Deep question

[SO16_Saint]

The other day, my son asked "how was the earth made"

 

The wife and I looked at eachother, and i smirked. She's religious, I'm not. I said to her "how you gonna answer this one"... she said "the proper way, the way I believe..."

 

Before we got round to answering the question, the boy got distracted by something else so we never got round to answering.... anyone else had a similar scenario?

[Window Cleaner]

The other day, my son asked "how was the earth made"

 

The wife and I looked at eachother, and i smirked. She's religious, I'm not. I said to her "how you gonna answer this one"... she said "the proper way, the way I believe..."

 

Before we got round to answering the question, the boy got distracted by something else so we never got round to answering.... anyone else had a similar scenario?

 

Well no, everybody knows that the Earth and all the rest of the Universe were created in a big bang 14 billion years ago.

Religion is just a side issue really. Most of those currently followed are somewhere between 1000 and 3000 years old, a drop in the ocean of time compared to 14 billion years. I mean there are no dinosaurs in religion right, but we know that they existed.

[Patrick Bateman]

The other day, my son asked "how was the earth made"

 

The wife and I looked at eachother, and i smirked. She's religious, I'm not. I said to her "how you gonna answer this one"... she said "the proper way, the way I believe..."

 

Before we got round to answering the question, the boy got distracted by something else so we never got round to answering.... anyone else had a similar scenario?

 

"The way I believe"?

 

If that was going with the way that is not scientific, I'd be issuing divorce papers for being ridiculous.

 

It's our duty as parents to arm our children with FACTS and let them take their own decisions. If he wants to be religious later, then his call, but, facts facts facts, not stories. ARGH!

[Wurzel]

Well no, everybody knows that the Earth and all the rest of the Universe were created in a big bang 14 billion years ago.

Religion is just a side issue really. Most of those currently followed are somewhere between 1000 and 3000 years old, a drop in the ocean of time compared to 14 billion years. I mean there are no dinosaurs in religion right, but we know that they existed.

 

I don't believe for one single moment that an old bearded man in the sky created the earth/universe on a whim. But I just can't get my head round the Big Bang Theory either. I mean, what exactly was it that went Bang all those years ago. A friend who allegedly understands all that tried explaining it to me once. Didn't matter what he said my next question was always "but where did that come from?" I just can't get my head round how anything can come from nothing, but even if it's taken down to the tiniest atom that went bang my next question is still the same. Something (whether it be solid, liquid, gas) had to be there to go bang, so how did that get there?

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't believe for one single moment that an old bearded man in the sky created the earth/universe on a whim. But I just can't get my head round the Big Bang Theory either. I mean, what exactly was it that went Bang all those years ago. A friend who allegedly understands all that tried explaining it to me once. Didn't matter what he said my next question was always "but where did that come from?" I just can't get my head round how anything can come from nothing, but even if it's taken down to the tiniest atom that went bang my next question is still the same. Something (whether it be solid, liquid, gas) had to be there to go bang, so how did that get there?

 

Because our universe as we know it, is just a small component (a super sized atom if you like) of something much bigger ... how's THAT for a head f**k?

[Lighthouse]

Children shouldn't be taught religion. If I have anyone one day I won't bring them up following any belief system, then when they are 18 they can make up their own minds.

 

Supposing one of them is right, going to Hell because you made a wrong decision as an adult is one thing. Going to Hell because your parents brainwashed you into the wrong beliefs as a child is quite another.

 

I think this should be the law, although it is of course completely unenforceable.

[ashnats]

"The way I believe"?

 

If that was going with the way that is not scientific, I'd be issuing divorce papers for being ridiculous.

 

It's our duty as parents to arm our children with FACTS and let them take their own decisions. If he wants to be religious later, then his call, but, facts facts facts, not stories. ARGH!

 

I agree, divorce is the most logical route forward here.

