View Active Topics          View Your Posts
Switch to desktop style
Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
Post a reply

Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

09 Feb 2010, 18:11

This is an input from everyone posting. So I'll start the ball rolling:

In the beginning there was nothing, then suddenly, randomly and by sheer co-incidence there was a ruddy big explosion and the universe as we know it was created. So we should be looking forward to another big bang in the next few billion years sometime?

Re: Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

09 Feb 2010, 20:52

It sounds logical.

Re: Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

10 Feb 2010, 02:19

We are born, grow old, settle down in a relationship may or may not have kids, may or may not have a pet. Get really old and die. The End.

Re: Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

10 Feb 2010, 03:39

Like I always say, "If you are not living life on the edge, then you are taking up too much space". Forgive me if I don't know the original source of that quote.

Re: Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

08 Aug 2010, 10:55

Way before the 'life is a bitch...' thing became popular, I had a boss that said to me one day, "Life is tough, it gets tougher, and then you die." :?

Re: Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

08 Aug 2010, 12:45

The Big Bang Theory does not posit "in the beginning". It posits the beginning of the current form of our universe (or rather fraction of a second after) but says nothing about what came before. It is the current leading theory, though it has competitors. It is a pretty reliable theory that allows many predictions. That's not to say it provides a complete answer, and certain doesn't posit anything about whether the universe came from nothing. Some physcists have suggested that is possible (Lawrence Kraus for one). And there are competing theories. Most recent is that our universe is actually in a black hole of another universe (which would avoid the need apparently for Dark Energy to explain why the universe is expanding.) I don't think its gaining much traction, but who knows. So the BBT remains the leading contender (for now).

Point is, the vast majority of people are not qualified to opine on this. As a non scientist, all we can really do is look to the consensus among the top level physicists. There is still much we do not know about the origins of the universe.

But calling the BBT pseudo-skepticism is just plain silly.

Re: Life and the Universe according to Pseudoskeptics

09 Aug 2010, 00:00

First of all, we have the theories surrounding "Black Holes" and what happens when stars implode... from that perspective we can see how energy will eventually collapse back in on itself and, for lack of a better term, rest. In this state it is amazingly dense and devoid (seemingly) of all... but as this becomes compressed it builds and suddenly, explodes once again... a new Big Bang so to speak.

The irony I find in all of this is how an ostracized author of old, H.P. Blavatsky, actually speaks of this ebb & flow of the universe in her book "The Secret Doctrine"; an account supposedly shared with her by certain eastern mystics. But ignoring her accounting of such, we can find similar teachings in many "occult" writings. So we could say that today's science is only confirming what people 5,000 years ago already knew. The problem is, they were not equipped with the kind of "intellect" that allowed them to better explain the process as we would today. The result being that in the beginning there was void until the creator said "let there be light"... the sort of thing that tends to happen when compounded energy hits that critical mass point and explodes.

Removing the whole "Intelligence" factor (a Creator) we are simply looking at how things happen and how, right now, the earth is slowly moving closer and closer towards the sun and will, just as many prophecies suggest, become consumed by fire... it's just part of the process and how nature works, nothing more or less.

We also know that this process happens at a far wider level in galaxies far, far away... including events in which two galaxies collide with one another, which could reveal another version of "big bang" perspective... I'm not stating that as "fact", just conjecture in that it doesn't fit the traditional mythos pertaining to creation. But we must likewise discount the more exoteric modes of myth, such as lore about the earth being the back of a great turtle or whale, etc. tall tales given to the villagers of a time long past, so they could "relate" to a reverent idea. As with all exoteric tales however, there are deeper esoteric truths that only the village shaman or students of mysticism, would come to know. The bulk of said "deeper mysteries" supporting the essence of what I've already expressed and what science is just now starting to confirm.

All myth is founded in truth. Sadly, many an intellect chooses to ignore this fact and places their thinking "outside" the source rather than finding the parallels. If however, we choose to embrace those parallels we would be better prepared when it comes to aiding the more "spiritually oriented" believer, to see a greater truth when it comes to "God" and the process. Even Darwin intimated that his theories were merely how "god" made it all happen.
Post a reply