Before Big Bang

[Whathell]

Pssssss ...we're not suppose to think or ask this!

Just wait until or discuss information after the Bang ...then cause and effect are somewhat more logical to give answers and model ...lol

But seriously, it's the truth!

You will be argued-down and hear statements being made like "...no evidence ...no God" but if you point to the logical fallacy of a bang occurring from initially nothing and countering with "...no evidence ...no Bang" you get all kinds of unfair remarks.

With much arrogance, some actually think in the extremely brief time-line of human existence, in comparison to the universe's, that we have knowledge of what's going on. I find that absolutely hilarious and at the same time it shows how desperate mankind is to do what they wish and excuse any responsibility to a higher power.

Truthfully/Logically, concerning what's in existence, is there any difference in one stating:

1. In the beginning ...God

vs.

2. In the beginning ...Bang

...hmmm?

Let's discuss

 

[saltandlight]

Yes, because the "bang" is impersonal.
Unlike God, who is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

*Sigh* Someday..... sometime....... in the future, people will get it that the big bang theory has nothing to do with ultimate origin.
In the meantime, I would humbly suggest researching and studying the theory so that you don't appear like this....:foot:

 

[Whathell]

Yes, because the "bang" is impersonal.
Unlike God, who is.

Point taken that God is personal.

What I'm trying to show is that while non-Christians are saying belief in God creating a man is foolishness they have done exactly the same thing only with science modeling a Big Bang theory.

 

[Sunstone]

God is an emergent property of the universe that got its start 12 nanoseconds into the Big Bang. I would hope everyone knows that by now.

 

[Madhuri]

Point taken that God is personal.

What I'm trying to show is that while a non-Christians are saying belief in God creating a man is foolishness they have done exactly the same thing only with science modeling a Big Bang theory.

I'm a little concerned that your creating two catagories: Christians and non-Christians, who all supposedly do not believe in God creating man.

Did you do that on purpose or was it a slip?

 

[ellenjanuary]

arrogance
an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner ...God
or in presumptuous claims ...God
or assumptions ...God

I'm pretty sure god kicked it off with a fistful of numbers - faith
I support the Strong Anthropic Principle - science
One benefits the individual, the other benefits society.

 

[Madhuri]

arrogance
an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner ...God
or in presumptuous claims ...God
or assumptions ...God

I'm pretty sure god kicked it off with a fistful of numbers - faith
I support the Strong Anthropic Principle - science
One benefits the individual, the other benefits society.

ellen you've just done something similar to the OP which is quite presumptuous and, no offense, arrogant. To be fair, most people seem to do it too. But when you are talking about the abrahamic concept of God please try to specify that because there are numerous ideas about God and not all of them expose characteristics of arrogance, superiority/overbearance and so on.
Thank you.

 

[Whathell]

*Sigh* Someday..... sometime....... in the future, people will get it that the big bang theory has nothing to do with ultimate origin.
In the meantime, I would humbly suggest researching and studying the theory so that you don't appear like this....:foot:

From a SCIENTIFIC view, it is a valid part of how one understands our universe and how we got here. It is indeed PART of the puzzle, so you can stop with this condescending and arrogant attitude and also stop with the assumptions of what I or anyone who does not believe in these things as you don't know or need to know.

Many public TV programs show dramatically how the BB caused the formation of gasses which later produced stars and planets like our own. How that later after our planet formed and gasses cooled ...lakes and oceans began to appear ...and then over much longer time a primordial soup formed out of which the life here sprang. Over even more time and natural selection processes, beings/creatures formed as we know them now.

They don't bother to stop showing such narrations and displays because of the mere fact that they're several separate science categories, please!

This is a forum to discuss more than just one very narrow aspect which I get the feeling many who do not believe in God wish to constrain me to. I do not believe for example if someone would approach you regarding God creating all things that in answering you would not bring-up the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, or Evolution in whatever order needed.

 

[Whathell]

God is an emergent property of the universe that got its start 12 nanoseconds into the Big Bang. I would hope everyone knows that by now.

12 nanoseconds from what?

You speak like you where there ...so tell me what existed before 12 nanoseconds into the BB and why that could not have been God.

 

[Whathell]

I'm a little concerned that your creating two catagories: Christians and non-Christians, who all supposedly do not believe in God creating man.

Did you do that on purpose or was it a slip?

You lost me ...how are you getting that I'm saying Christians don't believe in God creating man or anything else for that mater?

 

[Whathell]

arrogance
an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner ...God
or in presumptuous claims ...God
or assumptions ...God

I'm pretty sure god kicked it off with a fistful of numbers - faith
I support the Strong Anthropic Principle - science
One benefits the individual, the other benefits society.

Well, it's late for me here but I can think of several reasons why your statements are faulty

1. God is superior!
2. An assumption ==> Big Bang
3. A presumptuous claim ==> 12 nanoseconds into the Big Bang ...blah ...blah ...blah

You wrote:
[I support the Strong Anthropic Principle - science
One benefits the individual, the other benefits society.]

One can easily argue that science is only able to benefit society because of morals set in place by God to regulate the use of it. The same goes with benefiting of ones self by knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is not an end all by any means for humanity because mankind needs God by design just as a branch of a tree needs to stay connected to the tree trunk or eventually wither and die.

