• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Big Bang and Evolution

Skwim

Veteran Member
I have been exposed to a lot of nonsense in Science and elsewhere and I have never got any one to explain how can something cause itself to exist and, the only place I have found to rest my feet is in Logic about the impossibility of something to cause itself to exist. So, if things exist, it is because they have been caused by something else or Someone else. Now, that plus the concept of Causality will take us back to the Primal Cause without any doubt whatsoever.
You do understand don't you that in science, as in other endeavors, lack of an explanation doesn't mean there is none. And that to insist one needs to be made RIGHT NOW or else there is none, is quite childish.


.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have been exposed to a lot of nonsense in Science and elsewhere and I have never got any one to explain how can something cause itself to exist and, the only place I have found to rest my feet is in Logic about the impossibility of something to cause itself to exist.
According to research cosmologist Leonard Susskind, he says that a majority of cosmologists believe it is likely that all goes back into infinity. And mathematically, "infinity" does work out in some formulas, and we well know that math in general does work out in our universe for calculating things.

Now, is that "the answer"? "I don't know".
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
According to research cosmologist Leonard Susskind, he says that a majority of cosmologists believe it is likely that all goes back into infinity. And mathematically, "infinity" does work out in some formulas, and we well know that math in general does work out in our universe for calculating things.

Now, is that "the answer"? "I don't know".

If all goes back into infinity as the Universe is concern, it is like the end of credibility for Scientists who believe that the BB was the beginning of the Universe and all the experiments to prove the age of the Universe with the Carbon-14. Since then, all they speak is of an age for the Universe by about 15 billions years old. If the Universe does have an age of about 15 millions years, it was caused to exist because, logically, it could not have caused itself to exist. Now, the point is to research on what or Who caused the Universe to exist. Let's keep the good work!
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
So, my 9 year old and I have been having a lot of discussions lately about the nature of thought. He's really interested in why people believe the things that they believe, as he's beginning to piece together the fact that not everyone in the world sees the world like he does... It's cool to be a part of. One of the biggest conclusions that he's drawn while we talk about this is that people supplant ignorance for knowledge whenever they can, usually based on what "feels" good to them. It's easier, he's posited, to feel good about something than it is to study and to test yourself. He's even seen himself fall prey to it while doing homework for example. (He hates fractions, so instead of grinding them out he tries to "feel" his way to an answer.)

I say all of that because I witness countless threads get created, and opinions shared, on Religious Forums based on ignorance and emotion - and very little else...

The big bang of what? What indeed was the big bang, some kind of explosion that from which came out the Universe? What was it that exploded, matter? If so, did matter exist even before the big bang? This idea does not seem to make sense to me! Then, there is evolution; evolution of what, of the Universe? If it is, can I call that, expansion instead? If evolution is of man in particular, could I call that development, physical and intellectual? If NO is the answer to all my questions, do you have what it takes to help me in my lack of understanding?

The Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe - just the matter that could (or could not) become it.

In the way that you're thinking of it, of course something existed before... But the word "before" is loaded in this sense, because before the Big Bang (which is the moment that our Universe came to be) there was no such thing as time. You (and your mind) are a product of this Universe and therefore are eternally bound to linear ideas of time. But that's not at all how space and time work. So, technically, your question is flawed - and that's why it doesn't make sense.

Evolution pertains to all of physicality. It's a comprehensive understanding of existence. It's not just development, but origins, connections, and history.


It does not matter when Physics stopped making sense. It never made and still doesn't as long as scientists deny that the Universe could not have caused itself to exist and, by necessity it was caused by something that preceded it. Now, the search must be of what or Who caused the Universe to exist.

The Universe did not cause itself to be. You're confusing mythological creation stories with objective cosmological phenomena that have no other explanation, so far as we know.

Physics hasn't stopped making sense. You just haven't been keeping up.

Remember the flaw in your logic and questioning that I just highlighted? That's where your confusion comes from... Ignorance.
Your questions are bad, and your supposed required answers are faulty as a result.

I have been exposed to a lot of nonsense in Science and elsewhere and I have never got any one to explain how can something cause itself to exist and, the only place I have found to rest my feet is in Logic about the impossibility of something to cause itself to exist. So, if things exist, it is because they have been caused by something else or Someone else. Now, that plus the concept of Causality will take us back to the Primal Cause without any doubt whatsoever.

Here's a simple question, what caused the Sun to exist? Did the Sun do it on it's own?
Where did the materials that make up the Sun come from? Did the Sun create them?
What about the materials required before that...and before that... and before that? At any stage of that questioning you're free to ponder over how something caused themselves to be - but you're still asking bad questions.

[I will caution you here on the need to remain intellectually honest, as your current reasoning and argument also refutes any possibility of a creator deity.]

If all goes back into infinity as the Universe is concern, it is like the end of credibility for Scientists who believe that the BB was the beginning of the Universe and all the experiments to prove the age of the Universe with the Carbon-14. Since then, all they speak is of an age for the Universe by about 15 billions years old. If the Universe does have an age of about 15 millions years, it was caused to exist because, logically, it could not have caused itself to exist. Now, the point is to research on what or Who caused the Universe to exist. Let's keep the good work!

You're mistaken, again.
And endless and infinite cycle of Universes does nothing to dispel the current state of our Universe. Carbon dating is a science that is not based on possible other-Universe scenarios. It's based on observed decay in this world, based on the physics of this Universe. The same scientific method that taught us that germs cause illness also taught us the decay rates of radioactive isotopes.

What you're essentially arguing is that because gravity is different on other planets, we can't know anything about gravity on Earth... That's a nonsense position. We can only talk about where we are - not what we imagine an alternate reality to be.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
They are both grossly incomplete philosophies full of contradictions and good observations.
They are both wrongly attributed to the category of 'science'; when they are both more than half guess-work;
and rely more on a 'science of the gaps' narrative than on rigorous logic.

Because they both entirely ignore the argument from design, the chaotic nature of their narratives
resembles a process of monkeys randomly typing at keyboards.

And I suppose you believe that the guess-work of the religious is free from this problem of having its feet mired? Let's not forget ideas like "immaculate triangles". Much religion is replete with things paraded around as "wisdom" that fly in the face of conventional knowledge, and always will be. Because the ideals of certain religions in no way include an honest search for the truth. Questioning is often discouraged... and its adherents like to believe they already have it all figured out.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If all goes back into infinity as the Universe is concern, it is like the end of credibility for Scientists who believe that the BB was the beginning of the Universe and all the experiments to prove the age of the Universe with the Carbon-14.
When I said that maybe "all goes back into infinity", I'm referring to prior to the BB. Most cosmologists do believe somethings existed prior to the BB, and the calculation has it that our universe just before the BB was maybe about the size of a present day atom.

BTW, Carbon-14 does not go anywhere near 14 billion years ago since it's solar based radiation.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
When I said that maybe "all goes back into infinity", I'm referring to prior to the BB. Most cosmologists do believe somethings existed prior to the BB, and the calculation has it that our universe just before the BB was maybe about the size of a present day atom.

BTW, Carbon-14 does not go anywhere near 14 billion years ago since it's solar based radiation.

Are you talking about the singularity? If so, what or who caused the singularity to exist and consequently produce the Universe with the BB event?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I have been exposed to a lot of nonsense in Science and elsewhere and I have never got any one to explain how can something cause itself to exist and, the only place I have found to rest my feet is in Logic about the impossibility of something to cause itself to exist. So, if things exist, it is because they have been caused by something else or Someone else. Now, that plus the concept of Causality will take us back to the Primal Cause without any doubt whatsoever.

To boil it down: there are two distinct paradoxes here

1- first cause, which applies to any explanation, Intelligent agent or natural process, "where did THAT come from?!" so it's a wash, and a moot point, because here we are right?, one way or another there is obviously a solution.

But what's not even is the capacity of creative intelligence v blind chance, to truly create anything

and that's the 2nd paradox that applies only to 'natural' creation stories, where the laws of nature must ultimately be fully accounted for by... those very same laws.

Only creative intelligence can solve this paradox, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
So, my 9 year old and I have been having a lot of discussions lately about the nature of thought. He's really interested in why people believe the things that they believe, as he's beginning to piece together the fact that not everyone in the world sees the world like he does... It's cool to be a part of. One of the biggest conclusions that he's drawn while we talk about this is that people supplant ignorance for knowledge whenever they can, usually based on what "feels" good to them. It's easier, he's posited, to feel good about something than it is to study and to test yourself. He's even seen himself fall prey to it while doing homework for example. (He hates fractions, so instead of grinding them out he tries to "feel" his way to an answer.)

I say all of that because I witness countless threads get created, and opinions shared, on Religious Forums based on ignorance and emotion - and very little else...

The Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe - just the matter that could (or could not) become it.

In the way that you're thinking of it, of course something existed before... But the word "before" is loaded in this sense, because before the Big Bang (which is the moment that our Universe came to be) there was no such thing as time. You (and your mind) are a product of this Universe and therefore are eternally bound to linear ideas of time. But that's not at all how space and time work. So, technically, your question is flawed - and that's why it doesn't make sense.

Evolution pertains to all of physicality. It's a comprehensive understanding of existence. It's not just development, but origins, connections, and history.

The Universe did not cause itself to be. You're confusing mythological creation stories with objective cosmological phenomena that have no other explanation, so far as we know.

Physics hasn't stopped making sense. You just haven't been keeping up.

Remember the flaw in your logic and questioning that I just highlighted? That's where your confusion comes from... Ignorance.
Your questions are bad, and your supposed required answers are faulty as a result.

Here's a simple question, what caused the Sun to exist? Did the Sun do it on it's own?
Where did the materials that make up the Sun come from? Did the Sun create them?
What about the materials required before that...and before that... and before that? At any stage of that questioning you're free to ponder over how something caused themselves to be - but you're still asking bad questions.

[I will caution you here on the need to remain intellectually honest, as your current reasoning and argument also refutes any possibility of a creator deity.]

You're mistaken, again.
And endless and infinite cycle of Universes does nothing to dispel the current state of our Universe. Carbon dating is a science that is not based on possible other-Universe scenarios. It's based on observed decay in this world, based on the physics of this Universe. The same scientific method that taught us that germs cause illness also taught us the decay rates of radioactive isotopes.

What you're essentially arguing is that because gravity is different on other planets, we can't know anything about gravity on Earth... That's a nonsense position. We can only talk about where we are - not what we imagine an alternate reality to be.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
So, my 9 year old and I have been having a lot of discussions lately about the nature of thought. He's really interested in why people believe the things that they believe, as he's beginning to piece together the fact that not everyone in the world sees the world like he does... It's cool to be a part of. One of the biggest conclusions that he's drawn while we talk about this is that people supplant ignorance for knowledge whenever they can, usually based on what "feels" good to them. It's easier, he's posited, to feel good about something than it is to study and to test yourself. He's even seen himself fall prey to it while doing homework for example. (He hates fractions, so instead of grinding them out he tries to "feel" his way to an answer.)

I say all of that because I witness countless threads get created, and opinions shared, on Religious Forums based on ignorance and emotion - and very little else...

Well, that's a wise introduction. So, I can't wait to have a discussion with you, for I assume you are bringing something different to us. And, BTW, talking about your child of 9 years old, if you are not only embellishing - as all parents usually do, - his preference for so serious subject at his age, you have a prodigious child with you.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
calculation has it that our universe just before the BB was maybe about the size of a present day atom.
No - sorry but that's just wrong - calculation, based on classical relativity, has it that the universe 'just before the Big Bang' had no size, no spatial (or temporal) extension at all - it was infinitely smaller than an atom - they call that a "singularity'. But it is most probably (certainly IMO, but MO could be W so we'll go with most probably) a mathematical artifact that comes from using classical scale math on a system that is so small and compact that quantum-scale probability overrules classical-scale relativity. IOW such a situation (a singularity) almost certainly never actually existed - it is, perhaps, an asymptote - a limit that the universe may have approached in its earliest phases but could never actually have reached. In fact, I think it would have to be that otherwise it would have taken an eternity (not a mere 13.8bn current earth years) for the universe to expand to the size of an atom...but anyway...point is the universe was almost certainly not infinitesimally small immediately 'before' the Big Bang, and therefore probably existed as a physical reality in some kind of space-time reality that is now - after the Big Bang - impenetrable and invisible to us, as indeed is the immediate post-Big Bang universe. It may even have been - and continue to be infinite in extension - we have no idea how big the entire universe is or even whether it has limits at all.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
The Big Bang was the beginning of our Universe. Before the Big Bang there was no Universe - just the matter that could (or could not) become it.

In the way that you're thinking of it, of course something existed before... But the word "before" is loaded in this sense, because before the Big Bang (which is the moment that our Universe came to be) there was no such thing as time. You (and your mind) are a product of this Universe and therefore are eternally bound to linear ideas of time. But that's not at all how space and time work. So, technically, your question is flawed - and that's why it doesn't make sense.

Evolution pertains to all of physicality. It's a comprehensive understanding of existence. It's not just development, but origins, connections, and history.

Don't forget that! You have stated above that the BB was the beginning of our Universe. Before the BB there was no Universe, just the matter that could or could not become it. What or who caused the matter of before the Universe which became or not the Universe? I see you already contradicting yourself because your opening words are that the BB was the beginning of the Universe. But let's continue. You say that before the Universe came to be with the BB, there was matter that became the Universe. If there was no time before the BB caused the Universe to be, how could matter exist before time? Matter is composed of atoms and atoms have electrons moving around a nucleus of protons and neutrons. Since time is an accident of matter in motion, there was time in the atom before the BB caused the beginning of time as you claim above.

Regarding evolution, I take it as the development of our intellect because I can't accommodate the theory of Darwin that I have evolved from the monkey. The bottom line is that your impression that my question is flown and makes no sense has become the same as mine with regards to your contradicting answers which to me make no sense. But ti seems to me, we will eventually solve our differences.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
The Universe did not cause itself to be. You're confusing mythological creation stories with objective cosmological phenomena that have no other explanation, so far as we know. Physics hasn't stopped making sense. You just haven't been keeping up.

Remember the flaw in your logic and questioning that I just highlighted? That's where your confusion comes from... Ignorance. Your questions are bad, and your supposed required answers are faulty as a result.

I am aware that the Universe did not cause itself to be and, I have never stated that it did. You must have misread me. Hence your answers to my questions make less sense than my questions for an answer. So, the confusion is not in my questions but in your answers. I do remember your claim of flows in my questions because they remind me of the flows in your answers. How do you figure that my questions are bad, on the basis that you don't know the answers? You said above that the Universe did NOT cause itself to be and I totally agree with you as I have never said it did. And how could my question be bad if I simply ask what or who caused the Universe to exist? If the Universe could not have caused itself to exist, it is only obvious that it was caused to exist by something else that preceded it. How bad is my question? If you find ignorance in me for asking that question, what am I expected to find in you for not being able to answer? Well, I to find your reasoning too faulty.
 
Last edited:

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
Here's a simple question, what caused the Sun to exist? Did the Sun do it on it's own? Where did the materials that make up the Sun come from? Did the Sun create them? What about the materials required before that...and before that... and before that? At any stage of that questioning you're free to ponder over how something caused themselves to be - but you're still asking bad questions.

[I will caution you here on the need to remain intellectually honest, as your current reasoning and argument also refutes any possibility of a creator deity.]

The Sun is an element part of the Universe. The Primal Cause that caused the Universe to exist, caused the Sun as the Universe was caused. If you find hard to understand what I am talking about, let me know and I'll try different words. The Sun could not do it on its own because it had to exist to cause itself to exist. If it already existed, it would have been irrelevant to still cause itself to exist. This is pure Logic; and if you ask me, not too hard to understand. The material that makes up the Sun comes from the nature by which the Sun was caused to exist. Before that and before that and on, you are getting into an exploration of the concept of Causality that even your son of 9 could give the same answer that you will end up with the Primal Cause, the Cause of all causes by proxy. What I mean, for instance,
is that since you could not have caused yourself to exist, you were caused by your parents, your parents by their parents and their parents, by further back, their parents, until the Primal Cause Who caused the first couple of parents to exist. And I am the one asking bad questions! Now, it is my turn to ask you how my reasoning could refute any possibility of a Creator aka the Primal Cause. Without the Primal Cause we would not be here today discussing His existence. That's what keeps us learning which is all that life is about.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
You're mistaken, again. And endless and infinite cycle of Universes does nothing to dispel the current state of our Universe. Carbon dating is a science that is not based on possible other-Universe scenarios. It's based on observed decay in this world, based on the physics of this Universe. The same scientific method that taught us that germs cause illness also taught us the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. What you're essentially arguing is that because gravity is different on other planets, we can't know anything about gravity on Earth... That's a nonsense position. We can only talk about where we are - not what we imagine an alternate reality to be.

And I am sure you have the means to help me in my mistakes. To begin with, we don't know yet about our own Universe and you are already speaking about an infinite cycle of other universes! Do I expect that our Carbon dating scientific experiments give answers about other universes when we are still struggling to understand our own universe? When you try to explain what I am really arguing, you make the mistake to assume what has not been in my mind. What I am discussing is nothing else but the fact that the Primal Cause is Real and you seem not to be able to realize it. If the Universe did not cause itself to exist as you have agreed with me already, you seem not to know or to admit that it was caused to exist by something else that preceded it aka the Primal Cause. If you cannot agree, tell me about the option to that. Thank you!
 
Last edited:

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
To boil it down: there are two distinct paradoxes here
1- first cause, which applies to any explanation, Intelligent agent or natural process, "where did THAT come from?!" so it's a wash, and a moot point, because here we are right?, one way or another there is obviously a solution. But what's not even is the capacity of creative intelligence v blind chance, to truly create anything and that's the 2nd paradox that applies only to 'natural' creation stories, where the laws of nature must ultimately be fully accounted for by... those very same laws. Only creative intelligence can solve this paradox, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.

That comes from reality based on Logic. I agree with, that only creative intelligence can solve this paradox. That's what I am trying to do but my readers are not helping me. Infinity regression is a misnomer because we are not discussing absolutes; they all find restrain in the Primal Cause according to the concept of Causality.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.
True science agrees with what the Bible teaches, IMO. The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) As for evolution, it is not a Bible teaching. Not surprisingly, it has remained a subject of controversy, not scientific fact. An increasing number of scientists are publicly rejecting the ToE. I believe a far larger number of scientists are in the proverbial closet, fearing damage to their careers and livelihood should they publicly express their doubts.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Well, that's a wise introduction. So, I can't wait to have a discussion with you, for I assume you are bringing something different to us. And, BTW, talking about your child of 9 years old, if you are not only embellishing - as all parents usually do, - his preference for so serious subject at his age, you have a prodigious child with you.
He has a few flaws, don't get me wrong. But he loves the time we get away from his sister and from the rest of our family because of conversations like this. He's a very attentive and observant little dude.
 

Ben Avraham

Well-Known Member
He has a few flaws, don't get me wrong. But he loves the time we get away from his sister and from the rest of our family because of conversations like this. He's a very attentive and observant little dude.

He is prodigious yes, but he will miss his childhood that he did not enjoy it to the full. I am more in favor that children must be let grow by steps and not jump intellectually into adulthood.
 
Top