Genuinely, no. I mean I could speculate, but I don't have the education to really give an informed opinion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gravity and the Expanding Universe
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
Genuinely, no. I mean I could speculate, but I don't have the education to really give an informed opinion.
This is exactly why I have no faith/trust in a god. I have no idea what her character is like, other than unverifiable hearsay.
The best scientific explanation at present is that Natural Laws based on Quantum Mechanics is that Our universe formed and expanded from a singularly or black hole within a greater cosmos likely a multiverse. At present there is no other explanation that fits the objective evidence.
Any other hypothetical explanation would have to be 'arguing from ignorance' based on a religious agenda.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
John Polkinghorne,OneWorld (London:SPCK,1986)
Do you have any references that say something different?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Then what do you believe was before the Big Bang (if you believe that happened that is)?
I have no clue. As far as I know, we have no access to that information.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You are smart to not have faith in something you don't know. It's the logical thing to do.
The scriptures declare that they explain God, so if you wanted to know Him you could. Of course if you don't think the scriptures declare God, I wouldn't waste any time with them. Again, just the logical thing to do.
"The scriptures," as far as I can tell, are unverifiable hearsay about God(s). And humans can't even agree on what qualifies as "the scriptures," ironically. So I don't trust them, since that would be illogical, as you mention.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, there is a theory called the conformal cyclic cosmology which is a naturalistic theory which you might be interested in.
Cheers.
Not personally but it seems its a misrepresentation of a an hypothetical number used to explain quantum fluctuations.
At also resembles the age of the universe when measured in Planck time perods
Last edited:
rrobs
Well-Known Member
A precisely controlled expansion.
Why is it that you can accuse someone of idolatry and it's OK, but if someone makes a rather benign claim as Eyes to See's you call it slander?
So if you don't believe that God created the universe, nor do you apparently believe in chance (such an idea is slander and unsupportable as per your reply to Eyes to See), what do you believe in?
rrobs
Well-Known Member
So just because something seems to be a misrepresentation, means it actually is a misrepresentation? Interesting twist on the scientific method.
firedragon
Veteran Member
LC. Humans dont even agree on science. Thats not a good enough argument, but I do see that you said that as a side point which is not too important.
But you see you said that "unverifiable hearsay about God(s)". Which scripture have you analysed enough to make this assertion?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Is there any scientific evidence for the multiverse theory?
It appears to be a misunderstanding at some point. The expansion is certainly NOT balanced to one part in 10^60 between premature contraction and being ripped apart. Changing the strength of gravity OR the density of energy would have very little effect on the current state of the universe, even if the changes are in the 10% range.
It *does* seem to be very close to being flat, but that is NOT the same thing as balanced expansion in a universe with a cosmological constant. And, in fact, the expansion seems to be accelerating. Furthermore, the apparent flatness may well have been produced by a brief period of 'inflation' where any curvature was reduced because of the exponential expansion.
Oh, I see. Your source is from 1986. Let's just say that we have learned a few things since that time, including the fact that the expansion is accelerating. The analysis of the cosmic background radiation has answered many of the questions that were open in 1986 (and has opened new ones--which happens in research).
Might I suggest you not use outdated sources? maybe look only at stuff that has appeared since, say, 2010?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
If they agreed on everything, it would not remain science, it would become religion, God's word. Good that the inquiring spirit is alive and kicking.
Atheists generally have studied Bible and Quran. I also know about Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Jain, Jewish (if one reads Bible and Quran, one gets some idea about Judaism) and Bahai views. I have studied something about European paganism, am generally sympathetic to paganism anywhere since Hinduism also is a pagan religion.
Last edited:
Thanks! I'll look it up.
Depends on what you mean by that question. We have NO observational evidence about what things were like prior to a few milliseconds into the current expansion phase of the universe.
On the other hand, every attempt to unify quantum mechanics and gravity has lead to some version of a multiverse theory. it seems to be inherent in the way gravity works in the presence of quantum mechanics. This, while theoretical, is a pointer to some version of a multiverse being likely to be the case.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Excellent. So agreement on something is not necessary for that to be scientific. Thanks for that.
Nevertheless, you say you have studied all those books? Am I correct? Have you studied the Buddhist scripture and Quran? Please do tell me how far!
Indeed. If scientists were still in hopeless and intransigent disagreement with each other about even the most basic facts of reality, science would be much less trustworthy, even useless. Thankfully that's not the case.
My deepest knowledge is of the Bible, since that is part of my personal history and it's the text of the largest religion globally and in my corner of the world. But I've never come across an alleged scripture to which that description wouldn't apply. Do you know of one?