[Hatch]

I thought SKY invented the earth in 1992

[Lighthouse]

I don't believe for one single moment that an old bearded man in the sky created the earth/universe on a whim. But I just can't get my head round the Big Bang Theory either. I mean, what exactly was it that went Bang all those years ago. A friend who allegedly understands all that tried explaining it to me once. Didn't matter what he said my next question was always "but where did that come from?" I just can't get my head round how anything can come from nothing, but even if it's taken down to the tiniest atom that went bang my next question is still the same. Something (whether it be solid, liquid, gas) had to be there to go bang, so how did that get there?

 

There's loads I can't get my head around. The infinite nothingness beyond the edges of the universe, or indeed how anything can be infinite when you really think about it. Mind boggling.

[Wurzel]

Because our universe as we know it, is just a small component (a super sized atom if you like) of something much bigger ... how's THAT for a head f**k?

 

Oooh that hurts. It may, for all I know, very well may be. But you know what my next question will be - "How did that something much bigger get there?" (Assume same response to any suggestion(s), 3 posts a day limit prevents me from continuing ad finitum)

[Weston Super Saint]

http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

[jamesfp1]

I don't believe for one single moment that an old bearded man in the sky created the earth/universe on a whim. But I just can't get my head round the Big Bang Theory either. I mean, what exactly was it that went Bang all those years ago. A friend who allegedly understands all that tried explaining it to me once. Didn't matter what he said my next question was always "but where did that come from?" I just can't get my head round how anything can come from nothing, but even if it's taken down to the tiniest atom that went bang my next question is still the same. Something (whether it be solid, liquid, gas) had to be there to go bang, so how did that get there?

 

It cannot be understood. We simply cannot process it. Time is part of "our" reality. So there is no "before" the big bang, because "before" is a construct of time.

[OldNick]

Because our universe as we know it, is just a small component (a super sized atom if you like) of something much bigger ... how's THAT for a head f**k?

yep, our universe may be just one atom in the leg of a chair, which in turn is an atom in the leg of a chair infinitum

[Patrick Bateman]

yep, our universe may be just one atom in the leg of a chair, which in turn is an atom in the leg of a chair infinitum

 

Funnily enough, my head can just about cope with that more so that the 'universe is expanding' thing.

 

Is it expanding as our host gets fatter ...

[Hamilton Saint]

Interesting question.

 

The way a parent ought to respond depends on the age of the child and how persistent the child is— the number and depth of their follow-up questions.

 

Children should first be given the scientific facts. This gives a parent the opportunity to talk about the sun, the night sky, the seasons, eclipses, phases of the moon, etc. At a beginner's level, the child could be told about solar systems—how planets form around stars. Children should understand that the universe behaves in an orderly, predictable way that can be summarized through a few basic laws. Instead of being told that this is the way it is, and the way it has always been, the child could be encouraged to observe the natural world and then come to ask increasingly more detailed questions as they move towards an understanding of the "laws" of nature. At the simplest level, I would avoid beginning from a "creationist" perspective—especially the fundamentalist view based on Bible literalism. Because that would lead, almost inevitably, to a perceived conflict between science and religion.

 

If the child asks questions that bring up religious (especially creationist) perspectives, a parent ought to emphasize that human beings have different kinds of explanations for difficult and mysterious issues. In addition to the scientific explanation (based on facts and theories), there are mytho-poetic, religious explanations. One could even attempt (if appropriate) to put the evolution of these ideas into a historical perspective (e.g., "back in the olden days, when people didn't understand that the Earth revolved around the sun ... ").

 

Ultimately, I would present first the scientific facts without religious bias.

[aintforever]

I don't believe the Big Bang theory either. I think it's just the human obsession with orgasms that makes them believe every had to begin with a big explosion. I reckon Earth has just always been there. Nothing happened to create it, no begin or end, it's just there.

[DuncanRG]

Depending on the age of the child, I'd give them both theories and let them choose. But it really does depend on their ability to understand reason!

