Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

Big Bang not the Beginning

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I recently had to brush up on the subject in order to grade a thesis on loop-inspired quantum cosmology.

That's interesting. I'd thought LQG was mostly dead with Smolin moving more towards philosophy. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I question the motivation that would cause someone to publicly speak on a subject they know little about.

Quote

Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

That is a claim to omniscience that Prophets never claimed to have. And ultimately a claim to ignorance.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

The earth is not flat; Stars are not holes in the firmament; Pi isn't the whole number 3; and putting a stick in the ground doesn't change the genetics of farm animals. Life on this planet evolved over Billions of years. Get over it.

The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That is the traditional knock about multiverse models. I think theologically Mormons need something like that since we have a materialist ontology and believe in something akin to an infinite past. 

So now scripture is science again?

Cardinal Bellarmine, we are apparently still on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is a claim to omniscience that Prophets never claimed to have. And ultimately a claim to ignorance.

Are you saying Ezra Taft Benson was not sustained by the church as one of 15 prophet seers and revelators when he gave that talk?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So now scripture is science again?

Cardinal Bellarmine, we are apparently still on your side.

Scripture can have implications in the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Nofear said:

I thought I wrote Christian theology. I apparently didn't. Oops.

You would still do well to broaden your horizons. The position of "at least it's not young earth creationism" isn't really that impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Scripture can have implications in the real world. 

As opposed to what? The unreal world ?  ;)

So the Cardinal was right?

And atheists cannot therefore be correct about science?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2017 at 12:38 PM, Nofear said:

I've tried to say this several times here. Here is a more sophisticated presentation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/

"What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!"

I and my interpretation/understanding of LDS theology have no problems with the Big Bang. I still hold some agnosticism about inflation (leaning against) as we still have no scientific understanding of at least half the universe (e.g. spirit matter) but just because I don't understand everything doesn't make me ignore what is clearly before me (e.g. a dark night sky (points for those that understand that allusion)).

 

More of an FYI post than a discussion post. But hopefully it informs future commentary. :)

Quote

 we still have no scientific understanding of at least half the universe

Not "WE", You do not have scientific understanding. There's plenty evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

There's plenty evidence.

Pray tell the names of the scientists that have actually seen dark matter or have utilized dark energy or have produced either in the lab. There is plenty of supposition, assumption, speculation, implications etc. but physical evidence for what is claimed to represent the vast majority of the universe is ephemeral. The dark stuff MUST be there in order for the theories to work. Sounds a bit like another subject we are wont to discuss here.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/21/2017 at 1:32 PM, Nofear said:

I suppose that is an apt comparison. Well, except that we know about the vast preponderance of evidence that supports The Big Bang model (but not multiverse models). We know we don't understand some 95% of the universe's content (leaving ample conceptual room for things like spirit matter). And that there is nothing really to suggest the need of a multiverse other than, hey, why not speculate about it. Theologically and scientifically it is entirely unnecessary and theologically multiverses pose problems (one example: a corporeal body moving from one universe to another -- no proposed multiverse model would allow such an option).

Without the multiverse there is no infinity of creations and worlds, such as we find in LDS theology.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, strappinglad said:

t like another subject we are wont to discuss here.

Agreed, it would be a huge waste of time. Just to give you a hint, light reaches as far as 13.7 billion years hence...And all we can do is speculate afterwards, whether there was a creation process or spontaneous beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

You would still do well to broaden your horizons. The position of "at least it's not young earth creationism" isn't really that impressive.

Advice duly noted. ;)

35 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Agreed, it would be a huge waste of time. Just to give you a hint, light reaches as far as 13.7 billion years hence...And all we can do is speculate afterwards, whether there was a creation process or spontaneous beginning.

Consensus models currently put the age closer to 13.8 billion years. The op was, though, an fyi that the consensus model doesn't technically address t=0 (just really close).  Beyond that, like you, I don't find "discussions" along the lines of "my speculation is better than your speculation" all that productive. I am more content with the position "I don't know what the right answer, just that (generic) you are wrong!" :D

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying Ezra Taft Benson was not sustained by the church as one of 15 prophet seers and revelators when he gave that talk?

Ezra Taft Benson never claimed to be omniscient. He like every one of us is entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Pray tell the names of the scientists that have actually seen dark matter or have utilized dark energy or have produced either in the lab. There is plenty of supposition, assumption, speculation, implications etc. but physical evidence for what is claimed to represent the vast majority of the universe is ephemeral. The dark stuff MUST be there in order for the theories to work. Sounds a bit like another subject we are wont to discuss here.

No one has ever seen an electron. But here you are using billions of them every second. BTW Lack of knowledge doesn't dictate a God.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No one has ever seen an electron. But here you are using billions of them every second. BTW Lack of knowledge doesn't dictate a God.

No, but it has mass which can be measured , and charge , and electrons are utilized to great benefit of humanity. I anxiously await similar findings and uses for dark stuff. Maybe in another few decades it will be much better understood, OR it will go the way of space ' ether '. Then there is the electron phenomenon where the mere act of looking affects it. Who was it that said ," not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine " ?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes we now know it has mass, and charge. It wasn't that long ago that we didn't know those things. Thank goodness we do now know those things. First we have to establish what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are. It isn't that those things are literally dark. It is because we know next to nothing about them, other than their effects. It may take less time or much more time to find a useful technology for them. I''m not really into Prophesying about that type of thing.  IE; We still don't know exactly what gravity is, outside of its effect. Even though it was Newton some 4 centuries ago that tried really hard to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2017 at 9:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

As opposed to what? The unreal world ?  ;)

So the Cardinal was right?

And atheists cannot therefore be correct about science?

Not sure what you're saying. To take a more Rorty like view how to you reconcile different language games? (Say science and some folk interpretation of an area) They are different games of course. Take folk psychology and real psychology. Yet we also have to recognize that elements of folk psychology as used to express things have to be engaged with by scientists. That mixing of language games seems something that Rorty was open to and indeed was part of his whole idea of discussion in politics. If anything Rorty's problem was a bit too much optimism that this could be done well - particularly in the political arena. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you're saying. To take a more Rorty like view how to you reconcile different language games? (Say science and some folk interpretation of an area) They are different games of course. Take folk psychology and real psychology. Yet we also have to recognize that elements of folk psychology as used to express things have to be engaged with by scientists. That mixing of language games seems something that Rorty was open to and indeed was part of his whole idea of discussion in politics. If anything Rorty's problem was a bit too much optimism that this could be done well - particularly in the political arena. 

My turn.

Not sure what you're saying.

Science works better than folk magic.  I grew up in Western New York actually near Palmyra though I had never heard about Mormons.  When I was small we had an old farmer who lived next door and they were into folk magic in a big way.  I was sick.  My mom mentioned I had a fever,  to the woman next door- now in her 80's in the early 1950's- meaning she was born in probably the 1870's- and she had to solution to the fever!  She said "Put a silver knife under the bed and it will cut the fever"

Well we had 4 doctors in the family so of course she gave me some aspirin and sent me to bed and would have followed the course of modern medicine.   Of course I got better.

I don't think the silver knife would have worked as well.  Of course technically it was not tested, but on the other hand there was no control group available. ;)

Not much of a choice between paradigms there. 

The role of philosophy is to point out conflicts in language games, but within language games the proof is always in how well the description solves the problem.

You can use a screw driver to drive a nail but that is not the best paradigm.   Using a hammer works better.

As you say it gets more difficult in politics- everyone wants to be "compassionate" but the best way to get there may differ.  Is giving to an individual poor person enabling them or is it the "compassionate" thing to do?  That is ultimately a political question, and so that is the source of debates and linguistic confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My turn.

Not sure what you're saying.

Science works better than folk magic.

True, but you have to communicate with people who aren't scientists. Thus you end up with hybrid language games. I'm just suggesting that theology is one of those hybrid games.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

True, but you have to communicate with people who aren't scientists. Thus you end up with hybrid language games. I'm just suggesting that theology is one of those hybrid games.

Disagree. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×