Big Bang or a Stretch of God's Imagination?

@voiceindarkness,

I have no idea what that bullshit is supposed to mean. Don't try to suck me into your bizzare little world.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

...for starters and going straight to the pseudo argument the "Voice" presents us an evolving God, who develops and outgrows itself thus immediately bringing to mind the image of an incomplete unfinished God...certainly it is not what he meant claiming to believe from his previous posts...
The only valid concept of a God that I can actually believe in, is the Universe itself as a Whole and not never the idea of a mind...you see by definition God does not seek improvement nor development thus it does not need a mind although it can conceptually contain in its corpus entity´s like us with a mind...having a mind to my view, as I comprehend it, it is a mark of "imperfection" and in it the needed justification for enquiry, which is what minds do when looking for problem solving knowledge that they don´t have from start...again any attempted valid idea of God with no linear Time or Space that one can think of to fit the bill it is so abstract so far removed from what we consider a being that call it God in the classical common sense definition can only be confusing and misguiding...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

My best definition of a God, capable of fitting an almost meaningful sentence, can be found in the concept of the biggest mathematical looping algorithm that as a static noumena, there was, is, and will be, all in simultaneous...how bloody abstract and far removed is that ? Humans would hate such envisioning...they are looking for something more like Santa in the Christmas tree...really poor and sad...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

In almost all cases re: the formation of the universe, the phenomena outpaced the math. Math is an abstract language to decipher and put meaning into a repeatable phenom. (In finitely repeating sequences need not apply).

Heres looking at Euclid----(H Bogart)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Heres looking at Euclid----(H Bogart)

GROAN!!!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

In almost all cases re: the formation of the universe, the phenomena outpaced the math. Math is an abstract language to decipher and put meaning into a repeatable phenom. (In finitely repeating sequences need not apply).

Heres looking at Euclid----(H Bogart)

It isn't just a mathematical problem - it is a conceptual one. Science based on observation cannot do the jon by regressive deduction precisely because the formation of the universe is outside the domain of observational science. The mathematical isuues arise as a consequence of that fact. Even the several theoretical attempts at it it either "define" the beginning as something undefinable (the big bang and singularity); or beg the question by asserting that, since there was no time before, the question is "inadmissable"; or postulating an infinite manifold of parallell quantum multiverses, which is no answer at all.

Thus since the answer cannot be found by science, neither can the denial be supported by it.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...for starters and going straight to the pseudo argument the "Voice" presents us an evolving God, who develops and outgrows itself thus immediately bringing to mind the image of an incomplete unfinished God...certainly it is not what he meant claiming to believe from his previous posts...
An evolving completion, of a total change of His Kingdom, of His reality, into our reality which is to come.

Quote:
The only valid concept of a God that I can actually believe in, is the Universe itself as a Whole and not never the idea of a mind...you see by definition God does not seek improvement nor development thus it does not need a mind although it can conceptually contain in its corpus entity´s like us with a mind...having a mind to my view, as I comprehend it, it is a mark of "imperfection" and in it the needed justification for enquiry, which is what minds do when looking for problem solving knowledge that they don´t have from start...
Huh? exactly, sort of.
When our mind is perfected, God will give us of His mind, so we can see as he sees, as He sees what we see.

Quote:
again any attempted valid idea of God with no linear Time or Space that one can think of to fit the bill it is so abstract so far removed from what we consider a being that call it God in the classical common sense definition can only be confusing and misguiding...
Time and space, is from our perception, as we perceive, all that is, or ever will be.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

At what point did the "creator" abandon its work of creation?
The neat thing about forensioc cosmology and "big bangery" is that we have snippets of EVIDENCE that allow a conclusion that has not yet been refuted . Your argument is still basically celebration of implausibility. Incredulity is not a fair way to argue a point. Its one of those arguments to which the late Timberland Kevin used to provide fancy names.

Snippets of evidence is not "No EVIDENCE". We feel pretty strong about the few nanoseconds after the inflation commenced.