[Hamilton Saint]

I don't believe the Big Bang theory either. I think it's just the human obsession with orgasms that makes them believe every had to begin with a big explosion. I reckon Earth has just always been there. Nothing happened to create it, no begin or end, it's just there.

 

Or that astronomers (Edwin Hubble, for example) observed that galaxies are accelerating away from each other at high speed.

[SO16_Saint]

Cheers, good responses and discussions.

 

The boy is only 4 and a half but is quite intelligent and is always listening and takes stuff in.

[whelk]

Well no, everybody knows that the Earth and all the rest of the Universe were created in a big bang 14 billion years ago.

Religion is just a side issue really. Most of those currently followed are somewhere between 1000 and 3000 years old, a drop in the ocean of time compared to 14 billion years. I mean there are no dinosaurs in religion right, but we know that they existed.

 

How many billion years old did you think the universe was 25years ago? I would wager your answer is now presumed 100% wrong therefore people were believing untruths at the time.

 

Face it no fcker is coming up with the answer on this forum.

Scientists seem as evangelical as the creationists these days.

[Whitey Grandad]

Or that astronomers (Edwin Hubble, for example) observed that galaxies are accelerating away from each other at high speed.

 

They appear to be moving apart. Or time itself might be slowing down. Or the light might get tired on it's long journey. Mathematically it would look much the same to us mere mortals. It all depends on how you look at it.

 

Congratulations to the young man. He is asking the right questions.

 

http://www.wired.com/2007/12/scientists-time/

http://estfound.org/

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156618/tired-light-red-shift-hypothesis

[Hamilton Saint]

How many billion years old did you think the universe was 25years ago? I would wager your answer is now presumed 100% wrong therefore people were believing untruths at the time.

 

Face it no fcker is coming up with the answer on this forum.

Scientists seem as evangelical as the creationists these days.

 

Hardly. But at least the scientists are arguing from observed data, and are constantly reviewing and revising their theories. Creationists are relying on the "received wisdom" of ancient texts that are supposed to be the revealed Word of God. As far as the basic history of the solar system goes, I'll go with the scientists.

[Hamilton Saint]

They appear to be moving apart. Or time itself might be slowing down. Or the light might get tired on it's long journey. Mathematically it would look much the same to us mere mortals. It all depends on how you look at it.

 

Congratulations to the young man. He is asking the right questions.

 

http://www.wired.com/2007/12/scientists-time/

http://estfound.org/

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156618/tired-light-red-shift-hypothesis

 

Not sure what you mean by that. The "red shift" observed by Hubble proved that the universe was expanding and that galaxies were accelerating away from each other. You have another explanation for that?

[Whitey Grandad]

Not sure what you mean by that. The "red shift" observed by Hubble proved that the universe was expanding and that galaxies were accelerating away from each other. You have another explanation for that?

Hubble found the the red shift increased with assumed distance and the interpretation was that the universe was expanding.

 

The expansion is one explanation, and the one that is generally accepted nowadays. Mathematically there are other solutions, such as the light slowing up between emission and reception. The other is that the time itself has changed over the billions of years. Or that mass has increased:

 

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

 

These alternative theories are not normally considered plausible.

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-alternative-explanations-for-the-observed-red-shift-of-the-bodies-in-the-universe-other-than-spacing-expansion-and-thus-the-implied-Big-Bang-and-quest-for-dark-matter

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2885 (description)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2885v2.pdf. (Document)

 

Cosmology is a fascinating subject. For further reading you could also look for 'steady state theory'.

[JakkoUK]

The Laws of Chaos is something I can consider to be the cause of everything. It is very human to think that everything has a reason and a purpose, rather than a complete random event.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hamilton Saint]

Hubble found the the red shift increased with assumed distance and the interpretation was that the universe was expanding.

