I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

ETA:
My opinion of the big bang theory is it's our current best understanding we've supposed for the physical universe coming into being. Nothing more.
In years to come, future "intellectuals" will find it laughable as today's do with theories and myths of old.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Xenogears
So in order to follow your argumentation and storyline logically to understand what you're talking about, I just need to change my perception, knowledge and understanding of the meaning of the word "simulation"? Somehow I'm not surprised. I was quoting from the google dictionary btw.

The list of words that are bing warped to accomodate people's mythological philosophies continues to grow*...

nothing
design (designer, designing)
information
complex(ity)
machines
factual/absolute/certain/true
science/knowledge
hypothesis
evolution
(scientific) progress (regarding knowledge in a particular field or regarding a specific subject, usually the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis")
truth/reality
simulation
possible
random
God, god
name
title
noun
Lord, lord
Father, father(s)
Son, son(s)
Shepherd, shepherd(s)
Savior(s)
image of
firstborn of all creation
one (playing around with taking an unambiguously figurative use literally doing the Isa 5:20,21 thingy)
soul
spirit (not the same as soul, conflated by many)
hell (from the Latin: hel, not a word found in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, connected to the Pagan Babylonian mythologies of an underworld and the myth of the immortal soul)
death
life (or alive)
etc.

*: or triggerwords for misleading warped ways of thinking about related subjects

And I still don't know what it's supposedly a simulation of, if it's not a simulation of something else, the word "simulation" does not apply.

Add:

cause (the noun)
give rise to/begin/cause (the verb)
beginning
eternal
infinite
universe
time
space
logical
illogical
contradiction
possible
impossible
possibility
impossibility

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
a reply to: Dark Ghost

ETA:
My opinion of the big bang theory is it's our current best understanding we've supposed for the physical universe coming into being. Nothing more.
In years to come, future "intellectuals" will find it laughable as today's do with theories and myths of old.

What we call the big bang is an observation. Observations don't really change like if i say the sun is the center of our solar system. No matter what theory on solar development we use that fact doesn't change. In the case of the universe we know its expanding and we know it used to be a lot smaller. What we don't know is how the big bang started. And the theory doesnt even attempt to address that. For all we know it was caused by a leprechaun trying to hide his pot of gold.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

My opinion of the big bang theory is it's our current best understanding we've supposed for the physical universe coming into being. Nothing more.

It seems you judge the state of scientific knowledge by the state of your own. Congratulations; you live in a genuinely anthropocentric -- indeed, an egocentric -- universe.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Pleased to meet you.

Pleased to meet you. Thank you for responding.

I'm happy to tell you about my position.
I'm fairly scientifically minded, the science I'm most interested in is Psychology. But I have a greater passion for metaphysics and philosophy. I'm not religious but I feel I have an understanding why others are, which differs greatly from the general consensus of the "educated" on this site.

I'm probably in a similar position to you. Overall my knowledge of science is basic to moderate. I have been educated on all the sciences while in high school, but I only did Psychology as a university subject. I also have a great passion for philosophy and metaphysics. I currently identify as an atheist, even though I was born into a monotheistic religion and identified as agnostic for most of my adult life.

In the West, the priority of "education" over "critical thinking" is a shortcoming that is not likely to be addressed any time soon. I personally believe the way most people view education (comprehending knowledge so that you can recall this information at a later time) is very narrow in application.

The problem you will find on these types of science themed boards is that most of the people that participate are very good at providing technical knowledge of science itself, but many of them come across as closed-minded and lack the ability to empathise with somebody who has not devoted most of their time studying science. Which is fine on these science themed threads, but when you encounter them on non science themed threads, it is interesting to note the way they see other issues. It is way too "scientifically-approached" and does not allow for entertaining a range of views, only one that can be backed by their "scientific" stance.

I made a comment about science being the new religion. How people act in similar ways to the religious when what they think, know, believe comes under question. I also made a comment about today's theories being yesterday's myths in the sense that both where/are fundamentally the best way available of the times to try to understand where we came from.

I can understand their outrage to an extent. Many religious people DO make the claim "science is just another religion" in an attempt to discredit science and the people that value it. It's a cheap method that doesn't take into account the rigorous demand for strong evidence that science tends to promote.

