Bitcoin Forum

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/54338/20150210/new-theory-disproves-big-bang-leading-researchers-to-admit-that-there-was-no-beginning-to-the-universe.htm

Meaning GOD does exist

FYI space time dont exist, since space never had a beginning nor end.

LOL! The gospel herald!  :D < literally the face I made when I saw that article

did you google, its not only in the gospel herald.  I can show you other sources

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Just because there may have been no big bang doesn't mean that god exists.

if you read the bible you will see it was in your face before science all along

Yes, if you ignore the blatant mathematical errors and the fact that the person who wrote the bible thinks the earth is 5000 years old yes I suppose you could say the bible was scientific, in the same way that news journalists are always factually accurate about everything they report on.

Lets not get into the heaven is hotter than hell argument to prove the point shall we?

If I think I'm holding an apple in my hand only to find out it's not an apple, it doesn't mean that I'm holding a banana.  It *could* be a banana, but simply knowing that I'm not holding an apple doesn't say anything about bananas whatsoever.

I'll wait for the Nobel Prize on that...

This paper doesn't prove the Big Bang didn't happen, it just offers an internally consistent alternative - which is more than can be said for the various bibles out there.

It's not even really new information.  People don't win Nobel Prizes for things a lot of people already know.

If you have even a rather superficial understanding of the Theory of Relativity, you know that the apparent age of the Universe depends on where you are.  Since the apparent age of the Universe is dependent upon locality (Edit: i.e spacetime, not just space), you can't even call the Big Bang a single event.  

Imagine this scenario:

Let's assume that there is a wormhole through which we can transmit and receive communication with another planet ~1 billion lightyears away from us.

Using our 'wormhole telephone,' we communicate to the other planet the apparent age of the Universe from our locality.  Then, some beings on the other planet reciprocate.

Well, now we have a problem.  While we communicated an apparent age of ~14 billion years, let's say the other planet communicated an apparent age of ~15 billion years.  Which is it?  Are they right or are we right?  Edit:  More likely, the reported apparent ages would be the same, still leaving the problem of reconciling the issue of locality.

Think about this for second...seriously.  If we consider both conclusions as valid, then that means that some 'stuff' in the Universe can be older or younger than other 'stuff.'

And then...which directlon  do you look?  If we point the Hubble one way and see some galaxies that are several billion years old, we can also point the Hubble the opposite way and see the same thing.  But now we have another problem!  

Imagine according to the Big Bang Theory that the Universe is expanding in all directions from a single point.  If we can see galaxies in both directions that appear the same age, that means that we must *always* appear to be at the center of the Universe, no matter where we are!  If  we weren't (i.e. if we were off-center), then galaxies viewed by looking in one direction would appear either older or younger than galaxies viewed in the other direction!  Accordingly, there must be a better explanation.

Tricks of perspective are fun.

Oh good. We are finally getting to the bottom of things. All those faulty Big Bang theories have been clouding our thinking so much, that it is difficult to advance true science to find out what is really going on in our universe.

Here is a second site that explains this alternative thinking - http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm. When one looks at the other info in this site, one begins to question if there isn't a conspiracy against truth in astronomy, just like there are conspiracies against truth in medicine and truth in law. Maybe it's a conspiracy against truth altogether.

:)

EDIT: One of the things that virtually proves that red shift has nothing to do with distance of stars is this. We find red-shift stars on all sides of us. If red shift means that the stars are traveling away from us at high velocity, wouldn't that mean that the earth is the center of the universe? From the article at the site listed:

Don't tell Sheldon!

IF there is no center cause space and time are infinite.  dark matter is never ending.  Meaning there is life just like us or quite different then us.  God created seperate beings the proof is the different species on our planet.

God could have still created the big bang.

So if there is a center, this would prove god does not exist?

yes cause in order for him to exist there must be no beginning of time.  Life is about life and death.  If you know this, you think those stars you see in the sky are still burning suns right, but in truth some of them died long ago before this earth was even alive.  The stilll shine cause the light is still traveling towards us. 

Here's the paper itself
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf

My problem is, if the universe is infinite, why has it not reached a state of maximum entropy? Why have the stars not all burnt out and all matter dispersed completely.

lol

Many stars did Die out, dont you read?

also suns are born and become something else. one of our stars can become a black hole, and everything gets taken into it, when it goes to its parth. our galaxy is young, Thats what this tells me.  We havent got to the age of nearby suns turning to a black hole quite yet.  Once it does, Im sure god has other plans for us and more life somewhere else in his infinite space. 

When you learn about science from the "gospel herald" ... well, nevermind.

Uh...no.  None of these thoughts necessarily lead to any other.  These are all just random statements that in no way can be inferred from the others.  You just randomly drew some dots and started connecting them willy-nilly.   It's about as random as saying, "He didn't say hello to me, so he obviously wants to kill me."

No dumb ass, if the universe had been around forever, we wouldn't have third gen stars now, we'd be on nth generation stars constructed from what little matter could coalesce. When taken to infinity no matter could combine, it would be too spread out. I read the paper and understand it.

Do you?

I think God must exist in both alternatives, whether the universe had or not a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning then it has a spaceless and timeless cause (God)

If the universe didn't begin to exist, then the entropy would already have turned all matter into a dead homogeneous thing unless there is interference from something timeless and immaterial (God) to keep the order of the universe.

The universe itself is a closed system and as such it tends to chaos over time. If the past is infinite and God does not exist, then the universe would have to be 100% homogeneous, and it's not.

Plus, I also think if the big bang happened, the universe would be a perfectly symmetric expanding agglomeration of energy, it would never have formed atoms, galaxies, etc unless something non-material caused them to form.

I have no specific religion, I'm just using logic.

As i see it, no one knows where the stuff in black holes goes and no one knows where everything came from in the big bang.  In both cases you have to potentially explain away whole universes worth of matter.  Why can't a black hole in one dimension be connected to a big bang in another.  What gets sucked down one, gets spewed out the other.  I see it like a big multi-dimensional lava lamp with the blobs merging and splitting off.

Nowt to do with god, though the thought of all this coming from nothing is about as believable as the bloke with the white beard.

The Big Bang happened in 2009 and was triggered by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Naw. That was the Bit Boin.    :D

Space time does not exist....

Do you even research moromen?

I doubt that any breaking news about beginning of our universe or nature of the Space itself is important for average Joe. People do not care about how old is our world, how long it will take to travel to another galaxy and shit like that. They just want to live here and now. Theories like that are only good for scientists who gets paid for inventing new shit like that.

Don't tell Me what I must or must not do.

Nearby stars won't become black holes (as ours won't), they're not massive enough.

His point is that over time entropy increases. Stars fuse hydrogen into other elements, radiate out energy, and eventually become degenerate. Eventually the universe reaches a point of maximum entropy. In an unending universe without a beginning that has existed forever, how is it possible for a system we know is increasing in entropy to not have reached maximum entropy?

When current theory doesn't take into account, the states of electric plasma in the universe, how can theory come close to what actually is happening? One of the most important observations is that some stars that are too far apart to react with each other gravitationally, often DO react with each other for some reason. The ways that they react fit descriptions and theories of electric plasma reactions, reactions which are 10x or more stronger than gravitational reactions at times.

Regarding entropy, simple mechanical entropy can be relatively easy to understand. We can see it in the action of a swinging pendulum. Since entropy exists all around us, what about the entropy of time itself? How about the entropy in the reproductive cycles of plants, animals and humans?

Seems to me that as we come closer to a state of complete entropy in the universe, all the matter and energy would be spread evenly throughout all of space. Perhaps material entropy would attempt to reach this state sooner, but would be held back by the slower entropy of gravity and electromagnetism. This might cause the upheavals that we see - which we interpret as the birth of stars, etc.  Such differing rates of entropy might cause the universe to remain in existence much longer than expected when viewing simple mechanical entropy alone.

