The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Yes I explained there are 2 types of gods, and this stuff may not be so black and white. If intelligent creation, by man, alien, or intelligence of any kind, is truly possible. Then doesnt the stuff which man intelligently creates owe its existence to man intelligently creating it? And is this not the concept of God, an intelligent creator of this universe? If God created this universe, and then man arises, and creates other intelligent beings, and then those intelligent beings create more, and then they create more, and then those create a universe, and in that universe, intelligent life arises, which creates intelligent life, which creates intelligent life, which creates a universe, which intelligent life arises in...

Like I think I said earlier, it boils down to, is it possible for an intelligent entity to truly create a system, like that of the universe? Seemingly isolated, seemingly stable. If it can be logical, hypothetically, or theoretically proven that it is impossible for an intelligence to create a system such as the universe, then it would follow that it is impossible for an intelligence to have created the universe. That does not dismiss the concept of gods then, which Nature would still be the 'God father of' even if nature is not an intelligent entity. But the intelligences that arise in the universe can certainly be considered Gods/intelligent designers, if they intelligently design.

For someone that doesnt believe that there is one absolute supreme God of reality, that last bit surely makes sense, it would seem like everything else about existence would then just be relative and comparative, a gradient of power and analysis. Write now in this universe isnt there most likely intelligent life forms that are capable of creating things? Can we also imagine there are other intelligent life forms who comparatively know/are aware of more things/more knowledgeable/more intelligent/more capable of creation though it may be difficult to judge and determine at times, is there not a difference in the capabilities of creation between 21st century man and -21st century man? And how about between 21st century man and the creative potential of the average toad? Or is there no such thing as intelligence, no such thing as creativity and power of mind, and all that exists is one force of nature, no gods, no control?

edit on 18-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Excellent thinking! Of course I'd say that, because your thoughts here mirror my own. The difference between our ideas is that mine are fleshed out with some physics and detailed explanations in formal print. This theme looks like a natural OP for my next thread. Thanks!

reply to post by Greylorn


You must not have seen my post or this wouldn't be the first time you've run into this train of thought.

Originally posted by Greylorn
If you are intelligent enough to examine these ideas about the beginnings outside the box of your current beliefs, your comments are welcome. Those who cannot think outside of their box are invited to return to a thread that reflects their box.

So what exactly cosmology hope to receive from the hypothetical singularity? Salvation? Everlasting life in some wonderful singularity?

The source of believe in God in modern societies are the Scriptures; whereas the idea of singularity arose from an implication based on a DIRECT observation. The next generation of astronomers will have the same opportunity to observe what their predecessors see today. That's obviously unlike the case that concerns theism.

On top of it, your OP implies that if something cannot be theoretically understood, it automatically sends the object to the box labeled Pure Belief. That's fallacious reasoning. You can see that a black hole and the singularity are similar in this respect. At this moment, cosmology cannot create a theoretical model of the environment inside the black hole, because the final equation renders the mass inside the black hole infinite, which cannot be true. So if there is currently no way of theoretically describing the physical properties of black holes beyond the event horizon, then it means that the part of the universe from which no physical information can be received can be compared to God, or that the cosmology turns conceptually into theology whenever the subject of the black holes or singularities are discussed?

You may be responding to a popular belief that the existence of the Big Bang-causing singularity is a scientific fact or something like that. No, it is a hypothetical object. God is not a hypothetical entity - he is an object of belief and whose properties were establish by other than scientific means.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I really have no time for this childish wrangling. You are welcome to claim victory in whatever obscure contest you believe you are engaged.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Then doesnt the stuff which man intelligently creates owe its existence to man intelligently creating it?

Surely this contradicts what you said earlier about the basic definition of God being 'an intelligent creator'? Men are not gods. We can only create new forms from existing materials; we cannot bring matter into existence.

If an Intelligent being took existing material but established it into the universe we exist in, would it be acceptable to refer to that being as a God? And even still, would we bow down to your god semantics and praise the definitions of our created words before honoring the godliness of a intelligent creator of sophisticated universes?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Then doesnt the stuff which man intelligently creates owe its existence to man intelligently creating it?

Surely this contradicts what you said earlier about the basic definition of God being 'an intelligent creator'? Men are not gods. We can only create new forms from existing materials; we cannot bring matter into existence.

