(March 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm more worried about the immediate problems.  Really couldn't care less about Zeus or Zoroaster or Quetzlcoatl.

Right now, its muslims and jesus freaks who are fucking things up.

Bibi and his right wing supporters aren't helping either. Even Jews have their far right war hawks. I wish that the moderates and liberals of all three would push back on all three. I see selfishness on the far right in all three and I am very sick of that shit. It really seems that none of those three want to accept that there is more than 3 religions on the face of the planet and all of the far right of all three don't seem to give a shit that 7  billion humans could be wiped out because of their old bronze age books.

(March 12, 2017 at 11:55 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Empty universes are theoretically unstable, and there is some science behind that.

Before the start point, we can't put the name "universe" over any entity.
It won't "mean" anything.

"Universe" is just a reference to a "meaning" after all.

Quote:Also, you're not thinking about either anthropological (strong or weak) principle coming into play.

"anthropological" gives me "the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals." when written in google.

If I get your meaning right.
Humans started existing as assets of this current Big Bang.

Or more precisely: assets of this universe.
So before the start, their ideas, consciousness and thoughts are nothing but unknowns.

Quote:Scientific American even ran an article on your pre-start thing in the last couple years. Head to the library !!

http://gizmodo.com/what-was-our-universe...1791889926

http://science.howstuffworks.com/diction...-bang1.htm

No answer. Speculations. 

Minimalist

Quote:What about empty heads?

At least, I think; Minimalist.

I don't take cover and hide from answers. Oh, empty minds love that !

Brian37

Quote:Word salad is about as polite as I can be about the OP. Like you Atlas, but this is merely what I have seen from countless others from just about every religion you can think of in 16 years of online debate. When you have no positive proof with independent peer review, you resort to pretending philosophy can replace a neutral science lab. 

No, science labs would be in my agenda to build, after all I think they prove what I believe, even more.

Quote:How about anyone of any religion in the world consider that religion and god claims are merely the products of human's imaginations reflecting their own narcissism, fears, desires and insecurities based mostly on what the parents hand down to the youth of the world?

They provide an answer for unanswered question; one strong answer too.
All humans do bad, religious people are not different.

They do bad because they are humans; not because of religion.

Quote:Science explains nature and the universe, not religion. 

I didn't shoot down the human brain, neither did I shoot down religion.
That's what you see here; Brian.

Minimalist

I'm not medieval  missionary wearing a shining armor.

Brian37

Kudos for the opinion that comes in the center.
All are faith. All are beliefs. 

The biggest disaster (even within Muslims themselves) is the double standards.

BrianSoddingBoru4

The special case is what I would go for, in terms of the existence.
That's why we can't define God; only he can define himself.


pocracas

The point before the Big Bang is itself meaningless, right.
The chance of the existence of a being outside the context of our own domain, deserves to be considered.

Minimalist

Please, they are pawns in the big economical game that businessmen love to play since WW2.

(March 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(March 12, 2017 at 11:55 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Empty universes are theoretically unstable, and there is some science behind that.

Before the start point, we can't put the name "universe" over any entity.
It won't "mean" anything.

"Universe" is just a reference to a "meaning" after all.

Quote:Also, you're not thinking about either anthropological (strong or weak) principle coming into play.

"anthropological" gives me "the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals." when written in google.

If I get your meaning right.
Humans started existing as assets of this current Big Bang.

Or more precisely: assets of this universe.
So before the start, their ideas, consciousness and thoughts are nothing but unknowns.

Quote:Scientific American even ran an article on your pre-start thing in the last couple years. Head to the library !!

http://gizmodo.com/what-was-our-universe...1791889926

http://science.howstuffworks.com/diction...-bang1.htm

No answer. Speculations. 

Minimalist

Quote:What about empty heads?

At least, I think; Minimalist.

I don't take cover and hide from answers. Oh, empty minds love that !

