The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[outhouse]

A good definition for god is the source of everything.

how do you know a possibly man made deity is the source for everything?

I think a source should be implied so nothing to prove.

that would be great if you had any evidence at all it was or could be the source of anything.

What can't be proven are the attributes.

So my coffee cup has all of the same attributes then

 

[idav]

how do you know a possibly man made deity is the source for everything?

Man is not the cause of existence. Existence would do fine without us but then it might not be able to analyze itself.

that would be great if you had any evidence at all it was or could be the source of anything.

Evidence for what? That there is a source like that of the singularity?

So my coffee cup has all of the same attributes then

Of course, isn't it? Just compare to the periodic table.

 

[outhouse]

Man is not the cause of existence.

agreed

Evidence for what?

you want to attribute a definition of a deity as a source, evidence please.

 

[idav]

you want to attribute a definition of a deity as a source, evidence please.

People generally want to say god is The Creator. I think the source could still be defined as god even if existence wasn't a purposeful event.

 

[outhouse]

People generally want to say god is The Creator. I think the source could still be defined as god even if existence wasn't a purposeful event.

the whole point is that the big bang and the cause is unknown.

To attribute a deity is a mistake man has been doing for thousands of years.

installing a god in the gaps of their knowledge.


No where in scripture does it literally state god created anything. the ancient hebrews knew it was allegory written to help identify the people, even they didnt believe it.

They were also aware of all the previous creation myths in the area and they also needed one for their religion.




Only later did a literal interpretation of creation take hold.

 

[idav]

the whole point is that the big bang and the cause is unknown.

To attribute a deity is a mistake man has been doing for thousands of years.

installing a god in the gaps of their knowledge.

So do you think it is silly to have a reverence for the source when we don't really know what that source is? Even if the source is impersonal?

 

[gnostic]

Based on the standard model of the big bang, there WAS no time before the big bang, but yet it happened. The only way this could happen is if the big bang was the effect of a timeless cause. The chandelier is a good example, the chandelier, fell from the celing after being in a timeless state, and God, caused the big bang after being in a timeless state. So what part of that you people fail to understand?

Ha!

The chandelier cannot be in the timeless state suspended from the ceiling. You have ignored that some places have to manufacture x-number the chandeliers. Let's not forget that the manufacturer may other types of chandeliers - different styles, different shapes and different size. So there may be some j-numbers of models.

Then some retailers would have to order y-number of chandeliers of just one model (though a retailer may order than one model), while another organization have to distribute these chandeliers to all the retailers that have ordered this model.

So one day a customer order this particular model, and buy it. The customer may either install the chandelier himself or the retailer may someone to install it. Let's not forget each retailer will have one (model) displayed in his store.

If some more customers buy the same model as the 1st customer, then you will have z-number of chandeliers sold and install in these homes.

So if I was to borrow your analogy of the chandelier, then there would be z-number of homes, with this particular style and size (ie model) of chandelier in each home, which would translate to z-number of singularities prior to the Big Bang.

One chandelier may fall for whatever reasons from the home of the 1st buyer, which signify the expansion (Big Bang) occurring but only in one place. z-number minus 1 homes will still be hanging down from their ceilings. Which will translate to z-number minus-1 singularities that have not bang yet.

Of course then you may have one owner who may have to move into a new home. So this owner may keep the chandelier for his new home. Or he may either sell iit in the garage sale or dump it.

If a couple more chandeliers falling then we are no dealing with a universe forming, but multiverses out there.

There is also possibilities that none of these chandeliers get sold, or this model may go out of style and they are remove from the store(s).

How do explain all these unseen factors?

All of which, will ruin your neat (only in your mind) little analogy.

And what if none of these chandeliers fall, then you will have no Big Bang, hence no universe? Or they all fall because of earthquake struck the city? Then you will indeed have multiverses in your hand.

 

[YmirGF]

All of which, will ruin your neat (only in your mind) little analogy.

I still say it was the work of a demented unicorn. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

[gnostic]

I still say it was the work of a demented unicorn. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

:biglaugh:

Actually I'd prefer the big demented unicorn any day of the week.

Too bad I can't give you any frubal while I'm on my iPod touch. You'll just have to wait till I get home so I can give you some sweets.

 

[idav]

I still say it was the work of a demented unicorn. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

I don't think those were unicorn droppings.

 

[gnostic]

Well actually, science has already started to postulate pre-big bang models.

I know that. I've already said so in earlier posts. Currently they are just hypostheses and not scientific theory like the Big Bang model. But we may one day developed the technology to observe what the real pre-Big Bang was like before 13.7 billion light years from now. This will probably prove one of these current hypotheses being true, or debunk all of these (current ones) but provide avenue for a new hypothesis.

You will never know.

But one things all of these theories and hypotheses have shown that no "deity" is required for any of these explanations.

Like everyone have said, you have only this silly god-of-the-gap. Once this "gap" is filled, what then? Would you go back further in time to find more gaps to shove your precious god into?

God is "timeless" or "outside of time" is really beyond absurd. For God to be timeless or living forever, then time would have to exist. It is oxymoron claim. You are simply making baseless claim which you could never prove. The Bible is hardly a trustworthy evidence and your "faith" is no better as evidence.

You claim is no better than YmirGF's deranged unicorn :unicorn: or mine of the shapeless leather (singularity) which the Leprechaun make into a shoe (universe).

