What will they do with all those science books, claiming the Big Bang as fact if in fact they claim there was no Big Bang now?

No, its individual choice. Just as its easy to say I don't know and insist that there isn't some God.

I don't ridicule anyone for what they believe (except muslims) and would hope the same

Before quantum, before Einstein, everything had a beginning, a middle, and an end. Our very existence had a beginning, a middle, and an end. Trying to conceptualize anything without these properties was more than a human brain seemed to be able to handle. Then came the realization that our senses were not adequate to see the universe as it truly existed. The floodgates opened and in the flood the pillars of what we deemed our knowledge to be were knocked down and floated away. At the beginning of the 20th century, Einstein demolished Newton and the universe was turned inside out, leading to theory after theory after theory. We know that Einstein was right to the extent that his theories worked. But the true depth of knowledge started by him, still eludes us. Without even using the math, we can "prove" that the big bang happened, and never happened. We have managed to enter the realm of the inner workings of reality, but we haven't penetrated very deeply. For every question seemingly answered there appears to be hundreds of unanswered questions. Fifty different theories of existence wind around each other like Pollyanna's hair braids. The answers are not here yet, but every theory like and edifice made with grains of sand, will eventually hit upon truth. Perhaps Einstein was just a few hundred years ahead of his time. Perhaps not.

"The fact there is no creator ". That is not fact. That is theory. Just like I cannot PROVE God exists, you cannot PROVE he does not, therefore your claiming this as fact is not correct.

However there is ONE fact here, that you BELIEVE there is no creator. That is indeed fact. Just as I BELIEVE there IS a creator that also is a fact.

I did not mean to touch a nerve like that and was simply quoting the referenced article.

You indicated "my" claim. "Thus, your claim that the laws of physics do not support the big bang is incorrect ." however; the referenced article states:

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

The Laws of physics as "WE" understand them. Again, there is dispute amongst countless scientists on the theories, the math what the meaning is, which is my main point.

You also TOTALLY misquoted my comment, about the Campbell's Soup. please READ it and quote me IN context. I DID NOT SAY MATH EVOLVED FROM A CAN OF SOUP!!!! For all your apparent education please read a bit more carefully. I was CLEARLY SAYING IT DID NOT just evolve, as the Universe did not just pop into existence, as life did not just Pop into existence either.. The use of making a parallel may have been lost on you since I seemed to strike a nerve with you for which I apologize.

The fact there is no creator does not equal random accident. This is the fallacy of the false alternative. Regarding certainty, one must act upon the knowledge one has, and beliefs must always be subject to reexamination upon the presentation of credible evidence. Until such evidence is presented, work with what you have.

OK, you got me on that one!

You said a number of things that just aren't true. Einsteinian (relativistic) physics breaks down at the quantum level but accurately predicts reality at a larger scale. And mind you, "larger" in this case still covers the incredibly small, such as interactions at an atomic scale. Quantum physics was developed to help understand reality in the realm of the very, very small, atom-sized and much, MUCH smaller. We used to believe that protons, neutrons and electrons were fundamental particles, but that was wrong. The problem has been in getting the theories of the incredibly small and the theories of the big to integrate smoothly at their shared boundary.

Thus, your claim that the laws of physics do not support the big bang is incorrect - for more than one reason. Most pertinent to the article referenced by this forum thread is that the new model in theoretical physics being worked on by Dr's. Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das, among others, is very much a work in progress. It doesn't disprove relativity or quantum mechanics. Their work so far suggests that it can work out some of the problems encountered by quantum mechanics in and near a singularity and that it may be an improved predictor of the physical universe as we understand it. The article even says that more work needs to be done and new mathematical models applied to "small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations," which I have absolutely no idea what those are but they're apparently important. They don't expect those perturbations to significantly affect the results. Focus on "expect" and "significantly." First, they might be wrong, eventually we'll find out. Second, when either a statistician or a theoretical physicist says "significantly" they're not talking like normal human beings.