The actual issue is not with science itself, but the way in which "scientists" have become one of the strongest authoritative bodies, almost like the Pope is for Catholicism. The number of people that will believe a claim when it is attributed to "scientists" without thinking about how reasonable the belief is on its own merit is frightening. Also, the degree to which science has entered politics and economics (none of which have yet infected science themselves) is troublesome. If that is what you are alluding to then I agree.

People didn't like what I said and pretty much started to act like what I first stated, so I thought I would test it further.

It's unfortunate that this happens, but unless you clearly state your position, you will run onto "testing the waters" on a topic that is so polarised. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to go into great detail just to explain why I was saying what I am saying just because of the unwarranted assumptions people made about me before I started doing it. It is a necessary evil though if you want to be taken seriously and others can be assured you are taking them seriously.

Interesting results and much to think about.

Yes, it is, but you have to accept the consequences of your experiment (as I have had to when I did some in the past). Then you and the people you are testing can learn something.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
My opinion of the big bang theory is it's our current best understanding we've supposed for the physical universe coming into being. Nothing more.
In years to come, future "intellectuals" will find it laughable as today's do with theories and myths of old.

Until people that are hard-line pro-science and closed-minded decide to change the closed-mindedness, they will not see your perspective. They are yet to understand that as social creatures, our greatest strength lies in understanding each other as opposed to understanding physical reality.

A question that is good to ask is: where did this thing come from?



Before the image looked like the one abowe it probably looked like the one bellow.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The actual issue is not with science itself, but the way in which "scientists" have become one of the strongest authoritative bodies, almost like the Pope is for Catholicism.

In popular culture, science and scientists are seen as sources of authority -- mostly in terms of health and dietary advice and arguments about little-known and essentially marginal subjects such as black holes and the Big Bang. But the 'authorities' being invoked in every case are not scientists but journalists.

People at this level have no meaningful access to real science or scientists. They don't know what science is or what scientists do. And so, to them, 'science' (thought of not as a mental and practical discipline but as some kind of political or bureaucratic establishment) can only be one source of authority among many -- religious beliefs, popular myths, political creeds, the government, the media, their favourite pop or movie star.

This is what you might call the situation at the Average ATS User level.

Better-educated folk understand that the only authority science has is evidence-based. Reality, as Philip K. Dick memorably said, is that which continues to exist even when you stop believing in it. Science derives what authority it had from being able to provide an accurate, verifiable account of reality.

Better-educated people place greater store on scientific authority than any other because it is the only source of authority whose claims are verifiable. But they also realize that science has its limits: certain questions can't be answered scientifically (which usually means they can't be answered at all). Experimental results are often hard to replicate. Scientists are opinionated and quarrelsome. And most disappointing of all for those who seek certainty, no scientific conclusion is ever final.

In reality, moreover, scientists have hardly any authority at all. You only have to look at how much (or rather how little) account is taken of science in the making of government policy, how people ignore scientific recommendations with regard to their own health and diet, how so many Christians and Muslims reject the theory of evolution, and so on. If science is an authority, the public is laughing in its face.

As for our 'ruinous' friend, I sincerely doubt all his protestations. His reality seems to be as labile as that inhabited by a certain orange-hued politician. One moment he's condemning the Big Bang Myth, the next he accepts that the Big Bang is 'our best estimate' of what really happened. When asked to explain the difference between myth and scientific theory he wriggles and havers as if being asked to reveal his tax return, and ultimately declines. Not, I think, a person whose claims can be relied on.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Pleased to meet you.

Pleased to meet you. Thank you for responding.

I'm happy to tell you about my position.
I'm fairly scientifically minded, the science I'm most interested in is Psychology. But I have a greater passion for metaphysics and philosophy. I'm not religious but I feel I have an understanding why others are, which differs greatly from the general consensus of the "educated" on this site.

I'm probably in a similar position to you. Overall my knowledge of science is basic to moderate. I have been educated on all the sciences while in high school, but I only did Psychology as a university subject. I also have a great passion for philosophy and metaphysics. I currently identify as an atheist, even though I was born into a monotheistic religion and identified as agnostic for most of my adult life.

In the West, the priority of "education" over "critical thinking" is a shortcoming that is not likely to be addressed any time soon. I personally believe the way most people view education (comprehending knowledge so that you can recall this information at a later time) is very narrow in application.

