ChaoticMusings

Digger · Admin

God and the Big Bang

Magica · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
French mathematicians Olivier Bonnassies and Michel-Yves Bollore now say that science 'has become God's ally'.
In a new book, the duo have distilled insights from 62 Nobel Prize winners and more than 100 leading scientists to pinpoint the scientific discoveries that could prove God is real.
This includes everything from the Big Bang – the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe – to DNA and the human genome.
'Until recently, believing in God seemed incompatible with science,' say the authors.
'Now, unexpectedly, science appears to have become God's ally.'
Ultimately, whether science disproves or supports the existence of God remains open to interpretation – but these scientific discoveries offer a tantalising glimpse at the possibility that our world is the result of design, not chance.
The Big Bang is the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe, and posits that the universe exploded into existence from a single point about 14 billion years ago.
According to the theory, in an instant quicker than the blink of an eye, matter and energy, as well as space and time, were suddenly born.
Many academics – including the late Professor Stephen Hawking – have refuted the suggestion that a divine creator was behind the Big Bang.
But according to the authors, who are both Christians, such an action dictates there was some kind of higher being that could have triggered it.
In their book, the duo ask if 'it really such a leap to entertain the possibility of a creative act' behind the Big Bang.
'The Big Bang forces us into a corner,' they say in their book.
'To put it bluntly, it brings us face-to-face with the idea of God.
'If there was mathematical information before the Big Bang, who is the incredible "programmer" behind such code?'
It was back in 1965 when two astronomers in New Jersey provided pivotal evidence confirming the theory of the Big Bang.
For the first time, they discovered cosmic microwave background (CMB) – the radiation left over from the birth of the universe, considered the Big Bang's leftover glow.
However, half a century later, there is still not an alternative theory that's supported by experimental observations, the French mathematicians point out.
In 1953, the discovery of DNA's double–helix structure by Sir Francis Crick and James Watson revealed the existence of a single encoding language common to all lifeforms.
More recently, in 2003, scientists built on the work of Crick and Watson to map the human genome – the entire set of DNA instructions found in a cell.
Crick, himself an atheist, admitted a complex structure like DNA could not have appeared by chance' – and appeared to be 'almost a miracle'.
DNA forms part of a 'unique, sophisticated and coordinated coding system' that points to the existence of an 'intelligent designer'.
Bolloré and Bonnassies suggest life arose when it did due to natural laws set in place by God in the very beginning, or the result of a special intervention by the same creator.

Of all the scientific discoveries in the 20th century, few have left scientists dumbstruck like quantum physics.
Classical models of physics cannot explain the world of quantum mechanics, which challenge our understanding of reality.
For example, a phenomenon called quantum entanglement describes two particles and their properties becoming linked without physical contact with one another.
In recent years, French physicist Alain Aspect, a Nobel prize winner, demonstrated quantum entanglement between two particles about 40 feet apart that were 'dialogued instantaneously' with each other.
Quantum experiments like that have made it clear 'that within the realm of physics there is another later of reality,' the duo say in the book.
'The twentieth–century discovery of the quantum nature of our world – which shows that it is indeterminate and radically subject to chance – is metaphysically essential,' they added.
Overall, the authors insist that the evidence for God's existence is 'abundant, clear and rational', and their arguments are grounded in 'reason and careful analysis'.
'Traces of God's actions' in the universe are far more tangible than those of aliens, they add – but somehow scientists spend more effort to finding the latter.
'We are living in extraordinary times,' they conclude in the book.
'Although this shift has gone largely unnoticed by the general public, we are in the midst of an intellectual paradigm shift that fundamentally redefines our approach to the question of God's existence.'
The English–language version of 'God, the Science, the Evidence' has been published in paperback by Palomar

I was just reading this.

I've always wondered whether God is aliens. I do believe they visited and existed here on earth thousands of years ago.

They watched over us. That has always made sense to me.

Vam · Go Outside.

Well, that has given me pause to wonder if I really am the lapsed Catholic I imagined myself to be.

Especially this part:

‘ … according to the authors, who are both Christians, such an action dictates there was some kind of higher being that could have triggered it.

In their book, the duo ask if 'it really such a leap to entertain the possibility of a creative act' behind the Big Bang.

'The Big Bang forces us into a corner,' they say in their book.

'To put it bluntly, it brings us face-to-face with the idea of God.

'If there was mathematical information before the Big Bang, who is the incredible "programmer" behind such code?'

Digger · Admin

Vam wrote:
Well, that has given me pause to wonder if I really am the lapsed Catholic I imagined myself to be.
Especially this part:
‘ … according to the authors, who are both Christians, such an action dictates there was some kind of higher being that could have triggered it.
In their book, the duo ask if 'it really such a leap to entertain the possibility of a creative act' behind the Big Bang.
'The Big Bang forces us into a corner,' they say in their book.
'To put it bluntly, it brings us face-to-face with the idea of God.
'If there was mathematical information before the Big Bang, who is the incredible "programmer" behind such code?'

Who is to say the Universe is not a construct? We think it's real. What if it's not?

Magica · Go Outside

Digger wrote:
Vam wrote:
Well, that has given me pause to wonder if I really am the lapsed Catholic I imagined myself to be.
Especially this part:
‘ … according to the authors, who are both Christians, such an action dictates there was some kind of higher being that could have triggered it.
In their book, the duo ask if 'it really such a leap to entertain the possibility of a creative act' behind the Big Bang.
'The Big Bang forces us into a corner,' they say in their book.
'To put it bluntly, it brings us face-to-face with the idea of God.
'If there was mathematical information before the Big Bang, who is the incredible "programmer" behind such code?'
Who is to say the Universe is not a construct? We think it's real. What if it's not?

Now that's got me thinking.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

It's giving me a headache.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
It's giving me a headache.

I was fixing to say the same. I just can't wrap my head around it so I don't try..

Digger · Admin

I don't gel with the Big Bang theory at all. It makes no sense to me. However, I do believe in dimensions. Of which I believe there are a multitude. And I think this earthly plane is one of them. Sure, we can fly into space as it's just a big void. But what if our Universe isn't endless but just one great big loop. We just can't see the whole loop just yet.

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Digger wrote:
I don't gel with the Big Bang theory at all. It makes no sense to me. However, I do believe in dimensions. Of which I believe there are a multitude. And I think this earthly plane is one of them. Sure, we can fly into space as it's just a big void. But what if our Universe isn't endless but just one great big loop. We just can't see the whole loop just yet.

I used to think that everything we have ever done and everything we will ever do, is happening simultaneously, but our conscious mind is such that it is only capable of tuning into one dimension, which we call 'the present'.

I suppose a similar principle as one of those flicker books, where you flick the pages to give the illusion of movement, when it's actually just a series of static images. In human terms, it allows us to think that we are passing through something called 'time', even though we might not be!.

Makes it easier to understand the feeling of deja vu as well. Perhaps under certain circumstances, the human mind is capable of tapping in to one of the other dimensions for a split second, which might explain why something new to us in the present seems familiar.

Digger · Admin

Red Okktober wrote:
Digger wrote:
I don't gel with the Big Bang theory at all. It makes no sense to me. However, I do believe in dimensions. Of which I believe there are a multitude. And I think this earthly plane is one of them. Sure, we can fly into space as it's just a big void. But what if our Universe isn't endless but just one great big loop. We just can't see the whole loop just yet.
I used to think that everything we have ever done and everything we will ever do, is happening simultaneously, but our conscious mind is such that it is only capable of tuning into one dimension, which we call 'the present'.
I suppose a similar principle as one of those flicker books, where you flick the pages to give the illusion of movement, when it's actually just a series of static images. In human terms, it allows us to think that we are passing through something called 'time', even though we might not be!.
Makes it easier to understand the feeling of deja vu as well. Perhaps under certain circumstances, the human mind is capable of tapping in to one of the other dimensions for a split second, which might explain why something new to us in the present seems familiar.

I don't think time passes. I don't actually think time exists as such but our perception of it is that we pass through it rather than it moving past us. I think your flicker book has something. The nearest I can explain it is the Tesseract in the movie Interstellar, where time was just a static series of blocks you can dip in and out of like the Akashic Record....that might explain how some people have prescient dreams or can predict the future.

Fluffy · Musing at the Chaos

Vam wrote:
Well, that has given me pause to wonder if I really am the lapsed Catholic I imagined myself to be.
Especially this part:
‘ … according to the authors, who are both Christians, such an action dictates there was some kind of higher being that could have triggered it.
In their book, the duo ask if 'it really such a leap to entertain the possibility of a creative act' behind the Big Bang.
'The Big Bang forces us into a corner,' they say in their book.
'To put it bluntly, it brings us face-to-face with the idea of God.
'If there was mathematical information before the Big Bang, who is the incredible "programmer" behind such code?'

The underlined part is actually very important and possibly sinister depending on your mindset.

The" double slit " experiment I posted about previously proves electrons change their behaviour when observed by humans. This information won the scientists who discovered it a Nobel Prize but what does it mean?

That particles, matter, knows when humans are observing them and adapt their behaviour to act now we expect them to. This has been scientifically proven and observed , scientifically and in.every way this is HUGE. Electrons having knowledge and awareness?? Apparently. It's taken all this time for science to prove it.It indicates that the Simulation Theory may not be as daft as it seems.

The "code ' is computer code, binary ,maths. We are now statistically more likely to be living in a simulated reality created by a future advanced A.I (which will btw become "superhuman" by 2027, superhuman means humans will no longer be able to understand how AI works, it's intelligence will be beyond human capacity to even imagine.)

