If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, as well as The First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed, then how did all of the matter in the universe originate from one single point of explosion?

The fact is there are a lot of theories, but that's just it - no one knows. But I'm sure that someone on OKP has the answer.



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

Auuugggggggggh.



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

they have everything

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

>If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, as well as The First
>Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter or its energy
>equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed, then how did
>all of the matter in the universe originate from one single
>point of explosion?
>
>The fact is there are a lot of theories, but that's just it -
>no one knows. But I'm sure that someone on OKP has the
>answer.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

If you really wanted to know, you'd take some college science courses.

>If you really wanted to know, you'd take some college science
>courses.

They all have plausible theories


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

>>If you really wanted to know, you'd take some college
>science
>>courses.
>
>They all have plausible theories


You know there are plausible theories that explain how all the matter in the universe could originate in a single point at the Big Bang.

Reference those plausible theories instead of playing a semantical game of "gotcha" with Okp's.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

They can be part of the same thing also.

>They can be part of the same thing also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Many other early scientists were priests and many contempary scientists are religious as well.

Its perfectly normal to be religious and pursue science but there is definitely some conflict between science and religion, which I think is mostly a proxy for the battle between atheists and believers. I think Case antagonizes the conflict from the believer perspective.

We're stuck in paradigm of false dichotomies

Fucked up ain't it?

or be scientific? How do they not align? Just because an event is miraculous does not mean science is not at work in the physical manifestation of that miracle.

There are plenty of scientists who believe in intelligent design, but they are shouted down because just like anything else the field of science is corrupted by the nature of man to be self serving and more interested in getting dollars and peer acceptance than truth and understanding.

A set of guidelines for drawing conclusions about the universe

No more, no less

It's not necessary to have the answers to everything.

I am really okay with not knowing.

.

God is the answer, i know yall dont want it to be...but it is

we dont know...& thats ok. thats God.


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

We could go all day but you are just sycing and we all know it. So Im killing this part of the conversation.


:)
*****************************************
huh

The theory states that the universe emerged out of a hot and dense state.

Where did the "hot and dense" state come from? What gave it its energy?

We dont know where it came from and THAT IS OKAY.

Science can work on an answer and religion can rock on with what its holy book says.


*shrugs*


*****************************************
huh

on faith.

The Big Bang model suggests that the universe emerged out of a hot and dense state.

Where did this hot and dense state come from or get its energy to be hot and dense?

Scientists are basically taking the Big Bang on faith because of that dilemma.

Please state your reference.

Let's start with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Read the page and the caption underneath the model diagram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

From Overview:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe. The most commonly held view is that the universe was once a gravitational singularity, which expanded extremely rapidly from its hot and dense state. However, while this expansion is well-modeled by the Big Bang theory, the origins of the singularity remains one of the unsolved problems in physics.

Would you like another website?

>The Big Bang model suggests that the universe emerged out of
>a hot and dense state.
>
>Where did this hot and dense state come from or get its energy
>to be hot and dense?
>
>Scientists are basically taking the Big Bang on faith because
>of that dilemma.

the Big Bang model describes how the universe emerged out of a hot and dense state, not where the hot and dense state came from. that doesn't mean that scientists are taking the fact that the Big Bang happened on faith (quite the opposite, actually.)

for example, Newton's law of gravitation states that objects exert a force of attraction proportional to their masses and distance.

But what causes gravity? how does it work? Newton had no idea.

does that mean scientists were only taking the existence of gravity on faith and that there was no proof that it was real for over 300 years until Einstein figured out what causes it?

god doesnt require anything from us, god gives as much of a damn abt us as we do some plankton in the ocean but yeah


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

Not everyone believes in a God.
*****************************************
huh

there comes a point where one MUST say "I dont know"

That is God

or whatever you wanna call it


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

Especially when they present it as truth.

He/She doesn't need to. If god were present we would be unable to look away. God gets out of the way so that we can discover life and experience on our own, to ultimately reach a state of godhood, which is to reach enlightenment in the state of now. That is the whole point. You don't need god at all. All great spiritual teachers said the kingdom of god is within you. We don't have to look anywhere except within. *You* are the path to god.

Since many believe him to be God and worship him as such. In fact he himself believe this. Is Zen Catholocism a thing?

>Since many believe him to be God and worship him as such. In
>fact he himself believe this. Is Zen Catholocism a thing?

Who, Phil Jackson? sure.

the Pope? not so much.

i think i explicitly said god is that undefinable where mans knowledge ends


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

That's what I mean, how can you make any factual statement about god. You are speculating like the rest of us.

as for the "fact" that god is unknowable, YES asshat. all religion is mans feeble attempt at understanding that which is intrinisically UN understandable. its like trying to teach a dog rocket science. he might be the smartest dog on the planet but he cant fire off a space ship


does it really matter?

for all my fans who keep my name in their mouth: http://i.imgur.com/v2xNOpS.jpg

You do not know whether or not god is beyond our comprehension as a whole, but perhaps that is the definition you give to yourself, and that is fine. I don't accept your ideas and I find them too simple, pessimistic, and hopeless.

Based on your explanation of religion I can tell you have never studied the origins of religion and are assuming too much, and have no idea what the purpose of religion is.

God is unknowable. Beyond mans comprehension. That's the way it is. And asshat the rationale you talking abt is....the rationale you giving yourself. Duh. That's what we all out here doing.

Throughout history, there is plenty of things we couldnt explain.
With your logic, we should have attributed those things to god.

But once we finally fully understand something, what then? Still god?

>With your logic, we should have attributed those things to
>god.


if science defines it further, then God becomes what they cant explain. keep trying.

L O L

It can be entertainment, if can be nihilism, it can even be sports or science. Everyone is worshiping something whether they admit if or not.

pun intended

you religious MFers are so damn arrogant in your belief

>It's not necessary to have the answers to everything.

The first law states that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed. Emphasis on a closed system.

see reply #112

all the matter in the universe continuously condenses into singularity, then expands back out, the condenses again

I read ish like this and marvel at how much I don't know

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm



But I am not the type to just believe it just because smart people say its true. (But I feel the same way about the bible too. Some dudes wrote that and what they wrote may or may not correspond with accurately describing god and heaven)

Part of me believes in a few years or decades (or centuries) a new theory will come along and wipe away all the prior understanding and scientist will say, "yeah we were wrong about all that big bang theory stuff BUT this is the real explanation!"

