Big bang blurb ...(universe now inflated beyond 15 characters)


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #41

I doubt that, but the difference is that the Bible is based on experience, not imagination.

Now if you would live the life of Jesus Christ, then we could talk.


#42

That would be another bare assertion. [quote=“Relates, post:41, topic:36851”]
Now if you would live the life of Jesus Christ, then we could talk.
[/quote]
And yet another bare assertion.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #43

What on earth does that mean?


#44

A bare assertion is a statement made with no supportive evidence.


(Robert) #45

Much scientific work has gone into Brane Cosmology. It is referred to as M Theory, String Theory and Superstring theory The Membrane or Brane theory is mathematically rigorous and could someday rival the Big Bang theory. The Ekpyrotic Theory hypothesizes that the origin of the observable universe occurred when two parallel Branes collided (Wikipedia).
Research is ongoing concerning the Multiverse theory. I think most astrophysics researchers would prefer the Super Symmetry particles be found. If the Multiverse Theory is ever proved I think most physics researchers see it as a dead end for physics research. I just have a hard time accepting the Big Bang from a Point Singularly somewhere in the vastness of space.
In a Multiverse with an infinite number of universes like or unlike ours there would be Big Bangs occurring fairly frequently. We just had ours over 14 billion years ago. At least that is what I have heard from astrophysics researchers. The researchers are trying to detect a Multiverse environment outside our universe but solid proof may take a long time.

Sent from Bob Mackey


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #46

@Wildcat Robert, Thank you for your response.

I agree it is hard to understand the origin of the universe out of nothing. It is my understanding from the literature that the Big Bang did not happen in the “vastness of space” because there was no space at the time of the Big Bang. Time and space are dependent on each other per Einstein, just as are mass and energy. This space was very small.

We live in time and space, which are not material, but are the products of matter and energy. It is really impossible to conceive of a time when there is no time or a place where there no place/space. This is beyond our experience, but is consistent with Einstein’s theory which shows that time and space are NOT absolute, but are interdependent with each other and matter/energy. Matter/energy are not basic to the universe, but the relationships manifestations of matter/energy, including humans.

Thus it appears that God created mass and then from mass came energy, time, and space almost but not quite at the same nanosecond. Interesting this seems to follow Gen 1 which does not “prove” Gen 1 is right, but is interesting in itself.

In the Beginning at the nanosecond God began to create the universe, that is matter, the universe/matter was formless, empty, without light (energy), and chaos. [The spirit of God hovered over the chaos.]

Then God said, Let there be Light, Energy, and there was Light/ Energy and the Big Bang.

My point about the Big Bang is we have no solid evidence of what happened before it except that which is found in the Bible, so that should be the accepted view until something provable comes up. This is the God of the facts that we have, not the non-belief based on the gaps in the facts that we don’t have.


(Lynn Munter) #47

Actually, as a pantheist, I quite agreed with @Relates in this instance. I would not class pantheists as non-believers; the very act of saying that there is a spiritual dimension to something (to everything) is a belief which cannot be scientifically concluded.

I think the argument here may result very simply from each of you choosing half of the definition of pantheism to examine. @T_aquaticus looks at “the Universe is God” and concludes that God must therefore be material, while @Relates sees “God is the Universe” and concludes that the Universe is spiritual. But these statements are equally true for a pantheist, you don’t get to prioritize one over the other. Sorry.

Au contraire. We simply approach agnosticism on the subject of whatever preceded the Big Bang. Or perhaps time as we understand it expanded from that event, meaning the entire concept of some ‘before time began’ just doesn’t work.

Of course I disclaim any idea that I could speak for Einstein, who I’m sure would have had his own take on the subject. Hope I’ve been helpful anyway.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #48

I do not see God as universe, but God as the Source of the universe. My point is that the universe is not only physical, but also rational and spiritual because God created it and left God’s imprint on it. The universe is not God, but in some sense created in the image of God, because it is good and God is good.

@T_aquaticus says that there is no God and there is no spiritual or rational reality, only physical reality.

My point in our discussion was the my position about God and reality is much closer to Einstein’s and pantheism, than to his, when he claimed the opposite, that they are materialists.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #49

@T_aquaticus,

I gave you these four points that you could refute. You need to respond point by point in the way I have addressed you in an orderly reasoned conversation.

Do not use labels like Bare Assertion Fallacy to reject an idea you do not like as Trump uses fake news to reject facts he does not like. My statement was not a fallacy. It was an opinion which I believe is well founded.

