Big Bang Evidence for God

You're calling me dumb? ROFLMAO! I've already showed you where science falls short. Where did the big bang come from? Someone said "potential". The other technicians and I had a great laugh over that. We were wondering if there is big bang resistance or big bang current. OK, if I am dumb, then God must have opened my eyes to the "nothingness" that caused the big bang.

It is what it is. Stephen Hawking says there is nothing north of north, which means that asking about what caused the big bang is not allowed. I offered one possibility that didn't involve God, but there was little enthusiasm. And the great String Theorist of Oz made some irrational argument that since there are Norse gods and other gods, then therefore the biblical God does not exist. Well, I'll let you work that out in the afterlife.

Anyway, have fun with your "big bang from nothing" theory. Maybe you can figure out how to get a hot dog from nothing. Hey! Maybe you could invent the magic wand? Poof!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think we'll see anything resembling a star trek looking future anytime soon. I suspect that the first forms of stable and high speed space travel will be for planet / moon surveying and mining. But yes, our solar system alone is far more perilous than star trek. Getting through the oort cloud without smashing into into rocks (or vice versa) will be quite a feat on its own.

I think that's called steady state theory and as I recall there is more evidence against it than for; however, if we could be at a crossing of our universe and another, it might not be possible to move from ours to the other. We are not merely objects in the our universe, we are actually cross sections of our universe.

The physics community (like any science community) is going to move in whatever direction evidence takes them. While "pre" big bang speculation can be entertaining, it's just speculation. The point about *nothing* was simply to demonstrate that it's very likely not something real but treating it as real can lead to bad questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance means you don't know all the facts. It is not something to be ashamed of. Science is ignorant of lots of things. But science learns more each day. Stupidity means you have the information but can't put together in a cogent manner. This is almost always a lack of training. So you should not be ashamed of stupidity due to lack of training. But also you should not be expounding theories in areas where you lack the training. By all indications, AlphaNumeric and others here have both the available facts and the specific training to address the issues. You should be listening to these people. And learning from them.

That is incorrect. Stephen Hawking did not say that there is 'nothing' north of north. He said it was an meaningless question. I suppose you can ask the question but it shows your ignorance and stupidity due to lack of training. Note that I am both ignorant and stupid on the subject, but I do understand how the question can be meaningless. There are lots of meaningless questions. And often when you run up against a seeming paradox, it is often because your question was wrong. I encounter this all the time in my work which is much more practical than theoretical physics. Being smart means knowing how to ask the right questions and realizing when you have not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Charming understatement.

 

Physicist Paul Davies would disagree with you here, he mentions "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".

I have read all of these several fine tuning arguments and many of them are highly scientific. Fred Hoyle was also aware of how unlikely it was for the enzymes responsible for life to come to into existence by chance... He calculated those odds at something like \(10^{40,000}\). Richard Feymann is well-known for his talks on the fine structure constant - he made it clear that the fine structure constant was somewhat of a mystery in physics for a number of reasons. But the one we have all heard from time-to-time is that if the fine structure constant had been any different, the forces of nature would have been drastically different as well and so the fine balance of nature would have been toppled into something more bizarre.

All this said, I do not believe in a religious God, I think the Bible is nonsense. I do think there is something unique about our universe assuming there are no parallel universes to snatch that importance away

ps. and yes I agree, a very large quantity of the universe will be lifeless... but it seems you need a lot of space in the first place to make it happen.

 

Seeing as how this one is the only example we have, then there's not really any info about "other universes" to know one way or the other is there.

 

You may or may not have left this thread at this point, but it's interesting that I had responded directly to your universe nursery scenario, and you never followed up. You claim that scientists don't want to go further, they're happy with the Big Bang theory, and yet I gave a basic wiki page on the study of the origin of the universe, which again, you didn't bother discussing. Do we know the answers, obviously not, otherwise their wouldn't be numerous speculations. But there ARE speculations, if you want to look for them.

But maybe it's easier to beat the science strawman you've created, and settle for Goddidit as a suitable and safer fallback, as it doesn't require understanding, math, or beyond general science, just faith. Or maybe Poe's law should be called here, it's so hard to tell sometimes.

 

This is the task of unifying physics. It is not an easy achievement and cannot be done over night. Not with an incomplete picture of physics any way.

