The Big Bang: The Bible Taught It First

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree

BlaxicanHydra
What sucks is that a lot of people won't read your post because it's too long, so they'll just say it's all bullshit. Atheists for you no expression

Adam_PoE
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

Crimson Phoenix
There have been other religious texts that have decribed the big bang long before the bible has

PITT_HAPPENS
I would rather have him link to the article that he is posting than copy and paste it and then put in his own thoughts not trying to pass them off as his own wink

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/science/creation-questions/SC-creation-questions-days-genesis.htm

inimalist
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I would rather have him link to the article that he is posting than copy and paste it and then put in his own thoughts not trying to pass them off as his own wink

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/science/creation-questions/SC-creation-questions-days-genesis.htm

/sigh

lol

really, if the bible wants to support a scientific theory, all power to it smile

Symmetric Chaos
But everybody already knows that the BigBangTheory was originally presented by a former priest (who IIRC had drawn his inspiration from the bible) . . .

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But everybody already knows that the BigBangTheory was originally presented by a former priest (who IIRC had drawn his inspiration from the bible) . . .


weird, ive never heard that

Shakyamunison
4. The universe has no beginning.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
weird, ive never heard that

Most people haven't. I just wanted to sound clever stick out tongue

I came across it in "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" I think. Surprised me at first but it does actually makes sense.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
4. The universe has no beginning.

I heard this interview with a man named Victor J Stenger. He wrote a book called The Comprehensible Cosmos in which he describes a universe that could have been created by a big bang, but also has no beginning.

I think your position is recollapsing universes, and he takes a bit different of a view, namely that nothing existed before the universe, and because nothing is so unstable, it had to collapse into something. But before the universe there was no time, so this nothing never really happened at any time... one of those ones smile

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most people haven't. I just wanted to sound clever stick out tongue

I came across it in "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" I think. Surprised me at first but it does actually makes sense.

I have a friend who sings praises about that book. It does make a lot of sense too. I've never seen why religion can't be compatible with science, but then, I'm not religious

As for the poll....


How about a "I think the universe was a byproduct of physical laws that are the exact opposite of random"

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I heard this interview with a man named Victor J Stenger. He wrote a book called The Comprehensible Cosmos in which he describes a universe that could have been created by a big bang, but also has no beginning.

I think your position is recollapsing universes, and he takes a bit different of a view, namely that nothing existed before the universe, and because nothing is so unstable, it had to collapse into something. But before the universe there was no time, so this nothing never really happened at any time... one of those ones smile

I am familiar with that theory. I really don't know, but it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
recollapsing universes Also, chaotic inflation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations. Because then there'd be no fun. evil face

Bardock42
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am familiar with that theory. I really don't know, but it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.

No beginning really seems odd to people though.

A circle is more likely.

In usual thinking, I guess.

Alliance
Originally posted by ushomefree


I missed the part where it said "BANG" in Hebrew.

BTW...Size 1 text is perfectly legible okthnxbi13

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am familiar with that theory. I really don't know, but it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.

Some hypothzise that it bent back around on itself...meaning no beginning.

I don't know the math, but I'm leaning more towards bullshit, simply out of historical example.

Mindship
Originally posted by Bardock42
No beginning really seems odd to people though.
And yet, it's the simpler proposition, that Something Always Was (if in different form(s)). You don't have to deal with what was Before, or First Cause.

Eh, humans.

inimalist
Originally posted by Mindship
And yet, it's the simpler proposition, that Something Always Was (if in different form(s)). You don't have to deal with what was Before, or First Cause.

Eh, humans.

our brains just need that magical cause...

and someone who is to blame....

ushomefree
To all who embrace the "universe having no beginning" as truth, please present your case. Virtually all astronomers and astrophysicists reject that position--Stephen Hawking the most influential, even Albert Einstein!

The cosmos are expanding, cooling, and decaying; these are but a few of many evidences available for scrutiny. These characteristics do not support the universe being eternal.

