Wow what an interesting discussion that has preceded my post here. I never thought it would garner so much debate . One common thread I saw though is that some of you are saying science isn’t the pursuit of god and also talk of some ultimate reality which gave me a chuckle. Science when most pure is the study of our universe through certain branches such as chemistry, biology, quantum physics, ect., using techniques of unbiased observation and understanding how and why something works. If science found in a repeatable way an interaction with “god” then science would define god, but in the same way if no evidence comes it’s way it will ignore “god”. So I wouldn’t say science is the pursuit or not, it’s just a logical way of examining the measurable aspects of the universe, and quite important to master if one wants to truly explore the universe. This ultimate reality also is funny because I have noticed that certain laws apply in the universe relative to size, such as Newtonian at the level we are at, then at the atomic level we have quantum physics and high energy physics, then eventually you get to plank length with laws that describe nature on the smallest scale like m-theory. So ultimate reality is actually relative reality, just depends where your consciousness resides
Anyways, I saw a GREAT post by Welsh Cake and I truly mean that very insightful and I wish to offer some of my counter points.
I offer two tidbits to chew over, first is that it is not all speculation, there is indeed evidence that points to a cyclical universe. There is a great TV program called Through the Worm Hole which summarizes that many physicist in order to explain the scattering of galaxies and some constants are thinking the universe might be cyclical. I have a web link to the cosmic rings that were formed.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...nce-space/
As a side note, in a way this leads more evidence that if the universe was cyclical in nature that left over imprints are not recycled and there is still entropy buildup albeit it very small and the universe couldn’t exist in an infinite band collapse state.
The Second point is that saying physics makes no sense only strengthens my initial argument of logic vs illogical condition. Are you saying that no laws of physics were followed pre big bang? Does that mean purple elephants could shoot fireballs at Skeletor and I could hold 3 glass marbles in my hand but could throw 5 of them when I only have 3. Could consciousness be contained in nothing and create at will anything, thus magic is real? Well if so then the argument of god existing will have weight behind it. No I do not think you imply these things because that is illogical, not to have 1 to 1 correlations on physical objects, it is illogical to have nothing be composed of something. It just means the laws are logical but different, that they follow some sort of ordered sense. But my whole point was that if this is true something illogical was needed to prime mass/energy out of nothing as logic dictates this is impossible.
Also my original post only offered the cyclical universe because that is a possible path when simulating the starting point of the universe and my reasoning would have to cover it to be complete. The big bang could very well be the one and only explosion that happened.
I was using God as a place name holder, I usually refer to god as giver of domain, you can refer to it as a process or entity, it just easier to type god then event or uncaused cause, because most people think of god as creation of some type
The quote I used for Georges Lemaître are both correct and not correct, so I can give you this point. Fact is Georges did say nothing existed before the big bang, that you can look up. I however defined what a complete void of nothingness is and I switch out his word nothing existed to void just as a clarifier. If he did try it infer some slight meaning by using a choice phrase then perhaps I did muddle some of his intent but I didn’t think so.
Well I didn’t know I needed Rogaine for my assertions, will wear a wig next time I type But honestly all kidding aside, I offered physical law to support my flow of logic, and in my presentation I did not make a logical error and I did offer sources for some of my material. So I do think I honestly have present a sound argument and I have reposted retorts to all questions in a similar sound manor. Now I do admit I didn’t fully explain out each theory I mentioned as I assume a basic level of physics knowledge but I wanted to keep my giant posts below cloud level but my theory at it’s heart is actually simple.
I see the universe as both amazingly complex and also extremely simplistic. For example if your engineering anything you have to know the math, calculate power and resistances, diagram complex flow charts to make truly high tech constructs. That can be hard and daunting challenge to understand such knowledge to do useful endeavors. However, the simple side is sometimes harder to see, think about your dna, all the mitosis that cells divide, the chemical factory that is your body and the UNMATCHED sophistication of the human brain in biological circuitry, yet everyday all those complexities come together and fit some perfectly without effort for you to live, it’s so simple yet complex. Even look at a ball falling to earth, all the calculation you could do from velocity to wind shear to predictions yet you grab a ball throw it up and it comes down, so simple. So even a simple logical thought can have big meaning and be true without having to understand all the complex interactions under it. That’s why I kept my logical reasoning at a high level, easy to follow and think about. Anyways thank you for the reply, I will always keep my posts respectful as I appreciate the reciprocal.
Anyways, I saw a GREAT post by Welsh Cake and I truly mean that very insightful and I wish to offer some of my counter points.
Quote: It's called the Big Bang event. We still don't yet know what preceded it. When you try to go back and build a cosmogonical theory or model you hit the brick wall that is the Planck epoch. Everything now becomes speculation. Physics no longer makes sense
I offer two tidbits to chew over, first is that it is not all speculation, there is indeed evidence that points to a cyclical universe. There is a great TV program called Through the Worm Hole which summarizes that many physicist in order to explain the scattering of galaxies and some constants are thinking the universe might be cyclical. I have a web link to the cosmic rings that were formed.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...nce-space/
As a side note, in a way this leads more evidence that if the universe was cyclical in nature that left over imprints are not recycled and there is still entropy buildup albeit it very small and the universe couldn’t exist in an infinite band collapse state.
The Second point is that saying physics makes no sense only strengthens my initial argument of logic vs illogical condition. Are you saying that no laws of physics were followed pre big bang? Does that mean purple elephants could shoot fireballs at Skeletor and I could hold 3 glass marbles in my hand but could throw 5 of them when I only have 3. Could consciousness be contained in nothing and create at will anything, thus magic is real? Well if so then the argument of god existing will have weight behind it. No I do not think you imply these things because that is illogical, not to have 1 to 1 correlations on physical objects, it is illogical to have nothing be composed of something. It just means the laws are logical but different, that they follow some sort of ordered sense. But my whole point was that if this is true something illogical was needed to prime mass/energy out of nothing as logic dictates this is impossible.
Also my original post only offered the cyclical universe because that is a possible path when simulating the starting point of the universe and my reasoning would have to cover it to be complete. The big bang could very well be the one and only explosion that happened.
Quote: By its own definition it would have to be an entity, not a process, otherwise why call it "God" in the first place?
I was using God as a place name holder, I usually refer to god as giver of domain, you can refer to it as a process or entity, it just easier to type god then event or uncaused cause, because most people think of god as creation of some type
Quote: What do you mean by 'outside' the realm of logic? The imaginary?As before, I stated there can be different laws, laws of logic, laws of magic or imaginary. We need logical laws in order to measure and this universe is based on them. My argument just stated that there can be only two states before the universe was created. A “place” of logic and ordered process and concrete definition of properties or a “place” of imagination or magic, whatever you want to call it where if honestly if that is the case, god being real has a very high chance of being real. I just tried to reason from these two states and build them into the known simulation of the universe, that’s all.
Quote: Yeah, Georges Lemaître said many things. A "void" or "nothingness" hasn't been demonstrated to be true.
The quote I used for Georges Lemaître are both correct and not correct, so I can give you this point. Fact is Georges did say nothing existed before the big bang, that you can look up. I however defined what a complete void of nothingness is and I switch out his word nothing existed to void just as a clarifier. If he did try it infer some slight meaning by using a choice phrase then perhaps I did muddle some of his intent but I didn’t think so.
Quote: Then you should know from experience how this works: if you want to talk about the Universe we're all ears. If you make a bald-faced assertion there's a God-like entity out there, provide evidence and data supported by logic and reasoning to back up the claim or expect ridicule.
Well I didn’t know I needed Rogaine for my assertions, will wear a wig next time I type But honestly all kidding aside, I offered physical law to support my flow of logic, and in my presentation I did not make a logical error and I did offer sources for some of my material. So I do think I honestly have present a sound argument and I have reposted retorts to all questions in a similar sound manor. Now I do admit I didn’t fully explain out each theory I mentioned as I assume a basic level of physics knowledge but I wanted to keep my giant posts below cloud level but my theory at it’s heart is actually simple.
I see the universe as both amazingly complex and also extremely simplistic. For example if your engineering anything you have to know the math, calculate power and resistances, diagram complex flow charts to make truly high tech constructs. That can be hard and daunting challenge to understand such knowledge to do useful endeavors. However, the simple side is sometimes harder to see, think about your dna, all the mitosis that cells divide, the chemical factory that is your body and the UNMATCHED sophistication of the human brain in biological circuitry, yet everyday all those complexities come together and fit some perfectly without effort for you to live, it’s so simple yet complex. Even look at a ball falling to earth, all the calculation you could do from velocity to wind shear to predictions yet you grab a ball throw it up and it comes down, so simple. So even a simple logical thought can have big meaning and be true without having to understand all the complex interactions under it. That’s why I kept my logical reasoning at a high level, easy to follow and think about. Anyways thank you for the reply, I will always keep my posts respectful as I appreciate the reciprocal.
