behind the curtain of the Big Bang

[laska]

It seems to me either it all began from nothing or there is an eternal sphere from which raw matter and human intelligence has fallen. If human intelligence(light/spirit) originated from an eternal source what would be the characteristics of eternal intelligence?The scriptures use the terms “truth and light.” Cannot truth only come from an eternal source? Does our mere existence thus prove there must be a God, or it all began from nothing?

 

[Tashah]

It seems to me either it all began from nothing or there is an eternal sphere from which raw matter and human intelligence has fallen. If human intelligence(light/spirit) originated from an eternal source what would be the characteristics of eternal intelligence?The scriptures use the terms “truth and light.” Cannot truth only come from an eternal source? Does our mere existence thus prove there must be a God, or it all began from nothing?

I can think of a half-dozen explanations for our existence. Some are physical, some are metaphysical. Our existence - in and of itself - does not certify any particular genesis as valid and exclusive.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Here come the Creationists, Science be Damned

It seems to me either it all began from nothing or there is an eternal sphere from which raw matter and human intelligence has fallen. If human intelligence(light/spirit) originated from an eternal source what would be the characteristics of eternal intelligence?

I just don't follow how you make this presumption, let alone the underlined leap.

Why must an eternal source of matter, like a singularity, be an "eternal intelligence." Human intelligence is a matter of evolution.

The scriptures use the terms “truth and light.” Cannot truth only come from an eternal source?

Truth can come from all kinds of sources, artificial sources, new sources. You're speaking very vague here. What truths have we received from any "eternal source?"

Does our mere existence thus prove there must be a God, or it all began from nothing?

No, and to think the big bang suggests we came from nothing is to misunderstand it entirely.

 

[nes]

Re: Here come the Creationists, Science be Damned

I just don't follow how you make this presumption, let alone the underlined leap.

Why must an eternal source of matter, like a singularity, be an "eternal intelligence." Human intelligence is a matter of evolution.

Why must an eternal source of matter exist?

No, and to think the big bang suggests we came from nothing is to misunderstand it entirely.

Then what caused the big bang?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Here come the Creationists, Science be Damned

Why must an eternal source of matter exist?

I never said that it did. I only said that it was a plausible explanation.

Then what caused the big bang?

Big bang theory doesn't attempt to answer this, nor will I pretend to know. I'm sure you will though, I'm waiting for your creationist assertions. We've been around this before, little troll.

When you can get through the terminology used (law, theory, hypothesis) perhaps me and you can discuss physics like adults.

 

[laska]

Tashah, the only bit of knowledge I have on Cosmology is that there is a very enamoring and beautiful member in its profession and I love to read her posts day after day. I am an ignoramus in this area so I hope you guys and gals will come with kid gloves. After doing some research in trying to better understand big bang, quantum mechanics, string theory, what singularity is, etc,etc I feel totally inadequate, a Neanderthal, my head is hurting. Lachean, Nes do what you will with this thread, I shouldn't have started it, I'm not competent in this area to say the least.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Re: Here come the Creationists, Science be Damned

Big bang theory doesn't attempt to answer this, nor will I pretend to know. I'm sure you will though, I'm waiting for your creationist assertions. We've been around this before, little troll.

When you can get through the terminology used (law, theory, hypothesis) perhaps me and you can discuss physics like adults.

No need to respond like that you sound like you are backed into a corner and all you can do is respond with insults and condescending assumptions. Answer the man's question. You assert that if you believe the Big Bang theory attempts to prove we came from nothing than you misunderstand it entirely. If this is what you truly believe, make it clear for us, describe it in detail and prove why this is not what the Big Bang is trying to prove. Don't cop out with typical atheist rhetoric and ignore the question at hand.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: Here come the Creationists, Science be Damned

No need to respond like that you sound like you are backed into a corner and all you can do is respond with insults and condescending assumptions. Answer the man's question. You assert that if you believe the Big Bang theory attempts to prove we came from nothing than you misunderstand it entirely. If this is what you truly believe, make it clear for us, describe it in detail and prove why this is not what the Big Bang is trying to prove. Don't cop out with typical atheist rhetoric and ignore the question at hand.

