Closing in on the "God particle"

[sirs]

Reply #3 was my repeat.  But by all means, continue with this oh so important tangent   

[BSB]

"Seems to me this simply a report on man's quest for knowledge."

And that's all it is, nothing about a God gene or a homosexual gene.

You can stand down, Sirs. No beliefs are, or right wing agenda is, under attack. No tax is going to be levied.


BSB

[BSB]

Kimba, "I'm a believer of a more complex theory of our universe........................what if time did not start at the big bang but still continues into the past endlessly............people prefer a starting point. I say no."

Without getting into what time is about, and just excepting for the purpose of debate how we normally see it, I'm not sure the big bang theory rules out a "past" prior to the big bang.

I think the Buddha's theory that nothing comes from nothing, and something must come from something, still can apply when you're talking about the big bang.

BSB

[sirs]

"Seems to me this simply a report on man's quest for knowledge."

And that's all it is, nothing about a God gene or a homosexual gene.

You can stand down, Sirs. No beliefs are, or right wing agenda is, under attack. No tax is going to be levied.

Nor was there any reference or even a hint on my part that there was.  Focus B   

[BT]

So to be clear, Sirs, are you saying there is no biological component to homosexuality? That it is strictly a matter of choice? or are you simply saying that a biological component to sexuality has not been found, just as the "God Particle" has not been found? Though the search with promising milestones achieved, continues for both.

You simply introduced another tangent to the thread as an example of the elusiveness of it all.

If that was your intent, i guess you made your point.

[kimba1]

something must come from something

I believe not really. it`s a concept we naturally need a starting point. when talking about our universe and how reality works. that  line of thinking does not need to be a given anymore . I`m just pointing out possible flaws in our ways of thinking.

ex. unified field thoery. it doesn`t have to be true and it still hasn`t be proven, but people still believe in it

[BSB]

"something must come from something

I believe not really. it's a concept we naturally need a starting point."


There is no starting point in "something must come from something." Where's the starting point? 

[kimba1]

I may of gotten that wrong. this get tough to say. trying to saying we need to challange our concepts. something might not have to come from something.

I say startting point because it`s tends to be an inclination alot of people have . ex. most religions has an origin story.

[BSB]

I'm saying the same thing you are. There isn't a starting point. Origin storys are myths because there never was a begining.

BSB

[kimba1]

I like this concept because it reminds me how stubborn we are in our thinking..

[Amianthus]

Without getting into what time is about, and just excepting for the purpose of debate how we normally see it, I'm not sure the big bang theory rules out a "past" prior to the big bang.

The Big Bang theory does preclude a "past" prior to the Big Bang. There may be something *outside* of our universe, but everything within the universe - including time - was created in the Big Bang. Time as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Nor did space. Time is one of the 11+ dimensions of our universe.

[Amianthus]

I think the Buddha's theory that nothing comes from nothing, and something must come from something, still can apply when you're talking about the big bang.

The Buddha needs to study virtual particles.

[sirs]

You simply introduced another tangent to the thread as an example of the elusiveness of it all.

Yes

If that was your intent, i guess you made your point.

It was made by reply #3.  What are we on now??  Sheeeeesh

[BT]

Sometimes discerning your meaning and intent is elusive.

[sirs]

Only to specific posters, it would seem.  Imagine that