Big Bang relation to creation myths.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Of course its true I am never wrong ☺

    I was just so happy to arrive back after a good sleep and see your post.

    When I have more time I will correct all your errors☺

    I will now have something to eat and sit down after dinner to read all you have written and look at the vids...its going to be a great Friday night.

    I have been thinking however this expansion they work that out from red shift and its probably a case of the light interacting with dust or something which means the universe is not expanding ... that seems reasonable and I cant imagine why someone hasnt come up with that.

    Actually might have an early night and get some rest as I feel very very tired.

    Thanks again.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    that is against site rules.
    regardles of paddaboy being either an agnostic secular diocese cult leader or an ambivilent omnipresent god, making a thread about a member to directly confront or target that member is clearly against site rules and against safe site web practices around anti-bullying.
    not very scientific either.
    maybe ok in a private hub where they are a member and you know each other.

    being unable to seperate the theory from the person argueing it defines an attachment of your ego to their ego.
    this suggests a certain amount of co-dependancy or Obsessive compulsiveness.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No mention in the article of any magnetic field.
    That is in the article.....Without getting into any nonsense with you river, of which you are noted for, I'll just parrot what James said........Your general claims/inferences etc are either simply stupidity or you are trolling.
    From you previous "my cosmology"thread......
    "Even for the Pseudoscience forum, this thread looks like a waste of everybody's time. river obviously has very little idea what a scientific theory looks like. This could be stupidity or it could be trolling; it's a bit hard to tell. Either way, it looks like the time to close this thread is fast approaching."
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    While you maybe playing Devil's Advocate, the first article is speculative in some regards, and they make that obvious.....
    The Laurence Krauss link, actually both links, perhaps require a newly defined "Nothing" In essence, perhaps the quantum foam and the uncertainty entailed within, is as close to nothing as is possible.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i have watched a live debate of Laurence & Richard debating with some others.

    ive rarely met & conversed with any theologan supporting folk who can hold 2 sentences together to engage anywhere near intellectualy close enough to give creedance to the time given to listen to them, as much as they might object, 'belief' is not a counter point to scientific fact.
    That point seems lost on a majority.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The reason why they apparently cant put two sentences together, is they have no evidence to support their creation concepts which anyway are unscientific.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I'm none of those things. I'm a supporter of science and the scientific method, pure and simple, and no, I don't believe it is against any rules, at least I'm not complaining.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Let me know how it works out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    In my comfortable dumbness I would have gone for NOTHING as a default condition

    However since there appears to be lots of SOMETHING around seems my dumbness is incorrect

    Scientists say it is impossible for NOTHING to exist (easy to say when you are surrounded with lots of SOMETHING)

    And somethings of the SOMETHING always leak into regions where scientists are trying to produce (construct?) a NOTHING zone. So again simple to say NOTHING cannot exist (Perhaps hard to say "We cannot produce a NOTHING zone)

    So as I see the problem - scientists need to produce a NOTHING zone, which they cannot currently do

    If they do, they have to monitor it and see if the NOTHING zone produces anything

    Then need to check if the something produced from the NOTHING is original or a leaked in SOMETHING from us

    If if if it really is original but but but looks exactly like our SOMETHING how would you know?

    Perhaps every NOTHING is the same as every other NOTHING and all of them can only produce one type of SOMETHING

    Over to the experts and thanks for nothing

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Hi Rainbow

    I did not realise it was against the rules and I also assure you that I had no intention to bully Paddoboy.

    I dont know but that sounds somewhat nasty unless you actually are convinced that either of those descriptions are appropriate.

    Are you haveing a shot at Paddoboy? IF you are that may be against the rules I expect.

    I think if you look through all I wrote you could reasonably conclude that the post was not about Paddoboy.

    And although I accept that you may have something that you feel needs pointing out I would say that there was not a hint of bullying and I certainly would not bully anyone.

