Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

[mystic64]

If the "Big Bang" was initated by God the Creator and you have a rapport with that enitiy, then imagine the "little bangs", positive loving things, that can happen around you because of that relationship that you have . The reason that we worship "God" or some other deity is to give us an advantage over someone that does not. It does not matter if some others do not believe in God, some higher source, or the supernatural because if we do and we have established a rapport with It/them, then ,"the proof is in the pudding", if these things exist.

 

[suncowiam]

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 you're going to debate in these forums, I suggest you train your stamina a bit more. =)

Your example is like me saying that a tomato is a round red fruit and an apple is a round red fruit, so based extrinsically, they must be the same.

You bring up some abstract concepts meaning people define God, religion, and spirituality differently. That is fine, but of course, you will debate this to eternity with others on the exact meaning.

Science is not abstract, if any portion of a theory is abstract then this means it isn't completed. Two different scientists or observers can not debate a concept like Quantum Mechanics or Calculus. Simple math and observations will prove one answer.

 

[suncowiam]

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

I don't see what's wrong with keeping it open ended.

The probability that life created on its own is the same probability that God exists. It's just a small number. No one on either side can definitively prove 0% or 100%.

 

[outhouse]

The probability that life created on its own is the same probability that God exists. It's just a small number.

Not true.

The odds of life originating the way the mythology states is 0% though.

And we know life started over 3.5 billion years ago, in water, where natural chemistry could take place with hundreds of thousands of years..

No one on either side can definitively prove 0% or 100%.

Yes we can. 0% that the OT has any credibility for creation mythology existing. So now you have to use imagination as to what a specific deity of choice has actually created.


The odds of abiogenesis actually happening without mythology is very very high, only panspermia changes the odds from 100% to less. But there is no room for mythology anywhere, because no mythology stated life would originate the way we know it did. Not even close.

I don't see what's wrong with keeping it open ended.

Lack of evidence on the mythological side.

 

[suncowiam]

Not true.

The odds of life originating the way the mythology states is 0% though.

And we know life started over 3.5 billion years ago, in water, where natural chemistry could take place with hundreds of thousands of years..



Yes we can. 0% that the OT has any credibility for creation mythology existing. So now you have to use imagination as to what a specific deity of choice has actually created.


The odds of abiogenesis actually happening without mythology is very very high, only panspermia changes the odds from 100% to less. But there is no room for mythology anywhere, because no mythology stated life would originate the way we know it did. Not even close.



Lack of evidence on the mythological side.

Hold on... =)

I didn't define myself well. Like I mentioned, God is an abstract concept.

Concerning life:
I don't think anyone can tell you with absolute certainty how life started. I do agree that life started on its own on Earth but I wouldn't positively assert that so I'm leaving some room of skeptism until observations can catch up. I'm an engineer and have to follow certain scientific methods. If life can be created on its own then, yes, I have to see it done in more experiments and in a systematic process.

Concerning God:
I don't believe in a mythical being that is omnipotent and omnipresence. This breaks all rules of science. I do believe that there could be a creator of the universe, which is different than saying a creator of life. This being would exist in other dimensions and would have other traits that could allow it to do such things. There could be other beings that could have created us and most likely don't give a rats ***. Or not... Don't know, don't really care, but with no certainty because we can't recreate a big bang. We can actually create very tiny black holes that evaporate very quickly but thats not the same because space has already been created and the amount of energy is quite different.

Again, there is no certainty here. As far as the mythological being that you're arguing against. Right, many fields of science has disreputed that...

 

[outhouse]

I don't think anyone can tell you with absolute certainty how life started.

Well abiogenesis is nothing more then chemicals converting energy in its simple form. Cyanobacteria.

Absolute certain? Not absolute, but we have credible details of how easy this chemistry can convert sun energy, turning chemicals into life.

 

[suncowiam]

Well abiogenesis is nothing more then chemicals converting energy in its simple form. Cyanobacteria.

Absolute certain? Not absolute, but we have credible details of how easy this chemistry can convert sun energy, turning chemicals into life.

If I understand correctly, there's a chain of dependency before we have the basic components of abiogenesis. Some of the fundamental proteins when combined with energy can turn into life, but then how do atoms form these fundamental proteins in the first place?

If we have an experiment where we start with the following:
* Any number of fundamental elements, ie, atoms or compositions of the same atoms. Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen...
* A few number of molecules
** Mostly water: H20
** Composition of rock, minerals...
* A natural catalyst: light, fire, lightning...

And if organic compounds/proteins can be created from this, then I would be less skeptical.

 

[outhouse]

And if organic compounds/proteins can be created from this, then I would be less skeptical.

They can, it just cannot be reproduced in a lab.

They have it down to a 400,000 year window, that is a massive mount of time for chemistry to evolve.

 

[suncowiam]

They can, it just cannot be reproduced in a lab.

They have it down to a 400,000 year window, that is a massive mount of time for chemistry to evolve.

The thing I don't understand is why we can't speed up the process. We do so with many other processes.

