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

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
...We know we are here, we have a good idea how it came about (up to a point), why ascribe this to a creator? It's an unnecessary addition and complication, without any real evidence of it's very own existence to begin with. I am sure you could easily demonstrate your own existence, what about your claimed creator?

Dang you, Cogito, Ergo Sum. You think, therefore you are, okay? I jest a tad, but you ARE the most philosophical of the materialists here. I respect you. I also feel that you are on the very edge of a whole new way of thinking.

Not only that but, don't freak out, I see the beginnings of your leaning away from the short-arms of rudimentary science and towards the long arm of the inescapable metaphysical.

NO, you're right, nobody can prove jack-shizzle. However, I see your question marks.

Evolution for example: Even if true, how do we assign the knowledge of design necessary from a supposedly mechanic and automated process?

On a much smaller, but pretty interesting side-note: We even have a freaking nightlight in the celestial body we call the moon. Sheesh...from the macro to the micro, we have evidence of something that approximates a consciousness greater than our own.

It don't just happen. Our consciousness doesn't make us the greatest and most aware (cogito, ergo, sum) thing in the cosmos ever. Nope, my friend, Occam's suggests we are a splinter, at the very least, of a greater reality...not some happenstance that resulted from "nothing."

There's no such thing as nothing. Does that make sense?

reply to post by Astyanax


If you project your own ideas and ideals, and those of other mens of history, as to what God may or may not be you are only attacking a strawmen when you try to argue against the image of God you are able to create.

The only valid idea of God one can hold and argue, is what the idea of a God at its most basic means. An intelligent creator. Nothing more, nothing less (though a slew of discussion may be warranted discussing what it means to be intelligent, and what it means to create).

Using this idea; Is man the God of the technology he creates (would that technology exists without mans intelligent yearnings and toil to manifest it?)? Is a father the god of his children (would children exist without their parents (this is why in Christianity god was referred to as the father) intelligent (or lack there of) decisions? If man travels to another planet in 500 years and creates original biologic creatures from scratch or base elements, is man god of those creatures, dont those creatures owe their existence to mans intelligent actions?

So then, the only idea of God, we can discuss (we can discuss any, but the most rational) is, is it possible for an intelligence to create the system that is the universe? If it can be logically proven or experimentally proven that it is not possible for an intelligence to have created this universe, thats that. If it cannot be proven, that does not mean an intelligence did create the universe, or that we should highly consider it, it just means we are still ignorant of the truth as annoying as that may be.

Originally posted by Helious
I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang. You can reference people who claim that, that is what must have happened all day long, I can reference you just as many people who will swear that they have a creator.

There is some pretty compelling evidence for the big bang and more evidence than for any other theory Wiki

However many leading theoretical physicists favour the simulation hypothesis. If our universe is a simulation then of course the simulation needs a creator. To us this creator would be omnipresent and all powerful.

If this is the case i'm sure the creator doesn't care whether we get together in buildings to praise him or not unless he has some sort of psychological problem.

I take issue with the title of your thread, the big bang theory is stated
as having a possibility of being incorrect, religion claims that it is correct
and tells its followers that if they believe anything else they will be
punished for all eternity, religion brain washes people, science gives
them a choice to think for themselves but it cannot guarantee it will always
be correct, but guess what when they learn how to correct the things
that are incorrect they do so.

Religion would love science to be considered equal, yet i do not see
any breakthroughs from religion, you know like buildings, computers,
cars, medical science, vaccines, water purification, increasing crop
yield, i could list a few hundred thousand, but hey you could be right
too, prayer has brought us hope, and um hope, and er hope......

I just love how one can literally change everything about our lives on
this planet and the other has been the same our entire lifetimes and
our parents and theirs and on and on, yet science is the failure here......

Right. Why is it that science MUST have the correct answer when you
demand it or its just worthless? it takes time to actually answer a question,
i know its quick to say god did it but that doesn't answer anything at all.
Last i checked god did it didn't build my car, or my house, or give me
electricity.....

