Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

[outhouse]

that fact the atheists think that science can disprove the Divine is just plain silly

Hawking use their scientific position to try and discredit the absolute...God...

When you make claims against atheist and scientist, whether in error or not. Your claims are going to be stood up.

And when you fail to support your position due to what ever reason, you don't get to tell anyone to leave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You like giving orders.

How about admitting you have no evidence in support of this spirit concept as existing outside mythology?

How about you admitting that you have no idea what spirit is because you are not sufficiently evolved. People are not equal you know.....

 

[suncowiam]

Yes for me the big bang is the best we have right now, it may have not gone exactly, but again its the best we have. I cannot believe in the religious idea that everything popped into existence, that to me needs a hell lot of faith to be true. I personally see the bible story as a metaphor for creation, it makes much more sense that way, and I don't believe that it was ever meant to be taken literally, this is where people get stuck, they then have to find evidence for their beliefs, which I believe there are none.

Everything popped into being is the same as the big bang.

I personally don't get this thread. The big bang was never taught to me as the definitive answer for the creation of our universe. Nor do I believe it is the definitive theory. It is a best guestimate. So now, we have another theory. Uhm, this is just the another form of the expand and crunch theory which has come up before. Nothing new here, but more possible evidence. From a scientific perpective, that's great! We theorized about the atom for a very long time and eventually we built strong enough microscopes to actually view atoms and molecules. It helped prove the chemical bonds by viewing the compositions of the atoms and molecules. There were other tools and processes here but I'm simplifying the example. I'm sure there were lots of debate within science concerning atoms. Science will continue to improve upon our senses and we will continue to qualify or disqualify various theories. This is just part of the whole process... Science is not absolute even though it tries to be. It is the observation of the universe with our current means.

What is so significant about this pertaining to religion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When you make claims against atheist and scientist, whether in error or not. Your claims are going to be stood up.

And when you fail to support your position due to what ever reason, you don't get to tell anyone to leave.

I am not giving orders, I am fulfilling the prerequisite steps to show that I did everything possible to avoid getting this thread locked like the last one. Your posts are not relevant to the science and religion theme so it is obvious what you are up to....

 

[outhouse]

How about you admitting that you have no idea what spirit is because you are not sufficiently evolved.

Why is it when you get desperate with no evidence, you get all bossy and try laughably to give orders and drop down to throwing around personal insults?

We are not attacking you, only your unsubstantiated rhetoric.

People are not equal you know.....

Agreed.


Many have no unbiased education.

 

[psychoslice]

Everything popped into being is the same as the big bang.

I personally don't get this thread. The big bang was never taught to me as the definitive answer for the creation of our universe. Nor do I believe it is the definitive theory. It is a best guestimate. So now, we have another theory. Uhm, this is just the another form of the expand and crunch theory which has come up before. Nothing new here, but more possible evidence. From a scientific perpective, that's great! We theorized about the atom for a very long time and eventually we built strong enough microscopes to actually view atoms and molecules. It helped prove the chemical bonds by viewing the compositions of the atoms and molecules. There were other tools and processes here but I'm simplifying the example. I'm sure there were lots of debate within science concerning atoms. Science will continue to improve upon our senses and we will continue to qualify or disqualify various theories. This is just part of the whole process... Science is not absolute even though it tries to be. It is the observation of the universe with our current means.

What is so significant about this pertaining to religion?

That's it, religion should keep out of science, if you have no proof or good theory's then why even debate or argue over what science doesn't know, it just doesn't make sense to me. You don't see science trying to prove there is no god, they wouldn't wast their precious time doing so, and so why do creationist wast their time trying to prove science wrong. If you believe in the spiritual things, then share that with those who believe in spiritual things and not wast your time with those who don't believe. Myself I will support both sides, if there are atheist who run down everything of religion then I'll back religion, or how I see religion, and also I'll back atheist if there are religious running down everything to do with atheism.

 

[shawn001]

Everything popped into being is the same as the big bang.

