Are the laws of physics based on magic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dumbest man on earth said:
Mazulu, you state that you can entertain idea(s). Is it at all possible that maybe you can entertain the idea that it just may be that "The Big Bang Theory" is just that - a Theory!
Mazulu, it is not called "The Big Bang Fact"!

You are able to state metaphorically, your perceived "cosmologist dogma" - how is possible that you cannot "entertain the idea" that the BB theory just may be "religious dogma" dressed up as Science.
Scientists had to do a lot of "fudging or adjusting of fundamentals" to get the theory to fit the observed data or vice versa to be able to represent the current model. Including a "built in ignorance or blindness of anything PRIOR or BEFORE"!

Mazulu, does that in any way remind you of another "story" that people are more or less told and expected to believe without questioning any PRIOR or BEFORE?

I only ask Mazulu, because you seemed to say that you could entertain ideas...
Click to expand...

The scientific community is very very certain that the big bang happened. I like to pick fights I can win. When you say that the big bang is just the religious dogma dressed up as "science", I don't think that is the case. In fact, I think that scientists are zealously eager to disprove the existence of God. The fact that the big bang sounds a bit like "God said, let there be light", that is a sore spot for atheist. Atheists would love nothing better than to destroy Christianity. But atheists have more problems doing that than they realize.

God takes credit for creating the universe and everything in it. And according to cosmological facts, the big bang came from nothing, that nothing existed before the big bang. If you step back and think about it, than maybe God DID create the universe?

But part of creating the universe is that you need to create the laws of physics and you need to implement them. You have to create space-time geometry. And you have to create the physics constants. Such acts of creation are far beyond anything demonstrated by man or by nature. In that sense, we are facing the existence either of GOD, or of some kind of supernatural/paranormal existence, neither of which is at all pleasing to atheists.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Today's cosmologists insist that the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless. It's similar to "colder than absolute zero." To say that one thing happened before another is to imply that time existed, and they insist that time only exists as an attribute of the universe. No universe = no time.
Click to expand...

I believe Einstein clearly stated the connection between space and time. He coined the phrase spacetime.

And I believe cosmologists speak of time as a meaningless term before the existence of space. Is there time in a timeless zero state condition?

The Big Bang (according to this model) brought everything into existence in an instant. Not just matter and energy, but also the space-time continuum and the laws of nature.
Click to expand...

Yes, from everything we know science postulates a singularity with near infinite potential, instantly expressing itself during the inflationary epoch, the simultaneous beginning of space and time. Only after the purely energetic chaos cooled down sufficiently did the laws of nature kick in and pure energy became expressed as the few (simplest) elements associated with the early universe. But that also meant those elements, by their inherent potential could only interact in very specific ways, which were later termed "laws of nature" of which E = Mc^2 is an example.
 
Mazulu said:
The scientific community is very very certain that the big bang happened. I like to pick fights I can win. When you say that the big bang is just the religious dogma dressed up as "science", I don't think that is the case. In fact, I think that scientists are zealously eager to disprove the existence of God. The fact that the big bang sounds a bit like "God said, let there be light", that is a sore spot for atheist. Atheists would love nothing better than to destroy Christianity. But atheists have more problems doing that than they realize.

God takes credit for creating the universe and everything in it. And according to cosmological facts, the big bang came from nothing, that nothing existed before the big bang. If you step back and think about it, than maybe God DID create the universe?

But part of creating the universe is that you need to create the laws of physics and you need to implement them. You have to create space-time geometry. And you have to create the physics constants. Such acts of creation are far beyond anything demonstrated by man or by nature. In that sense, we are facing the existence either of GOD, or of some kind of supernatural/paranormal existence, neither of which is at all pleasing to atheists.
Click to expand...

Mazulu, well...at least you entertained the idea, got to give you that.

I did not know that what you were doing was picking a fight. So...is this a fight? How and what decides a winner?

If you care to read my Post carefully, I did not say : - "... that the big bang is just the religious dogma dressed...". -
I said : - ..."entertain the idea" that the BB theory just MAY BE "religious dogma" dressed... - But , hey, you know that.