Originally posted by wirefly
reply to post by Greylorn

 

We can argue the merits of each side from now until the universe does whatever universes do at their end, should there be an end.
It all boils down to one single factor. One either believes that there is a God, or one believes that there is NOT a God. Beyond that, beyond that spark, the rest is physics. We know that there is a universe and it is filled with things that we can measure.
I love science. It is fascinating and intriguing. I love the problems we face in science and the feeling of accomplishment when we discover something new. Those discoveries humble me. I feel smaller, and yet, I feel more significant. The more that I realize how small I am, the more I feel honored to be created alongside this mighty and wondrous architecture.
My belief in God puts no limits on me just as another's unbelief puts no limits on them. Religion is the problem. Religion is the divisive element in the matter, not belief in a creator.
I am an artist and I create lots of things. I put my energy into those creations and they are all special to me. I remember so many of my creations and can recognize them from so long ago. I guess that's one of the reasons I feel the way I do. I like feeling that way and it bothers me when someone tells me I'm a bad person for believing in God. Or, that I'm a fool. I don't tell others that just because they feel differently than myself.
I have had my doubts and have been wary of teachings and have come to my own understanding of who I am. I'm not defined by someone elses standards. I am who I am. If we all just bothered about our own selves and didn't try to impose our beliefs or unbeliefs on others, we'd get alot further in understanding this reality.

Wirefly--- Thoughtful, personal post. Thank you.

IMO your position is defined by this belief: As you put it, "It all boils down to one single factor. One either believes that there is a God, or one believes that there is NOT a God. Beyond that, beyond that spark, the rest is physics. We know that there is a universe and it is filled with things that we can measure."

You've adopted one of the two primary choices: God or not-God. Why accept those choices? They were set up for you by someone else. What if there are other choices that include the understanding that we live in a created universe, but define the creators of that universe differently than common religionists? Would you consider such possibilities?

Would you consider the possibility that physics preceded the "spark?"

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Observational evidence for the Big Bang Theory. All things being equal, OP will surely provide similar evidence for an omnipotent God, right? While at it, OP will also let us know how to test the validity of the claim of omnipotent God.

edit on 15-8-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Rhino,
Had you actually read, and understood my OP and subsequent comments, you would know that I put the notions of an omnipotent God and Big Bang theory nto the same trash barrel.

Why are you misrepresenting my statements? If there is a stupid-fight that you wish to promote, why not initiate your own thread?

Originally posted by Greylorn
We know how to define a mathematical singularity-- any finite number divided by zero, or the tangent of 90 degrees. But what does "physical singularity" mean? It means nothing-- except that those who hypothesize such a thing have no idea what they are talking about.

No, we don't know how to define it. Similar situation (a/0 = infinity) exists with gaining a theoretical insight into the environment inside the black holes. At this moment, there is no special math available that would get rid of the infinite mass problem.

God created the universe and he loves us all . . . What kind of funny comparison have you been onto?

reply to post by ImaFungi

If you project your own ideas and ideals, and those of other mens of history, as to what God may or may not be you are only attacking a strawmen when you try to argue against the image of God you are able to create.

It was not I, but the OP, who first alluded to the putatively divine attributes I mentioned. They form part of the traditional concept of God in Western monotheism and have been exhaustively discussed by philosophers. Since God is, in my view, a human invention, it is entirely legitimate to discuss Him in terms of these attributes.

The only valid idea of God one can hold and argue, is what the idea of a God at its most basic means. An intelligent creator. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is that really the idea of God at its most basic? Could you explain why it is? Not all gods are creators. Wirefly, on the other hand, is most certainly an intelligent creator – it is how he or she makes a living. But is Wirefly God?

reply to post by EasyPleaseMe


There is the simulation hypothesis and other "out there" theories like multiverses/string theory, etc. It's sort of what I was hinting at with my post about how Atheists are so opposed to the idea of God that they attempt to dream up equally ridiculous theories to explain the origins of the universe. The "anything but God" attitude. It's like they are so desperate to adhere to what almost seems to be a personal vendetta , that they have even gone so far as to claim the universe is a simulation (which indicates it had a creator) but whoever created that simulation cannot be "God". Why can't it? Why is the idea of God being the source of the big bang so ridiculous, but our entire reality, every emotion ever felt by every person through out the history of mankind being part of a massive simulation on a universal scale, somehow not ridiculous?

This is why I find agnosticism far more palatable. At least it's intellectually honest.

reply to post by The GUT


Thanks The GUT (I think..... ).

Though I see a whole lot of difference to what Descartes believed, with how I see it, perhaps I could also change to "I am, therefore I think" for the materialists? /

The entire premise of the op is wrong IMO. To consider cosmological theory and religion (which is really what creationism is based on) as being equal, is simply not possible at the moment. To claim that what preceded the big expansion itself isn't well understood, so the whole theory is nonsense, seems a bit of a stretch. A bit like damning evolution because we can't explain abiogenesis. The big bang and evolution are the best explanation for observations, so far.

