The Big what?

[Jimmy]

The way I see it, we got two choices. Lol. We can either believe the earth and all the humans were created in the blink of an eye or existence has always been around. At this point the Big bang theory is sitting somewhere in the middle lacking conviction IMO. I like the two extremes. Yeah, nature seems extreme, so I’m going to roll with it. What I don’t care for is a happily painted picture of a big bang, or little poof if you will, then a looooong drawn out process of evolution to explain the awesomeness that is me. Haha.

I mean, I like the two extreme choices, but the having always been around one seems a little too extreme, LOL. So I’ll opt for blink of an eye. It’s extreme, to the point, efficient, mysterious, creative, genius, analogous to life and seems to get the job done nicely. It’s quite possible, probably even likely that there’s meaning to our existence or should I say we are the meaning. When I say we I’m referring to doggies and cute kittys too, maybe a star or two, and even the dust on my tv.

Dang you sorrow.
Life is fleeting.

 

[AlexanderG]

I've noticed you starting a lot of threads where you lay out a false dichotomy or trichotomy, then express the fact that one of the choices is more pleasing to you and therefore you're going to assume it's true. Do you see the problems?

Can you see why there are an infinite number of logically possible alternatives to explain why reality exists and is the way it is, other than "created in the blink of an eye" or "existed eternally"?

Can you see why basing your beliefs on what you "like" or "care for" is not a reliable pathway to truth, nor is it convincing for anyone else?

 

[danieldemol]

The way I see it, we got two choices. Lol. We can either believe the earth and all the humans were created in the blink of an eye or existence has always been around.

According to my understanding existence has been around at least as long as there has been time.

In my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The way I see it, we got two choices. Lol. We can either believe the earth and all the humans were created in the blink of an eye or existence has always been around. At this point the Big bang theory is sitting somewhere in the middle lacking conviction IMO. I like the two extremes. Yeah, nature seems extreme, so I’m going to roll with it. What I don’t care for is a happily painted picture of a big bang, or little poof if you will, then a looooong drawn out process of evolution to explain the awesomeness that is me. Haha.

I mean, I like the two extreme choices, but the having always been around one seems a little too extreme, LOL. So I’ll opt for blink of an eye. It’s extreme, to the point, efficient, mysterious, creative, genius, analogous to life and seems to get the job done nicely. It’s quite possible, probably even likely that there’s meaning to our existence or should I say we are the meaning. When I say we I’m referring to doggies and cute kittys too, maybe a star or two, and even the dust on my tv.

Dang you sorrow.
Life is fleeting.

(Pedantic mode) Firstly, a choice is between two options, so two choices indicates four options (Pedantic mode/off). Secondly, your options are rather limited, perhaps by your imagination, but they are still limited. How about - we are unlikely to know such answers - being such small cogs in a much vaster universe?

 

[SalixIncendium]

As I sat watching fireworks on Saturday night, I found my consciousness shift as one of the fireworks burst into many bits of light, and I found myself entranced with that single burst which felt like it lasted for several minutes (it didn't, of course). I watched as each bit of light expanded from the center, and almost felt like as the expansion slowed that it should begin to be drawn back to the point of the initial burst. It didn't, of course. The bits of light simply began to fall with the earth's gravity.

I'm certainly no math expert and have no scientific evidence to support such an idea, but I found myself wondering if time, while appearing to us as linear, is actually cyclical, and the Big Bang isn't a one-off phenomenon. What if a singularity, which has the potential for immense gravity burst into what would expand into the universe, expand to a point of critical mass (not sure if that's the correct term) and then began contract with the gravity of the singularity back to the point of origin?

I've heard the term "Big Crunch" tossed about, and I'm guessing what I'm explaining above might already be a scientific theory. If it is, what is the possibility, or what is scientific thought on this being a repeating cycle? Might time begin to reverse at the point where the expansion stops?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory.

"In the 13th century, Siger of Brabant authored the thesis The Eternity of the World, which argued that there was no first man, and no first specimen of any particular: the physical universe is thus without any first beginning, and therefore eternal. Siger's views were condemned by the pope in 1277.

Cosmological expansion was originally discovered through observations by Edwin Hubble. Theoretical calculations also showed that the static universe as modeled by Einstein (1917) was unstable. The modern Big Bang theory is one in which the universe has a finite age and has evolved over time through cooling, expansion, and the formation of structures through gravitational collapse.

The steady-state model asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); the universe has no beginning and no end. This required that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing. Influential papers on steady-state cosmologies were published by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle in 1948. Similar models had been proposed earlier by William Duncan MacMillan, among others.

It is now known that Albert Einstein considered a steady-state model of the expanding universe, as indicated in a 1931 manuscript, many years before Hoyle, Bondi and Gold. However, he quickly abandoned the idea."
Steady-state model - Wikipedia

 

[Nimos]

The way I see it, we got two choices. Lol. We can either believe the earth and all the humans were created in the blink of an eye or existence has always been around. At this point the Big bang theory is sitting somewhere in the middle lacking conviction IMO. I like the two extremes. Yeah, nature seems extreme, so I’m going to roll with it. What I don’t care for is a happily painted picture of a big bang, or little poof if you will, then a looooong drawn out process of evolution to explain the awesomeness that is me. Haha.

I mean, I like the two extreme choices, but the having always been around one seems a little too extreme, LOL. So I’ll opt for blink of an eye. It’s extreme, to the point, efficient, mysterious, creative, genius, analogous to life and seems to get the job done nicely. It’s quite possible, probably even likely that there’s meaning to our existence or should I say we are the meaning. When I say we I’m referring to doggies and cute kittys too, maybe a star or two, and even the dust on my tv.

Dang you sorrow.
Life is fleeting.

