Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2013, 06:21 PM
 
Eternal universe without Big Bang?
What are your opinions about this :
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATION...re-ETERNAL

Fatfist said it is irrational to explained that universe started to exist at the moment when the Big Bang occurred thus he concluded the universe is actually eternal and there are no kind of any origin, starting point, etc. such as Big Bang. He said the following "My previous hubs on the Cosmological Argument, Infinite Regress Argument, and First Cause Argument have explained the exact reasons why those arguments are fallacious and intentionally conceived to mislead and brainwash people into thinking that Creation is a fact. The Creation of space and matter is NOT a fact. It is an irrational claim that is full of contradictions. No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility. These hubs explain in laborious detail why it is impossible for an entity, like a God or a Singularity, to create space and matter".
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(11-10-2013 06:21 PM)Mike Wrote:  What are your opinions about this :
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATION...re-ETERNAL

Fatfist said it is irrational to explained that universe started to exist at the moment when the Big Bang occurred thus he concluded the universe is actually eternal and there are no kind of any origin, starting point, etc. such as Big Bang. He said the following "My previous hubs on the Cosmological Argument, Infinite Regress Argument, and First Cause Argument have explained the exact reasons why those arguments are fallacious and intentionally conceived to mislead and brainwash people into thinking that Creation is a fact. The Creation of space and matter is NOT a fact. It is an irrational claim that is full of contradictions. No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility. These hubs explain in laborious detail why it is impossible for an entity, like a God or a Singularity, to create space and matter".

Garbage science. The Big Bang has left residual heat that we can and have measured.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-10-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(11-10-2013 06:21 PM)Mike Wrote:  What are your opinions about this :
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATION...re-ETERNAL

Fatfist said it is irrational to explained that universe started to exist at the moment when the Big Bang occurred thus he concluded the universe is actually eternal and there are no kind of any origin, starting point, etc. such as Big Bang. He said the following "My previous hubs on the Cosmological Argument, Infinite Regress Argument, and First Cause Argument have explained the exact reasons why those arguments are fallacious and intentionally conceived to mislead and brainwash people into thinking that Creation is a fact. The Creation of space and matter is NOT a fact. It is an irrational claim that is full of contradictions. No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility. These hubs explain in laborious detail why it is impossible for an entity, like a God or a Singularity, to create space and matter".

My thought is that is pre-supposional bullshit - it sure ain't science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-10-2013, 07:24 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(11-10-2013 06:23 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Garbage science. The Big Bang has left residual heat that we can and have measured.

I don't find Block time theory objectionable and the implications of that theory is the Universe is uncreated. It has always existed...eternal. The theory allows for a big bang or any other event for that matter and for the observance of residual heat.

Google block time theory or eternalism if you want to know more.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 08:59 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
In his First Cause section he wrote "ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe."

Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
John 15:16 : "You did not choose me, I chose you, so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last"

Lots of fruits in beligion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2013, 07:39 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(11-10-2013 08:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  In his First Cause section he wrote "ATHEISTS say that the Singularity is ‘the’ Uncaused First Cause for the creation of the Universe."

Weeping

LOL, so the universe is eternal and there are no Big Bang. Right? Consider
Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 07:41 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Take a look at this. I find it a lil bit funny btw.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Rational...019488569/

"Rational Scientific Method is the only Science group/forum on the Internet that seeks to offer rational explanations to natural phenomena. Unlike other “science-minded” groups out there, RSM is not predicated on fallacies and contradictions like belief, authority, popularity, reification, magic, uncertainty principles, etc.

Science is the study of existence. The Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory) is used to formulate a collection of rational explanations (i.e. Theories) for natural phenomena.

