You are thinking correctly because the 'start point' as you call it, is the big bang.
What If?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
I agree in part with Ainsley. Time is a concept devised by humans to look for order in what otherwise would be chaos. It is human nature. It's the same reason people look for codes and conspiracies. So to extrapolate this idea: time was not created during, before or immediately after the "Big Bang" but only when humans of concious mind had evolved. They looked for patterns in light and dark, seasons etc. Time is a tool to measure things with, WE have created Time in our minds. Time only exists perfectly if we accept the universe has an ordered, progressive nature which, at a human level it is acceptable to believe as we see order in everything around us. However, at a fundamental level, events are random and unpredictable as is the base for Quantum Theory.
The Big Bang: For any Matter to be "created" (sorry Mr Newton) there must be energy so for the big bang to have happened there must have been energy present. For me this ties scientific "fact" with religious views quite nicely
The Big Bang: For any Matter to be "created" (sorry Mr Newton) there must be energy so for the big bang to have happened there must have been energy present. For me this ties scientific "fact" with religious views quite nicely
I really hope so to be honest, for me it seems to be the last bastion of hope that organised religion has - once scientists crack it then maybe people can start having faith in something which delivers results....OK, good post, it's got me thinking instead of writing out a knee-jerk response......I don't think the question can be termed 'irrelevant', more academic is maybe a better description.
And in that sense, you have a point, but you are suggesting such a question is devalued because of the possible answers, both of which ostensibly negate the question asked.
My only room for manoeuvre here seems to be on the latter option, of you suggesting those circumstances before the big bang are 'something completely beyond our understanding'...
I would propose there is a way we might understand circumstances before the big bang, whether its through mathematics or scientific exploration, it matters not, but I think having come so far, I cannot for the life of me, believe there is something there that we can't get some sort of handle on .....ironically enough, science is almost there, it's just a matter of time
Its a very big step from understanding mathematically the circumstances of the big bang, to being able to derive any meaningful results.
Let alone answers comparative with what religion offers currently.
Once again, this post of yours has spawned another topic for this forum, can religion and science ever be reconciled????
...but to answer the question your post posed, if scientists 'crack it' as you say, then people will not need 'faith', they will have understanding, and understanding doesn't need faith, it just needs acknowledgment.
I don't believe time was created in the big bang or that we created it for our own use (moulded it yes); I believe it was around before it - read my points again!
I'm sure there are solid theories about our universe being born within another, and they say this is where a sense of order is derived from in our own universe, including time.....like a mother passing dna onto her baby.
I'm sure there are solid theories about our universe being born within another, and they say this is where a sense of order is derived from in our own universe, including time.....like a mother passing dna onto her baby.
To clarify, i meant faith in - terms of people putting their trust in science to give them answers, as opposed to religion. As for science and religion being reconciled one could argue that religion is simply those parts of science which we can't explain meaning that ultimately they can never be reconciled as such because the moment something is proven it ceases to require faith but, as you said 'understanding'. On the other hand God could be literally be a physical manifestation of something that spends its time playing us for fools - but then if you believe that i guess there is very little to debate about lol.
I fully appreciate what you are saying Ainsley and I don't have to re-read anything mate; There is no evidence whatsoever to support you proposition that time was around prior to the big bang, but there is circumstantial evidence to support there wasn't ...I choose to align myself with the evidence rather than to align myself with 100% conjecture ...this is the distinction that can be drawn between our two positions mate.
As for your second paragraph?
I'm not really up to speed on that line of thinking but like a lot of things in cosmology, anything's possible, isn't that right Ainsley?
Cool, then we have reached an intellectual cul-de-sac (I got there first
) - nice debate mate, next !
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html
Had a quick look as had a feeling I wasn't completely crazy Pete! Must have seen it on one of my late night discovery sessions.....God bless channel 520
Had a quick look as had a feeling I wasn't completely crazy Pete! Must have seen it on one of my late night discovery sessions.....God bless channel 520