If you add the entropy of time and the other dimensions into the mix, who can tell what we are really observing? We don't have the ability to determine if there are an infinite number of dimensions, or how whatever dimensions exist react with each other entropy-wise. We know so little about our universe.

:)

OP isn't very wise. If the Big Bang never happened and this theory was right, then that would be a severe blow to the existence of the Abrahamic God, OP, which I know you severely believe in. Read the full article here: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

A eternal universe would be that there is no beginning and there will be never be an end, ending the notion that there is a beginning and end to all things, as said in the religious text, while also eliminating the Abrahamic God from the picture.

Perhaps OP doesn't have a correct view. It is very difficult to come to correct conclusions about things so far reaching. However...

God exists in eternity. Perhaps in some ways the universe is eternal, as well.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void."

The Hebrew word that the word "was" comes from can be interpreted as "became."

There was a war in Heaven, the Revelation tells us. It doesn't say when. Much of the Revelation covers times other than the end. The war was between the angels that followed the devil, and the angels that followed God, led by the Archangel Michael.

It may just be that this war in heaven is what made the earth become formless and empty. "And the earth became formless and void." The material of the universe coalesced together, into a ball that was considered as the earth by God. The beginning would be the original beginning of the type of material and energy in our universe. The 6 days of creation would be God remaking it better than it had been before.

In the creation 6 days, if you read it slowly, you will see that the separations of the waters that are below the "firmament" (the sky) from the waters above could easily be the thing that put the materials into the sky, materials that God later turned into the sun, moon and stars.

:)

You forgot that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't work all the time. In an unending universe there is infinite number of moments when the entropy goes below the maximum. We live in one of such moments.

No matter how much weird math says that the 2nd Law doesn't work all the time, we don't see any evidence of the 2nd Law not working, even a little.

:)

We observe this for a too short period of time.

That's one of the reasons we did atom and hydrogen bomb tests. We were speeding up time in the sense of making hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of years worth of reactions all at once. Still no observable deviation from the 2nd Law.

:)

How does this speed up time?

We're sorry you are having troubles.

The multitudes of "wild" reactions in nuclear bomb explosions, simulate many years worth of reactions in nature.

Since your idea of not enough time, is really the idea of not enough reactions, the numerous reactions in nuclear bomb explosions, simulate in a much shorter time period, the numbers of reactions at regular speed in nature over a much longer time. No 2nd Law deviations observed.

:)

This means only that it was still not enough time. Statistics says that the 2nd law must be violated time to time. If the universe is endless then this already happened infinite number of times.

Or none.

:)

that means that there is a really need to very different ways to be able to know the "beginnings"



or am I wrong ?  :(

... and the endings.  :)

It depends. Sempiternity <> eternity.

 sure! :)

No, it depends on what exists.

The evidence is 2nd Law activity with no deviation from it. There might be all kinds of math that suggests random might be possible, but do we have anything other than possibilities?

The idea of deviation from the 2nd Law suggests that God exists. After all, since we don't have any evidence of such deviation in everything we have seen, if it exists, it must be something done by God, and maybe only at an initial beginning by God.

:)

The "beginning" from, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth," might have an unique application. It might denote the beginning of this era that started 6,000 years ago as shown by the Bible - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. But it might also denote countless eons of time before the beginning of this era.

The reason it might denote the countless eras of time is, time was changed in the great battle of the angels. All of the electromagnetic spectrum changed. Time changed along with it. Time as we know it was not stable beyond 6,000 years ago. Since the idea of time indicates at least a possible beginning, the beginning covered unnumbered eras of "time" since a true beginning, when God actually DID create the Heavens and the Earth.

Such thinking would explain how there could be things that seemingly are older than 6,000 years, while the idea of 6,000 years is still the truth. Time itself had not coalesced sufficiently prior to 6,000 years ago, from the turmoil in the great inter-galactic wars of the angels (as told mentioned briefly about in the Revelation).

After all, the things we examine and see, we still interpret as to their age. The key is the interpretation we place on things. Our basic interpretations are wrong on so many levels. We need to figure out a way to match all the evidence with a reasonable explanation/interpretation.

We can't keep on throwing out the record of the bible. It holds truth in many ways. Lets, rather, figure out how we can make its records match the other things we observe without changing it.

:)

nah   I read somewhere it was the tooth fairy that created the universe (it must be true if its in a book)

I agree. We can't keep throwing out the record of the tooth fairy tale. It holds truth in many ways. Lets, rather, figure out how we can make its records match the other things we observe without changing it. Because reality always must yield to the truths of some random collection of fairytales.

But, not to disrespect the OP; he is far more open to reality than some others of the crazy fringe here.A universe without singularities also has some mathematical elegance, but you would need some evidence or a possible observation of that early (long) pre-inflation state.

Until one looks at the evidence of the truth of the Bible, he/she may not know about it. The Bible is a record; it has not changed much if any over thousands of years; it could not have come together the way it did (probability); the thread of information that is its main theme does not change throughout; the traditions of the nation of Israel hold that it is the truth; It is dynamic - translated into many languages, spread around the world, recognized in the spiritual lives of multitudes of people as a great strength.

There is nothing like the Bible. We may not understand many of the ways that it is the truth, but it definitely is the truth. It could not exist any other way.

Other religious writings don't have the strength of the Bible. They might have a little of it here and there, but not enough to make them to be impossible like the Bible. Fairytales have almost no strength whatever.

Even the history suggested by modern science is a religion, because most of it is based on "if" and "maybe." This is why the suggestions made by the OP have as much credibility as they do.

:)

This is false. There are many different bibles available, each with slightly different wording and events.

Absolutely. The Roman Bible we know today may be unrecognizable to ancient Christians. There are perhaps a hundred gospels that did not make the official government Bible of Rome. I have sat in the room in Ephesus where they debated the stories and chose those that best reflected Roman sensibilities. They were much less interested in what Christians believed or thought than making a holy book that was acceptable to Rome's many polytheists. 

How can you know that it is "definitely" the truth and cannot exist any other way if you admittedly do not understand it?  


The content of the Buddhist sutras is generally considered to be more accurate over successive generations through monasticism.

The things that are understood are so overwhelmingly evident that the rest of it has to flow around them - truth.



This is so sad. People would remain in ignorance, rather than recognize that God exists, and then call an understanding that no God exists, something that is more accurate.

:)

God wanted this, nothing happens without his permission.

Yes, but not the way you stated. God wants things to happen according to the natural laws he installed in the universe. If that includes people remaining in ignorance, then from that kind of standpoint, he wants it.

However, God would much rather that people look at His universe, see Him in it, and then according to His universal laws, come to Him.

:)

I see him everywhere...

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s---D75eFui--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18qo1hwto00mfjpg.jpg

You need to get a little closer, like to where it starts to turn black.

 :D

I'm no genius but Big Bang/No Big Bang evolution/no evolution, these are simply processes and don't prove or disprove a Creator God. Existence of matter proves something created it. Its so simple and obvious that only really stupid intellectuals wrestle with it while children understand it.


The next question is now has this God made any kind of sign of his/her/its existence? Well many people have popped up and said they know but only two religions span centuries and simply cannot be faked and put together by one person or group of people. That sign is the Jewish faith and out of that Jewish faith a messiah was prophesied, the description fits Jesus. What about Muslims you say? Well it was created by one man of violence scrambling up the Abrahamic faith and Jesus. So never trust a faith created by one person cause there are about a bazillion. Jesus never created Chrisianity he simply was the missing piece of another one spanning centuries and nations.


