Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
But the beginning also had a beginning, ad infinitum...
-
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!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
But the beginning also had a beginning, ad infinitum...
godnotgod
Thou art That
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Science seems to lean to a 'point'....so do I.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Based on what we now know, limited as it is, about quantum mechanics, there's an increasing leaning with cosmologists that there is likely a multiverse we're part of, and that it's hypothetically possible our universe may have started out as a black hole in another universe, and maybe other universes could possibly be even generated from black holes in our universe. If true, singularity could explain how we may have generated from a black hole, but there's also the implication that time itself goes back much further than even our singularity.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Science only leans to a point of this thing or that thing. When it comes to causality, we know that there tend to be multiple causes for an effect.
If Science proves God and God is science, then God is Nature since Science is knowledge and understanding about Nature. Agreed?
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Almost.
Logic gives us reason, and that reason has science in it.
Believing in God is then simple (for me anyway)
Nature refers to the flow of the chemistry that God set in motion.
Understanding nature brings understanding God.
Having said that much.....check some photos of deep sea creatures!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Hawkins has recanted his long standing fix on black holes.
He was the reigning expert.
And the singularity would not be a black hole.
Black holes draw in and don't let go.
The singularity is the 'point' of expansion for all things.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Except for what he eventually called "Hawking radiation", which releases energy outside the black hole. Since singularity is probably highly condensed energy, there's simply no reason to believe that an infant universe could not have be borne from that. BTW, Hawking also believes that gravitational force alone could have started our universe and possible other universes. Also, are you by chance familiar with what are hypothetically called "worm holes", which could possibly develop from black holes?
Except the singularity you're referring to may only apply to the formation of our universe, so there's simply no reason to assume that there weren't previous universes that may have formed or that some others may be in the process of being formed.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
If logic and science is used to prove God, then God is natural.
Motion proves the motor?
So a rock has a motor because it moves? It had a cause, one single cause that it rolls down the hill? The rain, ground, gravity, all is one cause? That means a cause is Nature.
Nature is amazing!
Causality is physical, like everything. And it applies only to some physical states.
Causality is meaningless when:
- we consider fundamental interactions. I.e. The microscopic world
- we consider macroscopic systems in thermal equilibrium
- we consider the universe as a whole
- we consider any physical system in which a macroscopic arrow of time is not available
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I'm more inclined of a lean to Genesis.
The Word was with God.
I see it as a formation substance.
Gravity would then play it's part in drawing large quantities to one point.
(the separation of firmament)
Unlike other black holes (smaller in size) this item could not be contained by gravity.
Bang!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's fine with me, but just remember that beliefs are not really the same as evidence.
There's various possibilities as to what could have led to the expansion (BB), but certainly the gravitational bonds were broken by some event(s).
godnotgod
Thou art That
It is an arbitrarily ascertained 'point' that does not exist in space/time. It exists in consciousness, which does not exist in space/time. The BB is an ongoing event in consciousness, space/time and causation only being concepts.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Precisely!
The system wouldn't let me give you a frubal. But here it is anyway.:bow:
factseeker88
factseeker88
I agree, but many (90 percent) still believe belief is real, not only in religion but everything else.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) [/FONT]
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Time does not exist.
It is only a concept.
I think I've explained that to you several times.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I would say my beliefs are assembled with cause.....logic.
There won't be any evidence.
I think we've all heard me say so.....at least a hundred times by now.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Think about the spirit thought you're having for a second.
The spirit is eternal, infinite, without beginning, without end.
We are spirits. Which would mean that we are eternal, infinite, without beginning, without end, and we're part of God.
Yes, no?
And another thing, if there was nothing before there was something how can there be a spirit? Is spirit the same as nothing? Or perhaps the answer is that there was something, but just another thing than these things we have now? Trying to define what spirit is, or what nothing is, or something is that is not this thing we know of now, is just futile endeavor.
Last edited: