Intelligent design, The Big Bang Theory, and how the argument doesn't matter anyway.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Everything is a theory but the big bang theory is getting harder to hold up. I started this as a reply in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, I found myself not really replying to the person but saying something I wanted to say anyways. I couldn't find anything disputing the theorized age of the Great Sloan Wall Galaxy cluster but I'd be open to a discussion about it. But when the equation used to calculate the theorized age of the universe is similar to the type of equation used to calculate the time for the wall to form, they are going to have a chance to conflict. These ginormous galaxy walls are new discoveries and new discoveries are supposed to conflict with current theories. There is just too much to take into account when trying to explain these things when we only have so little information to go off of.

The big bang theory itself is based on equations and measurements we take through looking at space. We can't test it and I've always had the opinion that saying that a gigantic explosion created all of existence that we can see is not that much different than believing that a higher being created existence. Even the big bang theory doesn't account for what existed before it, because something had to explode and space had to exist for something to explode in. So it can't fully be said to be the beginning of everything. The same can be said about an intelligent designer for the universe because if one existed, it can be left to assume that he came into being some-how, so that's an entire origin story that is never calculated.

One theory I have is that space itself is probably infinite. Even by standard expansion theories, the universe has to be expanding into somewhere.

I just have the belief that we can talk all we want about how everything came into existence but we will never truly know unless we find out more information from either out there in space or from God. Because when you truly think about religion, they are our beginning stories so that leaves room for God to exist having created other life elsewhere.

Anyways i thought this would be a good discussion and I want to hear some opinions.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
As clever as man is, I doubt we'll ever have a nailed down, scientific explanation of all that "is". I feel the same way you do about the Big Bang. Something had to initiate this Bang of creation. 0+0≠1, no matter what anyone tries to say. It just doesn't happen. There had to be a tilting factor to start it all even if its [0.00000000000001+0] Otherwise we'd see random things popping into existence to this day, which we don't. We're just too small and short lived to ever have all the answers. Its funny how science scoffs at the idea of "faith" but when you get to a certain point, whether in religion or science, you HAVE to use some kind of faith in what you believe.

Scientists have faith in numbers that the Big Bang was the beginning of all that "is" and nothing came before it. Christians, among other things, believe the same except that God was the initiator so to speak of the Big Bang.

There's my bit. I'm just as lost as you brother. We're here though!
edit on 25-5-2011 by Watts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I just dont understand how the Big Bang Theory can be told to people that it is a 'fact'. It is called a Theory for one. And to prove it fact, someone would have to duplicate it or have seen it happen. Which is impossible. How can you now produce nothing to explode into something? Uhhhh I dont see it happening.

Also if anyone asks a Creationist "Well then who made Yahuwah(who many call god)" We say well we dont know for sure, thats why its a belief.

But if we ask a Evolutionist "How did the Big Bang start or what exploded"? Well they say, "well we dont know that for sure yet" sounds to me they are the same 'belief' in something that made the universe.

And universe, Evolutionists capitlize it to 'Universe' like its their god. Likewise Christians capitalize "God" instead of 'god'.

uni = single
verse= spoken sentence

Do you realize that we live in a single spoken sentence??? Hmm...... sounds like someone like a Creator "Spoke" us into being.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynexon
 


I actually disagree with the assertion that something has to exist for something to explode. This seems to be a flaw in the linear view of time.

Much like electric or physical energy... it's about potentials.

When there is nothing... it creates the necessary potential for "something". Now in a view where time doesn't exist and everything is an "eternal now"... this isn't a contradiction, but is merely a necessary aspect of reality. Nothing creates something, which contains nothing which creates something, etc.

This is really no different than the whole "a quantum fluctuation created all that is from the eternal non-fluctuation".

Both are true... one is merely a poetic, and the other is a "scientific" aka mechanical description of the same ultimate original "thought" or potential that always existed, exists, and always will exist.

I absolutely love the views of the grand structure of the universe matching so closely to a neural network.

Namaste.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
They are both religious beliefs. It just amazes me that because "experts" make "scientific" claims about evolution, creationism is thought of a a foolish fairytale, when just as stated above, both doctrines go into the realm of faith at some point and they can both be seen as foolish depending on what platform of opinion you are standing on.
Everyone should just pick their side and wait and see and hope the right belief was chosen. IMHO



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by Lynexon
 


When there is nothing... it creates the necessary potential for "something".


Interesting, but that introduces a "rule", and for there to be an established rule/law, there has to already be a "something". "Nothing" means absolutely absent of anything, how can an absolute "nothing" be governed by a rule that says "nothing will create something" if there is nothing for the law to founded on?
My head just exploded trying to type that.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
uni = single
verse= spoken sentence


You know what... as much time as I have spent immersed in exploring the "oneness" of existence... I haven't put this aspect of the wordplay together. Thank you.

