User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
Theory of God

Many people make the mistake to confuse religion and theism. If someone (like me, for example) is opposed to religion, then it does not mean that the person is opposed to believing that there might be a conscious creator behind the universe.

In my opinion, religion is a childish and even stupid way to relate to God. Mainly because religions have some basic teachings (e.g. eternal life after death, other worlds (hell/heaven) (And I really *hate* the stupid multiverse-theory!), you have to believe to fulfill a certain function in God's plan etc.), and those teachings are not coherent with my feeling of the world that I live in. Meaning: If there is a God, then what religions teach their followers about that being is (in my opinion) false. It does not fit my perspective of existence.

Also, members of religions often seem to just swallow the teachings without really reflecting what is taught. "God is all-knowing!" So, does he know what you will think in 10 minutes? If so, then God would be *unable* (meaning: handicapped) to experience anything. Because every occurring event would be like an event in a movie that he had already seen 100.000.000 billion billion billion times.

I'd rather see God as a realtime-artist. And I'd rather see God as I see myself: Just a consciousness. If humans are "his" children and made in his image, then they can a) think about him because they have some data (apart from the problem that they have no idea if he exists or not) and b) they can think stuff like: "Is God a piece of shit for making cancer?" I used this rather drastic example to demonstrate to some readers how they fear to think negatively about God, to even dare to explore possibilities - and that is the opposite of truth-loving/truth-seeking. You must be able to question things, otherwise your relationship to God is worthless. It were much more scientific to explore possibilities like "can God make mistakes" etc., but hardcore-believers don't dare to do that, so... well. Keep living your dark unconscious lives if you insist, but the mere thought that you will make your children into drones of mental death makes my blood boil.

God, if "he" exists, clearly wants to create *the coexistence of consciousnesses*, he is not trying to create a group as large as possible that actually is just one (boring) mind with many instances teaching its children not to question but just to swallow.

Another thing against religion: Which one is right? Man, I am tired of this.

I am a big science friend. I am writing this on a computer while listening to MP3 music which I got via internet radio, and someone once ripped that music from CD. Lasers are envolved, light that does not occur in nature (without man's help). Transistors are envolved. Electricity. Magnetic fields (cooling fans). Science leads to manifestations in reality that can be experienced by many people. I would simply say: Science leads to truth.

And let me say this: If the universe is God's creation, then everything is magical. And that means that *nothing* is magical. They are not "special effects" any more if they are in every scene, ok?

Now, let's look at the beginning of the universe according to the current view of science (mixed with my way of looking at the world, so please don't Heisenberg me): The Big Bang. It all started in one singularity that birthed time, space, logic, the forces, and it is just one flow following the rules that emerged from the fact that everything is still a oneness, as if the universe still were the singularity. If not everything were connected to everything else, logic would fail. There wouldn't be cause&effect.

And then this system just flowed and flowed, as if life itself were trying to live all possible manifestations of itself simultaneously, and of course it has to make tradeoffs, because just as antimatter and matter didn't coexist peacefully, sheep won't live long where wolf packs prey. I would even go so far to say that we can observe the "purpose" (main function) of the universe, which I assume to be a manifestor, with virtual particles: Those emerge for a short timespan out of "nothing", won't find enough space (force-space) to exist in, then fall back into the oneness.

Why don't they fit? Well, everything has influence, otherwise we wouldn't call it existent or wouldn't know that it exists or it would not matter for the system that the universe is, and hence we, its inhabitants, would not ever know that it exists, and this collective influence-grid could be called a "will" (though I am *not* going for intention here), and those virtual particles are just not compatible with what this "will" currently wants, so they go away.

Speaking of influence on the universe system: If the idea "God" came up because there really is one, then "he" must definitely have (or have had) a measurable influence on the Universe and it could be possible to prove him scientifically. I think *if* that is so, then it were doable with longtime observations dealing with *statistics*, because *if* God has or had ever influenced the unfolding of the universe, then he would definitely have touched it from behind the uncertainty barrier of the quantum world, would have changed its rhythm in the very slightest way, like you stick a finger in streaming water and change its flow verrrry slightly. That prove would of course be extremely hard because of many factors and the main problem: Interpretation of observations. Oh, and of course, does "he" want to be measured. All he would have to do is evade the scientific expectations with his supposed juggling, and we're at zero again. But it's a thought, isn't it.