If an Intelligent being took existing material but established it into the universe we exist in, would it be acceptable to refer to that being as a God? And even still, would we bow down to your god semantics and praise the definitions of our created words before honoring the godliness of a intelligent creator of sophisticated universes?

edit on 21-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

The irony is that most People would worship that being. But that being would not be thee God. So it would be wrong to worship that being.

reply to post by spy66


So are you positing that there is one intelligent being, that is original, and initiated the beginning of the beginning of everything? if so do you have any imaginings as to how this may be possible? Why that entity was endowed with its respectable position? What it may have started out as? If it existed for eternity, how could it without paradox, experience an infinite amount of experience of an infinite past it was existent and aware of? how could it, or anything ever have complete unrestricted freedom to create infinity?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66

 

So are you positing that there is one intelligent being, that is original, and initiated the beginning of the beginning of everything? if so do you have any imaginings as to how this may be possible? Why that entity was endowed with its respectable position? What it may have started out as? If it existed for eternity, how could it without paradox, experience an infinite amount of experience of an infinite past it was existent and aware of? how could it, or anything ever have complete unrestricted freedom to create infinity?

So are you positing that there is one intelligent being, that is original, and initiated the beginning of the beginning of everything?

I am not saying that there is one intelligent being who initiated the absolute beginning. But it could be one intelligent personality, one intelligent awarenes that initiated it. It dosent have to be a being.

But it all Depends on Your take on what was before the absolute beginning initiated. I am saying this because moste People start With a beginning that is after initiation.

Before the absolute beginning. You must have a absolute infinite empty Space. If not Your are after initiation.
A Space that is full of particles and matter is way after initiation.

Of course a absolute empty Space can not exist according to science. But science can only know what happened after the initiation of the singularity.10^44 Seconds Plank Time after initiation.

Science have no right to instruct us that before absolute inititation Space was not empty. They have no proof.

reply to post by spy66

I am not saying that there is one intelligent being who initiated the absolute beginning. But it could be one intelligent personality, one intelligent awarenes that initiated it. It dosent have to be a being.

I disagree.

1be·ing noun \ˈbē(-i)ŋ\

Definition of BEING

1
a : the quality or state of having existence

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

I am not saying that there is one intelligent being who initiated the absolute beginning. But it could be one intelligent personality, one intelligent awarenes that initiated it. It dosent have to be a being.

I disagree.

1be·ing noun \ˈbē(-i)ŋ\

Definition of BEING

1
a : the quality or state of having existence

Lets see what else the definition of Being is:

being [ˈbiːɪŋ]

4. a person; human being


be•ing (ˈbi ɪŋ)

6. a human being; person.

This is the reason why i said: God is not a being. Because a lot of People refer to God as being a person. That is why "being" dosent fit the God profile.

reply to post by spy66


So you're employing a particular definition of being, not being in an absolute sense.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

So you're employing a particular definition of being, not being in an absolute sense.

Being; as in existing, Yes. But not has a person or a human being.

reply to post by spy66


What sort of being, then? Do you have a description you would prefer to apply to this being, other than the term 'being'?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

What sort of being, then? Do you have a description you would prefer to apply to this being, other than the term 'being'?

God is the absolute empty infinite Space. Thee God can not be anything else.

No other Space or source can be as neutral as this Space; As God.

A absolute empty Space is the only Space that always was and always is.

reply to post by spy66


I don't see how "absolutely empty neutral space" qualifies as godly. Perhaps you could explain more to me? I'm interested to know how you came to such a conclusion.

reply to post by ImaFungi

If an Intelligent being took existing material but established it into the universe we exist in, would it be acceptable to refer to that being as a God? And even still, would we bow down to your god semantics and praise the definitions of our created words before honoring the godliness of a intelligent creator of sophisticated universes?

The Greek myths give the Olympians no part in the creation of the world, yet the ancient Greeks still honoured Zeus and his family as the greatest of the gods.

In Hinduism there are millions of gods, yet only one creator-god, Brahma – who is hardly worshipped at all.

The Gnostics believed the world was created by a demiurge, a powerful but morally corrupt and rather stupid being with godlike powers who must be spurned in spite of his power to harm us if we are ever to make contact with the real God, who exists on a plane above the universe.

Zoroastrians believe that the creator of the world, Ahura Mazda, only became a god after the fact, and continues to be opposed by Ahriman, his equally powerful enemy. But Time rules over even these great spiritual opposites, just as in ancient Greece it was understood that even the gods were subject to necessity.

I trust the above makes clear that the terms 'god' (big or small G according to your taste) and 'creator' (likewise) are not equivalent. It had better, because I do not plan to discuss the matter any further.

Originally posted by tremex

Originally posted by Greylorn
If you are intelligent enough to examine these ideas about the beginnings outside the box of your current beliefs, your comments are welcome. Those who cannot think outside of their box are invited to return to a thread that reflects their box.

So what exactly cosmology hope to receive from the hypothetical singularity? Salvation? Everlasting life in some wonderful singularity?

