LOL, we are definitely going to need a more recent source. Preferably after all the stuff CERN has been finding.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.
- Thread starter Gharib
- Start date
I think your right which would be how the universe could be omniscient..so to speak. It also leaves a loop hole for omnipotence but only in potential.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
You are postulating that order can come from chaos, that life can come from non-life, and intelligence can come from non-intelligence, yet, I am the pathetic one?
The universe has become more disodered with time as we have evolved within it.
"that life can come from non-life"
that seems to be the case and why not?
"and intelligence can come from non-intelligence"
This we know to be true.
No misconceptions here. All i've said was the universe began to exist and that it is expanding. That is what the big bang theory suggest. Stephen Hawking said it, John Barrow said it, Frank Tipler said it, Lawrence Krauss said it, Alexander Vilenkin said it, Edwin Hubble proved it. I am right in line with science. If anyone is having misconceptions, it is you.
The BBT is that
"The Big Bang theory says that the universe was very hot and concentrated in the distant past and, ever since then, space has been stretching and cooling. This is the only theory that successfully explains the observations made by astronomers."
WMAP Site FAQs
Infinite regression is never to far from your mind huh. Explain to me how infinite regression is possible. Because that is what any theory outside of an uncaused cause would postulate. So explain that to me, please.
Think about it. If there was nothing temporally prior to the singularity, and the singularity existed infinitely, why did it just expand some 13.7 billion years ago??? 13.7 billion years seems like a long time, but compared to an infinite past, 13.7 billion years is like a nanosecond. Why didnt it expand sooner? Why not later? When dealing with an actual infinity (to be distinguished from a potential infinity), we can always ask why not sooner, or why not later, especially if there were no preexisting conditions that could effect it. Makes no sense. No one here has dealt with the problem of an actual infinity, yet it comes up time and time again.
"singularity existed infinitely" who has said this?
"why did it just expand some 13.7 billion years ago"
Why did the sun ignite 5 billion years ago?
"especially if there were no preexisting conditions that could effect it"
who says this?
As I said for the third time on here, the first law of thermodynamics only came in to effect AFTER THE UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST. To say that "matter cannot be created or destoryed" you are begging the question in favor of naturalism. You don't know or you can't show whether or not a God could have created the matter in the first place. So there is no need to make the statement. Second, Stephen Hawking said:
"All the matter and energy were compressed into a single point, or singularity, the entire observable universe started out compressed to such a point. Since that point is not governed by quantum laws of physics, there cannot be this infinite regress of simultaneous causes at the singular state." (Stephen Hawking, "The Edge of Spacetime, The New Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pg 61)
"Since that point is not governed by quantum laws of physics"
Not sure this actually applies anymore. The search is for a QM model that fits the comological model.
Your also quoting a guy who can show you how a universe can pop into existence out of nothing without the need for a diety.
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe?
[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube
Have you actually watched the above video from hawking?
Scientist dont know what the universe was like prior to the big bang because, if in fact God did create the universe, it is impossible for science to experiment on supernatural causes. So science did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is go back as far as it could, and stop at the edge of the cliff when there was no more ground to walk on. Theology takes over. And even if you did find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, all you do is push the question of origins back one step further, and infinite regression begins, which is impossible.We are talking of absolute origins of all nature, regardless of where. Any nature that exists presupposes time, and time cannot be past eternal. There had to have been a first cause. I will wait on you to state why you believe time could be past eternal, because there are many arguments against it.
"Scientist dont know what the universe was like prior to the big bang because"
we are still looking into it and recently there have been lots of clues
for example
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background
Our poor universe shows bruises from collisions with other universes
Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background | Popular Science
Planck is now taking better pictures.
"Theology takes over"
Guessing?
"And even if you did find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, all you do is push the question of origins back one step further, and infinite regression begins, which is impossible."
Not with QM and mutiple universes.
Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?
Hard as it is to swallow, cutting-edge theories are suggesting that our universe may not be the only universe. Instead, it may be just one of an infinite number of universes that make up the "multiverse." In this show, Brian Greene takes us on a tour of this brave new theory at the frontier of physics, showing what some of these alternate realities might be like. Some universes may be almost indistinguishable from our own; others may contain variations of all of us, where we exist but with different families, careers, and life stories. In still others, reality may be so radically different from ours as to be unrecognizable. Brian Greene reveals why this radical new picture of the cosmos is getting serious attention from scientists. It won't be easy to prove, but if it's right, our understanding of space, time, and our place in the universe will never be the same.