 

The expansion is one explanation, and the one that is generally accepted nowadays. Mathematically there are other solutions, such as the light slowing up between emission and reception. The other is that the time itself has changed over the billions of years. Or that mass has increased:

 

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

 

These alternative theories are not normally considered plausible.

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-alternative-explanations-for-the-observed-red-shift-of-the-bodies-in-the-universe-other-than-spacing-expansion-and-thus-the-implied-Big-Bang-and-quest-for-dark-matter

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2885 (description)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2885v2.pdf. (Document)

 

Cosmology is a fascinating subject. For further reading you could also look for 'steady state theory'.

 

"Time has changed ..." Now that's a mind-bender!

[Goatboy]

Do what any responsible parent would do and tell them to Google it.

[Sheaf Saint]

One one hand, you have an answer generated by centuries of scientific observation, arrived at by meticulous calculation requiring the most brilliant minds to do so.

 

On the other hand, you have an answer written by a tribe of desert-dwelling goat herders who clearly didn't have even the slightest clue where the sun went at night.

 

Anybody who tries to instill the latter into a child's head, on the understanding that he/she will suffer an eternity of pain and torture in the fires of hell if they don't accept it, is guilty of psychological abuse in my opinion.

[Patrick Bateman]

One one hand, you have an answer generated by centuries of scientific observation, arrived at by meticulous calculation requiring the most brilliant minds to do so.

 

On the other hand, you have an answer written by a tribe of desert-dwelling goat herders who clearly didn't have even the slightest clue where the sun went at night.

 

Anybody who tries to instill the latter into a child's head, on the understanding that he/she will suffer an eternity of pain and torture in the fires of hell if they don't accept it, is guilty of psychological abuse in my opinion.

 

[Trader]

One one hand, you have an answer generated by centuries of scientific observation, arrived at by meticulous calculation requiring the most brilliant minds to do so.

 

On the other hand, you have an answer written by a tribe of desert-dwelling goat herders who clearly didn't have even the slightest clue where the sun went at night.

 

Anybody who tries to instill the latter into a child's head, on the understanding that he/she will suffer an eternity of pain and torture in the fires of hell if they don't accept it, is guilty of psychological abuse in my opinion.

 

Exactly this.

[whelk]

One one hand, you have an answer generated by centuries of scientific observation, arrived at by meticulous calculation requiring the most brilliant minds to do so.

 

On the other hand, you have an answer written by a tribe of desert-dwelling goat herders who clearly didn't have even the slightest clue where the sun went at night.

 

Anybody who tries to instill the latter into a child's head, on the understanding that he/she will suffer an eternity of pain and torture in the fires of hell if they don't accept it, is guilty of psychological abuse in my opinion.

 

And that you have smug fckers who are really pseudo intellectuals don't ya who make a real point of ensuring their copy of a Brief History of Time has prominence within their bookcase but probably havent really got the understanding of it. And hey type 'this' paradoxically to show you are clever scientific type but are really probably not. Bahhhh.

[Trader]

In Bexy's defence, I don't think he was suggesting that HE has the kind of scientific genius he describes.

[Weston Super Saint]

In Bexy's defence, I don't think he was suggesting that HE has the kind of scientific genius he describes.

 

I don't think he was calling himself a goat herder either.

[niceandfriendly]

And there was me expecting a thread about the g-spot...

[SO16_Saint]

I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of the people who have responded are not religious. Am I right?

 

Im sure that there must be some religious scientists out there?

[scotty]

I'd suggest the reply that "different people believe different things, but nobody knows for sure." Which, if nothing else, is 100% accurate.

[SO16_Saint]

I'd suggest the reply that "different people believe different things, but nobody knows for sure." Which, if nothing else, is 100% accurate.

 

Like!!

[Jimmy_D]

I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of the people who have responded are not religious. Am I right?

 

Im sure that there must be some religious scientists out there?

 

Most scientists, when asked whether God exists, will answer "I don't know", and I'm a scientist at heart.

