[Thomas An.]

This issue has long puzzled me ... and I confess of being a skeptic of the big-bang theory. It doesn't make sense to have a singularity like this... and if there was one bing-bang ... then there must have been infinite ones prior to that (sort of an ocean of ether / undulating energy causing high and low densities ... the high densities creating big-bangs that then dissipate)

Alternativly, the string theory is also more plausible (logicaly elegant) having two large mbranes momentarily touching and release impossible amounts of energy.

.. but still other possibilities may be there, inlcuding that the big-bang assumption itself being incorrect in the first place.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/B ... asp#_edn17

The theory has several problems, enough to cause conspiracy theories claiming it as an attempt to "preserve" biblical texts by any means (instead of trully looking for the cosmic truths, as a scientist should do, regardless of how upsetting those findings might be).
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

[aitraaz]

Yup, some big problems with the big bang, from the get go:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Part of the problem, in a general sense, could be linked to 'poor composites' as Henri Bergson called them, or scientific theorums based on false metaphysical or especially transcendental concepts, which should never be part of the scientific realm anyways...

Thus the famous search for 'unified theory' or the theory that 'explains everything.'

Mathematics, however sofisticated, does have one thing in common with language, and that's that a sign refers to another sign, which refers to another sign, and so on, so forth, until infinity.

Anyways, interesting stuff, string theory, as you mentioned, elegant indeed...

[Maxer]

I've always been fascinated with the big bang theory or any origin theory that deals with the beginnings of the universe. The reason I find them interesting is because they don't actually answer the question of how it all began. What I mean by that is the theory begins with an unimaginable amount of material that is somehow transformed into the universe as we understand it today through a big explosion. That's a great theory but the real question is where did all of that material come from. Even if you believe that there were infinite big bangs before the one that created our universe, the fact remains that at some point there was an initial big bang that happened for the very first time. If that is true, and it must be true as we understand physics, the question remains where did all of that material come from, the only conclusion I can come up with is that it had to be created. I challenge anyone to explain how a substance can always exist, it's not possible and therefore it must have a moment of creation.

[Thomas An.]

... it had to be created. ...

The human mind is not good at handling notions of infinity. This creation idea is also problematic.

Created out of what ? ... a being ? ... if that being is capable to interact with matter or to create matter then the being is also *part* of the universe ... since it can interface with it (or the underlying mechanics of it). There we are not really solving anything either ... because then, the question rises of what would be the origins of such being ? The substance composing that being (energy plasma ?) must have been created by something else ? ... and so on ad-infinitum.

In any case, regardless of the true answer (which is yet unknown) the point is that the theory of singularity is problematic.

[tom]

Beside all, I'm rejecting the finite and infinite spaces and so the matter. Both are not logical to me. Time is still a big question, too. I rather tend to believe this should be something like a consistent dream. It seems to me like we're wasting time within the fabricated thoughts, we simply can't see the outside of the box. There must be some way out. Because even if you answer all the questions in the box, it still wouldn't be the answer for box's existance. With all of our science knowledge, we're solving the equations in a subset. IMHO, it's not enough to determine the parent set. We need to invent something else than current science.

[Maxer]

I'm obviously talking about God, and if he exists which I believe he does then he operates on a level of consciousness that we will never attain, and because of that we will never understand him. That also means that he will have ways of working that to us would be considered magic, however if you reject this ask your self why you believe in a theory like the Big Bang. Both the Big Bang and God require the same level of belief or faith from the individual since the existence of both can't be explained completely.

Like tom said we may be in some kind of universal box that we can't see out of. If this is the case and there is a God then that would explain how he was able to create this universe. He wouldn’t be apart of this universe and would there fore be able to act outside of it.

[Thomas An.]

...should be something like a consistent dream...

That is also not likely IMHO. Some rudimentary explanation:

1. A dream is a product of a conscience.
2. A conscience is the calculation sum of a biological processing unit (the brain) ...
3. At that, conscience implies matter. And yes, a CPU is a rudimentary conscience as long as it has electricity flowing through it and channeled in organized fashion.
4. from 1->3 "dream" implies matter.

Now, the definition of matter itself could come into question as well. If matter is a form of energy (say dense energy) then the definition becomes that consience is the product of "dense energy". So in effect dense energy and thin energy can be related.

[Thomas An.]

...why you believe in a theory like the Big Bang...

??? Where did you come up with that ?
I said the oposite ... that the big bang theory has problems.

[tom]

Good point Thomas, but I mean probably the "brain" itself is never existed. Think of even there is nothing called energy, substance etc. Simply nothing. What we call "nothing" might still be "something" when perceived with another method or dimension or science whatever you call. I believe the success of figuring all these out as much as expecting a desk start to talk with me while it's standing still.

[Maxer]

...why you believe in a theory like the Big Bang...

??? Where did you come up with that ?
I said the oposite ... that the big bang theory has problems.

No I wasn't really directing that question at you it was more a general statement to anyone that would read it.

This is really a question that I don't think we will ever be able to explain, or at least not for a very long time. We still don't understand how the human mind works, and it seem that we can't even agree on how our own solar system should be configured, so how can we claim to understand how the universe was created. I'm not saying that we should stop trying to answer the question, but I don't think that categorically saying there is no higher being like God is an honest and objective stance for someone to take that is looking for the truth.

[ivox3]

In your terms, the world is intensely different from one moment to another, with each smallest portion of consciousness choosing its reality from a field of infinite probabilities. Immense calculations, far beyond your conscious decisions as you think of them, are possible only because of the unutterable freedom that resides within minute worlds inside your skull --- patterns of interrelationships, counterparts so cunniningly woven that each is unique, freewheeling, and involved in an infinite cooperative venture so powerful that the atoms stay in certain forms, and the same stars shine in your sky.

[Thomas An.]

...and if he exists which I believe he does then he operates on a level of consciousness that we will never attain...

It doesn't matter, if such being exists, then it is part of the universe and it is composed of a substance. This theory does not answer any questions and also does not follow the correct reasoning process.

The correct reasoning process entails:

• Gathering of observational data with the highest possible accuracy.
• Developing a theory/hypothesis that satisfies the observational data
• Experimenting to verify / replicate the validity of the hypothesis

Religions should be seen for what they are ... "ancient attempts towards explaining the surroundings" ... in the prehistoric times people had no practical means for organized scientific inqiury. They made empirical observations and those observations were then memorised. On top of this, the human mind has the tendency to project faces / personalities to the surroundings. For example cartoons for childrenn are drawing human faces on animals and objects. It was a matter of survival (life and death) for them (the early people) to memorise things easily. It is easier to remember that a thunder is a projectile from Zeus, than trying to figure out electronics, charged particles and Maxwell equations. This is a basic function of our species (as is language) and it explains why relegions seem to sprout independently. It is always about empirical observations coated in easily memorable interpretations that involve projection / personification.

In other words religions are an ancient attempt for science. They *do* contain useful observations (they were not crazy). These observations were wrapped in a layer of imagery steming from projections of human forms and emotions to natural phenomena. The result was enough to keep people alive as well as enforcing an order for their society (by establishing the notion of an ultimate king).

However, now, we can do better, we have more accurate sensors than just our eyes and touch ... and we can put things to more rigorous analysis.

[Thomas An.]

Good point Thomas, but I mean probably the "brain" itself is never existed. Think of even there is nothing called energy, substance etc. Simply nothing. What we call "nothing" might still be "something" when perceived with another method or dimension or science whatever you call. I believe the success of figuring all these out as much as expecting a desk start to talk with me while it's standing still.

"brain" is in general the means that produces the energy channeling for a dream to exist ... the composition of such device (brain) is immaterial (it doesn't matter if it is composed of molecules, pure energy, or simply something unknown).

Also, it is not possible for "nothing" to produce work. The mere act of typing these words (or imagining their existence) implies activity. Even a dream, being a byproduct of "dense" matter requires expenditure of energy for its manifestation. In other words, energy needs to be channeled through a neural network (which is a low entropy system ... a mechanism). All this energy channeling is an activity ... on the other hand "nothing" implies complete vacuum, or a state of no activity. Th e idea that all is nothing seems more like a paradox IMHO.

[Maxer]

I agree with some of what you said, however just because ancient religious people believed that there was a higher power doesn’t invalidate that such a being exists. My objective wasn't to debate whether or not God existed; I only wanted to point out that even if we do eventually create a "big bang" theory with no holes in it we still haven't explained where the material from that big bang came from. Until you can reasonably explain that question how can you claim to know for certain that it wasn't created.

What about an atom, it's made of protons, electrons, and neutrons, which are made up of quarks. What makes up a quark, that's a good question that no one seems to know the answer to yet? So the question is is there a single particle that everything is made of, or does it go on and on forever? The point seems to be that even given as much as we know now, there is still so much that we don't understand. You said that ancient humanity as a whole relied on interpretations to explain their environment; I would suggest we do the same thing today. Science is great but it doesn’t answer all the questions and as a result we are looking at a picture with billions of holes in it and were making assumptions about that picture that are imposable to test and prove.

[Miles]

Religions should be seen for what they are ... "ancient attempts towards explaining the surroundings" ........... However, now, we can do better, we have more accurate sensors than just our eyes and touch ... and we can put things to more rigorous analysis.

Oh come on Thomas, no matter how enamoured you are of the scientific method, surely there's a bit more to it than that....