Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Self Refuting Big Bang Concept.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 2:55:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Watching a T.V program called Horizon, it was about what happened before the Big Bang, typically exulting secular views, this episode was no exception.

The program gathers a number of theories suggesting what could have happened before the Big Bang, a common idea which was more main stream roughly 10 years ago presented that there was no 'before' since there was no time prior the Big Bang therefore the word 'before' is meaningless in this context.

However new theories have arisen claiming that fundamental physics and time existed before the Big Bang sprung up.

Having no mention of God, the theories imply a totally lack of intelligence which brings up a problem of origins. Given that we can think up these ideas and seemingly proving them through extremely lose observation so much so that our world views really decide for us what the truth is, not observation, if we must use intelligence to think up such theories, surely those who claim there is no intelligence out there known as God are being self refuting.

Here is an example; "And then suddenly an idea popped into my head of what happened before the Big Bang, being boastful isn't my typical agenda, but I do have a degree in physics and cosmology..." Yet the universe had no intelligent input? Sound self refuting to me.

Discuss.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 3:41:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
if we must use intelligence to think up such theories, surely those who claim there is no intelligence out there known as God are being self refuting.
If it takes intelligence to be the first to think up the idea of rolling a doobie, surely marijuana can't evolve by accident WHAT.

No that doesn't follow.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:35:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:55:15 PM, GodSands wrote:
Watching a T.V program called Horizon, it was about what happened before the Big Bang, typically exulting secular views, this episode was no exception.

The program gathers a number of theories suggesting what could have happened before the Big Bang, a common idea which was more main stream roughly 10 years ago presented that there was no 'before' since there was no time prior the Big Bang therefore the word 'before' is meaningless in this context.

However new theories have arisen claiming that fundamental physics and time existed before the Big Bang sprung up.

Having no mention of God, the theories imply a totally lack of intelligence which brings up a problem of origins. Given that we can think up these ideas and seemingly proving them through extremely lose observation so much so that our world views really decide for us what the truth is, not observation, if we must use intelligence to think up such theories, surely those who claim there is no intelligence out there known as God are being self refuting.

Here is an example; "And then suddenly an idea popped into my head of what happened before the Big Bang, being boastful isn't my typical agenda, but I do have a degree in physics and cosmology..." Yet the universe had no intelligent input? Sound self refuting to me.

Discuss.

Allow me to answer for the problem you're having with this.

You are a troll, and a bad one at that.

Happy now?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:57:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 10/11/2010 3:41:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
if we must use intelligence to think up such theories, surely those who claim there is no intelligence out there known as God are being self refuting.
If it takes intelligence to be the first to think up the idea of rolling a doobie, surely marijuana can't evolve by accident WHAT.

No that doesn't follow.


A roll up and marijuana both can't evolve. I'm not seeing your point here?

And the one above comment, I'm not being a troll, I'm just finding it funny almost at how you can call me a troll yet not give or attempt to give an answer or a solution to the problem I believe I have found. Isn't this site called Debate.org for something?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 8:18:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 2:55:15 PM, GodSands wrote:
Watching a T.V program called Horizon, it was about what happened before the Big Bang, typically exulting secular views, this episode was no exception.

The program gathers a number of theories suggesting what could have happened before the Big Bang, a common idea which was more main stream roughly 10 years ago presented that there was no 'before' since there was no time prior the Big Bang therefore the word 'before' is meaningless in this context.

However new theories have arisen claiming that fundamental physics and time existed before the Big Bang sprung up.

Having no mention of God, the theories imply a totally lack of intelligence which brings up a problem of origins. Given that we can think up these ideas and seemingly proving them through extremely lose observation so much so that our world views really decide for us what the truth is, not observation, if we must use intelligence to think up such theories, surely those who claim there is no intelligence out there known as God are being self refuting.

Here is an example; "And then suddenly an idea popped into my head of what happened before the Big Bang, being boastful isn't my typical agenda, but I do have a degree in physics and cosmology..." Yet the universe had no intelligent input? Sound self refuting to me.

Discuss.

The Horizon programme (which was shown on BBC1 in the UK last night, but is available on the BBC website through i-Player) discussed the possibility of multiverses - that is to say that the universe is in a perpetual sequence of expansions and contractions beginning and ending with big bangs.

It is a plausible and logical theory but, of course, it can never be proven by humans or any other intelligent life forms, no matter how advanced or sophisticated we or they ever become, because the big bangs destroy and create everything and nobody can ever "see" beyond them.

However, the fact that it will never be possible to prove this theory doesn't prove the existence of God, or any other deity for that matter!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 8:29:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 8:18:29 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
tthe possibility of multiverses - that is to say that the universe is in a perpetual sequence of expansions and contractions beginning and ending with big bangs

It's funny how scientists think this is a new revelation or some new cosmological paradigm. This is EXACTLY what Buddhist cosmology states. I actually made a thread about it a while back.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 8:29:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:18:29 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
tthe possibility of multiverses - that is to say that the universe is in a perpetual sequence of expansions and contractions beginning and ending with big bangs

It's funny how scientists think this is a new revelation or some new cosmological paradigm. This is EXACTLY what Buddhist cosmology states. I actually made a thread about it a while back.

Which scientists have said that?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:29:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:18:29 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
tthe possibility of multiverses - that is to say that the universe is in a perpetual sequence of expansions and contractions beginning and ending with big bangs

It's funny how scientists think this is a new revelation or some new cosmological paradigm. This is EXACTLY what Buddhist cosmology states. I actually made a thread about it a while back.

Which scientists have said that?

I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 9:03:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:29:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:18:29 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
tthe possibility of multiverses - that is to say that the universe is in a perpetual sequence of expansions and contractions beginning and ending with big bangs

It's funny how scientists think this is a new revelation or some new cosmological paradigm. This is EXACTLY what Buddhist cosmology states. I actually made a thread about it a while back.

Which scientists have said that?

I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.

well... what makes the idea "Scientific" in EITHER case?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 9:05:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:03:25 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
well... what makes the idea "Scientific" in EITHER case?

I'd say ya need some physical evidence... or it's not scientific.

though it might be in the same spirit.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 9:08:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:05:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 9:03:25 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
well... what makes the idea "Scientific" in EITHER case?

I'd say ya need some physical evidence... or it's not scientific.

though it might be in the same spirit.

I think it's just pure Speculation in both cases.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 9:14:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.

It isn't even a new scientific theory, it's been around for ages. But it wasn't scientific when it was just Buddhist scriptural beliefs.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 9:19:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:14:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.

It isn't even a new scientific theory, it's been around for ages. But it wasn't scientific when it was just Buddhist scriptural beliefs.

why's it scientific now?..

is it just possible... or is there any particular reason to believe it...
(usually in Science) Physical Evidence in favor of it?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 9:50:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:19:29 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 9:14:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.

It isn't even a new scientific theory, it's been around for ages. But it wasn't scientific when it was just Buddhist scriptural beliefs.

why's it scientific now?..

is it just possible... or is there any particular reason to believe it...
(usually in Science) Physical Evidence in favor of it?

No no, the oscillating theory is currently very discredited. The laws of thermodynamics in particular seem to deal a crushing blow to eternal universe hypotheses.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:01:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:50:13 AM, Kinesis wrote:
No no, the oscillating theory is currently very discredited. The laws of thermodynamics in particular seem to deal a crushing blow to eternal universe hypotheses.

I don't recall getting into specifics...

sure Maybe if it fits better than all else... I suppose it's scientific to assume it...

but it's an assumption that really doesn't satisfy..

and I'd say when it comes to Existence As A Whole (the "greater" Universe) the whole Multiple-verse theories Run Dry quite Quick...

and limited perspective makes our understanding of our universe... well... perspective based.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:52:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:50:13 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 9:19:29 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 9:14:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.

It isn't even a new scientific theory, it's been around for ages. But it wasn't scientific when it was just Buddhist scriptural beliefs.

why's it scientific now?..

is it just possible... or is there any particular reason to believe it...
(usually in Science) Physical Evidence in favor of it?

No no, the oscillating theory is currently very discredited.

Then why was it presented in the BBC documentary?

The laws of thermodynamics in particular seem to deal a crushing blow to eternal universe hypotheses.

The Multiverse itself doesn't oscillate. It's eternal. But it is filled with finite oscillating universes. The finite verses aren't eternal because they emerge, collapse, and remerge so the problems of eternal verses don't apply to things that end and then begin again in a never ending cycle.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 11:01:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 9:19:29 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 10/12/2010 9:14:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:46:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2010 8:37:16 AM, Kinesis wrote:
I have seen several lectures and talks where the oscillating multiverse is considered a new scientific theory. Actually, even my favorite scientist, Michio Kaku talks as if its a new theory to people because it is a new idea to most people, though, I'm sure Kaku knows it originated in Buddhism given he was born a Buddhist.

It isn't even a new scientific theory, it's been around for ages. But it wasn't scientific when it was just Buddhist scriptural beliefs.

why's it scientific now?..

is it just possible... or is there any particular reason to believe it...
(usually in Science) Physical Evidence in favor of it?

If the Multiverse isn't science then neither is evolution. Have we observed evolution? Or have we gathered clues from the current observations of the natural world to reach that conclusion.

The same can be said for both evolution and Multiverse.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 2:36:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 11:01:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Multiverse isn't science then neither is evolution. Have we observed evolution? Or have we gathered clues from the current observations of the natural world to reach that conclusion.

Nope the same cannot be said for a multiverse hypothesis, despite what Hawkins wants us to believe. Multi verse belongs in the 'what if' category of things about stuff - there is null evidence for it.

As for your oscillating universe, that's been shown not to be the case for this universe, whether it is the current of prior formations or not. There is nothing to indicate it will contract and a lot of contrary evidence in support of the opposite.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:19:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, I saw it... well some of it. They're kinda dumping it down a tad too much, the anaologies are reaching the point of nauseo a reductis.

The show just gave light to the inconsistencies in the current(or post classical) modal of the big bang and cosmology (the Horizon problem in which the show gets it's name) and gave some alternative theories (eternal inflation, loop quantum gravity, Bane/M-string theory). It also touched on Hubble's original findings and how they are still mindfk nearly a century on.

Anyhow, it's nice to know your looking at this in a more rational "scientific" prospective. :)
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 2:36:13 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/12/2010 11:01:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Multiverse isn't science then neither is evolution. Have we observed evolution? Or have we gathered clues from the current observations of the natural world to reach that conclusion.

Nope the same cannot be said for a multiverse hypothesis, despite what Hawkins wants us to believe. Multi verse belongs in the 'what if' category of things about stuff - there is null evidence for it.
Null evidence? I would think that they have some form of evidence looking at how the multiverse theories are held to higher esteem than the olde modal. For example M theory, that uses a multiuniverse (or an external presence, branes) explain many things that a the momo-universe cannot. It explains objective(not assumed) phenomena such as the CMB cold spot and unexplainable patterns or speeds of galaxies contradictory to olde inflation.

As for your oscillating universe, that's been shown not to be the case for this universe,
Wut? Many scientists, Laura Mersini and Michio Kaku, both highly respected cosmologists, the latter I assume to be geo's source, disagree and support the cyclic models; what do you speak of?
whether it is the current of prior formations or not. There is nothing to indicate it will contract and a lot of contrary evidence in support of the opposite.
That's a question of Occam's razor regarding the two models is it not? The multiverse is favoured.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 10:51:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 3:37:30 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Null evidence?

Correcct.

I would think

Please do.


As for your oscillating universe, that's been shown not to be the case for this universe,
Wut? Many scientists, Laura Mersini and Michio Kaku, both highly respected cosmologists, the latter I assume to be geo's source, disagree and support the cyclic models; what do you speak of?

Evidence of the sort that, 'I like this hypothesis anyway' doesn't fall under. See science thread for at least 2 from memory threads that detail the basics.

That's a question of Occam's razor regarding the two models is it not? The multiverse is favoured.

No. Firstly Multiverse theory has nothing to do with the cyclical universe which was in favour around a decade ago, but given current measurements in cosmology is refuted for the state of this one. It has to do with hard measurements i.e. consistent facts supporting a consistent model and nothing at all to do with Occam's Razor.