The new model envisions the "universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity." Hmmmm, gravitons are hypothetical, massless particles? And this hypothetical quantum fluid explains the universe better than hypothetical dark matter and dark energy? How do gravitons fit into the universe if the Higgs Boson is a real thing? The most recent results from the Hadron collider suggest that the Higgs Boson may have been observed, a significant accomplishment that would bolster quantum theory. Maybe gravitons and Higg Boson compliment each other - Higgs Bosons are theorized to give mass to subatomic particles and gravitons are theorized to be a carrier for gravity (which is created by mass?).

I have never heard it stated that evolution presupposes a Big Bang. The theory of evolution explains how life evolves - and that happens after the conditions for life to exist have already been established. It's like forming theories about how structures fail during earthquakes. I don't care how the structure got there, whether it be man made or otherwise. I just need to know its properties as it exists now.

You also misunderstand what the word "theory" means. A theory can be proven false, at which time scientists will move on, but it's still a theory. A theory can be proven true, but it is still called a theory. So writing {... "believe," i.e. [i.e. translates to "that is"] THEORIZE (no real proof), that Evolution ...} is absolutely wrong. Theorize does NOT mean believe or lack of proof. In this context it means to suggest a scientific model that predicts the observed nature of reality. You also seem to state, although your meaning isn't precisely clear, that the Theory of Evolution has not been proven true. The Theory of Evolution has definitively been proven true. (I'm not using evolution to advocate for nor deny a god.)

"... trying to provide another theory, which totally destroys their first one on which they base evolution on [sic]." You make it sound like a giant cover-up when in reality it's how scientific progress is made. If a theory is proven wrong then you work on a new theory. If you don't then knowledge ceases to advance.

"Within my personal Christian beliefs there has never been any change." That will not surprise many of us. It is generally the case with very strongly held personal beliefs, especially religious ones, that one will bend reality as much as necessary to make it match your beliefs. When a new discovery comes along these people will bend-new-reality-as-necessary to make it fit into their system.

Your most alarming non-sequitur is your claim that the Bible's predictions, made thousands of years prior, are 100% supported by the fossil record and core samples of the Earth's crust. That's incredible, as in unbelievable, as in impossible to believe. Fossils and core samples have never contained any information even remotely related to the Bible, Hebrew or Christian. You then offered, "From the order of life appeared to DNA, [that is] Psalms 139:16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing,.. DNA often by science referred to as the 'book of life.'" Aside from the fact that the first part of the first sentence is unparsable, you are trying to equate one of many translations of the Book of Psalms and the word "book" used metaphorically and with completely different meanings in the two cases.

I don't know which translation you used, but Psalm 139 is David writing to the "chief Musician," and is David talking about god's intimate knowledge of David and his life. KJV Psalms 139:15 - 16 reads, "(15) My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. (16) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." In these two sections, David, having already discussed how well god knows every movement of his body and thought in his head, goes on to say how god even knew these things before he was born. The "book" was god's mind, his perfect knowledge, and he marvels that god even knew he'd be born with certain "members," referring to arms and legs, surely, and genitalia, probably (as in gender).

To suggest that this passage exhibits pre-knowledge of DNA is so absurd as to be unfathomable.

"... the math scientists use ... not just evolved out of a bowl of Campbell's soup." Wow, math, like other fields of human knowledge, does not evolve in the same way that biological organisms evolve. Evolve, like many words, has more than one definition. Math, and all human knowledge, evolve through the efforts of man's intellect and the scientific process. People don't just sit around waiting for "math" to suddenly mutate into something we can finally use. Saying math was developed by intelligent men rather than having sprung into existence from the void is a fatuous statement. It doesn't follow that, just because intelligent men exist, that the universe was created by an intelligence. They're unrelated. If you insist that they are related then I will insist that because the Earth is covered with trees, and god created the world to reflect his nature, that god is made of wood. Trees produce oxygen and give us life, and god gives us life; god is wood! The fact that the bible is printed on paper, and paper is made of wood, illustrates god's promise and proves how much he loves humanity. And Jesus was crucified on a wooden cross so he could die in the loving embrace of his wooden father. And the fact that hundreds and hundreds of civilizations throughout the millennia, without the benefit of interaction, developed the concept of the Tree of Life, fills me with the joy of the realization of god's woodenness. Or was that the Web of Life? Now I'm confused. God must be a giant spider, that's it! God's a spider and spiders live in trees! O Holy Epiphany, GOD IS A WOODEN SPIDER!

