Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

It was not a comeback. It was a fact. Have you forgotten already how badly you failed when it came to redshift? Or for that matter with what Polymath claimed. Facepalms should not be used by science deniers.

You are in denial. there is such a thing as redshift light that has nothing to do with doppler redshirt, and Polymath did positively say that if the universe/existence did not exist, there would be no existence, it is in the record.
So here is your opportunity to accept or deny.
Is there a redshift of light due to a cause other than doppler?
If the universe did not exist, would there be existence or no existence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Religion? Foes this include your religion? Actually all the conflicting diverse religions claim the other religions 'have lost their way!

Oh! . . . and some claim what they believe is not a religion and what everyone else believes is religion.

"Religion has mainly lost their way" implies not all. Only those which/who deal in conceptual belief of some reality represented by the word God rather than realization.

 

[gnostic]

If you have read my many posts that explain how the minds of people of the world work in a dualistic manner, ie. conceptual, then it is a given that if they try to understand religion in the same way as they do science and all things related to the physical world, they will not understand what is being conveyed. That is fine, but fwiw, the spiritual path is non-dualistic, and the goal is to be ultimately one with all existence, not in belief, but to actually realize that state of being which is non-dual.

I know that you have a philosophy of non-dualism vs dualism.

And while I think that people are free to choose what philosophy or philosophies, just as they do with spirituality or religions or being non-religious (and non-spiritual). That's everyone's personal choice.

But I don't follow your philosophy, so you really shouldn't expect that I or anyone else find what you to say relevant to physical cosmology.

Do you remember that this is about the Big Bang theory and other alternatives, and you would only accept your own eternal universe, but then hit out at me understanding and accepting the Big Bang as equivalent as accepting atheism.

But the Big Bang models aren’t about atheism vs theism, as theism & atheism only concern with the question of the existence of deity or deities...nothing more, nothing less.

All scientific theories are religion-neutral, which means that anyone can learn and understand science, regardless of their religious background. You can be atheist, theist (eg Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc), agnostic, deist, etc, and still do your work as mathematician, physicist, chemist, biologist, astronomer, or whatever scientist in Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Being a scientist is a job, and the only way to do science effectively and objectively (whatever science they may be), is not to let personal belief (especially religious or spiritual beliefs, or one of the schools of philosophies) clouds your work with biases, and to work with the evidence that are available.

Philosophies have the same problems as religions, philosophers can be defensive if their views or philosophies are being challenged. Calling oneself philosopher doesn’t mean being objective & unbiased.

Any scientist who allowed their personal belief (whether it be religious or philosophical agenda) disrupt their works with their biases, is a poor scientist.

 

[gnostic]

You are in denial. there is such a thing as redshift light that has nothing to do with doppler redshirt, and Polymath did positively say that if the universe/existence did not exist, there would be no existence, it is in the record.

But you are ignoring that @Polymath257 wasn’t referring to the Big Bang theory.

He was answering your generic hypothetical “what if” question, with generic hypothetical “what if” answer.

You are the implying that he saying that in regarding to the Big Bang model, when he wasn’t.

Here are your question and Polymath257’s reply:

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

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.

There are nothing in that, linking his answer with the Big Bang theory. You are trying to project Polymath257’s reply to your eternal universe concept, by you pretending that he was contradicting the Big Bang theory.

As I said, he was only answering your hypothetical question with his hypothetical answer.

You are trying to mislead everyone with this strawman.

Hopefully, @Polymath257 will come back and clarify and settle this matter once and for all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know that you have a philosophy of non-dualism vs dualism.

And while I think that people are free to choose what philosophy or philosophies, just as they do with spirituality or religions or being non-religious (and non-spiritual). That's everyone's personal choice.

But I don't follow your philosophy, so you really shouldn't expect that I or anyone else find what you to say relevant to physical cosmology.

Do you remember that this is about the Big Bang theory and other alternatives, and you would only accept your own eternal universe, but then hit out at me understanding and accepting the Big Bang as equivalent as accepting atheism.

But the Big Bang models aren’t about atheism vs theism, as theism & atheism only concern with the question of the existence of deity or deities...nothing more, nothing less.

All scientific theories are religion-neutral, which means that anyone can learn and understand science, regardless of their religious background. You can be atheist, theist (eg Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc), agnostic, deist, etc, and still do your work as mathematician, physicist, chemist, biologist, astronomer, or whatever scientist in Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Being a scientist is a job, and the only way to do science effectively and objectively (whatever science they may be), is not to let personal belief (especially religious or spiritual beliefs, or one of the schools of philosophies) clouds your work with biases, and to work with the evidence that are available.