So, at the beginning, there was a big bang. What is at the end? I am not a friend of the thought that evolution was just the evolution of the species, but I technically stated that earlier when I said that I believe the universe to be *one* flow. I think that evolution started with the big bang and I strongly believe that it is still going on, that it is even accelerating. What is it that drives evolution? Well - that stuff happens and has to obey rules. Not every event/manifestation can coexist with every other event/manifestation.

And I would say that with the arrival of the human race, the process of stuff happening in a maze of possibilities that becomes more and more complex every century/year/day/minute has really sped up significantly. Let's go back to that metaphor of "will" of the cosmos: Our sun "wants" our planets to stay close. Earth mostly wants us to stay on its surface, not only because of gravity but also because we need expensive tools to fly and can't dig too deeply into it etc., so the will of the situation (including our instincts to survive and its conscious counterpart, the will to live) makes the humans stay alive on the surface of the planet earth.

Now the group-mind of the people wants murder not to happen. See? The humans are just like gravity or other forces (cause&effect-necessities), they are part of the "will" of the universe, they co-create the possibility-situation, and whatever life can do it *will* do (see virtual particles) within the confines of the given situation. On a side note: That stupidity is still existent is simply caused by our inability to form the possibility-situation to the effect that stupidity becomes impossible. My thesis is: Life will do *whatever* it can do within the confindes of the presented possibility-situation. That to me seems to be the one rule that reality follows. This rule, by the way, proves evolution.

I reiterate: The rule is not that stuff can only happen within the confines of the given possibility-situation. That would be like saying "Behold! I hereby claim that sky is blue!". No. I am stating that *whatever* is possible *will* happen! And I believe that this is actually the rule that applied to *anything and everything* that happened from the moment when the big bang began until right now.

Since the forming of the possibility-situation is so strongly shaped by us humans (though, admittedly, a 500km asteroid could easily cause a reboot, see #, we are active participators in evolution. Very active. Think of enterprises: They look at the possibility-space to find a place that is not yet taken by other companies and then they make money off of it. Artists try to paint pictures that have not been there before. Musicians try to make music that has... well... ok, the concept does not always apply.

You get the picure: If it is the universes "will" to fill itself with just about *any* manifestation that still fits, then we, the humans, are clearly its greatest tools, for we are looking *actively* for exactly that: What possibilities could I occupy with my will?

If it were really the universes "will" to fill any existing possibility-space that's left with manifestations of life, then we could be sure that no monster asteroid would hit us and also that the sun wouldn't become critical before we had found new homes.

And if that were true, then here's the secret to eternal life: Become a human that lives perfectly balanced with the local and global and cosmic (as described above) situation, and you would be one with the will of the world, at least you would live longer, stay "young" for a longer time.

Now, let's assume that it were possible to be at a time and space in the world and at peace with one's inner being to a degree that must be called *perfect balance*. Such a person could become aware of the rights and wrongs of its personal and the global possibility-situation to a degree where its view on reality becomes *objective*, meaning: As long as the person stays in perfect balance-unity with the world, it would be on a self-experience ride as depicted by the colorful ending of the movie "2001": Imprisoned in understanding. Hold your balance or I kill you. Like that.

How long / far would the ride go? Is there an ending? If we assume that evolution keeps accelerating and this person would have become impersonated evolution, everything that makes evolution stuffed into one person and mind, what would happen? Well, to be even more efficient, the person would learn about its function and how to perform it.

That is: This person would *consciously* become *the universe*.

Now, that would prevent it from performing its actual evolution-function because for example if the human is able to change reality in any way it likes to, the slightest mistake causes, well, Hell, and so this would be the end of its humanhood. Also, if its will is absolute, all humans would be robots, even just a phantasy, and again that would be the end of humanhood. One important balance-driver (society) would lose its function. The system (the universe himself) would find a solution, of course, and then this human would be able to live a human life, at the same time be the keeper of the garden, Mister Paradise, so to speak.

