What caused the Big Bang?

[Repox]

>>>>


After reading some of your replies I would like to ask you a question (note this question is open to anyone). If you believe supernatural processes exist, do you think all or some are they what I call super-normal** processes or are they really (assuming you feel they are valid) a manipulation of physical law, or simply 'natural' processes(s) science does not yet understand or have the ability to detect? In other words is there a sharp delineation between the natural world and the 'supernatural' world and events or does the natural world blend into the 'supernatural'* world? To a certain extent my question almost answers itself! My personal beliefs are that there are true supernatural events and a supernatural realm that must be forever separated from the material world...maybe. I mean analogically speaking it could be like matter and anti-matter both are purely 'natural' (or material) processes and things but they can't touch etc. Again personally I think the reason God sends temporal messengers 99% of the time to bridge the gap between the natural and supernatural worlds instead of coming in person. Oh no offense I am speaking of the Christian God but most religions have a near identical deity. (and this is why I think one god is all Gods but that is material for another thread). Lastly that a atemporal God and spiritual realm exists is how God caused the big bang to bang when there was no temporal related causality before (I say outside time when describing 'events' 'before' the BB began, and hence its importance to my way of believing. Language oftentimes fail us, or at least is a weak point when speaking etc about the natural and the supernatural, the material and the immaterial just as it does in higher mathematics and science.

notes

* supernatural = events that exist outside the natural world
* super-normal = events that may appear supernatural but are actually operating
within the confines of natural law.

Kurt Godel the famous mathematician and creator of the incompleteness theorem said; "The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all." Oh how true my virtual friend, RIP.....

A big reason for science not being able to understand, or refusing to acknowledge, the supernatural is because it is not material. There is no matter or energy in heaven, it is all related to God's eternal essence. An angel can pop in and out of our world without detection, it is translucent, or without material form. Humans can't visualize it because they don't have references. I admit to not have a high level of expertise in science, but I do know enough to understand science cannot prove the universe to be eternal. There is too much change or transformational processes going on in the universe to believe there is eternity or infinity. I think most scientists are atheists, they are dedicated to proving a Godless world.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Phew! That's a relief - I thought it might be imminent

Now that is interesting - do you suppose it is possible that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would be able to initiate such a transition rather than simply waiting for it to happen? Are there preferred parameters or circumstances under which such a transition would favor the evolution of a 'biophilic' or, dare I suggest, anthropic universe? (I know this line of question is more SF than science, but its fun to speculate - even wildly - as long as one knows that's what one is doing)

This 'chance' that an 'sufficiently advanced intelligence' (owed to Dr Clarke) that could create universes and have the same 'powers' as 'God', and or even be 'God' (the emotional implications ignored for this reply) causes me to wonder how an atheist can remain an atheist. At the risk of being burnt at the stake by my fellow Christians its my belief if this race can create universes and sentient man, it is God despite how it became God. Of course that claim opens up a whole nother' can of worms of many different varieties. This subject and related subjects also touches on some of the replies and questions I have had with say'83 and others. Lastly if that advanced, immortal, universe creating race tells us it created us and its the God of the bible and or every other religion I have no problem with that!

If someone (everyone?) disagrees please expand ?

 

[siti]

This 'chance' that an 'sufficiently advanced intelligence' (owed to Dr Clarke) that could create universes and have the same 'powers' as 'God', and or even be 'God' (the emotional implications ignored for this reply) causes me to wonder how an atheist can remain an atheist. At the risk of being burnt at the stake by my fellow Christians its my belief if this race can create universes and sentient man, it is God despite how it became God. Of course that claim opens up a whole nother' can of worms of many different varieties. This subject and related subjects also touches on some of the replies and questions I have had with say'83 and others. Lastly if that advanced, immortal, universe creating race tells us it created us and its the God of the bible and or every other religion I have no problem with that!

If someone (everyone?) disagrees please expand ?

Apart from the 'immortal' bit yes I (more or less) agree. Oddly enough, although I do not profess Christianity, I certainly think it is possible to put this kind of thinking in a Christian context. I recommend reading Teilhard de Chardin's Phenomenon of Man. He was a Jesuit priest who was also a paleontologist and coined the term 'Omega Point' as the ultimate outcome of the process of evolution...anyway, he says it better than I can - the link takes you to the internet archive version and you can download it free from there in various formats.

