it is not far fetched as creationism  or UFOS not even same catagorey. IMO String Theory is the most viable out of all the other possible soulotions. possible proof Also i suggest you should look up the AdS/CFT connection this further backs up the M theory although it is still a "Theory" It is much more widely excepted then UFO's and more then creationism. 

But i am perfectly up for a respectful arguement as long as we keep it civil.

It's a theory that as alway mentioned is currently untestable although it does have a significant basis in mathematics as well as the support of some very prominent physicists. I personally find this theory and the idea of "brane cosmology" that arises from it to be ascetically pleasing. The idea that a single theory can describe *everything* from the smallest to the largest is very appealing.

Even though it is only a theory it does (as far as I know not being a physicist) accurately describe things from the level of the universe (and beyond) down to the level of quantum mechanics. Such a “theory” that can unify all current knowledge and be at least as accurate as the current understanding in each of these fields is more than “just a theory”. Many have described M-theory as “too elegant to be wrong”.

I actually brought up the concept of M-theory (M is not necessarily “membrane”, read the following article and follow a few links) recently in regards to a theological discussion. Not to get into that discussion here but the point is that the idea of a multiverse, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse, as an eternally existing continuous source of new bubble universes seems a lot more reasonable as an origin of all things than the vague idea of an infinitely powerful “creator” that has existed forever without beginning.

Also the PBS special, The Elegant Universe, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/, is a very good survey of these and other related concepts. You can view most if not all of this three hour special online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html.

It is not untestable. I have read an article (cant remeber where) that outlined several tests they wanted to try. One involved sensors under the Antartic ice looking for particles. And of course CERN will surely cast some light on the Theory.

Actually I don't think the big bang is really a theory, as far as I know it's as close to proven as one can get if on the off chance it is still technically a "theory".

The problem with pointing to a creator as the source of all our origins only defers the question by the moments hesitation that it takes to ask "then who or what created the creator?". It's a never ending loop. All religions that I know answer this question by stating that the creator existed forever with no beginning. But this flies in the face of every experience that I know of.

Basically the idea is that the most complex and intelligent thing that has ever existed, or will ever exist, has existed forever in a total vacuum until at some point in time he chose to create all that we know. That's not how things work. Things start out simple and gradually over time complexity increases. Also the assumption that an animate being existed with no life support whatsoever for an infinity of infinities before finally creating all that exists is beyond credulous.

I certainly find the idea that an inanimate framework for life has existed forever far easier to fathom over the idea that a supreme being existed without origin before creating everything out of nothing.

I had always thought that the idea of an oscillating universe made the most sense. In other words that the universe that we know contained enough matter to eventually overcome the momentum of the big bang and all matter would eventually fall back in on itself in a "big crunch" until matter was so compressed into a single point that another "big bang" occurred.

The problem is that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. The furthest galaxies are accelerating *away* from us the fastest and while some of that apparent motion may be due to the "inflation" of space-time itself, it is clear now that there will be no "big crunch", at least not in this bubble universe.

However in the multiverse that consists of vibrating membranes, every time one membrane strikes another membrane there is the possibility of a “big bang” occurring which itself may cause the creation of another “bubble universe”. Also dependent on the nature of the big bang the so called natural constants (speed of light, et. al.) may vary widely from one universe to the next. Such variation may make life more or less likely or even impossible. Some such bubble universes may even have enough mass to oscillate between big bang and big crunch eternally.

Anyway as far as god, I admit to the *possibility* that one may exist but my own personal belief system involves some kind of inanimate infinite continuous universe generation system in place like the multiverse or an oscillating universe or some other yet to be discovered mechanism. Within this framework life spontaneously formed, evolved, lived and died until at some point in time some form of life evolved and advanced sufficiently and was able to escape from the bubble universe of it’s origin or somehow managed to survive the “big crunch” through to the next “big bang” cycle and whatever that life force was essentially became god.

Whether or not this god then created other universes or merely sought out life wherever found and “helped” it along, I don’t know. But I would think that all life would have entropy as it’s common enemy and I find the idea that life evolves and advances towards a goal that eventually involves everyone attaining some kind of enlightenment and becoming a part of god, an appealing idea.

Either that or we die and that’s the end of it, I don’t really know which.

The only real difference between science and religion is that religion asks for faith and science asks for proof. Faith is simply the act of not asking for proof.

I don't have anything against either but I would tend towards believing science before I believe religion. Scientific theories are the best guess that can be made by the sum of human intellect. Creationism is just a guess and is just as valid as the Flying Spaghetti Monster and using Perpetual Motion to generate unlimited power.