Brian37

Quote:Word salad is about as polite as I can be about the OP. Like you Atlas, but this is merely what I have seen from countless others from just about every religion you can think of in 16 years of online debate. When you have no positive proof with independent peer review, you resort to pretending philosophy can replace a neutral science lab. 

No, science labs would be in my agenda to build, after all I think they prove what I believe, even more.

Quote:How about anyone of any religion in the world consider that religion and god claims are merely the products of human's imaginations reflecting their own narcissism, fears, desires and insecurities based mostly on what the parents hand down to the youth of the world?

They provide an answer for unanswered question; one strong answer too.
All humans do bad, religious people are not different.

They do bad because they are humans; not because of religion.

Quote:Science explains nature and the universe, not religion. 

I didn't shoot down the human brain, neither did I shoot down religion.
That's what you see here; Brian.

Minimalist

I'm not medieval  missionary wearing a shining armor.

Brian37

Kudos for the opinion that comes in the center.
All are faith. All are beliefs. 

The biggest disaster (even within Muslims themselves) is the double standards.

BrianSoddingBoru4

The special case is what I would go for, in terms of the existence.
That's why we can't define God; only he can define himself.


pocracas

The point before the Big Bang is itself meaningless, right.
The chance of the existence of a being outside the context of our own domain, deserves to be considered.

Minimalist

Please, they are pawns in the big economical game that businessmen love to play since WW2.

Um no Atlas, "atheist" is a "faith" like "off" is a TV channel. I simply see no evidence or good reason to buy any god claim. I also don't need faith to reject claims of unicorns or Apollo. 

As far as your response to Pocracas no, we don't need to consider all possibilities about what came before the Big Bang. We don't need to consider a invisible pink unicorn farting our universe into existence either. A cognition is not a requirement to fill in the gaps. QM as science understands it now as far as our best data does not require a cognition as a starting point. "All this" can be either the rotting into nothing prior to our big bang that became the quantum twitch that lead to our big bang. Or our universe could have come from nothing. But a cognition as a prime first mover according to QM is not a requirement anymore than assuming a giant invisible pink unicorn could explain anything prior.


Your desire for a super cognition is a flawed perception reflecting your own human qualities. No different than when a dog mistakes it's own reflection in a door or mirror as to being a rival. The explanation as to why humans make god claims is that they are simply projecting their own qualities, desires, narcissism and insecurities on the world around them which become god claims and religions as arguments from ignorance. 

A God/god/diety/super natural being is not required to explain the currently unknown. What science has yet to explain in the future about what came prior does not need a human like character with super powers to explain anything. 

It also takes no faith to reject claims of Thor or Santa or Yoda. I'd suggest your belief is really your own desires and nothing more than that.

Atlas, are you that uncomfortable with "we don't know" or "we don't know - yet" that you need to have the man made up reassurances of a god(s)/religion? 

If you need a god to be content, OK by me. Just don't expect me to need one or even understand the need.

And Atlas, nobody here is "shooting down" your right to make any claim you want. We simply reject the logic behind the claims you make. We are not treating you any differently than we would a Christian or Jew or even Hindu or Buddhist.

Our species is much older than any human written or even oral religion. Evolution is far older too. Cockroaches and bacteria outnumber humans and have been around a lot longer and are far more successful at breeding and survival than humans. A blade of grass does not pray to a grass god, and the dinosaurs didn't build houses of worship around a T-rex god. The water bear is one of the oldest microscopic life on the planet that has survived all 5 mass extinction events in our planet's 4 billion year old history. In evolution humans have only been here in our current form for 150,000 to 200,000 years. And as a species we would be far less likely to survive a meteor like what killed the dinosaurs and the water bear and cockroaches would be far more likely to survive such an event.

That harsh truth isn't comforting to many no, but it is the truth. Humans are NOT special to the planet or the universe. That does not mean we can't find good here and  now, we can, and we can when we want to as a species look for ways to improve life and extend life, but life still is ultimately finite.