Philosophies have the same problems as religions, philosophers can be defensive if their views or philosophies are being challenged. Calling oneself philosopher doesn’t mean being objective & unbiased.

Any scientist who allowed their personal belief (whether it be religious or philosophical agenda) disrupt their works with their biases, is a poor scientist.

I accept your position and I do not expect you to understand the non conceptual way of apprehending reality. However due to experience with both conceptual (dual) and non-conceptual (non-dual), one can see the limitations of contemporary human science. Science itself admits that it can not experiment with 95% of the 'stuff' that constitutes the universe, so their contemporary models pertaining to the bigger picture of the universe, are naturally going to be relatively primitive.

Yes, science like all aspects of human evolution unfolds as it does, one step at a time (btw, so does accepted religious beliefs). Since this is a thread on religion and science, it is a good opportunity to see the mix.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Religion has mainly lost their way" implies not all. Only those which/who deal in conceptual belief of some reality represented by the word God rather than realization.

That depends which religion, church, sect or division there of. It pretty much STOP those that make the clam refer to those that don believe as they Do. For example: The Roman Church (RCC) claims they are the only true Church, with exceptions of a few close churches that are given special dispensation, and all others have "mainly lost there way," and as the true 'Mother Church' desires all to return to the 'True Church' for the complete saving grace of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if I say that everything is not objective, that is physical, objective and wrong and you can show all those 3 with science.

I guess when you referred to limits of the objective you mean there is no such thing as the objective as far as science is concerned.

Is all the physical world a subjective illusion from a possible Taoist perspective?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But you are ignoring that @Polymath257 wasn’t referring to the Big Bang theory.

He was answering your generic hypothetical “what if” question, with generic hypothetical “what if” answer.

You are the implying that he saying that in regarding to the Big Bang model, when he wasn’t.

Here are your question and Polymath257’s reply:





There are nothing in that, linking his answer with the Big Bang theory. You are trying to project Polymath257’s reply to your eternal universe concept, by you pretending that he was contradicting the Big Bang theory.

As I said, he was only answering your hypothetical question with his hypothetical answer.

You are trying to mislead everyone with this strawman.

Hopefully, @Polymath257 will come back and clarify and settle this matter once and for all.

Sorry, but it is the understanding of English problem again.

From the quote by Polymath above.

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.

The BB is not relevant to the first part of the sentence which is referring to a hypothetical Steady State universe that had no beginning, but the second bolded part is referring to the universe, not a hypothetical one.

If this BB universe you live in were to not exist, Polymath is saying there would be no existence.

So if there was a BB beginning to the universe, it arose out of non-existence.

 

[We Never Know]

Sorry, but it is the understanding of English problem again.

From the quote by Polymath above.

The BB is not relevant to the first part of the sentence which is referring to a hypothetical Steady State universe that had no beginning, but the second bolded part is referring to the universe, not a hypothetical one.

If this BB universe you live in were to not exist, Polymath is saying there would be no existence.

So if there was a BB beginning to the universe, it arose out of non-existence.

So... "it always was or it came to be"

You're going with always was?

 

[Polymath257]

You are in denial. there is such a thing as redshift light that has nothing to do with doppler redshirt,

Yes, there is. Gravitational, for example. Scattering does NOT produce a red shift in the technical sense of an equal proportion shift in all wavelengths.

and Polymath did positively say that if the universe/existence did not exist, there would be no existence, it is in the record.

Yes. And that has nothing to do with the BB.

So here is your opportunity to accept or deny.
Is there a redshift of light due to a cause other than doppler?

Absolutely there is.

If the universe did not exist, would there be existence or no existence?

No existence at all.

Sorry, but it is the understanding of English problem again.

From the quote by Polymath above.

The BB is not relevant to the first part of the sentence which is referring to a hypothetical Steady State universe that had no beginning, but the second bolded part is referring to the universe, not a hypothetical one.

I took it as meaning any universe at all.

If this BB universe you live in were to not exist, Polymath is saying there would be no existence.

If the universe (whether BB or not) did not exist, there would be no existence.

So if there was a BB beginning to the universe, it arose out of non-existence.

