On 2012-05-26 10:53, acesover wrote:
OK. Just lt me address your post with this. If God exists and is The Sepreme Being as I believe He is. He is going to be beyond explanation by man. He is not bound by time or dimension or space and certainly not to be understood by our science. He is not on the same plane of intelligence and power anymore than an ant is capable of coming up with an answer as to what humans are. The difference is so vast it cannot be measured. It definitely cannot be measured by what we call science which will always be in its infancy. In my example do you believe that an ant could ever create a car and drive it and trade stocks on the stock market. Yet it is alive and fucntions. This as many call it the infinitel universe is nothing more than a period on a page to The Supreme Being. And for him even less complicated as that period. But to someone with limited knowledge on the plane where we exist it is staggering and cannot be explained.

While all this may seem far fetched it is no more far fetched than the something from nothing deal saying there was nothing then there was something and here we are. OK our universe is expanding. From wht I gather it is expandng only not creating anything. Just galaxies getting further and further aparat. Also we are to believe that this al lstrted form something a few milimeters insize. Eventhat I quetionas where did that something come from as some call it nothing thenthere ws something. yet as off the wll as this sounds many jump on this wagon. So be oit. Just somethingto ponder. Pass the pretezels and more beer.

On 2012-05-26 10:31, kambiz wrote:
So R.S, what you're basically saying is that there "could" be the possibility of a Supreme Being that caused the Big Bang. If that is the case then, that would make this Supreme Being knowable, would it not?

I guess at that point, the phrase "turtles all the way down" comes to mind. The god of the gaps, gotta love him.....

Kam

On 2012-05-26 17:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
However, the fact that some things cannot be proven should not be taken to imply that those things cannot be true

On 2012-05-26 10:53, acesover wrote:

OK. Just lt me address your post with this. If God exists and is The Sepreme Being as I believe He is. He is going to be beyond explanation by man. He is not bound by time or dimension or space and certainly not to be understood by our science. He is not on the same plane of intelligence and power anymore than an ant is capable of coming up with an answer as to what humans are. The difference is so vast it cannot be measured. It definitely cannot be measured by what we call science which will always be in its infancy. In my example do you believe that an ant could ever create a car and drive it and trade stocks on the stock market. Yet it is alive and fucntions. This as many call it the infinitel universe is nothing more than a period on a page to The Supreme Being. And for him even less complicated as that period. But to someone with limited knowledge on the plane where we exist it is staggering and cannot be explained.

On 2012-05-26 10:53, acesover wrote:

OK. Just lt me address your post with this. If God exists and is The Sepreme Being as I believe He is. He is going to be beyond explanation by man. He is not bound by time or dimension or space and certainly not to be understood by our science. He is not on the same plane of intelligence and power anymore than an ant is capable of coming up with an answer as to what humans are. The difference is so vast it cannot be measured. It definitely cannot be measured by what we call science which will always be in its infancy. In my example do you believe that an ant could ever create a car and drive it and trade stocks on the stock market. Yet it is alive and fucntions. This as many call it the infinitel universe is nothing more than a period on a page to The Supreme Being. And for him even less complicated as that period. But to someone with limited knowledge on the plane where we exist it is staggering and cannot be explained.