All that to say, who knows (maybe not scientist, probably not bible literalist).

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

But we are all working to understand.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

>
>.
>.
>.
>"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

The First Law of Thermodynamics is a specified adaptation of the law of conservation of energy. One references the other but they are not interchangeable.



This would be like me saying "hey, Christians: if Jesus was supposedly all that, why wasn't he in the old testament?"

http://www.allaboutscience.org/first-law-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm


In its simplest form, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant – energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing. Every natural process transforms energy and moves energy, but cannot create or eliminate it.This principle forms a foundation for many of the physical sciences. - See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/first-law-of-thermodynamics-faq.htm#sthash.KC0PMp2C.dpuf

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

You are ignoring the fact that there was no closed system when the big bang occurred, therefore, the first law does not apply. I've discussed this with theoretical physicists as I had the same question.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

The Big Bang Theory is the best model we have so far, but it has not been established as fact. Everyone who claims the big bang model is true relies on the cosmic background radiation which points to expansion, however, that is not enough to conclusively prove that the big bang occurred. The big bang model suggests that the universe emerged out of a hot and dense state but noone can determine how this hot and dense state came into being.

>conclusively prove that the big bang occurred. The big bang
>model suggests that the universe emerged out of a hot and
>dense state but noone can determine how this hot and dense
>state came into being.

If this is the way a scientist claiming intelligent design says that God is full of hot air, well, I'm chuckling.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/234/739/fa5.jpg

hahaha

.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110107113228/uncyclopedia/images/5/54/Jesus_Big_Bang.jpg

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.

A Zen master might say to you that you cannot have the foreground without the background. There cannot be a space without something occupying that space. There cannot be life without death, and there cannot be death without life. In the same breath, there cannot be SOMETHING without NOTHING. They are inseparable. The Ying and Yang is a symbol for existence, and its two spirals represent the two great winds of creation: Something and Nothing. You cannot pry them apart and you cannot isolate one without taking the other into account, therefore, the universe has always existed, as existence cannot occur without non-existence and vice versa.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://blackpeopleonlocalnews.tumblr.com/

There was no beginning, and there will never be an end. The universe is eternal and infinite. Conceptually, Nothing cannot exist without Something to identify Nothing as truly "Nothing". You need the contrast, you need the foreground and background. Nothing is also limitless and has no boundaries, and that is why NOTHING is "large" enough to contain EVERYTHING. They exist within each-other and the result is existence in the present moment.

The purpose of Zen Buddhism is to reach a state of enlightenment in the present moment. We invest so much time into the past and future without realizing those are insoluble ideas. The future does not exist, and we can never go back into the past. So why place so much of our time and energy into either. You have to be present in the moment, and focus only on the NOW, as that is the only moment you will ever be able to access. The moment of now in between the Past and the Future, is akin to the universe existing between beginning and end. They merge and coalesce into one thing that cannot be separated into parts.

All matter is God or a part of God and God is eternal == the matter in the universes has always been and there can not be something without nothing. Sounds like the old Alpha and Omega beginning and end to me. Just minus the part about being held accountable to said force.

The two concepts do not have to be at odds. Some people just want them that way

>All matter is God or a part of God and God is eternal == the
>matter in the universes has always been and there can not be
>something without nothing. Sounds like the old Alpha and Omega
>beginning and end to me. Just minus the part about being held
>accountable to said force.
>
>The two concepts do not have to be at odds. Some people just
>want them that way

The problem is when people take it literally and apply human personality to god. ie. Jesus is God. What Jesus was in fact saying is that the kingdom of god or knowledge of self exists within you. He started at the same point we all do, and he went on a quest to find enlightenment which led him to universal truth's. These universal truth's state that we are all part of "god", and that we are in fact "god" as we are existing in a state of being, or the eternal NOW. Jesus said "I AM" to emphasize this. He was not saying "I AM GOD" as god being separate from us, or him being separate from us. He was saying, "I AM (Present, Being, Existence, and those things are God.)"

Jesus was a philosopher and by all account was sharing a lot of Eastern philosophy. Essentially, if you find knowledge of self in the present reality, you find god. That is what Jesus accomplished, which was exactly what Buddha accomplished.

and that's all fine and good because it's a question he asked then and it's a question that's still fair to ask today.

>and that's all fine and good because it's a question he asked
>then and it's a question that's still fair to ask today.

If you study the words of Jesus Christ, and study the words of Buddah, you find the same ideas.

but there are plenty of differences also. That's all I'm saying.

I think he demonstrated a lot of Egyptian mysticism as well.

Actually, you mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls before. Have you heard of John Allegro? He was the only agnostic scholar out of a completely Catholic group of scholars that were assigned to study the scrolls, and he wrote a book called The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross. In short, he claimed that the scrolls contained information about Jesus consuming psilocybin, from which he drew a lot of mystical teachings from. Even today, in the Vatican you will find depictions of Jesus and the mushroom.

http://www.truthsayer.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Amanita-mushroom-and-Jesus.png

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BtiMw0-akAM/hqdefault.jpg

Have you ever experienced psilocybin?

everytime I think about this shit.

I am with you on this theory, I mean it's the only one that can actually make sense.

But holy hell does my head hurt thinking about this shit. I am not a man of faith, I am a realist through and through and I need answers and explanations for everything, I take no leaps of faith. So this entire "universe" conversation and how the world(s) came to be drives me insane and makes me uncomfortable. It's infinitely frustrating for me. I wish it weren't.

>I am with you on this theory, I mean it's the only one that
>can actually make sense.

For me as well.

>
>But holy hell does my head hurt thinking about this shit. I am
>not a man of faith, I am a realist through and through and I
>need answers and explanations for everything, I take no leaps
>of faith. So this entire "universe" conversation and how the
>world(s) came to be drives me insane and makes me
>uncomfortable. It's infinitely frustrating for me. I wish it
>weren't.

I think it's just part of the fun. I think about it daily and sometimes I am left with a dumbfounded expression/sensation and at times filled with pure exhilaration of experiencing something profound and yet simple enough for a child to understand.