The last part is God it seems doesn't want to force anyone to come to him, he gives them choice. That is grace to simply take that choice and receive the Holy Spirit that teaches you your new life. When I became a believer I believed lots of religions were right and all paths lead to God etc but I got the revelation that if a god truly created the world why the hell would he need these tiny little things he made to do things for him. That pretty much sums up 99% of religions which consist of small acts to earn his favour, that includes even good stuff like being moral and good etc. Not wrong in themselves but pretty absurd that a God 'needs' this from his creation. So the choice everyone has to make in this life and possibly the next is will they come to God or not. And following a religion, putting oils on your head, observing fasting wont get you shit. All God wants is an Ok i'm coming from us.

Why do you think that matter exists? Deeper we go into the microcosm - more empty space we see inside it. Atom is made of void on 90%. Electron is made of void on 90%. And so on.

Its the most logical idea. I mean if I show you an ipad and say it never had a creator it just simply exists I'm sure you would say that's an insane proposition considering the complexity and order involved in its design. The more we know from Science is the Universe is so complex at the atomic level to the vastness of space then logic calls for a creator. To me its obvious but it maybe needs a bit of revelation I'm not sure. And to take the idea that there is no creator in such a complex universe is fine but I personally thinks it takes a bigger leap of faith and reason to believe it. If you have that faith then great but I can't get past the simple fact that if something exists then something must of created it.

I just love when God people try their thing. It's everywhere, come on get over your religions already. Maybe there is a god maybe there isn't (even a big bang must have been set off by something?) but the point is that you should just live your lives as you want instead of devoting them to an invisible beardman.

But you also give me the permission to live my life as I want? And if that is believing in a reason for my own existence in a plan that has ramifications for all eternity you wouldn't mind awfully if I don't follow your way to live that in my opinion leads to destruction of my soul for eternity.

Cause from your statement you are saying I should live my life how I want in other-wards live it as you want me to. I can't think of anything more illogical.

You don't need my permission to live your life as you want, but there are too many religions out there - sure hope your family picked the right one so you don't burn for eternity.

Creator = someone who designed it or someone who assembled it?

I would be pretty impressed with either wouldn't you? Forgeting semantics what do you see as different? Assembled suggests another God created it and he just got called in to coordinate things. Or do you mean he created the world and sort of walked away to let it run its course. If so no I believe God is a living God who engages with his creation.

Its a brain twister but God is separate from creation he just is and always was, Yahweh the most common name given to God in the Torah means 'he who creates'.

I'm glad you think the answers are obvious, when some of the greatest minds in history disagree with you. When can we expect your treatise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism

Huh? Because an intelligent person thinks something then it true? But there are intelligent people in history that might agree with me and disagree with you. That's the second most illogical statement I have heard today. I can't assume everyone who is clever is right...I thought you were the thinkers mocking the silly fool believing in Spaghetti Monsters.


The fact is this creation as in existence of inert matter and scientific laws like gravity etc not developed creatures convinces me there must be a power beyond and behind it all. Call me crazy and stick to your story if you want. Cause I know if you have decided that there is not a God you can't argue someone to see it, they have to get that revelation themselves...or not as the case my be. I got to go to bed.

http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

There's simply not enough information to soundly conclude that God must necessarily exist because you likened the Universe to a watch.  Plausible?  Sure.  Sound?  No.  That's about as clear as it gets.

I'm not even sure it's plausible. Invoking a god because of a lack of either imagination or knowledge (or both) is the ultimate deus ex machina - an difficult problem solved by a being that can solve any problem.

To me this is just intellectual laziness. It's just too easy to say "well I don't understand, so it must be caused by a god of some sort".

difficult != impossible

Exactly, well said.

I agree about intellectual laziness.  But the machine argument is still plausible specifically because plausibility doesn't actually  invoke anything. 

Well I simply had an opinion based on what I personally believe I didn't ask anyone to changs their view for me. Now I'm being challenged because someone thinks they KNOW 100% even though they are limited in knowledge based on their brain that they had no part in designing.

So please show me your 100% fact there is no God that simply the whole world can say ah ok yo're right there is no God. You atheists are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals wearing long black coats and matrix glasses thinking the whole world doesent get what they get. If you can't be intellectally honest enough to accept being an atheist needs as much faith as believing in God, agnostics I think are worth having a conversation with Atheists have nothing but other people to point at and say see they think this, it must be true. Intelletually moronic.

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. Why not prove there is a god instead?

Provide irrefutable proof of your hypothesis and you'll make a believer out of me. However, I've never seen any proof, and I doubt you have anything new to show me.

It's somewhere inside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

PS: The whole world can't say "ah ok yo're right there is no God" because not everyone dares to read this book.

Until the time comes that people know everything about the universe, there is no way to truthfully and definitely say that the idea of the existence of God is a delusion. God could easily be lurking in the one piece of knowledge that man had missed. We wouldn't see Him because that is why He is called God. He can do the things of God.

The fact that all of man's knowledge comes from the universe, and the fact that the universe is probably packed with knowledge man hasn't even dreamed about, yet, suggests, at the very least, that there might be a God.

Now, put the above two points together with the fact that man boldly makes the statement that there is no god, and you come up with a very definite god. This god is man, setting himself up as god, by making an assertion he is not qualified to make.

When man does this, the thing he is really doing, is making himself out to be lower than the animals, who at least recognize that there are beings greatly superior to themselves (humans).

As Robert Pirsig says, and Richard Dawkins agrees with:So, when you have man setting himself up as God in the face of a universe full of "things" that suggest highly that God must exist, the man-as-God idea must be a religion... like atheism is a religion. Or is it only that the one or two who are self-god makers are insane?

:)

Logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (where the root word of 'rational' is 'ratio').  In other words, any true statement is simply a sound description of some relationship or characteristic thereof.  It's a mistake to assume that we can't "KNOW 100%," as you suggest, because we didn't design our brain.  It is logical that truth only exists inasmuch as sound, rational expression.  Talking about "truth" outside of a logical perspective takes you down an irrelevant path.

Furthermore, your challenge to him to "please show [you his] 100% fact there is no God" is dubious since that wasn't his assertion.  The assertion seems to be that the conclusion that God must necessarily exist because you decided to arbitrarily set the Universe as analogous to a watch is a non-sequitur.   That is, the conclusion isn't that God doesn't exist based upon your premise, but simply that we can't conclude that God exists.  There's a huge difference.  And, he's also correct (excluding his comments about plausibility).

Throughout your post, I'd also like to point out your inherent contradiction in that you assert that people "[can't] KNOW 100%" because of the physical limitations of the brain, but then you rely upon your own use of logic which you seem to be asserting with absolute, 100% confidence.  For example, saying that "[people can't] know 100%" is the same as saying "I know 100% that people can't know 100%."  For, if you're not making that statement, then you must concede that it's essentially meaningless to consider anything you're stating as fact of any kind.

Big Bang is only a theory that doesn't explain everything but it does explain a lot.

I know a couple of people that talk like you like they just finished their Degree in Philosophy. This is a discussion not a thesis. Both are now working in menial jobs. God bless em.

You can't state this fact or idea in a few sentences? Then either you don't understand it or its not really proof.


I've watched a few debates and shows with Dawkins, he comes across as an angry man with very simple arguments honestly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFwZwRNVwUg

Jesus is the king of kings, and lord of lords


Glad to see someone sharing the gospel

Honestly I'm not really sharing the Christian Gospel I'm getting to first base, the simple truth that its highly likely there is a higher power and no atheists really has anything more than 1st year Philosopher arguments to make their faith in no God sound reasonable.

I'm sorry but religious language makes us believers seems like crackpots. Many people today deep down know there is something of significance in their existence and funnily enough still have deep senses of right and wrong which is kind of hilarious considering they perceive themselves as advanced pond life.

I think the onus is on atheists is to put into a few sentences why God doesn't exist. Like I said I can, matter exists, logic says it must come from somewhere, it naturally calls for a creator. Even a big bang calls for an instigator. Its kind of stupid being an Atheist honestly, its the retarded meme du jour that long coated geeks working in the service industry can feel better about how dipshit dumb they are. Come on atheists give me your best shot. Come on tell me God doesn't exist because Science has proven he doesn't hahahahahahaha. Every generation has sheep sucking up their views from their environment.

No.


Your logic looks flawed to me.

Least I've stated it. Who would say well I know this amazing fact about the Universe as a logical fact (and be sure I'm not stating a fact i'm stating my logic to think/believe/suspose in a God/Power/Creator) but I simply can't explain it in a simple way. If its that convoluted maybe its a little 'fragile'?




Look matter, void, atoms, etc exist so to say they I guess your saying have always existed is a crazy position that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the most logic idea is there must be an eternal being, uncreated, outside of creation that instigated the Universe. If that being or power exists then I'm pretty sure we should be in awe and wonder and crumbling humbleness because to put it sarcastically, he's a bit better than us...

Gravity is only a theory. Quantum mechanics, what powers your laptop, is only a theory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Who or what instigated the Big Bang?

It is quite peculiar, that religious persons in this thread are actually against the big bang theory. The big bang theory presents the option of there being a God, as it doesn't try to specify exactly how the big bang came around in the first place, though two popular assumptions was that colliding universes created the cosmic egg that turned into the big bang, or that God set the big bang in motion.

The author of this thread and all those who argue against the big bang, are also arguing against your own religion and whatever god(s) you believe in. This new theory, http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html, explains that the Universe might be eternal, which means it never had a beginning and will never have an end. It also completely takes God(The Abrahamic) out of the picture, as it's stated in the bible, koran, and torah that God created the universe(Which means that the universe had a beginning) and that all things come to an end, both of which if this new theory is correct, would shown to be wrong.

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/005/1/6/praise_jebus_by_semereliif-d4ldhs3.png

Obviously....

Ask where lighting came from 2500 years ago and you'll get an equally ridiculous answer.

Ask the Babylonians and they'll tell you Mardok killing Tiamat was the big bang. That predates the Abrahamic god. Shouldn't it be more valid?

Who creates virtual particles?

Virtual creators.    :D

I guess you mean me even though i've made clear I don't believe in 'Religion' any more than you have a Religion. I simply think in all likelihood there is a God just like you don't think there is a God.

I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest a BigBang meant there is no God I simply based on 99% of people I have met who don't believe in God use the BigBang theory as proof there doesn't need to be a God. I was simply based on that making the point any BigBang needed to be instigated. I mean and event witnessed needs a cause right? That's Science. I don't have a problem with Science I have a problem with amateur scientists who think Science has somehow ruled out God.

Are you on crack? Seriously we are debating the origins of the Universe and you are comparing the originator or the BigBang as in the same realm as the source of Lightening. Seriously if you want a debate lay off the dumbjuice.

The Babylonians predated the Abrahamic God? Seriously? More crack. You are saying the origins of something are dated from the time we have recorded sources. Shit. So I guess Oxygen which was only 'discovered' and recorded was when Oxygen was started. Before we all simply died within a few minutes. In the words of Homer Simpson Dohhh!

Anymore embarrassing statements and you are dismissed from this adult debate.

I think his point was (although I'm not completely sure) is 'how do you choose which creation myth to believe?'.  

Just to throw this out there. Are you really completely confident in the fact there is no God and the Abrahamic/Christian faith that includes Judgement from the creator is wrong when the Scientists are constantly coming up with new theories and are debating constantly about what is right.

Its like putting the potential of an eternal soul in the hands of a a bunch of geeks who wack off to Gillian Anderson on the XFiles. Shit I thought I needed to have faith. You guys are walking on millimeter thick ice. If I'm wrong I have Oblivion, If your wrong you have possibly eternal Judgement. I hope your a betting man that all I can say. You guys rock you're so brave!!!!

We aren't even talking religions....yet. Though I did in my first post explain my personal reasons for which one I believe is right and my rational.

But no he clearly was suggesting that deciding a BigBang origins is the same as man at one time thinking Lightening was from a God/Gods rather than a natural process (which involves a creator) which is very different. But of course if he wants to go down the whole we were dumb then but now we arent he actually destroys any argument he now has cause I can simply say in 3 centuries people will think your understanding of the world is caveman like and foolish. I've not got the heart to tell him though..

If clerics say the truth then we shouldn't worry about Judgement day. We'll all go to Heaven because God loves us.

I don't think they all say that, otherwise what would be the point of hell?

I have been an atheist for the better part of my adult life, but there is a rather new religion that seems to answer all these questions for me. http://englishrussia.com/2010/02/17/russian-gadget-hackwrench-religion/

Hell and Heaven are defining points. It's impossible to have a scale  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement)with one point only.

Also, there is such thing as apocatastasis. It's another proof that we will all be in Heaven, even Satan.

Eris is the only true goddess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

I'm pretty sure I've read rants by the Westboro Baptist Church promising Hell for gays and unbelievers. Are you saying they're wrong? And if they are wrong, how do you decide which Christian sect is correct?

You basing your idea of God and I guess the Christian faith on chick flicks. You might want to ask the question again assuming you don't understand the faith you are critiquing. The fact is if God is God he can do what the hell he wants, so forming a concept of God based on your ideas is silly. If God said only left handed people go to Heaven then that would be how it rolls, cause he's God. God cannot in the Christian faith as a holy god simply bring into him those not made holy. What do think the whole Jewish idea of the slaughtered animals and then the real sacrifice of Christ is about. The Christian faith simply tells us God will reject those who have rejected him.


Seriously name another religion that predicted something would happen hundreds of years later and it did.

So you need to be on crack to understand the most basic logic analysis? What else should you use in order to date any myth and religion but its recorded sources? Its own claim taken own face value? If yes, then there were buddhas billions of years before your god created your world, and you lose spectacularly.

None. I win.

Ok so you might be happier about Hell for Pedofiles or mass murderers? Firstly Hell is debated by believers but generally you might want to avoid it even if it is just eternal separation from God and knowing you could of been with him.

No as a Believer all men have fallen from the perfection of God. So gays, pedofiles, murderers are all welcome in Heaven if they repent and believe. No sin I believe will condem you but also even believers will be judged for the good they did. Trust me God is way more gracious than humans ever could be. We are the first to bay for blood when we are wronged. God came as a man to earth, I think that shows his compassion and desire to bring all men to himself.

HG Wells predicted that man would go to the moon, and we did. So did Bitcoin (does that count as twice?).

You know Buddhas was by his own description just a man who claimed no supernatural powers etc..right?

Huh. I just thought you were religious but now I starting to think you're crazy intolerant too. What have gays ever done to incur your wrath? Why do you hate them and believe they need to repent? Of what do they need to repent? Something bible related?

He cant follow a simple analogy, that before scientific discover all natural phenomena was based on a deity. And yes the origins of myth are dates from their historical records. Deities are not natural phenomena, the are myth. They all necessarily can't exist simultaneous, by definition of omnipotence, hence, logically, all are wrong.

I actually was going to say prophesied, I kind of thought someone might pull me up on using prediction. They are two very very different things.  

I got he was making an analogy, what I said was it was a ridiculous one to make. 

Can you explain the difference?

Yes. Well in the bible if a prophet talks about a coming messiah who will ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and his name will basically mean 'God among us' then its not the same as I recon this or this might happen based on the situation I see progessing. I mean Nostrodamus, ridiculous and vague as he was, was Prophesying. He didn't say I recon this might happen.


I got to go to bed. its late here.

You are arguing the god of the gaps fallacy. Study the smallest bit of history or philosophy and you will see this argument made countless times. Aristotle's prime mover. Are you more clever than he was?

The analogy applies and was simple enough that all other posters understood it.
Here's how it works.

