The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: ?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?  (Read 36230 times)

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
I have posted my theory of creation in a few forums on the net and have not received any response.  Could you please tell me what portion(s) of my theory is not plausible according to observations that form the basis of the theory of ď The Big Bang ď and why?

Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?

Looking to God as the creator, God is light, in him is no darkness at all. God is spirit, not created energy so we would not be able to detect his reality within our own reality, even though both realities coexist. The light of creation is a created light. God, who is infinite and eternal, exist within his own imagination ď for lack of a better word.Ē God is pure thought, you can not measure the distance of him, he just is.

God created something new. God created a four dimensional reality. The forth dimension of time is an illusion created within reality, by the movement of light within reality. When God spoke reality into existence, his words are not as our words ( sound vibrating through air, ) his words spoke through time creating the pattern his created energies would follow throughout creation.

Instead of a big bang, beginning with all of the energy of the universe, condensed into a tinny singularity. My theory begins with a pure energy ( light ) that filled the entire universe.

Light began to separate from light. at the very beginning of this separation, when the two forms of energy (  light )  would touch, they became one energy again, this process created a tremendous amount of heat energy.

As the temperature cooled to the point of, what you call quark confinement, two types of energy was created, free energy and confined energy. The cooling did not necessarily cause the confinement of energy, but rather the stretching of the free energy caused the cooling and confinement of energy. The confined energy would be the energy that creates mater. The free energy would be the energy that pulls it all together, or gravity.
( So called quarks, became the confined energy? anti quarks the free energy?, or confined and free photons? )

As the confined energy began to condense, the free energy began to stretch. The confined energy condensed at individual locations throughout the newly forming universe causing the free energy to stretch across the entire universe.

This stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the faint background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.

What you detect as electrons, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.

It is imposable for the confined energy, or mater, to travel at the speed of light, instead it spins within itself at the speed of light. This spinning of the confined energy causes the rotation of planets and black holes. The free energy orbits the confined energy at the speed of light, producing what is observed as the electron ( cloud ) around the nucleus of atoms.

Free energy travels at the speed of light, therefore it is infinite in mass, therefore it fills the universe. This free energy is what creates gravity. Light gravitates toward light.

Free energy, being infinite in mass, creates the fabric of the universe through which light ( photons ) travel. This energy must be infinite in mass, so that every point in the universe intersects every point in the universe at every point in the universe, to create our hologram reality. How else would you be able to observe the entire universe from any point in the universe?   

This would explain why different forms of light, which are waves, behaves as a particle when you observe it. The very act of observing it stops its motion, thus it is no longer infinite in mass.

This would also explain the red shift when observing the galaxies, the greater the distance, the greater the observed energy is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, thus the greater the red shift.

The condensing of the confined energy throughout the universe, condensed into great concentrations throughout the universe. The tremendous pressure of the condensing of the confined energy ( quarks? Photons? ) caused this energy to compress into protons and neutrons to form the nucleus of atoms,

 These concentrations became so great it caused great explosions leaving behind the huge black wholes in the center of the galaxies.  The energy released in the explosions spiraled outward because of the rotation of the black holes. This energy condensing throughout the newly forming galaxies  began the formation of stars. The condensing of energies and explosions of stars produced the matter for the formation of planets.


 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #1 on: 11/11/2009 11:27:22 »
WunderingTruth, thank you for sharing your imaginative ideas.

Unfortunately, at this stage your post is closer to a philosophical concept as opposed to a scientific theory.  As this is first and foremost a scientific forum you will have to first restructure your statements to make them pertinent to the language of science.  Ultimately this will mean using mathematics to describe you theories, but you can advance scientific concepts some way without this.

Quote
Could you please tell me what portion(s) of my theory is not plausible according to observations that form the basis of the theory of ďThe Big Bangď and why?
Be aware that it is impossible to measure the validity of your statements without you having defined what they actually mean scientifically.
For example you use constructs such as 'pure light'. This has no clearly defined meaning in science and therefore you are going to have to 'reframe' you arguments in ways that can be transformed unambiguously into testable theories (ultimately in a mathematical form).

The other problem faced is you also start from the presumption of God's proven existence, that He is commanding proceedings and has set the rules for 'creation' to unfold along.
Although a significant proportion of scientists have a religious belief, it is necessary for them, if they are to be taken seriously, to leave God out of their work.  The scientific method is the most powerful means we have of analysing 'nature', but it can't begin to say anything about untestable concepts of faith.

Please continue to explore what science has already given us, as well as your own imagination. Just do so in a way that can offer testable results.  It is not enough to ask where your 'theory' contradicts observation without explaining, in a universally understood manner, what your ideas actually are.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2009 11:42:24 by peppercorn »
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #2 on: 12/11/2009 03:43:04 »
I mentioned pure energy ( with light in parentheses ), the same pure energy that is produced when matter and antimatter annihilate each other. According to The Big Bang Theory, this energy was present at the very first instance of the big bang. All energy is made up of different forms of light. Pure light, by definition is pure energy that has no wavelength or frequency and is not moving because it has no darkness to move through, before time, matter, or math exist.

Instead of a big bang, beginning with all of the energy of the universe, condensed into a tinny singularity. My theory begins with a pure energy ( light ) that filled the entire universe.

I mention God as the source of the bringing into existence this pure energy ( light )

The Big Bang Theory mentions a minute singularity in which all of the energy in the universe once was contained.

Both are concepts that can not be mathematically theorized or scientifically perceived.

I know it's hard for some, maybe most, but not all of the scientific minds to get past the ( G ) word, but I am looking for someone who can.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2009 04:03:43 by WunderingTruth »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #3 on: 12/11/2009 11:04:26 »
All energy is made up of different forms of light.
I appreciate where you're going with your concept, but to take it further I recommend you read up on some popular science articles.  For starters, not all energy is light (even 'light' is a narrow band [visible to our eyes] of the electromagnetic spectrum).  The energy that causes nuclear reactions for example is a separate 'force'. In fact there are four of these fundamental forces observed in nature:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html
- gives a simple introduction to these & wikipedia (& others) gives a more complex description.

Quote
Pure light, by definition is pure energy that has no wavelength or frequency and is not moving because it has no darkness to move through, before time, matter, or math exist.
Sadly, this is inconsistent with science's definition of light. All light must have a wavelength.  To argue otherwise is going to close the development of your idea off to a lot of the advantages that science and maths can bring.

Quote
...before time, matter, or math exist.
...
The Big Bang Theory mentions a minute singularity in which all of the energy in the universe once was contained.  Both are concepts that can not be mathematically theorized or scientifically perceived.
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang.  Efforts to avoid the infinite numbers that occur in mathematical models of black holes & the big bang are one of the major stumbling blocks in physics today, but each advance has to built on the solid foundations of proven science.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #4 on: 13/11/2009 07:12:54 »
Quote
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang.  Efforts to avoid the infinite numbers that occur in mathematical models of black holes & the big bang are one of the major stumbling blocks in physics today, but each advance has to built on the solid foundations of proven science.

How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved ( so many unanswered questions )IE. How does light behave as wave/particle, what is the first cause of the " Big Bang ", What causes gravity, The Big Bang itself is still just a theory, not proven fact.

Quote
not all energy is light (even 'light' is a narrow band [visible to our eyes] of the electromagnetic spectrum).  The energy that causes nuclear reactions for example is a separate 'force'. In fact there are four of these fundamental forces observed in nature:

Quote
1. Gravity - This force acts between all mass in the universe and it has infinite range.

2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force and it also has infinite range.

3. The Strong Force - This force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms and is a short range force.

4. Weak Force - This causes Beta decay (the conversion of a neutron to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino) and various particles (the "strange" ones) are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions (that's what's strange about "strangeness"). Like the strong force, the weak force is also short range.

The weak and electromagnetic interactions have been unified under electroweak theory (Glashow, Weinberg, and Salaam were awarded the Nobel Prize for this in 1979). Grand unification theories attempt to treat both strong and electroweak interactions under the same mathematical structure; attempts to include gravitation in this picture have not yet been successful.
Do you admit all ( energy ) is different forms of the same thing? In ( my concept ) visible light is part of the infinite range of the same energy ( light ). I also challenge the view of ( particles ) of energy as stated in number 4 above. If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.

Also in ( my concept ) The so called " decay of energy particles " is actually energy being absorbed into the infinite mass of energy that makes up the " fabric " of the universe.

Quote
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang. 

To one who believes God must not even be considered to be taken seriously, it may be meaningless to talk about before the universe came into existence. Time began to tick in terms of our universe at the beginning of the creation of our universe.

If your perception of reality is formed within your mind by the information your mind receives, is it not possible that our limited four dimensional reality dwells in God's mind? If you cant find the dreamer within the dream, does that mean the dreamer does not exist?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #5 on: 13/11/2009 09:33:58 »
The big bang is not a stretch of Gods imagination. If anything, it's a stretch of our own.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #6 on: 13/11/2009 12:13:56 »
The big bang is not a stretch of Gods imagination. If anything, it's a stretch of our own.

Since god is a stretch of our own imagination, then that is automatically implied.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #7 on: 13/11/2009 12:31:54 »
But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #8 on: 14/11/2009 12:09:09 »
Going to turn this into a religious thread? ::)

God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2009 18:01:47 by WunderingTruth »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #9 on: 14/11/2009 18:50:42 »
How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved (so many unanswered questions).
I would have to challenge the statement that ignorance is the same thing as having lots of unanswered questions.  For a start, ignorance is implies that very little useful work can continue until a more complete understanding is not forthcoming.  Be this measure our current set of physical models of nature are anything but ignorant.  The fact that we can solve all sorts of technological problems and make amazingly accurate predictions of the outcomes of incredibly complex systems does not strike me as poor foundation on which to build our understanding.

Quote
If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.
My apologies. I tried not to be biased, but being short of time I did scan read your original post when answering.  I now see I was too quick to assume you had not explored the current scientific research and have a fair grasp of the theories that tie our universe together.

That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon.  Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory.  My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.

You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:
Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.
There is NO evidence that the dimensions of space are somehow 'knitted-together' "free" energy [again, sorry if I have misunderstood your ideas, but I think that's what you're saying].  Although, interestingly particle theories based on the mathematics of symmetry-breaking (superstrings, being one) do predict that particles could be the points of multi-dimensional space wrapped up tightly on themselves - sort of the inverse of your idea.
Any energy that is infinite by nature (as you suggest your 'free energy' is, would be unsustainable without forming a singularity.

But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?

Our own vision of 'God' is what we individually understand the word to mean, no more, no less.  I don't see the point in arguing over semantics.  At the end of the day, if a creator is real, no human analogy is going to be correct.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #10 on: 16/11/2009 13:33:31 »
Science has many good foundations to build upon ( within its limitations ). Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. All of the unanswered questions is due to a lack of enough knowledge to answer the questions.

Quote
That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon.  Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory.  My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.

Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? 

Quote
You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:
Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.

I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms.

I am attempting to put forth a concept that could answer these questions. Science also is putting forth their own concepts in an attempt to answer these questions, IE. Dark matter, dark energy, warping of the fabric of space causing the effects of gravity.....

I believe my concept makes more sense, ( especially with the wave/particle characteristic of light ).

Other questions science is looking for answers to, during the process of the creation of ( matter and antimatter ), and their subsequent annihilation of each other, how did enough matter survive to create all of the matter in the universe?, and where is this missing energy ( dark energy, dark matter )?
     
Quote
From my original post
Free energy, being infinite in mass, creates the fabric of the universe through which light ( photons ) travel. This energy must be infinite in mass, so that every point in the universe intersects every point in the universe at every point in the universe, to create our hologram reality. How else would you be able to observe the entire universe from any point in the universe?   

Say you have a super eye capable of seeing millions of light years into space. The lens of this super eye is 1/4 inch in diameter. In order to " see " the lens must receive information from light energy. as you rotate this eye it can see the entire vastness of space, and everything in it. No matter at what point in the universe you position this eye it is able to receive this information ( light ).

This is only possible if light, which is a wave, is infinite in mass to spread throughout the universe. Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish this.

When light is emitted it appears as a particle, as it speeds to light speed it masses out infinitely as a wave, when it is observed its motion is stopped and it appears once again as a particle. This would also be true with electrons.

Quote
From my original post
This stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the faint background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.

The free energy orbits the confined energy at the speed of light, producing what is observed as the electron ( cloud ) around the nucleus of atoms.

What you detect as electrons, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2009 14:00:42 by WunderingTruth »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #11 on: 16/11/2009 14:50:24 »
Science has many good foundations to build upon (within its limitations).
These limitations are what? Please explain.

Quote
Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation#Origin_of_rotation
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.

Quote
I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms.
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics.

Quote
Science also is putting forth their own concepts in an attempt to answer these questions...I believe my concept makes more sense.
Do you want to play by the rules of 'science' or not?  If your concepts make more sense than current theories can you use scientific language (ultimately including maths) to support them?

Quote
how did enough matter survive to create all of the matter in the universe?, and where is this missing energy ( dark energy, dark matter )?
     
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too, as more matter was created during the earliest period after the big bang.  I may be right in thinking neutrinos as theorised to represent much of so called dark energy. [It's a long time since I looked at this stuff though!]

Quote
Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish [transfer of information from all points in the universe].
Why can't they?

Quote
...as [light] speeds to light speed...
Light can ONLY travel at light speed.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #12 on: 16/11/2009 17:34:20 »
How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved (so many unanswered questions).
I would have to challenge the statement that ignorance is the same thing as having lots of unanswered questions.  For a start, ignorance is implies that very little useful work can continue until a more complete understanding is not forthcoming.  Be this measure our current set of physical models of nature are anything but ignorant.  The fact that we can solve all sorts of technological problems and make amazingly accurate predictions of the outcomes of incredibly complex systems does not strike me as poor foundation on which to build our understanding.

Quote
If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.
My apologies. I tried not to be biased, but being short of time I did scan read your original post when answering.  I now see I was too quick to assume you had not explored the current scientific research and have a fair grasp of the theories that tie our universe together.

That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon.  Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory.  My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.

You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:
Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.
There is NO evidence that the dimensions of space are somehow 'knitted-together' "free" energy [again, sorry if I have misunderstood your ideas, but I think that's what you're saying].  Although, interestingly particle theories based on the mathematics of symmetry-breaking (superstrings, being one) do predict that particles could be the points of multi-dimensional space wrapped up tightly on themselves - sort of the inverse of your idea.
Any energy that is infinite by nature (as you suggest your 'free energy' is, would be unsustainable without forming a singularity.

But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?

Our own vision of 'God' is what we individually understand the word to mean, no more, no less.  I don't see the point in arguing over semantics.  At the end of the day, if a creator is real, no human analogy is going to be correct.

The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?

 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #13 on: 16/11/2009 20:10:17 »
The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
Eh?  A little help?  .... Anyone?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la rťsistance!"
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #14 on: 17/11/2009 03:19:18 »
The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
Eh?  A little help?  .... Anyone?
It's unimaginable to me that you can't imagine what Mr. Scientist was imagining. You just have to use your imagination.

There! I imagine that helps a lot.
« Last Edit: 17/11/2009 04:23:50 by Geezer »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #15 on: 17/11/2009 10:37:44 »
It's basically a crude reduction to who imagined God in the very beginning.

Who created YHVH basically.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #16 on: 18/11/2009 06:45:12 »
Peppercorn ::)

Quote
These limitations are what? Please explain.
Limited within the realm of information that is proven fact. With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on to try and establish theories such as, the big bang, string, dark matter, dark energy..............

Quote
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.

Quote
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Electrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).

Quote
Do you want to play by the rules of 'science' or not?  If your concepts make more sense than current theories can you use scientific language (ultimately including maths) to support them?
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.

Quote
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too, as more matter was created during the earliest period after the big bang.  I may be right in thinking neutrinos as theorised to represent much of so called dark energy. [It's a long time since I looked at this stuff though!]
Again, theory verses theory.

Quote
Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish [transfer of information from all points in the universe].

My original statement,
" No matter at what point in the universe you position this eye it is able to receive this information
( light ) ".
" Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish this ".

How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?

Quote
Light can ONLY travel at light speed.
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 07:10:24 by WunderingTruth »
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #17 on: 18/11/2009 08:04:06 »
Mr Scientist

God is in his own dimension where there is no time, space, or matter. He has no beginning. He has no end. Just as we as individuals dwell in our own imagination, which God created, God also dwells in his own imagination. nobody had to create God's imagination.

Satan gained access to our imagination when Adam acknowledged him in disobeying God.

When Jesus had a near death experience on the cross, God entered the heart of Jesus by the spirit of Elijah who had never died.

When Jesus died on Masada at 80yrs old, as the last Hasmonean King of Israel, God entered the hearts of the righteous. Through the eyes of the righteous he has been observing the evil and the good.

When the righteous see God, they will become like him for they will see him as he is.

Going to turn this into a religious thread? ::)

God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.

God's " Truth " is hidden within the lies.
God is hiding in the darkness within the children of light.
God's " Truth " is about to be revealed.
There is soon to be a war between The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness.
This is when Satan will be cast out of the imaginations of the righteous and into the earth. The war between Satan and his angels, and Michael and his angels takes place in the imaginations of men after " The Truth " is revealed.

 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #18 on: 18/11/2009 08:28:18 »
Mr Scientist

God is in his own dimension where there is no time, space, or matter. He has no beginning. He has no end. Just as we as individuals dwell in our own imagination, which God created, God also dwells in his own imagination. nobody had to create God's imagination.

Satan gained access to our imagination when Adam acknowledged him in disobeying God.

When Jesus had a near death experience on the cross, God entered the heart of Jesus by the spirit of Elijah who had never died.

When Jesus died on Masada at 80yrs old, as the last Hasmonean King of Israel, God entered the hearts of the righteous. Through the eyes of the righteous he has been observing the evil and the good.

When the righteous see God, they will become like him for they will see him as he is.

Going to turn this into a religious thread? ::)

God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.

God's " Truth " is hidden within the lies.
God is hiding in the darkness within the children of light.
God's " Truth " is about to be revealed.
There is soon to be a war between The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness.
This is when Satan will be cast out of the imaginations of the righteous and into the earth. The war between Satan and his angels, and Michael and his angels takes place in the imaginations of men after " The Truth " is revealed.


God has many visions, many guises or rather we have different point of view, as rather instresting yours is.
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #19 on: 18/11/2009 08:48:48 »
Mr Scientist

Did you ever notice? in Revelation 4:1,2 John says,

After this I looked, and, behold a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as a trumpet talking with me; which said, come up hear.

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

It does not say John went anywhere. It says immediately he was in the spirit. Heaven is not in any particular location. Heaven is in the spirit. The spirit is in us. We go back to the dust from which we came, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #20 on: 18/11/2009 09:34:31 »
Could we get this back to science please?  As a zoologist, I don't feel my understanding of cosmology is strong enough to discuss specific points with you, but I can address some of the general issues of ideas, hypotheses and theories and how they relate.

I think it's worth pointing out that the theories you challenge are hypotheses based on the maths and the understanding of what has gone before.  Your hypothesis is fine, but if you are to ignore the maths it can't compete with the currently accepted hypotheses and theories.  Should you ever hope to have this considered scientifically, you must work within the scientific paradigm.

Theory, in a scientific sense, does not mean the same as in a lay parlance.  Theories are hypothesis that have been tested thoroughly.  Thus, your ideas are not yet able to compete against them.

Quote
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.

This illustrates my point.

Furthermore, by including any reference to god, you immediately create a discontinuance in your theory - if it is true it would not require the assumption of the existance of a god, it would simply be true.  Scientific ideas with god involved are essentially flawed, as belief in a god is dogmatic and science is pragmatic.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 09:46:07 by BenV »
 

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #21 on: 18/11/2009 12:10:13 »
Quote
I think it's worth pointing out that the theories you challenge are hypotheses based on the maths and the understanding of what has gone before.  Your hypothesis is fine, but if you are to ignore the maths it can't compete with the currently accepted hypotheses and theories.  Should you ever hope to have this considered scientifically, you must work within the scientific paradigm.
The math of the " scientific paradigm " you are referring to has science looking for energy that they can not find IE. dark matter/ dark energy? I have not ignored the math with my hypothesis. Is free energy = confined energy = balance = order to simple to be considered math? Science is causing things to be more complicated than they have to be, just because of their refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of God, ( which by the way, all of the things they are observing is pointing to a creator they just don't want to acknowledge it. )

 
Quote
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Quote
This illustrates my point.
No, sorry, but this illustrates my point. The statement I quoted from peppercorn above is not proven theory.

Quote
Theory, in a scientific sense, does not mean the same as in a lay parlance.  Theories are hypothesis that have been tested thoroughly.  Thus, your ideas are not yet able to compete against them.
Excuse me? I formulated my hypothesis from the provable observations within science, ( show me the math that proves my hypothesis wrong ), adding God into the equation creates the answers to the questions science has thus far been unable to answer.

Show me the math in all of the matter within the universe contained in a minute singularity smaller than an atom, and the universe expanding faster than the speed of light while it created itself within approximately sixteen billion years. You could believe this, but the existence of God is out of the question?

Quote
Furthermore, by including any reference to god, you immediately create a discontinuance in your theory - if it is true it would not require the assumption of the existance of a god, it would simply be true.  Scientific ideas with god involved are essentially flawed, as belief in a god is dogmatic and science is pragmatic
No, including any reference to God, immediately closes your mind to my theory. How about, it simply is true, with God as the first cause. Scientific ideas without God included are essentially flawed. I am not talking about religion here, I am talking about God.

Looking at things with your eyes closed will only allow you to see what you want to see. I choose to keep my eyes open.

I believe you need to go and tend to your monkies now ::)
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 12:38:08 by WunderingTruth »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #22 on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37 »
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact.  If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #23 on: 18/11/2009 12:17:36 »
Mr Scientist

Did you ever notice? in Revelation 4:1,2 John says,

After this I looked, and, behold a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as a trumpet talking with me; which said, come up hear.

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

It does not say John went anywhere. It says immediately he was in the spirit. Heaven is not in any particular location. Heaven is in the spirit. The spirit is in us. We go back to the dust from which we came, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it.

Yep. Word-by-word actually... anyway...

what of it?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #24 on: 18/11/2009 12:18:06 »
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact.  If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?

True.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #24 on: 18/11/2009 12:18:06 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums