The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
The fact is that we could not understand how the Universe ,Time or Life began if God spent months telling us . Most people can not deal with an all knowing God that will hold them accountable one day and thus seeks to reject his existence . BUT ! They better get used to it though with our all intrusive NSA and even private domestic spies and they have not gathered that information for nothing .
The Big Bang Theory has accomplished it's original task . It has given those that can not reconcile themselves with being under what they see as a repressive all knowing God the perfect escape from that reality . And those people don't even care to check it out . Everything came from "Nothingness" the size of a dot . How plausible is that ? And they stand tall and think the Christians are week minded .

We are a curious bunch aren't we !

'What you mean, "we," Kemosabe?'

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Greylorn

 

There's a lot of very responsible work being done by good scientists that agree with what you're suggesting here. Personally, I see the Big Bang and the creator God as being two versions of the same theory. Good thoughts here. It'll take a while for any real progress to be made on this front, but both versions are being challenged in ways that would not have been possible only a handful of years ago.

You seem to be well qualified to contribute on the field, rather than from the sidelines.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

I believe Steven Crothers is a member of Above Top Secret, so you can probably ask him yourself. I can't remember his screen name, but he was championed on these boards by AnarchoCapitalist, the last of the diehard electric-universalists. Drop AC a u2u and he'll probably put you on to Crothers.

But before you do any of that: A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors

Thanks Astyanax.

I remember when Crothers was here. He was actually invited to these forums by another member here, who is a personal friend of his. He is very approachable. Here is his rebuttal.....and on it goes.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REPLY.pdf

My point really, is that IMO whether he is right or wrong, it is not a bad thing to have people question and scrutinize science. It's a necessary part of science. The name of the page of your link seems to illustrate my point ie. "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy". Unless something has changed recently, Crothers is not religious in any way.

Back to the topic. Scientific theories (whether right or wrong) are explanations based on observation and must have the possibility of being falsified. In this instance the notion the universe had a beginning and expanded (is expanding) led to a theory based on observation, supported by facts and has withstood scrutiny. Though it has always had critics, as it should and if someone can falsify it, all the better. We learn and move on. For those that dislike it, there is always that opportunity.

The claim "god made it" is not reasonable, not testable/ falsifiable nor can it be based on observation. It is simply putting an extra imaginary being into the mix and there is no reason to even suppose such a thing (re scientific explanations), until we can make an observation of god in some way.

It's fair enough to base it simply on personal belief or story books, but that isn't science. In no way are Cosmology Theory and "god made it" equals.

reply to post by Greylorn


It's possible this could be true. I have to ask though...if God decided to make a universe all of a sudden, why didn't he make it right? If your going to make something and your God, make it right.

Children born to suffer and die is all the proof I need God doesn't exist. Or he's one sick psychopath.

The BBT is compatible with creationism.

Scientists believe that the bigbang is an immense explosive cocktail of high energy photons(light) quickly transmuting into matter and back and vice versa until stabilizing.

They've approximated the event in a particle accelerator.

Isn't the first act of creation by God - "let there be light (photons)"?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Thank you for the compliment. Perhaps this encounter of ours will be less abrasive than the last.

I believe a Big Bang occurred: that the universe expanded in spacetime from a point of zero dimensions. The existence of the cosmic microwave background, which no-one expected or thought to predict, is strong evidence for an initial event of this kind. However, I would be happy to admit – and I believe Stephen Hawking would be, too – that we have really no idea how or why that happened, although we're pretty sure of when and where it did.

Let us terminate our initial territorial confrontations. Snarling takes a lot of energy, but as with mating wolverines, it serves a useful sorting process.

Your clause, "I believe..." suggests that you acknowledge that your beliefs about the beginnings of things. are just that--- beliefs, which for a competent mind can be transitory. Methinks that you and I are aiming at the same target, but from different mountaintops. If so, I have much to learn from you.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Your list of commonalities between the God Did It theory and the Big Bang theory is quite impressive, but it is predicated on an assumption that may not be true: that the universe had a cause. It seems intuitively obvious that it must have, but you evidently know more than enough physics to have learnt that intuition is a very poor guide to understanding reality.

Nice observation. Actually not so much nice as insightful. Yet, consider approaching this issue from the philosophical perspective as well as the physics perspective. Forgetting the niceties, where did all the stuff in our universe come from? What brought this universe into existence? More relevant, what brought you, and your conscious mind into existence?

Your inference that my ideas require a cause is correct.

A genuinely single thing such as God or the micropea/physical singularity cannot have an internal cause, IMO.

