Big Bang: Is there room for God? - Page 2

MH · 10-20-12, 12:29 PM

So how something could pop out from absolute nothing?

....

mapuc · 10-20-12, 12:33 PM

I have learned many things, when it comes to the origin of our world

There are those that believe God created us

There are those that believe we are created by nature-no God

But what if the truth is somewhere in between?

Here are a link to a online book, that I found very fascinating

I'm not saying that this book is telling us the truth

Read from page 57 to 62

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-...origin-urantia

I read that book like I read the bible-with a suspicious mind

Markus

Skybird · 10-20-12, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammi79

If absolute nothing could exist, then it would be all that there isn't, no?

No. It has no non-existence. Nor has it not a non-existence. Nor has it an existence, nor has it not an existence.

In the very moment you try to dress it in words then already springs to life what exists, and so it is no nothingness anymore.

In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made by him, and nothing was made without him.

Don't worry, I have not turned into a bible-swinger suddenly. I just like the poetry in this wording. It illustrates also the point I try to make: that the word already is enough to make any conception of "non-existence" or "nothingness" void, misleading, pointless, and unimaginable.

Armistead · 10-20-12, 01:48 PM

There is no such thing as nothing, nothing is something and scientist agree what they refer to as "nothing" still contains unseen particles and energy.

The problem will always be, when they do figure out an energy source, they're always left with another energy source to figure out.

The issue for me still remains cause and effect, yet for cause and effect to work, a first cause must exist, which will never be found within physical laws, which does open up the possibility for a cause outside our physical understanding.

Course, if God exist, I'm still not sure how we would define him or that religion should define him. Seems if God wanted to express
himself, he would've made himself clear, instead of numerous religions that have caused nothing but harm.

CaptainMattJ. · 10-20-12, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

There is no such thing as nothing, nothing is something and scientist agree what they refer to as "nothing" still contains unseen particles and energy.

The problem will always be, when they do figure out an energy source, they're always left with another energy source to figure out.

The issue for me still remains cause and effect, yet for cause and effect to work, a first cause must exist, which will never be found within physical laws, which does open up the possibility for a cause outside our physical understanding.

Course, if God exist, I'm still not sure how we would define him or that religion should define him. Seems if God wanted to express
himself, he would've made himself clear, instead of numerous religions that have caused nothing but harm.

Im afraid that truly thinking about the universe will result in severe mind-imploding effects.

I watched an episode of "through the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman and it confirmed something id been thinking about lately. Quantum theory and mechanics hasp proven (or at least explained) not only that one thing can be in two places at once, but that things can appear from nothing, or at least what we understand to be nothing. The number of these ghost particles flashing in and out of existence number beyond true comprehension and the speed at which they appear and vanish boggles the mind too. So does the Big Bang and the mind stretching forces behind it. It really is very hard to comprehend absolute nothingness. Its hard to understand theoretical physics, too. And because we cant hope to explain everything about the universe, god still lives on. I believe that you dont need some Divine being to create anything. If anything the divine being is the universe itself. The belief in God complicates things immensely. it has held back scientific theory for thousands of years, and still does so today with the creationist theories attempting to be taught in schools.

Reality tends to be a hundred times weirder than science fiction, and its hopeless to explain everything. In fact, The Universe is so vast, So powerful, so odd, that we can barely comprehend its scale. but we come up with these numbers, like septillions, google, a googleplex, infinity, but we dont comprehend it because its so enormous. Try to comprehend even a googleplex. A google is a 1 followed by a million zeroes. That number represents something, a quantity. A trillion is a 1 followed by only 15 zeroes. now imagine a googleplex, a googleplex is a one followed by a GOOGLE zeroes. a 1 followed by a trillino zeroes is almost impossible to understand, but a 1 followed by a GOOGLE zeroes, no way. my mind died out at imagining anything that could represent a google, and now theyre trying to make me imagine a googleplex, a number that i cant possibly comprehend the scale of. Simply writing it down would take gargantuan amounts of space. Infinity is easy to understand because it cant be represented by anything real. a googleplex could. it can be written down, assuming we could fit it some where, probably in a computer.

Even just 3,972,789 zeroes on MS word in 12 font (i used copy and paste so it only took me a minute to do this) is 1201 pages. 1201 pages of zeroes (excluding a single 1). were not even remotely close to a fraction of a percent of a googleplex and its already 1201 pages.

So to comprehend what scientists discover is quite a mind trip. But that doesnt necessarily mean it had to be because of an all powerful being.

Takeda Shingen · 10-20-12, 04:05 PM

Oh good, another religion bashing thread.

10-20-12, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Oh god, another religion bashing thread.

Thats a prayer of a quote

TarJak · 10-20-12, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

42

Yes but we all know that's the answer to the wrong question.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 10-20-12, 04:35 PM

Big Bang theory? Am I only one who while reading that remembers "president Sarkozy's" call to then VP candidate Sarah Palin where he praises new "documentary" about her life?

Takeda Shingen · 10-20-12, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I altered your text in my quote, Takeda.

You sure did, squiggy.

Skybird · 10-20-12, 05:52 PM

The saying amongst physicists is that if you claim you understood quantum physics, you indeed illustrate by that very claim that you have not understood it at all. Quntum physics are so absurd and alogical and anti-intuitive, that you cannot think of it as something that is understood in the ordinary meaning of the term "understanding". I think our thinking and imagination reach their limits there, and our mathematical descriptions remain to be lifeless abstractions that again have no real meaning for us in the world that we experience.

A universe that fluctuates between two Big Bangs, expands and collapses and there goes Big Bang again, just is a theory that shifts the need to explain what was before the Big Bang, at the infinite. Sorry, I am not sure if I put it into correct words.

Hawkings and others tried to attribute characteristics to a nothingness that actually by being attributed with these feature s is no real nothingness, but is something. They think they have solved a basic dilemma and have shown the omni-valid potence of physical sciences that way. But that is wrong - they still speak about an existing something that way.

You could also try to escape the dilemma by trying theoretic construction moving from the universe to an multiverse, universes that exist in huge or infinite numbers inside an even greater entity that I just labelled multiverse. Like solar system exist inside galaxies exist inside local groups exist inside superclusters exist... Or subatomic particle exist inside electrons and neutrons exists inside atoms exist inside molecules exist...

But two wuresiton remain even then: "Why is all this, why is there this entity I cvall myelf witnessing and reflecting this all?", and "Where does the multiverse exist, what is beyond it, where doe sit come from?"

Theories like entropy and Big Bang all represent structures by which we organise our insights and current observations as best as we can. But we should be always be aware of what I already express in the formulation: "we organise them, we are the ones doing an active act of creation there, we create the structure by which we filter our future perceptions and organise the memory of our past perceptions. Whether these laws are valid in every corner of the universe, whether it even makes sense, in a dimensional meaning, to make a statement like this, we cannot say.

I must admit that by all my sympathy for the scientific method, I think it is too careless and undisciplined in the reach it claims validity for. An intelligence of a totally different kind than ours, able to think in more than three dimensions, may come to totally different models of a functioning science, mathematics, time and cosmos. And we would be unable to recognise it as such.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that a foreign equivalent to what we call technology, from a certain level of superiority on would necessarily appear to us as either pure magic, or would bypass our perception completely, like the ant does not recognise the scientists' intelligence observing it, manipulating it and studying Ant City.

All this is fascinating firework in our minds. Distracting us. excites us, entertains us. But in the end, considering the real questions of our lives, and deaths, it seems to be what in German would be called breadless art. And it does not seem to turn us into better humans. Nor do we know of any other species or intelligence on Earth or elsewhere caring at all for our hobby that we take so serious.

Sailor Steve · 10-20-12, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammi79

And I did state they are simply ideas, but they are the only working models so far.

Just to make sure you're clear on my motives, I wasn't challenging anything you said. I don't begin to understand, but I had to ask the question of how they could be sure of anything that may or may not have existed before existence as we know it started existing.

Quote:

Everything that came after.

I don't get it. But there's a lot I don't get.

Quote:

And I will take any assertions you make about god seriously.

Why? I don't know any more than anybody else does, and I don't see that anybody else knows anything.

Skybird · 10-20-12, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I don't know any more than anybody else does, and I don't see that anybody else knows anything.

Now to the next level: can we even know anything for sure?

Armistead · 10-20-12, 06:53 PM

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The answer still eludes us...

u crank · 10-20-12, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

I must admit that by all my sympathy for the scientific method, I think it is too careless and undisciplined in the reach it claims validity for. An intelligence of a totally different kind than ours, able to think in more than three dimensions, may come to totally different models of a functioning science, mathematics, time and cosmos. And we would be unable to recognise it as such.

