Am I agnostic, atheist or something else?

[pocketfours]

I believe in "god", but not in the religious sense. I believe in some event somewhere down the line that started this universe in motion.

I used to think like you, but then I read that scientists believe that time started simultaneously with the big bang, which in turn means that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time (or that there was never a time when the universe was completely without motion) and so it didn't need to be "started".

I'm assuming the theory stems from the observation that mass/gravity seems to slow down time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...] scientists believe that time started simultaneously with the big bang [...].

A biologist is a scientist, but by no means an authority on cosmology.

I'm assuming the theory stems from the observation that mass/gravity seems to slow down time.

It is definitely a consequence of Einstein's General Relativity. While this is a clever assumption, it could be better stated.

It is difficult to grasp that space and time are really tied together. Our human perceptions defy this understanding. We can move forward, backward or be still in 3 dimensions of space, but we can only move forward at a constant rate in time. This makes it seem like space and time are independent.

However, space and time are intrinsically related to each other. In fact, one can not exist without the other. There can be no time if there is no space; there can be no space if there is no time. There could be no way to observe either without both.

Always in statements of physics, we are confined to what can be observed. I can not speak to whether something which can not be observed exists (not as a physicist, at least).

[pocketfours]

A biologist is a scientist, but by no means an authority on cosmology.

Why such a nitpick? I wrote "I read that", so it shouldn't be interpreted like I would consider it the absolute truth. Why would I care what some biologist thinks of cosmology? I got this from Stephen Hawking who is a respected cosmologist.

[JKDS]

I used to think like you, but then I read that scientists believe that time started simultaneously with the big bang, which in turn means that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time (or that there was never a time when the universe was completely without motion) and so it didn't need to be "started".

I'm assuming the theory stems from the observation that mass/gravity seems to slow down time.

I dont quite understand. Even if time started with the big bang, that must have also come from something. But if it didnt, then that is the source of everything that is, and would be the "god" i refer too.

@Mojo: Rilla's thinkin what im thinking. Measurements are irrelevant. There is a huge difference between saying that the universe is deterministic and saying that the universe is predictable by us. We dont even need to go subatomic to show this really. Even taking the events of just a single person, its impossible to predict what theyre going to do at any one point. Their diet, fatigue, emotions, past experiences, health, genes, gases being expelled, there is just so much going on with even a single being that predicting them is immensely difficult (though this is probably doable, maybe). Now take a city though, and everything that has come before that, and then try and predict how each person would interact and how that would effect them in the future, and suddenly we have a problem that is far too massive to even begin to try and solve. We havent even begun to talk about it on a worldwide, or universal level, nor a microscopic one.

But that doesnt change the domino theory i proposed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Mojo: Rilla's thinkin what im thinking.

Arrgghhhh! I just spent an hour replying to this post, and it got wiped when firefox crashed. I'm not going to spend that much time again. Sorry in advance if it falls short on thoroughness.

Summary:
Measurements are necessary to compare findings.

Experts in molecular biology, among others, support your domino theory.

Experts in QM describe their findings in terms of complex probability distribution functions, which themselves can't be directly observed. However when appropriate mathematical operations are performed on the distribution functions, all of the properties of the particle which can be observed come out of them. QM is hugely successful and based on a language of probabilities.

So, given the microscopic world is described with a language of probability, how can the macroscopic world be otherwise?

[givememyleg]

I dont quite understand. Even if time started with the big bang, that must have also come from something.

we live in a universe of cause and effect but all the laws of physics break down "before time" so you can't really assume anything, especially that it had to come from something.

But if it didnt, then that is the source of everything that is, and would be the "god" i refer too.

so god is the unknown "force" that put everything into motion? why not just call it "the unknown force that put everything into motion" rather than god?