The bottom line is that you still are placing “faith” in science anytime you cannot prove *everything* that science claims is true and since I doubt there is a single person on this planet that can prove *everything* known then everyone has to have some element of faith. The physicist has faith that the geologists know what they’re talking about and so on.

Even if you place all faith in man’s ability to understand the “laws of nature” who is to say that *if* an all powerful god exists that he couldn’t suddenly decided to invalidate maxwell’s equations, or the force of gravity or any other such “proven law”. In my case it would take the invalidation of a “proven law of nature” to irrefutably “prove” to me that god exists, but I cannot rule out the possibility that it could happen.

How do you know we aren't living in the third one?

Acutally there are religions that don't think that God or the "creator" has simply existed forever.  The gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or Mormons as most people call it) don't beleive that God has always been the way he is now.  

Without turning this into a religous discussion or bash, I wanted to give my two cents on string theory.  I agree that it is the most logical explanation that can tie quantam mechanics and larger physic properties such as gravity together.  Prior to String Theory the two concepts were mutually exclusive due to the change in the behavior of objects based on their size.

Unfortunately, technology does not yet exist that can see and measure activity at the string level.  Some day hopefully and it would explain how the big bang could have occured if it did which allows some scienctists to proverbally put another feather in their cap and a nail in creationism's coffin.  Except the fact that creationism will always be able to come back and have the "last word" in regards to a creator making it happen and as Tamren so eloquently put it, "Faith is simply the act of not asking for proof."

Wow this seems to have gone into arguements of creationism and such but then again thats impossible to avoid when talking of the universe but if we can wrap that arguement up and start talking about M-Theory again  that'd be great

When a system's energy is defined as the sum of its "useful" energy (energy that can be used, for example, to push a piston), and its "useless energy" (that energy which cannot be used to do external work), then entropy may be visualized as the "stray" or "lost" energy whose magnitude over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the system.

In other words an increase in entropy over time means that less and less energy *difference* is available to do useful work.

This is a law of inanimate objects which as I mentioned is the antithesis of life. Definitely we see the inanimate universe move from a state of chaos and variation evermore towards a static state of sameness. An eventual heat death of our bubble universe is the likely outcome. To me that is sameness not disorder. However all our experience of life and evolution involves moving from the simple ever more towards the complex.

I personally am an agnostic as you probably could tell. I was brought up Christian (Lutheran actually) but never could manage to accept things simply on faith even from the early age of 7.

In any case I believe in the primacy of science and as long as god does not contradict that framework I must accept that there is some *possibility* that he does exist, but it’s only that, a possibility. Even then precisely which view of god i.e. which religion is correct, is an entirely different question. Personally I believe that all religion is more a creation of man than of god and therefore fallible. I believe that the differences between religions probably matter less to god than they do to us, assuming of course he even exists in the first place.

There are actually 10 dimensions, the idea of a 0th dimension has been almost simultaneously been agreed upon to not exist.

Look up 'imagining the 10 dimensions' on google video. there is a cool skit that explains the whole lot.

Several times, I've thoroughly pissed off some atheistic science fans with exactly this point. I think it is also very much worth mentioning that faith is an important factor even for people who have a strong faith that there is no singular god, nor a pantheon of gods, nor a specific afterlife plan that will see us all eternally working for the Celestial Bureaucracy. Faith in your fellow humans, whether you like to admit it or not, is essential for both arguing the validity of scientific theories *and* for participating in political systems. But as noted above, faith is a fundamentally individual experience, and your mileage may vary.

I began my political faith quest as a philosophical anarchist, but that philosophy depends on a quality of faith in my fellow humans that I couldn't sustain past my adolescence (successful anarchy basically requires that everyone be at least nice enough to leave each other alone when they disagree). Because I came to believe that our species has not (yet?) evolved past the habit of organizing to do violence to ourselves, I ended up a pluralist democrat (basically Aristotle + Robert Dahl, leavened with Thomas Hobbes).

Like any elite, the scientific establishment is an organization based on creating, maintaining, and expanding social power. But unlike most religions, the scientific method is fundamentally democratic--it is based on the expectation that your hypothesis must be testable by other scientists, and that the 'truth' is *always* a matter of consensus. So, on the whole, I prefer scientific explanations of the origin of the universe(s) to religious ones.

Which is by no means a declaration that They Have It All Figured Out. Life does indeed confuse things with its anti-entropic tendencies, and the question of consciousness is some sort of mental-lubicrant analog to a superconductor--it's very hard to hold on to an idea once you start asking what ideas are. I love seeing steady progress on theories about 'dead matter,' but even more I'm looking forward to a really good testable hyphothesis about the fundamental nature of Minds.