Since a cause cannot exist in a space with only one thing, my hypothesis requires two things. And in the context of mathematical ideas about space and time that I do not fully understand, two interacting things require a larger space in which they can exist and interact. That makes three things.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Causality is a temporal phenomenon. It presupposes 'before' and 'after'. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen people ask 'what happened before the Big Bang?' in this forum, I'd be able to afford a Porsche. Yet temporality is a deeply mysterious thing. I incline to the view that it is a by-product of the way our sensoria have evolved to interpret reality. Time is not as we know it; past and future, before and after, may be biological artifacts.

I agree completely, and regard the universe as a state-machine, You might appreciate this book, although it was written for an audience with IQs about ten ticks lower than yours. And no, it does not describe the universe as a state-machine. That's my idea.
www.amazon.com...=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Originally posted by Astyanax
Perhaps time has no physical reality at all. A great many problems, in philosophy as well as in physics, would vanish into thin air if that were true. I won't guess at the nature of the hypothesis you say you have developed to explain the origins of the universe, but if I had the knowledge and motivation to develop one of my own it would certainly involve a fresh look at time.

As does mine.

Originally posted by Astyanax
By the way, a physics student who answered an exam question about the formation of vapour shock collars round transonic objects by properly invoking a Prandtl-Glauert singularity would assuredly get full marks.

However, the professor should get a big fat zero. What kind of nit would ask such a dumb question?

I'll not pretend to have studied aerodynamics, but I do not believe in physical singularities, and my internet search found this, on Wikipedia: Because it is invalid to apply the transformation at these speeds, the predicted singularity does not emerge. Once again, physical reality thrusts its middle finger in the face of ill-considered physical theory. It's why I love physics-- the answers are all in the bible of reality.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thanks, Astyanax

You're welcome. I recognise the qualitative differences between the Big Bang hypothesis and the assertion 'God did it.' I agree with the OP only so far as to say that neither of those narratives provides a good causal explanation for the original, universe-creating event. Unlike the OP, I have no expectation that it can be explained given the current state of our knowledge, but I would not object to being proven wrong. In the meantime, I am quite satisfied with the good old Big Bang.

Regarding Crothers, the link I posted was simply to show you that his ideas are indeed being considered and responded to by the physics community. Frankly, I think he gets more attention than he deserves. This may be prejudice – I am certainly not competent to follow his arguments in detail or criticise his mathematics – but I do have special skills of my own, and one of them is the ability to read with insight. It is clear from Crothers's writing that he is a man with an inalienable conviction of his own rightness and intellectual superiority who carries a sequoia-sized chip on his shoulder. That doesn't automatically means his ideas are wrong, but it is telling nonetheless, and combined with the proven success of relativity theory and the widespread dismissal of his work from scientists who have bothered to read it, I consider it damning.

reply to post by Greylorn

At the current rate of progress, I'll OP a new idea about once a month and have the complete theory reproduced in about five years.

Sadly, I'm not sure my attention span – or my workload – can handle that. Perhaps I'll just buy your book when it comes out.

*

reply to post by Greylorn

Methinks that you and I are aiming at the same target, but from different mountaintops. If so, I have much to learn from you.

You flatter me, alas. I have no urge to untangle the mysteries of the cosmos. I just dabble in these things for entertainment's sake. As for intellectual elevation, I'm the ploughman in the valley with his face full of mud.

I agree completely, and regard the universe as a state-machine, You might appreciate this book... it does not describe the universe as a state-machine. That's my idea.

Here's one for you, then. Barbour sees time as a configuration space containing all possible solutions of the universal probability function. A sort of state machine, in other words.

I find his hypothesis fascinating and – as long as he sticks to physics – plausible. Unfortunately, any useful theory of a timeless universe must also explain how and why we experience duration and consequence. Barbour falters when he gets to this part. J.W. Dunne, about a hundred years before Barbour, saw the difficulty and tried to deal with it, but his arguments disappear into an abyss of nested regression where I, at least, cannot follow. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by wirefly
reply to post by Greylorn

 

You've adopted one of the two primary choices: God or not-God. Why accept those choices? They were set up for you by someone else. What if there are other choices that include the understanding that we live in a created universe, but define the creators of that universe differently than common religionists? Would you consider such possibilities?

Would you consider the possibility that physics preceded the "spark?"

I would. However, being of a somewhat simple mind, I can't fathom a scenario that encompasses, satisfactorily, all of the elements that would make that possible. My reasoning tends to 'snap to the grid' of a black and white, two choice option. From where came the laws governing the pre-spark physics? Once we back it down to a step before the spark, my head swims. In fact, I really have nothing in relation to where God came from before the spark either. I suppose that is where my comfort lies. I wouldn't know what else to tell you at that point and well, I'm comfortable in my ignorance with my belief. I would surly not condemn another for their differing belief as I have nothing else to offer.

Originally posted by ahnggk
The BBT is compatible with creationism.

Scientists believe that the bigbang is an immense explosive cocktail of high energy photons(light) quickly transmuting into matter and back and vice versa until stabilizing.