 

[ellenjanuary]

ellen you've just done something similar to the OP which is quite presumptuous and, no offense, arrogant.

Why should I be offended, when that was the whole point?

To be fair, most people seem to do it too. But when you are talking about the abrahamic concept of God please try to specify that because there are numerous ideas about God and not all of them expose characteristics of arrogance, superiority/overbearance and so on.
Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Bloomdido]

In our galaxy alone there are over a hundred-billion stars. There are over a hundred-billion galaxies in the known universe. In comparison to the grand scheme of things, I can’t even begin to comprehend exactly how small I am. Anytime I think about these things, I am put into a state of awe. I am impassioned by the majesty of the natural world. The Earth itself is so diverse and amazing that it can keep me up at night thinking about how ecosystems and genetic diversity play out and have played out for the last three or four billion years.

Our universe is 13.7 billion years old, which is another number so large the human mind can’t comprehend it. What’s more interesting to me is that Sol, our local star, is only 4.57 billion years old. It’s a third generation star, which means that it and the rest of our solar system is made up of material from a star that sat in this same spot and then died, twice. I often wonder if life had managed to evolve on a planet rotating around the first or second generation Sol. Maybe that life had reached the stars and colonized this whole galaxy, only to eventually die out in the billions of years that have passed since their first sentient thought.

This seems like a lot of rambling but my point is this: the universe is exorbitantly large and remarkably old. Our entire civilization, whether we leave Earth or not, will be more than lucky to even last a blinks worth of time to this universe. I think that one of the most repugnant things about most organized religion is the kind of self centered id they have about our place in this world. The whole universe was created so that our puny planet could come forth nine billion years later, and we puny humans could come about in another four billion years after that? That is a kind of egocentrism and arrogance that even an atheist could never have. I find all of that incredibly unlikely. However, I do feel fortunate to have been able to witness as much as I have so far, and I can only hope to see more of the wonders the natural world has to offer.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Well, it's late for me here but I can think of several reasons why your statements are faulty

1. God is superior!
2. An assumption ==> Big Bang
3. A presumptuous claim ==> 12 nanoseconds into the Big Bang ...blah ...blah ...blah

You wrote:
[I support the Strong Anthropic Principle - science
One benefits the individual, the other benefits society.]

One can easily argue that science is only able to benefit society because of morals set in place by God to regulate the use of it. The same goes with benefiting of ones self by knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is not an end all by any means for humanity because mankind needs God by design just as a branch of a tree needs to stay connected to the tree trunk or eventually wither and die.

That's hilarious. One could easily counter banana fruit-fly strawberry monkey next tuesday...

Doesn't make it science.

 

[Madhuri]

You lost me ...how are you getting that I'm saying Christians don't believe in God creating man or anything else for that mater?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that Christians are not the only ones. You're post seemed to imply that you are eitehr Christian or non-Chirstian. Read my post again, it might make more sense now. Your wording seemed to imply that you are eitehr Christian or a believer in the Big Bang. You may not have meant this, however, which is why I asked if you made a slip or actually believe that. There are many people who are not Christian that believe in God.

 

[Sunstone]

12 nanoseconds from what?

You speak like you where there ...so tell me what existed before 12 nanoseconds into the BB and why that could not have been God.

Just as soon as you prove me wrong to affirm that God came into existence 12 nanoseconds into the Big Bang.

 

[Erebus]

It's always struck me as odd that so many theists are willing to argue against the big bang instead of using it to support their own arguments. After all, an enormous explosion creating life and the universe as we know it is a pretty awesome and miraculous affair, whether a god had anything to do with it or not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

God is an emergent property of the universe that got its start 12 nanoseconds into the Big Bang. I would hope everyone knows that by now.

Hi Sunstone, the topic is "Before Big Bang" so please do not obfuscate, of course many of us have read about the theory but the question is "what were the prevailing conditions that precipitated it?".

If your answer is that this is unknowable or some rhetoric that amounts to the same thing, then that is as meaningful as to say God created the universe, for according to my understanding God is also unknowable. If science is to hold itself true to the meaning of the concept of science, then answers are required to support the theory in the context of the concepts eternity and infinity. Let those who created, support or merely believe in the theory provide some mathematical equations and/or other explanation that can credibly explain how it is possible that all the energy/matter of the universe came into existence from non-existence.

IOW, if you deny that the concepts of eternity and infinity have any meaningful context to the explanation of the theory, then it logically follows that any intelligent being who holds such concepts as being reasonable, will want to study and consider the logical scientific proof the creators of the theory postulate that shows why these concepts (eternity and infinity) have no reality with respect to Big Bang Theory.

Now to reiterate, my post post is not intended to debate the 'Big Bang' theory, but to focus on your understanding of the prevailing conditions that existed or non-existed that led to what you believe to be the beginning of the universe.

 

[Madhuri]

It's always struck me as odd that so many theists are willing to argue against the big bang instead of using it to support their own arguments. After all, an enormous explosion creating life and the universe as we know it is a pretty awesome and miraculous affair, whether a god had anything to do with it or not.

Well, I go with scientific theory but a lot of religious people wouldn't because they think it contradicts their scripture. As long as one takes a literal interpretation then one definitely cannot accept the big bang theory.