My take on th Big Bang

Well, I reject your rejection. LOL. It can only be concluded that you must then be exercising your personal and private prerogative to use the term 'fiction' in a context that is not obvious, but is rather occulted . It would then appear that you might be fearing exposure of your agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't feel bad... I got the same type of results in the thread entitled "what is truth". Seems that no-one on this forum KNOWS how to define 'truth'.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? Can you explain the process from personal experience as to how galaxies are formed?

 

So far your argument is far afield from being compelling to my mind. Can you demonstrate from your personal experience how you KNOW that mathematics effect my life on a daily basis? Also, can you provide a definition of the term 'life' that is not ambiguous, that is irrefutable and is acceptable to all people on this planet Earth?

 

I like how you create your own understanding of my position in lieu of actually understanding my position. My agenda is to learn, no hidden agendas, but if your paranoia tells you otherwise then enjoy your delusion. Do you take my calling the Bible fiction as my having a closed mind? I do not believe the stories to be true thus my calling them fiction, but my mind remains open and my view can change pending new evidence. Do you have the ability to reject something but leaving the mind open pending further evidence? If you have rejected the God of Islam do you keep the door open pending further evidence? I do. If you do not then perhaps I am more open minded than you.

Do you have a definition?

 

and I just love the manner in which your agenda leads you to make presumptions regarding my mental state. Are you a trained psychologist? No? Then your assumption regarding paranoia is unfounded even on a professional level.

I have already stated on the record that I don't have such a definition. I am not so ludicrous as to think that I am capable of satisfying the social, mental, scientific, and Spiritual needs of every member of mankind. However, it seems that there are some on this forum who would think so highly of themselves that they might be believing that they can meet those needs by laying out a supposed definition.

 

You are a hypocrite.You criticize me for doing the very thing that you have done... making assumptions. So you going to answer the rest of the questions I posed in post #77?

"Do you take my calling the Bible fiction as my having a closed mind? Do you have the ability to reject something but leaving the mind open pending further evidence? If you have rejected the God of Islam do you keep the door open pending further evidence?"

Here we agree.

 

it is a bit of faith, you have to either believe energy always existed and then created\evolved into everything (what was before Energy?)

or that an all knowing, all perfect God always existed and created everything and than screwed up creation of humans (that were created in 'their" image), so God flooded the planet and started over... (what was before God?)

you can also believe we created everything, the universal connectedness of all of us (all of us together = God)

or that maybe the universe just contracts and expands infinity

.

 

Why should I?

Sure do... and that is precisely why I lean on that definition of 'proof'... evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Who said that I have rejected the God of Abraham...(the God of Islam)?

Self praise while ridiculing another based upon a hypothetical. How convenient.

Already answered.

 

See my last post. So you can drop the name calling when such name calling cannot be justified.

All answered in my last separate post.

Then you also admit that you cannot provide such a definition, yet you continue to use the term 'truth' without KNOWing what 'truth' means. Very interesting.

 

Interesting. I wish more who followed the God of Abraham thought like you... the world would probably be a much more peaceful place to live.

 

Perhaps better, perhaps not.... we could only HOPE for "a more peaceful place to live."

 

Is justified not subjective? Who gets to decide what constitutes justification to me... me or you? And define name calling as mine is generally the use of expletives. Let me cut to the chase... you make assumptions of me and I will make assumptions right back at ya. You don't like my making assumptions of you then do not make any of me. Who posted the first assumption of the other on this thread? I am getting the feeling that you think it was me. I say it was you.

I can define truth for myself and know what it means to me. But I also understand that from person to person truth is subjective and that my definition of truth will not satisfy all. Truth is more a subjective state of mind that an actual state of being. The truth is that green is my favorite color but this does not make my truth the truth of all humanity. Truth is subjective and will vary from person to person. I cannot define truth to your satisfaction... nor am I required to.

 

Exactly my point Robini... Only I can justify what I will justify and only you can justify what you will justify.

Placing labels on people that are not a known part of their Identification. On this forum I am known as Incorporeal. As such, that is the only way to properly address me.

Well which one of us is going to take the initiative to search the record and find out?

Then knowing 'truth' as you declare to KNOW 'truth', then why do you continue to use such a term while realizing that your definition of the term is not going to be satisfactory to all people reading what you propose as 'truth'? To me, that seems to be an ideal way to initiate and then maintain a never ending argumentative condition. An exercise in futility.

 

I do not attempt to speak in a way that is satisfactory to all people as that would be an exercise in futility.

 

When you use the word 'truth', you are engaging in a practice of assuming that all people will share the same definition of 'truth' as you have in mind. See the thread entitled "what is truth".

 

Talk about an assumption, that is a bold one. What evidence do you have that I am "engaging in a practice of assuming that all people will share the same definition of 'truth' as you (I) have in mind."?

Your OP has no relevance to our discussion as it is a discussion of the "religious perspective on the word "truth", and I am not going to read the other 551 posts.

 

1. The only elements that came into being at or around the BB were Hydrogen and Helium. Everything else was made in Stars, either as part of their normal lives or during their explosive ends. Since every element above these two requires at least one generation of stars to be over it was probably several billion years before a Universe anything like ours existed.

2. The Inflation phase was the only time when the Universe did anything faster than the speed of light. The only reason that was possible was that it was Space itself that was inflating. Inflation took place, if my understanding is correct, sometime during the Universe's first second

3. The entire theory does not simply ignore the intricacies. Indeed, the details are worked out in great mathematical detail, or nobody would be saying they had ever happened. As you admit to not being mathematical, as do I, you can be excused not knowing this but you should take it into account in your own theorizing

 

I think he blows smoke. He never tells another christian his beliefs about God and Islam and Abraham. Even though many others he continuously agrees with thinks muslim god is different. Those who don't believe in trinity is not a christian. So much smoke exhumes.

 

Because you have not presented any PROOF that they will do otherwise.

Show where that 'religious perspective' is displayed in the OP and not just a matter of your interpretation of the OP.

 

That is highly misrepresenting the fact. The fact is I have made the statements of my position in the public side of this forum, which would include the Christian members of this forum. So, in fact, I have made my position known to those Christians.

 

First, assume that the cosmos consists of multiverses, i.e. many different kinds of universes, some similar, and others not similar. Further assume that some are young, small, and still growing, while others are larger and older (a la The Star Maker’s Apprentice, by “Ambassador Szot,” F. Louis Szot).

Then the key question is: what existed before there were any universes?

That would be the void, the absolute oneness (uniformity), primordial consciousness with enormous potential energy. The energy of digital consciousness gives it the potential to self-organize. That potential also allows it to reduce its average entropy by evolving.

In order to get out of a do-nothing state, it must become self aware and then mobilize its awareness. It must create a division and disturbance within itself: a ripple, a distortion, a bit of stimulation, interest, drama, and challenge. Thus it becomes a mixture of uniformity and non-uniformity, i.e. a duality. Awareness expands by creating more possibilities within to explore.

Multitudes of interacting complexities behave like reality cells, products of diversification and specialization. Successful interactions persist and become an integral part of the larger system while stagnant designs fade away.

Space-time is a construct of consciousness. It functions as space-time cells. Communication or energy transfer across space-time is a process of adjacent space-time cells changing state in sequence (My Big TOE, by Tom Campbell, and The Two-State Universe, By A. Molinero). The rate at which space-time cells can change state is the speed limit of photons (light), a fixed value assigned to our reality.

Our realty is a product of the rule sets imposed on our domain of space-time. Thus it is a virtual reality. A virtual reality cannot create itself. Thus the creator is not likely a resident in this creation (but might have as much visiting rights as one of us has in an ant colony).

Perhaps the wild startup of the big bang should not be taken seriously. The Godhead functions at a vibration speed of many orders of magnitude faster than anything in our reality. In between are several nested levels of speed zones. Whatever happened in the very early stages of the big bang could have been entirely different than what the experts think.

“Creation from nothing” is very problematic. Some suggest it can be rationalized on the basis of separating +1 and -1 from zero. Matter is congealed energy, but antimatter is also produced in the process of making matter from energy. No convincing explanation has been established to account for avoidance of annihilation, disappearance of antimatter, and accumulation of matter, although there has been a recent plausible attempt.

It’s less troubling to just go with the flow and be existential with a multiverse rationale, which, although it is a big picture viewpoint, does not make us privy to what any pattern further upscale represents.

 

Another nonsensical assumption. The creation of yet another fairy tale. When will it ever end?

 

In reading the post adjacent to yours, I will assume that someone doesn't agree with your explanation. I, on the other hand, find it to be most informative. And I also find that it correlates closely with my 'explanation', except mine is more philosophically oriented. Mine has to be more philosophical because I have little to no scientific background beyond the plethora of non technical books and articles I've read over the years. Thanks. I look forward to reading more of your posts on other subjects.

 

You might want to look in a mirror.

 

Silly me, and here I had always thought that "countless" meant more than one.

 

Are you using a computer? do you have an automobile? do you use roads? do you live in a house? do listen to weather reports? do you use a telephone? do you watch tv?

As for "compelling your mind", when will you realize that you are the only one that can do that.

And out of left field we have yet another tangential deflection.