    A reasonable observation on your part but you may care to note I did not say that my post was scientific and I would think my casual style would make your observation unnecessary... also I did not post in the science section.

    If you are going to flash rules and dictate conduct perhaps you could be specific...maybe and rules dont go in the one box really.

    Your general approach suggests to me that perhaps you are the one with some sort of problem as I cant believe you wrote your two descriptions of Paddoboy with a kind heart....the introduction was a bit of a throw away but you seem to have seized on that introduction whilst ignoring the more pithy parts of my long long posts with a very curious☺ preoccupation with Paddoboy rather than say being concerned that before you is a mug (me) saying the most widly accepted cosmology is no more than a religious prank...maybe Paddoboy is of more interest to you.

    In any event I think the separation you call for is rather apparent really.

    Are you qualified to make such an observation or did you learn that from someone you visit to consult on such matters.

    I find it a curious thing to say.

    However your post has given me a great deal to think about and so I thank you for your wonderful contribution to this thread.

    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Are you full of the Christmas spirit (not the alcohol type) or are the pain killers working overtime?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well of course its speculative.
    My speculation is there was always something merely because the last point of reasonable certainty it "a hot dense state" which is something.

    And I could not feel comfortable describing the region where particles pop in and out of existence as nothing.
    Moreover I do have this "thing" about nothing with a bottom line conclusion that nothing can not exist simply because if there is nothing there must be something☺.

    Perhaps the safest thing is to avoid speculation past what we are reasonably certain about...for me that does not give me any room to speculate at all☺

    Thanks again nice posts.
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I may have had too many but I do appreciate folk who speak their mind and perhaps by being civil and polite I hope to build the foundations for a mutual respect.

    Now I cant sleep so I have put 1000 captures in the lappy for a will either come out very bad or a really great photo when processed.

    Maybe I will spend twenty minutes and develop a new cosmology but I dont have any eggs...or a catholic priest☺

    I spend a lot of time reading about cosmology and there are some great short vids out there... and astronomy, and ancient times history wars animals insects earthquakes weather music medicine humans ...I dont know how people have time for fiction ...although I spend time with reigion and that is sortta fiction I guess...but I see it more like history..I am into the Summarians at the moment...their stories seem to have given rise to the flood and other stuff.

    I am starting to think the flood happened...guess where the bible got their flood story☺

    Yes maybe too many pills but its so good not to feel that pain...they took away my leg pain so that is a nice holiday....but no more when these are finished...I think pain is a good thing its your body saying it in pain so go easy.
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Hi, naming members in threads to make them about them in any attempt to agravate them etc or to illicit member response to rally against a member will be squarely in the "over the line" bracket.
    worded to be scientific and asking for debate would not be.
    the mods have probably not noticed the thread and there haas been no reporting of it i should imagine so hence no mod note.

    the line between what you have done and trolling a member is fairly thin.

    although i have not read the site rules from to back recently.
    i may do that tomorrow out of curiosity.

    i was joking.
    making an extreme situation where calling out a member and making a thread about them etc...
    is it ok to make a thread about a member if they are a person you dont like etc etc... and all that stuff im not going to type out.

    yes i see your replys.
    you dont seem to be annoyed.

    i could simply ask you the same question...
    what qualification have you to discus god ?

    note you only give 2 options for me to answer.
    there are many more difficerent options
    your question is "am i clinically licensed to practice psychiatry"?. that answer is no.
    and... my comments were observational suggestions of theme. not any diagnosis.
    generaly you seem ok to discus things with and on the whole very polite. which is quite admirable

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well thank goodness there is at least a thin line that separates my action from trolling.

    I have considered all you have said and claim first that all my actions were without guilty intent.. second I ask for mercy in your judgement.

    Well you could do that but before you do could you answer my question please.

    That is not the same question that I asked you.

    My qualificatuon to discuss God stems from my study of literature, ( storytelling and myths) history ( how stories and myths were often taken from earlier civilisations (the biblecal flood being tracable to the Summarians) and astronomy or rather in this context astrology which traces how folk personified stars and incorporated Solar events around the personification of the Sun, worshipped early as God, and the many humans who followed this astrology format, notably JC, to lend authority to their claim that although human they were the Son of God and God at the same time.

    Fortunately I have not been brain washed to accept bronze age superstition and so that puts me well placed to discuss mythical Gods and humans making the unsupportable claim that they were a God as I can approach the matter rationally and without a vested interest in proving there is a non existent creator.

    I also went to Sunday school and sang in the church choir...makes me over qualified perhaps☺.

    I thought it was clear that I was indeed seeking the answer to that unasked question.

    I did not want to point out that for you to make the observation that you made one would need some sort of qualification else such an unsolicited observation by you could be seen as sour grapes.

    Then I wonder why you could ask such a question when you did not know what you were talking about.

    It seems you have some issue that you are unable to express past your interesting initial qualification of Paddoboy.

    Why does he present as God like to you?

    I note the motivation but really given your lack qualification I cant honestly attach any value ...sorry.
    Thank you ... now that you have listed your various concerns is there anything that you would like to discuss?
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I speculate that it is not☺.

    For one reason than its smacks of a God event.

    I dont like speculation in these areas.

    Another reason I could say is because it gives science a bad and scientists should avoid such speculation and limit the theory to the ground it has marked out....these theists who level critisism at the BBT often scoff and say "well it could not have come from nothing" and I often wonder where they get that...
    My reaction is ..but the theory does not say that but here we have speculation arming theists with misinformation.

    The theory does not explain the initial event and certainly nothing before it...and although speculation is interesting I fear it only gives theists a basis for their ridicule.
    Why not speculate the hot dense what ever was left over soup from Gods lunch...or that the hot dense whatever had existed as hot any dense for enternity...

    The cat in the box gives no licence for such wild speculation.

    And frankly the further this speculation leans to something from nothing the more I feel the theory is being guided to fit in God and make religion part of science.

    And no doubt given the preoccupation George had with his cosmic egg I think my accusation of his particular motivation is reasonable ... as I said science does not go...I have an idea that I like so now let me muster some science to prove my idea...seeking proof in this manner must hint at the does not prove things...and yet our cosmology exhibits a flavour of we proved this and we proved on my understanding makes an observation and then offers a model that best explains the observation...Big Bang cosmology did not follow that course.

  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Steady state expects the universe to be flat and the same big deal.

    I submit the perceived problem of matter creation although not solved by humans may well have been solved by the universe.

    The BBT predicts light where is the lithium? Well it was here but through the process we figured out it has now gone.

    Pity the Steady State supporters could not have been that inventive☺.

    I guess I just can not get around ( as well as the original lets prove the cosmic egg approach) being ok with a universe that grew from grape fruit to 100 billion light years diameter in a zillionth etc of a arguement from ignorance no doubt but faced with steady state and a cosmic egg universe upon which wouldcthe razor do the most damage.

    Pointing to the body of work and people etc although impressive means little as to validity...look at the church..the learning the books the well thought out rules certainly has a formitable array of knowledge history and achievement but is it founded on a fundamental truth that a human was a God...I doubt that could be so but the church goes on retelling its story... the BBT club although armed with better reseach could also be founded in a fundamental misconception and certainly those reasearching will not work to uncover the misconception but to prove all and any observation proves the theory.

    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    In the final analysis, the universe had no other choice as to evolve from "nothing": It's just perhaps your defining of nothing may need redefining. eg: Perhaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing as we can get and that it has existed for eternity...yes more speculation.
    Nup, that's contradictory as even any unscientific aspect of any deity must also have evolved from nothing. But lets listen to probably the greatest educator of our time, in my opinion of course! [only 1.5 minutes long.
    All science begins with speculation, even GR. And of course as the BB/GR only takes us back to t+10-43 seconds, we have no other choice then to be speculative as to what happened before, noting of course the wise words of Carl.
    See the video.
    Because [1] any deity is an unscientific concept,[2] It automatically illogically "short circuits" any need for more science, more questions and possible answers.