The problem you will find on these types of science themed boards is that most of the people that participate are very good at providing technical knowledge of science itself, but many of them come across as closed-minded and lack the ability to empathise with somebody who has not devoted most of their time studying science. Which is fine on these science themed threads, but when you encounter them on non science themed threads, it is interesting to note the way they see other issues. It is way too "scientifically-approached" and does not allow for entertaining a range of views, only one that can be backed by their "scientific" stance.

I made a comment about science being the new religion. How people act in similar ways to the religious when what they think, know, believe comes under question. I also made a comment about today's theories being yesterday's myths in the sense that both where/are fundamentally the best way available of the times to try to understand where we came from.

I can understand their outrage to an extent. Many religious people DO make the claim "science is just another religion" in an attempt to discredit science and the people that value it. It's a cheap method that doesn't take into account the rigorous demand for strong evidence that science tends to promote.

The actual issue is not with science itself, but the way in which "scientists" have become one of the strongest authoritative bodies, almost like the Pope is for Catholicism. The number of people that will believe a claim when it is attributed to "scientists" without thinking about how reasonable the belief is on its own merit is frightening. Also, the degree to which science has entered politics and economics (none of which have yet infected science themselves) is troublesome. If that is what you are alluding to then I agree.

People didn't like what I said and pretty much started to act like what I first stated, so I thought I would test it further.

It's unfortunate that this happens, but unless you clearly state your position, you will run onto "testing the waters" on a topic that is so polarised. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to go into great detail just to explain why I was saying what I am saying just because of the unwarranted assumptions people made about me before I started doing it. It is a necessary evil though if you want to be taken seriously and others can be assured you are taking them seriously.

Interesting results and much to think about.

Yes, it is, but you have to accept the consequences of your experiment (as I have had to when I did some in the past). Then you and the people you are testing can learn something.

Indeed. The issue isn't science itself and it's not an attack in an attempt to discredit, prove this or disprove that. It's a simple observation of similar reactions.
"Doctrine" takes over and there seems to be very little room, or any need for any actual thinking.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
My opinion of the big bang theory is it's our current best understanding we've supposed for the physical universe coming into being. Nothing more.
In years to come, future "intellectuals" will find it laughable as today's do with theories and myths of old.

Until people that are hard-line pro-science and closed-minded decide to change the closed-mindedness, they will not see your perspective. They are yet to understand that as social creatures, our greatest strength lies in understanding each other as opposed to understanding physical reality.

Wise words.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Dark GhostAs for our 'ruinous' friend, I sincerely doubt all his protestations. His reality seems to be as labile as that inhabited by a certain orange-hued politician. One moment he's condemning the Big Bang Myth, the next he accepts that the Big Bang is 'our best estimate' of what really happened. When asked to explain the difference between myth and scientific theory he wriggles and havers as if being asked to reveal his tax return, and ultimately declines. Not, I think, a person whose claims can be relied on.

And again.
I pleased you're actually thinking about stuff now.

But, are you absolutely sure I was condemning the Big Bang theory?

a reply to: Astyanax

You are right, I did omit an important factor in my reply to the other member. The MSM is a major culprit in placing "scientists" on a major pedestal which they did not directly ask it to do, and therefore the scientists being seen as authoritative figures should be attributed to the media — at least in the general sense.

In regard to the other member you are referring to, I will reserve my judgement until I am personally required to doubt his claims or position. So far he has been reasonable and consistent in our interactions together. You are free to maintain your opinion of him and so am I.

Truth WILL present itself on the matter, it is inevitable.

a reply to: droid56

Have to agree with you.. third law of thermodynamics...energy cannot be created or destroyed...

Apart from an entire universe.. lol

a reply to: Astyanax

It seems you judge the state of scientific knowledge by the state of your own. Congratulations; you live in a genuinely anthropocentric -- indeed, an egocentric -- universe.


try a biocentric view instead...

a reply to: Astyanax

In regard to our earlier discussion in this thread, which I had forgotten about due to my tendency to read and participate in many differently themed threads at a time, and I am now able to recall that earlier discussion, I have a more useful way of addressing what I had wanted to ask you about. (THIS POST should trigger what earlier discussion I am referring to.)

In your opinion, what is the most scientifically-backed piece of knowledge (not in quantity of strong evidence, but in quality of ANY of the strong evidence available relating to that knowledge) about anything relating to the Solar System (excluding our knowledge of Earth itself) you feel is accurate enough for you to openly state: "I am 99.99% confident this fact is true and requires no re-examination in order for me to change my mind at this exact moment of time and using the exact technology available to us now?