It can also be expressed as the original "equation" or "Theory of Everything" that is so sought after in the scientific approach to knowing.

Namaste.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watts
Interesting, but that introduces a "rule", and for there to be an established rule/law, there has to already be a "something". "Nothing" means absolutely absent of anything, how can an absolute "nothing" be governed by a rule that says "nothing will create something" if there is nothing for the law to founded on?
My head just exploded trying to type that.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
reply to post by Lynexon
 


Much like electric or physical energy... it's about potentials.


If I stand still, I have the potential to move create energy, but I still exist, I am not nothing, I am mass.
If we see clouds, there is a potential for lightning, but clouds exist, they are not nothing, they are vapor, liquid, protons, electrons, etc.

I just don;t see the potential from nothing. Nothing to something is is a pretty big gap to overcome on one thought.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lynexon
Everything is a theory but the big bang theory is getting harder to hold up. I started this as a reply in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, I found myself not really replying to the person but saying something I wanted to say anyways. I couldn't find anything disputing the theorized age of the Great Sloan Wall Galaxy cluster but I'd be open to a discussion about it. But when the equation used to calculate the theorized age of the universe is similar to the type of equation used to calculate the time for the wall to form, they are going to have a chance to conflict. These ginormous galaxy walls are new discoveries and new discoveries are supposed to conflict with current theories. There is just too much to take into account when trying to explain these things when we only have so little information to go off of.

The big bang theory itself is based on equations and measurements we take through looking at space. We can't test it and I've always had the opinion that saying that a gigantic explosion created all of existence that we can see is not that much different than believing that a higher being created existence. Even the big bang theory doesn't account for what existed before it, because something had to explode and space had to exist for something to explode in. So it can't fully be said to be the beginning of everything. The same can be said about an intelligent designer for the universe because if one existed, it can be left to assume that he came into being some-how, so that's an entire origin story that is never calculated.

One theory I have is that space itself is probably infinite. Even by standard expansion theories, the universe has to be expanding into somewhere.

I just have the belief that we can talk all we want about how everything came into existence but we will never truly know unless we find out more information from either out there in space or from God. Because when you truly think about religion, they are our beginning stories so that leaves room for God to exist having created other life elsewhere.

Anyways i thought this would be a good discussion and I want to hear some opinions.


Dear Lynexon,

It is a nice post. I want to applaud you (don't know how to give kudos on this site yet) on firstly having thought it out and then for having posted it. I particularly like how you posted it asking for comments, all is open once permission is given.

Existence is a trip and we can understand some things using basic logic. We exist, Descartes was almost right, I experience changing emotions/feelings therefore I am. I think and because of that I can manage my emotions, I can determine their appropriateness. All definitions of God must in the end accept that it is sentience in the universe, hey, I know there is already. The big bang was not material, it was self awareness. Even if you believe in a material universe, guess what, it had no meaning until we existed to give it meaning. We matter and matter does not. Be well.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
uni = single
verse= spoken sentence


You know what... as much time as I have spent immersed in exploring the "oneness" of existence... I haven't put this aspect of the wordplay together. Thank you.

It can also be expressed as the original "equation" or "Theory of Everything" that is so sought after in the scientific approach to knowing.

Namaste.


Wow, I never thought about that either. So simple.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

Originally posted by Watts
Interesting, but that introduces a "rule", and for there to be an established rule/law, there has to already be a "something". "Nothing" means absolutely absent of anything, how can an absolute "nothing" be governed by a rule that says "nothing will create something" if there is nothing for the law to founded on?
My head just exploded trying to type that.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watts
I don't know whats more exciting... the philosophy going on in this thread or the total lack of bashing from any side.

So are you saying that in a way, "nothing" is a "something"?


It's easy to skip the bashing when you are more interested in the enjoyment of "intercourse".

I think you know the answer to your own question, though I will humbly suggest I am merely "suggesting"... not stating as fact.


Think of the Ouroboros... and the paradox that ancient cultures not distracted by modernity but with equal faculties of mind were trying to convey.


Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
If I stand still, I have the potential to move create energy, but I still exist, I am not nothing, I am mass.
If we see clouds, there is a potential for lightning, but clouds exist, they are not nothing, they are vapor, liquid, protons, electrons, etc.

I just don;t see the potential from nothing. Nothing to something is is a pretty big gap to overcome on one thought.


I understand your complaints in the first portion, but I personally feel you are being held back by a necessary cause effect perspective.

I suggest the exploration of fractals (particularly the Mandlebrot Set) regarding the nature of them. How they "don't exist" except as a thought, yet are able to be depicted and "experienced" in near infinite forms depending on the limitations placed upon them. The Mandlebrot is the potential... the structure is the experience. The Mandelbrot doesn't actually exist except as a "uni-verse"... yet can be visualized. Etc.

Namaste!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


Can you flesh out this question a bit further. I have found that nothing has been beyond my ability to grasp though daily I find much that is, some of which is nothing.