Natural phenomena lighting - > without known causal agent - > god
Natural phenomena lighting - > with known causal agent - > static electricity
Natural phenomena inflation theory - > without known causal agent - > god

This is where we are now.

You may find this link useful
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-241-logic-i-fall-2009/

Apocatastasis grants salvation to every being. It's irrelevant if they are wrong or right.

Can he create a stone that he can't lift?  ;D

He probably doesn't want to.

If Jesus didn't stay dead, how could His death have been a REAL sacrifice?  ;D

Let's add "even if he wants" in the end.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Which translation? The King James version, which you think is the only one to exist, 1611, that pretty recent for a revision. God fucked up the original? Omnipotent supreme being needs editors and rewrites?

Their computer wasn't good enough to embed hidden messages AND produce a non-contradicting texts. Forgive them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

This is a side effect of destroyed tower of Babel.

That's what Jesus was. In the case of Jesus, Jesus obeyed God perfectly so that God didn't have to lift him. He lifted Himself, at god's bidding, right up onto the cross.

:)

'Cause it was a real death... just like His resurrection was a real resurrection.

:)

He knew he would stay alive. Not much sacrifice in such the deed...

Nextgencoin ran away claiming it was late. His post history with ranting about computer nerds, damn FED, mainstream media cnbc, and gold leads me to believe he is a paranoid uneducated American praise the lord and pass the ammunition type person. It is at most 430pm where he is, and I conclude he has conceded his argument

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/23/00/59/23005943c9e6683385fd1a8a887fff40.jpg

Praise the FSM

Staying alive only comes after the death and resurrection. Now that He is alive again, death has no mastery over Him. He will be alive forever.

:)

This is all mental masturbation. How are we supossed to physically prove this?

You sound like masturbation is evil. I hope you don't imply that masturbators deserve hell?  :D

This post seems to shining proof for me that the truth is indeed here: http://godisimaginary.com/i49.htm

I came back today to continue an intelligent conversation but it looks like people have just turned to their real selves and are just mocking for the sake of mocking. Seems to me one person can't hold a contradictory opinion on here without the majority attempting to club him to death instead of having a genuine discussion. Typical group behaviour that has singled out humans as susceptible to evil be it Nazi, Communist state sponsored evil.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307

But if anyone is interested this is a great book that gives an intelligent walk through of faith from an unbelieving journalist and lawyer who genuinely wanted to understand and know what this faith was and became a believer in the process. The rest of you can fuck off, becoming a believing in God never gave anyone a licencee to treat me like a fucking wanker, Gays don't dare say a word against Gays. It Chritians yeah they are fair play.so fuck off and yeah I hope God judges your asses cause I personally don't have the compassion for your type of anti God Fuckwittery.

We don't really die since all the atoms that constitute us stay on earth but they are used to make something else.

I think that you have a completely different idea of what living is to most people.

This is a "discussion not a thesis?"  What the heck is that supposed to mean?  I'm only allowed to say complete BS?  Is that the rule?

I gave a thoughtful, point-by-point response to your post.  Are you upset about that?

Nothing that I said is profound, and it's not even complicated.  It is, however, correct.

I'll share my ideas however I please, thanks.  If you're going to spout some cliche, romanticized ideas because they make you feel smart, go for it.  You just end up sounding insane when you call people "intellectually moronic" because you are asserting that you know for certain (via logic) that people cannot know for certain (via logic).

definitely a good read!

Why do you pick on nextgencoin for using logic to determine that logic can't determine anything, while at the same time you are bigoted against only certain kinds of bigots?

:)

I find the belief in God to be something very rational, but I can't say the same about the belief in Jesus. At all.

Why are you supporting a bigot?

:)

nextgencoin is only promoting idiocy, which, although isn't very helpful, is not the condemnation of a complete stranger to hell for eternity for characteristics they were born with because of the God you believe in.  Sorry, I'm bigoted against people who are  awful towards others and take pride in it.

Also, I really don't understand your point as it is exactly written.  Are you suggesting that I should be a bigot towards myself for correcting someone's poor use of reasoning?

If belief in God is rational, you must concede that belief in Jesus is at least plausible.

It's possible that Jesus did exist, people claim they saw and even touch him. But what does make you think that God exists?

The self-apparent process of intelligent design that unfolds before you with every perception.  God is a logical necessity.

What the rules of this logic? I bet the law of excluded middle is not included in the list, am I right?

Could you explain your thoughts behind the law of excluded middle a bit more as it relates to my claim?

A man was created in the image and likeness of God.
A man has sense of humor.
I'm a man.
Being omnipotent God is able to create something that violates the law of excluded middle.
If I was God I would include this "something" into Bible for lulz or as a hint that I exist.

God will set you free, but not sure about that site.

Christianity isn't what will save you, a relationship and love with God will

I apologize, I'm still not following but I want to understand.

The tremendous depth of God's sense of humor gives Him extremely much enjoyment when he reads what you have written here.

 :D

This is the point. Now you understand what others feel reading Bible.

Time to get as much of that Bible into your head as you can, so God has something to work with there to save you with... since you are not smart enough to save yourself with it.

:)

Stephen Hawking: 'There are No Black Holes'

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/172180-2015-03-11-stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.htm

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2015/03/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

:)

This is the paper by Hawking that those two 'news' pieces are based on: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

It's called "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes".

When you look at the weather forecast, especially the 10-day forecast, it changes about 4 times a day, except for areas that everybody knows what is going to happen anyway, because it is so regular.

That's approximately the same kind of predicting we can get for black holes.

:)

wow I been gone from this topic, Just to give you food for thought, if everything is to be part of a food chain, Then what part of the food chain we are in?  Who eats us?  Think of that, We an eat any animale we wanted to or insect.   I mean, yes we can be eaten by animals cause it has happened.  But since god gave us the power of free will and the power to think, he made us in his own image.  Im sure he meant brain power as well. what can eat us in the food chain like we are part of it?

Plants welcome being eaten by animals or people. They become part of a greater life that way.

If you look throughout the Gospels of the New Testament in Bible, you will find that Jesus often talks about people like they are being harvested by God via the angels. Those of us who are not considered weeds, are moving into a greater form of living... living "with" God.

:)

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/cwamilitarysquads/images/1/17/Jackie-Chan-WTF-meme-face-70958233396.jpeg/revision/latest/scale-to-width/600?cb=20140712003555


Is there some science behind that statement?

So, you're saying it's a pretty good approximation, then?  I'm guessing you don't wear shorts when the forecast says it will be below freezing.

It's nice to see you acknowledging (albeit indirectly) that your interpretation of what Hawking said was dubious.  It's about as close as I've ever seen you acknowledge your misunderstandings.  Before, you were just going to go with "there are no black holes," and here you are confirming that you believe they exist.

Any weather prediction is good, if some kind of weather happens. This is because nobody knows anything about the future, even 1 second into the future.

:)

I believe there might have been a phenomena like the bigbang as was created by God. something that big couldn't have created itself

Why?

Because you can't think of something isn't an answer.

Fuck God

Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS.

There is no evidence that a divine creator exists.
There is a ton of evidence that no divine creator exists.
Most things human beings believed about the world around us 1,000 years ago have been proven to be false.  Beliefs were developed and held because we were simply too ignorant to know the difference so we 'blamed' things that lacked scientific explanation on a divine being so powerful our puny little minds couldn't comprehend them.

We still have puny, uninformed minds compared to everything going on in the Universe but we are in way better shape than our ancestors were.  We now know for example, that eclipses are not the hand of god, they are a predictable, natural phenomenon.

I don't get why some people (okay LOTS of people) have not naturally come to realize that god was a superstition (sorry There Will be Blood) invented BY man to explain that which defied explanation.

The idea of god did not exists before man, and would no longer exist were man removed from existence.

