The Big Bang Theory

[mich2]

That was not my hypothesis. But you are onto something. Could you flesh out what you are onto so that we can follow it please? Why do you believe that looking out into space creates the illusion of a big bang?

I have not yet read all of the posts, but I will, as this thread seems very interesting indeed.
From the little I’ve read so far, I would guess that you would claim the Big Bang as being an illussion caused by a time dilation, observed in the increased gravitational red shifts when the galaxies within the universe were closer together.
From this, a different age of the universe could be calculated,
when including such time dilation.

Andre

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I would guess that you would claim the Big Bang as being an illussion caused by a time dilation, observed in the increased gravitational red shifts when the galaxies within the universe were closer together.

Not even close.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The great mis-understanding

freesoulhope:

First of all, your among the many philosophers on this thread who write in a way that is unintelligible to me; not because it’s unintelligible, but because it’s an entirely different language to what I am use to.

OK. Just ask for clarification. Sometimes that is a process of experimenting among ourselves as to what form clarification is necessary to be intelligible for some folks.

Before The Big Bang?

freesoulhope:

Thirdly, all I’m saying is, to speak of a before, it is as if your speaking of a Big Bang being a product of time;

No. I am saying that there are different kinds of time and that linear time is a product of the Big Bang.

freesoulhope:

something happening within time and space.

Nothing happened between time and space. But something happened. Something still within physics. Rather than something which goes beyond the ability of physics to predict.

The only new principle I have proposed is that there might be a requirement in the Membrane realm that entropy = 0 there. Did I lose you on entropy?

freesoulhope:

Unless one holds to a multi-verse theory, we cannot speak of a before,

I do not ‘hold’ to a multiverse theory. However, I entertained the notion of a multiverse theory for the purposes of this discussion.

From there I examined the possibilities which could arise. One possibility is that the multiverse theory explains the physics involved in linear time being a property of our universe and non-linear time being a property of the Membrane realm from where our universe may have emerged.

Getting these distinctions defined (linear and non linear) is important in order to move ahead to understanding God’s ‘eternity’ and our temporality; God’s everlasting life and our mortality.

freesoulhope:

and God cannot be thought of as preceding in time;

My purpose all along was to point out that there are different kinds of time and that even the linear time with which we are familiar in our universe changes as a function of gravity or at least is relative.

freesoulhope:

assuming we believe that God acts outside of time, and acknowledging that a true God cannot be in time as if to say he is a product of it,

Let’s assume that.

freesoulhope:

Unless one believes that he made time and space first, before the Big Bang;

My suggestion is that He made space and linear time by means of the Big Bang not before the Big Bang.

freesoulhope:

but I’m not sure that such a concept makes any sense or does Gods nature any justice.

I agree.

This in fact is where I am going. But with physics as a methodology.

freesoulhope:

I am aware however that this may have already been mentioned, and if so, then I apologize for the intrusion.

It was mentioned. However, you are communicating to me that you have not understood it. And that is fair enough. If you need clarification, then let me know which parts are giving you trouble and we’ll go from there. Expect other folks to offer clarification too.

The multiverse theory

freesoulhope:

Some of the atheists that I have come across through cyber space seem to be advocating the multi-verse theory as scientific; they are waving it around as an alternative or a refutation of the un-caused cause argument.

Help is at hand! I’ve given you a refutation of their refutation.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

My objection to this is: If are universe is a cause of another universe which in turn is a cause of another, so on so fourth,

Yes, I am aware that you oppose infinite regression as illogical. I have no problem with this. I believe it to be at least counter intuitive. Depending on the particular argument put forward I might also believe it to be illogical.

freesoulhope:

then one has to admit that each universe must be running by similar laws in order to be the cause of each other;

This does not follow. And moreover may not be necessary.

freesoulhope:

since we can see that a “cause”, in its self, is a product of a universe that is like ours.

We do not see that the realm which is causing our universe is in any way similar to ours. We are merely standing on the assumption that physics does not break going backwards beyond the Big Bang.

freesoulhope:

Therefore the multi-verse theory only pushes God back in the line of causes; and one could say that, The prior universe’s had to be actualized in order for our universe to arise as a possibly inhabitable universe (something like a galactic evolution of universal laws);

No further back than where we had Him before. Outside linear time. It does not follow that the Membrane realm had to have been actualized. It could well have been just there.

Would you clarify 'galactic evolution of universal laws please?

freesoulhope:

not to mention that the multi-verse theory in its self doesn’t account for were all the universe’s came from in the first place considering they all have a cause.

I have explained it. For me to be helpful, you will have to go back and read my explanation and get back to me on where I lost you.

freesoulhope:

Do you want to open another thread?

No need for another thread.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

When scientist speak of a unifying theory of everything, i suspect they are speaking about a theory that explains everything through natural laws; through nature, because they want nature to explain its self. That is why they will never find it unless they consider a inteligent designer.

This does not follow. an ID would have made the natural laws. That tells us something about the mind of the ID. That means that understanding gained by means of natural laws can lead us to understanding of the Author of the natural laws. At least in part.

 

[freesoulhope]

This does not follow. an ID would have made the natural laws. That tells us something about the mind of the ID. That means that understanding gained by means of natural laws can lead us to understanding of the Author of the natural laws. At least in part.

I am aware that the philosophical answer would be ID; but the sciences do not ask "is there a God?” that is a question for philosophers. The sciences will always come up with natural explanations, because it is nature that they are studying; the world that proceeds the big bang. God is beyond the Big Bang; he is on a different plane of reality; in fact he “is” that plane of reality, so even though a philosopher can reason back to God, science cannot, and will not because God is not apart of the natural world or rather he has developed it to unravel by its self.
Even if you found a point in reality that demanded that there is in fact a creator, it would only be in a very indirect way, since the evidence we are viewing is not God himself but nature; we can only say that God logically is the only cause that can support such and such a reality.

That’s why I think there can never be a unified theory in science; only in a philosophical sense. Though I may very well be missing some point or other so please continue.

 

[freesoulhope]

No further back than where we had Him before. Outside linear time. It does not follow that the Membrane realm had to have been actualized. It could well have been just there.

Would you clarify 'galactic evolution of universal laws please?

Explain concepts such as the membraine world, and what other types of times you think exists; then i will tell you what i mean by multiverse evolution.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

I am aware that the philosophical answer would be ID; but the sciences do not ask "is there a God?” that is a question for philosophers.

Science is a branch of philosophy. Science may not ask “is there a God” but that is only a question of how a problem is worded.

freesoulhope:

The sciences will always come up with natural explanations, because it is nature that they are studying; the world that proceeds the big bang. God is beyond the Big Bang;

Sorry, if you are going to comment on what I have said, I will have to ask that you read what I have said, then refer to specific parts of what I have said. I have already addressed what you are suggesting more than once. It is a long thread, but – hey – what you are attempting to address is all there.

freesoulhope:

he is on a different plane of reality; in fact he “is” that plane of reality, so even though a philosopher can reason back to God, science cannot, and will not because God is not apart of the natural world or rather he has developed it to unravel by its self.

Is your knowledge of science sufficient to warrant this conclusion? Moreover, science is a branch of philosophy. You are setting up a faulty dichotomy between philosophy and science.

freesoulhope:

Even if you found a point in reality that demanded that there is in fact a creator, it would only be in a very indirect way,

Direct or indirect, what is the relevance of the distinction?

freesoulhope:

since the evidence we are viewing is not God himself but nature;

Most of what we ‘see’ in contemporary physics is not with our eyes. Does that mean that we cannot say that we see things? No.

freesoulhope:

That’s why I think there can never be a unified theory in science;

What does the Grand Unified Theory posit?

freesoulhope:

only in a philosophical sense.

Science is a branch of philosophy.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Explain concepts such as the membraine world, and what other types of times you think exists; then i will tell you what i mean by multiverse evolution.

It’s all there in the thread already.

 

[freesoulhope]

It’s all there in the thread already.

I have a feeling that you have your head screwed on; so im going to struggle through all the barbwire of this long thread and hope that i will have some idea of where your coming from. If i dont understand something i will tell you.

Also, can you show me some links of other great philosophers that you like and know of please

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… Also, can you show me some links of other great philosophers that you like and know of please

cpayne started a thread on this. I think the writers you need to understand this thread have been referenced, explained, and linked on this thread. So you should not have huge problems following along. The odd misunderstanding can be cleared up if you check in with us.

 

[freesoulhope]

I’ve been wondering about this…esp. during my Astronomy class. I have this theory that time was different from the creation. You know how time slows down around black holes?

How does one know, scientifically, that time slows around black holes? why should it?

 

[freesoulhope]

This is where the idea came from. Thus, Man measures time to be 13.7 billion yrs, while God measures time to be…oh, how long was it? 6,000 yrs? I forget. One God day may be one billion years to us. I have more to this theory, and might write a novel incorporating it…someday

Ever heard of Huge Ross? I think it was him; he has a simmerla idea of positing each day as so many billions of years.

 

[HailMary]

Big Bang Theory takes into account the absolute time versus relative time of the creation of the universe

If you stood on Earth and witness the big bang, the first “24” hours (in earth time as we know it) would translation to 8 billion years of the universe after the big bang.

the next day (“24” earth hous) would be 4 billion
the next day would be 2 billion

8+4+2+1+.5+.25 (6 days of creation)
= 15.75 billion years which is very close to the CNO estimation and smack between most other estimates. This is a nice way that we can basically harmonize between the two theory, despite, obviously, it cannot be 6000 years old since it defies physics. God would not make the universe look older than it really is because that would be deceiving.

 

[freesoulhope]

And to paraphrase an old philosophy prof, I don’t find the idea of an infinite series of temporal causes at all impossible. But an infinite series of instantaneous efficient causes is indeed impossible.

Can you please explain the difference between a infinite series of temporal causes, and an infinite series of instantaneous efficient causes; and what it is that makes one not possible, and the other possible?

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

If you stood on Earth and witness the big bang, the first “24” hours (in earth time as we know it) would translation to 8 billion years of the universe after the big bang.

Why?

 

[freesoulhope]

Hey I know that one! Matter (mass or ‘m’) comes from energy (‘e’).

e=mc2 so…

How do you know that matter comes from energy? And how does one come to this conclusion through math? I’ve never understood that; i have always taken it for granted that some how, some where in the numbers, is the proof that e=mc2. Now im a bit specualtive to how they know that, and what they really know.

 

[HailMary]

Why?

this is according to Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity.

 

[freesoulhope]

I mean that sincerely, notwithstanding that I don’t understand what they’re saying.

Neither do i, it frustrats me.

 

[freesoulhope]

this is according to Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity.

So i take it you are just taking his word for it?