What is your take on the nothing everything something dance? For me the whirling of the nothing/everything two step can only be approached by the nothing/everything/something three step. I seem to need something in between.

Which simply leads to, can we approach either everything or nothing by either adding or subtracting somethings?

t



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
What happened to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

You can't get something from nothing......



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tri-lobe-1
 


Um...that's not the second law of thermodynamics. I find it amusing when creationist stock arguments go wrong.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lynexon
 


...so...a bit of a speculation based in absolutely no grounding in cosmology or astrophysics? I'm sorry, but your uninformed speculations don't compel me to agree.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Watts
 



Originally posted by Watts
As clever as man is, I doubt we'll ever have a nailed down, scientific explanation of all that "is". I feel the same way you do about the Big Bang. Something had to initiate this Bang of creation. 0+0≠1, no matter what anyone tries to say. It just doesn't happen.


Or, crazily enough, it might have been a consequence of the state of what existed at the time. To assume that causality existed prior to the universe is a massive assumption.



There had to be a tilting factor to start it all even if its [0.00000000000001+0] Otherwise we'd see random things popping into existence to this day, which we don't.


Virtual particle.



We're just too small and short lived to ever have all the answers. Its funny how science scoffs at the idea of "faith" but when you get to a certain point, whether in religion or science, you HAVE to use some kind of faith in what you believe.


No, you don't. You can use rational inference based upon a reasonable standard of evidence.



Scientists have faith in numbers that the Big Bang was the beginning of all that "is" and nothing came before it.


This is a straw man. I hate that I have to keep addressing this, but I'll do it again.

Not a single scientist has made a definitive claim on what happened prior to the Big Bang. The term "prior" may not even be applicable.



Christians, among other things, believe the same except that God was the initiator so to speak of the Big Bang.


Or that the universe is only 6000-10,000 years old.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 



Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
I just dont understand how the Big Bang Theory can be told to people that it is a 'fact'.


Because it is one.



It is called a Theory for one.


Ugh...theory doesn't become fact. Theory explains fact. Evolution is both theory and fact. Learn to science.



And to prove it fact, someone would have to duplicate it or have seen it happen. Which is impossible.


Again, no. You don't have to do that. Or can I set fire to your house when nobody is looking and then get off without penalty?



How can you now produce nothing to explode into something? Uhhhh I dont see it happening.


How can people keep repeating this exact same straw man. Nobody is claiming this!



Also if anyone asks a Creationist "Well then who made Yahuwah(who many call god)" We say well we dont know for sure, thats why its a belief.


That's why it's unsubstantiated meat product.



But if we ask a Evolutionist "How did the Big Bang start or what exploded"?


What is an 'evolutionist'? And what does a theory relating to the diversification of life have to do with cosmology? I'm sorry, but these old creationist stock arguments are just getting so damn tiring.



Well they say, "well we dont know that for sure yet" sounds to me they are the same 'belief' in something that made the universe.


No, it's nowhere near the same. The universe is expanding, there is the background radiation. We have evidence that the universe began in a massive expansion. We may not know what caused it, but we have enough evidence to determine that it happened.



And universe, Evolutionists capitlize it to 'Universe' like its their god.


What? I only capitalize 'universe' when it's at the beginning of a sentence. Universe. The universe. Now, if I decided to give that name to a child, I'd also capitalize it. But no, we don't.

And again, what is an 'evolutionist'?




Likewise Christians capitalize "God" instead of 'god'.


Technically that's only because they're using it as a proper noun.



uni = single
verse= spoken sentence


Please, stop listening to Kent Hovind. Yes, I'm familiar with his moronic rants enough to know that he knows nothing of etymology. Just do a basic search on Wikipedia and you can find an explanation with citations.



Do you realize that we live in a single spoken sentence??? Hmm...... sounds like someone like a Creator "Spoke" us into being.


Or it sounds like you're completely ignorant on these matters.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by creatednotEvolved
 



Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
They are both religious beliefs.


No, they aren't.



It just amazes me that because "experts" make "scientific" claims about evolution, creationism is thought of a a foolish fairytale, when just as stated above, both doctrines go into the realm of faith at some point and they can both be seen as foolish depending on what platform of opinion you are standing on.


No, they don't. Evolution doesn't delve into faith, it stands soundly on evidence. Of course, your username shows me that you'll never accept that fact no matter how many times I toss evidence at you. Check out some threads I've made. There's evidence of speciation, there's evidence of transition. We have more than enough evidence from genetics alone to conclude evolution accurate.

Creationism? It's written in a bronze age book.



Everyone should just pick their side and wait and see and hope the right belief was chosen. IMHO


No, I don't have to wait. Evolution has predictive power and immediate utility. Medicines, agriculture, computing. We don't need to wait at all. You're probably using a product of some sort in your life that has benefited from an understanding of evolution.





 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join