• 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!

Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

gnostic

The Lost One
That's just relevant if evidence of a multiverse isn't observable in our universe and that doesn't seem to be the case (Vilenkin's proposed test only requires one to measure effects in our universe, for example).

As I said, you are only observing and measuring phenomena of this universe, hence only verifying what occurred here, not some theoretical, and highly speculative other -verses.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Science told science that earths cooling evolution spatial changes by year evolution 2012 by pressure would stop underground particle separation by core heart God O planet. UFO release.

Earths irradiation combustion inherited by science causes.

Said ground dust combustion had caused life's sacrifice. Created by men of God theists in science.

We're told. You caused it. Dusts only present on planet earth. Lying men in human science theories.

Human notified consciously regarding sacrificed life. Ill health itself every condition experienced.

Human DNA health removed all humans in nature affected.

Which includes brain chemistry thinking.

Natural the status of scientific theism warned you about how conscious belief irradiated life mind was lying to itself in theism....to think.

Warned taught and advised by medical and occult UFO radiation causes.

Ignored by human egotism of self status. Self elitism.

I am not sure what to do with your reply, because it doesn’t make sense.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I am not sure what to do with your reply, because it doesn’t make sense.
Science told science earths particle separation he caused as earth UFO radiation release would stop by 2012 evolution space pressure inheritance.

Theists today are using quoting that advice in particle physics.

The separation of God into particles yet remaining fused meant earths tectonic carpenter he built placed life in peril.

All alchemy was stopped. Precaution. It was so acutely dangerous.

Hence particle physics is a false irradiated transmitted men's brain mind inheritance of copying destruction.

What you were all taught and warned about.

Greedy elite not scientists took back control. What you always knew also.

The idea is fake. By UFO constant nuclear more humans began to.believe in the theory.

It is fake advice satanic.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Earths plate fusion crystalline particles burn out equals to nuclear power plant model. Extra UFO added into old not ceased UFO release.

Reason life was never stopped being sacrificed.

Added extra transmitters that fed back old men's science advice about plate tectonics and reason of collapse.

Day the light voided.

Earth became colder by pressure so carbon release underground fission UFO effect was stabilised.

New nuclear fission changed pressure again releasing a high carbon mass as crystalline fusion particle should remain fused inside earth mass. The warning.

Pressurized carbon a diamond the proof it is radiation earth combustion.

UFO effect told you earths God particle changes itself. Inside the mass of earth. It also owns loss of heavens gases which changes visionary space feedback. You began to realise cosmic destruction as earth is losing its gas mass.

The only reason feedback changed vision.

You were warned only by other conscious humans as all science is thought upon first. By humans as thinkers.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The thesis non existence is a thought upon formula of gain. In human reality.

Reality is no argument.

You are a human.
You do live on a planet whose form evolved in space.
You live within a balanced same gas one body being sacrificed.

Natural light.

Your consciousness says as a living self I own it just because it can. Make a conclusive status for self. Like the statement dominion over all things.

Animals don't own their calculated self destruction. Men did.

The highest states support life no reaction or thesis or stories. Natural reality is our first.

Your formula thesis however concluded what you wanted to invent cause and remove to equals.

God you said back to nothingness where it came from by theory. As you already were alive to calculate.

You cannot talk consciously as a human unless you are. Human. You cannot count an earth day unless you are experiencing an earth day.

Non presence. Earth as your man designer science machine god strings.

You theoried for it not existing.

How you made mass sin holes. As a man theist designer.

Thesis.

Build machine only designed by my thinking human is not copying natural.

You are a direct machine designer.

Why machine caused direct answer self removal back to dusts by dusts. Self combustion.

Machine body came from dusts minerals.

As you never personally came from nothing as space.

Today you warn self said a human was part machine your owned conscious warning ignored. We know we are not any machine.

Consciousness argues beyond a theist.

That advice your occult alien lying evidence. I was an alien inside UFO reaction. His thesis I personally want the reaction. So wanted self to be an alien first.

Jesus theme body disappearance

Earth owned dusts as God. Book was written about evidence of occultism.

Father said men in science thesis are conscious as sex. With a human female womb. Womb creation first is direct to natural female human womb ovary.

You said space was a womb. You pretend machine sex. Build a penis rocket to shoot off taking self back into the womb of your fake creator.

Machine. Man body inside machine. Man having sex with space womb via machine. Fake. Man never a reaction inside a machine as if a UFO birthed him.

However he is pretending otherwise.

Proof you are possessed.