Wouldn't it be just fine to answer some questions with "I do not know." instead of saying that it must be doings of some god?

"The point I was making is that for all the "science" all the math, all the work that goes into trying to answer these questions. Nobody REALLY knows for a 100% positive certainty anything. "

I've been saying this here and elsewhere forever. Never rule out absolutely the presence/existence of God. There is plenty of room in Rand's Objectivism for the unknown and/or unquantifiable to be respectful to others who may believe in God or intelligent design.

now now 0 said the media should be paying more attention to global warming. that said his gnat size brain which is also simple doesn't get what the people from montana to maine and south to the gulf coast are experiencing. by the way it never was true!

The point I was making is that for all the "science" all the math, all the work that goes into trying to answer these questions. Nobody REALLY knows for a 100% positive certainty anything.

There is the biggest question to me? If there is no Creator, and this was all random accident with no purpose, why do people bother wasting their time trying to figure it out and expending any effort at all on it? Since there is NO point to it.

I can understand these questions from a simple grocer but not a grocer who actually has any intellectual curiousity, someone with even a small education in philosophy. These questions are answered eloquently in The Basic Principles of Objectivism course and devoting space here to those questions does not enhance the discourse.

IF A TREE FALLS IN THE FOREST DOES IT MAKE A NOISE?

as for the big bang if it did or did not happen is immaterial today. if it happened so what and if it didn't happen and all of the objects in space were there over 13 billion years ago so what. media conversation makes good reading for some i guess.

Yes, their idea is that there was not Big Bang.

Perhaps understand is a better word.

Totally agree. It is just that people forget that when you have a theory, you create an experiment that tries to Disprove it. (Popular vision of science is that you try to prove your theorem.)

So I get a bit fussy with this, even when conversing with people who I know know better. Sorry. It is kinda sorta spamming you, is it not?

Jan

This new theory must come from the new math, or possibly even Common Core Math. I remember laying out on the lawn one evening with a friend observing the stars back around 1957 contemplating "infinity". Before we knew it the sun was coming up. I then had to explain infinity to my parents when I got home. And No, I didn't even know what marijuana was back then.

A theory can make predictions of phenomena not previously observed, and can be confirmed (perhaps not proven) by new experimental data.

I am sorry to say it, by there is no logic in the statement that causality indicates existence of a beginning.

There is some sense of truth in the statement: "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

Also, from what we know, what you call "light" is a narrow slice of electromagnetic radiation which human eyes can perceive. If you could see infrared spectrum, you might not have a good concept of "darkness".

Jus my opinions.

Hello, Esceptico,

If I could, I would give you at least a dozen more points. It is just an expression of how much I agree with you.

I think that we will eventually learn quite clearly that universe had no "beginning" and thus dispense with the "need" of its "creation" and a "creator".

Recently, in another post, we discussed a theory, which, in my opinion, quite plausibly, explained how thermodynamic "force" may have lead to the beginning of life on the basis of DNA. From there, evolution of living organisms takes over. Ever heard of Darwin? ;-) To me, that clearly explains that "the force of life" is a property of existing universe.

In my opinion, all the "knowledge" is based on ability of rational animals to observe, perceive, conceptualize, analyze, communicate and record. The most interesting question for me is what will evolution produce after homo sapiens?

Since we now know beyond doubt that each individual is unrepeatable unique existent, the rational self-interest is another expression of that force of life, i.e. a collection of properties of the universe, the only existence that exists.