I personally don't get this thread. The big bang was never taught to me as the definitive answer for the creation of our universe. Nor do I believe it is the definitive theory. It is a best guestimate. So now, we have another theory. Uhm, this is just the another form of the expand and crunch theory which has come up before. Nothing new here, but more possible evidence. From a scientific perpective, that's great! We theorized about the atom for a very long time and eventually we built strong enough microscopes to actually view atoms and molecules. It helped prove the chemical bonds by viewing the compositions of the atoms and molecules. There were other tools and processes here but I'm simplifying the example. I'm sure there were lots of debate within science concerning atoms. Science will continue to improve upon our senses and we will continue to qualify or disqualify various theories. This is just part of the whole process... Science is not absolute even though it tries to be. It is the observation of the universe with our current means.

What is so significant about this pertaining to religion?

"Everything popped into being is the same as the big bang."

Except science did improve and we have a picture of the afterglow of the Big Bang.


Universe as an Infant: Fatter Than Expected and Kind of Lumpy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/s...lite-shows-image-of-infant-universe.html?_r=0

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe
Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA


"What is so significant about this pertaining to religion?"

Take a guess why, because it has been for a while now.

 

[outhouse]

Myself I will support both sides

Its funny, I think my atheism has give me a greater understanding and interpretation of theism.

Most theist cannot agree on theism, and fight and kill each other over interpretation. Their different definitions of a deity concept leads to so much bias on individual basis, I think some are blind to the overall context.

I have learned that religion has no place in science, and moderation should be required for all religions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why is it when you get desperate with no evidence, you get all bossy and try laughably to give orders and drop down to throwing around personal insults?

We are not attacking you, only your unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Agreed.

Many have no unbiased education.

Outhouse...it is an impossibility to have a reasoned discussion or debate with you....I have learned that you are practically devoid of reason or logic that reasonable people are naturally endowed with ...you are like a bucket of worms...

 

[psychoslice]

Its funny, I think my atheism has give me a greater understanding and interpretation of theism.

Most theist cannot agree on theism, and fight and kill each other over interpretation. Their different definitions of a deity concept leads to so much bias on individual basis, I think some are blind to the overall context.

I have learned that religion has no place in science, and moderation should be required for all religions.

I certainly agree, well said.

 

[suncowiam]

"Everything popped into being is the same as the big bang."

Except science did improve and we have a picture of the afterglow of the Big Bang.


Universe as an Infant: Fatter Than Expected and Kind of Lumpy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/s...lite-shows-image-of-infant-universe.html?_r=0

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe
Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA


"What is so significant about this pertaining to religion?"

Take a guess why, because it has been for a while now.

Frankly, I don't know why. That's why I asked.

 

[suncowiam]

Outhouse...it is an impossibility to have a reasoned discussion or debate with you....I have learned that you are practically devoid of reason or logic that reasonable people are naturally endowed with ...you are like a bucket of worms...

I believe you mentioned that god is omnipotent.

Well, if you define a being that we cant systematically prove and does not conform to accepted science then what debate are we really having?

I'll just let you continue with others here.

Religion has a place in humanity but it does belong in science. Religion didn't teach me how to be an engineer nor will it cure my future illnesses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe you mentioned that god is omnipotent.

Well, if you define a being that we cant systematically prove and does not conform to accepted science then what debate are we really having?

I'll just let you continue with others here.

Religion has a place in humanity but it does belong in science. Religion didn't teach me how to be an engineer nor will it cure my future illnesses.

I don't know why I bother....God is defined as being omnipotent, but I didn't say so on this thread, and there is science that says the zpe energy of the vacuum has infinite energy density.

You apparently don't believe me when I explained on numerous occasions on this thread that science confines itself to the physical universe. Religion otoh deals with the spiritual. If you think I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary.....

There are some areas that are relevant though....God to my understanding is omnipresent and eternal, most BB believers see a finite universe in time and space....this paper suggests an infinite eternal universe which is consistent with an eternal omnipresent God.

 

[shawn001]

Frankly, I don't know why. That's why I asked.