You think the dinosaurs sat around wondering if the day they spent eating the uncooked entrails of some random creature while it was still alive pleased god?
Ohh....that's right I forgot, the dinosaurs weren't real!

"Science NOT unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos yet does NOT = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is quite accurate... just like "Science unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos does = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is accurate as well.

For proof that God exists see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

:)

EDIT: Since dinosaurs are/were part of God's creation, they definitely are evidence for His existence.

Correct, we aren't wizards.  It seems we agree on something.

So, since you just said you can't know anything for certain even one second into the future, then you must also believe that you aren't certain about who God will send to Heaven or Hell, or that anything in Revelations, such as Armageddon, is certain to happen, right?

Nice backwards logic.  Way to prove dinosaurs are part of God's creation before proving God exists or created anything.

The Big Bang doesn't explain everything anyway.

"Science unlocking all the mysteries of the cosmos does = GOD DEFINITELY EXISTS," is accurate as well.

^ This is like the opposite of the word accurate.

This is true. And one of the biggest things it doesn't explain is, all the possible variables over time that could prove that the Big Bang did not happened.

Since we have a Big Bang Theory that has a lot of holes in the idea, since nobody can show for a fact that it could have even happened (yet), and since even if they did, then they would have the much larger problem of showing that it actually DID happen because of the potential variables of the past that might prove it didn't, Big Bang believers have turned the Theory into a religion, simply by believing it is fact when it hasn't been proven to be fact.

:)

Oh, now this is interesting.

So, by your own words, religion = believing in a theory as fact when it has not proven to be fact.

And, by your own words in previous posts, you are a Christian, and of course Christianity is a religion.

So, you are saying that you believe in Christianity, a religion that has not been proven to be fact.

Yeah, because dinosaurs feature quite heavily in the Bible.  Or am I getting it mixed up with Jurassic Park?  Dickie Attenborough as god?  They both have white beards.

Of course, the existance of Big Bang is only a speculation. It is beleived to exist no proof to the contrary has been established yet. Wait a few more years, and you can see another, more probable theory coming up..

That depends.  From a classical perspective, evidence suggests the Big Bang happened.  But there are problems with this.

The Big Bang is a logical conclusion when we control for observation.  Controlling for observation essentially means that we assume our relative perspective (from which we gather data) is instead an objective one.  This allows us to infer the Big Bang occurred at given time and place.  If, however, we don't control for observation, the Big Bang seems to fall apart.  Consequently, questions like "when or where did the Big Bang occur?" become objectively meaningless. 

If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.

Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING. Big Bang and any of the popular garbage that goes along with it - a 13 or 14 billion year universe, life from evolution, dark matter and dark energy, the sun and stars being powered by nuclear reactions, molten core of the earth, and multitudes of other fantastic things that it can't begin to prove by any stretch of the imagination - is all science fiction, dreamed up by sci-fi writers pawning themselves off as scientists, just so that they can get their funding.

:)

So lets get this straight, your logic says:

1. Medical science hasn't found a way for us humans to live to 500 years old.
2. Therefore the big bang didn't happen.

I just genuinely LOL'd very hard indeed. :D

The church requires funding too you know.  ;)

Oh, Fluffer. It doesn't work like that. You're awareness that humans don't live to 500 years old, doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a Big Bang. You really need to go back to school - or maybe just graduate - so that you understand that nobody knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Just 'cause most of the real-life evidence is against it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Don't you just wish that all the advertising about the Big Bang said it straight out, like, "We really don't have a clue if it happened or not."

:)

Hey, nice backpedel. So realising your folly about the 500 year thing, your now saying it has no connection with the big bang (which it doesn't).
I'm glad you've admitted (not directly though) your wrong.
Perhaps *think* next time before you come out with silly arguments.


Of course we don't know, and probably never will. That's why it's called a theory. Nobody is pretending it isn't, apart from you.

Maybe in 10 years time a different theory will appear that gains consensus. No doubt some hardcore believers will then keep trying to promote the old theory. Very similar to how the young 6000 year old earth theory lost consensus and was dropped.
We laugh now, but hard as it is to believe, people did actually believe this was once true. I know, I know, your rolling your eyes in disbelief, but yes seriously, people did really believe the earth was only 6000 years old, once upon a time.

Look up multi-verse and M-Theory. A proposed theory is that there are many universes created by "branes" colliding with one another to create new universes. The universes are essentially like bubbles floating around, and when they smack into one another they create another bubble. This is where the big bang originated from. Two branes colliding and forming a new universe.



They have... look up the SIR2 gene research. This couldn't have been unlocked until DNA research was made readily available.

Whether there are multiple universes or only one is pretty irrelevant.

If, on one hand, there are multiple universes that we can confirm to exist, then an explanation is required for the cause of these other universes.  Simply knowing how our universe was created is nice, but not very helpful if we know there are others (i.e. What caused them all?).

On the other hand, if only our universe exists, then we're stuck with essentially the same question: What caused this Universe to exist?

Both scenarios can be approached equally.  Let's simply reduce Universe(s) to "Reality" in a set-theoretic way.  This simplifies our approach:

1) If there are multiple universes constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

2) If there is only one universe constituting the set of reality 'R,' is there anything real enough outside of 'R' which could have caused 'R?'

Even though I use the term parallel universes at times, the idea of "universe" implies everything. A person who wants to think about something that is NOT part of everything, just might have to twist his brain all out of shape to do it. It might not be possible to do.

Extra universal would indicate that logic does not fit, except, possible, completely by accident.

:)

So how, then, do you reconcile your claims of a real god who transcends the Universe?

You claim to make true, logical statements about a transcendent god despite claiming that one would have to "twist his brain all out of shape to do it."

Way to contradict yourself for the thousandth time.

fascinating :-)

The bible was written by many people over many periods of time and in different places in different languages.  Then translated into English when we still used thou, ye, and thee.  To say "the person who wrote the bible", is to say "I am ignorant of the where the bible comes from".

sdp

That's the new theory that predicts the universe never had a beginning and was always here, right. This is even worse news for illogical christians, *cough* BADecker *cough*, who believe god created the world in 6 days, than the big bang theory's description of their being a central point of origin to the universe billions of years ago, i.e a beginning.

If that is truly what this calc is all about, then it is way too small. Nobody knows how to manipulate people into living 500 years, because nobody knows enough. Even if we had the knowledge to manipulate, we still are almost infinitely far from actually making life, to say nothing about human life. This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.

:)

OK PPL !

Stop fighting on useless talk!

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/610/253/184.jpg

That plus the English translation was written using the King's English, which essentially no commoners understood. Couple that with the fact that Court of King James removed, re-worded, and added countless stuff that they thought was unimportant, or contradicted the king's ideologies. There's at least another 3 books of the bible that are not included in the King James version.

Couple that with the fact that no where in the bible does it actually state that you go to Heaven as reward for anything; not once does it say. Plus if people knew the King's English they would understand that term "heaven" is simply the King's English version of the word "sky". It is not a definitive place, but another word referring to the sky.

Most subsequent language translations used the King James version to translate into other languages.

As a result of that, we have generation after generation of deluded Christians believing nothing more than a highly perverted version of the bible.

I don't think that you are right here.
Yes, we can talk about quality of translation but we can't explore value of Bible simple in scientific way.
Bible is much more than this, spiritual guidance for believers, spiritual scripture.
Most Christians believe that people who wrote Bible was spiritually inspired.
You can't compare Bible with other, ordinary book, or look in Bible in the same way as you look other books.
We have first to research history recorded in Bible, 2000 years ago or more and compare actual facts with Bible facts.
Based on such research we can make some concrete conclusions, not just based on quality of translations.
And yes, for believers Heaven is not just sky but have much more deep content.

