where did the material for the big bang come from? (Alternative to"who created god")

i answered the question, why is this thread still going. the science behind it is clear and concise, now what do we need to keep going on for?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i answered the question, why is this thread still going. the science behind it is clear and concise, now what do we need to keep going on for?

Because you and science are NOT, I repeat, NOT, the end all knowers of absolute truth.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

Originally posted by LordBucket
I've fond of the idea that the 'big bang' was simply choice of consciousness to observe nothingness in a slightly more interesting way. Or, to put it differently, the physical universe does not exist. But, we as conscisousness are choosing to perceive that nonexistence in a more interesting way than simply 'nothing.'

I suppose I share this belief. Without the human conciousness observing the Universe, might it cease to exist?

Highly possible.

That is of course to say
Nothing, including matter, really exists (with the exception of conciousness).

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

Originally posted by Thousand

Originally posted by shihulud
I suggest you read up a bit more on shamanism, in particular their 'trip' reports, I also suggest that you read up on the reports from Dr Rick Strassman in ''___' the spirit molecule'. Another good source of information is the middle part of 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock (just at that part myself - very informative). Also most stuff by Terence McKenna is quite interesting.

Why?

Because before you deride the use of hallucinogens as just some 'super dream' there is some very interesting coincidences that cannot be easily explained away. The gaining of information is one thing.


G

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by shihulud
Another good source of information is the middle part of 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock

Hancock is never a good source of information, he is a fraud.

Hancock is a journalist with little integrity and he constantly looks for ways to inject his religious belief system into every theory. Even if he was to ignore evidence to do so. He is biased, he is not a scientist, he has proven to be fraudulent in his clams in the past, and his main motivation is to sell books.

George Bush's speeches are more truthful than the information in a Hancock novel.

While I tend to agree with you on Hancocks theorizing, the information of these pages I spoke can be idependently varified, plus I'm not trying to champion Hancocks theories but these pages do tend to confirm that hallucinogens do have some very strange qualities that cannot be easily explained through brain chemistry - I'm not suggesting anything supernatural (As the title of hancocks book suggests) is happening but just an unexplained natural phenomenon that should be investigated further but the 'laws' of so called civilised countries forbids this investigation, I wonder why?.


G

double post


[edit on 3-8-2007 by shihulud]

I will add my 2 cents worth on this....

If you look into what constitutes matter there is an interesting pattern the smaller you keep going even down to quarks that have been observered under microscopes, the particles are made of literally nothing you are basically made of a vibration - sound...or a word perhaps ?

Originally posted by mazzroth
I will add my 2 cents worth on this....

If you look into what constitutes matter there is an interesting pattern the smaller you keep going even down to quarks that have been observered under microscopes, the particles are made of literally nothing

you are basically made of a vibration - sound...or a word perhaps ?

In one eastern religion (Buddhism?) OM is the vibration of enlightenment. Im sure you know this already, but for those of yuo who didn't it certainly is interesting.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

It really is useless, the whole creationism v Evolution/Big Bang thing.

Both camps have no valid authority to claim that they are right and the other, wrong.

The universe is beyond the realms of human explanation. Science will never be able to prove or disprove anything. And I doubt religion can either. Religion is still very much a personal thing. Maybe the furfillment of prophecy, or the return of a figure could, but even then, we are approaching concepts man cannot understand.

Something had to be there for an explosion or bang to occur. On the other hand, surely something had to be present for god to exist beforehand, before he started to mould the universe.

Originally posted by shihulud
Because before you deride the use of hallucinogens as just some 'super dream' there is some very interesting coincidences that cannot be easily explained away. The gaining of information is one thing.

Firstly, I didn't "deride" anything, quite far from that actually. Secondly, coincidences between what and what? You seem to trail off here, what are you trying to say?

Originally posted by Peyre
Something had to be there for an explosion or bang to occur.

How many times must I say that there was something there beforehand? That misconception is right up there with monkeys morphing into humans. It's not what the theory says and nobody in the know has stated it as such.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Thousand]

What was there then?

