I don't really get Big Bang

[Raz]

This thread needs Kent Hovind, he'd sort this out in a jiffy.




But seriously, have you read Stephen Hawking's "Big Questions..."? Apologies if it's already been mentioned (I imagine it has...!)

 

[Blackjack Davy]

It's not god vs science.

I can call it science, call it witchcraft, call it Feek's fart after a Sunday Lunch. It doesn't matter what I call it, it's something that breaks your fundamentals of understanding. That is the point, the point that to accept Big Bang as a legit concept, you have to change the (existing) laws of what you believe in as a physicist?

You'd better avoid quantum mechanics then because that one will blow your "fundamentals of understanding" wide open.

There may be a race out there with technology so advance that goes between dimension to create universes and they speaks all the languages...and when we meet them, they call themselves the race of god.

Then your mind will be blown huh? lol

Here be Vorlons!

 

[Jokester]

I didn't say god did it, I said "it's akin to believing in god", because you are believing in something else that you spent your entire career in, i.e. physics and the Laws of Physics, now it's out the window.



There is a difference.

Even if i say God is the reason as a name placeholder...do you care? why do you care what I label it? Do you really care for the label? Really? it's just a name.

If you don't care what i label it, then what has been the last few posts about?

This is how science works. We have our best guess, then something better comes along and replaces it and the old theory gets thrown in the bin.

It doesn’t undermine science, it is science!

The label we use is “we don’t know”.

You can actually argue god/intelligent creation is a hypothesis here (this is essentially what the living in a simulation idea is ultimately), though it would be quite weak as you can’t test realistically.

 

[R.P.L]

You can actually argue god/intelligent creation is a hypothesis here (this is essentially what the living in a simulation idea is ultimately), though it would be quite weak as you can’t test realistically.

I've often said that simulation theory is theism for people who think they're too clever for religion

 

[Jokester]

I've often said that simulation theory is theism for people who think they're too clever for religion

Was reading into it the other day, when someone was saying it was more likely than not and what the basis for it was - the likelihood of a civilisation reaching the point of being able to simulate a universe is quite small, but once achieved they would in all likelihood run multiple simulations, ergo, statistically you are far more likely to be living in the simulation than not. That's it.

 

[Raymond Lin]

This is how science works. We have our best guess, then something better comes along and replaces it and the old theory gets thrown in the bin.

It doesn’t undermine science, it is science!

The label we use is “we don’t know”.

You can actually argue god/intelligent creation is a hypothesis here (this is essentially what the living in a simulation idea is ultimately), though it would be quite weak as you can’t test realistically.

As I said like hours ago, you are arguing over a label.

I don’t care what you call it, you care (way too much) what I call it.

 

[Jokester]

As I said like hours ago, you are arguing over a label.

Well, I think it is important to highlight this, because words have meanings and you were one looking to understand this?

 

[watercooledman]

But there is evidence of ancient civilizations leaving the earth with other beings

 

[Raymond Lin]

Well, I think it is important to highlight this, because words have meanings and you were one looking to understand this?

Words does have meaning, it depends how much meaning you place on it and you are giving a label way too much meaning.

You happy if I call it farts?

I don’t care what you call it, you care way too much what I call it.

Chill, I’ll start calling it Bertie if you want.

 

[R.P.L]

Was reading into it the other day, when someone was saying it was more likely than not and what the basis for it was - the likelihood of a civilisation reaching the point of being able to simulate a universe is quite small, but once achieved they would in all likelihood run multiple simulations, ergo, statistically you are far more likely to be living in the simulation than not. That's it.

I think the version that I read (a good few years ago now - I think it was a BBC article) was that it was inevitable that a civilisation would reach that stage. Therefore either we'll be the first to create that technology or we're living in a simulation, and given that each simulated civilisation would eventually create its own simulations the odds are that we're living in a simulation (which itself was created within a simulation, etc).

 

[Jokester]

I think the version that I read (a good few years ago now - I think it was a BBC article) was that it was inevitable that a civilisation would reach that stage. Therefore either we'll be the first to create that technology or we're living in a simulation, and given that each simulated civilisation would eventually create its own simulations the odds are that we're living in a simulation (which itself was created within a simulation, etc).

Fartception apparently.

 

[SPG]

We do understand though, observable evidence in how the universe is expanding is one, evidence based testing on earth which ties in to the maths that tie in that understand is how the universe is created, by evidence. Not the text of some book depending on where about you are in the world. God is ******* of the highest order based on the evidence we know of GOD or GODS.

It is not the same as breaking foundations of science at all, breaking foundations of science is based on scientific discovery i,e you think and in this case you do the math, you figure out how to test your math, you build the machine and you repeat the test then you share your test results with everyone one else thinking about the problem and they rip it apart in the name of ensuring your not pulling the wool of anyone eyes and if your good enough you move humanity on with your thinking or your wrong. Even if you are wrong it may be enough to set someone else thinking and off we go again.

Science > Faith we no longer live in caves thinking lighting is from the magical space pixie is upset with us because we ate some mushrooms we found and it switched off certain areas of the brain to allow crazy thinking.

 

[keyser]

Nothing, then massive energy, and then everything in the universe.

Asking questions like 'yes but what was before the big bang' or 'wasn't there nothing before the big bang' is outside of our current knowledge. You said there was nothing then there was the big bang. When was there nothing? Where did you get that from? The big bang theory says the universe was really small and incredibly hot - that's the opposite of nothing.

There was no 'before the big bang' because there was no 4th time dimension.

There is no outside of the universe, its just the universe.

There are no stars older than the universe (feel free to post link to info saying otherwise).

Some more recommended videos related to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

phew well done, no homework tonight

 

[i-bert]

There are no stars older than the universe (feel free to post link to info saying otherwise).

Spoilsport

It is a very interesting star though, and just goes to show how much guesswork is involved, even today.

 

[SPG]

Well it's educated guesses to a point but a guess is still a guess.

 

[Angilion]

Apparently, some stars are older than the big bang.

Try get your head around that one

Hmm...time dilation effects? Older from what frame of reference? Interesting. I'll read up on that a bit....

...a quick look finds articles on the oldest known star. Like nearly all measurements of the age of old stuff, there's a margin of error. The first measurements put it at maybe as old as 16 BY but with a huge margin of error. The most accurate measurements so far put it at 14.1 BY +- 0.7BY. So the age range is within the current best measurement of the age of the universe (~13.8BY).

But of course the early media reports just stated "Scientists find star older than the universe!!!!11111!!!!!" because that gets attention. As usual, the reality seems to be a lot less attention-grabbing. Science reporting by people who don't understand it and who are required by their job to make it hyper-simplified and sensationalist is generally crap. Even if they did understand what they were reporting on and did have the required skill to explain it in a way that would make sense to people who weren't scientists in the relevant field, the requirement to sensationalise it would be dominant.

I am not saying God exists, I am saying, believing something that can't be proven and breaks our laws of physics is believing the existence of something else, which if you think about it...breaking the laws of physics, the foundation of science, it is akin to believing in god.

Capiche?

Belief without evidence is not mandatory. As the person you replied to said, "we don't know". "We don't know" is a valid statement. I'd say it's the only honest and accurate statement when we really don't know.

Your argument reminds me of those theists who say that atheism is a religion. They're so commited to the idea of religion that they can't understand anything else. They can understand the idea of different religions, but not the idea of no religion.

 

[SpeedFreak]

I think the version that I read (a good few years ago now - I think it was a BBC article) was that it was inevitable that a civilisation would reach that stage. Therefore either we'll be the first to create that technology or we're living in a simulation, and given that each simulated civilisation would eventually create its own simulations the odds are that we're living in a simulation (which itself was created within a simulation, etc).

I'm pretty sure the arguement is that as we have not developed the capability yet, that would make us the last in the chain, which is therefore highly improbable.

 

[Angilion]

Believing in unexplainable things is not comparable to believing in a deity at all. There is no sense in that comparison. Just because the birth of the universe is currently unexplainable, doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it. This is what people are saying when they deduce that 'well, it must be God then.' and that is what atheists take issue with.

unexplainable = God? It just...no. No.

I find it kind of odd that some theists are fine with worshipping ignorance. That's the core of the argument - if what we can't explain is god, then god is ignorance and ignorance is god. And their god is constantly diminishing as more is understood. In their past, lighting was their god. Disease was their god. Gravity was their god. Sunrise and sunset was their god. Etc, etc, etc. Weird.

I can sort of understand theists who believe that their god(s) created the universe and the way it works and set it running. I can sort of understand theists who believe that their god(s) can change stuff if they choose to (but usually don't). I can sort of understand theists who believe that their god(s) played a more active role in the past, directing things. It's like a scaled-up Sim City type game played by someone who also made the game. But theists who flat out worship ignorance? I don't understand them at all.

 

[Angilion]

But there is evidence of ancient civilizations leaving the earth with other beings

Is there really? All the "evidence" I've seen is stories about great heroes who ascend to somewhere else, usually with a claim that they will return to save the land when it most needs them. King Arthur, for example. That's not evidence of anything apart from a comforting belief.

I recently read the "Assassin" trilogy by Robin Hobb. Great storytelling. It's a fantasy story. Mostly about politics, but with elements of magic. Rather like the Song of Ice and Fire books by George R. R. Martin in that respect (and about the same age). Anyway...one of the key characters is a prince of a country under attack and failing. As a last ditch measure, he undertakes a quest to find a remote location barely known to ancient stories in order to seek magical aid from some mythical beings who allegedly aided the country in the distant past and who promised they would do so again when required. He finds them, but they are statues of dragons made of a magic stone and require lifeforce to animate them. He uses magic to put his whole self into one of them. Everything of himself. He dies as a result, but the statue is animated, drives off the invaders (melee weapons and hand bows aren't much use against a flying stone statue) and saves his country. The people of the country come to believe that their great hero-king (his father died during the war, so he became king) rode on the back of a dragon to save the country and then ascended to the land of the dragons to live in glory forever and would return to defend the country in its hour of greatest need. Why did they believe that? Because it was a comforting belief. And because minstrels told that story.

 

[Eurofighter]

The universe could be bigger than we think and things could go smaller than we think. There could have been something before the big bang, who knows.

Science only explains what it can prove and is constantly being updated and admits it was wrong. So I think there is a place for the belief in God and the afterlife.

Maybe even religion has some good points. Not that I will be going to church any time soon.