Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[thesometimesaint]

Eldynn:

Joseph Smith was born in 1805 CE not 1805 BCE.

While an Atheist may know about religion is general I seriously doubt a typical Atheist knows more about the LDS faith than a well informed LDS, any more than a typical Atheist knows more about Judaism than a well informed Jew. Even that Pew poll doesn't state what you are claiming.

From the simple expedient that science doesn't address the meaning of anything. IE; When I add Sodium Hydoxide to Hydrochloric Acid it doesn't MEAN anything. It just produces salt water(DO NOT do this at home folks. It can result in nasty burns).

[shalamabobbi]

I'm really confused why religion is better at speculating about meaning than science is? What gives a theologian more insights than a scientist? The fact that he has studied ancient scripture written by bronze age men trying to understand a world without science? Plenty of scientists have studied the bible too ya know. In fact, when quizzed, non-religous people are the most knowledgeable about the bible, followed by Jews and Mormons,

Why on earth should we trust these people about meaning more than a scientists? What is it about religions that makes it more of an authority?

Franktalk talks about KNOWING fundamental things about the universe are true. Well, sorry buddy, but you don't KNOW. If you can't admit that, then you are lying- hopefully not to yourself. Nobody could possibly know for sure. Scientists are at least honest about the limitations- finding things that are "more likely" to be true than not. They are honest about their ignorance- and call their most backed up data just theory. Meanwhile, a general authority stands in front of his flock, says whatever he feels like, and passes it off as absolute truth.

Why?

I'll take a stab at this. Let's start with the comment about general authorities. They have a world view as do the rest of us that is filled with some correct ideas and some incorrect ideas. My perception is that when someone receives a spiritual experience that confirms their faith in the gospel, it gets "over-applied" to their entire world view.

As for the limitations of science I think they are rather obvious. A rape, an affair, the consumation of marriage are technically identical. Intentionality is debated and consciousness declared to be an illusion even though this is a humunculus error. An illision to who or what??

The most cutting edge/current treatise I could find on emergence is Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged from Matter by Terrence W. Deacon. And we are eons away from answering any deep questions about consciousness much less meaning or purpose which don't exist without free will.

The reality is that some people have very real spiritual experiences and as a result become members of the church. For me (a convert) at least the possibility that these experiences can be explained away as the creative enterprise of my mind is removed because they involved others in a manner that confirmed their realty outside of that possible explanation.

[Franktalk]

Shalamabobbi,

I liked your post 227. There are some absolutes I hold as a person but I know I can not dictate these to others. Everyone must experience their own day to day life. I know that some are very receptive to ideas outside of this plane and others hold to their senses and refuse to even consider the possibility that anyone could experience anything that they have not experienced.

As for the big bang it is all a matter of interpretation and assumptions. The biggest assumption is that we have enough data to make the sweeping declarations that are common today. And of course that is a matter of opinion. I know how much effort has gone into the analysis of the universe. So I respect the current theories I just don't hold them as the end of the story. I tend to think that over time all will work out. Exactly what that is I sure don't know. I have no problem with people having all kinds of opinions on the big bang and other subjects.

I would like you to consider the picture I inserted in a prior post showing a quasar. If you see the size of the quasar compared to the stars in the galaxy I think it implies the quasar is massive. Then if you consider the distance it is supposed to be away from the galaxy then it would have to be even more massive, a lot more. Do you have any explanation for this or am I looking at this picture wrong?

[Cobalt-70]

From the simple expedient that science doesn't address the meaning of anything. IE; When I add Sodium Hydoxide to Hydrochloric Acid it doesn't MEAN anything. It just produces salt water(DO NOT do this at home folks. It can result in nasty burns).

I think that's too simplistic. There is such a thing as meaning within science, just not religious meaning. Any scientific theory is an example of data meaning something. For example, the fact that when you let something to, it falls to the ground, means that gravity is pulling it down. The observation that things fall is the data, and the theory of gravity is the meaning.

It's just that science does not operate by, for example, identifying a passage in the bible that says the devil is the cause of our fallen state, and then infer that things fall to the ground because of the devil. That type of thinking is religious, and is not a part of science. It doesn't mean the "devil causes things to fall" theory isn't a valid meaning, but it is a different meaning than the scientific meaning.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

I would like you to consider the picture I inserted in a prior post showing a quasar. If you see the size of the quasar compared to the stars in the galaxy I think it implies the quasar is massive. Then if you consider the distance it is supposed to be away from the galaxy then it would have to be even more massive, a lot more. Do you have any explanation for this or am I looking at this picture wrong?

A quasar is a massive black hole in which there is an in-flux of matter. Despite their great mass, on the order of millions of suns, they are very tiny, so tiny that you could never see their width in a telescope. In telescopes, the size of the dots you see for stars and other objects is not the actual size of the object. Rather, the size of the dot is proportional to its brightness, not its mass or width.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

There is really no meaning to science. It is just the explanation of how things happen. I'll leave the why to the theologians. To be accurate both objects are pulling on each other. Apples have little momentum when compared to planets.

Such is the ambiguity of language.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Mass and size are not the same thing. A bowling ball and a balloon can be the same size, they are not the same mass.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70:

There is really no meaning to science. It is just the explanation of how things happen. I'll leave the why to the theologians. To be accurate both objects are pulling on each other. Apples have little momentum when compared to planets.

Such is the ambiguity of language.

Having done science myself, and having read countless scientific journal articles, I can definitely say that scientists ask what things (usually data) "mean" all the time. Any formulation of a theory from data is a quest for scientific meaning. What differs from religion is the rules for which that meaning is derived. Science finds meaning through the scientific method, deduction, and peer review. Religion finds meaning through the interpretation of ancient texts, mystical experiences, and charisma.

[shalamabobbi]

Then if you consider the distance it is supposed to be away from the galaxy then it would have to be even more massive, a lot more.

That's exactly right, a LOT more massive.

You like to read the fringe science material and that's fine I guess but it's a good idea to balance that reading with sites that purport to debunk those fringe views and understand the reasoning used. The article I posted covers the history behind the red shift controversy, Arp and Quasars. If you read it carfully you will see presented the evidence for and against Arp's views.

If you'll google Quasars and review the listed articles on just the 1st page alone you'll find the reasons for considering Quasars to really be very distant objects.

As an example note the following:

..because the quasars are at such large distances, it is difficult to see anything other than the bright nucleus of the active galaxy in their case. As we have noted above, modern observations have begun to detect around some quasars jets and evidence for the surrounding faint nebulosity of a galaxy-like object.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/quasars.html

Quite at odds with being as close in proximity as Arp believes them to be..

You might also google articles on the steady state model of the universe and why it was rejected. All models result in certain expectations and predictions and are only rejected after the evidence available is shown to contradict the models.

[Rivers]

I have don't have much of a problem with the big bang theory. The part that I don't understand is how anybody can conclude that the big bang was the beginning of absolutley everything.

[LDS_RM]

Every time I read the thread title I keep hoping it was the show "Big Bang Theory" that was mocked. (sorry not a fan of the show Big Bang Theory) As for the Big Bang, I figured God had to get things started somehow, and way to start things could be more fun than a HUGE GINORMOUS explosion.

[Cobalt-70]

I have don't have much of a problem with the big bang theory. The part that I don't understand is how anybody can conclude that the big bang was the beginning of absolutley everything.

That's a question science has not answered. There are several theories, taken seriously by cosmologists, in which the big bang is not the beginning. Some mathematical studies based on string theory propose that big bangs are a regular periodic occurrence of this universe. Other theories propose that a big bang occurs, spawning off a new universe, whenever a black hole forms.

[Franktalk]

My perception of you (since you offered yours of me) is that you choose to remain secluded from what has been discovered and is known perhaps for the reason that it moves you too far too fast from your comfort zone. Perhaps because it raises more questions than you can answer or even imagine answers to. If I'm right welcome to the club! Hey I still know what spiritual experiences are mine and prize them most highly but I've found I've loosened my belt a notch or two where it comes to having to have a currently perfect explanation and answer for everything under the sun.

A very reasonable position to take. But I have embraced the few comments in scripture that declare that this world will not be the truth. That does not mean I can not learn and understand the relationship of the forces and parts of this universe. It just means that those relationships are not meaningful other than what they are. I will not extend those understandings into other realms which science can't and won't venture.

I see that many now believe that quasars are actually distant galaxies. So my comments about the size of a quasar were in ignorance of the current thoughts. Personally I think it is too early to know much about them. I will however agree with Arp until some better arguments come along. Not that I am fixed on that opinion. It may turn out that the current understand and Arp are both wrong. This I feel is the most likely conclusion.

Anyway I hope you don't think I pick on you. I do think you have acquired a great deal of knowledge in science. If I do cast some stones at some of the ideas of science then if the data is solid my attempts will not make a dent. But if the ideas are weak then let the light of day shine on those weaknesses.

[cinepro]

One interesting wrinkle between LDS doctrine and "The Big Bang" would be idea that God lives in our universe (i.e. near a planet named "Kolob").

As President Kimball taught:

I have often contemplated the marvelous age in which we live with its developments far beyond our expectations of years ago. We have probed space by astronauts and great cameras. But though astronomers have developed powerful telescopes through which they see much, prophets and seers have had through faith clearer vision at greater distances on some things with their precision instruments of faith and the Urim and Thummim.

To the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord revealed, “And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom. … And unto every kingdom is given a law.” (D&C 88:37–38.) The Prophet Abraham wrote, “And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given me. …

“And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; …

“And the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me … ; I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.” (Abr. 3:1–3.)

So I guess the question would be "where did God live with his body of flesh and bone before the Big Bang?"

Edited April 18, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Then they're asked for an opinion, and opinions are like navels...everyone has one. I'm fine with that but that is what it is.

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

It wasn't the start of everything. Just those things that pertain to this universe. At our present knowledge there is no way to know what if anything existed before the Big Bang. For that you need to go to religion.

Edited April 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[shalamabobbi]

A very reasonable position to take. But I have embraced the few comments in scripture that declare that this world will not be the truth. That does not mean I can not learn and understand the relationship of the forces and parts of this universe. It just means that those relationships are not meaningful other than what they are. I will not extend those understandings into other realms which science can't and won't venture.

Agreed.

I see that many now believe that quasars are actually distant galaxies. So my comments about the size of a quasar were in ignorance of the current thoughts. Personally I think it is too early to know much about them. I will however agree with Arp until some better arguments come along. Not that I am fixed on that opinion. It may turn out that the current understand and Arp are both wrong. This I feel is the most likely conclusion.

Anyway I hope you don't think I pick on you. I do think you have acquired a great deal of knowledge in science. If I do cast some stones at some of the ideas of science then if the data is solid my attempts will not make a dent. But if the ideas are weak then let the light of day shine on those weaknesses.

That's the process of learning that we all go through and continue to go through. Hopefully we'll continue to have that privilege in the next realm..

[shalamabobbi]

One interesting wrinkle between LDS doctrine and "The Big Bang" would be idea that God lives in our universe (i.e. near a planet named "Kolob").

As President Kimball taught:

So I guess the question would be "where did God live with his body of flesh and bone before the Big Bang?"

I guess it depends upon whether we can see/perceive the spiritual realm with our natural eyes (the senses and an extension of them). If not, then perhaps Kolob along with the matter comprising an immortal body would not be part of the observable universe and there's more to eternity then what we (can) know about.

A different wrinkle or problem arises when a universe that is static (without beginning) is proposed -the consumption of fuel within stars and no apparent replacement/recycling of that fuel.

[Franktalk]

Every time I read the thread title I keep hoping it was the show "Big Bang Theory" that was mocked. (sorry not a fan of the show Big Bang Theory) As for the Big Bang, I figured God had to get things started somehow, and way to start things could be more fun than a HUGE GINORMOUS explosion.

There are other theories out there. The one I like is the White hole cosmology. It is a new theory and suffers from problems. But this is expected from new theories. There is a book out there I am sure you can find it. So if you do seek you find that others look at the beginning of the universe differently. It is just a majority opinion held by many that the big bang is the answer. If you go to youtube you will find many videos against the big bang, some are not bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=related

Here is one that I like.

[Cobalt-70]

So I guess the question would be "where did God live with his body of flesh and bone before the Big Bang?"

Mormons (despite Hinckley's statements that "God was a man" is not official doctrine) believe that God was eternally a spirit, and that his body of flesh and bone was something that was created. So there would be two possible theories: (1) his body is from this universe, created after the big bang, but that his intelligence was somehow transferred to this universe before his mortal birth, or (2) both his body and spirit were created in another universe, and they somehow passed (maybe via a wormhole) into the present universe. I'm not saying I endorse either of these theories.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Franktalk]

So I guess the question would be "where did God live with his body of flesh and bone before the Big Bang?"

There are other theories out there. The Plasma cosmology does not have a date like the big bang.

Here is some info on a plasma universe.

[Tarski]

There are other theories out there.

So called theories, at least like the ones you promote are a dime a dozen. You seem to shop around for whichever one gives you the niftiest cosmic feeling. They are invariably disjointed fringe anti-knowledge.

Physical theories that have clear mathematical content, that are based on evidence and that are consistent with what we know already are not a dime a dozen.

Here is some info on a plasma universe.

That video was hilarious. Not a drop of science. Quite idiotic actually.

Be respectful.

[TAO]

Eh, um... guys... we literally have very little information on matter outside of the universe. It's decently logical that some type of matter it exists.... but... we don't know very much if anything about it. So I'd not go to scientific theories to tell whether or not God's body could or couldn't exist before the Big Bang. I'd go to God on that one.

[Franktalk]

Eh, um... guys... we literally have very little information on matter outside of the universe. It's decently logical that some type of matter it exists.... but... we don't know very much if anything about it. So I'd not go to scientific theories to tell whether or not God's body could or couldn't exist before the Big Bang. I'd go to God on that one.

That is so true. But many of God's sheep are told by the people of the world that nature has all power and God is not needed. I do think that a lively discussion of science is fruitful sometimes just to cast doubt and uncover the overreach of man. There are some on this board that wrap them self with any current thinking and refuse to even consider that they could be wrong. Just look at Tarski's words and you see what I mean.

"So called theories, at least like the ones you promote are a dime a dozen. You seem shop around for whichever one gives you the niftiest cosmic feeling. They are invariably disjointed fringe anti-knowledge."

But most major advancements in science came from people who at first were ridiculed by the establishment and only later when the weight on observation became overwhelming did the tide turn. In matters of astrophysics since we have no direct observation of the past it becomes easy for a current theory to hold because those who disagree lose their job. Not all but enough to put a wet blanket on new ideas. But science has taught us to go to the source if we desire knowledge. In this case and many others a direct conversation with God is a very good idea.

[Mariner]

That is so true. But many of God's sheep are told by the people of the world that nature has all power and God is not needed. I do think that a lively discussion of science is fruitful sometimes just to cast doubt and uncover the overreach of man. There are some on this board that wrap them self with any current thinking and refuse to even consider that they could be wrong. Just look at Tarski's words and you see what I mean.

"So called theories, at least like the ones you promote are a dime a dozen. You seem shop around for whichever one gives you the niftiest cosmic feeling. They are invariably disjointed fringe anti-knowledge."

But most major advancements in science came from people who at first were ridiculed by the establishment and only later when the weight on observation became overwhelming did the tide turn. In matters of astrophysics since we have no direct observation of the past it becomes easy for a current theory to hold because those who disagree lose their job. Not all but enough to put a wet blanket on new ideas. But science has taught us to go to the source if we desire knowledge. In this case and many others a direct conversation with God is a very good idea.

Frankentalk,

Tarski understands the difference between potentially productive unconventional ideas based on a look at the science from a different perspective (like Einstein who tried to imagine the world from the perspective of a photon, for example, and realized that things worked better if all observed motion was considered relative) and, on the other hand, the wild and wholly unfounded imaginings of folks who show no sign of having a clue about the science (like perpetual motion machine inventors).

You, my friend, definitely fall into the latter category, and should probably learn the difference before you try to lecture someone like Tarski on science or even the philosophy of science.