 

There's a wonderful line between science and religion, where the difficult questions are asked.

 

I don't believe that any human interpretation of God, told and retold over thousands of years, has much chance of being accurate, especially when I've seen those stories change just in my lifetime, and new religions invented.

 

At the same time, I exist now, there's something different about this brain of mine and these eyes of mine that mean I'm looking out from them. A point in the timeline of this universe where I went from not existing to existing. That means that before I was born, there was some quirk, some aspect of this universe that meant it was possible for me to start existing.

 

How that quirk got there, whether it's always been there, whether it will always be there, those are the questions that Science can't answer, and may never be able to.

[buctootim]

Im a lapsed devout Atheist, now agnostic. Both the 'God' and 'Science' explanations have massive logic holes in them.

[Ohio Saint]

Im a lapsed devout Atheist, now agnostic. Both the 'God' and 'Science' explanations have massive logic holes in them.

 

There will always be pot holes in the road. The point is, what is the best way to fix them? Fill them with a something that has been researched and eventually proven and tested to be reliable over time.....Or fill them with hope and unfounded conjecture?

[Chalkboy]

I'd suggest the reply that "different people believe different things, but nobody knows for sure." Which, if nothing else, is 100% accurate.

 

I'm similar to this. When I've got into discussions with my three kids about how the world and universe got here, I have answered that some people think a god or gods created it, and that scientists think it was created by a big explosion. Every time, the next question would be "where did god come from?" or "what created the big bang?" Then we get into difficulties. So the answer I always give them is "we don't know."

I also try to remind them and never to forget the weird, wondrous illogicality that we live on a floating sphere, in a vast nothingness, and that our floating sphere is lit and warmed by an even bigger floating sphere of flame. It's almost unbelievable.

 

Whilst typing this I was reminded of a Carl Sagan clip on Youtube, I found it;

 

[video=youtube;34-1W_9BhoU]

[Mr Biscuits]

God sneezed.

[Whitey Grandad]

Most scientists, when asked whether God exists, will answer "I don't know", and I'm a scientist at heart.

 

There's a wonderful line between science and religion, where the difficult questions are asked.

 

I don't believe that any human interpretation of God, told and retold over thousands of years, has much chance of being accurate, especially when I've seen those stories change just in my lifetime, and new religions invented.

 

At the same time, I exist now, there's something different about this brain of mine and these eyes of mine that mean I'm looking out from them. A point in the timeline of this universe where I went from not existing to existing. That means that before I was born, there was some quirk, some aspect of this universe that meant it was possible for me to start existing.

 

How that quirk got there, whether it's always been there, whether it will always be there, those are the questions that Science can't answer, and may never be able to.

 

Ah, you think you exist. The world that we experience is a construct of our consciousness and what we see is only the part that makes sense. Countless philosophers have spent many sleepless nights trying to make sense of it all. I find that a few beers help

[Whitey Grandad]

God sneezed.

 

And I think I know where the snot landed.

[Jimmy_D]

Ah, you think you exist. The world that we experience is a construct of our consciousness and what we see is only the part that makes sense. Countless philosophers have spent many sleepless nights trying to make sense of it all. I find that a few beers help

 

Pfft, whether or not I exist doesn't really matter, it's real enough to me.

[Whitey Grandad]

Pfft, whether or not I exist doesn't really matter, it's real enough to me.

 

You think?

[Ohio Saint]

I think, therefore I am.....I think

[badgerx16]

I think, therefore I am.....I think

 

"Of course you are, my bright little star.......".

 

How does it feel to be magnetic ink ?

[Hamilton Saint]

"Of course you are, my bright little star.......".

 

How does it feel to be magnetic ink ?

 

I'm more than that; I know I am; at least, I think I must be.

[badgerx16]

I'm more than that; I know I am; at least, I think I must be.

Keep on thinking free.

 

( I think that's enough of the Moody Blues appreciation thread ).