The Big Bang (Origins)

by David Turell , Friday, April 30, 2010, 15:05 (5319 days ago) @ dhw


> George's belief in the theory that a universe can spring from nothing is consistent with his belief that life can assemble itself without any guiding intelligence.-Here is a discussion of chirality of amino acids from a math probability view that totally negates George's theory, using math, a field of George's expertise:-http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/04/27/homochirality_and_darwin.thtml-> 
> Do you mean that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, but there was a conscious intelligence (God) that organized it? If so, there has to be a temporal "before", since a cause must precede an effect, and the something that existed before was God (your "First Cause").-An eternal first cause, not in time, as we perceive it. The UI always exists, and creates universes at will. No other concept fits my view. The big Bang is a 'first event' in a new universe creating space and time (as we view it). there is no time without space before the BB. 
> 
> For an admirably clear and impartial summary of this and other current theories, see an article by the cosmologist John D. Barrow, Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge University:
> http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr09/bigbang/index.html-A good presentation of all the extraneous theories. The Big Bang/Big Crunch theory is pretty well disposed of: space is essentially flat, and the expansion is continuing at an increasingly faster rate.
> 
> On another website I found the following statement by two string theorists, one from Cambridge and one from Princeton, -String theory is a bad place to look for help, since it does not explain current cosmology. Just a pile of beautiful math going nowhere expect some very local