spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
Can someone please explain to me what initiated the big bang and caused inflation? I have a hard time understanding.
Explain to me
- Thread starter spoilsport
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
As do I. I'm curious, spoilsport. Do you find the fact that you or, for that matter, science, sometimes "have a hard time understanding" compelling evidence for something?
Are you inquiring to what way the big bang is related to money problems within the world??
What caused the big bang? God! He created it as an environment for his creatures to live in.
Something cannot come from nothing!!! If there is nothing (nothing at all), then nothing can come into being because there is absolutely nothing. There had to be something in the beginning, and this was God.
I don't think the big bang was as random as is reported. God just put his hands out and the universe grew in the space between them. Within the space was a ball of fire (the sun) and planets that circle it. Given that it is all an illusion anyway 'outer space' is not actually in existence. We can't leave the planet anyway, however other planets were created to entertain us, and to question our faith.
Last edited:
The above statement is used on such frequent occasions by thiests and yet without trying to sound harsh- it is total and utter poop.
why say there was nothing? If there was 'nothing' how can anything come from nothing? Including god.. how can he will himself into existence if he doesn't exist? So there must have been something? Ok, so why must that something be god? Can't you just replace the 'god' word with universe/atoms {whatever}?
Can anyone really comprehend infinity? Could you comprehend infinity in reverse? Ok, the universe need not have been in its current state, but that's not to suggest there ever was a time when there was nothing at all. If god's "always" been there, then why can't the universe have always been there?
Even if there was a being that created everything how could anyone even begin to contemplate what/who he/it is? How many different beliefs in godly beings have there been in history? Now one person thinks they can honestly sit down and say everyone else is completely wrong but they are right? Based on the word of unknown ancient people/their mothers/their pastors? I find it obscene.
There is something I think much people are misunderstanding about the big bang. The theory, though likely, only explains the expending of the universe, not its origins.
note- people who believe in god with the excuse that there couldnt be anything in the beginning are completely out of the track. If God, in a spiritish or material way, was there in the beginning, then what made god? how can something unexistant, like Snake said, create itself?
note- people who believe in god with the excuse that there couldnt be anything in the beginning are completely out of the track. If God, in a spiritish or material way, was there in the beginning, then what made god? how can something unexistant, like Snake said, create itself?
spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
I think this Crystal person is a cocky, 32 year-old virgin, waste of flesh who has nothing better to do than eat cheetos and badmouth people he doesn't know from the comfort of his parents' basement.
spoilsport
Registered Senior Member
Maybe not compelling evidence. I just think it is important every now and then to note that science (real scientific method science, not throw something out there science) can't really come to a conclusion on everything.
Also, the question is real though. I was not sure if there are any theories on what initiated inflation. Last I'd read (a book that was written several years ago) there wasn't, but that doesn't mean there aren't any generally accepted theories now.
Would you find it less obscene if you knew who they were?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Originally posted by Jan Ardena & SnakeLord
why say there was nothing?
So was the universe always in existence?
You say god was always in existance. What if it was the
Universe who was? it is as possible and surely much more probable. The main idea of the "god" belief is to fill the blanks when it comes to our origins and our futures, because people can't handle the idea of "being alone".
If there was 'nothing' how can anything come from nothing? Including god..
Why include God?
Because spirits count as "something" aswell, don't they? If there was no spirit to create another spirit, then how did it happen?
how can he will himself into existence if he doesn't exist?
What if He does exist, and due to Him being pure spirit doesn't come into existence anymore than He ceases to exist?
You mentionned that there was nothing... make up your mind
So there must have been something? Ok, so why must that something be god?
Why don't you give some ideas as to what/whom it could be.
It is easily replaceable by "Universe" or "atoms". (and there we obtain a much more likely result)
Can't you just replace the 'god' word with universe/atoms {whatever}?
Replacing words are easy, but it won't make it necasserily right.
There would be no point replacing the word "God" with universe or atoms, as it is the creation of these phenomenea we are concerned with.
Wrong. It is the creation of what was there first - and the "god" theory cannot be said better than the fact that the universe was always there.