 

[Repox]

Apart from the 'immortal' bit yes I (more or less) agree. Oddly enough, although I do not profess Christianity, I certainly think it is possible to put this kind of thinking in a Christian context. I recommend reading Teilhard de Chardin's Phenomenon of Man. He was a Jesuit priest who was also a paleontologist and coined the term 'Omega Point' as the ultimate outcome of the process of evolution...anyway, he says it better than I can - the link takes you to the internet archive version and you can download it free from there in various formats.

Upon investigation of the book you referenced by Teilhard de Cardin, I find this summary statement of his position concerning religion and the secular world.

"Religion and science are the two conjugated faces or phases of one and the same complete act of knowledge-the only one which can embrace the past and future of evolution so as to contemplate, measure and fulfil them" (page 283).

It appears there is no supernatural in your philosophy, which proposes humans invented religion. I understand this point of view and find it explains a lot of what atheists, or agnostics, believe or propose in order to explain religion. I think the quote summarizes the whole business. Based on what I know, I will continue to maintain religion or belief in God actually derives from human experiences with supernatural beings from heaven. They have visited earth, therefore we have Bible stories about those visitations. I have had supernatural experiences to give me absolute faith in the supernatural. However, you are in a stronger position because by maintaining those "apparent" appearances of supernatural beings are illusions or not possible, you infer it is all material. There is, of course, a lot of material evidence for the "Man created God" thesis. God is therefore the universe. It is, however, subject to much dispute.

 

[siti]

However, you are in a stronger position because by maintaining those "apparent" appearances of supernatural beings are illusions or not possible, you infer it is all material.

No - I categorically cannot make that call in regard to your experiences - that is implicit in my position - the fact (not the content) of MY experience is the ONLY thing I can be entirely 100% certain of - I cannot speak to either the fact or the content of anyone else's experience. I can, and quite happily do, argue the consistency of scientific concepts as they are represented in a discussion forum - these are a 'shared' experience even if I am only sharing it with a figment of my own imagination. I choose to believe that you (and any other person I interact with) is not an illusion - but I can't prove it. And I certainly cannot prove that your experiences are not real - but those are not - and it seems to me never are - shared experiences. So there is no real ground for rational discussion let alone objective consensus regarding them. If someone says an angel or God told them this or that, who am I to question that? But I also can't base my understanding of the world on it because God did not reveal it to me.

 

[Repox]

No - I categorically cannot make that call in regard to your experiences - that is implicit in my position - the fact (not the content) of MY experience is the ONLY thing I can be entirely 100% certain of - I cannot speak to either the fact or the content of anyone else's experience. I can, and quite happily do, argue the consistency of scientific concepts as they are represented in a discussion forum - these are a 'shared' experience even if I am only sharing it with a figment of my own imagination. I choose to believe that you (and any other person I interact with) is not an illusion - but I can't prove it. And I certainly cannot prove that your experiences are not real - but those are not - and it seems to me never are - shared experiences. So there is no real ground for rational discussion let alone objective consensus regarding them. If someone says an angel or God told them this or that, who am I to question that? But I also can't base my understanding of the world on it because God did not reveal it to me.

I understand, I did suggest we have evidence from the Bible. I have always been puzzled for why people reject those Bible stories. Even though the Bible has strong views about pagan religions, or condemnation of opposing views, there are some really intriguing stories about supernatural beings and events. I suppose it has to do with a total intolerance for "anti-intellectualism," or views that contradict an educated view concerning the supernatural.

 

[sayak83]

I understand, I did suggest we have evidence from the Bible. I have always been puzzled for why people reject those Bible stories. Even though the Bible has strong views about pagan religions, or condemnation of opposing views, there are some really intriguing stories about supernatural beings and events. I suppose it has to do with a total intolerance for "anti-intellectualism," or views that contradict an educated view concerning the supernatural.

Mostly because historical scholarship has undermined the historical claims of the Bible (OT and NT). It has historical information in it, but OT is mostly considered a reworking of myths to foster religious propaganda of the bronze age Jewish state while the prophets etc. were written by sectarian religious groups at various periods of Judea to promote their own version of theology to the masses. NT falls within the latter category.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FBJG86/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[siti]

I understand, I did suggest we have evidence from the Bible. I have always been puzzled for why people reject those Bible stories. Even though the Bible has strong views about pagan religions, or condemnation of opposing views, there are some really intriguing stories about supernatural beings and events. I suppose it has to do with a total intolerance for "anti-intellectualism," or views that contradict an educated view concerning the supernatural.

