We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Anyone got the answer?


Chronos the 2nd

Likes # 0

Last night whilst unable to sleep my mind, as it does, wandered to the origin of the universe and related questions.

I have never fully accepted the Big Bang theory as no one has really explained what caused the largest explosion ever to have happen in the universe to occur.

And if, as it is, generally accepted, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate and if there was nothing before the Big Bang then what is the universe expanding into?

I am off to lie down now as my brain hurts.

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

Some Reading, if your Brain is up to it, down the page to heading big bang and brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaningoflife

Like this post
Chronos the 2nd

Likes # 0

This from Malvolio.

Our perception of the idea of a god-type figure isn't an explanation, not in any rational sense. Citing a god is merely an exercise in not explaining a cause because god is a way to avoid looking deeper; it is much more excuse than deity. To say that a god is attributable to any observed phenomena is to admit defeat before even trying. Try this exercise: name a post-modified state of an object, but do not acknowledge the preceding steps to reach that state, then attribute the existing state to the nearest observable influence. Example: Bob obtains toast from the toaster, but is unsure of where the toaster gets toast from; the toaster therefore has to make the toast - including all prior states of the toast - complete and in it's current form. Thus the toaster is the sole attributable source for toast as there are no other directly, immediately obvious observable steps after obtaining the toast from the toaster.

From the point of view of somebody eating a piece of toast the entire process behind growing, cultivating, obtaining the raw ingredients of bread along with the cooking, packaging and delivery are all contained within the toaster, entirely out of the persons view. When one acknowledges that the toaster is the sole attributable source for everything behind a piece of toast one completely misses out on and directly, wilfully ignores everything but the final product. This is ignorance of the highest order, this is why the label of "god did it!" is absolutely harmful to any rational argument and anybody applying this label should be ignored without question immediately. It is a non-argument, a non-answer.

To your other question I'll begin by entirely debasing my argument above: why does it matter in any way? Let me explain: we exist now, everything we observe exists now because of a singular event, a variety of processes, and massive amounts of time. What happened before that is just simply not that important as it bears no impact or relation to any of the physical processes we see around us. The only question answered is that of itself, and therefore has extremely limited ramifications within the scientific world - even less so within the world in general. So it is a very interesting question, but not one we need to spend a lot of time or energy looking into, it is simply something we are curious about.

The wheels are turning in your head, thoughts racing, asking the obvious question "If applying the god-label to things is not an answer to anything, and if we don't really need to answer the origin of the initial physical processes of the universe, then why is it bad to attribute this to a god-type character?"

Simple Timmy: the above assertion that what happened before the current physical processes doesn't matter is simply based upon the limited, sporadic, barely-conscious conception of our universe that we have. Without question our theories and ideas on this topic are flawed - potentially entirely. It is for this reason that we absolutely cannot abandon entirely any thought for a prior process to those that we currently observe, it is because we are most likely wrong. Should we accept a god-label for those things that we currently deem unimportant or too difficult to understand we admit defeat, cease the search, prevent future exploration, thought, discovery, imagination, progress. Stating a god as the sole attributable source is not the answer to a question we may never be able to fully come to grips with.

There is room here for one caveat though: should we continue to postulate, experiment and do come across a god-type character or effector beyond our current level of comprehension, then it's cause and effect will have to be factored into everything we know - as applicable - and the origin of this new process will be researched, though without a doubt many will still wish to apply the god-label to this origin as well. However at no point does the assumption of a god-type character as per current "understanding" ever benefit this process, merely biasing research towards whatever preconceived notions were adopted, because only one of the many thousands of religious ideas could ever really be used; they're all equally incompatible.

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

take the toaster to a simple step, though most people like doing things the hard way If you take the Toaster to bits as it has a fault, not forgetting you still have all the bits. by putting the bits in a Bag and shaking them up, Will it put the Toaster back together? that's leaving the fault out of the above equation. also as to mutations with a car fault, would you throw rocks at the car hoping that by an off chance it would improve the car tuning. what happens to the car in the meantime. so much for evolution where there are more theories than people that promote them. all listening to so called intelligent men and not reasoning for them selves about the above. They say well if doesn't know who does. what a lot of bull sheep led to slaughter

Like this post
Chronos the 2nd

Likes # 0

"take the toaster to a simple step, though most people like doing things the hard way If you take the Toaster to bits as it has a fault, not forgetting you still have all the bits. by putting the bits in a Bag and shaking them up, Will it put the Toaster back together? that's leaving the fault out of the above equation. also as to mutations with a car fault, would you throw rocks at the car hoping that by an off chance it would improve the car tuning. what happens to the car in the meantime. so much for evolution where there are more theories than people that promote them. all listening to so called intelligent men and not reasoning for them selves about the above. They say well if doesn't know who does. what a lot of bull sheep led to slaughter"

Lost me totally here.

Like this post
fourm member

Likes # 0

woodchip

'there are more theories than people that promote them'

I'm sure you're right. I thought I'd list them.

  1. Evolution happens
  2. Er
  3. Er

'A God created by man to explain the existence of feet in the absence of the knowledge of the existence of Tony'.

Like this post
bumpkin

Likes # 0

Sounds a useful toaster if it saves a trip to the bakers, do Argos stock them.

Like this post
marvin42

Likes # 0

woodchip

You are assuming the end product at the beginning. Evolution doesn't assume the end - it just goes where it goes by a chance meeting of various factors.

If I deal out a pack of cards in 4 rows of 13, the resulting pattern is one of 52x51x50 etc to x3x2x1 - a huge number. However that pattern was produced by a series of chances. This particular pattern is only very unlikely if you predict the pattern at the beginning. If you don't predict at the beginning then what will be will be.

As I said in an earlier post - if nothing can exist without a creator, who created God.

Actually I do know the answer to that - it was man who created God to explain what man couldn't.

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

And they still remain a pack of cards

Like this post
bumpkin

Likes # 0

Don't forget the Jokers.

Like this post
Bing.alau

Likes # 0

What I can't understand is... If everything is moving away from us at alarming speeds, why is it we can still see them? Things moving away get smaller and smaller to the human eye, so surely they would also get smaller and smaller to a telescope no matter how powerful it is. You would need more and more powerful telescopes as things get further and further apart.

It's probably all a big screen in space just like being inside a dome.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

Apple's 2014 highlights: the most significant Apple news of 2014

IDG UK Sites

Watch this heartwarming Christmas short by Trunk for composer John Rutter

IDG UK Sites

Ultimate iOS 8 Tips: 35 awesome and advanced tips for using iOS 8 on iPhone and iPad