[youtube]-FGgkfsMpCs[/youtube]
Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? - YouTube
However a "diety" is only supernatural because that is how we look at it now outside of the natural-observable universe, but if we could test it and explain it it would then it would become natural.
as far as we know time moves forward, but there is no reason it can't go backwards in physics and as I have shown with this, time might not be what you think. I highly recommend you watch this
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME
[youtube]Rp3_cPRQSh0[/youtube]
THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: THE ILLUSION OF TIME - YouTube
There are many theories that have been proposed that made attempts to provide answers of all the "pre-big bang" questions. All theories fall short, and some failed to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe.
The BBT is pretty much locked like evolution at this point. How it happened is just now starting to be possible to enquire with new tecniques and thoeries and testing.
I am with you on the singularity.
They might be the other side of black holes in other universes. Some top physicists think black holes might cause new universes to pop into existence.
Either the universe and all nature that exists has a beginning, or it didnt have a beginning. And first of all, when i say "universe", in the singular sense, I am speaking of all nature, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS. So if the universe had a beginning, it has a transcendent cause. If it didn't have a beginning, it is past eternal. But time can't be past eternal, due to the impossibility of an actual infinite, which hasn't been addressed on here. So there must be a transcendent cause.
The above has addressed a lot here you don't seem to know about in cosmology and QM.
We are also talking here about "our" visable universe. Matter evolved from energy in this universe. Its also looking like trillions of years from now it will convert back to energy and there will be no matter again.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Galactic Lenses Confirm Universe’s Age, Size
by SPACE.com Staff
March 2010
"
The size and age of the universe, as well as how fast it is expanding, has been confirmed with a new, precise method that uses galaxies as lenses to look at other galaxies.
The new measurement confirmed the age of the universe as 13.75 billion years old, to within 170 million years, and also confirmed the strength of dark energy, which is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe."
Size and age
The size of the universe is often expressed by astrophysicists in terms of a quantity called Hubble's constant, which describes the rate at which galaxies in the universe are flying away from each other.
"We've known for a long time that lensing is capable of making a physical measurement of Hubble's constant," said team member Phil Marshall of the researchers at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC). But gravitational lensing had never before been used in such a precise way.
The new measurement provides an equally precise measurement of Hubble's constant as long-established tools such as observation of supernovas (often used as "standard candles" of cosmic distance) and the cosmic microwave background, the remnant radiation of the Big Bang.
The most widely accepted value for the Hubble constant right now is 72 kilometers per second per megaparsec, obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope."
Galactic Lenses Confirm Universe
by SPACE.com Staff
March 2010
"
The size and age of the universe, as well as how fast it is expanding, has been confirmed with a new, precise method that uses galaxies as lenses to look at other galaxies.
The new measurement confirmed the age of the universe as 13.75 billion years old, to within 170 million years, and also confirmed the strength of dark energy, which is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe."
Size and age
The size of the universe is often expressed by astrophysicists in terms of a quantity called Hubble's constant, which describes the rate at which galaxies in the universe are flying away from each other.
"We've known for a long time that lensing is capable of making a physical measurement of Hubble's constant," said team member Phil Marshall of the researchers at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC). But gravitational lensing had never before been used in such a precise way.
The new measurement provides an equally precise measurement of Hubble's constant as long-established tools such as observation of supernovas (often used as "standard candles" of cosmic distance) and the cosmic microwave background, the remnant radiation of the Big Bang.
The most widely accepted value for the Hubble constant right now is 72 kilometers per second per megaparsec, obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope."
Galactic Lenses Confirm Universe
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I highly recommend checking this out from Universe Today
The End of Everything
It can be said that humans have a bit of a short term view of things. Were concerned about the end of summer, the next school year, and maybe even retirement. But these are just a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Lets really think big, stare forward in time, and think about what the future holds for the Universe. Look forward millions, trillions, and even 10100 years into the future. Lets consider the end of everything.
The End of Everything
This from the above is pretty interesting.
"
The End of Regular Matter 1030 years
So now we have a Universe with no stars, only cold black dwarfs. There will also be neutron stars and black holes left over from the time where there were stars in the Universe. The Universe will be completely dark.
A future observer might notice the occasional flash, when some object interacts with a black hole. Its matter will spread out into an accretion disk around the black hole. And for a brief period, it will flare up, emitting radiation. But then it too will be added to the mass of the black hole. And everything will go dark again.
Chunks of matter and binary black dwarfs will merge together creating new black holes, and these black holes will be consumed by even larger black holes. It might be that in the far future, all matter will exist in a few, truly massive black holes.
But even if matter escapes this fate, its doomed eventually. Some theories of physics predict that protons are unstable over long periods of time. They just cant last. Any matter that wasnt consumed by a black hole will start to decay. The protons will turn into radiation, leaving a fine mist of electrons, positrons, neutrinos and radiation to spread out into space.
Theorists anticipate that all protons in the Universe will decay over the course of 1030 years. "
shawn001
Well-Known Member
We might considered some highly advanced aliens "gods" when we first met them. Its happened on earth with advanced humans meeting primitive ones.
