On a more serious note.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...GDPq2asSTA

Roger Penrose's ideas on what was before the Big Bang

(July 6, 2012 at 6:11 am)Brian37 Wrote: I love and hate discussions like this. I love them when science is talking about science. I hate them though when a theist tries to insert a who with the stupid "painting has a painter" argument.

It is true we do not know at this point. But even Hawkins has said that a god is not required. I agree.

If one can accept that a hurricane is not caused by an ocean god, but the conditions of the atmosphere why cant the universe be the product of conditions and not a who?

The other thing theists miss is that nature is not all random or all predictable. A hurricane starts out because of multiple smaller factors. The conditions are predictable, but the exact number of clouds, shape, exact number of raindrops and the individual paths of each raindrop are the random part.

Science could go either way as far as this universe being the product of the death of a prior one, or it could be that this all came from nothing, we simply do not know. But whatever happened does not require a thinking entity to cause it.

And the theist would be, even if we said a god was required, which I flat out reject, would still be stuck with "which one"? And how convenient it always leads to the one they claim.

I like to ask the claimants of the god caused universe, would they buy this argument from someone with a different god claim?

"Science could go either way"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you an expert in physics? Cosmology?

It's easy to see why a theist shouldn't look at the Big Bang and say, "Look, this means the universe was created! Hence a creator!" But I think it's just as wrong, and just as stupidly bandwagoning, for someone to look at one way that a scientist characterizes his understanding and say, "Yeah, that corresponds to what I believe! It must be the best way to understand it!"

I think it's sloppy thinking to just parrot smart people who say things that agree with what you already thought. And if you're not making an effort to understand the physics, then you're not bothering to actually understand for yourself.

(July 6, 2012 at 6:40 am)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 6, 2012 at 6:11 am)Brian37 Wrote: I love and hate discussions like this. I love them when science is talking about science. I hate them though when a theist tries to insert a who with the stupid "painting has a painter" argument.

It is true we do not know at this point. But even Hawkins has said that a god is not required. I agree.

If one can accept that a hurricane is not caused by an ocean god, but the conditions of the atmosphere why cant the universe be the product of conditions and not a who?

The other thing theists miss is that nature is not all random or all predictable. A hurricane starts out because of multiple smaller factors. The conditions are predictable, but the exact number of clouds, shape, exact number of raindrops and the individual paths of each raindrop are the random part.

Science could go either way as far as this universe being the product of the death of a prior one, or it could be that this all came from nothing, we simply do not know. But whatever happened does not require a thinking entity to cause it.

And the theist would be, even if we said a god was required, which I flat out reject, would still be stuck with "which one"? And how convenient it always leads to the one they claim.

I like to ask the claimants of the god caused universe, would they buy this argument from someone with a different god claim?

"Science could go either way"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you an expert in physics? Cosmology?

It's easy to see why a theist shouldn't look at the Big Bang and say, "Look, this means the universe was created! Hence a creator!" But I think it's just as wrong, and just as stupidly bandwagoning, for someone to look at one way that a scientist characterizes his understanding and say, "Yeah, that corresponds to what I believe! It must be the best way to understand it!"

I think it's sloppy thinking to just parrot smart people who say things that agree with what you already thought. And if you're not making an effort to understand the physics, then you're not bothering to actually understand for yourself.

I did..... and it still makes sense.

(July 6, 2012 at 12:56 am)Chuck Wrote: At time of recombination, the temperature of the universe was 4000 degrees K, this was decidedly within the visible range.

I get this point. Stimbo also mentioned transparency. To me this just means that existing photons were no longer subjected to constant scattering and I agree that some of the newly 'freed' photons had an energy within the visible spectrum.

I also suggest that we would still refer to the universe as dark at this time until the formation of stars.

If you are dropped into the universe right after recombination and somehow survive, no matter which direction you look, the whole universe would be a uniform brilliant yellowish white, whiter and more intense per unit area than the filament of a incandescent light bulb, although not quite as bright or white as the surface of the sun. It's not just some of the photons. Overwhelming majority of the photons zipping about the universe at that time would be within visible spectrum. Universe was by no means dark.

It won't red shift to the point where the background universe would appear dark to the human eye until several million years later.

(July 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Chuck Wrote: If you are dropped into the universe right after recombination and somehow survive, no matter which direction you look, the whole universe would be a uniform brilliant yellowish white, whiter and more intense per unit area than the filament of a incandescent light bulb, although not quite as bright or white as the surface of the sun. It's not just some of the photons. Overwhelming majority of the photons zipping about the universe at that time would be within visible spectrum. Universe was by no means dark.

It won't red shift to the point where the background universe would appear dark to the human eye until several million years later.

I think I'm starting to understand. What you're talking about is the blackbody radiation at the moment of last scattering. There seems to be some difference in opinion whether this started at 4000K or 3000K which would mean the difference between a yellow/white glow or red glow. Trivial distinction for my current level of understanding.

You indicate that the CMB would shift out of the visible spectrum after several million years. At this point the universe would be dark for a hundred million years or so until the first stars formed.

In my quest I also happened upon the idea that continued expansion will render the CMB and distant galaxies undetectable.

CMB might become ever more extremely cold as result of continued red shift and expansion, but it will never become totally undetectable, because every cubic inch of space will always be filled by CMB photons emitted by recombination at some physical point elsewhere in the universe. However, there could be a point when CMB become so cold it it becomes difficult to distinguish from quantum fluctuation.

I watch that show too
Lol

The Big Bang is the absolute physical beginning from physical nothingness at the singularity boundary. Atheists do backflips to avoid the logical implications. They are in denial

(November 7, 2012 at 9:49 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: The Big Bang is the absolute physical beginning from physical nothingness at the singularity boundary. Atheists do backflips to avoid the logical implications. They are in denial

And here we find the scientifically illiterate.