Machines own mass. Thesis machine to remove a mass. God answer earth mass owner sin hole equals thesis beginnings.

Science practiced begins with God earth no matter what coercion about space he uses.

As machine by string began with earths mass.

Cosmic thesis is everything came about by infinity. God earth products not infinity. Thesis but I want earth to time shift disappear is our theist destroyer trying to achieve the outcome.

Infinity.
Two outcomes of earth collision....an asteroid larger than earths body plus moon that he calculated mass via as gas reasoning or a sun collapse.

Infinity gained for god earth by man theist.

What he is envisioning to day I want an open channel first to the infinite.

His frustration nuclear plant is only releasing so much earths radiation by earths machines so he nearly blew up his power plant in experiments.

As he wants more.

Theist big bang history memory says immaculate gas space and heavens owns a larger quanta of space.

We know as we walk through gases. You cannot walk through god earth.

He wants thesis involving its gas coldest. In space. What he is lying about. Space model. Extra space.

As his machine outcome his latest venture is not cosmic first.

God as earth never owned the immaculate gas space did.

Stephen Hawking warning he is trying to burn you all to death.

Big bang human theist in reality.

Reason. Light is burning. To force it to equals his atmospheric thesis as he is theorising directly about our atmosphere is to burn it out first....then space vacuum opens into instant cooling.

The method he knew how the immaculate coldest gas once burning exists.

As I will have it by copying.

His versionion but I want it inside my machine. Earth his products never owned it.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
^ It seems to me using logic, that the underlying base essence of the universe, ie. of existence itself, can never cease to exist. Thus there could never be a circumstance of it not existing. Therefore it never came into existence from non-existence, it was always, is now, and always will be. However forms built of this essence are a different matter, they may have beginnings and endings.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Gnostic, do you think my statement "the bb universe arose from non-existence" is false and why?

You seemed to be forgetting that the BB Cosmology is the studying the evolution of the universe - the entire life-cycle of “Observable Universe”, not just the bb beginning. The theory is more than the “Big Bang”, and not just explanations to the earliest predicted time.

Yes, the explanations covered the earliest stage of the universe - beginning with the Planck Epoch, the start of the four fundamental forces and their relationship - or more precisely their interactions -with elementary particles (eg leptons, quarks, gluons, bosons, etc), with composite particles (eg mesons, hadrons) and with earliest elements (eg atoms, like hydrogen, deuterium, helium & lithium).

All of these became the building blocks of stars, and the destruction of stars seeded space with elements heavier than helium, through supernova (eg Supernova Nucleosynthesis, from carbon to iron).

I think you are focusing too much on this false claim about Universe popping from non-existence of the universe, that you ignored how the formation of particles & elements, and of stars & galaxies.

The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain universe how from non-existence. That’s just your misinterpretation of the theory by focusing on the wrong things.

The BB model only explained and predicted events up to the Planck Epoch, and nothing beyond that, not because they think the Universe don’t exist beyond Planck, but because of the limits of what they can explain and predict.

There are others that have tried to formulate bb Planck Epoch, like cyclical models, Multiverse, brane cosmology, etc, these are only alternative theoretical proposals that are currently untested and therefore they are not science.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
You seemed to be forgetting that the BB Cosmology is the studying the evolution of the universe - the entire life-cycle of “Observable Universe”, not just the bb beginning. The theory is more than the “Big Bang”, and not just explanations to the earliest predicted time.

Yes, the explanations covered the earliest stage of the universe - beginning with the Planck Epoch, the start of the four fundamental forces and their relationship - or more precisely their interactions -with elementary particles (eg leptons, quarks, gluons, bosons, etc), with composite particles (eg mesons, hadrons) and with earliest elements (eg atoms, like hydrogen, deuterium, helium & lithium).

All of these became the building blocks of stars, and the destruction of stars seeded space with elements heavier than helium, through supernova (eg Supernova Nucleosynthesis, from carbon to iron).

I think you are focusing too much on this false claim about Universe popping from non-existence of the universe, that you ignored how the formation of particles & elements, and of stars & galaxies.

The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain universe how from non-existence. That’s just your misinterpretation of the theory by focusing on the wrong things.

The BB model only explained and predicted events up to the Planck Epoch, and nothing beyond that, not because they think the Universe don’t exist beyond Planck, but because of the limits of what they can explain and predict.

