Origin and purpose of the universe?

[Chains]

So who believes the Big Bang theory?  I think it seems most likely, although I've heard that it is not necessary taking into account quantum mechanics, but my understanding of that field is fairly limited.  

It does, there's just a problem with finding a theory for quantum gravity. Of course, we still have tons of problems recalculating all of it and all that, but it is the most plausible theory of reality (which is always the one we use. Hell, physicists still use the Standard Model for elementary particles, even though it's 100% certain that it's flawed). The three main arguments for the big bang are red shift, background radiation and the amount of hydrogen in the universe.

Sorry for the offtopic, I just don't know a lot about football.

[-H418ov21.C]

So who believes the Big Bang theory?  I think it seems most likely, although I've heard that it is not necessary taking into account quantum mechanics, but my understanding of that field is fairly limited.

The only problem to be solved with the Big Bang theory is that we still can't explain the first miliseconds of the universe, because the laws of the universe we know today didn't apply back then. In other words, the Big Bang created "space" but also "time" at the same time, and both expanded at a very fast rate in the beginnings of the universe before calming down. You have to imagine that there is neither space nor time, but that you have a microscopic point of matter which can't be matter or even a point, since the concept doesn't even exist yet, somewhere which can't be anywhere since space and location don't even exist yet, and sometime which can't be anytime since time doesn't even exist yet. If you manage to "visualize" that, then comes the question "How the hell would that "explode" and create both time and space at the same time, since it would be an action, so necessarily rooted in time ; and developping in size, so necessarily rooted in space ?" In other words we don't know what the very original impulsion was or even how it is possible. We can explain the "explosion" but we can't explain "what" did throw a match into this explosive matter, or "how" it is even possible that something did start this process.

Nothing really, as you can see !

[FIAT]

One cannot "visualize" the formless. This is a logical absurdity; to imagine necessarily denotes that one forms mental images. Rather, we should say that one may conceive (understood in the etymological sense which meant simultaneous "coming into being" and "understanding" through intellectual intuition) of such, and this conception is made not irrationally, but supra-rationally. It is important to differentiate between genuine gnosis and the Romantic agnosticism (again, the etymological denotation is implied) that otherwise highly intelligent individuals fall prey to once they've exhausted the limits of understanding that the modern sciences almost universally afford, whether they be mathematical, linguistic, or physical sciences.

What we've hoped to have highlighted here are primarily 1) the need to prevent any further loss of knowledge that has arisen through the decay of language, and 2) a clear understanding of structure, which one has explained well here.

[Stranger]

Too bad I really wanted to hear about about the origin of universe.

And you thought that you'd actually find it? And here?

[David_Ravel]

First of all, you're not original in your comment, I already answered that type of comment some post earlier.

Second, no, I don't think I would find the answer, nor do I think human have the possibility understand all the possibilities of the creation of universe. But I think it's an interesting subject, and learning about it wouldn't do any bad thing to my anus, unlike sodomy.

[-H418ov21.C]

One cannot "visualize" the formless. This is a logical absurdity; to imagine necessarily denotes that one forms mental images. Rather, we should say that one may conceive (understood in the etymological sense which meant simultaneous "coming into being" and "understanding" through intellectual intuition) of such, and this conception is made not irrationally, but supra-rationally. It is important to differentiate between genuine gnosis and the Romantic agnosticism (again, the etymological denotation is implied) that otherwise highly intelligent individuals fall prey to once they've exhausted the limits of understanding that the modern sciences almost universally afford, whether they be mathematical, linguistic, or physical sciences.

What we've hoped to have highlighted here are primarily 1) the need to prevent any further loss of knowledge that has arisen through the decay of language, and 2) a clear understanding of structure, which one has explained well here.

English is not my first language and I've only learned it through a few poor and irregular lessons around a decade ago, so I often run out of words and use other words instead when I don't find exactly what I need ; besides, it was just intended as a first step to help someone who obviously asked a genuine question and benefits from being directed onto something even if the point is not clearly expressed since the very first reply. My reply called for others, and that's precisely what you did, so everything's fine.

[FIAT]

Don't take anything I write personally.  

[Stranger]

First of all, you're not original in your comment, I already answered that type of comment some post earlier.

Second, no, I don't think I would find the answer, nor do I think human have the possibility understand all the possibilities of the creation of universe. But I think it's an interesting subject, and learning about it wouldn't do any bad thing to my anus, unlike sodomy.

Let's not be, "cute", in our responses. Let's just get to the heart of the matter.

I agree with you that it would be an interesting subject, although what you pointed out is exactly what I was questioning: Are we actually going to learn about the origin of the universe? It almost sounds like finding God.

A futile task.

[nAMELESShERETIC]

A futile task.

the hell you say!

[Chains]

Let's not be, "cute", in our responses. Let's just get to the heart of the matter.

I agree with you that it would be an interesting subject, although what you pointed out is exactly what I was questioning: Are we actually going to learn about the origin of the universe? It almost sounds like finding God.

A futile task.

Yet a noble striving nevertheless, wouldn't you say?

[Stranger]

Yet a noble striving nevertheless, wouldn't you say?

I would have agreed with this earlier in life, but I think I have realized something; some questions don't have answers.

For how long have people been arguing about the existence of a, "God"? For millenniums at the very least. And where has that gotten us? The same fucking place.

With, "God", and the origin of the Universe, both are things I think we'll never know and I'd rather spend my time worrying about things we do, or can understand.

[Mithrandir]

For how long have people been arguing about the existence of a, "God"? For millenniums at the very least. And where has that gotten us? The same fucking place.

With, "God", and the origin of the Universe, both are things I think we'll never know and I'd rather spend my time worrying about things we do, or can understand.

You're re-appropriating all cultures to the (now) Western belief system...that is not entirely correct. Most of the Eastern and African world have had their own beliefs in multiple Gods for millenia as well. Some of them may sometimes correspond similarly to some beliefs held in the Judeo-Christian God. In any case, the belief in supernatural (generally superior) beings is part and parcel of human/cultural history, it has shaped humanity (for better or for worse) over thousands of years, and to ignore it completely (I don't mean we should worship it, but to cease analysing it completely) could mean to ignore a part of humanity's core culture.

[Stranger]

You're re-appropriating all cultures to the (now) Western belief system...that is not entirely correct. Most of the Eastern and African world have had their own beliefs in multiple Gods for millenia as well. Some of them may sometimes correspond similarly to some beliefs held in the Judeo-Christian God. In any case, the belief in supernatural (generally superior) beings is part and parcel of human/cultural history, it has shaped humanity (for better or for worse) over thousands of years, and to ignore it completely (I don't mean we should worship it, but to cease analysing it completely) could mean to ignore a part of humanity's core culture.

That is an interesting point. I see where you are coming from. Although, I suppose this all leads to what we are willing to believe. Science, in its essential core, still involves some form of belief, as does the example you presented above.

I think for me, I am more willing to believe in what Western Science has shown us, than what the ancient cultures of the past believed to be the case.

With that said, I stick with my initial position and personally wouldn't waste much time with this topic.

[buckets_of_rain]

On a side note, I was thinking about the triangle of magic, religion and science.  Religion states that science and magic are fake.  Science states that religion and fake.  Magic states nothing.  Magic is also the only one of the two that doesn't attempt to explain the meaning and origin of life.

Makes me think there is something to it.  

[Agni]

= magic doesn't know shit.