The Big Bang as evidence for God

[idav]

You are mistaken.....there is no scientific conclusion that there was a beginning to the universe....only those who support the big bang theory....there is not a scientific consensus on it.. and even then there is no understanding how or why such an event could occur.. Similarly with religion...there is no conclusion that God created the universe....pantheism holds that the universe is the manifestation of the eternal God and only the manifested form is subject to beginnings and endings...

Once again....time is a mental construct...it does not exist outside the mind..... QM and GR and all other disciplines of science are helpful to human evolution, but the sum total of the knowledge will forever fall short of understanding the truth.....for 'reality' itself is not a mental construct...whereas all the theories of man are merely conceptualization to represent that 'reality'...see the difference?

Just cause we have to conceive things with the mind doesn't make things less real, just limited in perspective.

Time is a real issue and can eventually mean the end of energy and a cold universe.

For the most part the elements just go on and in this way, death isn't real, however the destruction of cells is a real thing. Cells have no time and replicate in order to "cheat" death but it is a work around that life utilizes. Time is not on our side and isn't a friend of the universe.

 

[idav]

your chemistry will play out....
your movement will have an effect

time will not

Time isn't movement, something moving as fast as the speed of light will not age according to physics even if its chemistry is very active.

 

[Thief]

So you do not think that the past or future exists?

yes of course....
you remember your past....don't you
and you prep for tomorrow.....

but the movement is linear.....we go forward only

that we count our days won't stop tomorrow from getting here
(even though it never will!)

 

[Thief]

Time isn't movement, something moving as fast as the speed of light will not age according to physics even if its chemistry is very active.

time is a quotient on a chalkboard
it does not exist anywhere else
substance and location is real enough
this point here...that point there

getting from point to point is real enough
and moving through the space in between.....likewise

but counting the seconds means nothing
a sec in nothing but the increment of a sweep hand on a clock

time is not a force or substance

 

[idav]

time is a quotient on a chalkboard
it does not exist anywhere else
substance and location is real enough
this point here...that point there

getting from point to point is real enough
and moving through the space in between.....likewise

time is not a force or substance

You need more than clever quips to prove Einstein wrong.

 

[Thief]

You need more than clever quips to prove Einstein wrong.

in his later years....someone asked what he might be working on....

I'm trying to catch God in the act.

He knew his equation was not the item he sought

 

[idav]

in his later years....someone asked what he might be working on....

I'm trying to catch God in the act.

He knew his equation was not the item he sought

You still need more, like any experiments showing evidence he was wrong for example. Experiments to this day continue to prove Einstein correct, so it is what evidence and experimentation suggests what matters, it doesn't matter what you want the truth to be. Predictions from general and special relativity continue to be confirmed to this day.

 

[Thief]

You still need more, like any experiments showing evidence he was wrong for example. Experiments to this day continue to prove Einstein correct, so it is what evidence and experimentation suggests what matters, it doesn't matter what you want the truth to be. Predictions from general and special relativity continue to be confirmed to this day.

I like Albert
I have the book...Relativity...
good stuff

but describing what he had in mind in laymen's terms is a task not done well
speaking of time/space as a fabric was a mistake

his world was filled with numbers in a effort to describe reality by numbers
his equation was shelved for a couple of years......because he had doubts

proving him right wasn't easy.....and the basic gest was good

but his work didn't satisfy him

and quantum mechanics claims his equation fails in the 'smaller' realms

I have heard there's been some reconciliation of the large and small realms
but it's still a matter of chalk on a board

 

[idav]

speaking of time/space as a fabric was a mistake

Prove it.

his world was filled with numbers in a effort to describe reality by numbers
his equation was shelved for a couple of years......because he had doubts

So what?

proving him right wasn't easy...

No kidding.

but his work didn't satisfy him

That doesn't prove anything.

and quantum mechanics claims his equation fails in the 'smaller' realms

I have heard there's been some reconciliation of the large and small realms
but it's still a matter of chalk on a board

Let them claim it. Reality doesn't need a chalk board to reconcile it.

 

[Thief]

Prove it.

So what?

No kidding.

That doesn't prove anything.

Let them claim it. Reality doesn't need a chalk board to reconcile it.

space is empty....it's not really a fabric

and the work in math typically comes first
it did with Albert

but I do agree...numbers don't influence reality
they just help us get a grip
like.....measuring speed

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just cause we have to conceive things with the mind doesn't make things less real, just limited in perspective.

Time is a real issue and can eventually mean the end of energy and a cold universe.

For the most part the elements just go on and in this way, death isn't real, however the destruction of cells is a real thing. Cells have no time and replicate in order to "cheat" death but it is a work around that life utilizes. Time is not on our side and isn't a friend of the universe.

It is real as mental concepts....that's real....but not real in the sense that the real that the concepts represent are real. My thought of a flower is real...but not real in the sense the actual flower is real. When it comes to time though....there is no such thing in existence...time is a concept to represent movement against the persistence of reality to continue to exist...so time remains an idea of the mind only.

The energy of the universe can not leave the universe...where could it go?

Material things like human bodies will always be built....there will never be an end of them...

 

[idav]

It is real as mental concepts....that's real....but not real in the sense that the real that the concepts represent are real. My thought of a flower is real...but not real in the sense the actual flower is real. When it comes to time though....there is no such thing in existence...time is a concept to represent movement against the persistence of reality to continue to exist...so time remains an idea of the mind only.

The energy of the universe can not leave the universe...where could it go?

Material things like human bodies will always be built....there will never be an end of them...

There is energy decay due to entropy. It will take forever but for example its said the decay of a super massive black hole takes 10 to the power of 100 years, which is an eternity as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

 

[idav]

So something just started expanding that lasts a trillion trilllion trillion years.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is energy decay due to entropy. It will take forever but for example its said the decay of a super massive black hole takes 10 to the power of 100 years, which is an eternity as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

So something just started expanding that lasts a trillion trilllion trillion years.

It is only a suggested theory.......there are lots of suggested theories in science, but most don't pan out.....reality can not be known by scientific conceptualization...or by any conceptualization for that matter...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You are mistaken.....there is no scientific conclusion that there was a beginning to the universe....only those who support the big bang theory....there is not a scientific consensus on it.. and even then there is no understanding how or why such an event could occur.

I agree, there is no how or why, only the evidence for the Big Bang and against the steady state model. But like quantum mechanics (until recently when some "how's" have begun to emerge), the predictive ability of the Big Bang is undeniable.

Re: Brilliant Blunders: How the Big Bang Beat Out the Steady State Universe
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/06/brilliant-blunders/

"Hoyle’s blunder was in his apparently pigheaded, almost infuriating refusal to acknowledge the theory’s demise even as it was being smothered by accumulating contradictory evidence, and in his use of asymmetrical criteria of judgment with respect to the big bang and steady state theories. What was it that caused this intransigent behavior?"

At least you're in good company.

Does all this mean that there won't be any refinements. I'm certain the answer is no. The biggest unanswered question is what's driving the recently discovered acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and why that didn't really start until c. 5 billion years post Big Bang.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree, there is no how or why, only the evidence for the Big Bang and against the steady state model. But like quantum mechanics (until recently when some "how's" have begun to emerge), the predictive ability of the Big Bang is undeniable.

Re: Brilliant Blunders: How the Big Bang Beat Out the Steady State Universe
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2013/06/brilliant-blunders/

"Hoyle’s blunder was in his apparently pigheaded, almost infuriating refusal to acknowledge the theory’s demise even as it was being smothered by accumulating contradictory evidence, and in his use of asymmetrical criteria of judgment with respect to the big bang and steady state theories. What was it that caused this intransigent behavior?"

At least you're in good company.

Does all this mean that there won't be any refinements. I'm certain the answer is no. The biggest unanswered question is what's driving the recently discovered acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and why that didn't really start until c. 5 billion years post Big Bang.

Who said anything about steady stare theory...you raise a strawman. I am not coming into this by claiming authority from any one but my own understanding... Nothing does not exist so the suggested big bang theory of a start to the universe can not be substantiated by you or anyone else....only a suggested theory of a start. On the other hand, I can show you that the existing universe has always existed...because it is impossible to remove a single iota of it from existence... nor a single iota added to it. So existence can not be created, nor can it be destroyed...hence it logically has always existed..

So if you want to engage me...stop quoting stuff you imagine has some sort of authority and address my logic and reason if you can find a hole in it...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Who said anything about steady stare theory...you raise a strawman. I am not coming into this by claiming authority from any one but my own understanding... Nothing does not exist so the suggested big bang theory of a start to the universe can not be substantiated by you or anyone else....only a suggested theory of a start. On the other hand, I can show you that the existing universe has always existed...because it is impossible to remove a single iota of it from existence... nor a single iota added to it. So existence can not be created, nor can it be destroyed...hence it logically has always existed..

So if you want to engage me...stop quoting stuff you imagine has some sort of authority and address my logic and reason if you can find a hole in it...

Your comments are near word for word steady state. The arguments against it and you are the same.. And if you could show how the universe must always have been, with no beginning, then maybe I'll buy into the possibility that there can't be anything removed from it. But you can't and therefore, you can't rule out a beginning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your comments are near word for word steady state. The arguments against it and you are the same.. And if you could show how the universe must always have been, with no beginning, then maybe I'll buy into the possibility that there can't be anything removed from it. But you can't and therefore, you can't rule out a beginning.

You accept that nothing in existence can be removed from existence...but you apparently have no problem with the idea of all the mass that constitutes the universe coming into existence from non-existence? There is the principle of reciprocity underlying universal activity and if nothing can be taken out of existence, then logically nothing can be brought into existence...yes ?

Therefore there could not have been a beginning... If you do not agree, please be specific and indicate where you think my logic is incorrect?

 

[idav]

Who said anything about steady stare theory...you raise a strawman. I am not coming into this by claiming authority from any one but my own understanding... Nothing does not exist so the suggested big bang theory of a start to the universe can not be substantiated by you or anyone else....only a suggested theory of a start. On the other hand, I can show you that the existing universe has always existed...because it is impossible to remove a single iota of it from existence... nor a single iota added to it. So existence can not be created, nor can it be destroyed...hence it logically has always existed..

So if you want to engage me...stop quoting stuff you imagine has some sort of authority and address my logic and reason if you can find a hole in it...

No one claims authority when pointing to the experiments and evidence. Like telling a person that seeing that car passing by is just a theory.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You accept that nothing in existence can be removed from existence...but you apparently have no problem with the idea of all the mass that constitutes the universe coming into existence from non-existence? There is the principle of reciprocity underlying universal activity and if nothing can be taken out of existence, then logically nothing can be brought into existence...yes ?

Therefore there could not have been a beginning... If you do not agree, please be specific and indicate where you think my logic is incorrect?

I said, "And if you could show how the universe must always have been, with no beginning....." I don't accept anything until then, and addressing half of my quote is to take it out of context. It just shows how far you're willing to go with your "intransigent behavior", making further discussion only pointless and frustrating.

Goodby.