Just watch this:
https://youtu.be/iRGr_EX1VPY?t=5m31s

and this:

https://youtu.be/iRGr_EX1VPY?t=20m15s

In the Revelation, "Heaven" is described in several different ways, a couple of which are:
1. The New Jerusalem where God, Himself, gives His people their light and sustenance;
2. The New Heavens and the New Earth, depicting that the old universe will have passed away (destroyed) and a new universe will take its place, one founded on new physics that might retain some of the physics of the old universe.

:)

You've made no sense, again. "Infinitely far from making life", what, do realize we've been cloning since the 20th century right? Do you even know what that equation is? Are you high? What are you even talking about. We're on the boundaries of providing indefinite life to people via stem cell research and nanomachines. Go educate yourself.

"This calc is way to small to tell anything about anything regarding the beginning of the universe.", that makes absolutely no sense, this is quantum equations sir, which is a level of magnitude higher than anything you'd be able to understand. Go learn some quantum physics/mechanics, then talk before sprouting off illogical statements that not even a 5 year old would make, troll.

You are coming along so well for a little guy. After you get a little older, you will start to understand just how complex and grand things really are. For now, go on outside and play with the other kids. Mommy will call you when dinner is ready.

:)

You're a troll. You have no idea about anything, literally. You don't know logic, you don't know quantum mechanics, you don't know science, you don't know history, you don't know about technology.


What do you even know? Oh yea, making inaccurate and illogical statements. Got it.

Now, now. Go on back out and play. You can come back in when you grow up. But that won't happen, will it?

We adults have work to do. Be a good little boy and go back out and play.

:)

Correct, I won't be responding to your nonsensical gibberish anymore. I and a plethora of others, have made enough posts singling out just how illogical, informed, and generally nonsensical you are for all reading these threads to see.

No one is going to be fooled by your hypocritical statements, outright lies or misconceptions/misrepresentations, and general "trollyness".

I can't say I understand what 0* is supposed to mean but Hubble's law is

v = H₀D

Where H₀ is hubble's constant.  D is the distance and v is the velocity.
In differential equations this is:

D' = k *D

Now D, is given by an exponential:

D=me^t. 

With k and m being constants.  Extrapolate it into the past you never get the distances to 0.

To get D = 0 for any real or complex t, we must assume D = 0 for all t.  So we know D could never have been 0 because it isn't 0 now.  Distances can approach zero but never get to 0. 

sdp

The fact that red-shift stars have now been shown to simply be young stars nearby, rather than old stars zooming away from us at high speed, shows that the universe is much smaller than previously thought. In fact, the universe is so small that there is no way that a Big Bang could have happened.

In addition, black holes don't exist. This is because there isn't enough time (the universe is much smaller than thought, and time is much shorter than thought) for formation of black holes. In addition, electric cosmos theory is way more practical that any of the standard cosmology theories of today.

Many modern, so-called scientific theories are not even theories. They are simply touted as such by scientists who want an excuse to continue to be funded so they can keep on playing at what they do.

:)

Creationists don't even have anything close to a therory. They just have a book from the iron age.
Science have moved forward. Sadly some people are still stuck in the dark ages believing their book is the truth because the book says so.
Thats all the evidence they need

Here's my theory.

1. God either created the universe, or the universe spontaneously arose for no apparent reason.
2. Humanity emerged at somepoint and became sentient.
3. Early Humans felt a spiritual connection with the world, and alot of things that happened around them seemed to be of mystical nature.
4. Someone started writing religious documents to attempt to control the instincts (we call human instincts emotions, but they are still instincts) of a populace prone to rage and violence.
5. Some people found that through the bible, quran, or whatever else they followed the could get a spiritual form of moral guidance through their newfound religion, and stuck with it.
6. Some other people were spooked by the "Fire and Brimstone" messages in said religious texts, leading them to latch onto religion out of fear without true understanding and connection the Creator.
8. My Conclusion:
Good People = have a conscious and make conscious effort to make amends for any bad things they do. If there's a heaven, logic tells you thats where these people go.
Bad People = have no moral conscious. if there's a hell, thats probably where they go.

Am i wrong? Probably. Do i care? Not a bit. I will continue to strive to do right in my life, and praise God whether he exists or not. I believe that he does, but if you don't, thats your right and i respect it.

Alternatively some people have never understood why other people have needed a god, and rather than being spooked by religion find it irrelevant.

Good theory, but there is a higher being at work here,there are too many variables. I believe we are co-creators of this universe . Let me explain, the problem with the spontaneously arose theory is our eye's and ears and nerve ending are too much alike with the rest of the worlds animals to not have blue prints of some kind. It's kind of like getting a royal flush every time when the primordial ooze was mixing together to form different life . Lets try another way its like a hurricane flying in a airplane junkyard and it just so happened to make a airplane with all the spare parts flying around. But there is one thing that might hold water and that is time,lots of time.if you have infinity time to shuffle the deck eventually you will get those royal flushes might take a while but because it is possible it will happen.You're right about religion ,It was made before laws to tame the citizens but you see in our hearts we all have superstition ,like ...ghosts,shadow people,demons and god. They are all out of fear  but why fear. Its the same as when you just know there is danger; that feeling in your stomach.That feeling has gotten me out of some serious situations!  Who ever made us gave us a few powers we right off as instinct but in fact we are super beings.If we were not we could never survive or be co-creators

I'm well aware of these people; i just find them irrelevant...  :o

Well, I'm sure those people find that very encouraging, as opposed to the religious types that try to convert them, or make unfounded accusations about their morals.

Just as i found it encouraging when you refer to religion as "irrelevant". respect is a two way street.

I find it irrelevant to *me*. I'm quite certain there are plenty of people who find religion very relevant otherwise there would be no religious conflict.

Actually this is perhaps the only thing on which both scientists and religious people totally agree
Both believe in Big Bang, just scientists believe that Big Bang came by chance and religious people believe that God started it.
What is the truth?
Probably we will never know, we can believe either in Religion or science but they can't prove their theories or ideologies.

(Red colorization mine.)


(Red colorization mine.)

(Red colorization mine.)

How does one perceive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perceive) “right” (r3wt) in such a way as to prove (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove) (at least, to oneself) that it exists in the real (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective)?

That a slippery slope. There are the obvious things. Murder, Bullying, Abuse, Stealing,Scamming, etc. Then there are the little things, like being rude to other people or hurting other people intentionally(emotional), disrespecting other people, telling lies about people. Some people have a type of moral compass, whether they admit it or not. Like when you did something bad and it hurts you so bad to even think about it that it makes you want to cry. It appears that some other people never experience this.

PS: you acidentally linked to perceive twice-

(Red colorization mine.)

How does this prove “right” (r3wt) to not be a network of symbols referencing each other but nothing else (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#6)?

Objectively you can't prove that it does, but you can choose to believe that it does.

ok

Care to clarify the meaning of this sideshow we have entered? i'm having trouble following you.

“[R]ight” (r3wt) cannot be “do[ne]” (r3wt) because it does not reference the real (whereof, one’s acts are constituted).

I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. also, seems pretty weird how you keep placing my username in parenthesis.

Consider the following syllogism: “Acts are physical. ‘Right’ is not physical. Therefore, ‘right’ cannot be an act.”

Perhaps you should have studied how to effectively communicate  :)

Do you acknowledge that you can confuse the hyperreal (here, any network of symbols that reference each other but nothing else) for the real (here, the physically extant)?

belief is a choice, so you certainly can. beyond this observation, i'm hardly qualified to pontificate on this matter.

(Red colorization mine.)



It is a (post-])modern “matter” (r3wt) that besieges even the common man.

in my opinion, the premise is false.

each step in the chain doesn't seem to be related. I'm also not sold on the existence of this hyperreality.