Exactly, you don't know, Scientists don't either. Something had to create whatever was there in the first place. So stop being so sure

what if the big bang was a primitive incorrect theory that man-apes on earth think is right (EVEN THO theres very little evidence)

Almost all the evidence is CIRCUMSTANCIAL

hey man just cuz u can make a fancy math formula that says the big bang happened, IGNORING the reality of BLACK holes and massive gravity fluctuations

i can make a math formula for a 2d universe X + 1 = y
(Example to show how u can make up imaginary equations to work in imaginary worlds (2dworld)

so basically theres no point in even debating the big bang, we just were not alive back then to witness creation, and so no matter what theorys phsyicst come up with are just that Theorys

The big bang has always been a THEORY, it cannot be "Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" cuz thats impossible

hope that helps

[edit on 6-8-2007 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by prototism
Without the human conciousness observing the Universe, might it cease to exist?

Highly possible.

But the universe existed for a long long time before the first humans existed.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by prototism
Without the human conciousness observing the Universe, might it cease to exist?

Highly possible.

But the universe existed for a long long time before the first humans existed.

How do we know that for certian? If everything, including spacetime, matter, etc is part of a projection of some collective unconcious, there is no "outside" source to compare it to.

I suppose humanity itself would be a projection, and you and I are nothing more than individual conciousnesses.

This is basically the premise of The Matrix, or The Allegory of the Cave, some pretty heavy and well accepted ideas of existenital philosophy.

[edit on 8/6/2007 by prototism]

[edit on 8/6/2007 by prototism]

Originally posted by prototism
How do we know that for certian? If everything, including spacetime, matter, etc is part of a projection of some collective unconcious, there is no "outside" source to compare it to.

Through observation. We know Earth once didn't exist and for humans to exist Earth had to first.

I do find the idea interesting though, and read about the wave/particle duality and the fact that if you really break things down the universe is one.

Also everything you see, feel, hear or smell are basically illusions made up by your brain.

Originally posted by Peyre
What was there then?

Exactly, you don't know, Scientists don't either. Something had to create whatever was there in the first place. So stop being so sure

What was there? The entire universe, that's what. Only compressed. And no, whatever was there did not have to be created. Maybe it was always there? We don't know and probably never will.

"Stop being so sure". I'll continue to be as sure as the best ideas in astronomy can make me, which is as sure as anyone can be.

Ok.. what if the universe hasn't existed forever and wont exist forever.. Time is observed by us and billions of years pass because we observe them. Maybe the universe doesn't move or change in time. we are a clock ticking in a universe without time. Therefore WE had a start and WE will have an end but the universe.. is on pause... it just is and will be.. not 'forever' because forever assumes some kind of timespan.

Once all life in the universe seizes to exist, there will be nobody to observe it.. so will it exist?

Our Billions of years actualy = 0.000 (From the start of life as we know it until the end all happens in an instant)

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Ok.. what if the universe hasn't existed forever and wont exist forever.. Time is observed by us and billions of years pass because we observe them. Maybe the universe doesn't move or change in time. we are a clock ticking in a universe without time. Therefore WE had a start and WE will have an end but the universe.. is on pause... it just is and will be.. not 'forever' because forever assumes some kind of timespan.

Once all life in the universe seizes to exist, there will be nobody to observe it.. so will it exist?

Time exists as long as there is motion, not life. If nothing moved, if every atom froze and every particle that exists stopped, then time would stop. But if all life disappeared the planets would still move along their orbits, and galaxies would still drift and merge.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by prototism
How do we know that for certian? If everything, including spacetime, matter, etc is part of a projection of some collective unconcious, there is no "outside" source to compare it to.

Through observation. We know Earth once didn't exist and for humans to exist Earth had to first.

I do find the idea interesting though, and read about the wave/particle duality and the fact that if you really break things down the universe is one.

Also everything you see, feel, hear or smell are basically illusions made up by your brain.

"Observation" is irrelevant; whats to say that it too wasnt manufactured by the collective unconcious? I mean, assuming the Universe is just a projection, that would mean everything, incuding history, spacetime, matter, the human body, and humanity iteslf is all a manufactured reality. In short, what's to say it isn't ALL in our head?

And as for the motive behind this invention of the Universe, perhaps our conciousnesses got bored? Maybe we needed to "spice up" our existence, so we thought up this whole Universe thing?

Can you absolutely disprove this notion?

Originally posted by prototism
"Observation" is irrelevant; whats to say that it too wasnt manufactured by the collective unconcious? I mean, assuming the Universe is just a projection, that would mean everything, incuding history, spacetime, matter, the human body, and humanity iteslf is all a manufactured reality. In short, what's to say it isn't ALL in our head?

You got me there, I didn't imagine that possibility.

Can you absolutely disprove this notion?

No I can't. But it's like god, you can't prove or disprove the notion, so it doesn't anwser that much after all.