On 2012-05-26 10:53, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 10:20, R.S. wrote: Quote: On 2012-05-25 22:01, acesover wrote: HERE IS WHAT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC HAS TO SAY. HOWEVER IT IS NOT THEIR OPINION BUT THAT OF MANY SCIENTISTS. IT AGREES WITH WHAT MANY SAY HERE. The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. This theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed, in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force. Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time. Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy. The theory maintains that, in the instant—a trillion-trillionth of a second—after the big bang, the universe expanded with incomprehensible speed from its pebble-size origin to astronomical scope. Expansion has apparently continued, but much more slowly, over the ensuing billions of years. Scientists can't be sure exactly how the universe evolved after the big bang. Many believe that as time passed and matter cooled, more diverse kinds of atoms began to form, and they eventually condensed into the stars and galaxies of our present universe. Origins of the Theory A Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. The idea subsequently received major boosts by Edwin Hubble's observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions, and from the discovery of cosmic microwave radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The glow of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is found throughout the universe, is thought to be a tangible remnant of leftover light from the big bang. The radiation is akin to that used to transmit TV signals via antennas. But it is the oldest radiation known and may hold many secrets about the universe's earliest moments. The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that theory any more plausible than a Supreme Being creation? Before you answer let me just say. If there is a Supreme Being this would definitely be in His power to accomplish. In fact we have scientific evidence (say you guys) of unknown events causing the BBT. So would that not be scientific evidence leadiing us to "POSSSIBLY" believe that it was caused by a Supreme Being. If it works one way it should work the other way. Here is a quote from the above: "Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time." <end quote> Did a Supreme Being do this? Truth is none of us know how the universe was created. Some believe they know. Some say they have enough evidence to believe they know. Some don't know or care. Some like us here on the Café give our opinions from what little knowledge we may have gleamed from a few articles and the internet with religion thrown in for good measure. However this does bring in religion again here is a quote from the article: "to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy." <end quote> All in all it makes for a good beer and pretzel discussion. BBT attempts to explain the universe as it is observed today (expanding galaxies, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.). And as such, it is the best explanation we have. It does NOT address where the original dense matter came from or what kicked off the rapid expansion. Those are separate (and perhaps unanswerable) questions. So you are free to speculate all you want as to a prime cause. One possible cause is a Supreme Being (the Christian God). Another possible cause is The One-Eyed Spaghetti Monster. Another is Fairies. Another is a Magic Genie-in-a-bottle. However, for any of those speculations to be considered seriously they must undergo the rigors of scientific testing. But then if you did discover evidence of a God/Fairy/Monster/Genie then you could reasonably ask, "what caused that"? And on and on. Of course, it's possible that the universe just spontaneously came into existence without a cause (a quantum event). We simply don't know. That's the intellectually honest answer. But it would be a mistake to claim that since we don't know, then it must be "X." That is simply an argument from ignorance. I agree - beer and pretzels for everybody! Ron

OK. Just lt me address your post with this. If God exists and is The Sepreme Being as I believe He is. He is going to be beyond explanation by man. He is not bound by time or dimension or space and certainly not to be understood by our science. He is not on the same plane of intelligence and power anymore than an ant is capable of coming up with an answer as to what humans are. The difference is so vast it cannot be measured. It definitely cannot be measured by what we call science which will always be in its infancy. In my example do you believe that an ant could ever create a car and drive it and trade stocks on the stock market. Yet it is alive and fucntions. This as many call it the infinitel universe is nothing more than a period on a page to The Supreme Being. And for him even less complicated as that period. But to someone with limited knowledge on the plane where we exist it is staggering and cannot be explained.

While all this may seem far fetched it is no more far fetched than the something from nothing deal saying there was nothing then there was something and here we are. OK our universe is expanding. From wht I gather it is expandng only not creating anything. Just galaxies getting further and further aparat. Also we are to believe that this al lstrted form something a few milimeters insize. Eventhat I quetionas where did that something come from as some call it nothing thenthere ws something. yet as off the wll as this sounds many jump on this wagon. So be oit. Just somethingto ponder. Pass the pretezels and more beer.

On 2012-05-26 17:12, R.S. wrote:
And if somethinng can't be measured/observed/detected by scientific methods, then it can't be detected by ANYTHING.

On 2012-05-26 17:12, R.S. wrote:
Go ahead, try to name one tangible thing that we all know exists, but hasn't been/can't be detected by science.

On 2012-05-26 17:51, kambiz wrote:
Ron, anything that can be adequately described by humans can immediately be scientifically measured to some extent.

On 2012-05-26 18:26, Payne wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 10:53, acesover wrote: OK. Just lt me address your post with this. If God exists and is The Sepreme Being as I believe He is. He is going to be beyond explanation by man. He is not bound by time or dimension or space and certainly not to be understood by our science. He is not on the same plane of intelligence and power anymore than an ant is capable of coming up with an answer as to what humans are. The difference is so vast it cannot be measured. It definitely cannot be measured by what we call science which will always be in its infancy. In my example do you believe that an ant could ever create a car and drive it and trade stocks on the stock market. Yet it is alive and fucntions. This as many call it the infinitel universe is nothing more than a period on a page to The Supreme Being. And for him even less complicated as that period. But to someone with limited knowledge on the plane where we exist it is staggering and cannot be explained.

That is a heck of a lot of speculation on your part for something there is no scientific eveidence for. On what do you base your assumptions that god possess any of the attributes you claim it has? There is an equal amount of evidence that god existed just long enough to trigger the big bang then was eiher destroyed or consumed by the process or skipped merrily on its way to another dimension to do it again. Which is to say, none. So what evidence do you use to base these assumptions on?

I'll be munching on a pretzel while you ponder a reply

On 2012-05-26 17:12, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 10:53, acesover wrote: OK. Just lt me address your post with this. If God exists and is The Sepreme Being as I believe He is. He is going to be beyond explanation by man. He is not bound by time or dimension or space and certainly not to be understood by our science. He is not on the same plane of intelligence and power anymore than an ant is capable of coming up with an answer as to what humans are. The difference is so vast it cannot be measured. It definitely cannot be measured by what we call science which will always be in its infancy. In my example do you believe that an ant could ever create a car and drive it and trade stocks on the stock market. Yet it is alive and fucntions. This as many call it the infinitel universe is nothing more than a period on a page to The Supreme Being. And for him even less complicated as that period. But to someone with limited knowledge on the plane where we exist it is staggering and cannot be explained. While all this may seem far fetched it is no more far fetched than the something from nothing deal saying there was nothing then there was something and here we are. OK our universe is expanding. From wht I gather it is expandng only not creating anything. Just galaxies getting further and further aparat. Also we are to believe that this al lstrted form something a few milimeters insize. Eventhat I quetionas where did that something come from as some call it nothing thenthere ws something. yet as off the wll as this sounds many jump on this wagon. So be oit. Just somethingto ponder. Pass the pretezels and more beer.

Hi Aces,

So would a Magic Genie-In-A-Bottle Supreme Being be beyond explanation by man. Or a One-Eyed Spaghetti Monster. However, all of those claims are unfalsifiable. So you're right, they "cannot be measured by what we call science." And if somethinng can't be measured/observed/detected by scientific methods, then it can't be detected by ANYTHING. Go ahead, try to name one tangible thing that we all know exists, but hasn't been/can't be detected by science.

As far as the ant analogy, it's already happened! We are the proof! We evolved from simple celled creatures to stock brokering, car driving, pretzel eating, beer drinking beings who have fascinating discussions on internet forums!

And don't forget, "this wagon" (BBT) that many jump on was, until his death, pulled by a priest.


Ron

On 2012-05-26 22:28, acesover wrote:

Part of the BBT is that it was so hot that atoms could not form. What created this immense heat? Heat is enery. Energy needs a source. So we go round and round.

On 2012-05-27 00:40, Payne wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 22:28, acesover wrote: Part of the BBT is that it was so hot that atoms could not form. What created this immense heat? Heat is enery. Energy needs a source. So we go round and round.

No, energy is energy.

On 2012-05-27 00:40, Payne wrote:
We live in an infinitely expanding universe filled with a finite amount of energy and matter. [Emphasis added.]

On 2012-05-27 01:01, S2000magician wrote:
Stating that it is infinite is a statement of faith, not a statement of science.

On 2012-05-26 20:53, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 17:51, kambiz wrote: Ron, anything that can be adequately described by humans can immediately be scientifically measured to some extent.

Whether this is true or not depends on the definition of "adequately"; if a description is adequate only if it allows scientific measurement, then your statement is true but vacuous.

On 2012-05-27 01:01, S2000magician wrote:

According to Einstein, energy and matter are the same thing, so it could have started as all matter.

You cannot possibly know this. The expansion may be infinite, but it may be finite. Stating that it is infinite is a statement of faith, not a statement of science.

On 2012-05-27 00:40, Payne wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 22:28, acesover wrote: Part of the BBT is that it was so hot that atoms could not form. What created this immense heat? Heat is enery. Energy needs a source. So we go round and round.

No, energy is energy. There is no more or less of it in existence than there was the instant of the big bang. You cannot create new energy anymore than you can create new matter. We live in an infinitely expanding universe filled with a finite amount of energy and matter.

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-27 01:01, S2000magician wrote: According to Einstein, energy and matter are the same thing, so it could have started as all matter.

Possible, but not likely.

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:
Where did I say that I know this?

On 2012-05-27 00:40, Payne wrote:
We live in an infinitely expanding universe . . . .

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:
We can see the universe expanding.

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:
We also know at present that there isn't enough observable matter in the universe to keep not continuing to do so.

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:
So with our current understanding supported by the evidence we know at the moment is nothing that we know of that will not keep it from continuing to expand. I was merely basing my commenting our current understanding of the universe.

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:
It is a statement based on assumption, not of faith.

On 2012-05-27 01:42, Payne wrote:
Statements of faith are based on wishes and hopes.

On 2012-05-27 02:06, S2000magician wrote:
Statements of faith are based on evidence insufficient to constitute proof.

On 2012-05-27 02:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-27 02:06, S2000magician wrote: Statements of faith are based on evidence insufficient to constitute proof.

I knew you'd come around.

On 2012-05-26 17:51, kambiz wrote:
Ron, anything that can be adequately described by humans can immediately be scientifically measured to some extent. To propose that some "Force" was the root cause of the Big Bang proposes that there is some measure able remnant of it. The moment that God becomes a measurable entity is the day that the surrounded becomes the surrounder of the Ultimate Surrounder, the water in the cup becoming the container of the cup. This is not possible.

We have, and always will be humans, ants have, and always will be ants. To propose that evolution implies that we were actually ants at some stage in our evolutionary history is quite flawed; we may have LOOKED like ants at some stage, but we were always human beings. Ants will always be part of the animal kingdom, and humans in the human kingdom.

To imply that it is rational to say that there cannot be any other kingdoms beyond the perception of the human kingdom, is again rationally flawed

There are infinite kingdoms of creation, and according to religious texts, humans have been endowed with the special privilege to traverse into the kingdoms beyond this one after death. It makes rational sense to believe in this theory. This is my understanding and my own rational conclusion to my independent search through the texts of several religions

Kam

On 2012-05-26 20:50, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 17:12, R.S. wrote: And if somethinng can't be measured/observed/detected by scientific methods, then it can't be detected by ANYTHING.

That's a pretty broad conclusion; do you have proof of (or even evidence for) such a sweeping claim?

Quote:

On 2012-05-26 17:12, R.S. wrote: Go ahead, try to name one tangible thing that we all know exists, but hasn't been/can't be detected by science.

The fact that neither I nor anyone else here can name such an item (By the way, why does it have to be tangible?) isn't remotely proof that such an item doesn't exist; it's hardly evidence of such.

On 2012-05-27 00:35, mastermindreader wrote:
I think I've pretty much indicated what my feeling are on this issue. Like I said, I don't see religion, mine anyway, and science to be incompatible.

And while my own religious leanings are closer to Deism than the Roman Catholicism in which I was raised, I still find it a bit offensive when people refer to someone's sincerely worshiped deity as a "Flying Spaghetti Monster," or some other dismissive name. Surely we can discuss issues like this without condescension.

That said, the Big Bang Theory is consistent with what we have observed and continue to learn about the universe. It is, therefore, a workable theory that so far has proven testable and predictable. It is also falsifiable and as new knowledge is gained it will either be modified, advanced, or an entirely new paradigm may take its place.