Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

Its funny to me you don't believe in the BB since we have an actual picture of it and the relic of light of the oldest light in the universe frozen in time, coming from everywhere in the universe, in very fine detail that shows a time when there were no stars or galaxies.

Neither of these has panned out yet, but they are still working on it.

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn’t go there – at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors – and so the question didn’t make sense from a scientific view.

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?


Other Universes finally detectable?

New method might uncover "bruises" from run-ins with other universes.

Other Universes Finally Detectable?

I think there is a rule about proselytizing on RF...give me a break please....

But accepting the preexistence of the Cosmos before 'our' BB. is a step in the right direction imho...

 

[shawn001]

Don't worry..the money and politics has long ago corrupted the peer review system....it's now ridiculed as Pal Review...

Yes, though not religion per se, man made religious institutions...

We are in a huge scientific revolution right now, especially in biology but also in all fields of technology and it is accelerating rapidly. We mapped the Human Genome, we mapped the plant genome, were mapping almost all organisms on Earth's genomes as well as mapping the brain and developing major new technologies to learn more. We uncovering and shedding more light on the past as well as the future.

Your no against learning and investigation are you?

 

[shawn001]

I think there is a rule about proselytizing on RF...give me a break please....

But accepting the preexistence of the Cosmos before 'our' BB. is a step in the right direction imho...

Not this universe but others. Perhaps this universe sprang from another and now with the CMB we have some ways of possible detection, thanks to the BB theory by the way.

Its also physically possible to have another Bang in this universe were in now.

 

[shawn001]

So you don't personally believe it and "could not dream up any plausible idea of the cause" so its a miracle and God did it. Got it.

Of course this "no body knows" apply's to God did it.

Okay so skip the BB for the time being.

How did the universe start in your opinion and why is it expanding and what did it expand from and what caused it?

I am interested in you answering the above question?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We are in a huge scientific revolution right now, especially in biology but also in all fields of technology and it is accelerating rapidly. We mapped the Human Genome, we mapped the plant genome, were mapping almost all organisms on Earth's genomes as well as mapping the brain and developing major new technologies to learn more. We uncovering and shedding more light on the past as well as the future.

Your no against learning and investigation are you?

Not at all....the comment of mine you quoted was in the context of money corruption wrt relgion...

 

[shawn001]

I think there is a rule about proselytizing on RF...give me a break please....

But accepting the preexistence of the Cosmos before 'our' BB. is a step in the right direction imho...

I could careless about recruiting you.

It also doesn't change the fact we have pictures of the BB or that it is one of the stronest scientific theories in science. . What you believe or think doesn't change the fact of the matter for you or me.

"With the scientific revolution, the work of Galileo, Newton and others banished supernatural explanations from science. But some think the supernatural still has its place."

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not this universe but others. Perhaps this universe sprang from another and now with the CMB we have some ways of possible detection, thanks to the BB theory by the way.

Its also physically possible to have another Bang in this universe were in now.

The prefix 'uni' of universe means one. unity....the discovery of others like it means that the whole is still the universe, the apparent individual verses need to called subverses or a new name to be created. But to your point...I don't mind your speculations, but I personally assume the Cosmos is infinite and eternal, and so there are infinite so called universes coming into and out of manifestation in time and space... like new stars being born and old ones decay...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am interested in you answering the above question?

I answered it in my last post before I had read this one...the Cosmos is eternal and infinite....only manifested things have beginnings and endings...they are all just differentiated aspects of the underlying unity of the apparent all in existence...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It also doesn't change the fact we have pictures of the BB or that it is one of the stronest scientific theories in science. . What you believe or think doesn't change the fact of the matter for you or me.

Don't be deceived......the CMB and pictures of young galaxies doesn't tell science anything about what caused the zero point or why it was caused.....or where all the energy of the Cosmos came from...so we are left with the miracle of step one of the BB theory still unaccounted for with a scientific explanation...

Let's leave it for that for now....because you are only going to copy and paste more stuff about post BB science...and I'm only concerned with the miracle part...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're in with a chance if you can explain what caused the BB...

Not necessarily, it could be explained without supernatural causes, in fact recently there was an explanation without breaking any of the natural laws of physics.

What is this explanation within the laws of physics?

I'm still waiting for your answer....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

From experience I can say, it is impossible to convey to someone who has not had a transcendence of the normal conceptual mental state, a conceptual explanation that they can resonate with, with any degree of affinity...it's a waste of time for both parties....

I've been doing Buddhist meditation for 35 years so I've experienced that kind of transcendence, and what might be best described as altered states of consciousness.

But what are experiences like that to do with what you described earlier as an "extra-physical reality"? It's not uncommon for people to experience altered states of consciousness and then make all kinds of assumptions which aren't necessarily valid. So why exactly do you assume an "extra-physical reality" based on altered states of consciousness? And what do you actually mean by "extra-physical reality"?

 

[Shad]

I conveyed my position on duality, and non-duality, as clearly as I could....they were not presented as basic arguments....but as the way I understand the bigger Cosmic picture. I don't expect you or anyone else to read my mind, for apart from my own explanation, the doctrines concerning non-duality and duality are everywhere to be found for those who are interested. I explained in an earlier post that prerequisite serious religious learning, and/or a highly developed intuition is required, to understand....but if you don't have this prerequisite background, no worries....there can be no argument if you don't understand what is being said to you...

It was not very clear at all, no references points until posts later. You also contradicted yourself by using points which are exclusive to each other. Religion has proven time and time again it provides no insight into reality, just guess work. This is why science has actually helped progress our understanding of the world. Intuition has been proven unreliable. You use the two worst positions to talk about reality and you wonder why I take your sophistry to task?