 

I prefer to believe that Star Trek technology is possible, but is hundreds or thousands of years down the road. I don't think that scientists have a clear picture yet of what it's going to take. The Alcubierre drive, which is so energetically impossible to implement, might have a successor version which is implementable.

Questions about the big bang, what came before, are just a means to an end (for me). God remains in my heart, which is a good place to keep God. Science has answered enough questions about our origin. The answers are useful to medicine. Maybe it's time to allow the scientific process to play out for a while, for several decades, and see where it leads.

Although I do wonder if quantum uncertainty does have hidden variables from beyond our universe.

 

FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Analysis

Hoyle's fallacy derives from disregarding everything about sequence space other than its size. Two factors are conflated: the probability of getting a 'first sequence' (abiogenesis or novel function) and the probability of going anywhere else (evolution). This may be illustrated by dissection of Hoyle's argument made in relation to myoglobin.[6] Any sequence of repeated elements – for example, DNA or protein – generates a sequence space for n positions and v different values at each position of vn possibilities. Therefore myoglobin, a protein of 153 amino acids, has a probability, in a 'random-amino-acid machine', of 20−153 of occurring in one step. For this to have any evolutionary significance, the number of useful myoglobins in that sequence space would have to be exactly 1. Further, any space of vn elements includes all lower-order spaces: {{vn-1, n-2, n-3 ...},{(v-1)n, n-1 ...} ... }. A probabilistic analysis must consider the smallest such space that contains a functional myoglobin. Neither n=153 nor v=20 can be accepted as minimal requirements, a priori.

Myoglobin function is in fact a property of the folded protein, not the amino acid sequence, per se. Protein folding is indeed determined by its amino acids, but activity is determined within a three-dimensional space. Certain key functional groups require suspension in a tightly-specified spatial orientation, but many different sequences may perform the scaffolding task of holding these in place. Even an imperfect arrangement may be superior to its predecessor, while adaptive evolution has the capacity to channel random processes along paths of optimization. If multiple functional sequences and adaptive gradients exist, then the total size of a sequence space delimited by a single modern instance does not set an upper bound on the probability of achieving a functional arrangement.

The minimum sequence of a functional myoglobin, the distributions of functional sequence within the total space, and the adaptive benefit of variant sequences within organisms are all unknown. Without such information, the probability of generating a functional myoglobin cannot be calculated.

Reception

Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by evolutionary biologists,[3] since, as the late John Maynard Smith pointed out, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step."[5] The modern evolutionary synthesis explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their overestimating of the improbability of the entire process.[1]

Hoyle's argument is a mainstay of creationist, intelligent design, orthogenetic and other criticisms of evolution. It has been labeled a fallacy by Richard Dawkins in his two books The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.[1] Dawkins argues that the existence of God, who under theistic uses of Hoyle's argument is implicitly responsible for the origin of life, defies probability far more than does the spontaneous origin of life even given Hoyle's assumptions, with Dawkins detailing his counter-argument in The God Delusion, describing God as the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.

1. The universe exists for no other reason than to support life. More specifically, for us and us alone.

2. Life is an extremely rare by-product of the natural laws of space. Intelligent, technologically advanced life is even rarer.

We have no evidence to support the former hypothesis.

We have a great deal of evidence to support the latter hypothesis.

Which scenario would a reasonable person choose as a 'working' hypothesis?

 

Since we only have a single sample (us), in a single location (earth), what evidence do we have that " Life is an extremely rare by-product of the natural laws of space. Intelligent, technologically advanced life is even rarer."

 

Let's just be clear on something first, I don't see reason 1 being valid because the universe supports a great deal of things outside of life itself. I believe 1. is a fallacy in its own. Option 2. is only valid if life is actually extremely rare: based on what we know on Earth, the rarity of life is questionable. Keep in mind life on Earth thrives at a given opportunity - not only does it thrive, but it can and does so under the most extreme conditions. Some life has been very bizarre, flipping biology on it's head to accommodate life forms we previously did not believe could exist... Like the organic life form discovered not too long ago which eats arsenic for breakfast. So the question of how rare life is will have to extend outside of Earth and to the most far reaches of spacetime for a proper answer... since Earth seems to tell us it is a very common phenomenon.

So we are actually left with an option 3. That is... ''the universe seems to be able to conduct life when it can, the sole purpose of the universe is not reserved for this alone however.''

Some how, when the universe came into existence, certain constants where just right to allow life. No reasonable scientist could deny this? We have no direct conclusive evidence also to say

''2. Life is an extremely rare by-product of the natural laws of space. Intelligent, technologically advanced life is even rarer.''

contrary to your belief. Intelligence comes in wide and vast forms so I don't see how you can conclude this hypothesis. Also, we can't say life is in general rare in the universe until we have been outside of our own star system, never mind galaxy. Some galaxies might be thriving in biological life, where others have not had a very good start if they even had a start.

ps.

It seems far more likely that we can use Earth as an example for the universe.

 

Micho Kaku has even argued that some technologically-advanced life forms, if they exist, may even send messages through spacetime in a completely alien way to us. In other words, our signals sent into spacetime, like from Arecibo, might seem technologically-infant.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

I thought this link would be appropriate for this discussion. If I think the universe was to be fine tuned and ''created'' as such, it is probably something like a computer simulation where the laws of physics have been ''wound up'' by some backstage higher life form.

Or... our universe behaves like a computer and life is special because we would be essentially a type of AI. But if the universe has not been ''created'' but has came about by chance, then I still believe that life adds a little importance in the universe since the physical constants have an infinite amount of starting conditions which would never have been able to conduct life.

Either way, life is a problem, hence the years of discussion on the subject leading to the Anthropic conditions.

 

I'm surprised Alex. On the contrary, we have literally millions of samples and billions of locations.

Of course, it is a subject that has been, and continues to be hotly debated in the science community, and is somewhat complex, so rather than impose any more on arauca, I think it would be more appropriate for me to start a new thread.

Doubt I can get to it until next Tuesday, since I have too many other immediate responsibilities, and I will have to invest at least a few hours on this.

Still, I think I can make a fairly strong case in support of the 'rare' hypothesis and look forward to debating this with you and anyone else who is interested.

 

Where? None that we've examined. We don't know what other planets and stars contain.

 

*sigh

To some extent, we do. Again, if you will allow me, I will cover this in depth next week.

I have to go now to meet some friends who are waiting on me.

 

Really... you do realize that we have discovered many Earth-like planets outside our solar system... yet you have ''millions of samples and billions of locations from where exactly?''

The rare life hypothesis... is just that, a hypothesis. There is no direct evidence this is the case at all... in fact it is nothing more than a conjecture.

 

Among other things but what I was referring to in the quote you posted was how you don't seem to have a firm grasp on reality.

Scientists know where the limits of science is.

And there are ideas but no one knows and unlike religion science admits it doesn't know. The fact science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean your beliefs have more validity.

Time as we know it now but there are extensions of various GR concepts which could explain it. But we don't know yet. And neither do you.

Thanks for lying about what I said. Good to see how blatantly dishonest you are, as well as stupid, for lying about something I said. Do you think I don't remember what I said?

You spoke about the afterlife, as if there is an afterlife than it is the one of your religion. I asked which afterlife. Norse? Hindu? Muslim? Pagan? Egyptian? Roman? Christian? Something else? If there is an afterlife and if it is the one you believe in then I might be in trouble. If there is an afterlife and if it is the Norse one then you'll be in trouble too. If there is an afterlife and if it is the Muslim one then we'll both be in trouble.

Out of all the possible afterlifes in all of the religions of the world you are okay only if the true one is the one you believe in. Otherwise you're in trouble too. So why aren't you a Muslim? If you're a Christian and the Muslim afterlife is true then you'll be in trouble! But that threat doesn't work on you as you don't believe in that afterlife. I don't believe in it either but I also don't believe in yours. Your threats are as meaningless to me as something threatening you with the Norse version of Hell.

The fact you don't understand the point I'm making and how you also twisted it and utterly misrepresented me shows how ignorant and dishonest you are, partly thanks to your religious belief. Ignorant, delusional, dishonest, lacking in intellectual honesty or curiosity, completely unable to deal with reality so you have to not only lie to yourself but to others. You are a walking advert against religious faith.

 

Isn't it a little premature to pass judgement on my evidence before you have seen it? Just a thought.