With this guy, its due. He's a troll, and has made several big bang threads in which we went round and round on the issue. He does not deserve a full reply. He's lucky I didn't ignore him.

Now if he were you, or someone else I didn't know, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But not nes.

Arguing physics with him is like expecting getting into a debate with a theist known to base his arguments on "Atheism is a religion" or some other misrepresentation of language.

 

[laska]

Okay, I'm back(sorry), been thinking some more on this stuff. A point of Tashah’s is finally sinking in. I probably cannot state that our mere existence proves there must be a God, whether true or not, simply because myself nor anyone else has the perspective to make such a statement. How can I know for sure it is not possible for life to have evolved from a singular nothing over billions of years, or from an eternal primitive even lifeless source. It would take a knowledge of all things to make such a statement, and it has already been established by my posts that I’m a Neanderthal. I trust Tashah’s breadth of knowledge especially in this area, and so I do not doubt there are a number of viable genesis’ that are plausible given the current scientific evidence.
The genesis account I put forth here that I believe is also a viable option is that life must begat life, and so it derives from an eternal source and cannot begin from nothing or a lifeless form of matter. It thus must have always existed. Not only has it always existed but it requires both an eternal sphere and also a temporal one. The reason for this is that intelligent, eternal life must be obedient to all true principles pertaining to life, and it must freely do this on its own accord. Without free agency there can be no eternal intelligence. If we are the offspring of eternal deity, then it makes sense that there would have to be a temporal or mortal sphere, where we could gain a knowledge of good and evil, make mistakes, and freely choose whether or not to obey truth(our parents would have done the same just as their parents, ad infinity.). The problem is breaking eternal laws goes contrary to light or truth, life itself, and produces death. Since existence itself requires laws, as anything that exists such as intelligent life, has attributes and characteristics that define it, justice must exist with the consequences as stated previously, death. That is the dilemma. A temporal world is necessary for growth to reach the ends of our creations, but justice does not loose its chains. Here is where the mercy of God comes in, and our eldest brother Jehovah, the pre-mortal Jesus, volunteers to pay this debt for us. So if the nature of the fall is that we will make mistakes, we have the chance to overcome the effects of the Fall and our breaking of eternal laws of life if we use our agency to repent and change our ways, and accept the gift from Christ. To put off the sins of the world and follow Him.
Now what would a human being , lets say a man and woman who are married for time and eternity, be like in an eternal sphere. In this mortal world, the human spirit displays a vitality, it can grow in intelligence or degrees of light, such as love, virtue, wisdom, etc. It can act and effect its environment. An eternal sphere there is no beginning or end, no birth or death, and so life must obey all laws requisite for life. It would have an infinite fullness of all divine attributes, it would have to be truth and light. It would be a God in its fullest sense.
One last point, if life shows signs of evolving on this planet, this would be expected in this genesis account, as the purpose of this temporal sphere is spiritual(intelligence) growth. (I hope this makes sense as it is a difficult topic, and I struggle with writing.)

 

[Tashah]

laska... ThankQ for the very kind words.

The BBT (Big Bang Theory) does not attempt to address what came before. One is entirely free to speculate. For many people, this is the precise point where science ends and faith begins. One could also posit that faith ends at this precise point because faith is nothing more than a human construct.

It seems to me that each individual must discover their own comfort zone in this regard.

 

[Duke]

It seems to me either it all began from nothing or there is an eternal sphere from which raw matter and human intelligence has fallen. If human intelligence(light/spirit) originated from an eternal source what would be the characteristics of eternal intelligence?The scriptures use the terms “truth and light.” Cannot truth only come from an eternal source? Does our mere existence thus prove there must be a God, or it all began from nothing?

Question: How do you know that it came from nothing? You don't know that it came from nothing any better than you know that it came from God.

The big question is: How? How was the universe formed? And no answer is better than the next, for there is no true answer, not yet.


Duke

 

[Thinker]

The big question is: How? How was the universe formed? And no answer is better than the next, for there is no true answer, not yet.

I disagree - some answers are better than others. For example "We do not
yet know" is better than "God did it". The reason for this is simple. Answering
"We do not yet know" does not raise any further questions. Answering "God did
it" introduces a new, unknown entity into the discussion (god) that must be at
least as complicated as the problem it is supposed to answer. You have
disposed of the original question by replacing it with one no simpler.

 

[Duke]

I disagree - some answers are better than others. For example "We do not
yet know" is better than "God did it". The reason for this is simple. Answering
"We do not yet know" does not raise any further questions. Answering "God did
it" introduces a new, unknown entity into the discussion (god) that must be at
least as complicated as the problem it is supposed to answer. You have
disposed of the original question by replacing it with one no simpler.

Well what I mean, in terms of the answers that we've been given so far, i.e. the universe arose from god, nothing, or something weird, no one answer is better than another. Saying, "We don't have a definitive answer" is the best response, without a doubt.

About the "God did it" idea, that's no answer at all. You do not solve the problem of the universe by saying God did it, you just form another question, who made God?


Duke

 

[justone]

Question: I’d like to ask – what is nothing? How do you see it?
… And BTW – what is the minimal something – the fist step from nothing? What is the difference between nothing and something ?

The BBT (Big Bang Theory) does not attempt to address what came before. One is entirely free to speculate. For many people, this is the precise point where science ends and faith begins. .

Q1:Are you one those many people who know precisely where science ends and their faith begins?

Q2: Has the study of stars astrology effected your personality?
Q3: Would you think about the world around differently if you were sure that the Universe has always existed as it is with things happening by themselves in some way – they bang into each other and glue together into some complex constructions or just bounce back and into some dust – (it is difficult for me to reconstruct the world view of some people – but you know what I mean) ?

One could also posit that faith ends at this precise point because faith is nothing more than a human construct. .

Q4: Would it still be in the realm of science to say that humans in their turn are a construct of the Universe?

I can think of a half-dozen explanations for our existence. Some are physical, some are metaphysical. .

It would be very interesting to hear about a few out of a half-dozen from a professional astrologist. BBT and astrology have never been in my studies. BBT it was invented by a Catholic priest – do you think his faith did not affect his personality and view of the world? Do you think his personality had nothing to do to his science?
I am getting interested in stars --- I may have a few more questions if you’d be kind to answer.
So far all I know about stars is that
if stars are lit
it means - there is someone who needs it.
It means - someone wants them to be,
that someone deems those specks of spit
magnificent.
And overwrought,
in the swirls of afternoon dust,
he bursts in on God,
horrified he might be already late.
In tears,
he kisses God's sinewy hand
and begs God -
to guarantee
that there will definitely be a star!
He swears
he won't be able to survive through that starless ordeal.
Later,
He wanders around, worried,
but outwardly calm.
And he says to somebody:
'Now,
it's all right?
You are no longer afraid,
are you?'
I know if stars are lit,
it means - there is someone who needs it.
It means it is essential for someone
that every evening
at least one star should ascend
over the crest of the buildings.

Does my knowledge have any value?

Our existence - in and of itself - does not certify any particular genesis as valid and exclusive. .

Q5: Would it still be in the realm of science to say that we a part of the Universe?
Q6: Does existence and behavior of stars and other parts of the Universe “certify” BBT? Don’t you look at the parts of the Universe with a hope of a valid theory?

 

[justone]

you just form another question, who made God?