    I am unable to fathom how that can be reasoned, considering all that has been revealed so far...A magical spaghetti monster short circuits any further arguments with unscientific, unprovable claims, while science continues the search for answers and possible questions. Perhaps you are stymied in not being able to accept how anything can evolve from nothing.
    It appears you are also preoccupied with the fact that our friend George was a priest, and whether he personally saw the BB as the work of any magical spaghetti monster you may like to install, he did not, and simply went about publishing his science, which has been further enhanced since that day.
    The following interesting article may help change your mind re LaMaitre.....
    The Pius XII - Lemaître Affair (1951-1952) on Big Bang and Creation:

    "One of the themes attracting public attention on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the death of Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), a Belgian priest and cosmologist, involves his relationship with Pius XII in proposing a supposed link between the expansion of the universe hypothesis (Big Bang) – of which Lemaître was one of the first theorists – and the possibility to produce “scientific” evidence of the existence of God. According to a widely circulated version of events today, Pius XII supposedly claimed in a discussion held at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in November 1951 that the recent astronomical discoveries confirmed the initial page of the Book of Genesis when the latter describes the creation of the universe as a Fiat lux. In essence, science, according to the Pontiff’s judgment, in those years was providing evidence for the existence of God. In a personal meeting expressly requested a short time later, Lemaître supposedly corrected the Pontiff on his errors, telling him he was mistaken in making “concordist” comments on science and Holy Scripture.

    Thus described, the episode matches well with the vivacious personality of Msgr. Lemaître, since the Belgian cosmologist had already on a previous occasion also “corrected” Albert Einstein, pointing out that the general relativity field equations, which described the universe in its entirety and which the German physicist believed should only be applied to a static universe, actually better described an expanding universe. Einstein did not initially accept Lemaître’s point of view and introduced a parameter ad hoc into the equations (the term λ) precisely to “balance” this expansion, having to change his mind later and confess to having made the biggest mistake of his life on that occasion. Who is this breezy, confident Monsignor-cosmologist able, within the span of a few short years, to correct the father of Relativity and a Pontiff of the Catholic Church in one fell swoop? But, we also ask, in view of the relationship between Lemaître and Pius XII, did things really go just as they are recounted and we have summarily recalled here, or are there deeper interpretations that should not be overlooked?
    here is more.....
    The theory, which is now widely accepted, first appeared in 1931 in one of Lemaître’s academic papers and was a significant break from the orthodoxy of the time.

    Born on 17 July 1894 in Belgium, he initially began studying civil engineering. His academic pursuits were however put on hold while he served in the Belgian army for the duration of the First World War.

    After the war, he studied physics and mathematics and was also ordained as a priest.

    In 1923 he became a graduate student at the University of Cambridge before going on to study at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

    In 1925 he returned to Belgium, where he became a part-time lecturer at the Catholic University of Leuven. Two years later, he published his groundbreaking idea of an expanding universe.

    His initial idea was not related specifically to the Big Bang, but his later research focused on the concept of the universe starting from a single atom.

    In 1933 at the California Institute of Technology, some of the greatest scientists of the time from around the world gathered to hear a series of lectures.

    After Lemaître delivered his lecture and theory, Albert Einstein stood up and said: “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I ever listened."

    He was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Belgium and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    In 1951, Pope Pius XII claimed that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism – a claim that Lemaître resented, as he stated his theory was neutral.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2018
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Hi Rainbow

    I have just noticed my name appears in the like box for your post and I must sadly inform you that somehow this has happened by error.

    I use a little phone with a touch screen and my finger has brushed the screen giving you a like I did not intend.

    It was a very nice post but the like was an accident.

    I could not just take it away without explanation and feel that to unlike it now would be like taking back a gift.

    But this event has reminded me that there are many posts in this thread that I like very much that perhaps because of excitement I failed to record a like.

    Have a great day and dont stand where lightning will strike.
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    First my compliments on a wonderful post.

    Its a shame that I have near lost the joy of speculation and I blame theists of course☺.

    I wondered this morning why I have become so conservative and it dawned on me that perhaps my condition is a reaction to the wild and superstitious speculation I see theists routinely indulging in to a disgusting unfetted level and then to take their speculation and repeat it until for them it becomes fact.

    And then the greatest irony struck me that visiting a professed science site has caused me to notice religion and observe what I consider to be the shortcoming of folk who believe faith is somehow a acceptable way to accept the unacceptable.

    And then a further thought...

    My belief that BBT was a ploy by the church has no doubt arisen from observing so many theists here and being disappointed to find that they can be a very tricky bunch indeed.

    So now I think the worst.

    It worried me that all that I hold important and reliable have been stolen by religion to sneak their God in the back door.

    We have seen it with the intelligent design mob...they clearly constructed their designer idea to sneek God into science...such was their determination to present as acceptable science they left reference to God out of their presentation turning such an ommission to their advantage when claiming to offer real science...So who is this designer folk would ask...And they answer...OH we dont know who that designer could be and it would not be science for us to do so...

    Most tricky and an example of the lengths these believers will go to in order to push their idea which we can all see is nothing more than an attempt to sneek God into the science class.

    And sadly I can now not look at BBT without suspicion.

    And although I hope I am wrong I realise that the group that I now have become most suspicious of are the masters of trickyness and champion the idea that a human was God, an idea not new in ancient times with all these human gods being put together from a Sun worship and astrology base.

    The very basis of the church was not even their idea and it is most likely that the form of God they worship is made up like so many others...and the repetition of that human God idea points to their ability to steal ideas and treat them as their own...and so when I realise the BBT was born in an environment where the church was examining another pagan idea (cosmic egg) presumably to incorporate in their already secondhand religious presentation is it any wonder that a thinking man even a mug like me could not think the worst.

    Well I did and I do...

    I recognise they have the power to guide opinion and their power should not be underestimated.
    I dont know but I expect their schools produce the best math experts...if not them then certainly the old testament followers...both of who share a similar view as to God and creation.

    And the situation I see as similar to that we find with the intelligent design.

    Who is this designer? We dont know we cant determine this as yet...well who else would you conclude? Even an atheist must insert God in the gap here.

    And I see a parrallel with BBT...

    So this tells us there is a point of creation...No no no...the theory does not deal with creation of the universe but only how it evolved after the initial can anyone not make a leap of a zillionth of a second and not assume they have found the point of creation....and creation has the majority thinking evidence of God.

    I dont know how much of BBT will prove to reflect reality but some how some way I think the universe can only be eternal...that may mean a lot of things but I am most happy with a notion that there has never been a point of creation and that the universe has always been here....and happily although speculative and unfaulsifiable that is the only way that leaves me content.

    Now strangely I am very mainstream possibly too much so demanding too much of the scientific method such as my expectation that one does not form an idea and then muster the science in support.

    I recognise such an expectation is perhaps too idealistic.

    So how do I reconcile my concerns.

    By knowing BBT is a model that seeks to explain things as best it can and that in trying to do so we will learn and move forward.

    Personally I think inflation is unnecessary and perhaps all that need be done is to extend the age of the Universe at least and although we can not expect to find evidence of a cycle of universes to support an eternal universe concept for me that will be the ficus of my speculation.

    You see no point of creation eliminates all possibilty of a creator and I find that idea appealing...but unlike others I wont try to assemble proof of my idea just because I like that idea.

    I will now read all you stuff which I thank you for posting and I hope other enjoy it all as much as I do.

    Well done.

Share This Page