The Big Bang AKA Where The **** Did It All Start?

Howard the Duck · 05-21-2011, 12:02 PM

nah the laws of physics are already set by God

he needs it to be immutable so's to have some sort of order in the universe

Guybrush · 05-21-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

Well, what you have to realize is that gravity is one dimension in a million that constitutes life. I think basically what Carl Sagan was trying to say is the fact that if you take way the mystical, loving, consciousness of God, you have nature which forms on it's own, and constitutes what God is in every other way.

Whether or not you consider that 'God' or not comes entirely to a debate of semantics.

He makes an interesting point, but I often see people on MB make posts suggesting that God (capital G) is synonymous with nature. The word "God" with a capital G has been defined many times, but I've never seen a definition which allows it to be used as a synonym for nature or natural laws (definitions typically include a spirit or an infinite will) so I think people should stop doing so. If people are not writing about God as something sentient, then they should be using a different term to describe what they're thinking of. If they don't think of God as something sentient, then I don't think they should write that they believe in "God".

Freebase Dali · 05-21-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i actually do have a working knowledge of the theory behind all this (or did have)

i think the quantum mechanical theory of things just appearing out of nowhere feasible for me (I can't exactly remember the quantum physical mechanics behind this)

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to how subatomic particles "pop" into existence... what was interesting to me is scientists actually measured this activity in a vacuum that used very sensitive equipment to measure fluctuations in the path of (I forgot what it was, but I think it was a laser).

Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any particles in a vacuum. It's supposed to be the absence of anything. Yet, while light can travel through "nothing", it was still being interfered with. The only way to explain the interference was by the energy produced when these subatomic particles popped into existence very briefly, and (according to theory) collided with its anti-particle and destroyed. So what the scientists were beginning to realize was that these tiny events were happening all the time, in what we previously thought was empty space. So in a grand scheme of things, this suggests that not only can something come from nothing, but that it happens all the time and is a practical fact of nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were referencing, but I thought I'd talk about it anyway, as it's pretty interesting stuff.

CanwllCorfe · 05-21-2011, 03:39 PM

crukster · 05-21-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

The Hindu concept of Brahman is fascinating. It's the concept that God does exist, but is also what everything in life is comprised of.

Take out the mystical crap plus God Hierarchy, and it sounds a lot like 'existence = God' which, to my knowledge, is a point Carl Sagan has argued for, and pretty much conforms to the concept that the laws of nature ARE God.

Of course Hindus still worship, and revere existence, as many other deities. In essence 'pray' to gravity. However, it's a bit more feasible than the magic man in space that Judaism, and religions born from it present.

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That's why I think it's a tad pretentious to concrete the Big Bang as a fact. It doesn't mean throw it away, or throw away the discoveries from it. Just means, it's out of our grasp for the moment, but should remain in place as it's the leading theory, and really sort of benefits us to have.

To some extent I would say Existence=God, I think that is pretty accurate. I think the difference between what I believe and what Carl Sagan is saying is that he's approaching it from the other direction.

What I am saying really is that all of the religious teaching of the Abrahamic faith is valid, it just so happens that over the years people have misunderstood what is actually meant by God, whereas maybe I've misunderstood but I get the idea he is saying all religious teaching is essentially invalid because God is an omnipotent force and not a Human.

Of course God is not a Human. I can't create a Universe of my equals. If anything or anyone were to say to me, "I am God" well I would not really believe them.

I am, or have the capability to be better, stronger, smarter than any living creature bound by the same laws of physics as me. Everyone does, and everyone should believe that - thats your basic ego there.

God to me is an idea, like I said, the point of origin and the point of eternal growth.

If you say God is nothing more than Existence, well it then becomes very easy to limit your understanding of that existence. There is always another question to be asked, that to me is the pursuit of God. If you ever find the absolute answer, well, in my belief, you have found God. In my belief, God is not the laws of nature in absolute, because where did the laws of nature come from? I would call the laws of nature and the forces of the Universe, God's messengers. Gabrial, Azrail etc.

There's something...I can't quite define. Like this wavey sort of..something between the lines I dunno. We can all talk to each other we can all interact, we all must share some commonality...however the Unvierse started, well we are all in the same one. That is evidence to me of God. Not neccessarily of so called "intelligent design" but not neccessarily manic chaos either. SOme sort of equilibrium between the "flaw" of intelligence and the irresponsiblity of chaos.

I believe the Universe was started by what we could call some act of intent...but only because comparing what we think of as intent to this original intent, is like comparing a fish to a galaxy, sizewise, by comparison.

TO be quite frank, outside of this...mainstream media line where everyone tries to fit in around each other, it is my experience that there are very few Jews, Christians and well I can say for certain Muslims because I grew up with them, that actually think of God as a literal magic man in the sky.

I think the mystical crap is a place holder for what we don't yet understand.

jackhammer · 05-21-2011, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to how subatomic particles "pop" into existence... what was interesting to me is scientists actually measured this activity in a vacuum that used very sensitive equipment to measure fluctuations in the path of (I forgot what it was, but I think it was a laser).

Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any particles in a vacuum. It's supposed to be the absence of anything. Yet, while light can travel through "nothing", it was still being interfered with. The only way to explain the interference was by the energy produced when these subatomic particles popped into existence very briefly, and (according to theory) collided with its anti-particle and destroyed. So what the scientists were beginning to realize was that these tiny events were happening all the time, in what we previously thought was empty space. So in a grand scheme of things, this suggests that not only can something come from nothing, but that it happens all the time and is a practical fact of nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were referencing, but I thought I'd talk about it anyway, as it's pretty interesting stuff.

Yes this has been observed which could lend credence to the big bang theory in that there truly was nothing to begin with but particles 'borrowing' from their negative self's.

I think that until things like dark energy and anti matter are actually figured out, we are still a long way off from many many answers.

I have noticed religion being mentioned in posts and that is inevitable regarding this subject as we are no closer to a definitive answer (if ever) to the eternal question but I will abstain from any religious debate within this thread as I am much more interested in the science and physics aspect but by all means - talk amongst yourselves!

This doc is excellent as are most of the others collected by the same user and well worth a watch if you get the time:

YouTube - ‪Horizon - What happend before the big bang (full version)‬&rlm; (preferred to not clog up this sites bandwidth and link straight to YT).

Howard the Duck · 05-22-2011, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to how subatomic particles "pop" into existence... what was interesting to me is scientists actually measured this activity in a vacuum that used very sensitive equipment to measure fluctuations in the path of (I forgot what it was, but I think it was a laser).

Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any particles in a vacuum. It's supposed to be the absence of anything. Yet, while light can travel through "nothing", it was still being interfered with. The only way to explain the interference was by the energy produced when these subatomic particles popped into existence very briefly, and (according to theory) collided with its anti-particle and destroyed. So what the scientists were beginning to realize was that these tiny events were happening all the time, in what we previously thought was empty space. So in a grand scheme of things, this suggests that not only can something come from nothing, but that it happens all the time and is a practical fact of nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were referencing, but I thought I'd talk about it anyway, as it's pretty interesting stuff.

yeah something like that

i think it's feasible that the entire universe could have just randomly appeared from nothing

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 05-22-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

In my belief, God is not the laws of nature in absolute, because where did the laws of nature come from?

The laws of nature come from nowhere. They existed before matter, we know this because all matter adheres to them. They're not literal laws written in a book. In fact, the explanations of how they work is rather an abstract idea, not an existent thing.

Laws of nature dictate nothing more than how matter reacts to a circumstance, time, and place. Nobody wrote these laws, because they are not written, they're just the deeper functioning mechanics of the universe, if they don't exist, nothing exists.

Therefore, nothing could have existed to 'write' them.

That's why they are 'God' because they are the absolute.

Mr November · 05-22-2011, 10:28 PM

So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 05-22-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman

So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.

Cause it gives perspective to those who believe that the world needs a creator to function.

05-21-2011, 03:39 PM	#24 (permalink)
CanwllCorfe Quiet Man in the Corner Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Pocono Mountains Posts: 2,480	__________________ Your eyes were never yet let in to see the majesty and riches of the mind, but dwell in darkness; for your God is blind.

05-22-2011, 10:28 PM	#29 (permalink)
Mr November Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Halifax, Canada Posts: 429	So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.