General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
dio
 
dio's Avatar
 
Belief in the big bang is the limit test for credulity.

I wish to bring before all of big bang believers this quote:

Quote:
Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. - Terence McKenna
What do you all think of this? It's something I've thought for a while, there really is no difference between the statements 'and let there be light' and 'the universe sprang from everything in an instance'. To me it almost seems more human, intuitively, correct, to assume something of human nature initially did this. Which is probably why humans for all of human history past have thought it. Not that such a thought is more 'correct', but how can it possibly be deemed 'less correct' than what is quite literally the limit-test for credulity?
Old 09-01-2012, 03:31 PM dio is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

augusttremulous
The Cat's Pajamas
 
augusttremulous's Avatar
 
As far as I understand, the concept of the "big bang" is not meant to explain where the matter originally came from, it is to explain how our universe came to be, in the way that it has. And we know this to be the best possible explanation because of things like the fact that our universe continues to expand, and that is a measurable trait. We don't yet know what it was that caused the bang to actually happen, but that doesn't mean a deity did it. It just means it's something we haven't figured out yet. Something being unknown does not mean it's ok to go around deciding arbitrarily that some really unlikely thing did it. He's deciding it's a "miracle," but it's just something science hasn't figured out yet. It will, eventually, because scientists aren't content with "it just happened" or "god did it," they want to know how and why, and as science advances we can hope to know these things.
__________________
d4rkspike, wrxhottie, whizzleteets, and asa
Arátoeldar = dad
OddFactor is my spoiled grandson,sloths is my leetle bro
39TH STREET
rmtc<3
8=,,,,===D BlisterDick is the hawtness I desire :drool:
Old 09-01-2012, 03:46 PM augusttremulous is offline  
Reply With Quote
#2  

augusttremulous
The Cat's Pajamas
 
augusttremulous's Avatar
 
At some point in human history, we didn't know about things like the earth being a round object that rotates and orbits the sun, so we believed that a sun god must raise the sun each day. Knowing what we do now, it would be ridiculous to assume that a sun god raising the sun is less ridiculous than the notion of us being on a giant orb hurtling at inconceivable speeds around itself and also around the giant gaseous sphere, but back then sure they might have both been equally ridiculous.
__________________
d4rkspike, wrxhottie, whizzleteets, and asa
Arátoeldar = dad
OddFactor is my spoiled grandson,sloths is my leetle bro
39TH STREET
rmtc<3
8=,,,,===D BlisterDick is the hawtness I desire :drool:
Old 09-01-2012, 03:49 PM augusttremulous is offline  
Reply With Quote
#3  

dio
 
dio's Avatar
 
August, that is such a lame and cliche, pre-meditated, beat to death, uncreative atheist argument that all the sexual interest you had garnered in me by me simply knowing you have a vagina, but having not seen pics, I believe I have now lost all that sexual interest.

This whole thing about "Ok we thought the sun god raised the sun, but then we realized the sun just goes around the earth", then "Ok we thought the lightning god threw lightning bolts, but then we realized its just electrical particles" and what not....

Ok when you hit the big bang the dynamics of this trend changes, because before the big bang there was nothing. There isn't some mechanics behind the big bang to where you go "Oh we thought it was the Big Bang God who banged the bang, but upon looking deeper into it we realized it was just the dynamics of nothing doing nothing????" The big bang is the start, there isn't any underlying mechanics to look into, no electrical particles to examine, no planetary orbits. Theres nothing behind the big bang, theres nothing to discover behind it. It's the starting point. The only thing to discover behind is the depths of nothingness.

Then if at some point scientists discover lets say like 'The God Particle', and you can say this particle was right at the very beginning formation of The Big Bang, well thats not the Big Bang still. Because the big bang was the start, there is nothing before it.
Old 09-01-2012, 04:22 PM dio is offline  
Reply With Quote
#4  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
If you look at the matter in the universe it is all moving away from the other matter, or expanding. If you rewind this motion, at some point all the matter was clumped together. Just because we don't know the cause for the big bang, it doesn't negate the fact of this motion.

Terence McKenna was a guy who studied shamanism and did a lot of freaking drugs, not a credible source on the nature of the universe.

Listen to Mckenna when you want to take a bunch of drugs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...98051948678069

Listen to science if you want to learn about the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV0ACIykxQI
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 09-01-2012 at 04:38 PM..
Old 09-01-2012, 04:24 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#5  

augusttremulous
The Cat's Pajamas
 
augusttremulous's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dio View Post
Ok when you hit the big bang the dynamics of this trend changes, because before the big bang there was nothing. There isn't some mechanics behind the big bang to where you go "Oh we thought it was the Big Bang God who banged the bang, but upon looking deeper into it we realized it was just the dynamics of nothing doing nothing????" The big bang is the start, there isn't any underlying mechanics to look into, no electrical particles to examine, no planetary orbits. Theres nothing behind the big bang, theres nothing to discover behind it. It's the starting point. The only thing to discover behind is the depths of nothingness.

Then if at some point scientists discover lets say like 'The God Particle', and you can say this particle was right at the very beginning formation of The Big Bang, well thats not the Big Bang still. Because the big bang was the start, there is nothing before it.

There wasn't "nothing" before the big bang, there was whatever was before the big bang before the big bang. The big bang IS the start... of the universe's expansion into the universe we observe today. It doesn't mean it was the start of matter, it doesn't explain where matter came from, it explains how matter came to be spread as it did. We don't KNOW yet where the matter the big bang spread came from.

I don't think you understand enough about what you're talking about to have a serious discussion about it.
__________________
d4rkspike, wrxhottie, whizzleteets, and asa
Arátoeldar = dad
OddFactor is my spoiled grandson,sloths is my leetle bro
39TH STREET
rmtc<3
8=,,,,===D BlisterDick is the hawtness I desire :drool:
Old 09-01-2012, 04:28 PM augusttremulous is offline  
Reply With Quote
#6  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Get out of here with your Terence Mckenna bullshit, he was full of shit and so are you.
Old 09-01-2012, 04:31 PM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#7  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Also, both you and that stupid fuck Mckenna apparently don't know shit about the big bang as a theory or the supporting evidence. I can't say I'm surprised, both you and he are nothing but pseudo science fuckheads that constantly hypothesize about systems you do not (and likely cannot) understand.
Old 09-01-2012, 04:34 PM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#8  

Foolioq
 
Foolioq's Avatar
 
The problem with what you're talking about is that you know nothing of the mathematics that actually goes behind any of these theories. There's no such thing as the God Particle. The Higgs Boson was called this so they could convince a bunch of people to provide funding for the project to discover it. There was no way to explain why shit has mass and the Higgs Boson was proposed to explain this.

Metaphysics is fucking stupid and is not a science. The classical world does not always work at the quantum level and vice versa. Stop applying one to the other. Stop reaching for ideals using philosophy and religion as motivation and physical theories as "proof".

Also:
__________________
Cool like a Fool in a Swimming Pool
Hoolio's Bitch
[P]resident of the John [P]reston Fan Club
Old 09-01-2012, 04:34 PM Foolioq is offline  
Reply With Quote
#9  

tegandje
LOOK AT ME, IM A FUCKIN HIPSTER
 
tegandje's Avatar
 
__________________
b35b36db324a18b072d431f4fbb833d1 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 09-01-2012, 04:51 PM tegandje is offline  
Reply With Quote
#10  

Xcric
i have 3 girlfriends but they dont know it yet
 
Xcric's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by augusttremulous View Post
There wasn't "nothing" before the big bang, there was whatever was before the big bang before the big bang. The big bang IS the start... of the universe's expansion into the universe we observe today. It doesn't mean it was the start of matter, it doesn't explain where matter came from, it explains how matter came to be spread as it did. We don't KNOW yet where the matter the big bang spread came from.

I don't think you understand enough about what you're talking about to have a serious discussion about it.

this is a dio thread. logic does not belong here.

blah blah blah eastern philosophy blah blah blah i know everything you guys just don't understand the way i think. blah blah blah.
__________________
“My sorrow: to dream of simple times and wake in mine . . . .”
—Ola DaRiol, “Regrets”
Old 09-01-2012, 04:57 PM Xcric is offline  
Reply With Quote
#11  

dio
 
dio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
If you look at the matter in the universe it is all moving away from the other matter, or expanding. If you rewind this motion, at some point all the matter was clumped together. Just because we don't know the cause for the big bang, it doesn't negate the fact of this motion.

Terence McKenna was a guy who studied shamanism and did a lot of freaking drugs, not a credible source on the nature of the universe.

Listen to Mckenna when you want to take a bunch of drugs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...98051948678069

Listen to science if you want to learn about the universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV0ACIykxQI

Quote:
Originally Posted by augusttremulous View Post
There wasn't "nothing" before the big bang, there was whatever was before the big bang before the big bang. The big bang IS the start... of the universe's expansion into the universe we observe today. It doesn't mean it was the start of matter, it doesn't explain where matter came from, it explains how matter came to be spread as it did. We don't KNOW yet where the matter the big bang spread came from.

I don't think you understand enough about what you're talking about to have a serious discussion about it.

Blah blah, ha ha ha.

Never did I think Scientific Rational Atheists would move so quickly to save face, and alter previously stated things when all you do is say back to them a commonly accepted belief.

It would be nice and highly rational if the big bang did nothing except perpetuate a concept to make sense of the measurable expansion of the universe. If all this nonsense of there being 'nothing' and then a speck appeared, exploded and out of nothing came the universe was just some superfluous thing that Terence McKenna made up to try to romanticize his point, well then that would be silly on McKenna's part.

But the thing is..... THE THING IS... that is not some superfluous thing mckenna made up to romanticize his point. He is criticizing the literal story that many outputs of information concerning the big bang put out.

Case in point. The very video that pyramids posts to 'educate' me on the subjects perpetuates the SAME EXACT STORY TERENCE MCKENNA SAYS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV0ACIykxQI Right at minute 2:45 pyramids video says "in the begining there was nothing, no space, and no time, then there was light, suddenly a tiny speck of light appeared, it was infinitely hot, and inside this tiny fireball was all of space, this was begining of time". Hell the guy in pyramids video even goes further than McKenna did, not only is the big bang the beginning of manifestation, its the beginning of time....

Now don't get me wrong, I understand some guys measured the expansion of the planets, and extrapolated this process backwards to THEORIZE the big bang, into this theoretical atheist creation story. But that is exactly what Terence McKenna is pointing out and criticizing, the resulting creation story. He is not DOUBTING the evidence, or denying the evidence, he is not doubting the mathematical equations that deduce the theory, quite the contrary McKenna is a huge proponent of scientific process. Rather, Mckenna is pointing out that it doesn't matter where you start from in your belief system, science, christianity, or any spiritual process. You will logically end up rewinding to a point that requires a miracle of sorts, and this is right when you must intellectually come to terms with 'nothing' becoming 'something'. When you must face the void of nothingness. He is pointing out the absurdity of scientific rational atheists believing there creation story to be vastly superior to christian creation story when quite literally both resulting creation stories are on the same level of absurdity.

Yes August, I understand that science does not literally know what happened at the big bang, it is a theory, extrapolated from a few measurements. But McKenna's critisizm is of this creation story tacked onto the big bang, that has become common place for many atheists to believe. Perhaps the big bang was not the begining? Perhaps the universe condensed, then exploded, over and over again, expanding in and out, and science never could reach the point of 'nothngness' in it's understandings. But all this discussion of the big bang theory, and the resulting theories of creation that spawn off of it have all toiled with the idea of when the universe crossed the boundary from 'nothingness' into 'somethingness'. And it is really at that point which it doesn't matter what background you come from, this transition cannot have it's 'deeper inner mechanics' rationalized and turned into sciencey sounding metaphor, at the great rebellion of science's Christian past, because before the point that nothingness transitioned into somethingness, there was nothing. Theres nothing to turn into sciencey metaphor, because literally we're dealing with nothing. There is no comforting scientific metaphor to help cushion that hard slap on your nervous system that we are at all times resting so closely up against the most incomprehensibly weird thing in existence, nothing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta View Post
Also, both you and that stupid fuck Mckenna apparently don't know shit about the big bang as a theory or the supporting evidence. I can't say I'm surprised, both you and he are nothing but pseudo science fuckheads that constantly hypothesize about systems you do not (and likely cannot) understand.

AHEM, read what I just said above and shove that in your ass. Like you always do 'oh here comes big muscley vendetta to act all alpha male and say things all big and tough', when REALLY you rely ONLY on your ability to say things big and tough and hope no one looks past that to the fact that you have no fucking clue what your talking about either. Nothing in my, nor McKenna's talk ignores any supporting evidence. I know McKenna's writings well and McKenna is in NO way a 'big bang denialist' quite the contrary, McKenna is a big bang supporter, and a big supporter of replacing esoteric understanding with scientific understanding wherever possible, as am I. What McKenna is criticizing is not simply the absurdity of the big bang story, RATHER what mckenna is criticizing is the seeming absurdity you find with Atheists openly critisizing Christian creation story, while the logically deduced Atheist creation theory is really not any less absurd. That is what his talk is about. He no where denies the big bang, feigns ignorance to evidence, or even says it isn't a more superior theory. He simply notes how similiar it is to already existing creation stories, and how it is absurd that people who believe in the resulting big bang theory will put down older christian creation stories on the premise the big bang theory is somehow less absurd.

Last edited by dio; 09-01-2012 at 11:08 PM..
Old 09-01-2012, 10:59 PM dio is offline  
Reply With Quote
#12  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
We don't actually know what existed before the big bang but the big bang was the beginning of our universe, as in the one we reside in now. it explains the expansion we see, it explains why hydrogen is the most abundant element, it explains the distribution of matter we see... We don't know exactly how or why it happened but it most certainly did happen.

Quote:
Perhaps the big bang was not the begining? Perhaps the universe condensed, then exploded, over and over again, expanding in and out, and science never could reach the point of 'nothngness' in it's understandings.
There are already many scientific theories about all of those possibilities and more. They contain math you and McKenna could only dream about understanding. Why is a guy who's major achievement in life is doing a lot of shrooms and DMT more qualified to tell us about the beginning of the universe than the guys who spent their lives soberly observing the universe and doing real science? What has Terrence McKenna ever done for the world? Why should anyone believe his opinion over the smart people who invented and built all the shit you take for granted in the modern world?

When shamans high on DMT put a man on the moon or a giant space telescope into orbit, then we will talk.

Look, it boils down to this: Not knowing something doesn't prove God exists. Not knowing is simply not knowing. Science is perfectly content to say it doesn't know something yet. Making something up to fill the void of knowledge does not actually fill the void of knowledge. That's why there are different words for knowledge and faith. Knowing how the universe works does not disprove the existence of God. Not knowing how the universe works does not prove the existence of God. The universe is as it is regardless of what you choose to believe. God is or is not regardless of what you choose to believe.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-01-2012, 11:36 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#13  

mikeawesome
Baloneyflaps is my lord. I have asked him into my heart.
 
mikeawesome's Avatar
 
god is the big bang
__________________
RIP Malamute
Old 09-01-2012, 11:40 PM mikeawesome is offline  
Reply With Quote
#14  

dio
 
dio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
We don't actually know what existed before the big bang but the big bang was the beginning of our universe, as in the one we reside in now. it explains the expansion we see, it explains why hydrogen is the most abundant element, it explains the distribution of matter we see... We don't know exactly how or why it happened but it most certainly did happen.



There are already many scientific theories about all of those possibilities and more. They contain math you and McKenna could only dream about understanding. Why is a guy who's major achievement in life is doing a lot of shrooms and DMT more qualified to tell us about the beginning of the universe than the guys who spent their lives soberly observing the universe and doing real science? What has Terrence McKenna ever done for the world? Why should anyone believe his opinion over the smart people who invented and built all the shit you take for granted in the modern world?

When shamans high on DMT put a man on the moon or a giant space telescope into orbit, then we will talk.

Look, it boils down to this: Not knowing something doesn't prove God exists. Not knowing is simply not knowing. Science is perfectly content to say it doesn't know something yet. Making something up to fill the void of knowledge does not actually fill the void of knowledge. That's why there are different words for knowledge and faith. Knowing how the universe works does not disprove the existence of God. Not knowing how the universe works does not prove the existence of God. The universe is as it is regardless of what you choose to believe. God is or is not regardless of what you choose to believe.

Again McKenna is not putting forth an 'opinion' to place over the top of another. Rather hes criticizing, as a third party, pointing out the absurdity of the similiarity between commonly told Atheist and Christian creation stories. He is not DENYING the stories, or even directly critisizing, he is pointing out the absurdity of people who think atheist's creation story is somehow radically different than Christian creation story. Thats it.

Also, McKenna's achievement wasn't doing alot of shrooms and DMT. Plenty of people have done that and they don't get the notoriety that McKenna got. Unfortunately to really get what McKenna did requires alot of investment of ones time to understand. But the short of it is he helped birth a number of metaprograms that are essential for humanity to move into the future, and are actually already in pretty strong adoption today. If you really care to know more specifically about what these things are I would maybe be interested in typing it all out, but it's long and probably worth like a book of it's own. But it's nothing you couldn't deduce if you just listened to a few of his talks, or a read a book, he is an interesting character to investigate.

Thirdly, someone who has had as assload of psychedellics is much more knowledgable about the origins of the universe, because they literally experienced it. Not viewed it through a scientific tool, they didn't run some expiriment and output a bunch of numbers and formulas on it. They literally rescended their concioussness and ego, and returned to the origin states of existence to literally experience it. The downside to doing that is most people come back with nothing more to say than 'woah', or at worst 'groovy'. Some people may come back with a geometric structure, others some description of some process. None of which has ultimately lead to a full understanding of how that transition from nothingness into somethingness occurs, but particle accelerators haven't gotten us there either. Whichever place such a full understanding comes from however is really a mute point. If you can trip acid hard and deduce some weird abstract insight that may give you a better direction to aim scientific research then why not try for it? And besides all this point, why am I explaining this to you, I thought you had smoked DMT? Did you not make it all the way back to the source of existence?

Also, I don't see why you want to draw this distinction between 'mathematical scientists' and 'guys who smoke DMT'.... A good example of a guy who used DMT insight to help aim the production of mathematical insight is a Ralph Abraham. It's not like you smoke DMT and it overrides the portion of your brain that can do math.... someone who is a phd at math, and then smokes DMT, will still be a phd at math, and probably come up with some interesting things afterwards like Ralph Abraham did. I really do wish more people periodically did psychedellics I think it would produce alot more progress quicker. This demonizing taboo of LSD and DMT is really silly.
Old 09-02-2012, 12:11 AM dio is offline  
Reply With Quote
#15  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.