No. it did not 'arise out of' at all. To 'arise' implies a previous time and that is precisely what I am denying if the BB was the beginning of the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most people of the world who believe in God have not realized God, ie., they have not become one with God. The concept of an apple is not an apple, you can't eat a thought of an apple, same with God, the thought of, the belief in, the worship of, is not God, that is dualism, to be one with God is non-dualism, ie., to realize God as did Jesus. One would do unto others as you would like done unto you in non-duality, not just the saying of it, the belief in, but to actually realize that transcendent state of pure love.

Question: when a person becomes one with God, who is more powerful? the person or God? Kindly explain your viewpoint.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained that,, the kingdom of Heaven is within you, the expression of God Jesus was not God the Father but the Son (Expression). In the non-dualistic state, the two are united as one.

It's an expression, the holy scriptures say that two persons who are married are one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there is. Gravitational, for example. Scattering does NOT produce a red shift in the technical sense of an equal proportion shift in all wavelengths.

Yes. And that has nothing to do with the BB.

Absolutely there is.

No existence at all.

I took it as meaning any universe at all.

If the universe (whether BB or not) did not exist, there would be no existence.

No. it did not 'arise out of' at all. To 'arise' implies a previous time and that is precisely what I am denying if the BB was the beginning of the universe.

Not to get into an argument here, but I believe the Bible when it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." To me that means that God is not the universe, and He doesn't need the universe to exist. A very interesting concept, nevertheless I believe it's true. And it makes sense to me.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, there is. Gravitational, for example. Scattering does NOT produce a red shift in the technical sense of an equal proportion shift in all wavelengths.

Yes. And that has nothing to do with the BB.

Absolutely there is.

No existence at all.

I took it as meaning any universe at all.

If the universe (whether BB or not) did not exist, there would be no existence.

No. it did not 'arise out of' at all. To 'arise' implies a previous time and that is precisely what I am denying if the BB was the beginning of the universe.

Thank you Polymath, well done,

But there is a one point I would challenge, that is to do with not acknowledging the proper English of using 'before' in thr term before the BB. We are in time, talking in time, we are aware in time. You and I say are aware that BBT says that the universe did not always exist, it had a beginning, the beginning was when there was a transition from no existence to existence. This sequence of no existence followed by existence is proper English imho. It follows then that it is proper English to note and rephrase it to mean the same thing and say that no existence preceded existence. These term 'followed' and 'before' are not to do with science, but with proper English expression.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you Polymath, well done,

But there is a one point I would challenge, that is to do with not acknowledging the proper English of using 'before' in thr term before the BB. We are in time, talking in time, we are aware in time. You and I say are aware that BBT says that the universe did not always exist, it had a beginning, the beginning was when there was a transition from no existence to existence. This sequence of no existence followed by existence is proper English imho. It follows then that it is proper English to note and rephrase it to mean the same thing and say that no existence preceded existence. These term 'followed' and 'before' are not to do with science, but with proper English expression.

There was a beginning to the universe. God has no beginning.
Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

 

[YoursTrue]

Also to @Polymath257 - Psalm 90:2 makes perfect sense to me -- "Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."
Something a bit hard for our minds to comprehend, but it makes perfect sense to me. Logically and rationally.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not to get into an argument here, but I believe the Bible when it says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." To me that means that God is not the universe, and He doesn't need the universe to exist. A very interesting concept, nevertheless I believe it's true. And it makes sense to me.

It is a common belief and not unique based on an ancient tribal scripture, with no relevance to the reality of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also to @Polymath257 - Psalm 90:2 makes perfect sense to me -- "Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."
Something a bit hard for our minds to comprehend, but it makes perfect sense to me. Logically and rationally.

Every diverse and conflicting ancient tribal religion believes that their contradictory beliefs 'make perfect sense to them logically and rationally, but they remain only rational and logical to those that believe in contradiction with the abundant evidence availble today.

 

[YoursTrue]

Every diverse and conflicting ancient tribal religion believes that their contradictory beliefs 'make perfect sense to them logically and rationally, but they remain only rational and logical to those that believe in contradiction with the abundant evidence availble today.

That's ok. While I can't account for every belief, I know what makes sense to me, and what did not. For instance, as I have often stated, I looked at various religions and decided it was all bunk for years. But things changed. I am not an atheist any longer.
Just like they thought Paul was crazy, and perhaps many still do, as I see from some comments here.
By the way, I visited the Vatican museum and saw the statue of Peter. Tradition has it that he was put to death, isn't that right? I doubt his fellow believers killed him.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a common belief and not unique based on an ancient tribal scripture, with no relevance to the reality of science.

Yes, that a Creator had to be existing before the universe began makes sense. To me. Obviously not to you or Stephen Hawking. And others.