Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[uwot]

I don't know if Big Bang was or not an explosion, but recently I have heard and read about studies and discovers of the "sound" of the primordial explosion, the Big Bang. These scientists affirm to have heard in such a far and remote regions of universe the sound of this explosion, right a bang. So are they telling us only a lot of lies? I'm asking, as I am not a scientist.

I had a look at the website of the scientist responsible: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/BBSound_2013.html From what I gather, Professor John Cramer has analysed the data that was used to produce the visual image of the Cosmic background radiation and turned it instead into an audio file. It's a bit of a stretch to call it the sound of the Big Bang, even the Professor puts it in quotation marks, as he says, he had to increase the frequency by 26 orders of magnitude. Basically, there were 'vibrations' in the early universe that can be depicted as sound, but since there was no air, much less ears, it's not sound as we recognise it.
The name 'Big Bang' is misleading, but it has stuck. The Big Expansion isn't as snappy, but it's probably closer to what scientists mean.

[jackles]

Expansion only exist from a perspective inside locality. From a nonlocal perspective it the universe is not expanding at all.Nonlocality is limitless and there for nothing can be expanding inside it.This can be seen in spooky action at a distance. Expansion of the universe isnt taking place from the nonlocal perspective of the action event called the universe.

[uwot]

Expansion only exist from a perspective inside locality. From a nonlocal perspective it the universe is not expanding at all.Nonlocality is limitless and there for nothing can be expanding inside it.This can be seen in spooky action at a distance. Expansion of the universe isnt taking place from the nonlocal perspective of the action event called the universe.

How many times, jackles? That is not what anybody else on the planet means by locality. If I understand you correctly, and it's a mighty big if, the point you are making is that scale is relative. If so, yeah, I can go along with that. From the universe's point of view (who knows, maybe it actually has one), or from the point of view of some divine being/mad scientist/Flying Spaghetti Monster that is outside our universe, it could be that the size is constant and that all the components, galaxies, planetary systems, us, are shrinking; I'm not sure there would be any observable difference. So, have you got any good reason for thinking so?

[jackles]

Yes uwot but can you see the point I was getting at. In terms of spooky action there is no such a thing as size. Size is an illusion around spooky action.

[Immanuel Can]

Earlier, I wrote.

You've posited a Big Bang.

Note the pronoun: I do not posit a Big Bang. Consequently, I do not worry much about how to explain or to defend one. Why would I? It's not any kind of Theistic postulate. However, for any Big Bang postulator, the problem remains: whatever you wish to say the Singularity was, it needs to originate in something pre-existing, and to have some sort of causal explanation. Absent that, it's clearly not science but something else.

Yet let us leave it, since I see nothing further worth arguing about there from a Theistic view.

If Locke is now your subject, then let's rock with Locke.

[uwot]

... I do not posit a Big Bang. Consequently, I do not worry much about how to explain or to defend one. Why would I? It's not any kind of Theistic postulate.

No, but perhaps it is now clear that you cannot use scientific postulates to support, much less prove theistic ones.

However, for any Big Bang postulator, the problem remains: whatever you wish to say the Singularity was, it needs to originate in something pre-existing, and to have some sort of causal explanation.

From the point of view of science, no it doesn't. This has been stated by Ginkgo and myself many times-science does not deal with first causes. In order to do perfectly good science, you do not need to know what causes the phenomenon you are investigating; check out hypotheses non fingo https://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hyp ... _Non_Fingo . 'Why?' is always an interesting question, but it is not essential to science.

Absent that, it's clearly not science but something else.

It is clearly not your understanding of science, but you are mistaken.

Yet let us leave it, since I see nothing further worth arguing about there from a Theistic view.

If all you are interested in is a theistic view, don't waste your time arguing with people who have a scientific view.

If Locke is now your subject, then let's rock with Locke.

Fine by me.

[uwot]

Yes uwot but can you see the point I was getting at. In terms of spooky action there is no such a thing as size. Size is an illusion around spooky action.

Well, size/distance is irrelevant when it comes to spooky action at a distance/non-locality. I can go along with size being relative, but illusory? Perhaps if you think the entire universe is an illusion.

[David Handeye]

I heard Stephen Hawking saying God does not exist, because before the Big Bang there was not a time when being. What I argue is that "before". There is always a before and then. When we say "before" the Big Bang, we are denying it. Time didn't start with BB, so nobody may be sure of what there was before, but that there was a before surely.

[uwot]

I heard Stephen Hawking saying God does not exist, because before the Big Bang there was not a time when being. What I argue is that "before". There is always a before and then. When we say "before" the Big Bang, we are denying it. Time didn't start with BB, so nobody may be sure of what there was before, but that there was a before surely.

Time, from our perspective, is the changes, or evolution, if you like, of the visible universe. There is no way of telling what exists beyond what we can see. We can create models/stories that are consistent with the currently available evidence, but there could be any number of such models. God could feature in lots of them; Stephen Hawking knows this and would not claim to have any evidence that god does not exist. It's the old thing about absence of proof not being proof of absence.

[jackles]

The universe is an illusion relative to nonlocality. The universe will exist for a while and then it will disapear as illusions do. But eternity which has no begining or end and never had happened as locational things happen will ever be. Illusional things move to happen. Nonlocality dosnt move it remains. It does not come and go like universes do.

[uwot]

The universe is an illusion relative to nonlocality. The universe will exist for a while and then it will disapear as illusions do. But eternity which has no begining or end and never had happened as locational things happen will ever be. Illusional things move to happen. Nonlocality dosnt move it remains. It does not come and go like universes do.

So many things could be the case, jackles, me old china. Who knows? Perhaps you are the reincarnated soul of Parmenides, slightly traumatised by the cycle of death and rebirth, but still fundamentally thinking in ancient Greek. Could you have a stab at explaining what you mean by nonlocality? Do you have any evidence of universes coming and going?

[jackles]

Nonlocality has no limit. Locality has limit. They both exist together as seen in spooky action or the nomoving frame of ref of a photon. They exist simultaneously. Locality is projected from nonlocality like a film. Locality has a timespace history but nonlocality as the projector of locality has no history . consciousness is nonlocal all religions are based on that. When the body dies it will be as if the universe never had existed at all just as if the whole thing was a dream you are your consciousness.

[uwot]

Nonlocality has no limit.

Simple question, jackles: What is nonlocality?

[Ginkgo]

Nonlocality has no limit.

Simple question, jackles: What is nonlocality?

Yes, I think the question of quantum non-locality can be defined reasonably well. Jackles is reading way too much into the definition.

[jackles]

Lets get this settled uwot . Nonlocality is what existed before locality happen as in the big bang right. It nonlocality still exists independent of the bang event as seen in spooky action or the frame of ref for a photon . Showing the nonmoving thing exists completly indenpendent of the moving things but is also the mover of moving things and hostes them as timespace. Certainty hostes uncertainty as an illusion.