Got it, its been a long standing question, did a God create the universe or can it be explained naturally, without supernatural explanations.

 

[shawn001]

I don't know why I bother....God is defined as being omnipotent, but I didn't say so on this thread, and there is science that says the zpe energy of the vacuum has infinite energy density.

You apparently don't believe me when I explained on numerous occasions on this thread that science confines itself to the physical universe. Religion otoh deals with the spiritual. If you think I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary.....

There are some areas that are relevant though....God to my understanding is omnipresent and eternal, most BB believers see a finite universe in time and space....this paper suggests an infinite eternal universe which is consistent with an eternal omnipresent God.

If your using that science paper for some kind of proof of God, your not doing well or even using multiverses.

Do you have a specific organized religion you believe in?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If your using that science paper for some kind of proof of God, your not doing well or even using multiverses.

Do you have a specific organized religion you believe in?

You think so.....Brahman's physical manifestation (the Cosmos) is both infinite and eternal, so a science paper that suggests the physical cosmos may be infinite and eternal is at least consistent wrt to the physical manifestation. Das all...not trying to prove anything...

No, I am not a member of any organized religion...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's pliability is what makes it so much more reasonable than faith

Exactly. The ability to retain an open mind, rather than the closed mind of religious dogma.

 

[shawn001]

You think so.....Brahman's physical manifestation (the Cosmos) is both infinite and eternal, so a science paper that suggests the physical cosmos may be infinite and eternal is at least consistent wrt to the physical manifestation. Das all...not trying to prove anything...

No, I am not a member of any organized religion...

"You think so.....Brahman's physical manifestation (the Cosmos) is both infinite and eternal"

Which has what to do with science or cosmology?

As I also pointed out a singularity can be connected to multiverses as well. Then you run into an infinite number of multiverses and what caused them. If your going by cause and effect at least.

and as far as I know or anyone knows spiritual is within the brain and most likely evolved as it has some evolutionary advantages as well as other reasons and specific religions are taught to people, they aren't born that way with a particular religion or belief.

Are you a pantheist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"You think so.....Brahman's physical manifestation (the Cosmos) is both infinite and eternal"

Which has what to do with science or cosmology?

As I also pointed out a singularity can be connected to multiverses as well. Then you run into an infinite number of multiverses and what caused them. If your going by cause and effect at least.

and as far as I know or anyone knows spiritual is within the brain and most likely evolved as it has some evolutionary advantages as well as other reasons and specific religions are taught to people, they aren't born that way with a particular religion or belief.

Are you a pantheist?

Brahman is a Hindu name for God absolute...so it is religious!

If it turns out there are infinite universes/multiverse....then yes, it is still Brahman's manifestation. All is Brahman.....even an outhouse....

Brain activity, ie. thoughts, have no high place in serious religious practice....serious religious practice has as its goal the cessation of thought....

I am what and who I am, that's all...I accept all religions.......and science disciplines for that matter...

 

[mystic64]

Brahman is a Hindu name for God absolute...so it is religious!

If it turns out there are infinite universes/multiverse....then yes, it is still Brahman's manifestation. All is Brahman.....even an outhouse....

Brain activity, ie. thoughts, have no high place in serious religious practice....serious religious practice has as its goal the cessation of thought....

I am what and who I am, that's all...I accept all religions.......and science disciplines for that matter...

Yoga starts with cessation of thought/quiet mind/nirodha. And that is the goal of a yogi not the goal of all religions. And it is "uncontrolled" thoughts that are the problem, not achieving no brain activity. Brain activity is required to consciously experience something, even the Brahman/the spirit of Brahma. Truely serious religion is the attempt to establish a rapport with a profoundly powerful entity that is generally considered the Creator. Otherwise it is just "self realization" which is not true religion. Some yogis are seeking union/yoga with the Creator which would be religion and some yogis are seeking self realization which is not religion.

And Ben d , Outhouse has no teeth unless you give him/her permission to have teeth. As a yogi you should know this and that the fault lies with you and not with him/her.