You know a lot of "facts" - you know Theories are very, very certain - but you only think scientists are eager to disprove the existence of God.
You know the sore spots for Atheists.
You know Atheists would love to destroy Christianity.
You know atheists have more problems than they realize.
You know that God takes credit for creating the universe and everything in it.
You know that according to cosmological facts, the big bang came from nothing, that nothing existed before the big bang.
You know that if I step back and think about it, than(then?) maybe God DID create the universe?
You know that nothing existed before the big bang.
You know maybe that nothing was God.
You know acts of creation are far beyond anything demonstrated by man or by nature.
You know how to tell the difference between acts of man, acts of nature and acts of creation.
You know that we are facing the existence either of GOD, or of some kind of supernatural/paranormal existence.
You know that of which is not at all pleasing to atheists.

Mazulu, thank you for entertaining the idea.

Mazulu, thank you for telling me the facts as you know them.

Mazulu, could you tell me a few more facts.

Mazulu, are you in fact an Atheist? If not, what are you?

Mazulu, do you think, feel or believe that I, dmoe, am in fact an Atheist? If not, what do you think, feel or believe that I am?

Mazulu, thank you again for entertaining the idea.

Mazulu, thank you again for telling me the facts as you know them.
 
@ Mazulu, well...discoveries in physics and astronomy have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning. I think what you are asking is..."but, was the Big Bang, the beginning?" I think that is the crux of your thread here, no?
:eek:
 
wegs and dmoe,
Thank you for being kind and listening to what I have to say. I will answer your questions as honestly as I can.

The crux of my thread is this. I defy scientific dogma and it's limited point of view. On the one hand, scientists can't help what they measure, and I don't fault them for it. On the other hand, science falls short, by several pieces, of explaining what is really going on. Big bangs out of nothingness, physics constants have no known cause, laws of physics have no known mechanism.

I am a spiritualist and a Theosophist. I believe that nature supports the existence of non-corporeal entities, even if science cannot detect them.

dmoe,
Yes, I do pick my fights, fights I can win. I am also happy to explain my point of view as clearly and honestly as I can. I win the fight if I can show that natural phenomena is not sufficient to explain all that we observe. For example, big bangs out of nothingness cannot be explained by any demonstrable mechanism of nature and is purely a guess, just as "God created it" is a guess. Can anyone tell me a demonstrable natural mechanism that enforces the physics constants? You will realize, there isn't one. If any such mechanism exists, it is not natural, it is supernatural (beyond nature).

I work for a living and my break is over. I'll be back later. ;)
 
I find your point of view delightfully refreshing and while I don't agree 100%, it's close.
:D

My personal belief is that science and faith can coexist, one not needing to usurp or negate the other. Where I slightly disagree with you, is I do believe science provides an "order" to things, and that the Big Bang didn't arise from "nothingness," rather it is defined as nothing because science hasn't yet discovered what caused it and therefore, can't yet define it. I believe in a Creator as to how those processes all fit together, whether it began with the BB or not, as to the beginning of the universe. :m:
 
wegs said:
I find your point of view delightfully refreshing and while I don't agree 100%, it's close.
:D

My personal belief is that science and faith can coexist, one not needing to usurp or negate the other. Where I slightly disagree with you, is I do believe science provides an "order" to things, and that the Big Bang didn't arise from "nothingness," rather it is defined as nothing because science hasn't yet discovered what caused it and therefore, can't yet define it. I believe in a Creator as to how those processes all fit together, whether it began with the BB or not, as to the beginning of the universe. :m:
Click to expand...

I don't think our positions are that far apart either. According to science (which is based on everything measureable) nothing caused the big bang. In reality, the big bang was most likely caused by something that we can't measure; that's why science thinks it's "nothing". I also think that this supposed nothingness is still here with us. I will let others call it whatever they want, God, spirit world, "the unknown", etc.
 
Anyway, I'm reading some of the threads at this Spirituality forum. http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/search.php?searchid=1229335
I think that the big bang was an event that occured within this spiritual realm, and I think this spiritual realm is still with us. Some people have strange experiences that are not explained by physics. I think it's because those experiences are happening in the spiritual realm.
 
Mazulu said:
dmoe,
Yes, I do pick my fights, fights I can win. I am also happy to explain my point of view as clearly and honestly as I can. I win the fight if I can show that natural phenomena is not sufficient to explain all that we observe. For example, big bangs out of nothingness cannot be explained by any demonstrable mechanism of nature and is purely a guess, just as "God created it" is a guess. Can anyone tell me a demonstrable natural mechanism that enforces the physics constants? You will realize, there isn't one. If any such mechanism exists, it is not natural, it is supernatural (beyond nature).

I work for a living and my break is over. I'll be back later. ;)
Click to expand...


MaZulu, with all due respect, I must tell you that you cannot fight with me, dmoe.

Now, Mazulu, wIth all undue respect, I will now tell you what I know.
I know that you think that you pick youR fights.
I know that you think you only picK fights that you think you can win.
I know the exact methods that you use to select the fights yOu pick.
I know what you ofFer by what are doing.
I know why you will oFten Post here.
I know what you hope to achieve here.
I know that you will succeed in findIng a few acolytes here.
I know becauSe the exact methods you employ have worked since the dawn of civilization.
I know that you will no longer attempt to pick a fight with me.
I know that the reason why may not be immediately appareNt to you.
I know that the cOntents of your future Posts will now change.
I know what you never will about the naTure of what offer.
I know that you ha.ve already failed.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
MaZulu, with all due respect, I must tell you that you cannot fight with me, dmoe.

Now, Mazulu, wIth all undue respect, I will now tell you what I know.
I know that you think that you pick youR fights.
I know that you think you only picK fights that you think you can win.
I know the exact methods that you use to select the fights yOu pick.
I know what you ofFer by what are doing.
I know why you will oFten Post here.
I know what you hope to achieve here.
I know that you will succeed in findIng a few acolytes here.
I know becauSe the exact methods you employ have worked since the dawn of civilization.
I know that you will no longer attempt to pick a fight with me.
I know that the reason why may not be immediately appareNt to you.
I know that the cOntents of your future Posts will now change.
I know what you never will about the naTure of what offer.
I know that you ha.ve already failed.
Click to expand...

dmoe, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm also having trouble understanding what you're communicating. Why are you putting capital letters in the middle of words?
 
Mazulu said:
If you step back and think about it, than maybe God DID create the universe?
Click to expand...
As I noted earlier, the definition of "universe" is (more succinctly) "everything that exists." I don't think anyone, Christian or not, would disagree with the statement, "If God has the ability to perform all the feats attributed to him, he must exist." No purely imaginary thing/creature/whatever could have done all that.

If God exists, then he is automatically part of the universe. In which case, he created himself.

That is the Fallacy of Recursion, i.e., it's impossible.

It's at least arguable that God came into existence at the same moment as the rest of the universe. But in that case he cannot have created it; he's just part of it.

For the bullshit-cosmology of religion to be even remotely logical, we would have to postulate that God popped into existence first, as the very first component of the universe, in a now much-more-complicated Big Bang that manifested as a thinking creature rather than a point of undifferentiated mass and energy. In an unspecified period of time he then put together the rest of the universe--the period which the popular bullshit-holy book describes as "the six days of creation." This is, then, the spatially and temporally local reversal of entropy that I've mentioned before, which is allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is not miraculous.

This hypothetical cosmological model accounts for God, but it includes him as part of the universe, rather than something that existed "before the universe," which is an oxymoron. Its biggest flaw is that it makes the Big Bang considerably more complex than the scientific model does, so every student in the room is shouting, "Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor!"

Indeed, what is the point of introducing complexity that is unneeded? All we're doing is pandering to the irrationality of the theists, a demographic that has already had far too much power over civilization for far too long.

Let us indeed take William of Ockham's advice, and devote our attention, energy and other resources to testing the simplest explanation first. For those billions of you who do not really understand Occam's Razor, it does not say that the simplest solution must be the correct one; merely that it will be faster and easier to test, so if it's wrong we can quickly move on to the more complex solutions. If we test the more complex solution first, we'll use up the academy's entire budget for the next hundred years, and if it turns out to be wrong we won't be able to test anything else.
 
Mazulu said:
It sounds like cosmologist dogma. It's a way to sweep under the carpet the necessary lead up to the birth of the universe. It's like ignoring the existence of the mother when the baby is born. Using cosmologist logic, "a hole just opened up, and a baby fell out."
Click to expand...
But yet you're comfortable with "a hole opened up and a god fell out."
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
As I noted earlier, the definition of "universe" is (more succinctly) "everything that exists." I don't think anyone, Christian or not, would disagree with the statement, "If God has the ability to perform all the feats attributed to him, he must exist." No purely imaginary thing/creature/whatever could have done all that.

If God exists, then he is automatically part of the universe. In which case, he created himself.

That is the Fallacy of Recursion, i.e., it's impossible.

It's at least arguable that God came into existence at the same moment as the rest of the universe. But in that case he cannot have created it; he's just part of it.

