Posted by: Kiddo September 29, 2014
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Neo
Your theory on Universe being the almighty hinges on an assumption that there is God. That to me is a big leap of faith. Why is it necessary to have a God in the first place?
I agree with your point that nobody can tell for certain whether Universe had a beginning or not. Science can hypothesize an admissible theory but nothing can be said with 100% certainty unless that experiment can be replicated in the present context. Much of those theory hinged on God particle and the Hadron Collider project has proven the existence of such and object. Science cannot be trusted 100% but it is pretty close to being true.
But say we agree with your point. After all Science has gotten things wrong from naming Pluto a planet to the applicability of General theory of relativity. But, you asserted that universe is infinite, how? Science says it is infinite, but if you want to pick one assertion from scientific community, can you be selective as to not pick the other assertion?
I am not pointing out the flaws in your theory, I just find the discussion interesting and wanted to interject.
Lastly, if you want to assume there is a God, then why don't we go the otherway? Rather than looking at the largest entity (Universe), why don't we observe the smallest particle: Quarks and Leptons, or perhaps something even smaller. Let's call it the building block. Why can't that be God? After all, every single thing is made up of that particle...including the universe itself.
Your theory on Universe being the almighty hinges on an assumption that there is God. That to me is a big leap of faith. Why is it necessary to have a God in the first place?
I agree with your point that nobody can tell for certain whether Universe had a beginning or not. Science can hypothesize an admissible theory but nothing can be said with 100% certainty unless that experiment can be replicated in the present context. Much of those theory hinged on God particle and the Hadron Collider project has proven the existence of such and object. Science cannot be trusted 100% but it is pretty close to being true.
But say we agree with your point. After all Science has gotten things wrong from naming Pluto a planet to the applicability of General theory of relativity. But, you asserted that universe is infinite, how? Science says it is infinite, but if you want to pick one assertion from scientific community, can you be selective as to not pick the other assertion?
I am not pointing out the flaws in your theory, I just find the discussion interesting and wanted to interject.
Lastly, if you want to assume there is a God, then why don't we go the otherway? Rather than looking at the largest entity (Universe), why don't we observe the smallest particle: Quarks and Leptons, or perhaps something even smaller. Let's call it the building block. Why can't that be God? After all, every single thing is made up of that particle...including the universe itself.