The idea itself of "gods" could have evolved with our evolution.
There could be a god or gods, but again we don't know, because there is 0 evidence, that's the thing. The answer is "we don't know", humans believe or not based on culture not science, but either way its an unanswerable question at this time.
The idea itself of "gods" could have evolved with our evolution.
There could be a god or gods, but again we don't know, because there is 0 evidence, that's the thing. The answer is "we don't know", humans believe or not based on culture not science, but either way its an unanswerable question at this time.
gnostic
The Lost One
call of the wild said:
Who said anything about "infinite" regression?
Scientists don't know anything prior and beyond the Big Bang...for now.
They may in the future introduce a new scientific theory that they will either add to the current model of cosmology (Big Bang Theory), or they may completely it with something new, but not necessarily in our lifetime.
The 13.7 billion light years is only the current estimate.
It was only a few years ago, that scientists still accepted the hypothesis that our universe may end with Big Crunch, but not they now have more evidences to predict that the universe will simply keep expanding.
I certainly won't be around to see any of the two happen. I doubt very much that there would still be humans around when it happen, considering that our Sun may die out billions of years before one of these events happen.
My point in all this, that theories, including the Big Bang Theory is not set in stone. It is well-attested, but it may change when we have more evidences to support. Just like the way Einstein changed our understanding of gravity.
But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand and remain ignorant, be my guest. I've got better thing to do than waste my time on you.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Just a note again the BBT is not about the begining.
"
They may in the future introduce a new scientific theory that they will either add to the current model of cosmology (Big Bang Theory), or they may completely it with something new, but not necessarily in our lifetime."
They already have.
"The 13.7 billion light years is only the current estimate. "
With a margin of error of 1%
"including the Big Bang Theory is not set in stone."
It pretty much is like evolution, but its not about how it happened, only that
- What is the Big Bang theory?
The Big Bang theory says that the universe was very hot and concentrated in the distant past and, ever since then, space has been stretching and cooling. This is the only theory that successfully explains the observations made by astronomers.
Astronomers see galaxies moving apart from one another: space in the universe is stretching. Astronomers see a remarkably uniform microwave glow everywhere in the sky; this is the heat left over from an earlier time, when the universe was very hot. This was predicted by the Big Bang theory BEFORE it was discovered! Astronomers measure how much of each of the lightest chemical elements (like hydrogen, deuterium, and lithium) are in space; their abundances agree with what was calculated to have been in an earlier time when the universe was so hot that it was like a nuclear fusion reactor, building up the lightest elements. The heaviest elements (like carbon, nitrogen, and carbon) were made later in stars. Stars are mostly made of hydrogen. The Big Bang theory explains the most basic observed properties of our universe. - What happened before the Big Bang? What happened right at the moment of the Big Bang?
We don't know. To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined. We know that our current gravity theory does not apply to the conditions of the earliest moments of the Big Bang. This is exciting research now in progress!
- The Big Bang theory is just a theory. Couldn't it be wrong?
Yes, it could be wrong. In science, no theory is ever absolutely proved true. Some theories, however, are stronger and better supported than others. This depends on many factors, including how well the theory explains observed facts, whether the theory has made successful predictions later borne out by observation, how long the theory has been around, and whether there are alternate theories that do almost as well. The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid. - New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.
- It is likely that the Big Bang theory will take on additional add-on ideas, or models, to explain more than it currently explains.
On the question
"
Originally Posted by call of the wild
Infinite regression is never to far from your mind huh. Explain to me how infinite regression is possible. Because that is what any theory outside of an uncaused cause would postulate. So explain that to me, please."
Greatest Mysteries: How Did the Universe Begin? 2007
Editor's Note: We asked several scientists from various fields what they thought were the greatest mysteries today, and then we added a few that were on our minds, too. This article is one of 15 in LiveScience's "Greatest Mysteries" series running each weekday.
How did the universe come to be?
"
Fundamental mysteries
According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second.
Initially, the universe was permeated only by energy. Some of this energy congealed into particles, which assembled into light atoms like hydrogen and helium. These atoms clumped first into galaxies, then stars, inside whose fiery furnaces all the other elements were forged.
This is the generally agreed-upon picture of our universe's origins as depicted by scientists. It is a powerful model that explains many of the things scientists see when they look up in the sky, such as the remarkable smoothness of space-time on large scales and the even distribution of galaxies on opposite sides of the universe... "
"
An ageless universe
In recent years, Steinhardt has been working with colleague Neil Turok at Cambridge University on a radical alternative to the standard Big Bang model.
