraculous incident to convert others (a worthy white lie), or he may have had a sudden moment of inspiration and enlightenment that he either used metaphorical language to describe, or perhaps he genuinely believed God had spoken to him in that moment.

I don't mean to be facetious but maybe he was on drugs, maybe he hallucinated (dehydration?) maybe he was dreaming. Even today people have experiences we can't explain, like alien abductions, sightings of the Loch Ness monster or ghosts etc and normally I would say their minds are playing tricks on them. In the past this was evem more the case: I bet most people centuries ago would have claimed to have seen ghosts say. That doesn't mean they're mad or that they can't be good people. What about miracles that support other faiths, should we accept them? If not the net evidence in favour of any religion from miracles is very low.

Finally remember that the oldest surviving copies of these documents date to several hundred years after the events and most weren't written by eye-witnesses in the first place. Do you know where in the Bible the story is from? David Hume argued that by definition any argument from miracles was flawed. Define "miracles" to be events considered extremely unlikely to have happened in the normal course of events. Suppose someone then tells you about a miracle - to believe or not to believe? Well normally we would choose on the basis of what is most likely or plausible in our opinions. By our definition of miracles and the fact that people lie or get things wrong all the time, it is normally better to assume they are lying or mistaken.

Good rebuttal, Murray. Looking at it objectively, it's possible dehydration or some other physical ailment happened to make him believe he had a divine experience, but that doesn't explain the many other 'interventions' that supposedly happened to Paul. However, any such items I could bring up would then be open for debate, and doubt. It's in that area of doubt that you can maintain your unbelief in religion. Strangely enough, it's in the realm of the unknown that I can maintain my belief in religion.

Not really, most people simply don't understand what is possible and what isn't. Even today millions of people would accept pre-explained phenomena as divine events simply because they haven't seen them before, or they never knew it was possible. Take that back millions of years, and just about everything was unexplained.

I'm not sure that washes...it's a bit of a philisophical argument I was making. How would the concept of God come about if there were no God to model that from? The whole concept of 'divine' would be unknown. How does one invent such an abstract concept without being first introduced to that concept? Murray brings up Hulme and I'll counter with Joseph Campbell. Essentially, Campbell argues that all myth, and religion, is a communal experience of the divine. The mere fact we can experience such a thing, globally, and in such similar ways, itself argues for the existence of the divine. All unprovable, so useless to the argument I suppose....

I cannot prove the existence of God, at least not in any tangible way so as to eliminate doubt; for that is what would be required. As Cav has stated, science is shining a light on the unknown a little more every day. In that new light, yet one more reason to not believe in the divine is found. When we know everything about the physical universe, will we not need a God anymore? Or will we discover that we need our divine beliefs even more? We may just discover that knowing every molecule of the football field still doesn't answer the question of who built it.

Doubt is where most 'non-believers' exist. Doubt and the demands of proof to expell that doubt. It would be an interesting situation if proof is provided at some point, doubt is expelled, and yet you would be wrong in your new-found belief. Food for thought.

(btw, most scholars agree, for what it's worth, that Luke wrote Acts by a series of 'interviews' a great deal after most of the other New Testament books were written. You can test this by looking at the number of times medical terminology is used in Acts, specifically the description of Judas' hanging, and remember that Luke was a medical doctor.)

[Schumikonen 2]

You obviously never got as far as studying relativity, but yes, our understanding of that point of time is very vague, however at those levels, classical physics simply breaks down (and this is an observed, not hypothetical phenomena). We can read the timeline of the universe better from around 10^-20 (orso, I forget)of a second, but the further back you go the more problems you run into, and those situations are swtill impossible to recreate in experiments.

However the achievements of the theory beyond that time and the correlation with observed data is amazing.

"classical physics simply breaks down" maybe this means that we can not explain anything from that time and beyond because our actual science laws and properties are simply different now and we can expect anything as possible and that means that the big bang was so strong or powerful that not only change everything in that point and created the universe, we also have to believe that big bang changed the physics rules and "created" new ones (you need a lot of faith to believe in that)

"and those situations are swtill impossible to recreate in experiments." and maybe we'll never be able to recreate them beacuse os you said before "classical physics simply breaks down" that means that we not only have to imaging what happended in that time we also have to imaging the physics laws that were ruling that period wich is almost impossible too.

You can not forget that scientists are expecting a comeback of the universe to that point again, now the universe is expanding but there will be a time when the whole universe will stop and change this trend back and will start to be contracted back to that point again, Now I ask can someone here tell me what force will be the one to cause this? It is out there something strong enough to make the whole universe shrink back to the point of break down (once again) the classical physics?

Just to give you something to think, could you tell me how many HP will be needed to stop and change the movement of the whole universe?

[Schumikonen 2]

Thanks for the info. It is quite likely that Paul wrote Corinthians but not Acts, traditionally attributed to Luke, a follower of Paul, although Wikipedia claims this is questioned by modern thinkers. As I say I believe Paul, and thus Luke or whoever actually wrote Acts, never met Jesus. Apparently most scholars put its date of composition about 50 years after Jesus died and the earliest complete copies of the Bible to survive are from hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and thus should not be uncritically accepted as even telling us what Paul et al thought.

Paul didn't wrote Acts, he gave a sign to know this and is in 2 Thessalonians 3: 17I always sign my letters as I am now doing: PAUL. and every letter he wrote start with his name, if got a bible close to you check it out.