They've approximated the event in a particle accelerator.

Isn't the first act of creation by God - "let there be light (photons)"?

Exactly! And....The Light was found to be "good"! We are one slice of bread from the entire loaf ~ we feed off one another (energy/light).

What we see is ONLY what is revealed BY the Light!

reply to post by MamaJ


What is meant by "good"? How can photons be found to be "good"?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


In the beginning there was nothing and God said let there be light - God saw the light and it was good. The end.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

In the beginning there was nothing and God said let there be light - God saw the light and it was good. The end.

In other words

I'm done thinking

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

In the beginning there was nothing and God said let there be light - God saw the light and it was good. The end.

In other words

I'm done thinking

Nice interpretation.
Do you think or does thinking just happen? Thought appears and all that appears is the light that God sees.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I wonder if you read some of the thread before posting in it? We are not arguing science vs. religion here (except for a few off-topic obsessives who can't give it up). We are considering the possibility that both are inadequate and possibly false representations of the truth. The OP is preparing a revelation, and we are hoping he will not disappoint. Suspend your disbelief (and your belief) for the moment, and take it easy!

reply to post by Astyanax


The big bang and a god (the creator) doing it all are based on the idea that it happened along time ago.
Time is the problem - there is no time.
All is arising now.
Now is the source of the past and future - past and future are concepts arising always presently.
This is the source - it is all appearing out of nowhere - now here is all there ever was, is, will be.

Have you noticed that the present never goes anywhere? The present is the singularity - the present is seeing the present always - the present is ever changing in the unchanging present.

reply to post by Gazrok


when i look unto humanity, i don't see a god, not a loving, caring, compassionate god anyways.

If there is a god (pagan, muslim, or judo-chistian) then it is a malevolent, spiteful, childish, immature, and counter-productive god(dess)

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Time is the problem - there is no time.

All is arising now.

And passing.

If you look just a couple of posts above your first, you will see that the role played by time and concepts of temporality in the discussion of origins is already being considered. The point is, we don't know the truth about time. The way it appears to us may be completely illusory – in fact, thanks to relativity, we know it is.

Getting all Buddhist about it is fine as one prescription (though not the only one) for living, but it is not the issue being considered here. We're not concerning ourselves with whether any of this matters – at least, most of us are not, and I don't think the OP is either. There are no practical applications – as yet. Philosophy, you understand... probably in the wrong forum, but what does it matter.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Greylorn

 

And if I might add:

Each still requires a creator of themselves.

edit on 15-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

Please explain what you mean by this comment. Flesh it out. Provide an antecedent. Thanks!

If I could provide the antecedent to God or the Big Bang I probably would've won the Nobel prize for doing so, and therefore would likely be sipping on a Manhattan on my yacht off the coast of the French Riviera right now.

The dilemma for both sides of the existing debate is that there has to be a creator of the creator- at least as I see it.

You want your almighty omnipotent God? Hey, Im cool and the gang with that. But tell me then, who/what created your God? What is this God composed of? Pure energy? Pure knowledge? What is it and where did it come from? The major flaw with this view is we impose our human characteristics on this God, give it our emotions etc, and seemingly forget that there exists other intelligent life out there. And these beings will most certainly have a completely different understanding of how our universe came to be. So we couldn't/shouldn't impose our God universally.

On the flip side of this crooked token I can ask the same of the Big Bang, can't I. The current framework of the Big Bang now includes a "semi-antecedent" called Inflationary Theory. Which to me is just a made up concept devised to fit into the model- just so we have something we can refer to as a cause. But what then created inflation? All the information- rules, laws, et al- that our universe abides by, which then gave rise to life- all existed in this initial point. What then created these laws; this information, this energy? The fact that light (photons) carries information. Something had to devise these abilities and rules, right? They don't come from nothing. Nothing doesn't exist.

But then the catch 22 is, at some point there had to be nothing from which everything came to be- a god of the god, or the cause of the cause of the Big Bang. The whole chicken or the egg dilemma. Or is it just one infinite matryoshka doll...

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Greylorn

 

And if I might add:

Each still requires a creator of themselves.

edit on 15-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

This is always a good point, but it might be resolvable.

Since the micropea/singularity and an omnipotent God are inherently complex entities, we would expect a creator. The micropea had to be at Entropy 0 at the point of the Bang--- so who, or what process, squeezed all that energy, matter, and physics into something smaller than a neutrino? A similar point can be made about God.

But what if we begin with an entirely different process for the beginnings? Two independently existing spaces, each defined by an unstructured substance, each capable of exerting a single internal force, both contained in a superspace, both uncreated, existing in a perfectly static state at Entropy 1.

Yeah, that's enough to be confusing. I hope to describe the concept in a different thread, but your question seemed to deserve a sneak peek.