Duke

There is a very simple answer to such question. It depends only on how you define your God. My G. is the biblical G. – the Creator of everything and the Universe. Thus by the definition G. of everything and the Universe cannot be created by another entity. There would be no difference between the creator and the creation. It would be more like G. replicating (or dividing?) himself, which is a quite impossible mental construction. A supposed creator of G. has no place in the Universe - such a creator would be nobody around G. and would have nothing to do, would have no function, no relation to the Universe or anything existing (because G. is the creator of everything existing and the Universe, and thus does not share the Universe and/or anything existing with another entity ) – thus a mental construction of such an entity is completely impossible for me.

of course if your God is not the creator of everything and the Universe - there is a place for another entety. But why would you need such a weak god?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Inculcate

"Inculcate"

This is also an address to Justone.

Why must an eternal source of matter exist?

I never said that it did. I only said that it was a plausible explanation.

The minds of antiquity continued the study of commensurate geometry. Their search for the monad failed.

The pretense that a monad exists, as an irrational magnitude, therefore with intrinsic infinitude, is not obvious without a proof.

Absolute monism, with its generalities of "only one substance and only one being", is usually misconstrued as a grandiose singularity, rather than a grandiose of singularities -- each equal in identity.

It is shallow critique but, infintesimals seem to relate the diminution at the limits of interaction between magnitudes with infinitude, as infinitesimals seem to contradict monism.

 

[Thinker]

There is a very simple answer to such question...Thus by the definition G. of everything and the Universe cannot be created by another entity.

You leave only two possibilties:
1: this creator created itself.
2: this creator has always existed and was never created.
You can cut out the middle man and apply either to the creation of the universe
directly without the need of any creator.

You seem to be claiming that the laws that govern the universe cannot be
applied to a god. As you claim this god can/did affect the universe, it is
therefore a force acting on the universe and so must be a part of it.

 

[Thinker]

Re: Inculcate

The pretense that a monad exists, as an irrational magnitude, therefore with intrinsic infinitude, is not obvious without a proof.

...

It is shallow critique but, infintesimals seem to relate the diminution at the limits of interaction between magnitudes with infinitude, as infinitesimals seem to contradict monism.

Do anyone else have a clue what this guy is on about (or is on)?

 

[Duke]

There is a very simple answer to such question.

But, by some sad occurrence, you never gave a very simple answer for the question, you only spouted some barely sensible and not even marginally logical gobbledygook, seen as follows:

It depends only on how you define your God. My G. is the biblical G. – the Creator of everything and the Universe. Thus by the definition G. of everything and the Universe cannot be created by another entity. There would be no difference between the creator and the creation. It would be more like G. replicating (or dividing?) himself, which is a quite impossible mental construction. A supposed creator of G. has no place in the Universe - such a creator would be nobody around G. and would have nothing to do, would have no function, no relation to the Universe or anything existing (because G. is the creator of everything existing and the Universe, and thus does not share the Universe and/or anything existing with another entity ) – thus a mental construction of such an entity is completely impossible for me.

To restate the question, the million dollar question: "Who created god?". Your "very simple answer" appears to follow these lines:

God is the universe (which doesn't answer the question of how the universe was created or how God was created)

Or, God created Itself. Paradoxical to an extreme, and downright fails in the logic and common sense department.

Okay, let's just start all over. If God created the universe, who created God? Keep in mind that everything has a creator. Unless, of course, something just appeared out of nowhere....

I'm still awaiting the very simple answer to the question.


Duke

 

[Thinker]

Keep in mind that everything has a creator.

What is your evidence for this? Why do you reject the possibility that something
(the universe, for example) may have always existed?

 

[Gardener]

What is your evidence for this? Why do you reject the possibility that something
(the universe, for example) may have always existed?

Ah -- an introduction to the oscillating universe theory.......

 

[Mr_DBater]

I see no need to invoke an inteligent lovign being as a creator. To do so leads to the problematic question of.... who made God and why does he never intervene to stop any disasters and suffering in the world ?
One can just as easily say the universe came from immortal laws of nature outside of space and time as we know it. One doesn't then have to live with the absurd notion that whatever gave rise to the universe is a loving caring father figure. Take a look at the horrors and suffering in the world. Who could possibly believe in a caring loving God as the creator.
I think that whilst our universe is finite, that nature is infinite and therefore anything is possible. So maybe God can be callous and caring at the same time

 

[Tashah]

Question: I’d like to ask – what is nothing? How do you see it?

Nothing is the counterpoint of something.

And BTW – what is the minimal something – the fist step from nothing?

Super Unification Theory (Gravitation unified with combined force and matter fields) predicts a natural end of space and time at the Planck Scale. At this scale, 3:1 (space-time) becomes quantized and gains infinite curvature so that the classical concepts of space and time become meaningless. No faster times or shorter distances.

The BBT (Big Bang Theory) does not attempt to address what came before. One is entirely free to speculate. For many people, this is the precise point where science ends and faith begins.

Q1:Are you one those many people who know precisely where science ends and their faith begins?

The science/faith demarcation is different for everyone. I consider my views on this a private matter.

Q2: Has the study of stars astrology effected your personality?

Astrology is a pseudo-science and is not in my portfolio.

Q3: Would you think about the world around differently if you were sure that the Universe has always existed as it is with things happening by themselves in some way – they bang into each other and glue together into some complex constructions or just bounce back and into some dust – (it is difficult for me to reconstruct the world view of some people – but you know what I mean)?

I haven't a clue what you mean here.

Q4: Would it still be in the realm of science to say that humans in their turn are a construct of the Universe?

Humans are certainly part and parcel of the physical universe.

I can think of a half-dozen explanations for our existence. Some are physical, some are metaphysical.

It would be very interesting to hear about a few out of a half-dozen from a professional astrologist. BBT and astrology have never been in my studies.

My scientific field is Cosmology. Astrology is not a science.

Q5: Would it still be in the realm of science to say that we a part of the Universe?

Refer to the reply to Q4.

Q6: Does existence and behavior of stars and other parts of the Universe “certify” BBT? Don’t you look at the parts of the Universe with a hope of a valid theory?

The BBT has been validated by every pertinint experiment. Most telling are the results of various CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation surveys.

 

[Duke]

What is your evidence for this? Why do you reject the possibility that something
(the universe, for example) may have always existed?

Let me put it this way: Give me an example of something that wasn't created.

By the way, in the question of the universe, I don't know if it was created, I don't know if it always existed, I don't know of it sprang out of nothing. And unlike lots of people, I accept that, the, "I don't know". Perhaps, if that question is answered, the answer will be, "It has always existed", and then, we will know that some things aren't created. But for now, everything we know about is a result of creation.


Duke

 

[laska]

Question: How do you know that it came from nothing? You don't know that it came from nothing any better than you know that it came from God.

The big question is: How? How was the universe formed? And no answer is better than the next, for there is no true answer, not yet.


Duke


Duke, it probably was not clear in my posts but I did try and state that human logic cannot answer these questions at this time. It seems to me Human logic is linear. It is like asking a person to began counting from zero and not stop until you reach the end of infinity. On the other hand an eternal logic is circular, it can comprehend all things. Temporal logic must speak in terms of plausibility given available evidence that has been tested. An eternal logic has the perspective necessary to see things as they truly are. That is the intrinsic problem of a methodology that relies solely on human logic in determining truth. Truth will always elude it. The Doctrine Covenants (a canonized set of revelations primarily received by Joseph Smith) states in one particular verse that in our day men would be ever learning but never come to the truth. In the Pearl of Great Price, God speaks to Moses and tells him basically that he has created worlds without ends, innumerable to man, but that they are numbered to Him….Anyway, where I am going with this is that to me the answers to your questions, whether we came from nothing or God, dwells in that sphere that is outside the reach of human knowledge. Only if an eternal God exists and reveals knowledge to mankind, can these type of things be known. Only if the human spirit has the capacity to comprehend pure light and intelliegnce from the heavens, recieves direct light/intelliegence from the heavens, can a man or woman speak in absolute terms whether they know there is a God or not. Many have made that claim, the scriptures themselves are a testimony of this. Whether the testimony of a person is true or not cannnot be known without revelation.