If there's a working theory and we have all the necessary components, then time should not be a factor in my opinion. But I have little background in chemistry.

 

[outhouse]

The thing I don't understand is why we can't speed up the process. We do so with many other processes.

Its not that easy, not only that it could be happening right now and we would never know.

But I have little background in chemistry.

Same here.

But there are some really good youtube vids describing the process. A few are really good, and then it will make perfect sense. I botch this with the best of them lol

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you're going to debate in these forums, I suggest you train your stamina a bit more. =)

Your example is like me saying that a tomato is a round red fruit and an apple is a round red fruit, so based extrinsically, they must be the same.

You bring up some abstract concepts meaning people define God, religion, and spirituality differently. That is fine, but of course, you will debate this to eternity with others on the exact meaning.

Science is not abstract, if any portion of a theory is abstract then this means it isn't completed. Two different scientists or observers can not debate a concept like Quantum Mechanics or Calculus. Simple math and observations will prove one answer.

Everything about scientific theory is abstract.....the very concepts of time and space are abstractions from the underlying eternal and infinite nature of existence...

If you do not see that the infinite and eternal nature of Cosmos of both the religious understanding of the manifested God, and the suggested scientific theory, then we will just agree to disagree....

It's not so much stamina that is needed, but patience....kids find it difficult to pay attention and are not so interested in learning....=)

 

[outhouse]

If you do not see that the infinite and eternal nature of Cosmos of both the religious understanding of the manifested God, and the suggested scientific theory, then we will just agree to disagree....

Doesn't this turn it into a half mythological perspective now?

There is no place in credible science for injecting ones personal religious bias.

 

[suncowiam]

Everything about scientific theory is abstract.....the very concepts of time and space are abstractions from the underlying eternal and infinite nature of existence...

If you do not see that the infinite and eternal nature of Cosmos of both the religious understanding of the manifested God, and the suggested scientific theory, then we will just agree to disagree....

It's not so much stamina that is needed, but patience....kids find it difficult to pay attention and are not so interested in learning....=)

I agree with you but with an exception. Einstein's theories of space and time have been proven well with the very big, but it breaks down with the very small. But again, no one will observe differently from a very big perspective. Each observer will observe the same results. Quantum Mechanics deals with the very small. Again, each observer will observe the same results from a very small perspective. There really is no room for interpretation.

Science knows this disreptancy between the big and small. Science admits this is as a fault. Hence, we are still searching for the "theory of everything."

I don't know why you chose to label some here as kids. I don't believe anyone here are actually kids. We all have different maturity levels but that is still irrelevant to the subject. Are you debating the subject or the person?

[Edit] I apologize. I should not have mentioned stamina. So I initiated it on a personal level.

Let's focus on the subject. Thanks

 

[oldbadger]

And we know life started over 3.5 billion years ago, in water, where natural chemistry could take place with hundreds of thousands of years.

No.... we don't know. Life may have arrived, inbound on asteroids or comets. There is no scientific consensus as yet.
There is no scientific consensus on the initiation of this universe either.
Some contend that the big bounce is now a possibility, since dark matter is proved to exist.
Some contend that our universe is within a multiverse, suggested by irregular galactic movements.
Some contend Big Bang.
Some contend that the universe will self initiate at a maximum point of expansion.
and there are a few other theories held by professional astronomers, physicists and mathematicians.

And the OP is not a new theory.
So nobody knows. ......... yet

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Doesn't this turn it into a half mythological perspective now?

There is no place in credible science for injecting ones personal religious bias.

The forum is Science and Religion.....and if you follow what I've said, I agree that science is a physical pursuit, and religion is a spiritual pursuit.

There is no place in credible religion for injecting one's personal scientific bias....and there is no place in credible science for injecting one's personal religious bias. But where there is common understanding, it can be noted without bias....

 

[outhouse]

No.... we don't know. Life may have arrived, inbound on asteroids or comets.

Stubborn people often miss the obvious.

While Panspermia may have taken place and I already mentioned that. Not one word I stated was in error.


Whether that happened or not life factually started in the water as our oldest fossils are of cyanobacteria colonies.

And chemistry could take place there, with hundreds of thousands of years.


[only panspermia changes the odds from 100% to less.]

 

[shawn001]

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 1: The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth

Jack Szostak (Harvard/HHMI) Part 2: Protocell Membranes

 

[shawn001]

The forum is Science and Religion.....and if you follow what I've said, I agree that science is a physical pursuit, and religion is a spiritual pursuit.

There is no place in credible religion for injecting one's personal scientific bias....and there is no place in credible science for injecting one's personal religious bias. But where there is common understanding, it can be noted without bias....

\
wait am I understanding you right?

"There is no place in credible religion for injecting one's personal scientific bias"

What about Galileo for one?

 

[shawn001]

Suncowiam, what kind of an engineer are you just out of curiosity?

 

[suncowiam]

Suncowiam, what kind of an engineer are you just out of curiosity?

I'm a sw engineer now but studied computer engineering in college which involved electrical engineering and computer science.