According to their idea, called the ekpyrotic universe theory, the universe was born not just once, but multiple times in endless cycles of fiery death and rebirth. Enormous sheet-like "branes," representing different parts of our universe, collide about once every trillion years, triggering Big Bang-like explosions that re-inject matter and energy into the universe.
The pair claims that their ekpyrotic, or "cyclic," theory would explain not only inflation, but other cosmic mysteries as well, including dark matter, dark energy and why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever-accelerating clip. "
Greatest Mysteries: How Did the Universe Begin? | LiveScience
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
My goodness. Dude, if you postulate a natural cause, you postulate infinite regression. If you believe that the universe is the cause of some nature entity, then you are saying that there are an infinite amount of cause and effect relations (this caused that, and that caused that, and that caused that, etc....all the way to past infinity.) And this can't be the case, because an actual infinite is a illogical concept. The only way to avoid this is to postulate an uncaused cause. With an uncaused cause you avert the concept of infinite regression.
Thats no surpise because science cant trace anything beyond nature. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. In order to look for the origin of the universe, you have to look beyond the universe. A transcendent cause is necessary.
On to infinite regression...
The Big Crunch idea is part of the oscillating model which have been rejected so long ago its not even funny.
Now can you tell luna this?? She seem to have a problem with this expansion thing as if it is so hard to believe and accept. Dont know why.
It most certainly will
As long as the universe began to exist and the past cant be infinite, the explanation can only be a timeless, transcedent cause.
Ok, i will continue to believe in my God of intelligence and you continue to believe in your nature of non-intellect. Peace
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
No we don't. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was also predicted early on with the Standard Model. The radiation is still there and it is best explained do to the fact that the universe started off hot, expanded, and cooled off over time. So once again, the universe is expanding and it has been expanding throughout its history.
outhouse
Atheistically
gods didnt evolve in the human mind through biology, only through imagination in my opinion
its a natural feeling from having parents. Magical sky daddy LOL
Its not why so many people call deities father though, thats from having a warrior deity who will protect you.
I highly doubt aliens will ever get here due to the time restraints as well our atmosphere is most certainly poisonous and the weight alone would kill them. Thats why all the ancient alien guys are complete nut jobs.
We know man has created deities since written knowledge, we can see how the abrahamic god was created and evolved from many deities into yahweh.
No one discounts any of these other created deities and only worship a certain deity due to the place they wre born.
outhouse
Atheistically
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
God never began to exist. Something that never began to exist didnt come from anywhere. And all intelligence comes from him.
The conclusion definately doesnt follow from the premises lol. God is eternal, timeless in his being (before the universe).
outhouse
Atheistically
YOU personaly cannot define what when and where a magical sky daddy constitutes. You have no basis for your findings
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
An immaterial spirit.
Heaven has at least three different definitions. 1. the skys....2. outer space...3. the dwelling place of the Almighty.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"gods didnt evolve in the human mind through biology, only through imagination in my opinion"
Evolved by asking th question where did we come from and imagination is part of how the brain works and part of evolution. In fact there is some research to support this hypothesis that our idea of god evolved and the part of the brain involved.
"I highly doubt aliens will ever get here due to the time restraints as well our atmosphere is most certainly poisonous and the weight alone would kill them"
If they could get here I doubt our atmophere would matter.
"
We know man has created deities since written knowledge, we can see how the abrahamic god was created and evolved from many deities into yahweh."
I concur. I bet they did before even.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
If there are ONLY two explanations that could be the answer, and you can prove one false beyond a reasonable doubt, then the other explanation is the answer by default. There is no scientific explanation for the absolute origin of all nature. So a personal explanation wins by default. A light can either be on or off. If i ask you is the light on, and you tell me no, then i know the light is off. Get it?
God is the uncaused cause that created everything that is made. I didnt know the singularity was a "who".
How is it possible for intelligence to come from a non-intellectual entity?? This is absurd. Can an ant teach you how to play chess??? If you can't gain knowledge from an ant teaching you play chess, how can you begin to gain knowledge from a universe that doesn't have a mind at all?? I think it takes more faith to believe from a naturalistic point of view than from a atheistic point of view.
Huh?? If a ball is resting on a cushion you dont see the causal relation between the ball and the cushion?? And how can you say the imprint has always been there when it wasnt there before THE BALL DROPPED ON IT???
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I see you didn't comment on how universes could come from quatum flutuations "nothing" or anything about how universes could keep being born without the need for a diety which has been shown to you.
"God never began to exist. Something that never began to exist didnt come from anywhere. "
LOL how true.
Please show ANY evidence "all intelligence comes from him" we are talking science here right?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I would stop an infinitely far distance away. Of course, I need to form the geometry of the universe in a certain way so that there is an infinitely far away point to stop at.
You have to stop at the same distance that you stopped when you were going forward and ran in to me. So where would you stop??