The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Rick O'Shez]

It looks exactly like what you are seeing in every moment of every day. It is a matter of perceptual awareness. You see, but don't see. Everyone who does says the same thing. "It was there the whole time". Put another way, it's always, ever, fully what is already. Ultimate reality is this reality. To borrow from the language of the Apostle Paul, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." It's "knowing" what is. It's pulling back the veil to see what is simply obvious. Ultimate reality is the "simply obvious".

Calling a radical shift in perception "ultimate reality" sounds rather pretentious to me. In the Buddhist suttas one description of awakening is "seeing things as they really are", which I much prefer, it conveys a sense of simplicity and a sense of the extraordinary actually being very ordinary.
I do agree that this goes beyond beliefs and concepts, and I think that a head full of beliefs or disbeliefs is actually a major obstacle to being fully open to the present.

As for fingers pointing at the moon, I find a telescope pointing at the Andromeda galaxy much more inspiring.

 

[Windwalker]

Calling a radical shift in perception "ultimate reality" sounds rather pretentious to me. In the Buddhist suttas one description of awakening is "seeing things as they really are",

"As they really are". Isn't that saying exactly the same thing? "Ultimate reality", "as they really are". I don't hear a difference there. As they really are, is the ultimate truth of it.

It conveys a sense of simplicity and a sense of the extraordinary actually being very ordinary.

So, it's a matter of poetic expression you have an issue with? I certainly can and do speak of it in much more subtle terms. But the dramatic is not an invalid way to speak of it either. Believe me, it's not. I may often speak of it as the Universe rent open and laid bare before you, dropping you to your knees and bringing forth rivers of living water out of the deepest most unimaginable part of your soul. That too is a valid way to express it, as is the simplicity of a raindrop conveying the whole of the universe in a single sound. It really depends on which song you feel inspired to sing, actually.

I do agree that this goes beyond beliefs and concepts, and I think that a head full of beliefs or disbeliefs is actually a major obstacle to being fully open to the present.

As they say, Amen!

As for fingers pointing at the moon, I find a telescope pointing at the Andromeda galaxy much more inspiring.

That too is inspiring. Imagine when you see Andromeda in the smile of a friend, or in the life of a stranger. That too is as deep and powerful. Don't forget, we are 14.5 billion years of evolution walking around in this amazing sack of skin. It's all inspiring.

 

[ArtieE]

And atheists point at what only they see; static, eternal, steady state universes - Big Crunch, M theory, String theory, Multiverses...

We all believe in something, not all of us acknowledge our beliefs, faith as such though.

I don't "believe" in "static, eternal, steady state universes - Big Crunch, M theory, String theory, Multiverses...". They're just interesting possibilities. Theism has nothing to do with the existence of the universe. You can be a theist and believe in the existence of some god(s) even though the god(s) you believe in had nothing to do with the existence of the universe.

 

[idav]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

I agree, causality is not a good argument for god using the big bang. An argument would come from describing attributes of the singularity as godlike with it having been omniscient omnipresent and beyond time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree, causality is not a good argument for god using the big bang. An argument would come from describing attributes of the singularity as godlike with it having been omniscient omnipresent and beyond time.

But the singularity is not beyond time.....according to big bang theory....time begins at Time = O which is coincident with the emergence of the singularity space-time from the non-existence of space-time... Iow, the theory says the singularity came into existence from non-existence....science does not know how...nor does it know why?

 

[idav]

But the singularity is not beyond time.....according to big bang theory....time begins at Time = O which is coincident with the emergence of the singularity space-time from the non-existence of space-time... Iow, the theory says the singularity came into existence from non-existence....science does not know how...nor does it know why?

I understand the singularity to be timeless especially considering that time didn't exist until the big bang, time didn't exist until expansion. The singularity was a oneness and that oneness never ceased.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand the singularity to be timeless especially considering that time didn't exist until the big bang, time didn't exist until expansion. The singularity was a oneness and that oneness never ceased.

Ok...we need to understand what the reality of time is first... If there was a singularity that never ceased...I take that to mean eternal....then time can not exist because it has no reality until there is a mind in existence that abstracts from the eternal presence of existence....a measurement of relative movement of integral aspects of things in existence... Iow, time is a concept of the mortal mind and is an abstraction from the eternal now presence of existence...and it has no reality except as an observation / measurement.....not say like concepts such as star or rock that represent substantially real things.. The universe just exists....you can't measure eternity so you abstract a finite manageable segment of persistence of duration and divide it into appropriate periods of duration that can be further divided until we have seconds, mins, hours, etc....and call it time as if it has some reality of itself outside of the mind that created it...do you see what I mean?

 

[idav]

Ok...we need to understand what the reality of time is first... If there was a singularity that never ceased...I take that to mean eternal....then time can not exist because it has no reality until there is a mind in existence that abstracts from the eternal presence of existence....a measurement of relative movement of integral aspects of things in existence... Iow, time is a concept of the mortal mind and is an abstraction from the eternal now presence of existence...and it has no reality except as an observation / measurement.....not say like concepts such as star or rock that represent substantially real things.. The universe just exists....you can't measure eternity so you abstract a finite manageable segment and divide it into appropriate periods of duration that can be further divided until we have seconds, mins, hours, etc....and call it time as if it has some reality of itself outside of the mind that created it...do you see what I mean?

Time is more than just in the mind, time has to do with our energy states. As we approach the higher masses or speeds we get closer to timelessness. So timelessness must exist at the highest levels of existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is more than just in the mind, time has to do with our energy states. As we approach the higher masses or speeds we get closer to timelessness. So timelessness must exist at the highest levels of existence.

You have not reflected on it deeply enough....time is a measurement of relative movement....no movement...no time...change is energy states implies relative movement...

Beside which....if there is not a mind to observe the relative movement...then there is no time... When we speak of time wrt universal relative movement before humanity existed on this planet to conceive of the measurement of time......this is projection on out part on the past... Time is real as a concept.....but has no reality beyond being an artifact of consciousness.. There is always movement in the cosmos....but it goes on forever.....it only when a finite segment is abstracted by mind can humans create the concept to represent this change in movement....which we call time...

 

[idav]

You have not reflected on it deeply enough....time is a measurement of relative movement....no movement...no time...change is energy states implies relative movement...

Beside which....if there is not a mind to observe the relative movement...then there is no time... When we speak of time wrt universal relative movement before humanity existed on this planet to conceive of the measurement of time......this is projection on out part on the past... Time is real as a concept.....but has no reality beyond being an artifact of consciousness.. There is always movement in the cosmos....but it goes on forever.....it only when a finite segment is abstracted by mind can humans create the concept to represent this change in movement....which we call time...

No time isn't movement, time is decay and mortality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No time isn't movement, time is decay and mortality.

I did not say time is movement....I said time is not real in the way a rock is real....it is a concept of the mind to represent a measurement of movement...decay is a relative movement...it can be therefore be measured.. No mind...no time..

 

[`mud]

What's the length of 'now' ?
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What's the length of 'now' ?
~
'mud

It depends on how long the length of 'now' is...

 

[idav]

I did not say time is movement....I said time is not real in the way a rock is real....it is a concept of the mind to represent a measurement of movement...decay is a relative movement...it can be therefore be measured.. No mind...no time..

Time is real as much physics is real. Mind has nothing to do with it.

I understand your saying something like we only experience a slice of time that isn't really sliced up. I'm sure there is more to the mind thing but we are trapped in a physical system that causes decay. Lifes workaround for the breakdown is massive redundancy and replication in order to keep going.

In theory time could be dilated so that a space traveler would not age and no need for the cells trying to stay alive and getting old in the process.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is real as much physics is real. Mind has nothing to do with it.

I understand your saying something like we only experience a slice of time that isn't really sliced up. I'm sure there is more to the mind thing but we are trapped in a physical system that causes decay. Lifes workaround for the breakdown is massive redundancy and replication in order to keep going.

In theory time could be dilated so that a space traveler would not age and no need for the cells trying to stay alive and getting old in the process.

If it has nothing to do with mind...then it must exist independent of the mind....show me it?

 

[`mud]

When the lids close and reopen again,
'time' will be gone, just as the 'now' will.
And on the furtherance of the thought,
the lids don't start their travel to closing,
the 'now' will be already past.
~
'mud

 

[Milton Platt]

Devils advocate

Just because OUR time and space was created with the BB, does not have anything to do with another time period outside of our universe that may or may not exist.


ALSO Our time very well may extend outside our universe. IF space is the same fabric outside of the walls of our expanding universe, then time could theoretically also exist.

I thought space was a component of the space-time continuum which began with the big bang and therefor is entirely a part of the universe and not something outside of it.

 

[`mud]

hey Milt,
"....outside of it."
Where is that 'edge' to be 'outside of ' ?
Where does nothingness begin ?
~
'mud

 

[Milton Platt]

hey Milt,
"....outside of it."
Where is that 'edge' to be 'outside of ' ?
Where does nothingness begin ?
~
'mud

Exactly.......we can only see as far as light has traveled and no further. We have no idea if there is an outside.

 

[`mud]

Maybe, there is no edge !
~
'mud