I wouldn't put it that way. I think the Bible is part of our 'shared' experience - I do think its a largely outdated part of our 'shared' experience - I mean its largely encapsulating the shared experience of a bronze age, partly nomadic agricultural people in the middle east. But that's not to say that it has nothing at all to contribute to the shared experience of a much later, much more sophisticated people. But I can no more confirm or deny the individual experiences of Moses or Elijah than I can yours. I just can't assimilate those individual experiences into my own experiential reality because they did not happen to me. I may be able to see some commonalities (e.g. my optimistic hope for a better future based on humanitarian principles and ecological responsibility make me feel like Moses standing on the verge of the promised land but not being allowed to cross over) but I am no more Moses than I am Repox. So I cannot make 'his' or 'your' individual experiences the bedrock on which mine is founded. That's not intolerance, its authenticity - its being to true to my own experience - and if de Chardin is anything like correct about an "Omega Point" at some future time, I suspect it would have to emerge as the most genuinely authentic experiential reality possible - the ultimate Hegelian synthesis of the entire process of reality. If that is what "Christ" represents then, I suppose, I am a "Christian" but that is certainly not what the vast majority of "Christians" mean by it. (I'm sorry, I have digressed, but I am still kind of following thoughts after @MrMrdevincamus comment).

 

[Repox]

I wouldn't put it that way. I think the Bible is part of our 'shared' experience - I do think its a largely outdated part of our 'shared' experience - I mean its largely encapsulating the shared experience of a bronze age, partly nomadic agricultural people in the middle east. But that's not to say that it has nothing at all to contribute to the shared experience of a much later, much more sophisticated people. But I can no more confirm or deny the individual experiences of Moses or Elijah than I can yours. I just can't assimilate those individual experiences into my own experiential reality because they did not happen to me. I may be able to see some commonalities (e.g. my optimistic hope for a better future based on humanitarian principles and ecological responsibility make me feel like Moses standing on the verge of the promised land but not being allowed to cross over) but I am no more Moses than I am Repox. So I cannot make 'his' or 'your' individual experiences the bedrock on which mine is founded. That's not intolerance, its authenticity - its being to true to my own experience - and if de Chardin is anything like correct about an "Omega Point" at some future time, I suspect it would have to emerge as the most genuinely authentic experiential reality possible - the ultimate Hegelian synthesis of the entire process of reality. If that is what "Christ" represents then, I suppose, I am a "Christian" but that is certainly not what the vast majority of "Christians" mean by it. (I'm sorry, I have digressed, but I am still kind of following thoughts after @MrMrdevincamus comment).

Based on de Chardin's book, the spirit is an invention of humans, and not much different from a material world. It is an invention of the human imagination. I am proposing the supernatural to be outside of our material world in another dimension of reality. What we know about it comes from the Bible. It depends on one's level of faith in the "unknown," but documented reality. It is far fetched to propose all of those patriarchs were liars, but that is the implication of total disbelief. Hegel proposed a dialectic of materialism, but not a theory of the supernatural. We have a lot of anti-supernaturalism in philosophy, or in other intellectual disciplines, but very little examination of the supernatural world. I don't think it is anti-intellectualism to propose such a possibility.

 

[siti]

Based on de Chardin's book, the spirit is an invention of humans, and not much different from a material world. It is an invention of the human imagination. I am proposing the supernatural to be outside of our material world in another dimension of reality. What we know about it comes from the Bible. It depends on one's level of faith in the "unknown," but documented reality. It is far fetched to propose all of those patriarchs were liars, but that is the implication of total disbelief. Hegel proposed a dialectic of materialism, but not a theory of the supernatural. We have a lot of anti-supernaturalism in philosophy, or in other intellectual disciplines, but very little examination of the supernatural world. I don't think it is anti-intellectualism to propose such a possibility.

I certainly did not say the patriarchs were liars - where did that come from? And if you want understand Hegel I suggest you read Hegel. Try looking at the last chapter of Science and Logic. If you can follow it, you'll get a different perspective of both Hegel and God.