Since we can assume that this person would have empathy, the mere experience of other people's suffering (old age, sickness, ugliness, evil etc.) would cause the universe-rhythm to adapt and manifest a solution.

God is born.

Well, I'm just saying.

If you want more scriptures, send me money.

Just kidding.

More on the theoretical algorithm of the universe:

(This is just me rambling, but maybe I am onto something here, so why not at least put it into words. Maybe it's even useful.)

Let's say that the universe works in steps. That might be not so or those steps would take place over here *and* asynchronously over there, so when you look at the *whole* system, you wouldn't call them steps any more. Anyway, this is just a thought model. (How would we be able to really think about a *flow*.)

Let's say that we're already a few moments into the universe. A situation of coexisting forms/forces is given. Now the universe "looks" at the situation and derives the next possible steps.

"This thing over here could "give birth" to an agglomeration of somethingsomethings, that situation over there could do thisandthat, and over here we got something else that could come into existence now. Nice. So let's do it. Oh, wait. I can't go through with all of these, some are incompatible. For example, these two thingies over here would manifest in the same location. I have to make a compromise."

Now, what would the universe "decide"?

(I realize that my interpretation actually makes the universe kind of into a consciousness. Sorry, I can't help it. I was not going for the "The universe itself is God!"-idea, but at least in the context of this theory, it seems to be so. Well, wtf.)

So, what would the universe "decide"? Well, if its primary drive is to manifest as many forms as possible, then in the situation described above, the universe would still act like that, meaning: It would not manifest form A prohibiting the manifestation of form B and form C, instead it would manifest form B and form C which are compatible. Maybe it even would look at the situation in a more "intelligent" way, just like a computer programmer: "If I implement this like this, I create kind of an obstacle which could prevent thisandthat later, so I better choose another way now." The algorithm of the universe would be to make the right choice for the next step. And the right choice would be the choice that allows *the most possibilities, the most possible decisions*.

I once read the idea that the universe is "the light" (God) trapped inside of matter, and that it has to break free from matter. I don't remember where I read that, but I liked the idea very much. If we look at mankind, we clearly see that we try to escape the prison of matter as much as possible: We try to overcome our disabledness that is caused by matter.

We build machines to be able to fly, we even have trucks which can carry 300 tons, and one tiny human mind sitting at the steering-wheel controls all of this. I think we could call that an example of mind over matter. We try to sustain our flesh-form with all our knowledge about the world fused into chemistry (medicine). We want to be free of the disabling-effect that matter has on our minds.

So far, so half-reasonable.

Now let's lose it and phantasize:

If the primary element of existence were not matter/energy/forces but instead consciousness, then it were not the universe that is "just there" but instead it would be God who is "just there" and decided to make the world.

Of course, we don't yet have any reason [that touches science (which I strongly "believe" in) in a meaningful way] to believe that the universe was made by someone, so we would have to go with "the universe is 'just there'".

But, just for fun, I want to explore the opposite. Thought-experiment.

So, let's say, just for fun, that the primary element of existence were not matter etc. but instead consciousness. So, the big bang would not have been kicked of by itself (or fluctuated from a previous universe or whatever), but it would have been initiated by a consciousness.

What would have been "before" the universe? Well, just the consciousness, of course. A mind without a surrounding reality (hence also without body). This mind would not have been bound by any outer or inner rules. The term "insanity" does not apply when anything goes. So, it's reasonable to think that a mind without any dependancies/realities would be completely just its own phantasy. Dream and dreamer would be the same thing. The only truth would be: It exists. Everything else would be open to the decisionmaker which is itself imagined by the decisionmaker, hence *absolutely* dynamic, meaning: Not any mental rule-set like "I like colors" or something. Liquid consciousness.

This mind would of course be almighty: All the reality there is would just be a dream. The experiencer would be its own phantasy. It might not have the power *not* to exist, but apart from that, there would be no limits in any "direction".