I did not demand that you accept it as true because I said it was true. If you are not willing to at least consider what I understand to be true and give me a considered reason to disagree with it, then you have no business in this discussion.


#50

A) having a beginning does not mean it has to be started by a deity.

B) You did not demonstrate that God is separate from the Universe.

C) Stories in books are not evidence for what happens in reality.

D) You have to demonstrate that God exists before you can demonstrate what his characteristics are.


(Lynn Munter) #51

I worded it poorly; I was not trying to describe your personal beliefs, but only your view of pantheism, to contrast with @T_aquaticus’s view of pantheism (both, of course, influenced by your respective beliefs, but I was not trying to speak to those).


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #52

T, thank you for responding, however I think that it indicates the low quality of New Atheist thinking.

A) Having a beginning from nothing does indicate that it is self creating which rules out materialism.

B) The separation of the universe from God is a given based on science.

C) I do not understand how you can dismiss the experience of millions of humans as stories in books. This is our empirical evidence, which stands beyond our everyday experience, but helps us understand everyday experience. I suppose you rely on books of numbers to give us evidence of what happens in reality.

D) To say that we can not talk about Who God is until we proof God’s existence is an absurd lie, which is not true of anyone or anything. Prove that iron exists if you gave no information about what iron is.

Please do not be taken is by this tissue of lies and circular thinking. I am sure that you are to smart for this.


#53

It doesn’t rule materialism out, just like having a beginning does not rule out God. Having a beginning does not point to one over the other. If we are talking about evidence, then we need something that points to one and not the other.[quote=“Relates, post:52, topic:36851”]
B) The separation of the universe from God is a given based on science.
[/quote]

Based on what evidence?[quote=“Relates, post:52, topic:36851”]
C) I do not understand how you can dismiss the experience of millions of humans as stories in books. This is our empirical evidence, which stands beyond our everyday experience, but helps us understand everyday experience. I suppose you rely on books of numbers to give us evidence of what happens in reality.
[/quote]

Subjective experiences are not empirical evidence.[quote=“Relates, post:52, topic:36851”]
D) To say that we can not talk about Who God is until we proof God’s existence is an absurd lie, which is not true of anyone or anything. Prove that iron exists if you gave no information about what iron is.
[/quote]

You can talk about whatever you want. I would never stop you, and no one else appears to be stopping you.

All I am saying is that you have to show that something exists before you can make claims about what characteristics it has. If I said that the element Taqium has a melting point of 1,500 C, surely you would ask me to show you some Taqium.


(system) closed #54

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


(Matthew Pevarnik) opened #55

(Matthew Pevarnik) #56

I just had to post this quiz answer (remembering this thread from a few years ago) that I got from a student when I asked:
What is the leading scientific explanation of how the Cosmic Microwave Background was produced, the signal that is measured as a near perfect blackbody radiator?

How do you suppose they might have responded @Mervin_Bitikofer? It turns out their answer was something like this:

Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered cosmic microwave background but then Georges Lemaitre got interested and started doing his own research. Lemaitre proposed the first idea about CMB after doing so he had Einstein review his information. Einstein found flaws in his physics calculations but thought all other calculations were correct. After he corrected his flaws, himself and Einstein felt as though this idea was correct and Lemaitre took it to the Pope for evaluation. The Pope announced that there was no connection or information that would conflict with their findings.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #57

If you are saying that the quote is the answer a student gave to that question, then it sounds like they were a bit confused about time lines and other related “facts”. Not that I would be able to give a good or deep answer your quiz question myself, but this answer seems to meander all over the place in an effort to avoid answering the question!

Thanks for the trip down memory lane!


(George Brooks) #58

Another great one-man orchestration … about background light signatures!


(Phil) #59

Now, was this a science class or a history of science class? Might make a difference in grading!


(Matthew Pevarnik) #60

Science class so it didn’t answer the question. The order of events and details of exchanges is all mixed up which left me with a good chuckle for about 5 minutes.

  • Penzias and Wilson discovered the CMB in 1964
  • Georges Lemaitre had been publishing cosmology papers for nearly 40 years by this point and passed away shortly after the CMB’s announcement
  • Lemaitre did not first propose the idea of the CMB though actually did have several exchanges with Einstein back in the early 1930s. Einstein was originally more critical of Lemaitre’s ideas though was eventually won over. They did not go ask the pope to evaluate their solutions to the equations of general relativity and friedmann equation.
  • Lemaitre did have interactions with the Pope who proclaimed the young theory as scientific validation for Catholicism in 1951. Lemaitre opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict and thanks to him and the Pope’s scientific advisor the Pope stopped making proclamations about cosmology.