I agree with you that it sounds weird, almost to the point of impossible.

But the reason scientist explain it like this, is not because they think it's a cool idea or because they are fighting a "hidden" war against God and religions. But because they have observed what is going on in the Universe, how planets form, how life evolve etc. And based on all these things, this is the best explanation according to the evidence.

If people disagree, they are free to look at all these observations and data and come up with a better explanation, you are completely free to do that.

So what I would suggest is to look at why the scientists believe that the evidence points towards that, then you list them all. And then you come up with better explanations. If it's a better or equally as good as the big bang, than surely someone will pick up on it.

What doesn't make sense is to simply refuse it, because you think it sounds too good to be true, without having any idea of why the scientists believe this is how it happened, again all the data and observations are there, so everyone can examine it for themselves.

 

[Brian2]

(Pedantic mode) How about - we are unlikely to know such answers - being such small cogs in a much vaster universe?

It would be good to have someone who was there tell us what happened.
Then we could use science and see if what this someone said was correct.
No, that's not real science to do that. Real science does not start with the answers, but of course it can be used that way if we want and which people do.
It can be used to show us if the things that the someones have said are true or not.
But it seems that real science does not like the story that fits closest with what we know in science now and so keeps speculating about some other possibilities which do not involve a supernatural being.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It would be good to have someone who was there tell us what happened.
Then we could use science and see if what this someone said was correct.
No, that's not real science to do that. Real science does not start with the answers, but of course it can be used that way if we want and which people do.
It can be used to show us if the things that the someones have said are true or not.
But it seems that real science does not like the story that fits closest with what we know in science now and so keeps speculating about some other possibilities which do not involve a supernatural being.

The story that fits is one that you like to believe is true. Nothing to say it was not purely written by other humans and with no input from any God. Why so many different religious beliefs other than the obvious reason that they tended to arise locally and spread?

 

[Brian2]

The story that fits is one that you like to believe is true. Nothing to say it was not purely written by other humans and with no input from any God. Why so many different religious beliefs other than the obvious reason that they tended to arise locally and spread?

Imo the Bible has many points that set it apart from other religious writings and histories.

 

[Martin]

Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory.

"In the 13th century, Siger of Brabant authored the thesis The Eternity of the World, which argued that there was no first man, and no first specimen of any particular: the physical universe is thus without any first beginning, and therefore eternal. Siger's views were condemned by the pope in 1277.

Cosmological expansion was originally discovered through observations by Edwin Hubble. Theoretical calculations also showed that the static universe as modeled by Einstein (1917) was unstable. The modern Big Bang theory is one in which the universe has a finite age and has evolved over time through cooling, expansion, and the formation of structures through gravitational collapse.

The steady-state model asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); the universe has no beginning and no end. This required that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing. Influential papers on steady-state cosmologies were published by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle in 1948. Similar models had been proposed earlier by William Duncan MacMillan, among others.

It is now known that Albert Einstein considered a steady-state model of the expanding universe, as indicated in a 1931 manuscript, many years before Hoyle, Bondi and Gold. However, he quickly abandoned the idea."
Steady-state model - Wikipedia

Fred Hoyle's book about the steady state universe was one of the first science books I read. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Imo the Bible has many points that set it apart from other religious writings and histories.

Yeah, well get in a debate with a Muslim (or any others). I'm not bothered with such, seeing all as just coming from human minds.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, well get in a debate with a Muslim (or any others). I'm not bothered with such, seeing all as just coming from human minds.

Humans would not have been able to predict the future so well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Humans would not have been able to predict the future so well.

I think you might not like how history is so often described by the winners, that is, that history is not that reliable, especially when much is rewritten or deleted by those with the power to do so. How would you know the difference? You do realise that even modern events, such as the JFK assassination, the death of Princess Diana, or the Two Towers terrorism are still hotly debated, and these often had visible evidence recorded as to such. What do you think happened a millennia or two ago when most people couldn't read or write and where those who wrote anything for posterity might have been in the employ or those in power?

 

[Brian2]

I think you might not like how history is so often described by the winners, that is, that history is not that reliable, especially when much is rewritten or deleted by those with the power to do so. How would you know the difference? You do realise that even modern events, such as the JFK assassination, the death of Princess Diana, or the Two Towers terrorism are still hotly debated, and these often had visible evidence recorded as to such. What do you think happened a millennia or two ago when most people couldn't read or write and where those who wrote anything for posterity might have been in the employ or those in power?

It cannot be true because it could have been a conspiracy. Or at least , I cannot believe it because it might have been a conspiracy.
We can look at predictions where the events happened definitely after the writing of the predictions.
I see Jesus life etc as in this category and events since that time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It cannot be true because it could have been a conspiracy. Or at least , I cannot believe it because it might have been a conspiracy.
We can look at predictions where the events happened definitely after the writing of the predictions.
I see Jesus life etc as in this category and events since that time.

Your belief but there is no independent evidence for much of that written long ago. And perhaps you don't think that history (predictions and such) was altered so as to produce expected results. Me, I'm not so confident.

 

[Brian2]

Your belief but there is no independent evidence for much of that written long ago. And perhaps you don't think that history (predictions and such) was altered so as to produce expected results. Me, I'm not so confident.

I don't think that the OT prophecies have been altered by Christians.
I don't think the story of Jesus was made up to fit prophecy.
I don't think that history has been changed since to fit prophecy.
Some conspiracies are just not more believable...........to me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't think that the OT prophecies have been altered by Christians.
I don't think the story of Jesus was made up to fit prophecy.
I don't think that history has been changed since to fit prophecy.
Some conspiracies are just not more believable...........to me.

As I said, your belief and you are entitled to it, but that's not how I view historical documents no matter how they are viewed by others.