 

[Shad]

That is rich.....of course I read it....it was a direct copy and paste quote from the Wiki link....the same article that you copy and pasted from. As I said.....if you think that it an error that Wiki says Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe....then try and get it edited. Don't throw a petulant tizzy here just because someone posts a verbatim excerpt, ironically from the same article you did, of which you do not approve of and go into abuse mode contrary the forum rules....

Yet you didn't read the part in which the author clearly states it was not about God, it was God neutral. From the same source. You did exactly what I said people like you do. Take an idea and retrofit it to match their presuppositions. I never said he didn't propose it, I said it was not about God. Having reading comprehension issues?

Abuse mode, hilarious. No son it is not abuse. It is calling a person on their BS and pointing out exactly where one made their mistake because they do not read what they link. All you did was quote-mine the one sentence which you agreed with and ignored the part which contradicts your views.

 

[George-ananda]

Is there any evidence for the second option here?

The paranormal evidence arguing for consciousness not through a physical brain and the mystical insight of many masters.

 

[George-ananda]

Your bring your personal bias and beliefs in.

Again you can't show one thing that has consciousness without a nervous system. Name one!

"Our physical consciousness is a ray of the One consciousness animating a finite form."

A ray? finite form?

I can make things up as well. Pink unicorns generate a cosmic consciousness and all human spiritualism.

You can change your consciousness with drugs, with booze and a whole lot of other ways.

Your way out of your league in modern neuroscience and the brain as well. Even with evolution.

"Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness"

LOL

What do you have to back that up. What consciousness was there when the universe started and was roughly 7 trillion degree F.

You don't seem to understand matter, mass and energy either.

But seriously what science do you have that backs up

""Consciousness is primary and matter is a product of consciousness"

I speak of the limitations of science in the early 21st century. I consider evidence from my study of the so-called paranormal and the direct clairvoyant and mystical insight of many masters. These things have dovetailed in my studies to give me an solid understanding of things beyond the scope of early 21st century science.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I speak of the limitations of science in the early 21st century. I consider evidence from my study of the so-called paranormal and the direct clairvoyant and mystical insight of many masters. These things have dovetailed in my studies to give me an solid understanding of things beyond the scope of early 21st century science.

Hi, I had read your one-on-one debate with LeannaBard regarding the existence of God.

In that thread, you mentioned a lot of evidence based on your research, but during the debate you only had a chance to cover one piece of evidence from your category of Near Death Experiences.

At that point, the debate was about credible sources, alternative theories, etcetera. . . And you never had the chance to present the rest prior to the ending of he debate.

I am new here, so I was wondering if you could point out a link or thread on RF that covers the evidence from the breadth of your research from all of your categories (again, mentioned in your debate thread).

I happen to be more Logos driven, and while I would consider your Ethos driven argument that you are an expert with a great deal of research to come to an informed choice, it's less credible to me than the Logos of the evidence itself. Can you provide it? Thanks in advance!

 

[George-ananda]

Hi, I had read your one-on-one debate with LeannaBard regarding the existence of God.

Wow, I'm impressed you read that. Honestly, I was not impressed by the quality of my opponent who didn't get my arguments I cut it kind of short.

In that thread, you mentioned a lot of evidence based on your research, but during the debate you only had a chance to cover one piece of evidence from your category of Near Death Experiences.

At that point, the debate was about credible sources, alternative theories, etcetera. . . And you never had the chance to present the rest prior to the ending of he debate.

I am new here, so I was wondering if you could point out a link or thread on RF that covers the evidence from the breadth of your research from all of your categories (again, mentioned in your debate thread).

I happen to be more Logos driven, and while I would consider your Ethos driven argument that you are an expert with a great deal of research to come to an informed choice, it's less credible to me than the Logos of the evidence itself. Can you provide it? Thanks in advance!

Here is the best cumulative sight I know presenting evidence and links to evidence on paranormal subjects: Afterlife Evidence

The site is a bit flamboyant for my tastes but if you really dig into the list with 100's of scientists and links I find tremendous evidence for my position.

I will admit to not understanding your Logos/Ethos discussion. I am just a studier of other's research.

 

[outhouse]

I find tremendous evidence for my position.

To bad it is not credible evidence.

Every bit I speculative and unsubstantiated. Personal perception at best.

 

[Sapiens]

Wow, I'm impressed you read that. Honestly, I was not impressed by the quality of my opponent who didn't get my arguments I cut it kind of short.


Here is the best cumulative sight I know presenting evidence and links to evidence on paranormal subjects: Afterlife Evidence

The site is a bit flamboyant for my tastes but if you really dig into the list with 100's of scientists and links I find tremendous evidence for my position.

I will admit to not understanding your Logos/Ethos discussion. I am just a studier of other's research.

If that site is the "best" you can do you've a long way to go to be taken seriously, I'd call that site a setback for your views.

 

[atanu]

LOL
What consciousness was there when the universe started and was roughly 7 trillion degree F.

You don't seem to understand matter, mass and energy either.

LOL Shawn. Consciousness is here and now. It has theorised of a time and a trillion degree F. And using that theory you are foolishly vanquishing the very source of that theory.

Is what we know (for example, about the start of the universe) separate from our consciousness? Can you separate any knowledge or any object from consciousness? Will there be any theorising without consciousness?

OTOH, if consciousness came up from inert materials (as you and some others aver) then you would have to agree that your intelligence and your thought process was determined by those inert stones. Then what can you understand of matter, mass, and energy through enquiry? Your understanding was determined by the inert deterministic processes.