Dang. Spilled my drink.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Why? I don't know any more than anybody else does, and I don't see that anybody else knows anything.

Well if they do they aren't making it stick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Now to the next level: can we even know anything for sure?

I know for sure it's Saturday night.

10-20-12, 12:29 PM	#16
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	So how something could pop out from absolute nothing?....

10-20-12, 04:35 PM	#24
kraznyi_oktjabr Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Republiken Finland Posts: 1,803 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Big Bang theory? Am I only one who while reading that remembers "president Sarkozy's" call to then VP candidate Sarah Palin where he praises new "documentary" about her life? __________________ You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. - Dr. House

10-20-12, 05:52 PM	#26
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,666 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The saying amongst physicists is that if you claim you understood quantum physics, you indeed illustrate by that very claim that you have not understood it at all. Quntum physics are so absurd and alogical and anti-intuitive, that you cannot think of it as something that is understood in the ordinary meaning of the term "understanding". I think our thinking and imagination reach their limits there, and our mathematical descriptions remain to be lifeless abstractions that again have no real meaning for us in the world that we experience. A universe that fluctuates between two Big Bangs, expands and collapses and there goes Big Bang again, just is a theory that shifts the need to explain what was before the Big Bang, at the infinite. Sorry, I am not sure if I put it into correct words. Hawkings and others tried to attribute characteristics to a nothingness that actually by being attributed with these feature s is no real nothingness, but is something. They think they have solved a basic dilemma and have shown the omni-valid potence of physical sciences that way. But that is wrong - they still speak about an existing something that way. You could also try to escape the dilemma by trying theoretic construction moving from the universe to an multiverse, universes that exist in huge or infinite numbers inside an even greater entity that I just labelled multiverse. Like solar system exist inside galaxies exist inside local groups exist inside superclusters exist... Or subatomic particle exist inside electrons and neutrons exists inside atoms exist inside molecules exist... But two wuresiton remain even then: "Why is all this, why is there this entity I cvall myelf witnessing and reflecting this all?", and "Where does the multiverse exist, what is beyond it, where doe sit come from?" Theories like entropy and Big Bang all represent structures by which we organise our insights and current observations as best as we can. But we should be always be aware of what I already express in the formulation: "we organise them, we are the ones doing an active act of creation there, we create the structure by which we filter our future perceptions and organise the memory of our past perceptions. Whether these laws are valid in every corner of the universe, whether it even makes sense, in a dimensional meaning, to make a statement like this, we cannot say. I must admit that by all my sympathy for the scientific method, I think it is too careless and undisciplined in the reach it claims validity for. An intelligence of a totally different kind than ours, able to think in more than three dimensions, may come to totally different models of a functioning science, mathematics, time and cosmos. And we would be unable to recognise it as such. Arthur C. Clarke once said that a foreign equivalent to what we call technology, from a certain level of superiority on would necessarily appear to us as either pure magic, or would bypass our perception completely, like the ant does not recognise the scientists' intelligence observing it, manipulating it and studying Ant City. All this is fascinating firework in our minds. Distracting us. excites us, entertains us. But in the end, considering the real questions of our lives, and deaths, it seems to be what in German would be called breadless art. And it does not seem to turn us into better humans. Nor do we know of any other species or intelligence on Earth or elsewhere caring at all for our hobby that we take so serious. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-20-12, 12:33 PM	#17
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,541 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I have learned many things, when it comes to the origin of our world There are those that believe God created us There are those that believe we are created by nature-no God But what if the truth is somewhere in between? Here are a link to a online book, that I found very fascinating I'm not saying that this book is telling us the truth Read from page 57 to 62 http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-...origin-urantia I read that book like I read the bible-with a suspicious mind Markus

10-20-12, 01:48 PM	#19
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	There is no such thing as nothing, nothing is something and scientist agree what they refer to as "nothing" still contains unseen particles and energy. The problem will always be, when they do figure out an energy source, they're always left with another energy source to figure out. The issue for me still remains cause and effect, yet for cause and effect to work, a first cause must exist, which will never be found within physical laws, which does open up the possibility for a cause outside our physical understanding. Course, if God exist, I'm still not sure how we would define him or that religion should define him. Seems if God wanted to express himself, he would've made himself clear, instead of numerous religions that have caused nothing but harm.

10-20-12, 04:05 PM	#21
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Oh good, another religion bashing thread.

10-20-12, 06:53 PM	#29
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	What came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer still eludes us...