Even if there was a being that created everything how could anyone even begin to contemplate what/who he/it is?
That being would have to be intelligent, right?
Could it be possible that it/him/she (well....you gotta be P.C. have'nt yer) made everything from some of their own energy, and as a result, we are part and parcel of this being.
We are part and parcel of the result of the expension of the Universe, and that is much more proven than the fact that God made us all and blah blah blah. Also, it depends on what you consider intelligent. Humans aren't for sure.
How many different beliefs in godly beings have there been in history?
So what?
So... all but one have to be wrong. Or even, all of them. Why is it not you?
Now one person thinks they can honestly sit down and say everyone else is completely wrong but they are right?
Personally, i don't believe that is how it works.
It is exactly how it works when it comes to persons talking about God's existance and his realisations.
Based on the word of unknown ancient people/their mothers/their pastors? I find it obscene.
Would you find it less obscene if you knew who they were?
I think the point was, you're believing unproven, unlikely, contradictory, and partly idiotic things that you've gotten from ancien people's mothers' mothers' mothers' pastors' pastors and so on.
Love,
Mithadon
As always avoid answering a question by asking a question. That's all well and good but then there's no need to respond at all. I might aswell just have a chat with myself. Kindly answer a question and then ask one in return. Thanks.
I would be a fool to even assume i could answer that question with any certainty. So would you. Instead what people do is look at available evidence. Your evidence is a book written by people who thought the world was flat. Enough said.
As an addon to that:
Religions and personal beliefs aside you seem to have "answered" something by concluding that there must have been a time where there was nothing- and yet there must have been something, (in your eyes, god), to have made everything. Kindly tell me how you know there was a time where there was nothing.
Shame there was no answer, (again), in your reply. If you feel you can't answer then don't. Kindly stop wasting my time.
It's a common asked question: "how can something come from nothing?" The same could be said in return whenever you claim there must be a god. If you say: "gods always been there", the same would apply to the universe itself. Now, were you going to answer any of my questions?
Yet another non existant answer, just a question because you are unwilling or unable.
But to answer yours: If it does exist then it does. We are hardly at a position of understanding to be saying "it does, end of case."
There's a surprise. Next you'll probably ask me to type your posts for you. I gave you an idea, you just ignored it. Nevermind.
Finally, some kind of answer, bravo bravo.
It's creation you're concerned with heh. Well who's to say anything was "created"? That's the point.
Wouldn't know, never met it.
Anything's possible. "Possible" isn't a yes or no answer... it's inriguing to see how many people think they have that answer.
Another great answer... So many gods.. overwhelmingly created at a time when nobody knew much. They couldn't explain tides, earthquakes, lightning, the reason for the wind, why people died, and so on... In such a position, and knowing just how destructive the essences can be, they put a "picture" to them. A god of water who got pissed off and drowned people, a god in the sky who would strike people down with lightning etc. It's also intriguing to see how these gods have passed from culture to culture, and morphed a great deal along the way. Hundreds, if not thousands, of deities or one deity in charge of everything. It was science. It was the answer to unanswerable questions. I see you, many thousand years later, doing the exact same thing. Nowadays nobody sits down and makes new gods, they just sit down and do a lottery between the ancient man's few thousand versions.
We have evolved and progressed whereby we have answered many questions. We know why earthquakes happen, why lightning strikes, why the wind blows. If they had have known all this back then would they have needed to add a face to everything?
We are still exceptionally far from knowing many things and of course many still need to put a face to that which they do not understand.
It happens often.
Sure.
I would be a fool to even assume i could answer that question with any certainty. So would you. Instead what people do is look at available evidence. Your evidence is a book written by people who thought the world was flat. Enough said.
As an addon to that:
Religions and personal beliefs aside you seem to have "answered" something by concluding that there must have been a time where there was nothing- and yet there must have been something, (in your eyes, god), to have made everything. Kindly tell me how you know there was a time where there was nothing.
Shame there was no answer, (again), in your reply. If you feel you can't answer then don't. Kindly stop wasting my time.
It's a common asked question: "how can something come from nothing?" The same could be said in return whenever you claim there must be a god. If you say: "gods always been there", the same would apply to the universe itself. Now, were you going to answer any of my questions?