(I feel we can progress further in our discussion if I phrase the question this way instead of forever trying to find something we can agree is worth examining further.)

I use to be an educated laymen in astronomy. Very astute for an unprofessional and knew a lot about it and followed all the current changes.

Over the years, I stopped following the science but recently noticed many different theories have come up and that the astronomers seem to be less sure of themselves. For example, now black holes, which they had said vehemently no light can ever escapes seems to now allow light to escape in some form.

They also have no idea how black holes get so big…They claim there’s just not enough time since the big bang to have such humongous black holes with the size of billions of suns.
I must say astronomy is making meager progress imo.

Another matter, almost comical, is their theory how the moon was created:

Apparently, some giant body of some sort ages ago slammed into the earth and boomeranged off it and apparently spun around, and miraculously made itself into a perfect moon sized circle and became the moon!
And there is a Santa clause!

First there was nothing? Then it blew up!!?!!? Yeah, it never made sense. But the hope was, they could, sell it. That's how "education" started.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Science, is a beautiful art. There is nothing wrong with a "search for truth". But there is something very wrong, with beating "data" to "agree" with your "educated guess".. (hypothesis)... (Theory). Or as is known, ...Science isn't "education" anymore. It is about a "belief"/education/propaganda.. Religious system, to discredit "truth".

I am reluctant to once again voice my great appreciation for and continued engagement of the field of Philosophy, because I have done so several times in other threads, but since I am yet to state why I have that appreciation in this thread, I will do so, because I believe it will help everyone in this thread who disagrees reach a compromise.

I my opinion, Philosophy is the only example of a system that — so far — has remained uncorrupted after humans have decided to mix politics, economics and law with this field of study. Technically, this has been permitted because humans have not found a way to massively profit off of thinking deeply and thinking well, whereas in science (which also is ITSELF uncorrupted) has managed to corrupt politics, economics and to a much lesser degree, law, because ways have been found to massively profit off of using the scientific method to prove things by people with nefarious agendas that want the general population to believe those results are reliable for the wrong reasons.

Science and Philosophy are both significant topics of discussion. Contrary to the views of extremists from both sides, they actually can go hand-in-hand rather well if the one not being specialised in is still being treated as worthy and beneficial.

If you look over recorded history (where what we now refer to as modern science was practised to a degree in former branches in the past), the most significant and influential figures have all had some sort of strong leaning or interest in the one they are not famous for, compared to other still important figures who were extremely specialised in just the one topic and had only basic knowledge or understanding of the other.

a reply to: Willtell

Don't forget the remarkable supposed 'coincidence' of lunar and solar eclipses ('supposed under the 'Mother Nature did it'-model or storyline by logical follow-through or connected implications). The moon requires to be between a short range of size and distance* to be able to produce that effect for humans to be able to observe them and set their calendars to them (including partial obscuration, half-moon, full moon, etc.). It would also not have been so easy for humans to set specific dates to historical events and calculate the other dates of events based on that certainty. As the bible explains at Genesis 1:14:

Then God said: “Let there be luminaries* [Or “lights.”] in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years.

Which is exactly what they've been doing as is well documented in (human) archeology and historical documentation.

*: btw, if the moon was much closer to or further away from the earth, that would wreak havoc on our oceans (eb and flood balance&ecosysytem) and life in the sea. There are other things it would affect negatively for life as well. What a convenient 'coincidence' again. The moon also affects other things, such as big incoming asteroids, drawing or attracting them to the moon rather than having them wreak havoc on earth. The earth is like a spaceship with all the trimmings including an autopilot. Shields and deflectors for asteroids and harmful radiation (ozone layer) and our personal defense droid or satellite (the moon) to shoot down the big asteroids. The sun is useful as well in this regards (also fuctioning with our ozone layer with the right setting to allow enough or the right type of radiation or light and energy through to the earth but not too much or the wrong type that it would kill everything). Being too close to a supernova isn't a pleasant experience for life on earth either, but I guess that speaks for itself. The number of supernovas and their density increases in certain regions of the universe compared to ours.

If all this isn't enough to make you feel you deserve an intergalactic speeding ticket, consider that we, along with our cousins in the Local Group, are hurtling at a truly astonishing 375 miles a second toward the Virgo Cluster...

That's 1.35 million miles an hour. Better not crash the spaceship by screwing around with the autopilot.
Source: some website via the google search "the earth travel through space"