|
We got off on the wrong foot but I can tell you are reasonable and thoughtful.
>because when you use the word god all of the common
>associations are going to be made.
>
Common associations are recent, there are thousands of years behind these words with completely different meanings. Meanings that have stood for thousands of years, our interpretation of religion is fairly recent, God stood as an allegory for the super physical forces of nature for thousands of years. He never had a gender or personality. That is all new. I would suggest looking into theology and into the origins of god.
>>Clever, but, it works both ways.
>>
>>God is unnecessary as he/she has never shown his/her face.
>We
>>could just as well believe in the big bang and it wouldn't
>>make a difference.
>
>That's not the common approach to God. It's not what so many
>humans put their faith in.
Faith is a good thing. It is the masthead to adventure and discovery. We all have faith in our ideas and belief structures, it does not matter that we do not always have observable data to prove it, it's the way you feel and what you infer. When it comes to love, god, existence, careers, or science, faith is always present. I find it odd that materialists have such a hard time with the word. All theories are born of faith, upon which mathematical theorem is developed to prove them afterward. The math always comes after the leap of logic. Ironically, the big bang model was presented by a catholic priest and we have been attempting to find proof for it ever since. Some data exists but it is not conclusive and takes into account a quality of the universe. Cosmic Background Radiation is already on the chopping block. I have looked at the big bang model in depth and it is on very thin ground, and new realities/players have to be invented to support it and keep it alive. ie. dark energy, dark matter. Both of which were invented to support the theory as it would be dead in the water without dark energy and matter.
>
>>No, it does break down. If you don't want to take my word on
>>it, take Michio Kaku's.
>
>Kaku talks about the possibility of the multiverse. It's all
>theoretical placeholders waiting for evidence.
Sure he does, but the multiverse does not exist where the physical laws break down. That is impossible. His exact words are that we lose the laws of physics at the event horizon as relativity completely breaks down. How can you apply laws to something that is absent of laws?
>
>>>Wrong there's actually a lot which supports it, not the
>>least
>>>of which is the observable expansion of the universe. But
>go
>>>ahead and take that quote on faith.
You will have to point to the data because I have studied it and I believe you are assuming and speculating. Ironically, You have faith in the theory and I am not sure you have truly studied it in depth. The observable expansion of the universe is a quality of the universe, it does not in any way, conclusively prove that we emerged out of a singularity which gave birth to time and space. That is all theorized and has ZERO proof to support it.
>>
>>You are choosing to believe something that is incorrect. You
>>are placing the flag in the wrong ground. Could it be faith?
>
>
>No I'm merely explaining why the big bang theory has held up
>for so long, because it's been supported by observable
>evidence. Should further evidence be found which doesn't
>necessitate it then I'm willing to replace it.
Incorrect, it has not been supported by observable evidence. It is the best theory we have and it is still in its infancy stages. There are many respected physicists and scientists that have shown very strong arguments against it.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
>
>>I'm not against the big bang. Where did you get that? Are
>you
>>reading what I am writing? I am simply pointing to the fact
>>that its built on nothing.
>
>Sorry you're just trying to get to a concession that the big
>bang is based on faith, which is absolutely wrong, but again
>do you.
>
Faith is the absence of evidence.
The singularity has zero evidence to support it as the physical laws break down on the event horizon, it is impossible to prove, hence, it is based on a blind leap of logic. The big bang model is built on building blocks *after* they were already provided, meaning, that we don't know anything about their emergence at all.
-> Singularity -> Big Bang -> Universe -> Cosmic Background Radiation
The Blank represents the unknown leap of logic, in essence, GOD, the singularity and the initial singularity have no proof, the big bang occurred after the most important parts were already given to us, it supposedly gave us the universe, and finally, at the end we have cosmic background radiation which is on flimsy ground and does absolutely NOTHING to support BLANK, singularity. ~Experience is the currency of the soul.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
