Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but you are wise and I am not, yet I am still a case of being a human, no matter how much proof you claim you hold over what the universe is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay. Now stop answering me and ground yourself and if you have to, then put me on ignore.
Peace and take care.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay. Now stop answering me and ground yourself and if you have to, then put me on ignore.
Peace and take care.

"Peace and take care", nice, thank you, your religion is off to a good start mikkel_the_dane. Peace and take care.

 

[gnostic]

Polymath does not agree, he states that if the universe did not exist, there would be no existence. So BBT means the universe came from nothing. My God, you have your own mind, please use it and not just follow trolls.

And you were complaining that English is the second language for @mikkel_the_dane ????

Clearly you have either reading comprehension problem or you are deliberately editing what @Polymath257 is saying.

If the universe exists and never began, the universe would have existed for an infinite amount of time (or, potentially, time would be circular). if the universe did not exist, then there would be no existence.



If existence ceased to exist, then there would be no 'exist'.

You do realize in both statements, Polymath257, was only presenting a hypothetical scenario starting with the word "if".

He was only saying these things, about there being "nonexistence", in a generic context, not in connection with the Big Bang theory, itself.

I knew exactly what Polymath257 was saying when he wrote that, he was only saying "if the universe did not exist, then there would be be no existence".

He wasn't saying this about the Big Bang models...He was answering your hypothetical question with his hypothetical question:

Ok, so if the universe never began, what would have existed?

That you keep saying that Polymath257 was agreeing with you about the Big Bang theory, is quite dishonest of you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you were complaining that English is the second language for @mikkel_the_dane ????

Clearly you have either reading comprehension problem or you are deliberately editing what @Polymath257 is saying.



You do realize in both statements, Polymath257, was only presenting a hypothetical scenario starting with the word "if".

He was only saying these things, about there being "nonexistence", in a generic context, not in connection with the Big Bang theory, itself.

I knew exactly what Polymath257 was saying when he wrote that, he was only saying "if the universe did not exist, then there would be be no existence".

He wasn't saying this about the Big Bang models...He was answering your hypothetical question with his hypothetical question:



That you keep saying that Polymath257 was agreeing with you about the Big Bang theory, is quite dishonest of you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just take a break and ground yourself. And then ask more if it makes sense. But take a break now!
Peace and take care.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just take a break and ground yourself. And then ask more if it makes sense. But take a break now!
Peace and take care.

gnostic, like you, has problems with English, worse, he puts his atheism before truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

gnostic, like you, has problems with English, worse, he puts his atheism before truth.

Well, yes. But the problem is not just that.
So here is a proper English page about truth and it relates to our posts and then there is another one.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

So if I were in the mood, I could start doing that. But we are not even there yet. We are still at for all cases of X, all X are Y and nothing else. That is the limit of logic more than anything else.

 

[gnostic]

gnostic, like you, has problems with English, worse, he puts his atheism before truth.

I was wondering when you are going to bring up atheism again.

It was always a weak argument, but you bring it up again.

Science should be religion-free zone. That meaning leaving aside atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, and all other -isms, because they are either questions relating to religions. None of them have anything to do with science.

Are there any scientists involving the Big Bang theory, being “atheist”? Yeah, sure, but there are also religious folks among them, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even a couple of Muslims.

But the focus should be on the science of the Big Bang, and not someone's personal religious backgrounds or personal religious beliefs.

Atheism is concern with the question of the "existence of deity" or "existence of deities" - nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in atheism have anything to do with ANY natural sciences or physical sciences. Atheism isn't a science treatise or textbook. There are no fields of science called "atheism". But that's also true, just about every -isms, including theism, monotheism, polytheism or henotheism.

Atheism is not a profession, nor are any of the other religious -isms.

Georges Lemaitre was a Christian, and was even a Roman Catholic priest, but professional-wise, he was astrophysicist and mathematician. Alexander Friedmann was a Russian physicist, and an atheist, but being an atheist wasn't a job. Ralph Alpher was a Jew (although, I think he was only Jewish by birth and culture, I don't think he was a religious-practising Jew; I am not sure about that).

And btw, I am agnostic, not atheist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was wondering when you are going to bring up atheism again.

It was always a weak argument, but you bring it up again.

Science should be religion-free zone. That meaning leaving aside atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, and all other -isms, because they are either questions relating to religions. None of them have anything to do with science.

Are there any scientists involving the Big Bang theory. Yeah, sure, but there are also religious folks among them, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even a couple of Muslims.

But the focus should be on the science of the Big Bang, and not someone's personal religious backgrounds or personal religious beliefs.

Atheism is concern with the question of the "existence of deity" or "existence of deities" - nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in atheism have anything to do with ANY natural sciences or physical sciences. Atheism isn't a science treatise or textbook. There are no fields of science called "atheism". But that's also true, just about every -isms, including theism, monotheism, polytheism or henotheism.

Atheism is not a profession, nor are any of the other religious -isms.

Georges Lemaitre was a Christian, and was even a Roman Catholic priest, but professional-wise, he was astrophysicist and mathematician. Alexander Friedmann was a Russian physicist, and an atheist, but being an atheist wasn't a job. Ralph Alpher was a Jew (although, I think he was only Jewish by birth and culture, I don't think he was a religious-practising Jew; I am not sure about that).