1.  “[E]ach step in the chain” (r3wt) strips a subconscious pattern of behavior of its primitivism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primitivism#mwEntryData). (E.g., nations “close the border” (http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/armed-vigilante-activities-in.html) whereas [chimp] colonies “improve[] a male chimp’s access to resources” (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276).)

2. ;) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977657.msg10683052#msg10683052)

I personally don't believe in god.   However saying "there was no big bang, so god must exist" is a logical fallacy.  Thousands of "gods" have "existed" and thousands have gone out of existence.    Several thousands of years from now, something else will be worshiped and people will look at the Judeo-Christian god just as we do the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Norse gods.

I just hope that what they choose to worship in the future is a cute blonde or something so it will be slightly more tolerable when brought up in conversation.

You can do this today.  Convert to Asatru, which is odinism.  The mother is "Frigg".  This is where we got the name for "Friday'.  She is a Norse god and definitely would be blonde. 

Or just google 'blonde goddess' you'll find some. 

I think you should note the case in "god" in "there was no big bang, so god must exist".  Since the chance of the big bang creating a universe today is something like: 10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 it is fair to throw it out as a theory.  Given these odds, it seems more reasonable that there is some kind of consciousness directing the Universe's evolution or was part of its creation.    Whether the men who wrote books about god, got everything right is something many would dispute.

The scientific method, if it starts with a some theory even a bad one, leaves us with going back to the old theory if the tests do not prove the new hypothesis.  This is why some say, the big bang is impossible, therefore god.

sdp

At the end of the day both science and religion tell the same story: one moment there was no universe, then *POOF* big bang/god created everything in an instant.

Personally, I think both theories are equally improbable.

If this is true then tell me the probable story . Think of who we are and where we came from ? And for a moment forget about the Big Bang theory . Look at the universe and tell me how vast is this universe ? What is outside ? There will be questions and puzzles all the way . The end of the day always happens with no gain . Even a small star is millions of billions of light years far from earth . How can anyone even think of a photon returning to earth telling about the distance it measured . I dont believe in god . If there were god it had some proof . And why god would choose earth specifically ?

There's no god, the answer is something way way way bigger than our brains could ever hope to understand.  There are infinite reasons why infinite universes exist, have existed, and will exist.  Trying to look for a simple answer is human nature; there is no answer.

In the universe, we are aware of two great opposing things. One of them is the exact opposite of the thing that entropy produces. The other is entropy and the things that it produces.

We see entropy at work tearing down the things that are exactly opposite of what it produces. We don't see any cause that could have caused the opposite of what entropy produces to exist. There is nothing at all that we can see that could have built the great marvels of the universe that entropy is destroying.

Mankind is part of the universe. The mind of man may be the greatest thing of and in the universe. The mind of man is the only thing that we see that has abounding intelligence and reasoning abilities. It is the only thing that can produce highly advanced "things" of intelligent design.

Because mankind has been around for a long time, and because we don't see anything other than entropy working for at least as long as mankind has been around, mankind and his mind have been deteriorating due to entropy, just like everything else.

As we extrapolate back in time, we move toward a place and time when either there wasn't any entropy, or else entropy and the exact opposite of entropy (whatever it is) were completely balanced. What would the mind of mankind have been like back then?

Whatever it is that could design the intelligent mind of mankind way back before it had deteriorated due to the addition of entropy, is God. Whatever this God is, He/She/It is still God... by the dictionary definitions.

:)

Ok, so you are proposing your own theoretical model. Let's look at it.

Responding in paragraphical order:

1)  While it is true we become aware of entropy because we identify it as separate from its inverse, i.e. non-entropy, this dichotomy doesn't serve as a great basis for formulating a model of reality.  Entropy itself is an abstract model of patterns which are directly observable in physical systems.  This has deep implications for your model; I'll get to those as I go on.

2)  Slight correction -- we observe that systems break down which both enables us to form an entropic model of closed systems, and also reinforces this model through continued observation.  But yes, you are correct that we do not observe any direct cause of the processes we have modeled as entropy.

3)  Although it's irrelevant, animals can make/build tools, homes/dens/nests, etc. which can be described as either extremely complex or extremely simple, based upon your perspective.  But again, all of this is really irrelevant, anyway. The point is that we have no choice but to rationalize with logic and form the best theoretical models that we can, inasmuch as our human minds allow us to do so.

4)  This is where the implications I mentioned in point #1 become important and relevant to your model.  You cannot infer from entropy that the human mind is also moving towards disorder.  This is because entropy, as I explained in #1, is an abstract (i.e. of mind) model of physical systems.  Based on this information, you cannot conclude that the abstract mind necessarily deteriorates as it does not fall within the scope of the model.

5)  Here, you start going all over the place.  First, you're not going to get a fundamental understanding of anything through extrapolation.  The process of extrapolating removes the ability to conclude at a 100% level of confidence.  

Second, you make contradictory statements with regards to time.  "Time" is better modeled in terms of "spacetime" where space and time are inseparable and synthesized in a unity of understanding, which thus provides broader scope than a discussion of "time" alone.  Because of its physical components, "spacetime" can be modeled as a physical system, and thus one to which entropy applies.  If you try to extrapolate back in time, you'll find that you can't assume any type of physical reality in which entropy didn't apply (and, therefore, can't assume any "time" at which entropy didn't apply).

Third, Einstein modeled via the Theory of Relativity that time is a relative function.  The model itself could be described as a superpositional explanation of time as it relates to space.  In contrast, you are describing/modeling time in a purely linear fashion. which falls short in scope to the Einsteinian model.  The result is that a correct answer to your question, "What would the mind of mankind have been like back then?" would only provide a topological understanding of mind.  Put simply, better models lending to more comprehensive conclusions must necessarily exist.

6)  Here, your premise that something existed to create the human mind which "deteriorated due to the addition of entropy" is invalid for the aforementioned reasons (e.g. we can't conclude the human mind is necessarily subject to entropy based upon laws of thermodynamics, etc.).  

What you can say is something like, "There is some unknown cause, 'x', and for practicality I'm going to say x=God.  And so, therefore, because the unknown cause exists, God exists."

What you can't do is reach this conclusion that God exists, and then say that because God exists it embodies all the characteristics you think it does based upon your Biblical understanding of it, or any other preconceived notion of God that you might have. This precludes your ability to make any other statements about God, unless you can form a sound, theoretical model for it.

We are in a black hole inside out ! What holds the space from collapsing in from gravity is dark matter expanding "space" dark energy is the gravity against it. there will be 3 things that can occur in the end !
#1 The universe keeps expanding and stars and galaxies drift further apart until all the stars burn out and there is total darkness and cold.
#2 Dark matter "space" will sling shot back at some point and we will die in a crack or splat
#3 The universe will keep expanding and growing in velocity until the fabric of space will be ripped and in a blink we will all die in an explosion of energy like the beginning of this universe began  , Thank You  for reading.

(Red colorization mine.)

I understand and agree with all of this.  Was this simply an addition rather than a point of correction or clarification?

Neither/nor. (I.e., of the interpretation and interpreter, the interpreter “is.”)

Well even tho a good amount of scientists accept the big bang theory, theres also another part of them that dont, there are different theories, the big bang theory its a good one but no one knows what happened exactly not even these scientists.

I also agree. before big bang there was a premine

Self-apparently, yes.

Consider a black hole as being the portal between two universes.  On the one side it is sucking matter in (death of an old universe) and on the other it is spewing it out (big bang, start of new one). 

When a universe is created it expands like a balloon (as matter from elsewhere is pumped into it) until enough black holes have formed and it starts draining energy and shrivelling up. 

I think of it as a multi dimensional lava lamp.  Are there any obvious faults with my idea?

The Universe is expanding from everywhere, not from a single point in space (which is an extrapolation from tricks of perception based upon our frame of reference). So, you would need to reconcile this somehow with our current knowledge of black holes.