The Big Bang AKA Where The **** Did It All Start? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2011, 11:02 AM   #21 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

nah the laws of physics are already set by God

he needs it to be immutable so's to have some sort of order in the universe
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 11:09 AM   #22 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
Well, what you have to realize is that gravity is one dimension in a million that constitutes life. I think basically what Carl Sagan was trying to say is the fact that if you take way the mystical, loving, consciousness of God, you have nature which forms on it's own, and constitutes what God is in every other way.

Whether or not you consider that 'God' or not comes entirely to a debate of semantics.
He makes an interesting point, but I often see people on MB make posts suggesting that God (capital G) is synonymous with nature. The word "God" with a capital G has been defined many times, but I've never seen a definition which allows it to be used as a synonym for nature or natural laws (definitions typically include a spirit or an infinite will) so I think people should stop doing so. If people are not writing about God as something sentient, then they should be using a different term to describe what they're thinking of. If they don't think of God as something sentient, then I don't think they should write that they believe in "God".
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
Guybrush is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 02:25 PM   #23 (permalink)
Partying on the inside
 
Freebase Dali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
i actually do have a working knowledge of the theory behind all this (or did have)

i think the quantum mechanical theory of things just appearing out of nowhere feasible for me (I can't exactly remember the quantum physical mechanics behind this)
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to how subatomic particles "pop" into existence... what was interesting to me is scientists actually measured this activity in a vacuum that used very sensitive equipment to measure fluctuations in the path of (I forgot what it was, but I think it was a laser).

Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any particles in a vacuum. It's supposed to be the absence of anything. Yet, while light can travel through "nothing", it was still being interfered with. The only way to explain the interference was by the energy produced when these subatomic particles popped into existence very briefly, and (according to theory) collided with its anti-particle and destroyed. So what the scientists were beginning to realize was that these tiny events were happening all the time, in what we previously thought was empty space. So in a grand scheme of things, this suggests that not only can something come from nothing, but that it happens all the time and is a practical fact of nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were referencing, but I thought I'd talk about it anyway, as it's pretty interesting stuff.
Freebase Dali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 02:39 PM   #24 (permalink)
Quiet Man in the Corner
 
CanwllCorfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pocono Mountains
Posts: 2,452
Default

__________________
Your eyes were never yet let in to see the majesty and riches of the mind, but dwell in darkness; for your God is blind.

CanwllCorfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 04:08 PM   #25 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
The Hindu concept of Brahman is fascinating. It's the concept that God does exist, but is also what everything in life is comprised of.

Take out the mystical crap plus God Hierarchy, and it sounds a lot like 'existence = God' which, to my knowledge, is a point Carl Sagan has argued for, and pretty much conforms to the concept that the laws of nature ARE God.



Of course Hindus still worship, and revere existence, as many other deities. In essence 'pray' to gravity. However, it's a bit more feasible than the magic man in space that Judaism, and religions born from it present.

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That's why I think it's a tad pretentious to concrete the Big Bang as a fact. It doesn't mean throw it away, or throw away the discoveries from it. Just means, it's out of our grasp for the moment, but should remain in place as it's the leading theory, and really sort of benefits us to have.
To some extent I would say Existence=God, I think that is pretty accurate. I think the difference between what I believe and what Carl Sagan is saying is that he's approaching it from the other direction.

What I am saying really is that all of the religious teaching of the Abrahamic faith is valid, it just so happens that over the years people have misunderstood what is actually meant by God, whereas maybe I've misunderstood but I get the idea he is saying all religious teaching is essentially invalid because God is an omnipotent force and not a Human.

Of course God is not a Human. I can't create a Universe of my equals. If anything or anyone were to say to me, "I am God" well I would not really believe them.

I am, or have the capability to be better, stronger, smarter than any living creature bound by the same laws of physics as me. Everyone does, and everyone should believe that - thats your basic ego there.

God to me is an idea, like I said, the point of origin and the point of eternal growth.

If you say God is nothing more than Existence, well it then becomes very easy to limit your understanding of that existence. There is always another question to be asked, that to me is the pursuit of God. If you ever find the absolute answer, well, in my belief, you have found God. In my belief, God is not the laws of nature in absolute, because where did the laws of nature come from? I would call the laws of nature and the forces of the Universe, God's messengers. Gabrial, Azrail etc.

There's something...I can't quite define. Like this wavey sort of..something between the lines I dunno. We can all talk to each other we can all interact, we all must share some commonality...however the Unvierse started, well we are all in the same one. That is evidence to me of God. Not neccessarily of so called "intelligent design" but not neccessarily manic chaos either. SOme sort of equilibrium between the "flaw" of intelligence and the irresponsiblity of chaos.

I believe the Universe was started by what we could call some act of intent...but only because comparing what we think of as intent to this original intent, is like comparing a fish to a galaxy, sizewise, by comparison.

TO be quite frank, outside of this...mainstream media line where everyone tries to fit in around each other, it is my experience that there are very few Jews, Christians and well I can say for certain Muslims because I grew up with them, that actually think of God as a literal magic man in the sky.


I think the mystical crap is a place holder for what we don't yet understand.
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 04:33 PM   #26 (permalink)
Ba and Be.
 
jackhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: This Is England
Posts: 17,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali View Post
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to how subatomic particles "pop" into existence... what was interesting to me is scientists actually measured this activity in a vacuum that used very sensitive equipment to measure fluctuations in the path of (I forgot what it was, but I think it was a laser).

Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any particles in a vacuum. It's supposed to be the absence of anything. Yet, while light can travel through "nothing", it was still being interfered with. The only way to explain the interference was by the energy produced when these subatomic particles popped into existence very briefly, and (according to theory) collided with its anti-particle and destroyed. So what the scientists were beginning to realize was that these tiny events were happening all the time, in what we previously thought was empty space. So in a grand scheme of things, this suggests that not only can something come from nothing, but that it happens all the time and is a practical fact of nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were referencing, but I thought I'd talk about it anyway, as it's pretty interesting stuff.
Yes this has been observed which could lend credence to the big bang theory in that there truly was nothing to begin with but particles 'borrowing' from their negative self's.

I think that until things like dark energy and anti matter are actually figured out, we are still a long way off from many many answers.

I have noticed religion being mentioned in posts and that is inevitable regarding this subject as we are no closer to a definitive answer (if ever) to the eternal question but I will abstain from any religious debate within this thread as I am much more interested in the science and physics aspect but by all means - talk amongst yourselves!

This doc is excellent as are most of the others collected by the same user and well worth a watch if you get the time:

YouTube - ‪Horizon - What happend before the big bang (full version)‬‏ (preferred to not clog up this sites bandwidth and link straight to YT).
__________________

“A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”
jackhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 02:35 AM   #27 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali View Post
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to how subatomic particles "pop" into existence... what was interesting to me is scientists actually measured this activity in a vacuum that used very sensitive equipment to measure fluctuations in the path of (I forgot what it was, but I think it was a laser).

Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any particles in a vacuum. It's supposed to be the absence of anything. Yet, while light can travel through "nothing", it was still being interfered with. The only way to explain the interference was by the energy produced when these subatomic particles popped into existence very briefly, and (according to theory) collided with its anti-particle and destroyed. So what the scientists were beginning to realize was that these tiny events were happening all the time, in what we previously thought was empty space. So in a grand scheme of things, this suggests that not only can something come from nothing, but that it happens all the time and is a practical fact of nature.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that's what you were referencing, but I thought I'd talk about it anyway, as it's pretty interesting stuff.
yeah something like that

i think it's feasible that the entire universe could have just randomly appeared from nothing
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 07:22 AM   #28 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
In my belief, God is not the laws of nature in absolute, because where did the laws of nature come from?
The laws of nature come from nowhere. They existed before matter, we know this because all matter adheres to them. They're not literal laws written in a book. In fact, the explanations of how they work is rather an abstract idea, not an existent thing.

Laws of nature dictate nothing more than how matter reacts to a circumstance, time, and place. Nobody wrote these laws, because they are not written, they're just the deeper functioning mechanics of the universe, if they don't exist, nothing exists.

Therefore, nothing could have existed to 'write' them.

That's why they are 'God' because they are the absolute.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 09:28 PM   #29 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Mr November's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
Default

So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.
Mr November is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2011, 09:33 PM   #30 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman View Post
So why are you guys trying to define what God is anyway? If there is this much dispute over what the word means, than is it a useful word at all? No.
Cause it gives perspective to those who believe that the world needs a creator to function.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.