Without wishing to derail this thread, I see religious Gods as not even possible for reasons of logic (amongst others) to begin with. Spinoza made some good points. Religions don't so much promote a God, as a limited being with with all sorts of shortcomings and questionable intelligence. Though I'm open to the possibility there is more to existence this way. Though IMO, it won't make decisions or interfere or that type of stuff. Not so much intelligent as a basic cause far beyond any of these things that allows for intelligence, consciousness etc. to be. I could also be completely wrong.

I once found myself agreeing (on these very boards) in principle with a very strong Christian about this topic ie. the basic cause of existence, once all of the extraneous notions of God and religious fables were discarded. I still see possibilities. Same with the "metaphysical/ paranormal". It isn't enough to explain neurons and synapses and fool ourselves we understand consciousness, at this stage.

A shame is that genuine people who find fault with science, are pounced upon and used as a champion for religion/ creationists. The physicist in the link hasn't had anyone explain why he is wrong, as of yet, only that he is. He doesn't believe the current model nor the ideas of black holes and singularity, is entirely accurate. He has had some support in surprising areas, though if he was being shut out before, creationist will make sure of it. AFAIK, he doesn't really care about religion, only the science.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I believe Steven Crothers is a member of Above Top Secret, so you can probably ask him yourself. I can't remember his screen name, but he was championed on these boards by AnarchoCapitalist, the last of the diehard electric-universalists. Drop AC a u2u and he'll probably put you on to Crothers.

But before you do any of that: A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors

The universe is infinite. This has yet to be conclusively proven or disproven, but let us for a moment assume that this is true; that which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define that infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. We have seen simple examples of unity. We have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity that One may ponder on in order to more clearly understand the unified and limitless nature of All That Is, of the Infinite Creator that you are and I am.

I am that I am, we are that we are.
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

Originally posted by Greylorn
[...] creation by an omnipotent God is no different from creation via a Big Bang. Omitted from each concept is the cause. What caused an entity that has always existed to change its status?

Gnostics have struggled with that question too. They see our Universe, planet and species as created by a lower god. The universe should not exist at all, it is superfluous.

Viewing the character of the deity of Genesis with a sober, critical eye, the Gnostics concluded that this God was neither good nor wise. He was envious, genocidal, unjust, and, moreover, had created a world full of bizarre and unpleasant things and conditions. In their visionary explorations of secret mysteries, the Gnostics felt that they had discovered that this deity was not the only God, as had been claimed, and that certainly there was a God above him.

This true God above was the real father of humanity, and, moreover, there was a true mother as well, Sophia, the emanation of the true God. Somewhere in the course of the lengthy process of pre-creational manifestation, Sophia mistakenly gave life to a spiritual being, whose wisdom was greatly exceeded by his size and power. This being, whose true names are Yaldabaoth (child of the chaos), Samael (blind god), and also Saclas (foolish one), then proceeded to create a world, and eventually also a human being called Adam. Neither the world nor the man thus created was very serviceable as created, so Sophia and other high spiritual agencies contributed their light and power to them. The creator thus came to deserve the name "demiurge" (half maker), a Greek term employed in a slightly different sense by philosophers, including Plato.

To what extent various Gnostics took these mythologies literally is difficult to discern. What is certain is that behind the myths there are important metaphysical postulates which have not lost their relevance. The personal creator who appears in Genesis does not possess the characteristics of the ultimate, transcendental "ground of being" of which mystics of many religions speak. If the God of Genesis has any reality at all, it must be a severely limited reality, one characterized by at least some measure of foolishness and blindness. While the concept of two Gods is horrifying to the monotheistically conditioned mind, it is not illogical or improbable. Modem theologians, particularly Paul Tillich, have boldly referred to "the God above God." Tillich introduced the term "ground of being" as alternative language to express the divine. The ideas of the old Gnostics seem not so outdated after all.

So, according to the Gnostics, Sophia created the creator - by accident. An our Universe was created by him. And then improved by the real God.

Now, of course, we're back to business: who then, in the name of god, God, Sophia or mephistopheles created Sophia.. ah, the God above god did. But then, oh my, oh my, who or what created the God above god?

In the end but one thing is certain: I am. All other things are uncertain. We can fool ourselves that we have found answers, but then immediately discover new questions to be answered. The more we learn, the more we know we have no real use for this technical, low-level knowledge. It's the knowledge of the lower god, the blind god.

We will never know. Which does not say we are not going to die trying, of course.

I think the most important question we must ask is that who in the world has a last name "Caca"? Like, why in the world? I feel bad for the Caca family. It must really stink to have that name.

en.wikipedia.org... This is a good start but it hurts my brain to read into detail if you look up specifics. It must have taken a lot of time to get to that level of Math, my goodness when numbers become letters and letters become symbols and symbols becomes singularity. #FML

reply to post by Greylorn


Science goes like this.....observation, hypothesis, theory, law. The Big Bang Theory is a theory...they aren't quite sure but evidence leads them to think that.

In religion it goes right to law skipping the first 3 critical elements often having no evidence what so ever and told to just have "faith".

I dont know if God or god or whatever exists...i just dont know...logically i think its possible. But I certainly don't believe in any book that was found here on this planet.

reply to post by Greylorn


Not at all if you understand m-theory and the idea of many universes sometimes calving when branes collide.

Only someone predisposed to theism runs into its arms in absence of data and the presence of questions; others theorize and dig for more data to support, explain or dispel the current theory.

The big bang as a theory is dead. It was thrown out in the late 1980s.

The only reason it still perpetuates is that there is nothing to replace it with. Just about anyone at CERN or Planck would agree with that statement.

How many news articles in the last 3 years have we heard coming out of the mainstream quietly confirming this? At least 3 last week. Arguing about the validity of the big bang is a waste of time.

I don't know many working theorists that still do work on the BBT, infact I don't know any. The top researchers are mostly working on theories involving plasma and electromagnetism as the new driving forces in the cosmos.

75% of experiments running right now at the ISS involve plasma science in some way.

Of cource then you get comments like these:

One intriguing alternative to inflation is the ekpyrotic cyclic universe. In this model, the big bang is the result of a collision of two branes in a cyclic universe. Such models can reproduce all the characteristics of a standard big bang universe in a natural way, without the extra premise of inflation and its special initial conditions. As a bonus, the postulate of a big bang in the context of a cyclic universe is very attractive because it sidesteps difficult philosophical questions such as ‘when did the laws of physics become the laws of physics?’ or ‘when did spacetime become spacetime?’ During his presentation at Cambridge last week (see last post), Professor Paul Shellard mentioned that the new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely. At question time, I asked him what aspect of the new data disfavours the cyclic theories; it seems the lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

Coming right out of planck.....talking about how M-theory supports the bigbang model...but it doesn't.


Just about everything we thought we knew over the last 100yrs is really up in the air right now. Not the basic workings of physics, but creation theory and the formation of the universe is something quite beyond the human ability to understand at the moment.


I don't see how anyone could disagree with the point the OP makes, or the idea that "All beliefs are equivalent"

If you subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that information can not be destroyed, then any "singularity" will also be conscious, in-fact every particle of matter should be conscious because it contains all the necessary information. Therefore there is obviously some form of greater consciousness and any singularity that "created" the universe would also have contained consciousness and would therefore be a god creating all things. It's not just that the big bang and god equate, it's that any creation idea equates, how is this hard to follow?

I've thought long and hard about the big bang and the only way i can make sense of it is by thinking about it being the other side of a blackhole. I mean, all the matter that is sucked into one has to go somewhere right? Is it illogical to think that our universe could have come from the destruction of a previous universe?

I just want to say that in threads such as this, it is really important to explicitly define one's terms...

The word (or name, if you like) "God", is so open to semantic manipulation and mis-representation...

How many arguments have you seen where someone tries to make their case by deliberately 'mis-interpreting' - 'god' in the sense of a spiritual creator 'force' and "God" as in specific deity to a particular religious dogma?

You've got 'higher God', 'lower God', 'God' as demi-urge, 'gods' in the classic Greco/Roman/etc. sense...

I think I've made my point....(and one more post toward my 20, yeah)

reply to post by lostgirl


EXACTLY. No one can agree what constitutes as a 'god'. The part that gets me is how even those limited parameters have changed since the idea of a deity was first introduced. Where did the first parameters come from? What were they? Why did they change? Who changed them? Should they have been changed? How do the original parameters compare with the modern parameters?

These are questions I would love to have answered. They would give us a clearer understanding all around.