I reread this as a protection from thick fingers and realized that I better explain what I mean by "force of life". To me, that means the obvious "drive" to persist, reproduce and propagate.

What do you think?

All the best!
Maritimus

Since we observe that the universe ages, and that it changes its nature as it ages, it is not unreasonable to assume that when it began it was different than we currently see it. That does not have to mean a Big Bang, though.

I am no physicist, but it does not make sense to me that you create an equation to explain the universe and then have to invent an undetectable Dark Matter comprising 98% of it in order to make your math work out right. So I think this theory may be on the right track.

I like CTYankee's analysis, but I will add that there is a constraint on earlier super-civilizations in that you have to have a solar system with at least a 3rd generation sun in order to have our table of elements. This is necessary in order to have a complex enough chemical environment to be able to evolve life as we know it; it may be required in order to evolve life at all. (Most descriptions of the Fermi paradox omit this point.)

My impression of evolution is that it began when something called 'life' was able to (a) mutate and (b) select winners/losers amongst the mutants. The only forms that qualify for this in our environment are nucleic acid based lifeforms and prions. Do other folks think differently?

Jan

Please explain to me how one can predict specifically that the universe has no beginning.
does that mean there was nothing prior to what is referred to as the big bang?
I find it interesting that someone is able to predict the past. prediction "during the years that Bill Russel played for the Boston Celtics they will win 11 NBA championships"

Well, you cannot really prove something true. You just continue to prove that it is not false (under certain constraints).

"Not false again! Woohoo!" - that is a scientist rejoicing mightily.

Jan

I would invoke the Anthropic Principle(s) to deny the conclusion.

1) Premise: If the universe was infinite into the past, then *some* civilization in the *infinite* past would have developed technology giving them essentially infinite god-like powers and out of boredom would have explored *every* conceivable moment and position of space-time and we'd *KNOW* that they are here.

1b) Observation: They are not here.
1c) Result: The the premise is incorrect.
1d) Conclusion: The universe is *NOT* infinite into the past.

2) Alternate Premise: If the universe were *infinite* into the future, then this moment of time would have no significance, and the presence of stars, galaxies, planets, would be statistically improbable... blah-blah-blah

3) Possible Premise: If the universe were infinite into the future, then *some* civilization in the *infinite* future will discover time travel (aka god-like powers) and out of boredom travelled back in time to *all* possible pasts... blah-blah-blah...

4) Corollary: Any reasonable set of analyses must conclude that the universe came into existence at some finite time in the past. Why? It doesn't matter. It must also conclude that the universe will fade into 'nothingness' at some *finite* time into the future, it may persist forever after that point, but after that time nothing else that happens or fails to happen matters.

5) Premise: There is a *possibility* that some civilization in the *finite* past became transcendent, and chose to observe us during the once-through life of the universe.

6) Premise: There is a *possibility* that some civilization in the *finite* future will become transcendent, and chose to observe us during the once-through life of the universe, for fear of creating a paradox.

5&6) Hypothesis: Either the past of future god-like civilizations will have the infinite future following the demise of the normal universe to conduct infinite experiments without fear of destroying what was.
5&6) Observation: We do not observe omnipotent beings, therefore they are not here.
) Therefore: The ultimate fate of the universe remains 'unimportant'.

OK, OK, blah blah blah... But there are all the same reasons that I, and the atheists that are not actually 'anti-theists', reject the existence of god.

Cool post.

Everything will never be known. The more we know, the more we find that we don't.

For example, this discussion about the beginning of the universe could not have been had some 3,000 years ago in Greece, when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe and the creation began when Erebus emerged from Chaos.

We assume things we don't know. We learn. We dispel old errors. We learn new things we don't know.

The recent movie, Interstellar, did a pretty good job illustrating how confusing time, gravity et al, can be if we could harness the power to exist within an observation of their interactions (e.g. relativistic effects).

This cycle has been going on as long as recorded history. Why would another predictably disruptive scientific finding make one wonder about an ancient unfounded assumption?