The source of believe in God in modern societies are the Scriptures; whereas the idea of singularity arose from an implication based on a DIRECT observation. The next generation of astronomers will have the same opportunity to observe what their predecessors see today. That's obviously unlike the case that concerns theism.

On top of it, your OP implies that if something cannot be theoretically understood, it automatically sends the object to the box labeled Pure Belief. That's fallacious reasoning. You can see that a black hole and the singularity are similar in this respect. At this moment, cosmology cannot create a theoretical model of the environment inside the black hole, because the final equation renders the mass inside the black hole infinite, which cannot be true. So if there is currently no way of theoretically describing the physical properties of black holes beyond the event horizon, then it means that the part of the universe from which no physical information can be received can be compared to God, or that the cosmology turns conceptually into theology whenever the subject of the black holes or singularities are discussed?

You may be responding to a popular belief that the existence of the Big Bang-causing singularity is a scientific fact or something like that. No, it is a hypothetical object. God is not a hypothetical entity - he is an object of belief and whose properties were establish by other than scientific means.

edit on 20-8-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)

In experimental science, a "direct observation" involves looking at the actual object itself. Putting a bug's eye beneath a microscope provides a direct observation of the external structure of the eye, but nothing about how the eye functions.

Big Bang theory is derived from observations of galaxies which purport to disclose their relative linear velocities and distance from us. Astronomers cannot directly see the galaxies move. They cannot set up a speed trap and nail them with a radar gun. Nor can they time their motion between two known points with a stopwatch. They can measure the redshifts of light from those galaxies, and then, trusting their unproven belief that light moves with an absolutely constant velocity through the intervening space, infer their velocity. They can also observe an occasional Type 1A supernova in those galaxies, and then, trusting their unproven belief that all such supernovas generate the same amount of energy, infer the distance between ourselves and a galaxy.

These inferences produce the obvious and common-sense idea that the universe is expanding. Why astronomers, whose studies have produced some of the strangest and non-intuitive concepts in the history of science, would seize upon such an obvious idea is a mystery of human nature. From the inference that the universe is expanding, comes the inference that the expansion is the result of an explosion. The next level of inference is that there must have existed something that exploded.

This was originally a very tiny particle, that with ongoing theoretical consideration (no direct observations whatsoever) shrunk to something smaller than a proton (the micro-pea--- my terminology) and about a decade ago to a physical singularity, something that cannot exist and certainly cannot be directly observed.

You might want to reconsider your thoughts about DIRECT observations. Or not. Suit yourself.

You wrote, "... your OP implies that if something cannot be theoretically understood, it automatically sends the object to the box labeled Pure Belief. That's fallacious reasoning." No, that's a fallacious inference on your part. My OP makes no such implication.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

I don't see how "absolutely empty neutral space" qualifies as godly. Perhaps you could explain more to me? I'm interested to know how you came to such a conclusion.

edit on 21-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

A absolute empty Space is thee absolute first Space. It is the only Space that can always have been and that always is. It is the only Space that would never change. All changes takes place inside the absolute empty Space. And that is were all changes take Place.

There is not one partical or one matter that you can think of,,,, or that exists, that is infinite.
That always was and always is. There is not One you can come up With.

So before all matter and particles were formed. Space was absolut empty of these Things. They were non existent. If we got further and further back in time all the way to the absolute beginning there will be absolute empty Space. No changes no expansion.

The matter and particles we know of today were formed some time after the Big Bang. They were formed by a expanding singularity. The singularity was formed by a compression of energy. Turing the singularity into a energy mass.

If the singularity is formed by a compression and is expanding. Every one should know that the Space surrounding this mass is a vacuum. If not, the singularity would not expand. That should be common knowledge to every one.

The vacuum Space between Our starts, planets and galaxies within Our universe/singularity are still expanding. Because of the vacuum Space surrounding Our universe/singularity is more absolute then the vacuum Space within Our universe. The other factor that confirmes this is how the Space between Our stars, planets and galaxies are expanding. The Space between all the bodies are expanding Equal in all directions.

Our universe is still a singularity. It is just a lot bigger now than it was when it was formed. It is beigger because it has expanded equally out wards in all directions.

reply to post by Astyanax


You just completely ignored everything I have written and instead continue to play with your barbies and straw men.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

And yet, we have still managed to compile so much more evidence. Tell me, how much science have you creationists brought to the table?

The entire reason m theory and multiple dimensions exist is because the science for creation became too much

Either

A. We live in a universe perfectly made to create us (life/intelligence)

B. There are so many dimensions/universes awe just happen tolive in one.

But the science supporter a fine tuned universe implying a tuner

Everything else is concept math and belief