Sometimes we are awake, and sometimes we are asleep. When we are asleep, a lot of time passes that we have no perception or experience of. When you fall asleep, you wake up almost immediately, and all that time passed without you needing to count the minutes. It's like it didn't even happen. So, is time actually real if you do not have any perception of it while asleep? The Zen idea of life and death is similar, when you die, you fall asleep, and a lot of time passes, and finally, you wake up again, which is to be born again. You have no perception or experience of the time you are dead just as you have no perception or experience of when you are asleep.

If you pay attention everything in the universe works in ON and OFF. A sine wave cannot be a wave without a peak or the trough. If you walk up a mountain, are you walking up the mountain or is the mountain lifting you? When you are driving in a car, is the car pushing you forward, or pulling you? The answer is that both are occurring at the same time. You cannot be awake without sleep. You cannot be alive without death. Being and Not Being, Existence, and Non-Existence, Beginning and End, these are realities which are inseparable and coalesce to create a single state of NOW. The state you are in right now. You are both dead and alive, both asleep and awake at the same time, without time.

Haha.

In all seriousness though I think about it daily too...and this on/off thing you refer to is pretty cool, and obviously true.

I really want to see a monk I think. A friend of mine was meditating with a monk for a few months and said it was truly life changing and enlightening. Put a lot of things in perspective for her.

I don't tend to go through a ton of peaks and valleys as far as stress and mood swings but I, like everyone else, have my moments and could certainly benefit from some kind of perspective since I do think about my/our place in the universe very often.

Especially when it starts hitting you with the sensation of reality.

I have something for you to listen to that will interest you that has the same potency as a monk would provide for you. Alan Watts is a well traveled Zen Buddhist who used to teach Zen to people all over the world before he died.

First, listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29atSZKbmS4

It's short but sweet. Only 3 minutes but very powerful.

Then listen to this as it speaks about what we have been discussing through a Zen point of view.

What is Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um6SX3ZgJRs

Another quick and fun one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcPWU59Luoc

I'll report back once I do.

I feel like it will resonate well with you and I'd love to hear your thoughts after. Feel free to inbox me anytime.

That was really profound. What's interesting is that what Watts said about grade school leading to high school, leading to college, so on and so forth...until you look back and realize, shit, I've been waiting for this "end" that's never coming and I've missed a lot....that's been something I've thought about a lot in my post-college life. Up til that point, everything had an end. Middle school, high school, college, so I knew what I was working towards. Since I started my career I've often thought, well shit, there really is no end now. It's just --- life. And thankfully I came to that realization early because when it comes to making decisions on whether or not to, for example (and probably the biggest one in my life) travel or spend money on a once in a lifetime event I know I'll enjoy, I more often than not take the financial hit and take part in the opportunity. But there are definitely times, fairly often, where I almost get frustrated with the idea that there is no tidy end to everything. It's wild to think about.

Anyway I know that wasn't the whole purpose of that piece but I just found it interesting that his speech there kind of mirrored a minor frustration/thought I've had often throughout my post college life.

I'm really excited to check out the other link you posted and more of his words. He sounds like someone I could learn an awful lot from.

>I'm really excited to check out the other link you posted and
>more of his words. He sounds like someone I could learn an
>awful lot from.

I can safely say that what I learned from him free'd me from years of self torture and mental/emotional deprivation. You are in for many "oh snap" moments. I typically look for the longer ones as the short ones are all excerpts from those anyway. Enjoy!

over the coming weeks/months. Thanks for the recommendation. I'm sure I'll want to discuss further so I'll either report back here or inbox you to chat further.

Thanks again

nobody can focus on the now. the so called now is all there is and all there ever will be. THIS is all there is! you are already in it! woohoo!

>nobody can focus on the now. the so called now is all there
>is and all there ever will be. THIS is all there is! you are
>already in it! woohoo!

You can use focus to enter a state of now, but yes, all there is and all there ever will be is in fact NOW. WOOHOO is right! lol

If people only realized how much power the present moment holds, they would free themselves from stress and self destruction.

Example.

When you are worried about your health in the future. You invest a ton of negative energy worrying about something that does not exist yet and ironically, this is more destructive to your health than the possibility of your health deteriorating.

Some people spend a lot of time feeling guilty over the past. You can never reach the past, it is gone, it is never to return, and it is insoluble. The solution is simple, are the things you feel guilty over happening right now? Of course not! So why invest so much energy into guilt and pain over them right now when you cannot go back?

Identifying the present moment free's you from the future and past and the worry and stress completely dissipates and suddenly you find yourself filled with joy, for simply being.

well, everyone is living in the "now" (cos it's all there is) but most believe they are a person who does things and chooses to do one thing and not the other. they believe there is someone inside the body or behind the eyes. this causes a duality that takes you away from what is (the now).

my man tony parsons describes this so well. he calls it the open secret.
---
Within most religious and spiritual doctrine there is another hidden message which is beyond belief, process, path and the teaching of personal endeavour. It is a revelation out of which can arise a radically different perception of reality. The Open Secret explores the essence of various traditional and contemporary practices and attempts to expose the myths that surround the mystery to which they aspire.

It also reveals the way in which seeking for fulfilment can only reinforce the sense of continuously reaching out for something that has never been lost.

The dynamic of this communication is essentially energetic, and this can nullify the mind's need for ideas and answers and dissipate the contracted sense of the self and its fear of unconditional freedom.

The Open Secret is not new . . . and also it is. Its fundamental essence and content is to be found in the apparent history of seeking originating in Advaita Vedanta, Non-dualism, a particular Zen Buddhism and Christian mysticism. These subjects are explored in more liberally-minded schools and are certainly part of the University curriculum. This message also embraces recent discoveries of quantum physicists, neuroscientists and biologists.

Knowing and Unknowing

The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory describing the loss of "paradise" through the arising of self-knowing. So, it seems, there is wholeness (paradise) and within that boundless, free-floating, causeless energy, something appears which experiences itself as being separate from that wholeness (paradise).

Here is a metaphor pointing to what seems like "the story" of self-consciousness, out of which is apparently born the knowing and experience of free will, choice, time and space, purpose and direction.

As "the story" unfolds, so the self learns to know "the world out there" and attempts to negotiate the best deal possible for itself . . . it apparently takes action to find pleasure and avoid pain. The greater the knowledge the more effective the action, the results and the apparent sense of personal control . . . or so it seems.