The argument for multiverses is just one of hypotheses and may always be so. Its like we know that there were at least 4 (maybe 5) continental mega collision sequences . But the only evidence we have for an really early one is smooshed up rocks in Canada. For the multiverse hypothesis (note, I did not say theory like this guy) is that , one of the theoretical universe shapes is "monkey saddle" which suggests boundaries . Boundaries suggests something exists on the other side of the tracks. Cosmology is just gathering hypotheses.

Its better than being smug and sitting on a Thomasian argument.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

farmerman wrote:

At what point did the "creator" abandon its work of creation?
The creator spoke, the creation did all of the work of creating, The light bearer, (Lucifer), illuminates the things that are, yet they are not, though we perceive them to be.

Quote:
The neat thing about forensioc cosmology and "big bangery" is that we have snippets of EVIDENCE that allow a conclusion that has not yet been refuted .
I am refuting the conclusion of "big bangery", But you refuse to discus it, dismissing me without even any consideration of what I have said or am saying.

Quote:
Your argument is still basically celebration of implausibility. Incredulity is not a fair way to argue a point. Its one of those arguments to which the late Timberland Kevin used to provide fancy names.

Snippets of evidence is not "No EVIDENCE". We feel pretty strong about the few nanoseconds after the inflation commenced.
Your description of the few nanoseconds of creation is identical to mine, extreme hot, dense, energy created, except, creation of infinite space where there was nothing, verses expansion from a singularity. I follow with a simple, step by step progression, through to the creation of the galaxies, from this infinite beginning, which is something your science has failed to do.
In my theory I have attempted to answer the same questions your science only creates and can't answer.

Quote:
The argument for multiverses is just one of hypotheses and may always be so. Its like we know that there were at least 4 (maybe 5) continental mega collision sequences . But the only evidence we have for an really early one is smooshed up rocks in Canada. For the multiverse hypothesis (note, I did not say theory like this guy) is that , one of the theoretical universe shapes is "monkey saddle" which suggests boundaries . Boundaries suggests something exists on the other side of the tracks. Cosmology is just gathering hypotheses.
Multiverses are for our imagination to create and explore, when, what was created in the darkness of space in time, returns to the true light from which it came. Then we will be one with, He which was, is, and is to come, in an infinite state of being, an eternal now, with no boundaries of the imagination.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

At what point did the "creator" abandon its work of creation?
The neat thing about forensioc cosmology and "big bangery" is that we have snippets of EVIDENCE that allow a conclusion that has not yet been refuted . Your argument is still basically celebration of implausibility. Incredulity is not a fair way to argue a point. Its one of those arguments to which the late Timberland Kevin used to provide fancy names.

I think you may have missed my point. I agree that physics can do a great jub, starting a few nanoseconds after inflation. I also agree that the Reiman metric tensor for the description of space offers several possibilities, including saddles. The problem is that physics based on theory and confirming observation cannot reach or define the asymptotes and singuilarities that still bound its models, and there is no reason tho believe that can change. The definition of a mathematical singularity is something that cannot be described - one can assert nothing about it. And that is the real physicst's definition of the beginning. Not very satisfying is it?

Would you assign human limitations to a creator who - if one exists - set it all in motion, including mass, energy, and time? It is meaningless to talk about things like "at what point did the creator abandon its work".

farmerman wrote:

Its better than being smug and sitting on a Thomasian argument.

I'm not smug at all. I'm just as interested in the physics of cosmology as are you. There is no conflict betweenm Thomas' uncaused cause and Physics.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You're just invoking an absurdity to assuage the discomfort of admitting one's ignorance. It's OK to acknowledge that one doesn't know--what's not OK is introducing an unnecessary cause. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, and you're intent on introducing an unnecessary cause. You've just added one more factor for which physics cannot account. If one accepts the possibility of a deity, one still hasn't accounted for the mechanism which the deity used, unless one descends into the absurfity of supernaturalism--poofism. This adds nothing useful to the discussion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You are simply wrong in this. The "explanations" offered by physics are not explanations at all - they start with things ("singularities") that remain undefined by that physics, and are supported with the claim that, because of current theories that appear valid only AFTER the early moments of the big bang (post "inflation") , no additional questions are allowedf, simply because they can't be answered within the context of that physics.

The added issues may well be unnecessary in you view, but that is not a general statement you can rigorously defend.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

No additional questions are allowed, simply because they can't be answered within the context of that physics.