There are others that have tried to formulate bb Planck Epoch, like cyclical models, Multiverse, brane cosmology, etc, these are only alternative theoretical proposals that are currently untested and therefore they are not science.
Thank you gnostic. I understand that the bb theory does not explain how the universe came from non-existence, that is because science does not know. So if I rephrase my original statement to now say, bb science does not know how the universe arose from non-existence, do you now accept this as a valid observation, and if not why?
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Thank you gnostic. I understand that the bb theory does not explain how the universe came from universe came from non-existence, that is because science does not know. So if I rephrase my original statement to now say, bb science does not know how the universe arose from non-existence, do you now accept this as a valid observation, and if not why?

As I said before, the BB theory only cover up to the Planck Epoch (PE), and not beyond t=0 second (which is the start of PE).

The theory doesn't explain anything other than Universe was infinitely dense and hot, and make no predictions what happen before the Planck Epoch.

It leave what happen to before the BB's PE - an unanswered open question.

As I told you in my earlier replies to you, other cosmologists have tried to explain and predict other models (like the Cyclical Universe model, Multiverse, Brane Cosmology, etc) that BB didn't cover, but these newer models are more theoretical and untested.

And my reply to you, remain the same, BB cosmology don't say anything about Universe being formed from non-existence. That's your claim, it is not part of the BB theory.

So please, I have already answer your question repeatedly, so I would appreciate it that if we could move on. Thanks.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When science takes energy from the earth they mine it. Then they convert and use it up.

Mining leaves holes where mass used to exist formed in space.

Just that example says unless you put it back exactly as you removed it would state a space law.

Removal of mass leaves space.

When a human preaches you can't destroy energy. Then they preach as energy transforms from one state into another

That preaching is a human sciences status how to obtain energy from a higher energy mass.

Preaching energy can't be destroyed means you can't access it then. How come you do scientist?
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
As I said before, the BB theory only cover up to the Planck Epoch (PE), and not beyond t=0 second (which is the start of PE).

The theory doesn't explain anything other than Universe was infinitely dense and hot, and make no predictions what happen before the Planck Epoch.

It leave what happen to before the BB's PE - an unanswered open question.

As I told you in my earlier replies to you, other cosmologists have tried to explain and predict other models (like the Cyclical Universe model, Multiverse, Brane Cosmology, etc) that BB didn't cover, but these newer models are more theoretical and untested.

And my reply to you, remain the same, BB cosmology don't say anything about Universe being formed from non-existence. That's your claim, it is not part of the BB theory.

So please, I have already answer your question repeatedly, so I would appreciate it that if we could move on. Thanks.
Fine thank you gnostic, I understand your point that bb cosmology does not address the subject of pre-bb existence, so for now we can let it go. I guess we will have to leave it to religion...
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Fine thank you gnostic, I understand your point that bb cosmology does not address the subject of pre-bb existence, so for now we can let it go. I guess we will have to leave it to religion...
Religions relied on archaic superstition. The God-did-it mantra isn't knowledge, and it is certainly not an explanation of anything but exercise of ignorance.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Religions relied on archaic superstition. The God-did-it mantra isn't knowledge, and it is certainly not an explanation of anything but exercise of ignorance.
A non-religious person making judgements about the essential truth underlying religious practice is just prejudice. True understanding of reality does not come from the conceptual mind, but from deeper levels of one's being.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
A non-religious person making judgements about the essential truth underlying religious practice is just prejudice. True understanding of reality does not come from the conceptual mind, but from deeper levels of one's being.
When a person like author writing scriptural text that god caused rain, hail, snow, lightning, thunder, and so on, demonstrated only their misunderstanding of reality of rain, hail, snow, lightning and thunder.

Saying “god did it” are just superstitions based on fear or ignorance or both; not “true understanding”.

It is the same superstition when people write about creation of universe, Earth, mountains, seas, life, especially creation of humans, don’t have any understanding at all.

Of course, you could make excuse and say these sacred writings are to be treated or interpreted as symbolic or metaphorical or allegorical, as “spiritual truths” or “divine inspirations”, it still show that authors and the people who believe in authors’ works, don’t understand the reality of what nature is and how nature work.

Sciences and religions are totally different packages.

Sure, when look at history, people who wrote ancient and medieval “science” treatises - under the broad umbrella of Natural Philosophy- have made numerous mistakes with their observations, but other people natural philosophers would later learn from mistakes of past natural philosophers.

Take for instance the two models of planetary motion - geocentric model and heliocentric model.

The geocentric model was a belief that the earth is fixed while the Sun, Moon and planets traverse the Earth sky, based on observations of these objects rising from the east and setting in the west. It suggested that the Earth was centre of planetary system.

The heliocentric model of planetary motion, rejected this geocentric model, instead postulated that the Sun is fixed in the centre, while planets including Earth, orbited around the Sun.

The Bronze Age Egyptian and Babylonian astronomers, and even the Iron Age Greek astronomers have for centuries have favour geocentric model for centuries, which accumulated in the 2nd century CE work of Claudius Ptolemy - Almagest - have defined astronomy in Europe and Near East for over a thousand years.

A 3rd century BCE astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos whose work on heliocentric model is lost, but the famous Syracusan inventor Archimedes recorded and summarized Aristarchus’ treatise in The Sand Reckoner. Very few Greek astronomers after Archimedes accepted Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was completely forgotten, especially after Ptolemy’s popular Almagest.

The 16th century Nicklaus Copernicus would reintroduce the unpopular Heliocentric model, which would be verified by Galileo’s discovery using a telescope in the early 17th century. Johannes Kepler would refine Copernicus’ with greater accuracy, while Isaac Newton would introduce Newtonian mechanics and gravity into the Heliocentric model.

The church at that time, had arrested Galileo for heresy, because the church have long accepted Ptolemy’s Almagest, as their truth.

Astronomers still make mistakes with their observations, but these too allow for corrections, updates or better models to replace obsolete models. And it is the same with other fields of physical sciences and natural sciences.

The points in all this, is to show you that scientists do make mistakes, but how later scientists learned from past errors and misinformation, and built on their discoveries to refined past works.

Religions relied on scriptures, and once written down, it remained unchanged, so the scriptural doctrines become dogma. So the errors found in scriptures don’t allow for corrections to be made.

Job 38 to 41, where god responded to Job’s question, with ranting about his powers about his so-called creation of everything, demonstrate the author’s superstition and ignorance about the ways nature work.

The Quran is no better than the Bible with misguided belief about natural phenomena. And non-Abrahamic religions demonstrate superstition too.

That’s the differences between science and religion.

Science allowed for corrections or complete replacements of the models. While religions often and fiercely reject to their scriptures, despite being wrong about their understanding of how nature work.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
When a person like author writing scriptural text that god caused rain, hail, snow, lightning, thunder, and so on, demonstrated only their misunderstanding of reality of rain, hail, snow, lightning and thunder.

Saying “god did it” are just superstitions based on fear or ignorance or both; not “true understanding”.

It is the same superstition when people write about creation of universe, Earth, mountains, seas, life, especially creation of humans, don’t have any understanding at all.

Of course, you could make excuse and say these sacred writings are to be treated or interpreted as symbolic or metaphorical or allegorical, as “spiritual truths” or “divine inspirations”, it still show that authors and the people who believe in authors’ works, don’t understand the reality of what nature is and how nature work.

Sciences and religions are totally different packages.

Sure, when look at history, people who wrote ancient and medieval “science” treatises - under the broad umbrella of Natural Philosophy- have made numerous mistakes with their observations, but other people natural philosophers would later learn from mistakes of past natural philosophers.

Take for instance the two models of planetary motion - geocentric model and heliocentric model.

The geocentric model was a belief that the earth is fixed while the Sun, Moon and planets traverse the Earth sky, based on observations of these objects rising from the east and setting in the west. It suggested that the Earth was centre of planetary system.

The heliocentric model of planetary motion, rejected this geocentric model, instead postulated that the Sun is fixed in the centre, while planets including Earth, orbited around the Sun.

The Bronze Age Egyptian and Babylonian astronomers, and even the Iron Age Greek astronomers have for centuries have favour geocentric model for centuries, which accumulated in the 2nd century CE work of Claudius Ptolemy - Almagest - have defined astronomy in Europe and Near East for over a thousand years.

A 3rd century BCE astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos whose work on heliocentric model is lost, but the famous Syracusan inventor Archimedes recorded and summarized Aristarchus’ treatise in The Sand Reckoner. Very few Greek astronomers after Archimedes accepted Aristarchus’ heliocentric model was completely forgotten, especially after Ptolemy’s popular Almagest.

The 16th century Nicklaus Copernicus would reintroduce the unpopular Heliocentric model, which would be verified by Galileo’s discovery using a telescope in the early 17th century. Johannes Kepler would refine Copernicus’ with greater accuracy, while Isaac Newton would introduce Newtonian mechanics and gravity into the Heliocentric model.

The church at that time, had arrested Galileo for heresy, because the church have long accepted Ptolemy’s Almagest, as their truth.

Astronomers still make mistakes with their observations, but these too allow for corrections, updates or better models to replace obsolete models. And it is the same with other fields of physical sciences and natural sciences.

The points in all this, is to show you that scientists do make mistakes, but how later scientists learned from past errors and misinformation, and built on their discoveries to refined past works.

Religions relied on scriptures, and once written down, it remained unchanged, so the scriptural doctrines become dogma. So the errors found in scriptures don’t allow for corrections to be made.

Job 38 to 41, where god responded to Job’s question, with ranting about his powers about his so-called creation of everything, demonstrate the author’s superstition and ignorance about the ways nature work.

The Quran is no better than the Bible with misguided belief about natural phenomena. And non-Abrahamic religions demonstrate superstition too.

That’s the differences between science and religion.

Science allowed for corrections or complete replacements of the models. While religions often and fiercely reject to their scriptures, despite being wrong about their understanding of how nature work.
Perhaps much of what you say is correct, and of course you are correct in that there are differences between science and religion, mainly the ultimate purpose of each..

What many folk do not understand about religion is that it is the key to understanding reality directly, not through the conceptual representation of reality. That being so, even if all of what you pointed out is correct, it doesn't mean anything to the religious soul who perceives the real instruction embedded in religious writings. This applies to all the religions, Hebrew, Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism. A practitioner of any religion has the potential to realize a form of enlightenment, non-duality, a sense of oneness with all that exists. A practitioner of science will realize a deeper conceptual understanding of nature, but never the underlying oneness of all that exists.

So there is no conflict of interests actually, to each their own. Though of course you will have those who dabble.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
That's your word against his. I prefer to trust the renowned cosmologist and his peer-reviewed paper.
You are entitled to believe what you will.

But to date, astrophysicists have only been gathering evidence and data in our Observable Universe, not outside of the Observable Universe, so thinking to celebrate victory for Multiverse Model now, when it haven’t been resolved one way or the other, seemed a bit premature.

Don’t get me wrong.

I am for or against Multiverse model, I am just being neutral, waiting for new evidence and data. I am fine with Multiverse being verified or refuted. I will be happy with either outcome, I just opposed accepting being true, when it actually remained unresolved.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Thanks. I prefer to believe in the experts, if you don't mind. :)
Sure, it make sense.

But there are many more “experts” working on the Big Bang theory, including Inflationary model and ΛCDM model.

Although both Alan Guth and Andrei Linde have both worked on the Inflationary Multiverse cosmology, it was their works on earlier Inflationary model for the Big Bang theory that have been verified through WMAP and Planck mapping of CMBR that were recognized, not for Inflationary Multiverse.

Remember, models are science only when they have been verified by observational evidence, which Multiverse isn’t. Multiverse is still purely theoretical, and more philosophy than science.

Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Feeney and Max Tegmark have tried to analyze data and mapping of WMAP and Planck that there have have gravitational pull of other universes on our universe or colliding with our universe, and it made headlines, but it turned out their analysis on the evidence were wrong.

So I will iterate again: There are many more experts actively working on the Inflationary Big Bang than there are experts in Inflationary Multiverse.

So what make you think “you” are following “experts” in cosmology and I am not?​
 
Last edited:

Magical Wand

Active Member
But there are many more “experts” working on the Big Bang theory, including Inflationary model and ΛCDM model.

The multiverse I mentioned is an inflationary model. It is called Eternal Inflation (sometimes called "chaotic" inflation), and is defended by Guth, Linde and Vilenkin, dating back to the 80's. The inflationary Big Bang model is not somehow different from the multiverse model. Both say the scalar field responsible for generating the Big Bang is the Inflaton (which may be the Higgs). Eternal inflation simply postulates the field decays more than once. This is basic; you can read about it in any standard paper which introduces these ideas.

Now, perhaps what you mean is that there are more scientists defending a single inflationary event instead of many inflationary events. But that's just an assertion.

Although both Alan Guth and Andrei Linde have both worked on the Inflationary Multiverse cosmology, it was their works on earlier Inflationary model for the Big Bang theory that have been verified through WMAP and Planck mapping of CMBR that were recognized, not for Inflationary Multiverse.

Not true. Dr. Efstathiou said the Planck data favors eternal inflation models.

Remember, models are science only when they have been verified by observational evidence, which Multiverse isn’t. Multiverse is still purely theoretical, and more philosophy than science.

You can repeat that as much as you like, but unless you deal with the arguments I presented earlier -- which you have avoided --, your protests are meaningless.
 
Top