Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

quote:

---

Don't tell me you're one of those 'there must a purpose' people.

---

Of coz, I don't mean a purpose from a belief pov. A purpose and a complex construct are two different things; the latter can subsist w/o the former - namely with no purpose but to exhibit a complex structure, going nowhere and for no reason.However, by reductionism, if we consider the human body - or a pineapple or a car, these do represent a purpose in their complexities, although this is limited to a short period of existence, and we have no clue what happens after this point. But upto that point, we have every reason to believe that all functions are purposeful, whether voluntary or involuntary - in the macro and micro realms. Everything in the universe thus appears purposeful to its surrounds, and everything appears intergrated in a critical mode. There is no waste or superfluous factors - the design takes the shortest route between two points, and utilises everything of its attributes purposefully, down to the last quark colors: why should we assume all existence is purposeless?That we do not know what happens after our existence, does not mean there is no purpose - it means we do not know, and that everything does has a purpose. IOW, we cannot assume that we 'know' what lies beyond, and thus there is no purpose. This is not a philosophical, but a manifest scientific and logical conclusion. Although we don't know - the odds of everything says there would/should be a purpose - else we contradict everything which is manifest.

Does it? Where do you get that from?

The source which first declared the universe as finite. But seriously, it is also correct, when examined. When one thing changes another - the changer has greater power than the changee. It is also the only factor which cannot be seen in the finite realm.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What? Who declared it as finite and where did they say this equated to no change? What? The bacon sandwich I just ate changed the state of my appetite from hungry to nicely satisfied. Is a bacon sandwich more powerful than me? What do you even mean 'more powerful'?This whole infinte = static and unchanging concept of your seems completely unfounded.Talk of power or whatever has got nothing to do with anything......If there is an infinite set of numbers we can arrange them in an infinite number of ways. We can change the ordering of the numbers.So how do you conclude infinite = unchanging?

IAJ, Not true. Science is trying to determine if there was a creation event or not. The realization that there are other dimensions may be a large step in understanding other beings or not. Understanding a 5th dimension may lead us to discovery of a 6th dimension and so on. The idea is rather difficult to grasp but humanity can't simply say "this was all created" because of the fact that we have Science. So, actually, thinking of a 5th dimension is Scientific because it is not supernatural it is natural.I provided a link that may or may not help you understand what a dimension is and also how it is a natural phenomena which brings mankind to a better realization of reality.Dimension - WikipediaEdited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks

quote:

---

Science is trying to determine if there was a creation event or not.

---

The BB is one of science's acknowledgement of such an event - this is the genesis version of science. It is hardly about an event occuring, because we have an on-going event [a happening], and the issue is only how/when/why. If you see a small stream, which becomes a large river and then an ocean, you cannot question if an event occured, only how; this is the same situation with the expanding universe.

quote:

---

The realization that there are other dimensions may be a large step in understanding other beings or not. Understanding a 5th dimension may lead us to discovery of a 6th dimension and so on.

---

No impact - these dimensions are factored in the equation; its not like the universe emerged seperately from or out of other dimensions, neither would it make any difference if that in fact was the case: a dimension is only a matrix like a space bed - at best it can contain a program or alligning element. Water is a dimension on this planet - as much as time.We know that dogs cannot see rainbows because they are color blind: does it mean rainbows [a hiiden dimension for dogs] do not exist - or that color blind dogs are part of this equation? In the early days, man did know about time - we probably don't yet know of other dimensions - but this knowledge will come, and the universe question will still hover.

quote:

---

The idea is rather difficult to grasp but humanity can't simply say "this was all created" because of the fact that we have Science. So, actually, thinking of a 5th dimension is Scientific because it is not supernatural it is natural.

---

All science can do is give us explanations of what is a pre-science and pre-universe design. We can use that knowledge to emulate designs which will assist us advance.So no doubt there was an event which resulted in the universe, and we see the effects as on-going; whether this is a BB type or genesis type is an issue which has not yet been determined by science - which means that genesis was right as far as the event was concerned, and only the detail of that event is in question.It is also blatant that an event occured on this planet 6000 years ago - because all paths and factors point there and within that circle, Eg: speech, writings, populations, mental prowess, names of humans, wars, kings, houses, music, songs, dieties, religions, the wheel, history, etc, etc, etc. Here, genesis cannot be taken lightly - the last 100 years have seen great efforts to prove otherwise, and all we have are lab de-constructed stray imprints of alledged, assumed, and heavy-handed interpretations of cave scratchings, fireplaces, colored beads - appearing once or twice throughout the planet, with no transit imprints of graduations, and all much too close to the genesis datings. These hardly are conclusive.The issue cannot go forward unless the universe status is agreed upon: that it is finite. There is nothing to know if this is rejected, because all and any answers can be put on the table, and none can be questioned. It ceases becoming science anymore, and we can always say space or any other factor, was always there and it happened all on its own. Here, genesis triumphs - it declares which universe it is discussing up-front: one which had a BEGINNING.

quote:

---

Who declared it as finite and where did they say this equated to no change?

---

Waky, waky."IN THE BEGINNING THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WAS CREATED""I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED"These verses are deceptively simple, but are made in a mode suitable for all generations of mankind. Today, we see the blatant, deep science embedded therein: they become 100% science when read scientifically. Do you think these were meaningless, superfluous verses - when they are couched in the same context of the universe origin?

IAJ,You have a lot of issues to sort out.

---

Thanks

IAJ,the Christian Bible is a redacted errant prone myth.

---

Thanks

Nonsense. You are blinded by religious belief and simply will not allow yourself to see what is all around you, and what is clear to the vast majority of humans.You have convinced yourself of this magic 6000 year date, but it has no reality. And it's off topic as well.If you want to discuss this magic 6000 year barrier, start a thread in the Science Forums.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What has genesis to do with the christian bible? A: zilch.

Better if you responded to specific factors posited: you did not do that. Else the one who is religiously paranoid is not myself. I am hardly blinded by religion - I gave critical and specific factors why the 6000 date is a stand-out one; nothing to do with any religion but hisorical factors.

IAJ,the Jewish Bible is a redacted errant prone myth. You're a Jew. LOL. Does that mean you realize that you're blinded by religion? That is really sad that you know your blinded by religion. LOL. WHAT HISTORICAL FACTORS? Do not mention that you're a Jew as that is meaningless.Edited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : edit

---

Thanks

I suppose understatement isn't a crime.

Off topic here. Start a separate thread in Science Forums.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.