The big bang does not show that there was a beginning. A beginning is incompatible with causality and reason. The above comment by Vince Watkins explains this well.
Again, Big Bang merely asserts that there was an expansion of a singularity (I tend to think of this as time/space infiltrating matter/energy) that eventually resulted in what we have rather naively called the universe. But there is nothing in the theory to cause one to assume that the singularity was created.
Current theories suggest further that we might do well to think of our universe as a local element, one of an infinite number of universes, all comprising an infinite multiverse. For the purposes of this conversation, I've chosen to stick with Webster's definition of universe and assert that all these bubbleverses in the infinite multiverse soup are still members of the set of all things that exist.
When we discovered that our solar system was not the universe or that our galaxy was not the universe or that our cluster was not the universe, we continued to maintain our use of the word "universe" as the set of all things that exist, adapting new words to define the smaller elements.
Now, I think we would do well to continue this trend by not referring to multiple universes, but rather agreeing upon a name for this thing we have previously thought was the totality of the universe. We can call it a singularity expansion locality or a multiverse bubble or we can call it Scooter. But continuing to call it the universe would be like continuing to call everything that revolves around the earth the cosmos.
And while, yes, the rearrangements and expansion of our little fraction of the cosmos have been most impressive, to assume that big bang was an origin event rather than a "rearranging event" or that it is the set of all things that exist... is unfounded.
Vince: "Now, I think we would do well to continue this trend by not referring to multiple universes, but rather agreeing upon a name for this thing we have previously thought was the totality of the universe."
It is for this reason that I have used the new word "infiniverse".
I don't want to be presumptious, but do want to answer all comments addressed to my mine. Rosemary and ITP, were either of yours so intended?
Before any of you start reading this posted reply, I suggest all of you to read up on information Theory :) I wrote an article on it myself that helps explain it, and you can find it here:
Thus unfortunately for Christians, their GOD is literally impossible to exist. I can just simply crush the entire concept using just basic information theory. We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"
- The containing and sustaining of all things
Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:
* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essence of "I am".
So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".
1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me? If he is uncontained then what separates him from me? If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?.. If he is omnipresent, where do I exist? If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?
2) The Christian GOD concept can only ever at best describe existence itself as a whole. You may as well be worshiping yourself.
3) Even solipsism will fail under information theory because consciousness can not exist without cause! Consciousness can not exist without first a base of inquiry that can support it. Thus consciousness requires information, with a system to which has feedback in order to achieve a function of observation.
A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
There are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings. So what are they?
These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value. They are two sides of the same coin! And their 3 fundamental properties/attributes/laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".
There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;
Piece of information
Point of view
Or the relativity of anything above
The Christian GOD is literally Impossible. It can only at best be used as a metaphor for the entire sum total of existence itself! And here is an interesting video that does a very good job of expressing some of my points:
I agree. I didn't learn much science growing up, but I was fortunate enough to go to a Waldorf-style school where we learned about a huge number of polytheistic myths. I think that one needs to hear them all in order to have a well-balanced perspective on the myths of the current era.
I disagree, it depends on what GOD you are talking about. The GOD I addressed can not exist. And regardless, the concept of GOD is pure opinion should some entity actually exist anyways. I don't consider Cows GODS, or even Divine while some might. Burgers with ketchup in my view is no different than a GOD that can't do shit without existence, or information, much less exist at all.
In a world of opinions, an opinion is only relevant to those whom share, or have the opinion. Otherwise they are entirely irrelevant when it comes to a subject such as this.