Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[Ouroboros]

So please provide the scientific data describing the many causes of the big bang?

??? Why? I'm not 100% sold on Big Bang. I have my own little private idea of how it happened, but I'm not even sure how to explain it. You're making the assumption that there are only two options. Big Bang or God. I think that's also due to our human viewpoint to split it that way.

 

[Sapiens]

Fine....then it seems to me you accept the theory that the Cosmos came into existence from non-existence on faith...no questions asked..

It can seem to you whatever you want, but it would still be wrong. Stay out of the argument from ignorance trap if you are able.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We can't (at least not yet), simply because science is something we call "natural science". Nature, as we know it, is this state of affairs. This world. How to deal with things outside our box of view can only at best be mathematical constructs. And even then, they're only our best guesses.

Exactly...it's a guess....and the true believers have faith...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Putting the "cause" of Big Bang into cause/effect is to deflate it into something which is less than what it really is.

Indeed. We don't even know if cause and effect operated before the big bang.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

??? Why? I'm not 100% sold on Big Bang. I have my own little private idea of how it happened, but I'm not even sure how to explain it. You're making the assumption that there are only two options. Big Bang or God. I think that's also due to our human viewpoint to split it that way.

Hey...those options are both finite human dualistic mind concepts.....there was never a beginning to existence.....manifested births and deaths go endlessly in the one infinite cosmos!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Indeed. We don't even know if cause and effect operated before the big bang.

We don't even know if there was a big bang....plenty of true believers tho...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We don't even know if there was a big bang....plenty of true believers tho...

All the observations support the big bang theory. There are no observations which support "God did it".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All the observations support the big bang theory. There are no observations which support "God did it".

Please read my comments before going off half cocked....there never was a beginning or an ending to existence....it is the limited dualistc mind of humans that just can't apprehend an existence beyond mathematical finite time concepts with the necessity of beginnings and endings!

 

[David M]

Exactly...it's a guess....and the true believers have faith...

No, its not a guess. Its a possible explanation that explains the facts as we know them.

No one in the field claims that their particular answer is definitely correct which is why no faith is involved. Science has the honesty to admit that some explanations are tentative and need more information to establish their validity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, its not a guess. Its a possible explanation that explains the facts as we know them.

No one in the field claims that their particular answer is definitely correct which is why no faith is involved. Science has the honesty to admit that some explanations are tentative and need more information to establish their validity.

Agreed...it is a possible explanation....a postulation by the finite human mind...one that attempts to make non-dual timelessness subject to human dualistic time conceptualization and measurement. I have no problem with the scientific process as such....it is ongoing and practical in applications dealing with finite things, but non-duality in reality can't be conceived by the human mind.....not ever...

 

[David M]

We don't even know if there was a big bang....plenty of true believers tho...

Wrong, we do know in what form the current Universe started out and then developed and that is via the process that has been termed "The Big Bang". The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Universe started off very small and without any matter and that it underwent inflation and cooling as the energy density changed. But we can only make such a determination to the Planck Time because our current science does not currently lend itself to describing before that point.

An important point is that the Big Bang Theory limits itself to describing how our Universe developed, it does not pretend to explain all possible existences (if there are such things), just the single one that we can observe.

As I have said we don't have good evidence of what cause there might be due to the inherent nature of looking outside the confines of space-time in which we exist, what we have is a number of competing hypothesis and the search is on for the evidence that will confirm or falsify those hypotheses. However it is perfectly possible to establish that an event has taken place without establishing what the precise cause was.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong, we do know in what form the current Universe started out and then developed and that is via the process that has been termed "The Big Bang". The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Universe started off very small and without any matter and that it underwent inflation and cooling as the energy density changed. But we can only make such a determination to the Planck Time because our current science does not currently lend itself to describing before that point.

An important point is that the Big Bang Theory limits itself to describing how our Universe developed, it does not pretend to explain all possible existences (if there are such things), just the single one that we can observe.

As I have said we don't have good evidence of what cause there might be due to the inherent nature of looking outside the confines of space-time in which we exist, what we have is a number of competing hypothesis and the search is on for the evidence that will confirm or falsify those hypotheses. However it is perfectly possible to establish that an event has taken place without establishing what the precise cause was.

Ok, you say the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Universe started off very small....and then tell me that science has no evidence of what the cause was....

C'mon....I've already explained that the human conceptual mind can't apprehend non-duality....but orthodox BB science ignores this reality and arrogantly speaks on matters beyond their ken...and the dualistic minded students accept it as credible science...

 

[McBell]

It is the implication silly....if there was no preexisting existence, relative to our 'known' universe, then the known universe would logically have to have had it genesis in non-existence, nothingness, void, timelessness, etc...

So you have turned a false dichotomy into a strawman..?

Things do not look good for your "argument"....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

C'mon....I've already explained that the human conceptual mind can't apprehend non-duality....but orthodox BB science ignores this reality and arrogantly speaks on matters beyond their ken...and the dualistic minded students accept it as credible science...

What on earth has a meditative experience of non-duality got to do with the OP?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Ok, you say the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Universe started off very small....and then tell me that science has no evidence of what the cause was....

You are claiming that scientific inquiry is incomplete, so it's conclusions are suspect.

We don't even know if there was a big bang....plenty of true believers tho...

You are claiming that scientific inquiry is faith-based, so its conclusions are suspect.

These are two different arguments about the nature of scientific inquiry, but both show a lack of understanding of what scientific inquiry is (plus logical fallacies, but let's not consider those yet).

Could you define the term "scientific inquiry" first? What do you think scientific inquiry is? How do you think it works? Maybe these arguments would be less circular and more productive if you started with a definition. So what is it to you?

 

[Ouroboros]

Indeed. We don't even know if cause and effect operated before the big bang.

Exactly. And honestly, the more I've meditated over the concept of cause-and-effect over the years, the less I can say it's as straightforward and simple as philosophy makes it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hey...those options are both finite human dualistic mind concepts.....there was never a beginning to existence.....manifested births and deaths go endlessly in the one infinite cosmos!

Yes, I agree with that. The totality of existence has no ends, no beginning, no end. We can call that God, or we can call it Cosmos, or we can call it both, or neither if we so want.

 

[David M]

Ok, you say the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Universe started off very small....and then tell me that science has no evidence of what the cause was....

We do not need to know the initial cause of an event to establish how an event happened after it starts. If a window is broken then its broken, you don't need to know what caused the breakage to establish that it is broken and how the class shattered and fell.

We have evidence of the Big Bang being the correct explanation for the development of the universe as it appears now. Whether the cause was Branes, a cyclical crunch/expansion or any of the other possible causes that is not relevant to the fact that we have good evidence of what happened from the Planck Time onwards.

 

[outhouse]

We don't even know if there was a big bang....

We know the universe factually expanded. So a big bang is factual.


Sorry you have no leg to stand on here.

 

[Sapiens]

I'd say a big bang is probable, rather than factual.