And moving on, I really do not have the capacity to hold fast to the universe being a product of nothing and/or chance--randomness. No one would ever attribute the assembly of a 757 Boeing to the blasting of a tornado through a junk yard! A 757 Boeing is a remarkable piece of machinery, and we understand its complexity without study and scientific theories. Its completely natural. And that is precisely what separates us from mental capacities of meal worms.

Knowing so--despite the cosmos sharing such complexity--why do some reject the "possibility" of an intelligent designer, namely a Creator?

Some call it junk/pseudo-science simply because it has religious implications. (Note: Intelligent Design Theory is NOT dependent on religion; rather, I. D. has religious implications.)

Dismissing Intelligent Design Theory as junk/pseudo-science on the grounds that it has religious implications is in "itself" junk/pseudo-science! Who cares about evidence, right?!

These astronomers and astrophysicists--even molecular biologist--are not quacks (as popular culture will have you believe). They are scientists, within their respected fields, simply looking at the evidence.

On your own, try explaining to yourself how "out of nothing" comes "something!" You are forced to reach two conclusions:

(1) It just happened--its magic, or,

(2) Something created it--an intelligent being!

Holding fast to the ladder does not require committing intellectual suicide, for it fits the bill naturally. For something "non-existent" to create "itself" is absurd. Nothing in the universe works that way! Nothing wills itself.

If you and I were hiking in the mountains and heard an enormous explosion in the distance and asked, "What in the hell was that," and someone responded, "Oh... it was nothing," such a response (or idea, even) would be totally insufficient in answering what caused the explosion.

We would ask for another opinion.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Mindship
And yet, it's the simpler proposition, that Something Always Was (if in different form(s)). You don't have to deal with what was Before, or First Cause.

Eh, humans.

Not really...something that always was also brings lots of questions..it's not necessarily easier.

inimalist
Originally posted by ushomefree
(1) It just happened--its magic, or,

(2) Something created it--an intelligent being!

1) logical fallacy:

a) Argument from personal incredulity:

What you are saying is that, because it is impossible for you as an individual to imagine something happening it is not possible. You can see very quickly why this is errorous.

b) False Dichotomy:

Your choices to not cover the vast range of ideas that have been proposed to cover the origins of the universe. The junk you mention prior to these points is, at best, amateur. There IS mathematical evidence for a constant universe that creates itself and then collapses again in a cyclical motion, above is a scientific idea of a universe with no beginning where the big bang was just an event that happened because of the nothingness of the universe that preceded it. Static universes, while scientifically unpopular, are certainly still valid in philosophies that don't take materialism as the be all and end all truth of the universe.

2) The brain

Our brains are not perfect. Even in the most basic visual scenes, your brain is making HUGE generalizations and assumptions about the world around it in order to filter down the incredible ammount of stimuli information comming in at any one time. One of these automatic generalizing processes is the idea of cause and effect. Because we live in a world where everything that happens does have a very obvious cause (the level of reality where Newtonian physics hold) there is no need for our brain to have the ability to concieve of events without a cause in the classical Newtonian sense. This skill is what can lead people to believe in ghosts or other supernatural phenomena to explain events they can't understand, since our brains NEED that explanation. In fact, the more intense the effect, the more signifigant of a cause there must be, which is the root of conspiracy theories.