All of these efforts bring varying results, and so the individual comes to know fluctuating states of gratification and disappointment. However, it can be noticed that there seems to be an underlying sense of dissatisfaction which drives the self to find a deeper meaning.

Because the apparent self can only exist through its own knowing, its search for a deeper meaning will be limited to that which it can know and experience for itself. Within these limitations there are a multitude of doctrines, therapies, ideologies, spiritual teachings and belief systems that the seeker can come to know. There can also be the knowing and experiencing of states of silence, stillness, bliss, awareness and detachment, all of which seem to come and go like night and day.

All of these teachings, recommendations and prescriptions are attempting to provide the seeker with answers to that which is unknowable, and ways to find that which has never been lost.

So the self is the separate seeker that pursues everything that it thinks it can know and do, excepting the absence of itself. That absence is the emptiness which is unknowable, but paradoxically is also the very fullness, the wholeness (paradise) that is longed for.

Should the apparent seeker meet with a perception which reveals in great depth the real nature of separation and also exposes, without compromise, the sublime futility of seeking, there can be a collapse of the construct of the separate self. That totally impersonal message carries with it a boundless energy into which the seemingly contracted energy of self unfolds. A resonance can arise which is beyond self awareness . . . something ineffable can be sensed . . . a fragrance and an opening to the wonder of unknowing can emerge.

Suddenly, there seems to be a shift and an impersonal realisation that this is already wholeness. The boundless, naked, innocent, free-floating and wonderful simplicity of beingness is already all there is . . . it is extraordinary in its ordinariness and yet it cannot be described.
---

It definitely touches on the reality I have begun to experience. This part really resonates with me:

"It also reveals the way in which seeking for fulfilment can only reinforce the sense of continuously reaching out for something that has never been lost."

Exactly!!

http://youtu.be/pgkHGEBo9a4
http://youtu.be/yAE6QxdMess

there are many persons communicating this around the world. it's usually called non-duality but it's not an organization or anything. they're all doing their thing and using similar language but not exactly in the same way.
here are some names:

tony parsons
francis lucille
rupert spira
lisa cairns
tim freke
unmani
jeff frost

.

There is a practical way to do it. Drop the past and the future and focus on the present moment.

Try to do that for a week and see how you feel. Don't spend a single minute contemplating your past, or feeling one way or another about it, and don't invest a single moment envisioning yourself in the future. It never turns out the way you expect anyway, sometimes its worse, and sometimes its better. Focus solely on what you are doing and experiencing in the present moment. Literally, shed the past and future as if they were old clothing.

Ask yourself questions to identify with the now. What am I doing right now? What am I feeling right now? What is the task at hand right now? What am I *being* right now? If you practice this you will catch yourself thinking about the past or the future, and that is when you will start to practically identify which of your thoughts are rooted in NOW and REALITY and which are locked in fiction.

If you practice now, you will soon realize that you are filled with more peace of mind than you thought you had access to. We rob ourselves of peace of mind by focusing on things which are insoluble and unattainable. Those things are the past, and the future. The past makes us feel guilt and pain for things we cannot change, and the future fills us with fear through the possibility that we will not attain the future we imagined for our selves. Free yourselves from those things and you will find something inside you, in NOW, that has more energy and power than you ever thought possible.

Another way to do it is with meditation. Most people struggle with meditation because they say: "I cannot turn my mind off and stop thinking."

Of course you can't, that is the purpose of the mind. To produce thought. That is not the true definition of meditation.

The way to meditate is as follows. Let any thought come into your mind, let the chatter in your mind do as it pleases, but listen to that chatter, as you listen to the sound of birds chirping outside of your window when you are occupied with something else. That is zen. You let it happen without trying to hold on to it, or without trying to let it go. You do both at the same time.

Everyone can already meditate. It is the same as working in an office and hearing the noise in the office background but not listening to it. That is what you do with your mind and it's thoughts to meditate. Finally, do not set a purpose for meditation, simply do it, and see what happens.

Is more to my point.

Also that while you've given good advice IMO, the entire field of meditation is so mysterious, ancient, and complex, that even after internalizing the lessons you outline, one still continuously finds oneself at a beginning point. True mastery of these concepts is almost impossible. Separating reality from fiction is great advice, but know that that separation is incredibly subtle sometimes.

Enlightenment cannot be attained really, it has to be experienced, and it is symptomatic of knowing your self in the present reality.

>Is more to my point.
>
>Also that while you've given good advice IMO, the entire field
>of meditation is so mysterious, ancient, and complex, that
>even after internalizing the lessons you outline, one still
>continuously finds oneself at a beginning point.


It's a well developed and outlined practice. As an example, the Tibetan Book of the Dead was written based on the knowledge one experienced through meditation, which is a guide on navigating the spiritual realm after you die in order to escape the cycle of rebirth. I think meditation in the west is as you said, "mysterious". In the east it is a real means to a very specific reality.

True mastery
>of these concepts is almost impossible. Separating reality
>from fiction is great advice, but know that that separation is
>incredibly subtle sometimes.

It is not impossible. It requires focus and self awareness, and finally the ability to detach. It is difficult for us here because we are exposed to a vast variety of distractions which become totally consuming. We we are very good at absorbing ourselves in something. Experiencing enlightenment I think feels like an avalanche, practicing small acts, or the lack of certain thoughts will bring you closer to your true self. The true self emerges more and more on its own as you close the door to the past or future. It picks up momentum on its own because ultimately, you learn to let go.

I like what you said about the subtlety of separation. I know exactly of what you are referring to as it happens to me, but, I can honestly say the difference overall in my life has changed pretty dramatically and it came with little to no effort. As anything it takes a bit of practice. Zen masters say that some people are able to meditate quickly and effectively, and are like a Stallion, but there are others who are like donkey's, they struggle, and are slow for a long time, but if they continue on this path, they eventually surpass the stallion. I think it would be helpful for society to inject a healthy level of spirituality into the mechanized world, to en-soul it with unifying spiritual ideas as opposed to differences and argument. The world is truly plagued by a kind of immaturity I think.

So asking what happened before the big bang is like asking how to get three miles south of the south pole. Once you get to the south pole, all directions are north, and once you get to the big bang, all directions in time are the future.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

...God

was always there is was just compressed into a super dense ball of particles. So dense it could all fit in a single point.

>was always there is was just compressed into a super dense
>ball of particles. So dense it could all fit in a single
>point.

:)

There is a difference between faith and accepting the most well supported idea

First of all, I respect you. You are human and that is a remarkable thing. I do not want to insult you or be insulted by you, so if you feel you know something I don't, please teach me, don't insult me.

This is where I see faith in the singularity.


*The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe. The most commonly held view is that the universe was once a gravitational singularity, which expanded extremely rapidly from its hot and dense state. However, while this expansion is well-modeled by the Big Bang theory, the origins of the singularity remains one of the unsolved problems in physics.*

Where did this hot and dense state come from? Noone can answer this question.

This is where faith comes in. It translates like this to me:

"The origins of the singularity remains one of the unsolved problems in physics, but I'll take it on faith that it was there. I can't tell you how, but that is what I choose to believe."

I think that's somewhat ironic.

Thats not faith, incredible heat is a mathematical necessity for something to be that dense

And given that the universe is provably expanding (all cosmologic bodies exhibit red shift) its also logical to trace that back to the beginning of expansion. The force required to keep everything expanding is massive and mathematically fits with the expansion of an infinitely dense singularity.

Also, that level of energy left a signature in the form of cosmic background radiation.

No real need for faith. Just an acceptance of the preponderance of evidence.

>Thats not faith, incredible heat is a mathematical necessity
>for something to be that dense

Where did that density come from? What put it there? Or, what established the mathematical laws for it to adhere to?

That is where I see faith. You cannot answer those questions but the theory is built on that blind gap. Everything you wrote is what follows after the building blocks have already been provided for you.

>>Thats not faith, incredible heat is a mathematical
>necessity
>>for something to be that dense

>Where did that density come from? What put it there? Or, what
>established the mathematical laws for it to adhere to?

None of that matters. I dont take a side on any of that. The mathematical laws that describe our universe are here and they work. "Why" isnt a concern for mw.

>That is where I see faith. You cannot answer those questions
>but the theory is built on that blind gap. Everything you
>wrote is what follows after the building blocks have already
>been provided for you.

Your question doesnt even make sense. "Where did that density come from?"? Its a ratio of mass to volume. I dont need to to know where the mass came from, I can see it in the sky. And i know the volume of the universe is expanding so its logic that puts initial volume at zero.

Mass that we can see in the sky, divided by our logical zero, gives us infintite density.

If you are trying to determine the beginning of the universe, you can't just pick a convenient point to start and work from there. You have to take everything into consideration.

>>>Thats not faith, incredible heat is a mathematical
>>necessity
>>>for something to be that dense
>
>>Where did that density come from? What put it there? Or,
>what
>>established the mathematical laws for it to adhere to?
>
>None of that matters. I dont take a side on any of that. The
>mathematical laws that describe our universe are here and they
>work. "Why" isnt a concern for mw.
>

That right there is faith.

>>That is where I see faith. You cannot answer those questions
>>but the theory is built on that blind gap. Everything you
>>wrote is what follows after the building blocks have already
>>been provided for you.
>
>Your question doesnt even make sense. "Where did that
>density come from?"? Its a ratio of mass to volume. I dont
>need to to know where the mass came from, I can see it in the
>sky. And i know the volume of the universe is expanding so its
>logic that puts initial volume at zero.
>
>Mass that we can see in the sky, divided by our logical zero,
>gives us infintite density.

I specifically corrected myself by saying: "Or, what established the mathematical laws for it to adhere to?"

You said it is irrelevant. You can fight it all you want, but The Big Bang Model is built with 1 part Faith. Shrug.

The irony!

Be definition it cannot be irrelevant.

He didnt make a point to agree OR disagree with.

He said that because he doeant know the answers to some things, them everybody must be operating on faith.

No.

There is no lack of evidence for physics. The signs that physics works are literally all around you at all times.

You totally misrepresented what I said. Either you did it on purpose or you are the one who is dense. :)

Once again, you are starting your argument AFTER the building blocks were given to you.

You said that the origin of the mathematical laws are irrelevant. How can someone who is discussing the origin of the universe, pick a point after the building blocks have been provided for him/her and start there?

"The mathematical laws that describe our universe are here and they work. "Why" isnt a concern for mw."

That is not the scientific method and you are dodging my point.

Whether intentional or not...you are dense. And your snark after your whole plea for mutual validation is cute too.

The math works because it works. I dont need to know why it works to know that it does. Airplanes fly because the math works. Your microwave works because the math works. We land shit on comets because the math works.

Faith is belief despite absence of evidence. There is evidence everywhere that the math WORKS.

That is the opposite of faith. Whether or not it works, and how it came to be that way are 2 totally different questions.

Just because you either cant or dont want to grasp that isnt anyones problem but yours.

Dude, you have a massive chip on your shoulder and are overly sensitive/defensive.

>
>Faith is belief despite absence of evidence. There is
>evidence everywhere that the math WORKS.

I am not debating or specifically focusing on the math. I'll try to be more succinct:

The Big Bang Model requires for you to have (faith and belief) in the idea of a singularity, governed by mathematical laws which we have no origins to attribute them to, as the precursor to the birth of our universe. Hope that's more clear.

So far science has only found some evidence for the *expansion* of the universe, not for the singularity whose origin is unknown or unproven.

Where did the compressed and dense matter come from?

>The math works because it works. I dont need to know why it
>works to know that it does.

^ You just said: "God works in mysterious ways."

Haha!

i mean to think about

i don't care either way, what or "who" started it.

my atheism has not wavered in 10+ years

Imagine a soap bubble. Imagine the two-dimensional space on the surface of that soap bubble. Now imagine the soap bubble is leaky, and the air is escaping from it, making it get smaller. Eventually that two-dimensional space will have zero size, and anything that lives on it can only do so if it also has zero size. Of course, the soap bubbles in our everyday experience live within a bigger, three-dimensional space, and any little bugs that might live on them could just jump off. The difference with the three-dimensional space of our universe is, as far as the data has told us do far, there isn't any four-dimensional space in which our three-dimensional space lives. Still, the three-dimensional space of our universe can in principle curl up to have zero size.

Another point, though: it isn't exactly true that the big bang singularity had zero size. I'm not saying it had nonzero size. The real issue is that people are naively led to the wrong question. The singularity is a feature in our universe where the very concept of geometry breaks down. You can't really say what the "size" is of something that doesn't have any geometry at all. A better question is: what does the universe look like as one traces back in time toward the singularity. The answer to that question is surprisingly interesting, but also surprisingly technical.

.

I don't pretend to understand physics or science at this level but it's always fascinated me. I try to keep up with stuff that I read or hear but at some point, it all escapes me. So forgive me if I butcher this concept.

Anyway...Hawking suggested that if all of the matter was condensed into that singularity, it would also keep time from flowing (the same way black holes affect time & space). So you'd have all the matter in the universe condensed into one point with no passage or movement of time. Until that singularity exploded & matter started spreading out and time began to move.

>was always there is was just compressed into a super dense
>ball of particles. So dense it could all fit in a single
>point.


That's a great guess. were did the matter come from?


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

wow you are very conceited and simultaneously dishonest human.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

which condensed into a singularity.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

It somewhat touches on what we are discussing.

Orthodox Jews do not believe in "God" like Christians or Muslims do. Jews believe in the TORA, which is the LAW.

Think of it in the following way. A bird cannot be a bird without the laws of aerodynamics. One can say that a bird has been shaped by those laws in order to give it the ability to create lift with its body.

Jews believe in the law which created God, or the laws which allowed God to be shaped and identified as God. It is the "Mother Principle". Thus, according to Jewish Transcendentalism, God's mother are the laws which allow god to be god and that's what they put their faith into. I think that's pretty cool.

Many ancient and current spiritual believes credit the universe to a living female energy, and in fact, all human beings start as female and some mutate into males. Even you. ;)

nah, it's from a previous incarnation of the universe. its the same matter, which is in a constant state of expansion and contraction.

it didn't come from anywhere, it just is and always will be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Do you disagree?


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

the universe in its current state came from the "big bang" which is the point at which the singularity formed by the previous contraction of all the matter in the universe started to expand back out. the universe as it exists today is expanding but at some point will stop expanding and begin contracting again, eventually returning to a singularity. Then another "big bang" will occur and the matter will begin expanding out again, and so on forever.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

It is akin to the Zen understanding of Life and Death. The universe falls asleep (contracts), and wakes up (expands).

well, where did the god come from?

if you must answer the "where did we everything come from/begin" question why is GOD an acceptable end of that thought process?

I'm starting to get the sense that Case is firmly rooted in the idea that god is the creator, but this is definitely a good question for him to tackle.

always has been always will be

>well, where did the god come from?
>

My next question would be how was Matter Created. Knowing the were begs the next question as to how. I know were Oil comes from, but by next question would be how was it made. I guess it's kind of the same logic path. Maybe not. I'm hungry.




>if you must answer the "where did we everything come
>from/begin" question why is GOD an acceptable end of that
>thought process?
>



Anyway, for me, based on my encounters, experience, relationship and knowledge level with God, I that He is the author and architect of the entire universe. I believe that as physical humans (in this form) we are incapable of understanding the creative mind and full existence of God - not that we wont at some point - in the Spiritual realm. But as for now, we are trapped by this physical realm and its boundaries of time, energy, etc.

I know it sounds all Spooky, but, I believe that God is and will always be.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

I do not believe we live in a universe or would be created by a creator that would leave us with a vacancy for understanding that very creation or him/her the creator.

How rude that would be!

>I do not believe we live in a universe or would be created by
>a creator that would leave us with a vacancy for understanding
>that very creation or him/her the creator.
>
>How rude that would be!

Well God didn't leave us with a vacancy for understanding about creation or Himself. He explained it very well to me and Billions of others. Now are there mysteries yet to be revealed, absolutely. But all things will be answered in time.

But I see you. Wink.


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

" I believe that as physical humans (in this form) we are incapable of understanding the creative mind and full existence of God - not that we wont at some point - in the Spiritual realm."

That is to claim ignorance. :)

>" I believe that as physical humans (in this form) we are
>incapable of understanding the creative mind and full
>existence of God - not that we wont at some point - in the
>Spiritual realm."
>
>That is to claim ignorance. :)


No, I said that we will at some point too. Not knowing completely is not ignorance. We are always learning more about God as he reveals more of Himself to us based on our relationship with Him. The key is relationship which leads to revelation. And one day our relationship with go beyond this physical realm.

That's not ignorance, that's expectation and faith. No Ignorance.

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

I can't just jive with he's everything and has always been. That's a cop out, it's the fear of saying "I don't know." that gets you everytime. It's ok to say I don't know, if god does exist I'm sure he ain't going to smite you and send you to hell for that.

Maybe, I'm sure you got a scripture somewhere to say he will, but whatevs.

>I can't just jive with he's everything and has always been.
>That's a cop out, it's the fear of saying "I don't know." that
>gets you everytime. It's ok to say I don't know, if god does
>exist I'm sure he ain't going to smite you and send you to
>hell for that.
>
>Maybe, I'm sure you got a scripture somewhere to say he will,
>but whatevs.

I can understand your struggle, its just not my struggle. The fact is that God is and he will always be before time and after time and outside of time God has always existed.
.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

My point is it's not fair to question science on the creation of the Big Bang and not question where god comes from.

with god you said above we're incapable of understanding, yet you believe it's god who's always been here. but you won't/don't believe matter has always existed.

maybe you're just incapable of understanding matter and your attributing it something you think you do understand (god).

I don't believe there ever was a "nothing", i think matter and energy has always been here.

I swear, y'all love making up talking points .. Crazy!


>with god you said above we're incapable of understanding, yet
>you believe it's god who's always been here. but you
>won't/don't believe matter has always existed.
>

Again, I never said anything about Matter not existing. But I'ma let you cook.


>maybe you're just incapable of understanding matter and your
>attributing it something you think you do understand (god).
>
>I don't believe there ever was a "nothing", i think matter and
>energy has always been here.


^^ Failed to read any peer review science papers about the where matter comes from and the Big Bang.. SMH.
.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

matter is quantifiable, we can measure and test it. we've figured out quite a few of the various governing laws for closed systems

the point is, some of us "believe", or better yet, understand matter to be true and real. that what is is, and always will be, just in some different form.

there is no what created matter, just as for you there is no what created God.

I just don't understand why feel you have such a grasp of concept you identify as God, but question the science that came about from the very beings you say he controls.

is this to justify your beliefs in the word of the bible?

Because the question has been asked by scientists for years.

So, trying to question my intellect about the matter is a waste. You should question your own limited thoughs.



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

i trolled an atheist at work over this a couple yrs ago
me, him, and a friend of his spent a couple days on a irc chat in a circular argument over him putting faith in the origins of big bang
i'm not going say you can't leverage information to come to some conclusion
but damn at least admit there is a point where you just can't explain it anymore and concede that you just believe the shit just because someone else told you it's true
i wasn't even trying to necessarily make the correlation between that and religious faith
but the mere thought of the comparison makes many of these cats refuse to concede anything

Haha!

what they wont usually concede


is that there was just some dude hanging out and on a whim decided to create the universe itself

is he some kind of transformer made up other humans? or maybe hes like freddy kruger and hes got other humans souls hanging out in his chest

Explains a lot, if you ask me.

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?

>Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat
>it?


.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

It makes me laugh out loud every-time.

Uranus

I'm pretending you actually want the answer. Probably somebody does, at least.

People naively think mass means "stuff" and energy means, I don't know, "wobbly stuff." And they think conservation of energy is something to be taken for granted, as an obvious, common-sense fact. But as we've learned time after time after time in physics, whenever you dig deep enough, your common sense is eventually wrong.

In physics, mass and energy refer to very specific things, and their conservation follows from certain underlying assumptions. These assumptions hold accurately in your and my limited range of experience, but these assumptions are strongly violated in the early evolution of the universe (or in many other extreme astrophysical events).

Specifically, energy is defined as a "charge" (in a technical mathematical sense) associated with "time-translation symmetry" of the universe. "Time translation symmetry" is the assumption that the underlying fabric of spacetime geometry is unchanging with respect to time. If that assumption holds, then one can show that energy is constant. (Mass, by the way, is related to energy, but it would take us down too technical a road to clarify the relationship in general. At the very least, we've all heard of E=mc^2.)

So when the universe is not appreciably changing in time, then energy is conserved. When the universe is appreciably changing, then energy is not conserved. In the time shortly after the big bang, the universe was obviously changing very rapidly.

Energy is "mostly" (though not exactly) conserved in the universe as a whole today (as long as we leave dark energy out of the picture, which is totally not conserved). But in the early universe it wasn't.

This is all standard physics that has existed for a hundred years now. Einstein's general theory of relativity. You might be surprised to hear that the general "theory" of relativity is more fundamental and more accurate than the first "law" of thermodynamics. But as you've been told hundreds of times around here, those words don't mean what you think they mean.

>I'm pretending you actually want the answer. Probably
>somebody does, at least.
>
>People naively think mass means "stuff" and energy means, I
>don't know, "wobbly stuff." And they think conservation of
>energy is something to be taken for granted, as an obvious,
>common-sense fact. But as we've learned time after time after
>time in physics, whenever you dig deep enough, your common
>sense is eventually wrong.
>
>In physics, mass and energy refer to very specific things, and
>their conservation follows from certain underlying
>assumptions. These assumptions hold accurately in your and my
>limited range of experience, but these assumptions are
>strongly violated in the early evolution of the universe (or
>in many other extreme astrophysical events).
>
>Specifically, energy is defined as a "charge" (in a technical
>mathematical sense) associated with "time-translation
>symmetry" of the universe. "Time translation symmetry" is the
>assumption that the underlying fabric of spacetime geometry is
>unchanging with respect to time. If that assumption holds,
>then one can show that energy is constant. (Mass, by the way,
>is related to energy, but it would take us down too technical
>a road to clarify the relationship in general. At the very
>least, we've all heard of E=mc^2.)
>
>So when the universe is not appreciably changing in time, then
>energy is conserved. When the universe is appreciably
>changing, then energy is not conserved. In the time shortly
>after the big bang, the universe was obviously changing very
>rapidly.
>
>Energy is "mostly" (though not exactly) conserved in the
>universe as a whole today (as long as we leave dark energy out
>of the picture, which is totally not conserved). But in the
>early universe it wasn't.
>
>This is all standard physics that has existed for a hundred
>years now. Einstein's general theory of relativity. You might
>be surprised to hear that the general "theory" of relativity
>is more fundamental and more accurate than the first "law" of
>thermodynamics. But as you've been told hundreds of times
>around here, those words don't mean what you think they mean.
>



I only brought up the that the First Law of Thermodynamics as a starting point for conversation. Sure Matter can be more than Stuff, but we had to start somewhere. So do you think that The Second Law of Thermodynamics, applies to the conversation?


And yes the the Big Bang Theory violates the first law of thermodynamics. But that still doesn't explain where the Matter of any kind comes from.






.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

even with that last sentence hanging out right there.

It's not always about the trolling post so much as helping people who can still approach the topic with an open mind.

The question has been a topic scientific discussion and debates for years.

It's not like I made the question up.



.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

It's always fun and interesting to discuss these matters, even if it's in a thread made by someone a lot of us strongly suspect isn't really interested in discussion.

I for one, enjoyed the contributions of both Initiationofplato (hope I remembered that correctly) and Stravinskian. The former because I greatly enjoy the ability of Zen Buddhism to articulate pretty accurate views of a complex reality into clear and concise non-technical language. The latter because it's interesting to read about the more technical/mathematical details and see some common misconceptions dispelled by someone with extensive relevant academic experience.

Plus I'm high right now, so yay.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Incidentally the alias in the locked thread seemed to think this supported creationism. I'm still scratching my head on how they got that from a theory which purports the universe has no beginning and no end.

It's also worth noting I don't believe this theory has been peer reviewed yet and its based on a science/philosopher who was influenced by krishnamuti.

I mean Einstein was a jew who some say stopped working once that conflict got to difficult, so take that with a grain of salt too.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

That is only something you assumed.

I don't believe in anything except the present moment of a unified energy manifesting in the truth of *being now*. My god, my science is the one NOW. My objective from the beginning was to demonstrate that the big bang model uses faith, just as much as religion uses faith.

Ultimately, this is to demonstrate oneness and sameness in seemingly opposing ideas, in one unified energy expressing itself with complex patterns. Science and Religion are both saying "we are the same." to me and that is what I wanted to share as my experience as a human being, which I am and have a right to.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12722841&mesg_id=12722841&listing_type=search

>That is only something you assumed.

Nope you assumed I was talking about you alias.

>I don't believe in anything except the present moment of a
>unified energy manifesting in the truth of *being now*. My
>god, my science is the one NOW. My objective from the
>beginning was to demonstrate that the big bang model uses
>faith, just as much as religion uses faith.
>
>Ultimately, this is to demonstrate oneness and sameness in
>seemingly opposing ideas, in one unified energy expressing
>itself with complex patterns. Science and Religion are both
>saying "we are the same." to me and that is what I wanted to
>share as my experience as a human being, which I am and have a
>right to.

So to repeat my question in your locked thread, are you prepared to say this theory is *it* or are you just happy for something that counter's big bang?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Also, I just answered your question. I have my personal belief which I have a right to as a human being, and finally, I just wanted to laugh at the irony of science and religion sharing faith. This is all for my personal amusement, and when I say this, I mean this entire universe.

>This is all for my personal amusement, and when
>I say this, I mean this entire universe.

"dance puppet universe"?

>Also, I just answered your question.

Nah my question was in an either or form, unless you're opting out with what you put below.

>I have my personal
>belief which I have a right to as a human being

What belief is that? An who endowed you with that right as a human being, because I mean this entire universe is here for my personal amusement too. Which means I can revoke your human rights to belief right?

>and finally,
>I just wanted to laugh at the irony of science and religion
>sharing faith.

I saw you trying to avoid the fallacy of this statement in the locked thread. I assume that was for your own amusement too. Because if you employed logic you'd realize that making a viable (even if later proven wrong) hypothesis which is consistent with the verifiable theorems already postulated isn't really faith, more like a placeholder until you receive more information.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>What belief is that? An who endowed you with that right as a
>human being, because I mean this entire universe is here for
>my personal amusement too. Which means I can revoke your human
>rights to belief right?


There is one unified universe which expresses itself through patterns which are the same to one another, but, what makes them different is their relationship to one another. As an example, all the planets in our solar system are built on the same laws and look different because of their distances to one another (relationships). There can be no foreground without the background, in order for the relationship between science and religion to illuminate our understanding of the universe, they both need to exist. They need to contrast one another so we know where and how to look using any medium we have access to including ourselves.

Someone's belief in god, or not, is NONE of anyone's business. Science has tricked itself into thinking they know the truth and take a point of authority and higher ground, with a mighty chip on their shoulder when speaking to someone whom is spiritually inclined. That is oppression and what I call the though police. What I wanted to point out is that both science and religion are built on the same ground, to illuminate how hilarious the irony of this classic struggle really is.

I believe everything is one unified living and conscious happening whose past and future is irrelevant. The importance lays in the present moment of now, that is the only time we have access to and the only time that is important and worthwhile. Looking for the beginning of a present moment is impossible, the present moment is its own suchness, and so it is eternal. The big bang is happening right now. God or religion is happening right now as well. It is all important and needed and trying to determine the *top* and correct theory is not science, and it is not religion either, it is confusion.

>
>>and finally,
>>I just wanted to laugh at the irony of science and religion
>>sharing faith.
>
>I saw you trying to avoid the fallacy of this statement in the
>locked thread. I assume that was for your own amusement too.
>Because if you employed logic you'd realize that making a
>viable (even if later proven wrong) hypothesis which is
>consistent with the verifiable theorems already postulated
>isn't really faith, more like a placeholder until you receive
>more information.
>

Placeholder. Only for the most profound reality there ever was. That's pretty hilarious. Gee, it reminds me of something called God.

For my further amusement:

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

The laws break down, do you know what that implies? It implies that the laws prove nothing because they are not present to verify their own existence. There is NOTHING to substantiate the singularity. It is taken on faith just as god is. The singularity is god and god is the singularity, in that they share ZERO evidence where physical laws are impossible, and both drive the most profound question that we have to consider.

>Placeholder. Only for the most profound reality there ever
>was. That's pretty hilarious. Gee, it reminds me of something
>called God.

Actually not at all. The difference being the concept of god to believers is infallible. It can't not be. Big Bang can be removed from the equation if more information is provided which proves it unnecessary.

>For my further amusement:
>
>"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of
>general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break
>down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the
>Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told
>Phys.org.

Technically they don't actually break down there though. It goes through bang and crunch cycles creating the multiverse, only one of which we are in. So that quote is actually a misrepresentation.

>The laws break down, do you know what that implies? It implies
>that the laws prove nothing because they are not present to
>verify their own existence. There is NOTHING to substantiate
>the singularity.

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.

> It is taken on faith just as god is. The
>singularity is god and god is the singularity, in that they
>share ZERO evidence where physical laws are impossible, and
>both drive the most profound question that we have to
>consider.

Again you're wrong, but seeing as you're just happy a couple of scientist are against the big bang...


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I love science, and I love god. However, what god means to me is far different than what god means to the mainstream.

>Actually not at all. The difference being the concept of god
>to believers is infallible. It can't not be. Big Bang can be
>removed from the equation if more information is provided
>which proves it unnecessary.
>

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.


>Technically they don't actually break down there though. It
>goes through bang and crunch cycles creating the multiverse,
>only one of which we are in. So that quote is actually a
>misrepresentation.

No, it does break down. If you don't want to take my word on it, take Michio Kaku's.

>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 are choosing to believe something that is incorrect. You are placing the flag in the wrong ground. Could it be faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346

>
>> It is taken on faith just as god is. The
>>singularity is god and god is the singularity, in that they
>>share ZERO evidence where physical laws are impossible, and
>>both drive the most profound question that we have to
>>consider.
>
>Again you're wrong, but seeing as you're just happy a couple
>of scientist are against the big bang...

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.

>I love science, and I love god. However, what god means to me
>is far different than what god means to the mainstream.

because when you use the word god all of the common associations are going to be made.

>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.

>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.

>>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 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.

>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.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

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.

And all matter is just a vibration of something unseen. From UV light to Argon, to Mercury etc its all just manifestation of the same thing at different wave/particle frequencies.

http://i.lvme.me/25hhabl.jpg