And btw, I am agnostic, not atheist.

And I am agnostic deist. And that has nothing to do with the everyday world for us all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I was wondering when you are going to bring up atheism again.

It was always a weak argument, but you bring it up again.

Science should be religion-free zone. That meaning leaving aside atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, and all other -isms, because they are either questions relating to religions. None of them have anything to do with science.

Are there any scientists involving the Big Bang theory, being “atheist”? Yeah, sure, but there are also religious folks among them, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even a couple of Muslims.

But the focus should be on the science of the Big Bang, and not someone's personal religious backgrounds or personal religious beliefs.

Atheism is concern with the question of the "existence of deity" or "existence of deities" - nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in atheism have anything to do with ANY natural sciences or physical sciences. Atheism isn't a science treatise or textbook. There are no fields of science called "atheism". But that's also true, just about every -isms, including theism, monotheism, polytheism or henotheism.

Atheism is not a profession, nor are any of the other religious -isms.

Georges Lemaitre was a Christian, and was even a Roman Catholic priest, but professional-wise, he was astrophysicist and mathematician. Alexander Friedmann was a Russian physicist, and an atheist, but being an atheist wasn't a job. Ralph Alpher was a Jew (although, I think he was only Jewish by birth and culture, I don't think he was a religious-practising Jew; I am not sure about that).

And btw, I am agnostic, not atheist.

This thread is titled Science and Religion, they are not mutually exclusive, except perhaps in the minds of those who think that Science should be a religion free zone. The reality of the universe being conscious is a no brainer to some, yet for others the universe is without life, but paradoxically gives rise to life? But anyway. like the yin and yang of the Tao, complementary opposites are the rule.
The Lord God is one who creates the light and the dark, and creates the good and the evil. (Isaiah 45:7)

 

[YoursTrue]

Including that other people can think, feel and act differently, so that is also God.

So you and @Ben Dhyan think God can be against himself?

 

[YoursTrue]

And I am agnostic deist. And that has nothing to do with the everyday world for us all.

Oh here we go again. What did you say an "agnostic deist" is? That you're not sure if there is a god or gods? Which is it, please. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

This thread is titled Science and Religion, they are not mutually exclusive, except perhaps in the minds of those who think that Science should be a religion free zone. The reality of the universe being conscious is a no brainer to some, yet for others the universe is without life, but paradoxically gives rise to life? But anyway. like the yin and yang of the Tao, complementary opposites are the rule.
The Lord God is one who creates the light and the dark, and creates the good and the evil. (Isaiah 45:7)

True science is not the same as trying to figure that the universe created itself. True science should be based on facts and evidence and proof or at least experimentation. The universe and its beginning cannot be recreated by scientific means or generalization as to how it happened.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you and @Ben Dhyan think God can be against himself?

Why do you think I think God is against God?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

True science is not the same as trying to figure that the universe created itself. True science should be based on facts and evidence and proof or at least experimentation. The universe and its beginning cannot be recreated by scientific means or generalization as to how it happened.

Science is a dualistic practice, religion is, or should be non-dualistic practice. The kingdom of God is within you, if you think God is some external entity, you actually create an unnatural division between yourself and God. Seeking God outside of yourself is delusion. This is not a claim that a mortal soul is God, only that the mortal is an expression of God (Father) and to be born of the spirit is to seek union with the Father within.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is a dualistic practice, religion is, or should be non-dualistic practice. The kingdom of God is within you, if you think God is some external entity, you actuallyI create an unnatural division between yourself and God. Seeking God outside of yourself is delusion. This is not a claim that a mortal soul is God, only that the mortal is an expression of God (Father) and to be born of the spirit is to seek union with the Father within.

I am not sure what you mean when you say science is a dualistic practice. Also, there are ways of understanding about religion and God. If you think they all can be true -- all I can say now is, "oh, well," and maybe ask you to explain more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread is titled Science and Religion, they are not mutually exclusive, except perhaps in the minds of those who think that Science should be a religion free zone. The reality of the universe being conscious is a no brainer to some, yet for others the universe is without life, but paradoxically gives rise to life? But anyway. like the yin and yang of the Tao, complementary opposites are the rule.
The Lord God is one who creates the light and the dark, and creates the good and the evil. (Isaiah 45:7)

I don't think that you know what the term "no brainer" means. It should mean I that it is obvious, yet I doubt if you can support that claim with evidence or logic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think I think God is against God?

From what you seemed to say that God is in all things, as if he is in all religious beliefs. Let's be specific. Do you believe that? The beliefs themselves of the various religions conflict with each other in many ways. Not sure how you see the prayer Jesus offered when he prayed TO the Father in heaven and also said that the Father is greater than he is. Do you believe that the Father is greater than Jesus? There are expressions about union or unity that must be understood in their proper context.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not sure what you mean when you say science is a dualistic practice. Also, there are ways of understanding about religion and God. If you think they all can be true -- all I can say now is, "oh, well," and maybe ask you to explain more.

Science deals with concepts that represent aspects of reality, God is the reality, and God is one.
The concept of God is dualistic, being one with God is non-dualist.
The Rabbis of Jesus' day thought God was some separate entity (duality), Jesus showed that he was one with God (non-duality).