Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

A Third Choice

Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God. Atheists are skeptical of the idea that an all-powerful being created something out of nothing, and theists use the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Both are valid points, but I believe this dichotomy does us all a disservice. Thus I would like to point a possible interpretation of both scientific and religious ideas loosely based on Buddhist cosmology. Keep in mind that this is just a theory.

My theory is that there was a Big Bang that started this universe, but that time did not begin with that event. Instead, I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes. There is the birth of a universe, its life, and then it dies (perhaps in a "Big Crunch"). The next universe then bursts from the same singularity that was left from the previous, as suggested by the current scientific theory.

There is a number of reasons why this theory works. First of all, physicists believe that the physical constants (such as force of gravity, speed of light, etc) were determined at some point between the Big Bang and Planck time (10^-43 seconds). Physicists have no reason to believe that if there was another universe that the physical constants would be the same. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been because this universe had these physical constants, and humans live in this universe because it was the one that had the constants that allowed life. This theory also doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect as the current perception of the Big Bang does. (Time would not start and space would not be created for no reason.)

Anyway, that's my theory. Any thoughts/questions?
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 2:43:53 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death

It might be better if you read what "atheists" write rather than telling them what they claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skeptical1
Posts: 694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 2:51:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God. Atheists are skeptical of the idea that an all-powerful being created something out of nothing, and theists use the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Both are valid points, but I believe this dichotomy does us all a disservice. Thus I would like to point a possible interpretation of both scientific and religious ideas loosely based on Buddhist cosmology. Keep in mind that this is just a theory.

My theory is that there was a Big Bang that started this universe, but that time did not begin with that event. Instead, I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes. There is the birth of a universe, its life, and then it dies (perhaps in a "Big Crunch"). The next universe then bursts from the same singularity that was left from the previous, as suggested by the current scientific theory.

There is a number of reasons why this theory works. First of all, physicists believe that the physical constants (such as force of gravity, speed of light, etc) were determined at some point between the Big Bang and Planck time (10^-43 seconds). Physicists have no reason to believe that if there was another universe that the physical constants would be the same. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been because this universe had these physical constants, and humans live in this universe because it was the one that had the constants that allowed life. This theory also doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect as the current perception of the Big Bang does. (Time would not start and space would not be created for no reason.)

Anyway, that's my theory. Any thoughts/questions?

Sounds plausible, but is it new? It sounds quite familiar, pretty much like standard multiverse theory, except serialised (I'm by no means an expert, so I'm prepared to be corrected on this). Of course, it doesn't answer the genesis question any better than the traditional big bang theory. You're still going to get asked "but where did the *first* universe come from?"

I have never understood the "incredible fine tuning" theory. There are cataclysmic events all the time in the cosmos - galaxies smashing into and cannibalising each other, and so forth. It appears that life as we know it could only be possible in the tiniest possible portion of the universe. How is this fine tuning? To think we are special because we exist in that tiny fraction of the known universe that could support us is not evidence of some grand plan - we evolved here because we couldn't have evolved anywhere else.

For what it's worth, they're my thoughts.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 3:16:56 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God. Atheists are skeptical of the idea that an all-powerful being created something out of nothing, and theists use the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Both are valid points, but I believe this dichotomy does us all a disservice. Thus I would like to point a possible interpretation of both scientific and religious ideas loosely based on Buddhist cosmology. Keep in mind that this is just a theory.

My theory is that there was a Big Bang that started this universe, but that time did not begin with that event. Instead, I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes. There is the birth of a universe, its life, and then it dies (perhaps in a "Big Crunch"). The next universe then bursts from the same singularity that was left from the previous, as suggested by the current scientific theory.

There is a number of reasons why this theory works. First of all, physicists believe that the physical constants (such as force of gravity, speed of light, etc) were determined at some point between the Big Bang and Planck time (10^-43 seconds). Physicists have no reason to believe that if there was another universe that the physical constants would be the same. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been because this universe had these physical constants, and humans live in this universe because it was the one that had the constants that allowed life. This theory also doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect as the current perception of the Big Bang does. (Time would not start and space would not be created for no reason.)

Anyway, that's my theory. Any thoughts/questions?

I am reading a book by Stephen Hawking, and I think he did touch on this theory. Either that or I read about it somewhere on the internet. I think it is just about as valid as any other theory out there. It isn't the one that I accept, personally, but it is still valid. After reading Hawking's book, I kind of like the no boundaries proposal, but who really knows? Best case scenario: you have a theory that fits observation and makes some kind of sense.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 3:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:51:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God. Atheists are skeptical of the idea that an all-powerful being created something out of nothing, and theists use the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Both are valid points, but I believe this dichotomy does us all a disservice. Thus I would like to point a possible interpretation of both scientific and religious ideas loosely based on Buddhist cosmology. Keep in mind that this is just a theory.

My theory is that there was a Big Bang that started this universe, but that time did not begin with that event. Instead, I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes. There is the birth of a universe, its life, and then it dies (perhaps in a "Big Crunch"). The next universe then bursts from the same singularity that was left from the previous, as suggested by the current scientific theory.

There is a number of reasons why this theory works. First of all, physicists believe that the physical constants (such as force of gravity, speed of light, etc) were determined at some point between the Big Bang and Planck time (10^-43 seconds). Physicists have no reason to believe that if there was another universe that the physical constants would be the same. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been because this universe had these physical constants, and humans live in this universe because it was the one that had the constants that allowed life. This theory also doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect as the current perception of the Big Bang does. (Time would not start and space would not be created for no reason.)

Anyway, that's my theory. Any thoughts/questions?

Sounds plausible, but is it new? It sounds quite familiar, pretty much like standard multiverse theory, except serialised (I'm by no means an expert, so I'm prepared to be corrected on this). Of course, it doesn't answer the genesis question any better than the traditional big bang theory. You're still going to get asked "but where did the *first* universe come from?"
It is similar to multiverse theory, but it is serialized, as you point out. The problem with multiverse theory is that the cause and effect problem still exists with the creation of the universe. When it's serialized, you no longer have this problem. I believe it does solve the genesis question, though. Buddhism teaches that a fundamental truth of reality is the impermanence of phenomena: the idea that everything we perceive is constantly changing. Interpret this as the "first cause" if you feel that there needs to be one. Change obviously implies time, and time needs a space to act on (how could time exist if it couldn't change anything). In accordance with this fundamental rule, there is a cyclical string of universes rather than one universe. The end result is something very different from multiverse theory.

http://www.ecobuddhism.org...

I have never understood the "incredible fine tuning" theory. There are cataclysmic events all the time in the cosmos - galaxies smashing into and cannibalising each other, and so forth. It appears that life as we know it could only be possible in the tiniest possible portion of the universe. How is this fine tuning? To think we are special because we exist in that tiny fraction of the known universe that could support us is not evidence of some grand plan - we evolved here because we couldn't have evolved anywhere else.
It's fine tuning because it's the physical constants rather than location that allow life to develop. Astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan has likened the chances of the physical constants being able to support life to an archer hitting a 1-centimeter square target from 15 light years away. Certainly a miracle by any definition, but no longer one if you send an infinite number of arrows in all directions.
For what it's worth, they're my thoughts.
Thanks for the response!
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 4:42:03 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God. Atheists are skeptical of the idea that an all-powerful being created something out of nothing, and theists use the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Both are valid points, but I believe this dichotomy does us all a disservice. Thus I would like to point a possible interpretation of both scientific and religious ideas loosely based on Buddhist cosmology. Keep in mind that this is just a theory.

My theory is that there was a Big Bang that started this universe, but that time did not begin with that event. Instead, I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes. There is the birth of a universe, its life, and then it dies (perhaps in a "Big Crunch"). The next universe then bursts from the same singularity that was left from the previous, as suggested by the current scientific theory.

There is a number of reasons why this theory works. First of all, physicists believe that the physical constants (such as force of gravity, speed of light, etc) were determined at some point between the Big Bang and Planck time (10^-43 seconds). Physicists have no reason to believe that if there was another universe that the physical constants would be the same. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been because this universe had these physical constants, and humans live in this universe because it was the one that had the constants that allowed life. This theory also doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect as the current perception of the Big Bang does. (Time would not start and space would not be created for no reason.)

Anyway, that's my theory. Any thoughts/questions?

Interesting but my first thought is that dark energy is accelerating the expansion.

"Even with an unchanging dark energy strength, an ever expanding universe is still the most likely scenario. So unless data that contradicts these properties are collected, the Big Crunch will have to remain as a less favored theory."

http://www.universetoday.com...
Skeptical1
Posts: 694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 4:47:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 3:23:33 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 9/1/2016 2:51:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God. Atheists are skeptical of the idea that an all-powerful being created something out of nothing, and theists use the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Both are valid points, but I believe this dichotomy does us all a disservice. Thus I would like to point a possible interpretation of both scientific and religious ideas loosely based on Buddhist cosmology. Keep in mind that this is just a theory.

My theory is that there was a Big Bang that started this universe, but that time did not begin with that event. Instead, I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes. There is the birth of a universe, its life, and then it dies (perhaps in a "Big Crunch"). The next universe then bursts from the same singularity that was left from the previous, as suggested by the current scientific theory.

There is a number of reasons why this theory works. First of all, physicists believe that the physical constants (such as force of gravity, speed of light, etc) were determined at some point between the Big Bang and Planck time (10^-43 seconds). Physicists have no reason to believe that if there was another universe that the physical constants would be the same. Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been because this universe had these physical constants, and humans live in this universe because it was the one that had the constants that allowed life. This theory also doesn't violate the laws of cause and effect as the current perception of the Big Bang does. (Time would not start and space would not be created for no reason.)

Anyway, that's my theory. Any thoughts/questions?

Sounds plausible, but is it new? It sounds quite familiar, pretty much like standard multiverse theory, except serialised (I'm by no means an expert, so I'm prepared to be corrected on this). Of course, it doesn't answer the genesis question any better than the traditional big bang theory. You're still going to get asked "but where did the *first* universe come from?"
It is similar to multiverse theory, but it is serialized, as you point out. The problem with multiverse theory is that the cause and effect problem still exists with the creation of the universe. When it's serialized, you no longer have this problem. I believe it does solve the genesis question, though. Buddhism teaches that a fundamental truth of reality is the impermanence of phenomena: the idea that everything we perceive is constantly changing. Interpret this as the "first cause" if you feel that there needs to be one. Change obviously implies time, and time needs a space to act on (how could time exist if it couldn't change anything). In accordance with this fundamental rule, there is a cyclical string of universes rather than one universe. The end result is something very different from multiverse theory.

http://www.ecobuddhism.org...

I have never understood the "incredible fine tuning" theory. There are cataclysmic events all the time in the cosmos - galaxies smashing into and cannibalising each other, and so forth. It appears that life as we know it could only be possible in the tiniest possible portion of the universe. How is this fine tuning? To think we are special because we exist in that tiny fraction of the known universe that could support us is not evidence of some grand plan - we evolved here because we couldn't have evolved anywhere else.
It's fine tuning because it's the physical constants rather than location that allow life to develop. Astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan has likened the chances of the physical constants being able to support life to an archer hitting a 1-centimeter square target from 15 light years away. Certainly a miracle by any definition, but no longer one if you send an infinite number of arrows in all directions.
For what it's worth, they're my thoughts.
Thanks for the response!

15 light years, is that all?

Given that the milky way galaxy is 100,000 light years wide, and contains hundreds of billions of stars - and it's only one of at least 100 billion galaxies, I'd say that's as close as you need to get to an infinite number of arrows. In fact, it would be surprising if life hadn't spontaneously formed in a huge number of locations by now - and no need for magic at all, just mathematics :-)
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 6:37:28 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
I want to point out that "The Big Bang theory" was put into form by a Catholic priest, astronomer, and physicist Georges Lema"tre. Belief in the big bang and belief that God created the universe are not mutually exclusive.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 8:23:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 2:30:45 AM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
This is my first venture into the religion forum...I normally try to avoid it because any attempt at logical discussion is derailed by both theists and atheists alike who have no respect for other people's views.

Anyhow, I've noticed that there is a dichotomy that has been created in this forum. When discussing the origin of the universe, atheists claim that the Big Bang created the universe, and theists (usu. Christians) claim that the universe was created by God.
Hi ToD...

Technically, you're incorrect. The people who derive a big bang causing the inception of the universe are called scientists, and they're of many faiths.

As to what the religious believe, it depends on what they think they can get away with saying they believe. Abrahamic theists used to believe that the universe was the Earth, with the sun, moon and stars created specifically to illuminate it. They so believed that this was the only possible interpretation of Genesis, and that a false Genesis couldn't be authorised by a real God that contesting this was considered blasphemy and they'd punish you for it in some very nasty ways to silence you.

This continued for some 1200 years, through to the 16th century.

They were wrong -- they now all know they're wrong, but now they believe that it's okay for theology to interpret scripture differently, and despite their appalling rate of error in authentication, interpretation and prediction from scripture, some still insist they have the authority to say that more careful and diligently tested methods are wrong.

The matter is essentially closed, ToD: theological predictions about the universe should not be trusted because the people authoring and interpreting those predictions cannot be trusted. No reconciliation of these viewpoints is needed, because people who wish to serially lie about their ignorance deserve no respect for having done so.

I postulate (here's where the Buddhist theory comes in) that the universe is just one in a cyclical string of infinite universes.
We know quite a lot about the inception of matter, but very little about the inception of the Bang. There are many postulates around. We don't yet know how to test them.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 8:59:29 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
"..keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Grace be with thee. Amen"
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 9:09:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 8:59:29 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"..keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Grace be with thee. Amen"


Who is this grace woman?
Skeptical1
Posts: 694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 9:34:32 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 9:09:37 AM, desmac wrote:
At 9/1/2016 8:59:29 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"..keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Grace be with thee. Amen"



Who is this grace woman?

She's the nice one. You should meet her evil sisters Faith, Hope and Charity.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 9:45:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 9:34:32 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 9/1/2016 9:09:37 AM, desmac wrote:
At 9/1/2016 8:59:29 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"..keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Grace be with thee. Amen"



Who is this grace woman?

She's the nice one. You should meet her evil sisters Faith, Hope and Charity.

Isn't Charity the fat one? The greatest of them all ?
Skeptical1
Posts: 694
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 9:49:02 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 9:45:13 AM, desmac wrote:
At 9/1/2016 9:34:32 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 9/1/2016 9:09:37 AM, desmac wrote:
At 9/1/2016 8:59:29 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"..keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Grace be with thee. Amen"



Who is this grace woman?

She's the nice one. You should meet her evil sisters Faith, Hope and Charity.

Isn't Charity the fat one? The greatest of them all ?

I think you're right!