The Big Bang as evidence for God

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You will never understand reality proper

This from someone who equates a naïve sense of "up" with North and defends the position that "most everyone" can understand a 2D object without it being embedded in a 3D space by pointing to a 2D object embedded in a 3D space out of blatant ignorance.

if you insist on involving an observer of reality in the equation

What equation? If you could provide even the barest hint that you understand the relevant equations here, that would be fantastic. As it is, you are just another intellectually dishonest individual capitalizing on popular science in order to make claims about what the big bang is "evidence" of whilst promoting the soundness of arguments that are in direct conflict with said evidence. But as you don't understand the physics anyway (let alone the mathematics), your "arguments" about creation, time, beginnings, etc., are no more advanced (and indeed considerably less so) than those evoked by Plato, Aristotle, and other pre-modern creationists.

reality exists independent of any observer

Then reality exists independently of God, making god unnecessary. And before you resort to tricks with language, "reality" existing independently of X means that were X not to exist than reality would be unchanged. If reality is independent of any observer (and unless god is wholly blind and impotent than god is at least capable of observation) then reality would exist unchanged without god. Ergo, god has no effect upon reality (under your assumption).

Now since science is mostly about practical application of the knowledge of reality for the benefit of mankind

Actually, that's a more apt description of religion. Science has shown ways in which mankind is not beneficial whilst theology cannot help but start from the position that mankind is the center of the universe (figuratively speaking).
...this is an indeed an important perspective to develop and employ...but when it comes to pure science...pure knowledge.....duality as in an observer and observed is not applicable or appropriate...

That is why the error for the need to have a beginning of time arises in the first case

And this is what is REALLY funny. In both the popular and technical physics literature, those who have argued that god is nonsense, religion moot, and anything resembling religious arguments should be dismissed argue that of course there is no beginning of time (as such a beginning, as Stephen Hawking and others have put it, would require a creator or a creationist argument). Meanwhile, those who argue that time has no beginning have, typically, asserted that this removes any possible argument for god.
You, in some infinite display of ignorance of both arguments, argue that we need a beginning of time to argue for a creator that (as far back as Augustine) can't possibly be relevant IF there isn't a beginning of time.
Bravo. You've defeated yourself as thoroughly as I could have hoped to.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator.

To be more exact, God is one of the two possible causes for the universe, the other is simple spontaneous combustion, if you will. Neither is explicable. The only difference is one involved will, and the other doesn't.

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.

In my two examples above, one is caused, and one is not caused.

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.

Quantum mechanics is showing us that macro-physics happens locally, and micro (quantum level) physics is happening non-locally, i.e., without the dimension of time. Entangled particles react one to the other instantly, even across distances as wide as the universe. Our local universe appears to be suspended in or interlaced with this non-local, timeless, "quantumland". There's no explanation for why this is, currently being offered. My intuitive suggestion is that the dimension of time in our 4D universe is very influential, but quantumland may have myriad or an infinite number of dimensions which effectively negates or subsumes the dimension of time. Our 4 dimensions are (were) extruded from the rest in the Big Bang. Anything "outside" or "before" our universe, was/is timeless.

Our 4 dimensions of spacetime may have been locked in by the limit to the divisibility of our universe by Planck spacetime--10 to the -43 sec. and 10 to the -36 m. Quantumland, "outside", "inside" or whatever of our universe would have no such limits on it's divisibility. It could be divisible to the -infinite or at least something (much?) less than the Planck limits.

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

Well, as I said above, in effect, God/causality is an either/or proposition. Either the universe was caused by a conscious will, or it wasn't. Agnosticism rules the day, as deism might say, possibly by design.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Isn't there a bible verse that says something like from everlasting to everlasting? They cannot avoid making him timeless or they would then have to figure out who or what preceeded him.

The one I want them to explain is how something can exist outside of time, as they often claim. Time is a component of existence. If there is no time where he is supposed to be, he cannot have existed eternally. That is a measure of time. They can't say that it is a reference to our time because our time had a beginning.

This from someone who equates a naïve sense of "up" with North and defends the position that "most everyone" can understand a 2D object without it being embedded in a 3D space by pointing to a 2D object embedded in a 3D space out of blatant ignorance.


What equation? If you could provide even the barest hint that you understand the relevant equations here, that would be fantastic. As it is, you are just another intellectually dishonest individual capitalizing on popular science in order to make claims about what the big bang is "evidence" of whilst promoting the soundness of arguments that are in direct conflict with said evidence. But as you don't understand the physics anyway (let alone the mathematics), your "arguments" about creation, time, beginnings, etc., are no more advanced (and indeed considerably less so) than those evoked by Plato, Aristotle, and other pre-modern creationists.

Then reality exists independently of God, making god unnecessary. And before you resort to tricks with language, "reality" existing independently of X means that were X not to exist than reality would be unchanged. If reality is independent of any observer (and unless god is wholly blind and impotent than god is at least capable of observation) then reality would exist unchanged without god. Ergo, god has no effect upon reality (under your assumption).


