What exactly is the point of the “Bang” part of the Big Bang? Why don’t we have an infinite eternal steady-state universe instead? Why does the universe demand a “Bang”?
Well, that’s just a set up. The reason a Bang is necessary is in order to create initial starting positions for material reality because infinitely regressive backward material causal chains are impossible. Whoa! And what an implication! God exists.
Oh, yes. And while I am at it, matter is caused. Why? Because Zeno’s paradox can only be resolved through indivisible units of matter and space-time. Hence, on some indivisible level of tiny existence, matter must disappear and rematerialize as it moves - otherwise motion is impossible according to Zeno’s paradox. Because matter must rematerialize, then something must cause it to rematerialize. Hence, matter is caused. Caused matter also means there is no such thing as infinitely regressive backward material causal chains, which by the way is the bedrock principle of all atheism. No chains, no atheism. Again, God exists.
Is it not possible that the universe is constantly expanding, and matter is constantly expanding to fill its container? As this happens, is it not possible that natural cycles occur, for example - galaxies exploding and reforming, stars exploding and reforming, asteroids breaking up and reforming, life dieing and reforming? Perhaps information, life, and meaning - each makes some sense in context of size. We might not notice information exchange between stars rotating around each other, but perhaps it has meaning in some much greater context. As a star supernovas and reforms, maybe some of the matter does not completely re-condense in the next cycle. Maybe the “big freeze” is the base concept. And the death in this context is sad - but perhaps, as the cycles appear to die down (from our current abilities and perspective), we can choose to narrow down our context, or expand our context - and perhaps the natural cycles and fluctuations are still occurring at a smaller level (or larger). Is there not meaning in this? The thing about asymptotes is that we can find meaning in a different context.
I challenge the premise that indivisible units of matter must exist.
I also freely admit this is a belief. I also believe that entropy and gravity go hand in hand. As the universe expands constantly - gravity, the force of attraction, continues to exist.
New matter need not be created, only divided and/or attracted to allow for context of meaning, and meaning, respectively.
Dont see how material chains are causal. Material does not form itself into existence, it is simply moving around due to inertia and path of least resistance/pressure. We are witnessing complicated patterns of inertia, we are witnessing patterns forming from large timelines of inertia.
The idea that matter always existed, or matter spontaneously existed from nothing, or that God always existed, are all ideas of equal tenability.
They are not equally tenable ideas. Matter from nothing is impossible, because something does not come from absolute nothingness. Matter always existing is also problematic, because the Big Bang seems to have created matter and as I point out, the resolution of Zeno’s paradox demands that something cause matter to disappear and rematerialize in indivisible units of space-time. There is nothing simple about patterns forming from large timelines of inertia. The pattern has to start somewhere and that is what the Big Bang accomplishes. This means a God-like force is responsible for causing the Big Bang.
Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning . . . .” Care to explain?
But anyway, why don’t you pretend for a moment that there was indeed a Big Bang - and that all these scientists from around the world are correct in that assertion. So, why a “Bang”? What’s the point of the “Bang” part?
That was the beginning of the “World” (society) and enlightenment (the “light”), not the universe.
I thought you were merely being sarcastic. If there was a bang, it would have been due to something like extremely large black-holes colliding. But the original thought that started the BB idea came from a misunderstanding that implied a true singularity could exist. In order for the universe to spring from a singularity, the singularity would have to “explode”. Later they discovered that a true singularity cannot exist. But by then the religion had already pronounced its foundation and like other laws of physics, it could never admit that it was wrong.
And besides that, the very concept of a “before time” is an oxymoron.
And even more, there is no reason to believe that there was a beginning other than mere rumor.
Apparently they tried to mix religious misunderstandings with what science was discovering, rather than get their understandings straight and hold off making dogmatic laws for physics.
Sorry, I should have given you the whole quote. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, what besides God, the heavens and the earth is there? So, we know God didn’t create Himself, but He created everything else. That would include creating the universe too, no?
What is this proof that a true singularity cannot exist? I’ve never heard that before. Rather, it seems like the true singularity is simply the creation of material reality. It’s got to start somewhere and that’s the singularity.
I don’t remember for certain exactly what science used to make that determination. My method is different, simpler, and more certain. I suspect they used the Schwarzschild radius to see that the mass of a universe’s singularity would require that nothing could escape such an object even if projected at the speed of light, not even light itself. Every mass has a calculable Schwarzschild radius (M87’s is about 70 million light years leaving the black hole diameter at about 12 lys). The mass of the universe’s collected singularity would disallow even light to escape it from even quadrillions of light years away.
Well, they will change the meaning of the word “singularity” to mean that as they continue to try to save their ego. But your premise that “it had to start somewhere” is just flat out wrong. Just as on your prior thread about this,:
What is your proof that there had to be an “initial condition”? And again, I am sure that you don’t have one other than to say that you can’t figure out how calculus works therefore it doesn’t.
The “bang” is just used to describe whatever event caused the rapid expansion of the universe. Time is not made up of instants any more than space is made up of points. Zeno’s paradox was resolved a long time ago, and in several different ways.
There is lot of difference in " what happened at that moment" and “the universe came into existence from it”.
The debate is justified on the former, but certainly a stupidity in the later case.
And, this does not need even elemantry science to realize that the universe did not come into existence from bb. Just a little of common sense would be enough.
If there was nothing before bb, from where that singularity came, in which bb happened, and expanded the universe?
And, if that was there before bb, how can one claim that universe came into existence by bb?
Thus, it would be more logical to conclude that universe did not come into existence by bb. Yes, one may argue that bb changed the universe, which was already there at the time of bb.
X doesn’t fit into MY narrative so god must exist.
Here the X is the notion of the big bang.
Just because you don’t or to be precise, scientist don’t understand
how exactly the big bang started or what created matter, or what
was time before the BB. All this means is we don’t know. But that
lack of knowledge is not a reason to leap toward god. It is simply a lack
of knowledge. We might never know. All we can work with is what is today.
What is today is we have no need for the god hypothesis for the universe to be
understandable or we have no need for god for our lives to be understandable.
Now the second point is the evidence for a big bang and not the steady state theory.
Believe me when I say, people have really tried hard to discount the BB and despite their
best efforts, the BB theory still best theory to describe the universe.
Agreed- there is no time before, there was time, an oxymoron. therefore, eternity is the only plausibility.
But BB need not contradict eternity, since there could be an infinite number of BB’s.
The only possible scenario, is, that there is nothing different about being and nothingness, maybe only changes of state. A total nothingness contains an absolute being. This absolute being has only an absolute lack of any existential property, it is anti everything. It is the shadow world of all existence. It is pure possibility, containing all possible worlds before and after this instance.
It is pure consciousness. therefore, there is God.It is where paradox is anchored, to sustain the idea of infinitely divisible time and space. The paradox rests on this absolutely reduced point. It sustains all above. It is a pointless point, a compression of all the energy unto it’s self.
It extends to all realms, otherwise IT could not subsist It’self. Through him, In him, and With him.