In RSM we use the Scientific Method to rationally answer such questions as:
1. Is the creation of the Universe possible or impossible?
2. What is matter? Is matter comprised of discrete standalone entities or a single continuous entity?
3. What is light, gravity, magnetism and electricity? What is the Grand Unified Theory for these phenomena?
4. Why is light so fast and why is its speed constant?
5. Does light really slow down within a prism? Does it speed up as it exits the prism?
6. Why does light always retrace its path to its source without getting lost, even though its source and destination may have moved billions of light years away from their original location?
7. How do you rationally explain the double-slit experiment?
8. Does gravitation have a speed limit or is it instantaneous?
9. Why does a feather and a bus fall at the same rate to the ground (sans air friction)?
10. Why it is impossible to block the effect of gravity?
11. Why are the Pioneer probes decelerating towards the Sun? Why is it so difficult to leave the Solar System?
12. Why do the stars at the edge of a galaxy rotate at the same rate as those inside?
13. Why do magnets attract in one orientation but repel in another?
14. What is current flow in a circuit and why does a circuit exhibit the magnetic ‘field’ effect?
15. How do resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes and transistors work?
16. How do you rationally explain the photoelectric effect?
17. Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?
18. Does the Doppler Effect apply to light? Why do most galaxies appear red-shifted?

Statement Of Purpose

Rational Scientific Method’s main focus is on learning the scientific method of inquiry. We ask that new members familiarize themselves with it. This will help with EVERYONE’S learning experience."

Btw that's the group that believed (but they're insisting they're only rationally explained) that universe aren't created from Big Bang thus Big Bang never occurred.
Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Fatfist is kind of a self-righteous douchebag, and this speculation is philosophy not science. BBT makes no claim pre-singularity.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-10-2013, 11:07 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Fatfist and his followers are using their so-called Rational Scientific Method. One of his loyal follower, Monkeymind, explain their rational scientific method as follows, "Science in general and physics in particular are about the physical... those things which have physical presence: what is real, things that exist. To exist means to have shape and location, that is, an object with a location: something, somewhere. We visualize objects and we explain concepts. We do not explain objects - we point to them. We explain phenomena. Herein lies the problems with the un-scientific inquiry method of mainstream science. The scientific method is based on hypothesis and theory. The conclusion is left to each individual. The hypothesis includes the statement of facts, the key terms, and the objects. The hypothesis describes the phenomena or illustrates the objects, defines the key terms, then makes assumptions. It is a statement of facts - not the facts themselves. Assumptions are neither true nor false. One does not define objects; one illustrates them. The theory explains the hypothesis. Everyone must decide for themselves. Each individual concludes that the theory is either possible or not possible. Science is about explaining. Science in general and physics in particular are about physically present objects. Understanding the difference between objects and concepts allows one to make a rational conclusion about the key terms and the statement of facts at the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. Proof is for math. Science never proves. Science is about physical reality. Math describes abstract dynamic concepts, whereas science illustrates static physical objects and explains phenomena. A hypothesis stands on its own. It does not matter who agrees. The hypothesis should illustrate the objects, define the key terms, and present a statement of the facts, the assumptions. The theory would then explain the phenomena of the hypothesis. There is no correct or incorrect hypothesis -it is an assumption. It is either rational or not. If it is rational, we accept the assumption of the hypothesis. Predictions and observations are opinions and are extra-scientific. Hypotheses are assumptions, and theories explain the hypotheses. We form a conclusion that the theory is either possible or not possible.We describe objects in the hypothesis. We explain concepts in the theory. We never explain objects, we illustrate them or point to them. This is why in science it is crucial to understand the difference between objects and concepts, nouns and verbs, adjectives and adverbs, and hypotheses and theories".

Not only that, they are also denied the Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and many other experiment outcomes because they said "Belief, truth, evidence, and proof are not part of the scientific method; it is observer-independent. Experiments and observation are extra-scientific".

If you want to read further about their non-mainstream scientific method, here it is. http://www.academia.edu/4002706/Rational...fic_Method
Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 11:24 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(18-10-2013 09:35 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fatfist is kind of a self-righteous douchebag, and this speculation is philosophy not science. BBT makes no claim pre-singularity.

Yeah that's what I'm started to think, I think he is more of a philosopher than a, you know, pseudoscientist. Wink
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: