The Big Bang as evidence for God

[`mud]

I mean....from where did the beginning begin ?
~
It's like being lost in an infinite sponge.
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Paine,
yu'll be back
~
'mud

 

[viole]

I said, "And if you could show how the universe must always have been, with no beginning....." .

Check out the block universe ontology deriving from relativity. Aka eternalism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

You are mistaken....experiments based on mental constructs to measure practically infinitesimal aspects of cosmic existence is not an explanation of the one existence...it is like measuring the diameter of a wheel of the car and concluding the size of the car and its shape as round.... Be a little humble...contemporary science is in its infancy....they can't even tell you when and where the next earthquake will occur....and the planet's geological complexity is infinitely less complex than the cosmos...

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Check out the block universe ontology deriving from relativity. Aka eternalism.

That says that all points in time past and present are real. How finely is it divided up, according to that philosophy? If you go back to one of those intervals, are you stuck there motionless in it, or does it start forward from there? Does it replay the past again or does it follow a new future? Why should anyone believe that? Above all, the biggest problem is it doesn't address if or how or "when" time began, or what it would mean to say that something always was? Somehow we humans can wrap our minds around something that will always be, but not how it could have always been.** Maybe that's why God created this 4-D universe with a Big Bang.

**That can be explained if time only works in our universe, while the "external" supporting ether/quantumland is a back door to timelessness where before and after would have no meaning.

 

[idav]

You are mistaken....experiments based on mental constructs to measure practically infinitesimal aspects of cosmic existence is not an explanation of the one existence...it is like measuring the diameter of a wheel of the car and concluding the size of the car and its shape as round.... Be a little humble...contemporary science is in its infancy....they can't even tell you when and where the next earthquake will occur....and the planet's geological complexity is infinitely less complex than the cosmos...

Big bang isn't and explanation for existence. It is an observation of how the universe has been acting since it started doing something ie. expansion.

Because the light from the beginnings takes so long to get to us, we are literally looking back in time.

So we are observing this expansion, we aren't just guessing, and past scientists had even predicted this stuff without directly observing it. If seeing isn't believing for you then don't know what will convince you, certainly not the maths.

 

[idav]

Check out the block universe ontology deriving from relativity. Aka eternalism.

Ciao

- viole

Eternalism is not incompatible with big bang as far as I can tell.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Big bang isn't and explanation for existence. It is an observation of how the universe has been acting since it started doing something ie. expansion.

Because the light from the beginnings takes so long to get to us, we are literally looking back in time.

So we are observing this expansion, we aren't just guessing, and past scientists had even predicted this stuff without directly observing it. If seeing isn't believing for you then don't know what will convince you, certainly not the maths.

Call me curious......but is it not too much to expect of science to explain where all the cosmic mass in existence came from.....and why it came....and how?

Talking endlessly about observations that serve as evidence to support a theory that predicts a beginning to existence is not settled science...... Here is what I say is settled...if all the knowledge of modern science can not come up with a practical theory that is able to remove mass from the universe.....and/or add mass to the universe.....then this must support the theory of an eternal universe......this universe must have always existed...logical yes?

Therefore there could not have been a beginning... If you think my reasoning is unsound or illogical....please be specific as to the perceived error?

 

[idav]

Call me curious......but is it not too much to expect of science to explain where all the cosmic mass in existence came from.....and why it came....and how?

Oh I know the frustration, but I don't know if we can know that for sure.

Talking endlessly about observations that serve as evidence to support a theory that predicts a beginning to existence is not settled science...... Here is what I say is settled...if all the knowledge of modern science can not come up with a practical theory that is able to remove mass from the universe.....and/or add mass to the universe.....then this must support the theory of an eternal universe......this universe must have always existed...logical yes?

Therefore there could not have been a beginning... If you think my reasoning is unsound or illogical....please be specific as to the perceived error?

I think science has been showing evidence that timelessness is real, so there would be no error there. So I don't think beginning is even the right word for the big bang.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh I know the frustration, but I don't know if we can know that for sure.

I think science has been showing evidence that timelessness is real, so there would be no error there. So I don't think beginning is even the right word for the big bang.

How does timelessness address my point that science can not add or remove any mass to or from the universe....and thus this is precisely what must be the case if the universe did not had a beginning...and precisely the opposite of what should be the case if it did have a beginning?

 

[idav]

How does timelessness address my point that science can not add or remove any mass to or from the universe....and thus this is precisely what must be the case if the universe did not had a beginning...and precisely the opposite of what should be the case if it did have a beginning?

Cause again, beginning isn't even the right word for it. Who says time is even linear?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Cause again, beginning isn't even the right word for it. Who says time is even linear?

You seem to be avoiding my point....big bang theory relies on mass having a beginning circa 13 billion years ago....the principle of reciprocity is everywhere at work in cosmic interaction....so there must some scientific theory to explain how mass can be both created and added to that already existing or removed from existence. If the answer is there is none....that should be acknowledged as supporting my position that the universe did not and could not have had a beginning as it is has always existed....only the cosmic forms have beginning...AND, dent the credibility of a theory suggesting a beginning to the universe..

 

[idav]

You seem to be avoiding my point....big bang theory relies on mass having a beginning circa 13 billion years ago....the principle of reciprocity is everywhere at work in cosmic interaction....so there must some scientific theory to explain how mass can be both created and added to that already existing or removed from existence. If the answer is there is none....that should be acknowledged as supporting my position that the universe did not and could not have had a beginning as it is has always existed....only the cosmic forms have beginning...AND, dent the credibility of a theory suggesting a beginning to the universe..

I didn't miss your point I addressed it two posts back. Nobody has said how where all the mass and energy comes from. Don't think we can know that.

And no, it doesn't dent the credibility of some assumed argument you think someone is making.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't miss your point I addressed it two posts back. Nobody has said how where all the mass and energy comes from. Don't think we can know that.

And no, it doesn't dent the credibility of some assumed argument you think someone is making.

That no one knows is not the point...just that it exists now...doesn't it?

So the principle of reciprocity should mean that it can also cease existing in the reciprocal manner that it appeared circa 13 billion years ago... You and I both know that science does not have a clue, and so if they admit they don't know......the very mass that is before you now is eternal....no beginning...no ending....

If I may preempt your response....my response is ....you can lead a horse to water but.....

 

[sayak83]

That no one knows is not the point...just that it exists now...doesn't it?

So the principle of reciprocity should mean that it can also cease existing in the reciprocal manner that it appeared circa 13 billion years ago... You and I both know that science does not have a clue, and so if they admit they don't know......the very mass that is before you now is eternal....no beginning...no ending....

If I may preempt your response....my response is ....you can lead a horse to water but.....

I am a bit late to the thread. But i think there is a common mistake being made here. The Big Bang theory only tells that the universe began expanding from an initially very hot and dense state due to a quantum decay of the inflaton force field (locally or globally) that caused a repulsive form of gravity to act on that hot dense space-time. It does not say that the universe began from nothing or how that hot-dense state that expanded into the universe today got there. These issues still remain to be determined.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am a bit late to the thread. But i think there is a common mistake being made here. The Big Bang theory only tells that the universe began expanding from an initially very hot and dense state due to a quantum decay of the inflaton force field (locally or globally) that caused a repulsive form of gravity to act on that hot dense space-time. It does not say that the universe began from nothing or how that hot-dense state that expanded into the universe today got there. These issues still remain to be determined.

So what name do you give to that which is the opposite of 'existence' if not 'non-existence'?

 

[idav]

So what name do you give to that which is the opposite of 'existence' if not 'non-existence'?

Nameless

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nameless

Scientific theories need to be within the bounds of reason....your statement is nonsense...without logic or reason..you need to explain what this concept 'nameless' is meant to represent...otherwise it is meaningless.

So let's see....the atheist ask a theist what God made the universe from and they respond with "God made the universe from the nameless" ....is this a reasonable statement that the atheist should accept? No....and you know it...the complementary opposite concept.of 'existence' is 'non-existence'.

Btw idav, as a pantheist, do you understand God to be infinite and eternal?

 

[sayak83]

So what name do you give to that which is the opposite of 'existence' if not 'non-existence'?

Umm what? What does it have to do with anything?
I am saying that the Big Bang theory tells that the universe began to expand from a hot dense state. It tells nothing about where that hot dense state itself came from or how long it has been there.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Umm what? What does it have to do with anything?
I am saying that the Big Bang theory tells that the universe began to expand from a hot dense state. It tells nothing about where that hot dense state itself came from or how long it has been there.

It has everything to do with it if you want to engage me seriously. The universe has mass...where did it come from? If you say from the hot dense state...I ask....where did the hot dense state come from? I know that there was nothing before the big bang....so let us not play silly nonsensical word games and we'll cut to the chase...How did existence emerge from non-existence? And why did the singularity come into existence? And from where did the universal mass come ?