Yet another non existant answer, just a question because you are unwilling or unable.
But to answer yours: If it does exist then it does. We are hardly at a position of understanding to be saying "it does, end of case."
There's a surprise. Next you'll probably ask me to type your posts for you. I gave you an idea, you just ignored it. Nevermind.
Finally, some kind of answer, bravo bravo.
It's creation you're concerned with heh. Well who's to say anything was "created"? That's the point.
Wouldn't know, never met it.
Anything's possible. "Possible" isn't a yes or no answer... it's inriguing to see how many people think they have that answer.
Another great answer...
So many gods.. overwhelmingly created at a time when nobody knew much. They couldn't explain tides, earthquakes, lightning, the reason for the wind, why people died, and so on... In such a position, and knowing just how destructive the essences can be, they put a "picture" to them. A god of water who got pissed off and drowned people, a god in the sky who would strike people down with lightning etc. It's also intriguing to see how these gods have passed from culture to culture, and morphed a great deal along the way. Hundreds, if not thousands, of deities or one deity in charge of everything. It was science. It was the answer to unanswerable questions. I see you, many thousand years later, doing the exact same thing. Nowadays nobody sits down and makes new gods, they just sit down and do a lottery between the ancient man's few thousand versions.We have evolved and progressed whereby we have answered many questions. We know why earthquakes happen, why lightning strikes, why the wind blows. If they had have known all this back then would they have needed to add a face to everything?
We are still exceptionally far from knowing many things and of course many still need to put a face to that which they do not understand.
It happens often.
Sure.
Originally posted by Mithadon
Is this a scientific statement, or a personal one? If former, please give source.
You say “main” idea of God belief, this leaves room for other ideas, what are they?
According to the Bhagavad Gita, the nature of spirit is pure consciousness, it neither comes into being nor ceases to be, it is classified as sat = eternal cit =full of knowledge and ananda = blissfull
Did I?
Maybe you should read it again.
It may be more likely to some, but it is ultimately none satisfactory, so in order to unfold the mystery, we must delve more deeply into the subject and hopefully gain more understanding.
How so, when it is predicted that all physical theories breakdown at the beginning and end of the universe? How do you come to that conclusion from a scientific perspective?
Right or wrong in what? My actions? I will tell you from now, I am most of the time wrong.
What we are talking about here, is the obvious and not obvious. Physicists are using their skills and know-how to determine what actually took place before the/a big-bang. It may now be obvious that there was a big-bang, but what was prior to it is not obvious. So now we are at the stage where we can include the idea of an uncaused entity which puts all the theories into some sort of perspective, or not.
Have I done that so far?
I know what you’re trying to do, but from that statement alone, I can tell you really have no idea about God other than the institutionalised, dogmatic understanding of religion. I’ll be straight with you, I find that tedious and foolish, if that was what God was about, I would probably be here banging out similar rhetoric to yours.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Originally posted by SnakeLord
Don’t be silly, I am not avoiding the question, I just want to know exactly where you are coming from. Hopefully in this way I can give a more informed answer, instead of assuming.
I am not trying to compete with you, I seriously would like to know whether you think it always existed or not. I am not asking you to say for sure, but which of the evidences do you lean toward.
I’ve answered nothing, all I did was ask you a question. Now can you stop being defensive and paranoid, so we can engage in this discussion?
The concept of “God” assumes that on the intelligence and will of God everything else depends. God, in virtue of being God, does not depend on any other being for His existence, but is required for the explanation of the universe which would otherwise be a “brute or irrational fact”. And by its very nature, the principle of explanation on which science is based cannot be founded on brute-irrational facts. And if it is, it is a claim that there is no explanation for the universe and we should expect none.
If it/He does. Why not?
There are two ways to explain the ultimate origin of the universe; something coming from nothing, or, there is a pre-existing something causing or evolving into something else. In principle, modern science cannot see it any other way, as it cannot deal with nothingness. Its involvement is to study a comprehensible system of processes, laws, entities and structures or in other words “secondary causes.”
The idea that everything came into existence without a cause is irrational, and…well….downright silly (imho), and would be extemely difficult to formulate some kind of hypothesis that could taken seriously.
Well think about it, to create such thing as this universe, must take some serious intelligence. It stands to reason.
It sure is!
Science and technology has come a long way, but neither can answer the most profound questions. In fact due to such grandeur, we know less now (in term of origin) than some of those people you verbally tread on, in my opinion of-couse. Knowing why the wind blows is fine, give the people a drink, cigar, and a night in Betty Boobys brothel, but in all seriousness, it doesn’t matter why it blows, as long as it does.
Many, but not all.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Aha..... *snooze*. Want me to ask them again? I really don't think they required all that much to answer. Here's a recap of one:
That rules out any notion that there was a time with "nothing". Imagine asking someone many thousands of years ago to answer this question. Either way it would seem there must have been something. However in the absence of an answer it doesn't mean we must accept any answer. On the one side we have some big invisible spirit thing that made some beings which he loves dearly. he then needed to send his son, (one third of himself), to save them because they were naughty. He also created a red guy with horns to punish those who were naughty. On the other side we have " a bunch of gases..etc"
Both could be wrong, both could be right. As such making a definite choice is, imo, a tad premature. If you decided to go along with the available evidence, the "a bunch of gases" is actually in a better position. Of course you could just say evidence is irrelevant. I can't do that, i'm sorry.
Yeah, and there were many things i seriously would have like to have known, but you didn't answer any of them. However, i wont hold that against you, and i'll still answer your question:
If nothing exists, nothing exists- including any type of godly being. Seeings that nothing actually exists there would be nothing. Even god would have an impossible task willing himself into existence if he didn't exist. But what is nothing? I mean, even if there's nothing there must be something right? Are humans even at a level of understanding where they can comprehend the idea of nothing? Can you wrap your head round the idea of nothing, or infinity? How do you image nothing? If you said just a black void it would still suggest something would it not? And so, in 2003, we're still completely clueless as to understanding of complete and utter nothingness. I dread to imagine the position mankind would have been in regarding this, several thousand years ago. It's like the question of questions.. Where does the universe end? What's outside it? Ok, nobody can answer that, and i apologise. However an answer can't just be accepted because mankind doesn't have one. Hell, we can't even comprehend the concept of it. I'd like to see a several thousand year old man do better.
Oh really, i never noticed.
Defense and paranoia are irrelevant to this discussion. However, answering a question would be nice. I do understand we're talking in the realms of the non-understandable- that shouldn't stop you from at least trying.
Well i hate to say it but the universe doesn't depend on other beings either. Even if i were kind enough to just state you're correct, please tell me what credence that would give to any human being able to state he knows that god in any way, shape or form. In 2003 humans still can't sit down and agree, but many will just sit down- read a translated text based on older stories, and accept them as complete undeniable fact. The sumerians wrote about a whole bunch of gods and some other funky things like half men/half scorpions. Should i just accept it as fact? Of course not. But isn't that how it works? Isn't it a "pick one, the rest are wrong" kind of scenario? Remember, everyone has texts. These texts speak about amazing things. They're all old and way before the time of scientific undertsanding and yet they remain for our viewing pleasure. I hate to say it but the author of isiaah for instance has no more credibility than the author of gilgamesh. So, you tell me how we distinguish the truth from the fiction. And also tell me why there must be a truth somewhere within this pile of rocks and papyrus'. Have we really got any closer to truth because of these artifacts? Have they really answered anything, except the world is flat and theres a big lump of water in space? Wouldn't observable facts lend credence to older texts? For instance: If the Sumerians had have mentioned all the planets, the kupier belt etc etc 5,000+ years ago- would that not lend credence to the fact that they had facts it's taken thousands of years to gather? Would it seem more credible somehow that a god who loves humans exists if the texts were full to the brim with wrong scientific knowledge? The excuse is generally: "why would god bother those people with facts?" I find that pretty weak to be honest.
Instead what we do have is a highly scientifically false set of texts. Modern day man is lucky enough to have facts in certain areas. Thousands of years ago all man had were assumptions. Yet for some bizarre reason people are more willing to accept them. Agreed, we need answers. Agreed we don't live all that long, and we could just state "The earth is flat, there is a vast chamber of water in the expanse above, and there is a being watching us", but in the end it's about truth, not need for answer. As i said, i agree we need answers- but truth takes precedence.
Is there a sudden urgency? Ok, we can't just answer it... That doesn't make every other assumption, fact. I will admit it: I cannot comprehend infinity. To me, everything must end somewhere- how can anything go on forever? I could find any available answer for my lack of understanding or i could understand that i don't understand and search. While the "answer" would make me more comfortable in the short run, it will only fail long term, As an example:
You're taken hostage by some maniac guy with a sawn off shotgun. How do you react?
Sure, i could give you an answer: I'd be cool, i'd speak to the guy, be nice and help him out until he gives himself up.
That's an answer. The truth will not arrive until i am in that position. While the answer was easy, and made me feel cool, it has absolutely no bearing on reality until it is proven. In the same way none of us can state we know the origins of man/universe/god/whatever. We can all give an answer- but it means nothing.
But anyway tell me Jenyar... what would you do if you were abducted by crazed lunatic terrorists and held at gunpoint?
All you need look at is the very first word in your quote.
To the understanding of a year 2003 human brain, yes.
Science or humans? Don't stray from the path and please answer this questions: If nothing exists how can anything come into being- including god? Is it a scientific lack of understanding or a human one?
What do we see and understand? That things progress and 'evolve'. From abacus to calculators, horse and carriage to lamborghini countach. From catepillar to butterfly, young to old and so on. From the most basic to the most complex, everything changes, adapts and evolves. Even our understanding evolves. There is no quick answer, no quick solution- it is a process that like all others, takes time.
The idea that everything came into existence because of a big invisible entity is irrational, and..well... downright silly (imho)
While it is comforting to give a reason for everything, (i.e bob got run over because he was nasty, i didn't win the lottery because im unlucky, the boiler broke because it's winter), you can't give a cause for everything, especially that which we're not at a stage to understand.
If we were to understand infinity wouldn't it seem relevant to suggest that seeings as everything, (in its basic form), did exist that things can change, adapt and evolve? To this day we see it happen. If there wasn't a time where there was nothing, then there's no reason to suggest otherwise. You'd have to work on the premise that there once was nothing. Yet if there was nothing- there'd still be nothing, including god. You can't get anything from nothing.
Why? I grabbed some simple chemicals and threw them together. It blew my house up. I can guarantee there was no intelligence there, (chemical knowledge speaking), and yet if you dissect the event it seems miraculous. To think i blew my bed 50 feet away is remarkable and yet it didn't take any intelligence to accomplish- just the bringing together of certain chemicals. Maybe if i mixed some more chemicals and waited a few millennium i could make a big rock. Imagine if i could do that experiment and make it large scale. Then give me a few billion years i might even be able to create bipeds. All it takes is some chemicals to make amino acids and a lot of time.
Neither can you. Well, just like any of us, you can give an answer. Your chosen answer does not neccesarily constitute fact. Given the situation, it seems more pertinent to follow modern day man instead of ancient shepherds.
Kindly cite the evidence. And yet what do you go by? Are we talking hebrew texts? What about the predating sumerian texts that those hebrew texts are based on?
We can all make assumptions, here's one for you now:
My assumption is that early mankind also had the ability to make assumptions.
And yet you seem to be taking their word as complete fact. Why would you do that? (please answer)
But please, i am anxiously waiting for you to show me how they knew more than we do. At this point we could argue that they would have been closer to the event, and as such known more truth about it than we would- but then i'd ask you to kindly go read sumerian which predates, and is the template to the biblical accounts. I guess because they were a lot closer to the 'origin' that they must be right. All bow down and worship Marduk, Anu, Tiamat etc etc etc!
Simple as that heh? (I will ignore the pointless comment before that). I find the attitude shocking.
Indeed. This is a question you can only ask yourself, i will not answer for you: Those things we actually know. How did we end up with the answers?
Last edited:
invisibleone
Registered Senior Member
we are the universe, and never seperate from it. . . It doesn't really matter where we came from, or where we're going. . .this conscious energy could go on forever and we'd be none the wiser.
Originally posted by SnakeLord
I don’t recall stating that there was a time when there was nothing, that is just an assumption. I don’t believe that there is a time when there is nothing, I believe that matter is eternal, but the universe is not. I believe that matter has two stages, manifest and unmanifest. The manifest stage is what we can observe scientifically, it falls within the known physical laws, but the unmanifest stage is not observable, and therefore in the realm of scientific understanding could easily amount to “nothing.”
On the contrary, I am most interested in the available evidence, and which one you think has relevance. So lets not bash each other, eh!.
Good question. I think “nothing” is a relative statement.
It seems that we are in some agreement. From our own perspectives “nothing” cannot exist, so it rules out the possibility of “something comes from nothing.”
No need to apologise, this is good. So we don’t believe there was a time when there was nothing, we don’t know where the universe ends, or what is outside the universe.
It is not that man doesn’t have an answer, it is that man doesn’t have an answer that is totally satisfactory. On the one hand we have the modern scientists who, based on their observations, know, to some degree, how the known universe came into existence and how its laws work. On the other hand we have the Vedas which give knowledge of how this and innumerable other universes come and go from existence from the will of a supreme being (God).
Can we, through the agency of both sources, know exactly the answers to your above questions?
I strongly believe we can, and we should endeavour to try.
I will sincerely try and answer your questions, but sometimes I will ask questions, so I get a better picture, not as an evasion tactic.
Then what is the point of our existence? Why are we able to seek out our origin?
That goes for anything, science as well as religion, as well as sex, as well as Harry Potter. But this has nothing to do with this thread. Maybe you should start a new one concerning these points.
Science isn’t a new thing, we already talked about scientific development in the old testement. I think what you are referring to is “modern science” which is more potent due to the development of technology. Serious modern scientists are still willing to look into the idea of an uncaused intelligent being who created the universe.
I disagree, with the scientific advancement of the last 100 years, there are a lot of similarities between the findings, and the vedic accounts of cosmology, which is partly why some eminent scientists (past and present) take/are taking scriptural accounts a little more seriously.
Try and take you mind away from dogmatic, institutionalised religion, this is no good for anybody, and is certainly not my inspiration (for want of a better word). But in saying that, I do believe the Bible to be a true scripture, despite the various translations.
It is Jan Ardena actually.
I have absolutely no idea, as I have never encountered such an experience. But I imagine reactions would differ according to each individual.
How would it be any different say………….2000 years ago?
Generally, science means “knowledge,” it is not therefore subject to physical, bio-logical or chemical knowledge alone, although that could be believed given the attitude of some folks. If “nothing” exists, then that means we “know” it exists and can therefore draw some conclusion based on reason and logic, that nothing can come from “nothing,” including God. But why would there be any need for us to question our origin?
I see your point, but time is relevant, your limit may be different from mine, or anybody elses.
Its not. Because something is invisible to our sense of sight, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, the development of scientific technology should convince you of that.
Okay, but based on all observances, can you tell me of anything which does not have a cause, something that comes into being by itself?
I think we both agree that if “nothing” does exists, it is beyond our perception, so why do you think it is irrational that God is cause of everything?
If I were to follow someone, it would not be based on what time they existed.
I said it was my opinion, I am entitled to those aren’t I? But I will give one basic reason why I think this. WMD’s.
Isn’t this some kind of logical fallacy? Who says I take their word as complete fact?
Do you take the modern mans word as complete fact?
Apparently, the cosmological theories, which have been put forward in modern times, are very similar to scripture, namely vedic literature, namely the Bhagavat Purana, this would indicate that scientific knowledge of the origin of the universe has been around for thousands of years
What’s more important, knowing how the wind blows or it ceasing to blow? Can knowledge of how it blows be useful if it should one day stop blowing? If yes, How?
And what previous statement are you referring to?
Love
Jan Ardena.
That means, like us, the universe is a conscious being and like us, it would question it own origin, so even this concept has a need for an original cause.
Love
Jan Ardena.