 

[outhouse]

God is "timeless" or "outside of time" is really beyond absurd.

its all they have no that science has decreased the gap of knowledge in mankind.


whats weird is that we know creation didnt happen the mythical way it was written among different civilizations BUT magically creation still stays a float

 

[gnostic]

its all they have no that science has decreased the gap of knowledge in mankind.


whats weird is that we know creation didnt happen the mythical way it was written among different civilizations BUT magically creation still stays a float

Old and bad habit dies hard.

When 6 day creation and creating man out of the earth have been debunked, they tried to insinuate their ways into evolution (theistic evolution) and the Big Bang (like the way callie is doing right now).

One day they will eventually run out of gaps to fill.

I don't mind religious people accepting science and believing in their god(s). What I won't accept without a fight is trying to insert God into science. Trying to put 2 into 1, clearly is not compatible. It is best that they keep it separate...and as long as they keep the 2 "separate", I don't mind at all.

You see, I love my classical Greek myths, Norse and Celtic myths, but these don't interfere with my understanding of science.

 

[idav]

whats weird is that we know creation didnt happen the mythical way it was written among different civilizations BUT magically creation still stays a float

People just want to know the origins which is for some reason a pressing question among mankind. I don't think people care where the answer comes from and answers to cosmology have direct theological implications.

 

[outhouse]

People just want to know the origins which is for some reason a pressing question among mankind.

it is statistical, people dont want to know, they want to attribute a deity to said creation.

when we try and teach them they fight knowledge, logic and reason. They close their minds tightly

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Logic and rationality are without the most powerful tools we have developed for reasoned discussion, however it is important to note that 'logically' (lol) logic may have limited applicability to the metaphysical concepts being considered... it is for that reason, nurtured through fideism, that many non-rational positions and beliefs persist despite marked evidence to the contrary.

 

[YmirGF]

Logic and rationality are without the most powerful tools we have developed for reasoned discussion, however it is important to note that 'logically' (lol) logic may have limited applicability to the metaphysical concepts being considered...

I rather expect that anyone with the intelligence of a crushed grape would be cognizant of that. It's one of those things that should, in ordinary company, go without saying. That said, I think the great danger is when people attempt to marry metaphysical concepts to scientific theories.

It is for that reason, nurtured through fideism, that many non-rational positions and beliefs persist despite marked evidence to the contrary.

Agreed. Though unseemly, people have a tendency to embrace their mythology with such gusto that they have no choice but to work desperately to squeeze that mythology into observable reality any way necessary. Failure to do this would precipitate the need to re-evaluate ones thinking, to question their "foundation class" belief systems.

Most people simply do not have the time or the wherewithal to take on such an endeavor and so try to paper over the peels and blisters as best as they can. One can only wish them well and frankly, not take their rambling too seriously. Certainly not as seriously as they take their ramblings themselves.

 

[lunakilo]

The chandelier was just an analogy of how a timeless entity could enter time and also be the cause of time. I don't know where you get pantheism from, but that has nothing to do with the analogy nor did I imply it.

I got pantheism from the sentence I underlined:

"But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more."

It sounds like you are describing the chandelier/universe as being a conscious being which all by itself decides to fall. That sounds very pantheistic to me.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is silly. If something began to exist, there not only has to be a cause, but there also has to be a reason WHY. All i asked was, if the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago, why did it happen. There is always a "how", "why", and "what" question that can be asked of ANYTHING that began to exist. Just because you dont know the answer doesn't mean that you are prohibited from asking the question.

lol, it's not silly, it's perfectly apt.
There doesn't have to be a reason that concerns intent. And please don't address me with a "just because you dont know the answer " since it is you inserting a God into your gaps. I already am well acquainted with the theories and I accept them as they are. YOU are the one adding extra.

Even if the singularity popped in to being and started to expand simultaneously, that would still imply that the universe and time itself began to exist.

This does not address the problem I pointed out in your analogy at that point

No it didnt. I said the chandelier had an ETERNAL will to fall. So the chandelier never at any point began to decide to fall. It always knew it would fall for eternity.

If it knew it WOULD fall, that implies knowledge PRIOR TO FALLING.

How is time passing in eternity? Eternity is the state of timelessness. If God is ominiscient, his thoughts doesnt require time because he always knew. He doesnt need a brain to assess thoughts, he already knows.

Nnnno, eternity is 'all Time that has been'.
Timelessness is Timelessness. Eternity is a passage of Time, not a lack of it.
It was YOU who commented that the chandelier, which represents God in your analogy mess, 'has a brain'.
But whatever the form he needs thoughts in whatever form they must take. Thoughts REQUIRE Time to occur. They change from state to state; pondering his situation and desiring to move or drop or create or whatever.
Just because you don't understand this idea... dot dot dot.

 

[shawn001]

Special Report: The History & Future of the Cosmos

Our universe is both ancient and vast, and expanding out farther and faster everyday. But scientists are steadily uncovering more and more secrets of the cosmos.

Join SPACE.com as we take a look at some of the most amazing revelations about the universe and the enduring enigmas still to be solved in this eight-part series of multimedia features and stories:

Special Report: The History & Future of the Cosmos | Space.com


Biggest Map Yet of Universe's Invisible Dark Matter Unveiled

Biggest Map Yet of Universe's Invisible Dark Matter Unveiled | Dark Matter Distribution in Universe | Hidden Dark Matter & 219th American Astronomical Society Meeting, AAS219 | Space.com