• 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!

Let them bang Big Bang: missing antimatter paradox solved!

questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member

Dr. Christian Smorra comments the "missing antimatter paradox" as
"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and
antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist. An
asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand
where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"

My way to solve the paradox (besides many other problems)
Is Mond Dead?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2001.0701
is to take advantage of the Methodology
of Science. Within the current knowledge one can calculate the
probability that antimatter is beyond the horizon, i.e. outside the reach
of our telescopes. Of course, that probability is extremely small, but
it is not perfectly zero. Therefore, one can use the method of Science
called Occam's Razor, selecting the option which does not
require new physics because such an option is available.
Same way one can deal with "neutrino non-zero masses", turning
them all to zero.

Yes, the methodological naturalism as basic method of Science leads them into Big Bang. Such method comes from Occam's Razor application: until the point where God would be necessary, the actions of God are excluded from consideration. But, the same Occam's Razor has excluded the new physical laws from Big Bang, even if Big Bang is not excluded itself.

I believe in God, because I have invented my own proof of Him: All-knowing Being knows about own existence, thus, among the hidden knowledge must be the knowledge of existence of All-knowing Being. I believe in God, and I know the God, for Faith is Faithfulness to Knowledge.

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than
0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use
the Occam's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that
the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability. Therefore,
the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):
All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by
definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.
God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.
 
Last edited:
Regiomontanus

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
questfortruth said:

Dr. Christian Smorra comments the "missing antimatter paradox" as
"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and
antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist. An
asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand
where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"

My way to solve the paradox (besides many other problems)
Is Mond Dead?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2001.0701
is to take advantage of the Methodology
of Science. Within the current knowledge one can calculate the
probability that antimatter is beyond the horizon, i.e. outside the reach
of our telescopes. Of course, that probability is extremely small, but
it is not perfectly zero. Therefore, one can use the method of Science
called Occam's Razor, selecting the option which does not
require new physics because such an option is available.
Same way one can deal with "neutrino non-zero masses", turning
them all to zero.

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than
0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use
the Occam's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that
the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability. Therefore,
the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):
All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by
definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.
God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.
Click to expand...


I agree atheism "is not the way to complete knowledge".

The guy in the video mentions (among other things) electrons. Just a side note that many here might find interesting:


"Carroll’s stunner, at least to many non-scientists, is this: Every particle is actually a field. The universe is full of fields, and what we think of as particles are just excitations of those fields, like waves in an ocean. An electron, for example, is just an excitation of an electron field.

This may seem counterintuitive, but seeing the world in terms of fields actually helps make sense of some otherwise confusing facts of particle physics."

Real talk: Everything is made of fields
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:

Dr. Christian Smorra comments the "missing antimatter paradox" as
"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and
antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist. An
asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand
where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"

My way to solve the paradox (besides many other problems)
Is Mond Dead?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2001.0701
is to take advantage of the Methodology
of Science. Within the current knowledge one can calculate the
probability that antimatter is beyond the horizon, i.e. outside the reach
of our telescopes. Of course, that probability is extremely small, but
it is not perfectly zero. Therefore, one can use the method of Science
called Occam's Razor, selecting the option which does not
require new physics because such an option is available.
Same way one can deal with "neutrino non-zero masses", turning
them all to zero.

Probability of Abiogenesis is (as calculated by Creationists) less than
0.000000000000000000000001 %, but not zero. Therefore, scientists use
the Occam's Razor and cut off the God from the picture, saying that
the Abiogenesis has happened despite of low probability. Therefore,
the necessity of God can be in the area of logic (Scholasticism):
All-knowing Being can not be Atheist, because any such being is God by
definition. Thus, Atheism is not the way to complete knowledge.
God is not the Atheist, because knows, that God exists.
Click to expand...


I am uninterested in the first 2/3 of your post. I will leave the discussion of cosmology and physics to those who have a good grounding in the subject. I don't think that includes either you or myself, frankly.

It is virtually impossible to calculate exact odds of life beginning. You do not have sufficient data to make accurate assumptions on which to base your calculations.

Further, you have not even attempted calculating the probability of the existence of a god.
Given that we have lots of information about natural processes and those things that exist the natural world, and virtually no solid evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, much less a supernatural god, the current probability of a god existing probably could be assumed to be zero. Therefore, no matter how slight the probability of abiogenesis might be, it is larger than the probability of a god.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In regards to the OP, what are the chances going back 100 years ago that I would be typing a post at a website called "Religious Forums" on a thread about the Big Bang on this date on a Monday?

Answer: 1:1-- I just did it.

Point: one cannot put odds on something that already has happened.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Should not you be?
Click to expand...
I should not not be. Understanding General Relativity involves a lot of post high school mathematics having to do with scalar functions, vector fields, tensor calculus, and all.


P9P2962g_E1O_4h09lPzzHFGwAFeBLAcpCRnJqtbVaX6AYeq7cSV-Dbw-jjjOaSywTsxGDuq15Lz2zEtYfAMPwaG5EduM7yjtlEb0jngbNg41rNVXA



So, what does one do with a M.Sci.in general relativity?


.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
questfortruth said:
In Theory of Probability one can mathematically.
Click to expand...
But once it happens, it's then 1:1.

Secondly, one can only calculate the odds if all variables are known, but in the case of the BB we simply don't know all the variables.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
metis said:
But once it happens, it's then 1:1.

Secondly, one can only calculate the odds if all variables are known, but in the case of the BB we simply don't know all the variables.
Click to expand...
Occam does not need new physics, if there is no 100% sure evidence and no logical necessity of it.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
questfortruth said:
Occam does not need new physics, if there is no 100% sure evidence and no logical necessity of it.
Click to expand...
The basic evidence for the BB is overwhelming, so there's really no serious question about the basic concept within the cosmology community. I have several books by cosmologists that will attest to that.

But let me ask you this, namely why is it that you so much question the evidence for the BB but don't seem to question the concept of there being a deity/deities?

Now, I believe in God, but it's not because of any objective evidence but on the basis of my repeated personal experiences over a three-year time period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top