RE: Problems understanding naturalistically the beginning of the universe
May 2, 2016 at 12:05 am
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2016 at 12:09 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
That question is the subject of much debate. However, since it is apparent from physics that what we perceive as "time" is in fact a dimension connected to the others, functioning as interconnected with them, there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang, since time as a term would become meaningless. So when someone says it "began", they're referring to the start of time.
However, we cannot know (or do not yet know) whether there was some other factor causing time or anything else to exist outside the Singularity, independent of it. We would have to invent whole new maths to even ponder that question (physicists have overtly said so), and frankly, I think it's only of passing interest to science, for now, since we're still trying to figure out our own universe-- from Dark Matter/Energy to the Higgs Boson to the problem of completing the Theory of Everything.
On the other hand, I hear theists mention this question a lot, and seem to consider the start of the universe some sort of proof for God, even though it's child's play to show that the Cosmological Argument makes entirely too many assumptions to even begin to demonstrate that the concept we humans call "God" is necessary or plausible.
However, we cannot know (or do not yet know) whether there was some other factor causing time or anything else to exist outside the Singularity, independent of it. We would have to invent whole new maths to even ponder that question (physicists have overtly said so), and frankly, I think it's only of passing interest to science, for now, since we're still trying to figure out our own universe-- from Dark Matter/Energy to the Higgs Boson to the problem of completing the Theory of Everything.
On the other hand, I hear theists mention this question a lot, and seem to consider the start of the universe some sort of proof for God, even though it's child's play to show that the Cosmological Argument makes entirely too many assumptions to even begin to demonstrate that the concept we humans call "God" is necessary or plausible.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