It's not true that they're not allowed. The problem is that it makes no sense to ask questions like "what led up to the Big Bang?", given the non-Cartesian geometry of space-time. That question is exactly analogous to asking what landscape lies North of the North Pole. Then you observe that the question cannot be answered in the context of geography, and conclude that theologians would therefore have a point if they speculated that the landscape in question must therefore be the kingdom of god.

I'm kidding about geography of course. In that context, you'd have no problem spotting the fallacy. And in fairness to sophisticated theologians, so would they. They would see perfectly well that you can't give a straight answer to a nonsense question, and that "what lies North of the North Pole?" is a nonsense question. What mystifies me is why you can't see the same fallacy in the context of cosmology and the Big Bang.

georgeob1 wrote:

The added issues may well be unnecessary in you view, but that is not a general statement you can rigorously defend.

Neither does he need to. You're starting with one entity you can't explain, and to explain it you postulate yet another phenomenon you can't explain. How much rigor does it take to argue that this trick doesn't do any explanatory work?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Sure it is--you're hilarious. In fact, it is you who would be obliged to defend your imaginary friend thesis, an unnecessary cause forced into the discussion of cosmic origins, and based on nothing more substantial than traditional superstition. You crack me up, O'George.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

they start with things ("singularities") that remain undefined by that physics, and are supported with the claim that, because of current theories that appear valid only AFTER the early moments of the big bang (post "inflation") , no additional questions are allowedf, simply because they can't be answered within the context of that physics.

Thats totally untrue. Questions are being asked every day. Many lead to new models and reassessemnt of existing data and evidence. You are trying to divert the fact that the " Universal Intelligence" worldview needs its adherents to have total buy-in to a mythopeic base of "fact"We all have brains thatmany are are fond of using beyond standing as mere acolytes to a story that everyone understands is the grandaddy of allegories.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
No additional questions are allowed, simply because they can't be answered within the context of that physics.

It's not true that they're not allowed. The problem is that it makes no sense to ask questions like "what led up to the Big Bang?", given the non-Cartesian geometry of space-time. That question is exactly analogous to asking what landscape lies North of the North Pole. Then you observe that the question cannot be answered in the context of geography, and conclude that theologians would therefore have a point if they speculated that the landscape in question must therefore be the kingdom of god.

I think you merely made my point here. OK, the question is categorized as "nonsensical" (and therefore without an answer) because it can't be answered within the constraints of space-time as envisioned by physicists. I think that is mire or less the same as :"not allowed".

Where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? Is that too a nonsensical question?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Where did the energy of the Big Bang come from? Is that too a nonsensical question?

Yes it is. It, too, presumes there was a time before the Big Bang, which is analogous to presuming there is land North of the North Pole.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thus you assert that the singularity, which you say started it all, arose from itself without any other agency. This contradicts the mathematical definition of a singularity, which affirms that nothing at all can be said about them, as they lack any definition or specification. Is you statement therefore nonsensical?

In short you have without reason adopted the constructs of physics as the only possible basis for thought or analysis and have ruled out any questions that get outside that rather restricted domain ... exactly as I posited above.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Thus you assert that the singularity, which you say started it all, arose from itself without any other agency.

No, I don't assert that it started it all, any more than the North Pole "starts" the Earth in any geometrically meaningful sense. I assert that it was there at the beginning of the universe. I am not asserting any causal relationship between the singularity at the beginning and what happened later.

georgeob1 wrote:

exactly as I posited above.

Only if the position that there is nothing North of the North Pole is the same as the position that the North Pole is "starting the Earth" in some sense. To me the two are emphatically not the same. One is a truism of geometry, the other is nonsense. Same for the Big Bang and its position in the geometry of space-time.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

OK. Then your explanation of the origin of the universe is that it started with a singularity or something that cannot be explained or defined. That too is nonsense. Your North Pole metaphor is not a proof.

Alternatively I suppose you could assert that questioning the origin of the universe is itself meaningless. That would satisfy the constraints of your physics as you have defined them. In short, you have declared the question to be meaningless. An act of smug denial that is not satisfying from a philosophic perspective.

2 Replies

Big Bang or a Stretch of God's Imagination?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know