 

[metis]

I took a seminar on Fr.Teilhard de Chardin about 30 years ago, and he was truly a fascinating theologian and anthropologist, imo.

 

[Repox]

I certainly did not say the patriarchs were liars - where did that come from? And if you want understand Hegel I suggest you read Hegel. Try looking at the last chapter of Science and Logic. If you can follow it, you'll get a different perspective of both Hegel and God.

I was assuming you didn't believe Bible stories. Their experiences are an introduction to the supernatural world. If you are seeking explanations for the supernatural, I think it is a good place to start. I understand Hegel's dialecticism and it's relationship to Marx's analysis of social classes. It is not difficult to understand Hegel's thesis. It doesn't negate the possibility of the supernatural, it just explains the dialectic process of ideas for society. I'll look up the book Science and Logic when I have time.

I know it is difficult to comprehend another dimension of reality having little in common with our universe. However, you have to conceive it that way. It is devoid of matter and energy, it has no transitional processes, or formative features resembling anything in our material world. I believe dark matter is the key for understanding the universe. Somehow, it's the glue which keeps Satan inside.

 

[ArtieE]

I was assuming you didn't believe Bible stories. Their experiences are an introduction to the supernatural world. If you are seeking explanations for the supernatural, I think it is a good place to start.

I highly recommend you go to the Internet Sacred Text Archive.
Internet Sacred Text Archive Home
If you read everything there you will probably know all there is to know about the supernatural world.

 

[siti]

I was assuming you didn't believe Bible stories.

There's an enormous difference between saying that someone is a liar and acknowledging that someone intentionally wrote a 'story' with a moral (and perhaps philosophical) message embedded in metaphor and symbolism because they thought it was a good way to teach in a bronze-age semi-nomadic tribal agricultural society. They're only liars if their intent was to deceive and I don't believe it was. I'm not even sure that the 'patriarchs' you refer to even existed, as historical individuals, and the 'stories' they may have started were certainly subjected to centuries of redaction, insertion and manipulation until the versions of the 'stories' we have now would probably be entirely unrecognizable to the 2nd millenium BC shepherds from whose imaginations their originals sprang. But that doesn't mean the shepherds were 'liars' - just that they told their kids some pretty vivid stories. No harm in that to them - but to us? That's a different question - but entirely our responsibility not theirs.

It is not difficult to understand Hegel's thesis.

With all due respect, that probably means you don't - but I suggest reading the last chapter of Science of Logic first if you do want to get an handle on Hegel's 'metaphysics'.

 

[Repox]

There's an enormous difference between saying that someone is a liar and acknowledging that someone intentionally wrote a 'story' with a moral (and perhaps philosophical) message embedded in metaphor and symbolism because they thought it was a good way to teach in a bronze-age semi-nomadic tribal agricultural society. They're only liars if their intent was to deceive and I don't believe it was. I'm not even sure that the 'patriarchs' you refer to even existed, as historical individuals, and the 'stories' they may have started were certainly subjected to centuries of redaction, insertion and manipulation until the versions of the 'stories' we have now would probably be entirely unrecognizable to the 2nd millenium BC shepherds from whose imaginations their originals sprang. But that doesn't mean the shepherds were 'liars' - just that they told their kids some pretty vivid stories. No harm in that to them - but to us? That's a different question - but entirely our responsibility not theirs.

With all due respect, that probably means you don't - but I suggest reading the last chapter of Science of Logic first if you do want to get an handle on Hegel's 'metaphysics'.

I don't find Hegel or any other philosopher to be enlightening for understanding the supernatural world. What philosophy proposes are material explanations, not spiritual. I find prophets from the Old Testament to have the best understanding of the supernatural, they experienced it. My primary reference for the supernatural are my experiences which I've posted on this forum. Here is one related to this thread.

In my dream about the universe, Satan was in heaven in the form of a green parrot's beak attacking other angels. As it came at me, God captured it with two hands. Inside the hands, there was a lot of commotion as Satan tried to escape. Then, God opened His hands. On the inside of both hands were jagged pieces of black metal. I believe they represented ugly scares on the boundary of the universe from Satan's desperate attempts to escape.

Since then, I have done some research. Evidently, scientists have found big black holes or anomalies on the boundary of our universe. Some scientists think it is from other universes bouncing off our universe. However, there is no evidence for other universes. Scientists call it "Axis of Evil."

 

[ronandcarol]

What caused the Big Bang?
Some Hollywood script writers.
ronandcarol

 

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

Can science explain the big bang or did god do it? Science unfortunately gave the name big bang to the beginning of the universe we inhabit. Here's the problem. When people hear that name they immeadiately think an explosion or at least a violent event. Thing is no explosion would cause relative order which is what we see after the bang. We see things becoming ordered in a unique way like galaxy formation star formation and planet system formation. Actually the big bang is what we call a phase transition. when a solid becomes a liquid it is a phase transition or when liquid becomes gas it is phase transition. Before big bang we had all forces of nature running crazy no restraints really on energies or basically anything after the bang laws operate making particles travel at certain speeds making spins of particles a given velocity or direction. Basically stipulations were given to all behaviors of atomic things and stipulations were given to the behavior of the vacuum or space itself. The big bang is a phase transition from lawless universe into law abiding universe. This happened thru a process of cooling. I mean really cooling. The vacuum of space is incredibly cold except in places where giant galaxies or giant stars have formed. Could a God or the God have caused this. Well, all the mystic traditions eventually come around to a God who is uncaused/noncaused and Transcendent. This means that the universe is God and it actually wasn't even created but rather has just been being itself because there's nothing else it can do. What gods operation is while it is what it is I suppose is gods business. In one sense it can kind of stink to be human. But we just ahve to link with the flow. If we do this correctly our being in tune will aide us not hinder us.

 

[Thief]

Can science explain the big bang or did god do it? Science unfortunately gave the name big bang to the beginning of the universe we inhabit. Here's the problem. When people hear that name they immeadiately think an explosion or at least a violent event. Thing is no explosion would cause relative order which is what we see after the bang. We see things becoming ordered in a unique way like galaxy formation star formation and planet system formation. Actually the big bang is what we call a phase transition. when a solid becomes a liquid it is a phase transition or when liquid becomes gas it is phase transition. Before big bang we had all forces of nature running crazy no restraints really on energies or basically anything after the bang laws operate making particles travel at certain speeds making spins of particles a given velocity or direction. Basically stipulations were given to all behaviors of atomic things and stipulations were given to the behavior of the vacuum or space itself. The big bang is a phase transition from lawless universe into law abiding universe. This happened thru a process of cooling. I mean really cooling. The vacuum of space is incredibly cold except in places where giant galaxies or giant stars have formed. Could a God or the God have caused this. Well, all the mystic traditions eventually come around to a God who is uncaused/noncaused and Transcendent. This means that the universe is God and it actually wasn't even created but rather has just been being itself because there's nothing else it can do. What gods operation is while it is what it is I suppose is gods business. In one sense it can kind of stink to be human. But we just ahve to link with the flow. If we do this correctly our being in tune will aide us not hinder us.

you almost had it.......

If the bang had been a simple.......'bang'
all we would see is a single sphere of a pulse
one shock wave

that's not what we see when we look up

it's the rotation that gives you the insight

and the rotation had to be in play BEFORE the expansion began

So for years I have posted........
it began with the pinch and snap of God's fingers upon the singularity

 

[Valjean]

Can science explain the big bang or did god do it?

Science hasn't explained it, but I wouldn't say science can't.
Goddidit, of course, explains nothing. It's an assertion of agency, not an explanation.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Apart from the 'immortal' bit yes I (more or less) agree. Oddly enough, although I do not profess Christianity, I certainly think it is possible to put this kind of thinking in a Christian context. I recommend reading Teilhard de Chardin's Phenomenon of Man. He was a Jesuit priest who was also a paleontologist and coined the term 'Omega Point' as the ultimate outcome of the process of evolution...anyway, he says it better than I can - the link takes you to the internet archive version and you can download it free from there in various formats.

I will look for 'Phenomenon of Man' online. I like to keep an open mind to any possibility, nearly all ideas and conjectures. My religious beliefs occupy a special place in my mind and heart, but even they are open to critical review. I must. With the emergence of new unexpected evidences both religious folks whose relativity is built on a supernatural God, and I guess, ironically so, those with a reality created by empirical science, it is truly a brave new world.