There are 2 major reasons for this:

a) Evolution: Since there are no "causeless" events in the environment that our anscestors came from, there would never have been a selection pressure for creatures that could comprehend causeless things. Also, it is easy to see why a creature that saw very signifigant causes in trivial events could have a higher survival hance than those who are less reactive. If every time some proto mammal heard a twig break behind it, it runs assuming it is a predator, that mammal will have a huge advantage over one that decides to investigate the sound.

b) Neuroplasticity: When a human is born, they have far more neurons in their brains than are necessary. What happens, is various sets of neurons release various hormones that allow other neurons to make the proper connections for brains to work properly. These hormones are released in response to incomming stimuli from the world around the developing child. An amazing thing to note is that, even though this process is unique to each individual, the fact that the world around us is so constant allows each of our brains to arrange themselves in VERY VERY similar ways. Again, since there are no causeless events in the world, there is no need for any neural connections to form that could interpret events without a cause. A proof of this whole thing comes from an experiment done with kittens. For the first part of the kitten's life, it was reared in an environment that lacked horizontal lines. Once the brain had finished developing, and the kitten was placed into a natural environment, they were incapable of processing horizontal stimuli. Moral of the story, if it isn't something that our brains have learned how to process from the environment they have been previously exposed to, there is no way we can immagine it.

3) How to properly understand that science is neither random nor directed:

Science by definition is not random. The idea that something "just happened" is a straw man, and I challange you to find on astronomer or astrophycist that honestly believes things in the universe, including its origin, "just happen". Science creates models to try and understand WHY things happen, saying they just do is the opposite of this. Well, then if it isn't random, clearly it is directed. No! There is no hand guiding matter or the forces of the universe. Lets put it this way, from this webstie: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html


"Where Do the Laws of Physics Come from?

In a series of remarkable developments in the twentieth century, elementary particle physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists have removed much of the mystery that surrounds our understanding of the physical universe. They have found that the cosmos is, on the whole, comprehensible. Of course, no one can claim to understand or explain every facet of the structure of reality. However, we now have theories--mathematical models--that describe the general character of that reality. At this writing, these theories are consistent with all observational data, including measurements of incredible precision. While they will undoubtedly be superseded by better theories as science continues to advance, the great success of current schemes makes it likely that they are on the right track. The broad picture that is drawn by modern particle physics and cosmology is very probably the way nature is, and what we have yet to learn may be expected to fit comfortably on its foundation--just as these sciences fit comfortably on the foundation of Newtonian physics.

We now have a deep and revolutionary understanding of the true nature of the mathematical quantities and theories of physics. We have realized that they are basically human inventions, including the notions of time and space. The quantities of physics are defined by how we measure them. The laws of physics are not, as usually assumed, restrictions on the behavior of matter--handed down from above or somehow built into the logical structure of the Universe. Rather, they are restrictions on the way that physicists may formulate their theories.

Of course, the theories of physics must agree with observations. But, beyond that, they are formulated in such a way as to assure that they do not depend on any particular point of view. Otherwise they cannot be expected to faithfully describe an objective reality. Stenger calls this principle point-of-view invariance, although it is known technically as gauge invariance. When this requirement is met, the most basic principles of physics, as we know them, appear naturally.

Not everything in the Universe is thereby "explained." However, the structural details of the Universe, including basic facts such as particle masses and force strengths, can be understood as following from an accidental process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. The origin of this structure may be likened to the origin of biological structure, the combined result of tautological necessity, random chance, and even some natural selection. "

Mindship
Originally posted by ushomefree
To all who embrace the "universe having no beginning" as truth, please present your case. Virtually all astronomers and astrophysicists reject that position--Stephen Hawking the most influential, even Albert Einstein!

The cosmos are expanding, cooling, and decaying; these are but a few of many evidences available for scrutiny. These characteristics do not support the universe being eternal.We are not using "universe/cosmos" in the same way. You're using it in terms of what is astronomically observable and measurable (which is certainly legit). But in pondering what might've been before the Big Bang, scientists talk about other dimensions, superspace, multiverse, etc (please note my reference to "chaotic inflation" a few posts back).

Now one could say, also quite legitimately, that a "multiverse" has not yet been discovered, that it is still theory, just like "God." However, unlike a transcendent God, other dimensions/superspace are in theory empirically testable; we simply don't have the sheer tech power yet to do so. But the potential remains, something a transempirical God does not present.

Chaotic inflation theory says that if you have an infinite number of universes, sooner or later you will get one exactly like ours. It's a numbers game, pure and simple.

Personally, I don't reject the possibility of "God" on principle; I just don't find the presence of complexity compelling enough in light of other, theoretically testable propositions. Plus, if "God" is ultimately regarded as a transcendent entity, then any physical proof found (even if it's the real deal) can only hint of His existence, the way a shadow hints of the object casting it. You simply can not have empirical proof of a transempirical entity. Might as well say, find the corner in a circle.

Maybe "nothing in the universe" works that way, but "God" (His transcendent aspect, not the immanent aspect) is "outside" the (physical) universe.
That aside, my favorite answer for this goes as follows...
Where did the universe come from?
God created the universe.
Where did God come from?
God created Himself.
How can God create Himself?
That's what makes God God.
If we are going to consider the possibility of an entity infinite in every imaginable and unimaginable way, then the above, IMO, is as legit as using God to account for complexity.

All things considered though, however one defines God or Universe, that Something Always Was is still the simpler (if still mind-boggling / question-raising) proposition.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really...something that always was also brings lots of questions..it's not necessarily easier. See my last comment above.

ushomefree
Mindship-

I only commented on keys issues I found relevant to the discussion. If I overlooked something of any importance to your argument, simply bring it to my attention. Thanks for the response!





The universe is physical. Naturally, I am pleased that you concur in studying the observable universe. That, my friend, is all we human beings can do. We do not transcend our universe, and we certainly do not transcend the governing laws of physics that we are subjected to. We are literally caged like animals within our own length, width, and space-time dimensions.

Despite the advancement in technology, we will never been able to "directly" study other dimensions. As I stated, we are caged like animals. We can only learn clues about other dimensions by learning more about our own dimensions.





When you talk about "chaotic inflation," you act as if the raw materials--including physical laws--are a free lunch. If you over look the foundation of the argument and/or issue(s) and just assume things, then you have a straw-man argument; its worthless.





God is eternal. Nothing created God; God is the Creator. That's what makes God God.

Bardock42
You homefree, reply to me in your moral relativism thread.

ushomefree
Burdock-

I sure will, friend. You made interesting claims that I wanted to address in my thread, "Moral Reletivism." I just haven't gotten around to it yet, but I will. Thank you.

Mindship
Originally posted by ushomefree
Despite the advancement in technology, we will never been able to "directly" study other dimensions. As I stated, we are caged like animals. That may be true, but at present it's an assumption on your part.

Originally posted by ushomefree
When you talk about "chaotic inflation," you act as if the raw materials--including physical laws--are a free lunch. Not at all, no more than are the virtual particles frothing in the quantum vacuum.

FeceMan
"Stretching out" the universe doesn't necessarily mean a continuing process.

Douchetards.

lancethebrave
at the time the bible was written the heavens was just the sky... the clouds and such, stretched out would be in reference to if you stand in an open field and you cant see any mountains in any direction, it looks expansive and some may say stretched out, also before the discovery of columbus which would be the fact that the earth is round... they thought it was flat and no matter how far out they sailed they never reached the end of the world... but also didnt want to run into it without their knowing and they could see the sky went out farther... the heavens "stretched out" farther then the earth.

at the time it was all believed to be literal and not metaphorically so when it was written it was taught and translated to be literal, double meanings and such were overlooked and with primitive people they tend not to pull out more complicated things.

also note it was written mainly by people who "heard the voice of god" theres a reason we dont hear about people like that ever recently, and its because its a mental disorder... Schizophrenia, Joan of Arc started hearing voices at a young age, that she deduced was the voices of angels and/or god, but before people really studied the mind or had any true knowledge of the fact that angels dont speak to us... we speak to us, why not believe in something if its FEW chosen are hearing his voice because he chooses to, they wouldnt have any reason not to believe him, of course they would also have every reason not to believe him, which is why there are both believers and non believers throughout history.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.