(March 12, 2017 at 11:29 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: This a very serious post. I don't intend to joke in it; didn't I also use double meanings.
Let's begin:

Having a start, we must have a point before that start. Let's imagine the two points: 

1-Start
2-Pre start

If taken with the same context, with the same meaning dictionary, the pre start, or 2, can always be the start within a different universe, resulting in an infinite vacuum.

But an instance of logic would suggest, that once we cross the "start" borders backwardly, the context of now will have no meaning; it will cease to exist.

The start point was suggested to be named "The Big Bang" in our universe, nobody knows anything about point 2; or "Pre start". If meanings can't even exist in that void; void itself lost its meaning before point 1; how does point 2 can even exist ?

We will never solve it. We will forever be locked tight in our context of "now"; the context that began with point 1.
Only God is the way out of this dogma of lost meaning.

What means what, when what itself loses the colors that makes it a what; when would not work since light itself is not; darkness is also not; nothing is; but everything is not.

Before point 1; nothing would mean. Context doesn't exist. How could particles be?

Can we cut to the chase on this? How does god give any answers to any of this? Can you explain the origin of God any better than scientists can explain the origin of the universe?

Please don't bs me with circular mumbojumbo.

(March 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: pocracas

The point before the Big Bang is itself meaningless, right.

Perhaps... perhaps not... who knows? hint: no one knows!

(March 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: The chance of the existence of a being outside the context of our own domain, deserves to be considered.

Considered... perhaps. You should be aware that it then opens up a huge can of worms:
What sort of domain would that be?
How would it have come about?
What sort of materials from that domain would be used to construct a Universe?
How many such beings are there in that domain?
How many other Universes have been made?
Is that domain also a subset of yet another domain with yet other beings?... and that a subset of another? and so on and on and on and on... ad infinitum?
Can we tap into that domain's materials and create our own new Universe?
What else could be done with such materials?


Am I asking questions beyond the scope of any holy book? Am I far more excited about that possibility than any religious scholar ever was?!
This is why I want to know.
Believing gets you no where!

OP, tl;dr version:

"What happened before the Big Bang?"

The Big Condom was unrolled.

(March 12, 2017 at 11:29 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: This a very serious post. I don't intend to joke in it; didn't I also use double meanings.
Let's begin:

Having a start, we must have a point before that start. Let's imagine the two points: 

1-Start
2-Pre start

If taken with the same context, with the same meaning dictionary, the pre start, or 2, can always be the start within a different universe, resulting in an infinite vacuum.

But an instance of logic would suggest, that once we cross the "start" borders backwardly, the context of now will have no meaning; it will cease to exist.

The start point was suggested to be named "The Big Bang" in our universe, nobody knows anything about point 2; or "Pre start". If meanings can't even exist in that void; void itself lost its meaning before point 1; how does point 2 can even exist ?

We will never solve it. We will forever be locked tight in our context of "now"; the context that began with point 1.
Only God is the way out of this dogma of lost meaning.

What means what, when what itself loses the colors that makes it a what; when would not work since light itself is not; darkness is also not; nothing is; but everything is not.

Before point 1; nothing would mean. Context doesn't exist. How could particles be?

The laws of physics breaks down at this point, so the explanation will be beyond us. We didn't evolve with this experience. 
It is not true to say that there was nothing and then something. The term "nothing" postulates space, since all terms relating to a reality assume spacial coordinates. I can't claim to know the true explanation of the universe, but based on what is accepted here, the universe wasn't preceded by anything. 
To say God is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing is to assume a specific relationship between existence, causality, and nothing. This is to assume a lot. 
God is actually a rather terrible explanation for the origins of the big bang, space, and time, as shown by the the principle of ignorance. An explanation such as a mind will have cognitive features, which means that a predictable pattern should be able to be deduced from such an event. This would be part of a teleological based event. However, the big bang lacks these predictable cognitive features, it is lacked in its initial conditions. You cannot overcome the random nature of this event. Physical theory breaks down at the big bang singularity. 
Also, this concept of God has ontological inconsistencies.