For the bullshit-cosmology of religion to be even remotely logical, we would have to postulate that God popped into existence first, as the very first component of the universe, in a now much-more-complicated Big Bang that manifested as a thinking creature rather than a point of undifferentiated mass and energy. In an unspecified period of time he then put together the rest of the universe--the period which the popular bullshit-holy book describes as "the six days of creation." This is, then, the spatially and temporally local reversal of entropy that I've mentioned before, which is allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is not miraculous.

This hypothetical cosmological model accounts for God, but it includes him as part of the universe, rather than something that existed "before the universe," which is an oxymoron. Its biggest flaw is that it makes the Big Bang considerably more complex than the scientific model does, so every student in the room is shouting, "Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor!"

Indeed, what is the point of introducing complexity that is unneeded? All we're doing is pandering to the irrationality of the theists, a demographic that has already had far too much power over civilization for far too long.

Let us indeed take William of Ockham's advice, and devote our attention, energy and other resources to testing the simplest explanation first. For those billions of you who do not really understand Occam's Razor, it does not say that the simplest solution must be the correct one; merely that it will be faster and easier to test, so if it's wrong we can quickly move on to the more complex solutions. If we test the more complex solution first, we'll use up the academy's entire budget for the next hundred years, and if it turns out to be wrong we won't be able to test anything else.
Click to expand...

Fraggle-rocker, everyone,
I have a better idea. At least it makes sense to me and satisfies my spiritual instincts. By the way, I am a Spiritualist and a Theosophist. I have tried to entertain Christianity, but I find it awkward. Sure, I'm all about goodness and the light, virtue, honor, integrity. Yes, I have had very very powerful spiritual experiences with God (seriously mind blowing stuff). But the Jesus Christ that Christianity describes does not play into my expectations of what God and good are all about. So no, I just don't consider myself a Christian. But I do believe there are angelic beings of light and I do believe there are spiritual powers at work in people's lives. I believe we have souls. I believe in occult phenomenon, because of my experiences; I am not dissuaded by the rampant bullshit that has flourished throughout the internet. I believe that some people can project astrally and visit spiritual realms. I believe there are higher planes of consciousness and lower planes of darkness. I believe that consciousness survives the death of the biological body (in spite of the appearance that the brain is responsible for consciousness). I believe that the spiritual realms are pre-existent to the physical realm, and have pre-existed forever. But the spiritual realms are about consciousness that experiences, not about measurements, not about space-time geometry, not about physics.

I believe that the big bang was caused by conditions in the spiritual realms; it is open to interpretation; call it God if you wish. Not the Christian God who hates, but an Infinite Intelligence that we as souls are all apart of. All souls can command the power of God for good or for evil; souls can even deny God, like atheists do, and cut themselves off from the divine. For those who are poisoned by how the power of God has been used unto them, it is a tragedy. I believe that souls will typically reincarnate into the physical world again and again. A precious few will uncover the secrets to immortality.

This makes more sense to me than a lack of existence of anything prior to the big bang. The problem with that idea is that how can anything come from nothing? How can the laws of physics and the physics constants exist without a cause? How can space-time geometry exist without some invisible spirit substance that obeys laws of physics? How can energy and gravity exist without the presence of unseen infrastructure? That is the problem with cosmologist dogma. If there truly was an absence of unseen infrastructure, then the laws of physics would collapse into chaos, and the universe would vanish as if it never existed. It could not exist without infrastructure, even if we cannot see it.
 
wegs said:
Mazulu, think you'll like this:

http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html
Click to expand...

Hi wegs,
I disagree with the video. it's not necessary to abandon causality. As I have suggested a spiritual realm in which the big bang was an event, then all of the necessary requirements to create a big bang (laws of physics, physics constants ...) can come from spiritual substance. Spiritual substance will behave as commanded to or according to its nature, but is invisible, undetectable and often thought not to existence, yet it does exist. There exists an unseen infrastructure that physics has not yet postulated. It is a creation of the spiritual realm. Whatever laws it obeys are far beyond our human experience. By the way, have you heard of "turtles all the way down"? With spirit substance, it regresses after 6 or 7 manifestations, into nothingness.
 
Mazulu said:
Even magic (of a supernatural nature) requires infrastructure of some kind. Cosmologists don't believe that any infrastructure is necessary. I say that they are wrong.
Click to expand...


So...is this, Mazulu, your answer to the question - how could I have pOssibly known that the contents of your future Posts would change?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top