What happens when this mind stops imagining anything? Well, then it would not perceive anything, but it would still exist.

It would just be "I am". What is "I am"? Whatever it decides to be.

Now, let's go back to the universe. I have no idea if the creation of the universe (if it was created) happened because God decided to have a *coexistence* of I-ams (for example humans), but for the sake of this text, I will just assume that.

So, then this everything decides: "I will form myself into the *coexistence* of forms. Before, I always was a oneness, but this time, I want to become *several*!" And there was light.

We're back at the algorithm of the universe: God imprisoned himself in the decision ("The rock that he himself cannot lift." (Just a question of decision. If you want to go through with a plan, then the decision itself is a rock, isn't it.)) to create coexistence.

He became the slave of an algorithm. "Look at the current form of existence and, for the next 'step', manifest *all* of the next possible forms (or at least as many of them as possible). Bear in mind not to block your way. Goal: As many coexistent diverse forms as possible."

And this might actually be what happened and still happens. It would also beautifully explain evolution in a way consistent with the scientific view (and *not* intelligently designed), *at the same time* disabling one of the strongest arguments against evolution, namely, that it happened in such a short time. The light wanted to become free, it wanted to return to the realm of *all possibilities* (Realisticly speaking: As many possibilities to "move" as possible.), only this time in *coexistence*.

Mankind is God.

(This text requires that you have read the intial text and the first reply about the algorithm of evolution.)

If the universe were God diving into "him"self to coexist with as many instances of "him"self as possible (example: mankind), then the emergence of the idea "God" in religion and elsewhere could have been caused by the mere fact that God, if "he" dives into one of his insanity dreams (as described in the other reply), does not lose the ability to "wake up" again and return to the state where he does not imagine/perceive anything, where he just exists. However intense God puzzles his consciousness, there is *always* a way back to wake up. And that people came up with the idea that there might be a God could very well just be caused by that aspect of the God-"technology".

Buddhists believe in an eternal circle of rebirth until nirvana is achieved: They might have "seen" a bit of the wiring under the floor of reality and misinterpreted it.

Christians believe that they have been kicked out of paradies. Guess what. God kicked himself out of his phantasy heaven. Coexistence is a burden until it is a blessing.

God can't hide from himself - people found out. Etc. But since his will is to create/experience/live the coexistence (hopefully to the fullest, because then we wouldn't be undone in a big crunch and wouldn't just fade out in heat death), theism is regarded to be bullshit, and from a scientific viewpoint, it is. Technically, the "fact" that all of this once was God and could have been whatever it wanted to be will forever be lost, otherwise God could not go on with "his" endeavour to experience the coexistence.

Then again, it would be *inevitably* his nature to wake up at some point. One of the reasons that people believe the "apocalypse" to be the end of the world: The world would surely end if God ever found out that all of this is "him" and woke up. The Greek word Apocalypse means "unveiling" or "disclosure". It could very well mean the discolsure of the secret that all of this is God himself, disclosed to *himself* in some form! Because that would be the point when he wakes up. Slurp. All gone.

He doesn't want to wake up. But it is in his nature. Now what?

The decision to experience coexistence would have to be finalized at some point. "They" say that God changed his eternal nature to become Love. I read that somewhere once. Well, maybe that is actually the problem that I just described above: He would inevitably wake up, but he is also the almighty one who can dream whatever the fuck he wants to, so he *must* be able to... guess what... create the rock that is so heavy that he himself cannot lift it. To overcome his own nature of allpowerfulness using his allpowerfulness. That sounds like a contradiction, but it is none: It is about creating a status quo which, after it has been created, exists. No way back.

If there would be a special point during the evolution of coexistence where the rock-creation (decision, not to wake up) becomes finalized, then this would have to be the point where the self-realization of the universe becomes impossible forever. *After* that achievement, if it is part of the process, finally the truth could emerge because then it couldn't harm any more. The true Paradise (God coexisting inside of himself) could be revealed to its inhabitants. If that happens one day, science *and* theism would have won because they got it right. Religion would be the big loser. After all, they tried and try to destroy God's creation. They try to wake up.

Btw: If mankind were the coexistence of God/gods, then sexism and racism were clearly objectively wrong (which they are anyway, I'm just saying), because everyone of us would be the holy one, and treat him with respect goddamned!

Damn, I got it wrong. I went the wrong way when I explained my view of how the universe evolved. :( It would not be about occupying any and all possibilities.

It would be about increasing the amount of possibilities. Every step that the universe takes would be to choose the option that would open a greater list of options of how to continue. Don't choose the path that has a dead end. Don't choose the path that just leads onward. Choose the path that leads to the highest amount of new paths.

Hm, the tree of life comes to mind.

Maybe the initial intention/idea was this: He wants to be 'I am' with all the freedom and features, but he wants to be that *inside of a dream*! To dream and to be awake at the same time. To eternally wake up to the "I am"-state. Constantly. Without a final "I am" and the dream gone. How wonderful would it be to find a dream that is true. To find... *reality*!

What would the first step be? I have no idea. But what we can believe is that later, a few seconds into the unfolding of the big bang (whether it was initiated by God or just happened for reasons we don't yet understand), particles and forces existed. And if this were really the process of God trying to dream up himself - pure possibility - then one aspect of the decision-making process of cosmic evolution, maybe even the main aspect, maybe even the only aspect, would be to increase the spectrum of possible next steps. Until the next step is not a list of possible pathways but *pure* possibility again, only this time *within* a dream.

Once the first (to me unimaginable) step has happened and the fundaments of the becoming of coexistence are laid, it is all about increasing possibilities.

The becoming of biological life on this planet is definitely an increase of the amount of options of what can happen next. And beings swimming/crawling around are clearly more similar to a free roaming god than planets which are bound by their orbits.

Finally (from today's perspective), the human emerges. It can even reason about what is possible, what makes sense to be done next, how to increase the list of options that it can choose from.

One of them might finally reflect in his/her mind what pure possibility really is, and then it would have happened: The universe would, using a human as its final tool, have dreamed up God.

Do you mind me pointing out that you seem to be talking to yourself? Anyone can reject any scientific theory (even those that were verified decades or even centuries ago) but religious convictions are the real dogma not scientific theories. You prefer science to religion, in that case, what scientific argument is there for the supernatural? Abrupt Appearance is the doctrine of creationism not science. 'God did it' over 'Evolution' and the 'Big Bang'. The God-Consciousness sounds like the latest ID theory and is not provable. Assuming is not proof. Theism and creationism go hand in hand. It believes on faith in something that can't be proven. What is real is what's still there when you stop believing.

Only through vigorous testing and careful evaluations will the most plausible and accurate hypotheses survive and develop into theories. Theories are always improved upon or lead to other theories, but they don't need help from the flat earth section to do it better. Evolution and The Big Bang Theory are not getting weaker (as some would have you believe) they are getting stronger. What's odd is that creationist don't actually offer an alternative "scientific theory", and do not define an error with any known scientific theory. If it were only about science I don't think anyone would object to creationism. However, establishing fundamentalism in America by introducing the concept of a creator in science classrooms is in my opinion the agenda. This is an old conflict merely the latest guise in a war on Separation of Church and State. Most of the support comes from former supporters of creation "science", who see in the ID movement as a potential way to get around the legal rulings that killed creation "science". ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution. The movement certainly seems to hope that the study of consciousness will be the end of Darwin's theory of evolution. According to proponents of ID, the "hard problem" of consciousness - how our subjective experiences arise from the objective world of neurons - is the Achilles heel not just of Darwinism but of scientific materialism. This fits with the Discovery Institute's mission as outlined in its wedge document, which seeks "the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies", to replace the scientific world view with a Christian one.

Now the institute is funding research into "non-material neuroscience". Angus Menuge, a philosophy professor at Concordia University, Wisconsin, a Christian college, who testified in favor of teaching ID in state-funded high-schools at the 2005 "evolution hearings" in Kansas. Using a Discovery Institute grant, Menuge wrote 'Agents Under Fire', in which he argued that human cognitive capacities "require some non-natural explanation".

Scientists know that nobody can prove anything about god, they just find answers to questions that are real with testable prediction like the "Big Bang" Theory - The Cosmic Microwave Background is incontrovertible evidence that the Universe experienced a "Big Bang". Darwin's theory of Evolution and his explanation of how intelligence developed: One of the creationist's arguments against evolution is that 'natural selection' could not have evolved cognitive skills (intelligence.) The ID theory is a supernatural intelligence made everything. That is not a scientific answer. Intelligence evolved as a cognitive strategy in humans to meet the complex demands of their survival. The more difficult it is to survive the more intelligent the organism. Intelligence has to evolve, because evolution is how new traits appear and intelligence is definitely a new trait that evolved well after the basic original bacterium. Evolution operates by natural selection: traits that help an organism survive to reproductive age, and that help it to produce offspring that do the same, and will be in evidence in those succeeding generations. Traits that did not do this will disappear with the organisms that died before they could pass them on. The prolonged action of 'natural selection' can be expected to leave traces behind in the structure of modern organisms. And when scientists go looking for those traces they invariably find them in droves. Natural selection operates by preserving small, favorable variations that occur naturally in any population of organisms. Over time these variations accumulate to the point that large-scale change is the result. This implies that natural selection works by modifying structures already present in the organism. It does not craft new, complex systems from scratch. Intelligence (abstract thinking) evolved specifically to allow our ancestors to deal with evolutionary novel problems. Demonstrating that performance on an evolutionary novel problem (an abstract reasoning task.) What modern man is learning (from birth) is what it has taken mankind to learn for millions of years. So, our intelligence is also based on the fact that we are learning what it has taken millions of years to develop in terms of knowledge. None of the so-called Intelligent Design (creationist) theories have been proven; all of the arguments to date against evolution have been proven wrong, and no new theory has been presented by anyone.

It's not surprising that most people don't know about the James Webb Space Telescope, which is set to launch in 2013 and study the origins of the universe. I'm fairly certain that the decision was made long ago that the general public does not need to know what real scientists are discovering. The public can do just fine with creationism the pseudo science, which has kept the mob in line for over 2000 years.

Your God consciousness theory connection to the Big Bang theory does not have any scientific basis. A supernatural explanation of natural phenomena or "God did it" is not logical, it is not rational, and is unacceptable.

I would also like to add to this about the 'BIG BANG' theory. While I certainly believe that scientists are narrowing in on certain aspects of what started 'the universe'. I don't believe that many of the public are understanding what the scientists are telling us. You see, I have NEVER EVER heard a scientist say that the BIG BANG was the beginning of time. I have heard the theories that the BIG BANG is what created the galaxies and planets and stars....which is commonly referred to as "the Universe". BUT, I don't believe any scientists are stating that the BIG BANG is what created space, or time. I believe scientists think the BIG BANG was just an effect due to a cause that happened to be in space. There was VERY likely, time, matter, and space prior to the big bang. Also, many scientists (I am an atheist carpenter) will say "The universe is expanding." Well, this is just simply not a very accurate way of stating their discovery. You see, what they actually mean is, galaxies are all moving outward from each other, and the measure of the universe is actually the distance from the furthest visible object on one side of the universe, to the furthest visible object on the other side of the universe. This is not to say that space does not exist beyond the furthest visible objects. Infact, this is not to say that space does not exist infinitely in all directions. The scientists just really don't know. Until we build a telescope with a light on it that is powerful enough to see that far, we will never know. Or...maybe we could build a space ship that flies much much faster than the speed of light, and we could fly there and check it out. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do EVER, to prove when time began. Hopefully someone actually reads this.

QUOTE: "I would also like to add to this about the 'BIG BANG' theory. While I certainly believe that scientists are narrowing in on certain aspects of what started 'the universe'. I don't believe that many of the public are understanding what the scientists are telling us. You see, I have NEVER EVER heard a scientist say that the BIG BANG was the beginning of time. I have heard the theories that the BIG BANG is what created the galaxies and planets and stars....which is commonly referred to as "the Universe". BUT, I don't believe any scientists are stating that the BIG BANG is what created space, or time."

The Nobel Prize winners in Physics went to NASA astrophysicist John Mather and University of California Berkeley astrophysicist George Smoot. Using instruments on NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) they were able to see details of the remnants of the Big Bang almost to the beginning of time, within 300,000 years of that event some 13.7 billion years ago.

QUOTE: "Until we build a telescope with a light on it that is powerful enough to see that far, we will never know. Or...maybe we could build a space ship that flies much much faster than the speed of light, and we could fly there and check it out. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do EVER, to prove when time began."

NASA not only undertakes voyages in space, but also in time. Thanks to the finite speed of light, NASA has even succeeded in making several voyages to the beginning of time, and that is what the Nobel Prize "for the discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation" is all about. The achievement of the new Nobel Prize winners, using instruments on NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), is that they were able to see details of the remnants of the Big Bang almost to the beginning of time, within 300,000 years of that event. At Goddard Space Flight Center astronomers began to develop a satellite that could not only measure variations in the background radiation, but also prove that it was blackbody radiation - required if this was the real remnant of the Big Bang. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was launched in 1989 by a Delta rocket. It would return observations for four years. But within hours it had demonstrated that the radiation was indeed blackbody, and in a news conference April 3, 1992, Smoot announced COBE had observed "the oldest and largest structures ever seen in the early universe the primordial seeds of modern-day structures such as galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and so on huge ripples in the fabric of space-time left over from the beginning."

QUOTE: "I believe scientists think the BIG BANG was just an effect due to a cause that happened to be in space. There was VERY likely, time, matter, and space prior to the big bang."

The Big Bang Theory - Our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. Singularities are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density. These zones of infinite density are called singularities. Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, singularity. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: living on a planet, circling a star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity.

QUOTE: "There was VERY likely, time, matter, and space prior to the big bang. Also, many scientists (I am an atheist carpenter) will say "The universe is expanding." Well, this is just simply not a very accurate way of stating their discovery. You see, what they actually mean is, galaxies are all moving outward from each other, and the measure of the universe is actually the distance from the furthest visible object on one side of the universe, to the furthest visible object on the other side of the universe."

Big Bang Theory - Misconceptions - There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example: a giant explosion (you are not saying that.) Experts say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. It is not like a balloon popping and releasing its contents, it is like a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Stephen W. Hawking suggested that what scientists now call imaginary time might be the true reality, while real time might be only an invention to simplify describing the universe. Hawking and another physicist, James B. Hartle, proposed the idea as part of their attempt to describe the initial state of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Imaginary time is a purely mathematical concept used to try to explain the origin of the universe and better comprehend the space-time continuum. The term came from another mathematical idea (imaginary numbers) which developed in the Sixteenth Century. In mathematics, negative numbers exist; square roots of negative numbers should be possible. However, there are no single numbers that when squared will produce a negative number. The solution was to call the square root of a negative number an imaginary number. The square root of minus one is represented by the italics letter i. The square root of larger numbers then became a real number times i, for example the square root of -16 is 16i.

Hawking and Hartle were trying to understanding such things as what came before the "Big Bang" at the beginning of the universe as well as what laws were true at the beginning of time itself. By combining Einstein's ideas about time and space (from the theory of relativity) with the known laws of quantum physics, they developed a mathematical description of space-time that used imaginary time.

Quantum theory can predict how the universe begins. Imaginary time is a genuine scientific concept. Imagine it in the following way ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real as what we call real time. The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called Euclidean space-time. Space and imaginary time together, are finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges.

If space and imaginary time were like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. If the state of the universe in imaginary time is known, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again.

Loop Quantum Gravity was pioneered and is being developed in the Penn State Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, and is now a leading approach to the goal of unifying general relativity with quantum physics. Scientists using this theory to trace our universe backward in time have found that its beginning point had a minimum volume that is not zero and a maximum energy that is not infinite. As a result of these limits, the theory's equations continue to produce valid mathematical results past the point of the classical Big Bang, giving scientists a window into the time before the Big Bounce.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup