₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus:
Go back and read up on rev Georges Lamaitre. He proposed the big bang theory, HE called it 'hypothesis of the primival atom'. friedmann worked in that area of science and came to many of the conclusions of georges but he DID NOT propose any theory. they worked independent of each other.

Friedmann had already modeled such a universe mathematically in 1922 (of which Lamaitre was unaware) and Einstein was well aware of his equations, but they both failed to give them any physical relevance, they just thought about them as mathematically consistent solutions to General Relativity. .
It is Friedmann who came up with the mathematics model , it is Hubble who did the measurements. And priest Lemaître who put the two together while Fred Hoyle came up with the name of the theory.

Ubenedictus:
It may be a big step for protestants but not for catholics.

Pope paul vi i believe okayed the big bang from the begining, [b]in fact the theory was developed by a catholic priest, i[/b]t was received favourably in catholic theology and both pope john paul ii and benedict xvi said similar things about it. million of catholics hold to both the bang, evolution and intelligent design with the approval of the church.

This isnt new in any sense, certainly not for catholics.

unfortunately the article you quoted seem to think that is anti intelligent design.

Not true, A Russian mathematician Friedmann should desrve the credit. He was the one who took Einstein’s general relativity and determined there were multiple solutions for relativity and that they included an expanding universe..

Einestein recognised him but his works was not widely recognized due to Russia civil war and sudden death.

Hermes019:
So ur view is that it is impossible to figure out how the universe came to be ?

my veiw is ex nihilo nihil fit. (Nothing comes from nothing)empirically not of such exist in our universe, and if past experience is grounded source of knolwedge. Same its applicable.

Hermes019:
It seems u have figured the whole sh!t out,can you tell us ur own view and how you came about it

nah, i have deductive and inductively explained why it is impossible. What i did here is raised an inteligent hypothesis, or can you contradict it.

Hermes019:
I am saying that we have not figured out the universe yet let alone deciding how it came into being

but we can deducrively and inductively answer it even if comprehensive dettails is not yet available now. the universe cannot come into existence from literally nothing. Nothing in philosophical terms is not anything, it has no existence or properties. From nothing, nothing comes—ex nihilo nihil fit. The modern physicists will say that the universe came into being through a ‘nothing’ which is a quantum vacuum. The problem with this view is that of course a quantum vacuum is not nothing at all, it is very clearly something. A quantum vacuum has properties, it can be described, simply put it is.

Hermes019:
Bravo
And let me add that anyone who has studied cosmology or astrophysics would understand that most humans don't understand anything about the universe and how it functions,so it beats my imagination when people start filling the gaps with concepts they make on their own,"The universe can not come out of nothing",very funny,what do they know about the universe ?

Hope you are not suggesting the universe come out of nothing?

HellVictorinho:
If there is a formless/characterless source,what exists alongside the source?

is there a formless, characterless source anywhere? If so let me know.

LordReed:
Well that's their cup of tea, I will ignore it.

opinion well noted.

LordReed:
I think you've summed it up, it isn't necessary and we shouldn't care.

i am sure you aware it is not neccasry doest not equal it is not important. To some it is important

HellVictorinho:
And God is the microcosm of what?

All in entirety, is continually emerging from this single source. God is in everything, and part of everything.

[quote author=hahn post=74538969][/quote]lol.....what do you want to hear.

LordReed:
what? Everybody sees the sun with what ever biases they have and still arrive at the same conclusion

i just said ealier, sun and God are not of the same characteristic. Just like how twins and siblings do not possess same DNA traits.

Unless your god is non interacting, in which case why should we care?

You shouldn't care, it is not necessary. At least i agree with that.

Which seem to require no transcendent being or faith to have them operational.or are you claiming god is metaphorically the laws of nature?

The universe, the nature, the human are just part of the microcosm called God.

hahn:
What are their names?

myself, myself, and my ancestors

hahn:
Which of the gods do you serve?

i served the gods of my ancestors

LordReed:
Why does the god not have characteristics consistent with reality? What persistent, repeatable demonstration of unexplainable event are you referring to?

it is because reality is iimpossible to fully describe has it would involve observation, and making an observation of any kind involves passing the raw data through the filter that is our sensory organs, our nerves, and our brain. This is where a lot of differences and biases are introduced. If our biases are fitter in this stage, our consistency will reveal itself.

And to your second question, the mathematical rules of the universe is one of the fews example.

hahn:
Buy there is still no evidence for a god.

There are many, it depends on which one will certainly satisfy your curiosity.

In court when requesting for a murder weapon no one expects it to be "developed gradually" instead the inability to provide evidence will lead to the end if the case.

murder is a criminal case and hence may developed gradually, even finger print is not enough this day, since everybody knows how to wear gloves.what they do is swab everything they can find for DNA. Whic are gradual process. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and if you’ve been convicted of a crime any time in the last 12 or so years your DNA is on file with the authorities. Running the DNA gives them a very short list of suspects, and that lets them focus only on specific people who might be their guy. Once they can do that your evidence would have to be both perfect and unbreakable. Which are all gradual process.

But theists will rather argue the existence of their gods with different descriptions and characteristics.

That is it, even police interpret murther case diffrently, God evidence can never be one way. Since evidence can be interpreted in many analogy.

No one needs a rational capacity to understand nonsense. We simply agree it is nonsense and move on

it is only nonsense when the evidence given to you does not meet your expected requirement. For some, they are satisfy with what they have at disposal.

LordReed:
Why do we need arguments for a god's existence? Do you need arguments for the Sun's existence?

curiosity of the mind, unsatisfied phenomenon, persistent and repeatable demonstration of unexplainable event. All this will surely demand an answer. The sun obviously does not have such a characteristic.

Darevofpeace:
talking about whether witches exist or not,in any boxing tournament, the first thing your opponent do is to blind the right and the left eye's so that you can't see the coming "punches" witches abound in Africa and evils abounds everywhere on earth.

haaaaaaa. If na so, abeg go collect the juju fight maywether and win billons of naira

Darevofpeace:
I love this illustration

what is logical about that illustration. That illustration portray the picture of individual who have never been to physics classroom.

The atheist comment here are laughable .

To suggest that theistic arguments are weak is to dismiss the capability of philosophical and theological heavyweights from Augustine to Maimonides to Aquinas to Erasmus to Descartes. To suggest the arguments of these figures are weak is to suggest many of the greatest thinkers in history were philosophically inept - is beyond absurd. It is utterly clear, at this point, that you are measuring the strength of an idea by how much you agree with it.

There are plenty of rock solid arguments for the existence of God, but some of them need to be developed gradually like a complicated court case.

Some theistic arguments are weak sure, while some are very strong but some atheists just lack the rational capacity to understand them. Both represent the poorest end of a richer narrative

https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Ghana-on-CNN-Travel-s-list-of-places-to-visit-in-2019-713002

CNN JUST LISTED GHANA AS ONE OF THE MOST important place to visit in 2019. Ghana is seriously promoting the positive side of their country.

Alaniyiokorausa:
this hypothesis lack critical thinking .

it is a fake news

HellVictorinho:
If there are balls,
And these balls could fit into a container,
Shouldn't the container hold all the balls leaving nothing outside it?

You are now saying two things. At first, it was water , now it is a ball.

We be good if you have a balance mind.

HellVictorinho:
Now it's the verses,I get it.
But,can you measure water if it is not in a container?

it depends, be specific , the extent of the water? The cooking water, running water , ocean, sea or what?

HellVictorinho:
So,the universe had to become the multiverse.
I know.
But you once typed something like 'Nothingness is scientifically impossible'.
Now,I also know that.
And I also know that 'Nothingness' can't exist anywhere at anytime and this makes it impossible for 'Existence' to be compared to a ballon.
Matter(solid,liquid, gas) makes up the Universe/Multiverse.
So you can't compare that to a ballon whose dimensions where determined in some people's heads before it was made artificially.

Yes, i do type nothingness does not exist scientifically . And the use of that statement does not make any sense..if hypothetical muiltiverse is discover today, the measure will be what is within the dimension of the verses.

But as at now it may. It could. We don't know because we couldn't verify with empirical data. It's beyond observation

HellVictorinho:
First,I am not the brain behind 'the accident' theory.
It is one of those misinformations I never found logical.
But some people still use the word "accident' erroneously and I decided to indicate the falsity of the common premise.
Big Bangs are just part of the 'Forming of Existence'.

That is why we are here to share knolwedge. Nothing accidental about a process that was spark by another process.

HellVictorinho:
The totality of existence doesn't exist.
But the 'Totality of Possibilities' is a philosophical description of the coexistence of eventful possibilities/chances.

The totality of everything that exist is called the universe or hypothetically the muiltiverse.

HellVictorinho:
Goodness!!!! You still agree with me.
What makes you think I didn't have outer space in mind?
I am even going further but I haven't forgotten where I am coming from.
There is No Nothingness means there are no specific periods for the Forms of Existence to occur.
The Big Bang wasn't caused by any intelligence.
But it wasn't accidental either.
It occurred at ANYTIME and those things that exploded were already in Existence before exploding.
'Nothing' cannot explode.

The more i try separating this confusion, the more you are adding to it.

Accident is rather an anthropic concept which has nothing to do with the nature behavior and its evolution. It is quite possible that big bangs are common events in the multiverse( that is to say if muiltiverse hypothesis is established) within which it is the way for universes to proliferate.

HellVictorinho:
If the Universe is the entirety of Existence, it means there is nothing outside it.
But you have agreed with me on the fact that you can't find 'Nothing' anywhere.

i am not agreeing with you, i am declaring that nothingness scientifically don't exist.i also think you’re playing with words. Nothingness is just a concept. Zero is not nothing, and outer space isn’t absolutely empty either. Reality is the sum total of everything that did exist, does exist, and will exist. Reality is All. And if you dont believe in that, you may decide not to eat for days. And see what will be the effect.

Note.. Pls don't mention vaxx when reality hit you.

HellVictorinho:
If 'everything' exists somewhere, 'nothing' must also exist elsewhere.

The totality of existence is yet unknown. So saying this is not a truth statement.

HellVictorinho:
It is simple!!!!
If it is dimensional,it means there are limits,and if there are limits,it means there is 'nothing' outside those limits/boundaries!!!!
So if you disagree with me,you are indirectly saying there is a 'Plane of Inexistence' which is impossible!!!!

If you have been to physics class room. You will know ballon also has the same discription there. Have you ask yourself how is the ballon measured? . The gas , the air in it is what is measured. So say is the universe which is spherical like the shape of the ballon. What you measure is the totality of what you find the universe.so to come up with such conclusion. Have you measure all the totality of the universe?

HellVictorinho:
Goodness!!!! Are you assuming that I don't have access to information?
And you didn't answer my yes/no question.
In fact, if 'nothing' doesn't exist,which I indicated by saying In-Existence is impossible, there is no need to assume that there is a location where nothing exists.
It also means what we call 'everything' doesn't exist.
'The Plane' which describes where the 'Forming of Existence' takes place is mathematically un-dimensional.
So,if you are thinking of discovering 'everything',you are simply wasting your time.
You can only go further but that is simply because you started from somewhere which is not your fault.
After all,you are just Existence in Human Form.

Your question is simply answered. I said nothing don't exist as it is even wrong to used that word scientifically.

The scope and boundary of science has never been designated as “everything . So why lumping what does not belong to human to human. Human will certainly not have amswer to everything but our science will grow to the lenght that it would provide sufficient information that will be so much compelling to what can be empirically deduced.

Any questions firmly within the realm of science will be adequately dealt with in the future , if past experience is of any use, there is no question to which the answer will not be discoverable through hard work and persistence.
And as existence continue, more question will be revealed and so shall it be.

Speaking about the plane of existence that has no mathemathicalr dimension. You may need to justify this answer. No ones have travelled over the universe to come up with this theory but if you do. You may need to justify it. Or perharps there is a model you used to come with this conclusion. Share it.