Customer Discussions > Religion forum

No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2014 3:03:43 PM PDT
DRM says:

"It's a mystery but some say it is Settled Science.

"No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to 'Create' This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?"

Here's what I think: There is evidence for a long-term evolution of (our world), while there is none for the relatively young theory that Earth is a mere six thousand years old, and little more than none for the idea that the whole works was created in an instant.

We are like people living in a cabin in the woods trying to form an idea of the world based on what we can see through one window and one door. Yet with even that small glimpse we can appreciate the awesomeness of it all.

Posted on Apr 12, 2014 2:00:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2014 2:08:57 PM PDT
Bill McLean says:
Belief based on faith is not the same as belief based on observable facts. But people should also understand that scientific methods are just tools for understanding and have limitations that parallel human limitations. The fact that all that exists, and initial origins, are way beyond human understanding does not justify making up stories to explain what is not actually known based on fact. And this is in no way a criticism of scientific methods. Not knowing is the motivation for study and the scientific method will always be the tool to understanding. But it will always have limitations.

Yes, it is comforting for many to believe that life exists after death, and that in the hereafter there are rewards for doing good and punishments for doing bad. Okay, if people want to believe such stories and it helps them keep their sanity, let them. But all too often religions are the cause of violence and have even caused the death of millions. Throughout history such behavior has been observed and is factual - despite all the efforts to make religions look good religious violence continues right up to this very day. Theists are simply in denial. They are hopeless.

Okay, let them believe. Freedom of religion and all that, and without favoring one religion over another. But non-believers should have freedom FROM religions as well. And all violence, based on religion, or with a strong religious component, should be universally outlawed as hate crimes, and enforced by national governments and by the United Nations. All governments should make a strong commitment to improve public education and hopefully evolve beyond our present primitive state of being.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2014 10:26:22 AM PDT
Josh says:
>>Ariex: since 'probabilist has seen fit to bump this one, I find myself unable to resist the need to reiterate that no one has satisfactorily answered the question: What caused god to exist?

No amount of ignorance about any number of subjects can be used as argument for the existence of God. It is appalling that so many seem to be impressed by an argument that boils down to: "The only explanantion I can come up with is that the magical god my ancestors invented must have done it". Many people know how to use computers but they still live in the stone age.

Josh: Okay. How's this for an argument concerning the existence of God?

The universe is so complex and indecipherable and the human species such a confused train wreck, morally speaking, although also exhibiting many virtues and performing many good deeds, that no god of my acquaintance or ancestral invention could possible have perpetrated this obscure mess. The only explanation I can come up with is that the Satan the Christians invented must have done it.

On an off day.

In a distracted moment.

Before he hit his stride as the Satan of the NT and Christian lore.

Possibly while impaired.

Many people know how to use Stone-Age reasoning, but they don't realize that computers can put them in contact with really sophisticated arguments like mine conclusively demonstrating that this whole universe, or multiverse, or whatever it really is - we'll probably never know which - is a childish, early-years, Satanic prank.

Posted on Apr 12, 2014 8:13:57 AM PDT
Ariex says:
since 'probabilist has seen fit to bump this one, I find myself unable to resist the need to reiterate that no one has satisfactorily answered the question: What caused god to exist?
No amount of ignorance about any number of subjects can be used as argument for the existence of God. It is appalling that so many seem to be impressed by an argument that boils down to: "The only explanantion I can come up with is that the magical god my ancestors invented must have done it". Many people know how to use computers but they still live in the stone age.

Posted on Apr 12, 2014 2:42:45 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
----------------------------------------------
...Ever since Maxwell, we understand that these disturbances are what light _is_.

These discoveries of Newton, Maxwell, and many other brilliant people greatly expanded human imagination. But it's only in twentieth and twenty-first century physics that the dreams of Pythagoras truly approach fruition. As our description of fundamental processes becomes more complete we see more, and we see differently. The deep structure of the world is quite different from its surface structure. The senses we are born with are not attuned to our most complete and accurate world-models. I invite you to expand your view of reality.
----------------------------------------------

The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces
by Frank Wilczek
(Basic Books, 2008), page 6

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2014 1:12:15 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Intriguing book. Thanks, Randall.

'prob

Posted on Jun 2, 2013 10:35:00 AM PDT
DRM says:
Just a reminder.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2013 10:18:31 PM PDT
Shakepen says:
To Lisareads: Damn, why didn't I think of that?

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2013 5:46:10 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"To L.Carr: if so many people knew the world was round for thousands of years, why didn't they share their knowledge?"
===========================
They did not have cell phones.

Posted on May 16, 2013 4:02:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2013 4:03:51 PM PDT
Frank says:
The beginning segment of this video is a little surprising... or maybe not.

http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2013 9:38:03 PM PDT
Shakepen says:
To L.Carr: I agree about the earth revolving around the sun! Too many Americans feel the earth revolves around themselves!

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2013 11:51:08 AM PDT
Dean says:
I don't really think it was a hot topic of discussion. There's people today that probably don't think the Earth is round. By some polls, 30% of Americans don't know the Earth revolves around the Sun. I just don't think the average person back then spent much time thinking about it, any more than the average person today spends time pondering M-theory or things of that nature.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2013 1:41:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2013 1:46:45 AM PDT
Knowledge dispensation in those days was much, much harder--especially when said knowledge had to overcome nearly 100% illiteracy, the fact that a hand-coppied book cost around 20,000 dollars (in relative terms), and the uncomfortable fact that a round earth was in contradiction to Bible teachings, which pretty much ruled the roost.

In spite of these difficulties, the few people who were educated in matters of large scale geography and astronomy seemed to clearly understand the spherical nature of the earth. They knew, for instance, that the sun was in different places in the sky at different latitudes and longitudes, and that ships sank below the horizon as they departed. Saint Augustine was aware of this, in 400 AD, and Bede knew it in 700 AD. In principle, this knowledge was available, all along, but ANY knowledge was difficult to acquire, as I mentioned. (As you may know, at the time, there was no "Google Earth". In general, web access was quite limited back then! If you wanted to know something, about the only method available was to pray on it. But God is strangely uninformative about factual matters like geography and astronomy--for reasons which remain obscure, even to this day.)

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2013 10:04:18 PM PDT
Shakepen says:
To L.Carr: if so many people knew the world was round for thousands of years, why didn't they share their knowledge? Only one or two Greek philosophers claimed the world was round.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2013 6:03:22 PM PDT
Indeed... And it isn't as if that specialized language was being hidden away.

Instead, it is made available in a wide variety of delivery systems called "books."

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2013 4:27:09 PM PDT
Frank says:
That is true to some extent but there is also a tendency to go overboard. Lawyers are especially notorious for making simple statements overly complex in laws and contracts for dubious reasons. Maybe it's the CYOA factor.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2013 3:18:54 PM PDT
Max Flash says:
Frank: Science like most guilds .. lawyers, Doctors, etc. develop specialized language to describe common things in order to stay aloof from the commoner.

Max: I would suggest it is a need to be precise which drives this.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2013 12:41:59 PM PDT
Dean says:
Science never said the Earth was flat. Superstitious people did. Intelligent people who knew how to observe and not believe superstition and religious nonsense have known the Earth was more or less round for thousands of years.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 10:19:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2013 10:34:14 PM PDT
Frank says:
Randall R Young says:
<<Frank:
But what for instance ultimately excites a field to concentrate energy into any specific form matter?>>

Frank, I think you should look at this clip from Feynman. While it's not a direct answer to this question, it might cause you to ask it in a different light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

-----------------

Thanks Randall.

Not impressed by his reaction there, 'ultimately' is an uncomfortable subject for materialists but I did look further and found the longer interview (same chair) which is interesting and informative apart from Feynman's eccentric personality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=aXtnYnoutKk&NR=1

Science like most guilds .. lawyers, Doctors, etc. develop specialized language to describe common things in order to stay aloof from the commoner.
Degrees and modes of 'friction' could describe a great deal of what goes on on an atomic level but that's way to common a term.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 6:09:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2013 6:11:23 PM PDT
There can be spontaneous quantum fluctuations which allow pairs of particles and antiparticles to be created and then destroyed again. Or particles can be created via an energy source, i.e., another field interacting with the first field to create particles. Thus an electron and a positron can be produced from a photon with sufficient energy, e.g., or an electron and a positron can collide and produce a photon with the same energy and momentum as the pair of particles.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 8:26:18 AM PDT
I guess that the two specific particles you start with have stopped existing, so the term 'annihilation' is at least partly apropos, technically, in a narrow sense.

But really, in this context 'annihilation' should not be understood too etymologically, since, in fact, we are not left with nothing at all, but instead we get these two photons. So maybe 'annihilation' wasn't the best term word choice when whoever thought up the term originally used that description... Nonetheless, that's what this process gets called in physics jargon, however wrongheaded the term might be, etymologically.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 8:05:46 AM PDT
<<Frank:
But what for instance ultimately excites a field to concentrate energy into any specific form matter?>>

Frank, I think you should look at this clip from Feynman. While it's not a direct answer to this question, it might cause you to ask it in a different light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2013 10:08:46 PM PDT
Shakepen says:
To Randall: Hawking uses the word "annhilation," meaning non-existence.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2013 10:07:39 PM PDT
Shakepen says:
To RosieM: I'll have to watch Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory! Unfortunately, the program won't be on until tomorrow at 7.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2013 10:06:37 PM PDT
Shakepen says:
To Rosie M: Brought to you by the same people that gave us bigotry and intolerance!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 150 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  121
Total posts:  3730
Initial post:  Jan 9, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 12, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions