Cosmologic Evolution Model Supporting Likelihood of a God's Existence

[Andrew66]

Cosmologic Evolution Model Supporting Likelihood of a God's Existence:

Background:

Present theories in cosmology (supported by mathematical predictions) attest there were natural temporal events preceding big bang which have given rise to, or led up to, the big bang. Scientists do not accept God as an explanatory cause for the beginning of our Universe! In all these pre-big bang theories (e.g multiverse, black hole, big bounce) there are no suggested pauses to time (or equivalently pauses in successive changes of state) and no predicted ultimate beginning, hence an infinite regression of temporal events is predicted.

Model:

1) Since our present universe has a configuration of progressive changing states of energy and matter enabling evolution of intelligent life, it may be asserted (by the principle of modesty) that at least some of these pre big bang cosmological states would do the same.

2) Moreover, since an infinite regression of prior physical states are predicted, it can be further asserted that there was an infinite number of evolution enabled pre big bang cosmological states!. Note, this would be true if even a tiny minority of such cosmological states had / have properties enabling evolution, because we are dealing with an infinite regression,

3) It can therefore be asserted (again by the principle of modesty) that given such a vast theorized potential for evolution that intelligent life may in at least some cases have evolved to be superior to humans in terms of grasp of science, power, and ability to do things.

Discussion: If such predicted superior being (or "superhero") had evolved to a relatively low threshold level whereby it became by humans standards as "God" like (e.g. to be able to do at least one of: walk on water, heal the sick by laying hands, bring back from the dead, change water into wine), or to a higher threshold level of perhaps; becoming in-destructable (immortal), enabled for time travel, and / or enabled to travel from universe to universe etc., then a God like being has existed, and may still exist!.

Conclusion

A reasoned mechanistic model, grounded in science, supporting existence of superior intelligent life forms is herein presented.

Potential for a God like being is asserted.

By the way the great defender of Atheism Davin has already conceded to posit (3) above (I believe Davin suggested humans as ranked 47 out of 100 amidst unknown intelligent life forms in the universe) - if you don't believe me I'll cut and paste his quote!!

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Present theories in cosmology (supported by mathematical predictions) attest there were natural temporal events preceding big bang which have given rise to, or led up to, the big bang.

You really have to learn the terms.

Before we all bogged down in this irrational mess, let's just tackle the first load nonsense:

Andrew66 wrote

1) Since our present universe has a configuration of progressive changing states of energy and matter enabling evolution of intelligent life[...]

Do you know how premises work? This should be its own.

Andrew66 wrote

it may be asserted[...]

As you have proven time and time again, anything can be asserted no matter how irrational the assertion.

Andrew66 wrote

that at least some of these pre big bang cosmological states would do the same.

Where did "pre big bang" come into this argument?

The first point makes no sense at all. You need to clarify what you mean.

[Andrew66]

Hey Davin

At least your not objecting to the term "asserted". I was going to use "hypothesized" in its place, but Sinny pointed out that a hypothesis should come with a means for testing - which I haven't sorted out yet.

Why pre Big Bang? Well its a major talking point on religion vs. science, i.e. did God begin creation at the big bang and there was nothing else before it, or was the a natural cause? Scientific theories lend themselves to the later.

One of the keys to the provided model to enable a "not completely out of left field silly assertion" (note I'm avoiding the term "reasoned assertion"), is that the model must predict a vastly increased capacity - beyond our universe- for evolution. By opening up the past (pre big bang) to an infinite regress this does just that.

Of course maybe your concerned that I'm forgetting about the present? Yes, sure - their may be many, possibly infinite number of universes presently existing alongside ours - all or some of which at least may have allowed for evolution.

The more evolution enabled universes, the more chance a mighty and strong superhero would have been born!!!

[Andrew66]

By the way, just thought of something,

Just as a mathematician some times notices how they can simply an equation, the model can also be so simplified as follows.

1) Science predicts a history of infinite number of alternative cosmological states preceding our universe. Some of these alternative cosmological states may have given rise to our universe, and / or continue to manifest in universes concurrent with our universe.
2) Intelligent life exists in our universe.
3) Principle of modesty suggests that intelligent life forms should exist in at least a tiny minority of these alternative cosmological states.
4) Principle of modesty further suggests that we humans are not likely the smartest, most powerful, or capable.

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Why pre Big Bang? Well its a major talking point on religion vs. science, i.e. did God begin creation at the big bang and there was nothing else before it, or was the a natural cause? Scientific theories lend themselves to the later.