Actually, that's a more apt description of religion. Science has shown ways in which mankind is not beneficial whilst theology cannot help but start from the position that mankind is the center of the universe (figuratively speaking).
...this is an indeed an important perspective to develop and employ...but when it comes to pure science...pure knowledge.....duality as in an observer and observed is not applicable or appropriate...


And this is what is REALLY funny. In both the popular and technical physics literature, those who have argued that god is nonsense, religion moot, and anything resembling religious arguments should be dismissed argue that of course there is no beginning of time (as such a beginning, as Stephen Hawking and others have put it, would require a creator or a creationist argument). Meanwhile, those who argue that time has no beginning have, typically, asserted that this removes any possible argument for god.
You, in some infinite display of ignorance of both arguments, argue that we need a beginning of time to argue for a creator that (as far back as Augustine) can't possibly be relevant IF there isn't a beginning of time.
Bravo. You've defeated yourself as thoroughly as I could have hoped to.

See my post, #102, above.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This from someone who equates a naïve sense of "up" with North and defends the position that "most everyone" can understand a 2D object without it being embedded in a 3D space by pointing to a 2D object embedded in a 3D space out of blatant ignorance.

What equation? If you could provide even the barest hint that you understand the relevant equations here, that would be fantastic. As it is, you are just another intellectually dishonest individual capitalizing on popular science in order to make claims about what the big bang is "evidence" of whilst promoting the soundness of arguments that are in direct conflict with said evidence. But as you don't understand the physics anyway (let alone the mathematics), your "arguments" about creation, time, beginnings, etc., are no more advanced (and indeed considerably less so) than those evoked by Plato, Aristotle, and other pre-modern creationists.

Then reality exists independently of God, making god unnecessary. And before you resort to tricks with language, "reality" existing independently of X means that were X not to exist than reality would be unchanged. If reality is independent of any observer (and unless god is wholly blind and impotent than god is at least capable of observation) then reality would exist unchanged without god. Ergo, god has no effect upon reality (under your assumption).


Actually, that's a more apt description of religion. Science has shown ways in which mankind is not beneficial whilst theology cannot help but start from the position that mankind is the center of the universe (figuratively speaking).
...this is an indeed an important perspective to develop and employ...but when it comes to pure science...pure knowledge.....duality as in an observer and observed is not applicable or appropriate...


And this is what is REALLY funny. In both the popular and technical physics literature, those who have argued that god is nonsense, religion moot, and anything resembling religious arguments should be dismissed argue texihat of course there is no beginning of time (as such a beginning, as Stephen Hawking and others have put it, would require a creator or a creationist argument). Meanwhile, those who argue that time has no beginning have, typically, asserted that this removes any possible argument for god.
You, in some infinite display of ignorance of both arguments, argue that we need a beginning of time to argue for a creator that (as far back as Augustine) can't possibly be relevant IF there isn't a beginning of time.
Bravo. You've defeated yourself as thoroughly as I could have hoped to.

Reality does not exist independently of God...God is just another word to represent total reality....God...Tao...the one reality are all meant to represent the one and same one existence...

Having said that....my argument against the beginning of time is not dependent on any appeal to divine authority....but simple human logic of there being the one existence....nothing does not exist...not now...not in the past...not ever.... So if you want to go down the path of believing the present one existence once didn't exist....then please explain without claiming as an excuse that you can't ask that question because the metaphorical north pole is the end of the world...how this reality came into existence from the absence of existence...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Reality does not exist independently of God

So you are admitting your argument demands dogma and rests upon it?

Having said that....my argument against the beginning of time is not dependent on any appeal to divine authority....but simple human logic of there being the one existence..

There are many human logics, and there are divergences among them and even among the interpretations of the same logics. Better still, your failures to understand "time" and the nature of time more generally are not just failures when it comes to logic. More accurate, defensible conceptions of logic depend not only on more accurate usages of logic but upon empirical tests, which do not support your conception of time.

then please explain without claiming as an excuse that you can't ask that question because the metaphorical north pole is the end of the world...

You have failed to address the very issue of the nature of time, the absolutely indefensible notion of simultaneity, or the other illogical and indefensible conceptions of "time" you have demanded exist. When you address even e.g., the demonstrable non-existence of simultaneity to exist, then perhaps we can address your question above.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you are admitting your argument demands dogma and rests upon it?


There are many human logics, and there are divergences among them and even among the interpretations of the same logics. Better still, your failures to understand "time" and the nature of time more generally are not just failures when it comes to logic. More accurate, defensible conceptions of logic depend not only on more accurate usages of logic but upon empirical tests, which do not support your conception of time.

You have failed to address the very issue of the nature of time, the absolutely indefensible notion of simultaneity, or the other illogical and indefensible conceptions of "time" you have demanded exist. When you address even e.g., the demonstrable non-existence of simultaneity to exist, then perhaps we can address your question above.

Do not be afraid of the concept of God...no more than the concept of reality...they mean the same thing in the context of the universe... Universal reality does not exist independent of universal reality...yes? So it's the same as saying God does not exist independent of universal reality.....

What empirical tests are there that show existence once was actually an absence of existence...and that at the ending of the absence of existence....existence began?

 

[McBell]

Do not be afraid of the concept of God...no more than the concept of reality...they mean the same thing in the context of the universe... Universal reality does not exist independent of universal reality...yes? So it's the same as saying God does not exist independent of universal reality.....

What empirical tests are there that show existence once was actually an absence of existence...and that at the ending of the absence of existence....existence began?

If the universe and god are the same thing, why the word games?

 

[Brickjectivity]

After looking through everything, I want to attempt to explain the Big Bang the way that I understand it: Using telescopes, such as the Hubble, its clear that space is expanding equally in all directions. That fact is plain and something that needs an explanation. There are many attempts to explain it, and The Big Bang is one. It is a Physics model that extrapolates the Physics of the origin point from which the universe seems to have expanded. It asks the questions like "What would that single point have been like? What would be the conditions at that point?" The Math and the Physics suggest that there is nothing before or causing the universe. That is why the Big Bang theory is not one of the theories of existence. It is just a theory trying to explain the expansion of space, and although important still does not directly answer why we exist.

What it does show is that if the universe does come from a single point, then such and such, and if the universe comes from a single point, then there is no time or space without that point. This may be convenient for some theologies but not for all; and it isn't a proof. What it shows is that if the universe comes from a single point, then there is no time or space without that point, before that point, aside from that. It doesn't answer questions about why the point exists.

I'm a believer in embodied cognition, a theory within cognitive neuroscience and the cognitive sciences more generally. It holds that we use metaphorical extensions of our more basic sensorimotor and perceptual experiences and abilities for abstract reason.

That 'Embodied cognition' sounds like a useful and sensible representation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If the universe and god are the same thing, why the word games?

What word games?

 

[outhouse]

Do not be afraid of the concept of God...

Don't be afraid mythology does not really exist. Nothing ever has been attributed in nature or anywhere else for that matter outside mythology.

 

[outhouse]

The Math and the Physics suggest that there is nothing before or causing the universe.

Not really.

What they suggest is that their knowledge stops at the expansion of the singularity.

While the math actually states something can come from nothing. But the term singularity is another term for "I don't know"

What it does show

What they did here is looked at the exact rate of expansion and determined the exact time it takes to reach a single reference point in time some 13.7B years ago.


Its like looking at an explosion in reverse to determine the moment it happened.

 

[outhouse]

Reality does not exist independently of God...

The universe is 13.7 B years old

Your god concept has only existed in mythology for 2600 years, when only man defined that god by compiling 2 previous deity concepts not even unique to the people who defined it.

So your statement is factually unsubstantiated rhetoric with no credibility at all.

 

[outhouse]

its clear that space is expanding equally in all directions.

Not exactly true in that in some directions it is not equal, the further we look back the slower the expansion is. Todays rate of expansion is speeding up over the past.

Yes something the same distance from the earth is expanding equally, but speed of expansion changes with distance.

Sorry its nit picky , but an important detail to your statement

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't be afraid mythology does not really exist. Nothing ever has been attributed in nature or anywhere else for that matter outside mythology.

That's odd....I thought you believed mythology existed....I do...like Atheism and Santa.... Name one thing that has been attributed in nature outside mythology?

 

[outhouse]

That's odd....I thought you believed mythology existed....I do...like Atheism and Santa.... Name one thing that has been attributed in nature outside mythology?

the context was obvious to be "the concept of God..."

You do like word games

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe is 13.7 B years old.

Existence is eternal...or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

the context was obvious to be "the concept of God..."

You do like word games

But I thought you understood that the concept of God as I use it represents the same reality as the concept of absolute reality....and that includes nature... See my sig line....no word games...

 

[outhouse]

But I thought you understood that the concept of God as I use it represents the same reality as the concept of absolute reality....and that includes nature... See my sig line....no word games...

That's why no god has credibility as existing. Everyone defines them willy nilly based on human emotions and nothing else.

Either way no god of ay kind has any connection with the BB in any way shape or form outside imagination.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's why no god has credibility as existing. Everyone defines them willy nilly based on human emotions and nothing else.

Either way no god of ay kind has any connection with the BB in any way shape or form outside imagination.

You don't get to determine the reality represented by the concept of God....who do you think you are...God? You are just frustrated because the reality represented by the manifested pantheistic God is the same reality that you believe is real....all that matter and energy that astronomy and physical science studies...so come out of your closet and embrace it...

ps...don't forget to answer my question of post #116

 

[outhouse]

You don't get to determine the reality represented by the concept of God....

Yes I do.

No god exist scientifically speaking because nothing has EVER existed to observe.

Reality is no gods exist scientifically, and I can comment on such with factual certainty.