We won't be top of the food chain anymore..or as many scientists fear, in charge anymore. Many scientists have tried to warn others in.silicon valley how dangerous AI has now become, and quit their jobs.They are afraid, especially it's creators.Elon Musk has even admitted the dangers himself.But..It's all about the money, and dam the consequences.

So the big bang is more likely a fable created by computer code than actual dark matter exploding , creating a rare and beautiful planet. A planet that can sustain all types of life at the exact temperature needed, a degree lower or higher at the point of creation and we would be toast. It's all just a bit too perfect.Not very likely either.

However the original question remains unanswered. Even if we are not a simulation despite the findings of the double slit experiment, who created creation?What was in the very beginning? Not A.I unless this reality being the original one is a ruse.

That is beyond our scope to understand which means hopefully despite the evidence there was something sentient in the original darkness..But does whatever lived there remain there now and do they approve of their creation?

Date: Oct 23 6:47 AM, 2025

Fluffy wrote:

The" double slit " experiment I posted about previously proves electrons change their behaviour when observed by humans. This information won the scientists who discovered it a Nobel Prize but what does it mean?
That particles, matter, knows when humans are observing them and adapt their behaviour to act now we expect them to. This has been scientifically proven

It doesn't mean that and it hasn't been scientifically proven.

What it does mean is that the measuring device has to interact with the particle, and the interaction affects the particle's behaviour.

Until it is observed, a particle exists in a wave-like state, with the wave being a wave of probability of where the particle might be located.

When it is observed its location becomes known, the probability becomes a certainty, the probability wave 'collapses' and the particle behaves like a classical particle, instead of the wave-like quantum behaviour it had before it was detected.

The particles don't 'know' they are being observed, there's no kind of consciousness involved making them think 'Oh look, that bloke in a white coat is spying on us, let's fool him and do something he's not expecting'.

Digger · Admin

Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:

The" double slit " experiment I posted about previously proves electrons change their behaviour when observed by humans. This information won the scientists who discovered it a Nobel Prize but what does it mean?
That particles, matter, knows when humans are observing them and adapt their behaviour to act now we expect them to. This has been scientifically proven
It doesn't mean that and it hasn't been scientifically proven.
What it does mean is that the measuring device has to interact with the particle, and the interaction affects the particle's behaviour.
Until it is observed, a particle exists in a wave-like state, with the wave being a wave of probability of where the particle might be located.
When it is observed its location becomes known, the probability becomes a certainty, the probability wave 'collapses' and the particle behaves like a classical particle, instead of the wave-like quantum behaviour it had before it was detected.
The particles don't 'know' they are being observed, there's no kind of consciousness involved making them think 'Oh look, that bloke in a white coat is spying on us, let's fool him and do something he's not expecting'.

you fucking bubble burster!

Fluffy · Musing at the Chaos

Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:

The" double slit " experiment I posted about previously proves electrons change their behaviour when observed by humans. This information won the scientists who discovered it a Nobel Prize but what does it mean?
That particles, matter, knows when humans are observing them and adapt their behaviour to act now we expect them to. This has been scientifically proven
It doesn't mean that and it hasn't been scientifically proven.
What it does mean is that the measuring device has to interact with the particle, and the interaction affects the particle's behaviour.
Until it is observed, a particle exists in a wave-like state, with the wave being a wave of probability of where the particle might be located.
When it is observed its location becomes known, the probability becomes a certainty, the probability wave 'collapses' and the particle behaves like a classical particle, instead of the wave-like quantum behaviour it had before it was detected.
The particles don't 'know' they are being observed, there's no kind of consciousness involved making them think 'Oh look, that bloke in a white coat is spying on us, let's fool him and do something he's not expecting'.

Oh does it not? I'm most disappointed about that I thought the particles were having a nice chat about it

Would you mind sharing how you personally feel creation began?

You sound like the same Guest who did not believe AI would learn to act in it's own interests , instead of ours. Have you seen the interview on the relevant thread with a Nobel Prize winning scientist who.helped create AI warning against the dangers of the exact things you dismissed.?

Fluffy · Musing at the Chaos

Digger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Fluffy wrote:

The" double slit " experiment I posted about previously proves electrons change their behaviour when observed by humans. This information won the scientists who discovered it a Nobel Prize but what does it mean?
That particles, matter, knows when humans are observing them and adapt their behaviour to act now we expect them to. This has been scientifically proven
It doesn't mean that and it hasn't been scientifically proven.
What it does mean is that the measuring device has to interact with the particle, and the interaction affects the particle's behaviour.
Until it is observed, a particle exists in a wave-like state, with the wave being a wave of probability of where the particle might be located.
When it is observed its location becomes known, the probability becomes a certainty, the probability wave 'collapses' and the particle behaves like a classical particle, instead of the wave-like quantum behaviour it had before it was detected.
The particles don't 'know' they are being observed, there's no kind of consciousness involved making them think 'Oh look, that bloke in a white coat is spying on us, let's fool him and do something he's not expecting'.

you fucking bubble burster!

I know. I'm gutted.