One of the keys to the provided model to enable a "not completely out of left field silly assertion" (note I'm avoiding the term "reasoned assertion"), is that the model must predict a vastly increased capacity - beyond our universe- for evolution. By opening up the past (pre big bang) to an infinite regress this does just that.

We have a slight problem here. God, we are told, "exists outside of time and space." The Big Bang ostensibly brought everything into existence, including time and space. Creation is an activity. An activity requires time and a place. So, you need to explain to us just how an activity takes place without time and space. Will you invoke the usual "magical things beyond our understanding"?

[Andrew66]

Sinfidel wrote

We have a slight problem here. God, we are told, "exists outside of time and space." The Big Bang ostensibly brought everything into existence, including time and space. Creation is an activity. An activity requires time and a place. So, you need to explain to us just how an activity takes place without time and space. Will you invoke the usual "magical things beyond our understanding"?

Sinny - I used to have the same concern - and had to read and read to figure out the answer. Its about semantics, how physicists use the term "time" and "space".

The issue is that when you read physics books or listen to lectures, most scientists make an assumption, not because its necessarily true but only because it makes no sense to speak of our universal physics otherwise, that "time" and space started at big bang. Most physicists, and therefore their jargon, are only concerned with studying our universe - so when you see them talking about space / time they use these terms only in reference to our universe.

Only a tiny minority of physicists in the scientific community work on what may have caused the big bang, and what space and time (in a more general sense) may look like before the big bang, and in universes contemporary with ours which we cannot directly see.

For our discussion we speak of "time" more generally - time being motion, or an existence of any sort where there are successive changes of physical states - whether as part of our universe or any other hypothetical universe or cosmological state. And same with space,and 3D space anywhere in existence and no just our universe.

Its all about subtle semantics and definitions.

So If I may correct one of your statements

"The Big Bang ostensibly brought everything into existence, including time and space" should be

"The Big Bang ostensibly brought everything within our universe into existence, including our universe's space / time continuum.
The Big Bang is silent to what first caused it, or space and time in a broader more general sense which may relate to preceding or concurrent universes or cosmological states."

[Andrew66]

Oh yes and also, the God I'm asserting in this model does not exist outside of time or space!.

Your bringing in a straw man to my model - biased by your knowledge of Theology.

However - if my superhero were to have the powers and abilities of a God - there may be consistencies with other Theologic characteristics, as we've discussed before.

The question is only what are the limits to our superhero. As Davin correctly points out there may be a limit where an intelligent entity may never be able to have achieved un-limitted power. But we don't know what this limit is.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

Present theories in cosmology (supported by mathematical predictions) attest there were natural temporal events preceding big bang ....

Before you respond, look up the scientific definition of 'theory' - NOT the layman's understanding, commonly termed 'conjecture' or a wild-assed drunken guess.

Once you're clear on definitions, please proceed to explain to drunken, poorly educated oafs like myself how the "natural temporal events" and supporting "mathematical predictions" about which you dribble have been hypothesised, tested, falsified and written into the accepted body of scientific knowledge.

Perhaps once this is all clear and understood, we can move on to reflect on more of your mentally masturbated insight that thousands of real scientists seem strangely to have overlooked.

I notice Davin has already challenged you on your failure to grasp simple scientific definitions, which I note, you've totally ignored. Perhaps we need to do more typing in capitals or purple crayon for you to get the point?

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

3) Principle of modesty suggests that intelligent life forms should exist in at least a tiny minority of these alternative cosmological states.
4) Principle of modesty further suggests that we humans are not likely the smartest, most powerful, or capable.

Even if the first premise wasn't an irrational mess of nothing, these last two are pretty bad. The "principle of modesty" whatever that is, would be for controlling our expectations, it would have nothing to do with what is actual.

And it still doesn't lead from "maybe some things are better than us" to "there definitely are some supreme beings."

Fix up your first premise so that it makes sense, then try to bridge the huge gap created by your 3rd and 4th premises here.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

The "principle of modesty" whatever that is, would be for controlling ou
r expectations, it would have nothing to do with what is actual.

Principal of modesty is a real, scientifically endorsed principle. It is used by Stephen Hawking and others when for example explaining how our observable universe is homogenously expanding in all directions.
The measurements showing expansion show everything is moving away from earth - so the straight forward conclusion would be that the earth is in the center of the universe and everything is stretching away from the earth! Physicists don't buy that however, based on the "principle of modesty" - as it would be remarkable if everything was centered from our planet - hence they discount that possibility and choose an alternative.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Before you respond, look up the scientific definition of 'theory' - NOT the layman's understanding, commonly termed 'conjecture' or a wild-assed drunken guess.

Once you're clear on definitions, please proceed to explain to drunken, poorly educated oafs like myself how the "natural temporal events" and supporting "mathematical predictions" about which you dribble have been hypothesised, tested, falsified and written into the accepted body of scientific knowledge.

I'm not a physicist, however here is my take

1) Select physicists do hypothesise and test models (mathematically) to identify what temporal events have lead up to the big bang.
2) This work is done in real universities, and their work gets peer reviewed and published,
3) The term "theory" is often used to describe these pre big bang models - there is always a continuum between "speculation" and "statistically validated proof" - where the term "theory" may fall broadly within.
4) In all pre big bang explanatory models thus far - there are always temporal states present - with no ultimate beginning or in-explicable pauses or interruption in time.

I don't know which model is correct, or if any - it doesn't matter - the point is that temporal changing material worlds are always postulated to have existed before big bang - hence infinite regress is implicit.

If some of these pre-big bang worlds had evolution (why not, remember principle of modesty), over infinite temporal periods - a heck of a lot of evolution and mighty being(s) would have developed.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

I'm not a physicist[...]

No shit.

Andrew66 wrote

I don't know which model is correct, or if any - it doesn't matter - the point is that temporal changing material worlds are always postulated to have existed before big bang - hence infinite regress is implicit.

Wow, "always," then it shouldn't be much of a problem for you to present a few papers. Then let us all know how many papers there are on it. That is, unless you're bullshitting again.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

I'm not a physicist, however here is my take

1) Select physicists do hypothesise and test models (mathematically) to identify what temporal events have lead up to the big bang.
2) This work is done in real universities, and their work gets peer reviewed and published,
3) The term "theory" is often used to describe these pre big bang models - there is always a continuum between "speculation" and "statistically validated proof" - where the term "theory" may fall broadly within.
4) In all pre big bang explanatory models thus far - there are always temporal states present - with no ultimate beginning or in-explicable pauses or interruption in time.

I don't know which model is correct, or if any - it doesn't matter - the point is that temporal changing material worlds are always postulated to have existed before big bang - hence infinite regress is implicit.

If some of these pre-big bang worlds had evolution (why not, remember principle of modesty), over infinite temporal periods - a heck of a lot of evolution and mighty being(s) would have developed.

What you are describing here, is nothing more than an equally implausible guess, (of which there are many), to dilute the imaginary god claims. All you are doing is attaching an enhanced conciousness with our welfare at heart, to a pre big bang scenario of your own making, which if accepted, could be used as an equivalent to your god claims. That's the whole purpose. They are equally unknown. It would be productive if you could provide odds on possible causes? Each further guess we come up with will increase your returns. I don't bet.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

1) Select physicists do hypothesise and test models (mathematically) to identify what temporal events have lead up to the big bang.
2) This work is done in real universities, and their work gets peer reviewed and published,

How about a few names and links to their peer reviewed papers - that's after you've learned the difference between "conjecture" "hypothesis" and "theory"

Some Fool wrote

3) The term "theory" is often used to describe these pre big bang models - there is always a continuum between "speculation" and "statistically validated proof" - where the term "theory" may fall broadly within.

No it isn't, not by real scientists - you're talking out of your arse!

Bufoon wrote

4) In all pre big bang explanatory models thus far - there are always temporal states present - with no ultimate beginning or in-explicable pauses or interruption in time.

I can't wait to look at the links you'll obviously be very keen to provide.

Daydreaming Fool wrote

I don't know which model is correct, or if any - it doesn't matter - the point is that temporal changing material worlds are always postulated to have existed before big bang - hence infinite regress is implicit.

If some of these pre-big bang worlds had evolution (why not, remember principle of modesty), over infinite temporal periods - a heck of a lot of evolution and mighty being(s) would have developed.

Now you're just back to made-up, wishful thinking horseshit to get back to your basic need for a square god to ram up your round butthole.

[Andrew66]

Think of it this way

If Big Bang was truly the beginning of everything (i.e. time itself), then nothing could have caused it or otherwise produced it (as causation is temporal), so this explanation is impossible. That's why no pre- big bang scientists believe in it.

If any point in history were to be alleged to be the beginning of everything (i.e. time itself), then again nothing could have caused it or produced it (as causation is temporal), so this explanation is also impossible.

Hence it is self evident that the Big Bang is just part of an endless series of causes and effects. The only question Scientists argue about is what is the mechanism for this endless series?

With such a vast number of prior cosmologic states - unless our universe is remarkably special - other life forms are expected to have evolved, and given an infinite evolutionary capacity predicted by an infinite regression some pretty powerful beings are expected.

Perhaps, yes GOD - SORRY YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSION.