Big Bang Intelligent Design

At The Conversation: How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

Spread the love

Alastair Wilson attempts to explain:

The ouroboros of the one cyclic universe is majestic indeed. It contains within its belly our own universe, as well as every one of the weird and wonderful alternative possible universes allowed by quantum physics – and at the point where its head meets its tail, it is completely empty yet also coursing with energy at temperatures of a hundred thousand million billion trillion degrees Celsius. Even Loki, the shapeshifter, would be impressed.

Alastair Wilson, “How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?” at The Conversation (January 3, 2022)

Wait. There is a simpler explanation: In the beginning, the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

45 Replies to “At The Conversation: How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    There is a simpler explanation: In the beginning, the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

    when you worship Darwinism, this explanation is too simple…

    When you believe in Darwinism, an explanation/theory/hypothesis should be as complex/absurd/irrational/implausible as possible… and, it has to ignore everything what humans especially engineers learned so far … because biologists/paleontologists/archeologists developed a ‘theory’ …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0kk37iFgWk

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Remove God and you remove the laws of physics, since not a single one could have come about randomly.

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    I agree with Martin_r,

    The worldview must be maintained, even when it goes screaming into absurdity.

    Andrew

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    No, it’s not a simpler explanation. We start with our Universe. I don’t accept it came from absolutely nothing but that explanation doesn’t necessarily require some other entity. Saying God did it invokes another entity, without showing it’s necessary, which means it falls foul of Occam’s Razor.

    As for worldviews, I don’t think they exist in the sense of being a useful way of classifying peoples views. It usually comes down to accusing anyone who doesn’t share the accusers evangelical Christian faith of being a socialist, Marxist, Communist, atheist, materialist, naturalist, Darwinist, etc. It’s about stereotyping, vilifying and demonizing anyone who disagrees with you. That’s all.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    One God is by far more simple than countless just-so accidents. Duh.

    Worldviews are great in classifying peoples’ views. It gets to the heart of what they are thinking. It’s about finding out where they are coming from and correcting it if it is nonsense. And materialism is total nonsense.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “As for worldviews, I don’t think they exist in the sense of being a useful way of classifying peoples views”

    Sev,

    Yet you are here, openly hostile to an ID oriented worldview.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    William J Murray says:

    First, there’s an even simpler explanation: our universe exists because it necessarily exists. It is simpler because it doesn’t require something else to generate or create it.

    Second, there is no coherent theory of the origin narrative we call “the big bang” because there is no significant theory of time.

    If, as some physicists claim, what we call time is the perception of motion through a 4th dimension, then the “big bang” is just one location out of countless locations, and our perception of it as an origin point is a matter of perspective, not the actual, causal “origin” of the entire 4D entity we call the past, present and future of the physical universe.

    And, of course, this is more simply understood as consciousness interacting with eternal potential (information,) which means not only does our universe necessarily exist, so does every potential universe. Everything is thus a necessary being, and contingent cause and effect is just what sequences of necessary entities look like from the motion of one’s own perspective. The only true cause and effect would be mental.

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    “First, there’s an even simpler explanation: our universe exists because it necessarily exists”

    WJM,

    Sure, give the universe (whatever that is) God-like properties and declare yourself the winner.

    Not science. More like wishful thinking.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    chuckdarwin says:

    Quite the morning for “God hypotheses.”

    In the beginning, the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

    And then this from “The Million To One Statistical Fluke That Creates Our Universe:”

    Which points out the whole problem of abductive reasoning in the historical sciences (which this is) — you have to be exhaustive in your theorizing. And only God is exhaustive. Which makes abductive reasoning somewhat theological.

    And finally, from “At Fox News: Adam And Eve Are Compatible With Evolution”:

    Swamidass argues that genetics and evolutionary theory do not conflict with the existence of Adam and Eve, universal ancestors of all humans whom Jesus died to save.

    But, of course, ID and UD have nothing to do with religion…… 😉

  10. 10
    jerry says:

    But, of course, ID and UD have nothing to do with religion…

    It has to do with clicks. You and a lot of others would never comment/click if there were no religion allowed.

    It’s a capitalist conspiracy.

  11. 11
    zweston says:

    If the arguments point to God, why should religion not come up? If God is who he says he is… everything else is a sub-topic… religion isn’t a compartment, but instead the key to all. But, secularism wants religion as a category, not everything.

    Jesus said, you search the scriptures because you think there is life in them, but what they testify to is me! John 5. Jesus is the key to everything. Everything.

    Ironically, as they object to an overtly theistic post, it is the skeptics on here that have all the theological questions in the comments, and usually really don’t deal honestly with the data and findings of science.

    The objections and rabbits and theological lack of knowledge by skeptics should only bolster the faith of those reading.

    Humility is the door one must walk through to find grace. Humility that leads to a surrender to Christ.

    Come all who are thirsty and drink of Christ! Come all who are weary and heavy burdened and Christ will give you rest… he is better than everything else.

  12. 12
    doubter says:

    Seversky@4

    No, it’s not a simpler explanation. We start with our Universe. I don’t accept it came from absolutely nothing but that explanation doesn’t necessarily require some other entity. Saying God did it invokes another entity, without showing it’s necessary, which means it falls foul of Occam’s Razor.

    Not so fast. The Universe and our reality in general incorporate a massive amount of complex specified information in many forms: the immaterial laws of logic and incredible structure of mathematics, the laws of physics including quantum mechanics finely tuned for the existence of life as we know it, the material Universe’s constituents of quarks and other elementary particles, fields and forces, and, finally, life itself. All of this can be seen as as a exceedingly complex and intricate system of systems incorporating endless intricate machines of various sorts.

    Much research has established the existence of a beginning – the Big Bang. The potential including the necessary information in some form for all this to come about must have existed at that moment. The only conceivable source of such a beyond monumental organized structure is some form of creative intelligence. Certainly absolutely nothing has absolutely zero causative efficacy. And to say that it all must be looked at as a brute fact of existence with no explanation required is untenable.

    And we have only observed great amounts of complex specified information to come about from creative intelligence, namely our own. Never spontaneously from nothing.

  13. 13
    BobRyan says:

    Louis Pasteur, the father of microbiology, who said it best. “A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you near to Him.”

  14. 14
    William J Murray says:

    Doubter said:

    … the material Universe’s constituents of quarks and other elementary particles, fields and forces, ..

    Unfortunately (as far as a designing God as a necessary entity is concerned) for your response, science has demonstrated that there is no such thing as a material universe, elementary particles, fields and forces other than as mental experiences of physicality and patterns of mental phenomena. It appears that the intelligence that is selecting, translating and organizing abstract information into the experience of these things is us, as demonstrated by quantum physics experiments.

    God as a deliberate actor in the deliberate creation of an intelligently-designed universe would be better argued, from the science, as deliberately confining the range of potential that individual people have available to them for the observation-collapsed specifics of their experience of a physical world.

    IOW, from the evidence and for a God-as-designer argument, God somehow removed most of the possibilities from our capacity to experience, and left us only a tiny range of possibilities, not as an actual material world, but as a kind of accessible subset of potentials.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    The cosmic egg wasn’t “nothing”

  16. 16
    dogdoc says:

    Hi William J Murray,

    What you describe is very close to my view of reality, where individual consciousness travels through a block of something (I don’t see this something as information; I don’t think we can conceptualize it, so I call it an ontologically neutral substrate, but “potential” seems apt as well). The fact that our brains are required for us to experience reality, yet are also constructed (I call it “parsed”) from this substrate is one aspect of the model that I find fascinating.

    In any case, I was happy to see you had a similar view, and I wanted to ask you if you have any pointers to physicists or philosophers who have described similar ideas. Thank you!

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    The Great Courses has a new course titled

    The Big Bang and Beyond: Exploring the Early Universe

    Currently it’s $24.95 for 12 lectures. It covers the multiverse and fine tuning but assume it will downplay the fine tuning in any way it can.

    https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/the-big-bang-and-beyond-exploring-the-early-universe?pfm=NewReleases&pos=4

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “God somehow removed most of the possibilities from our capacity to experience, and left us only a tiny range of possibilities, not as an actual material world, but as a kind of accessible subset of potentials.”

    And I hold that that “accessible subset of potentials”, i.e. that “tiny range of possibilities”, that God limits us to boils down to just two options. Eternal life with God, or Eternal life separated from God.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    Moreover, modern science itself has revealed two very different eternities to us.

    One eternity is found for a hypothetical observer who is going the speed of light, (i.e. Special Relativity),, and another, (very different), eternity is found for a hypothetical observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole, (i.e. General Relativity).

    Time dilation
    Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity:
    In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized:
    1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop.)
    2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer falling to the event horizon of a black-hole, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

    It is important to note that the ‘quality of entropy’ that is associated with each of these different types of eternity are found to be very different.

    Specifically, the eternity within special relativity is associated with the extremely orderly entropy, 1 in 10^10^123, found at the creation of the universe,

    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    – Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    Whereas the eternity within general relativity is associated with the ‘infinitely destructive’ entropy of black holes;

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
    – Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), considered a definitive textbook on general relativity.

    Moreover, special relativity, via ‘renormalization’, can be be ‘unified’ with quantum mechanics,

    Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
    Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity).
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

    ,, whereas General Relativity is notorious for its inability to be mathematically unified with Quantum Mechanics,

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ,,, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    Moreover, Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    ,, then that (very) reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    The Shroud of Turin is, by far, the most scientifically scrutinized ancient relic of man,

    Scientific Papers & Articles (on the Shroud of Turin)
    https://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers

    When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    As can be seen in the following ‘backside’ image, and holographic image videos, from the Shroud of Turin, there is no flattening on the backside of the body as would be expected if the image on the Shroud had formed if a dead body had merely been laying flat on the Shroud as the image was being formed.

    Shroud image – backside
    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jPxzJOtRHgLSddLOYbOQ_kpvXUV6aOt0mG-8DZeeEXj7uFSr63hqsGbgknwNBEFFFtrayZsYH8ONdXznreuD1TnOxYOeM72QFFuydody6Bpb1FJ2yNoMLabv_Kub7LA

    Shroud Hologram – backside image
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYBcIX1YLCg

    Shroud Hologram – double backside image
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3W0l_sdhZs

    For anyone who doubts that the holographic images of the Shroud of Turin are authentic, (or for anyone who just wants to do further research on the Shroud), here is the main website describing how the holographic images were derived:

    Shroud 3D – Petrus Soons
    https://shroud3d.com

    3D MOVIES OF THE HEAD AND BODY
    THREE DIMENSIONAL MOVIES OF THE HEAD AND THE FRONT AND THE BACK OF THE BODY
    https://shroud3d.com/conversion-of-2d-to-3d/3d-movies-of-the-head-and-body/

    Moreover, in the following video Isabel Piczek, who personally made a sculpture from the Shroud of Turin, states that, “The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.”

    “When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
    Isabel Piczek – 2:20 mark
    Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains event horizon) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpdIz5Rp3I

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, Kevin Moran, an optical engineer who has studied the Shroud of Turin, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

    Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
    Discussion
    Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
    Theoretical model
    It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
    Discussion
    The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud of Turin also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was also dealt with.

    In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

    Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://www.predatormastersforu.....er=3014106

    A skeptic complained to me that the preceding article is a secondary source, and indeed it is, so I traced the primary source for the article down to here,

    DI LAZZARO, P. – MURRA, D. – NICHELATTI, E. – SANTONI, A.- BALDACCHINI, G. – Shroud-like Coloration of Linen by Nanosecond Laser Pulses in the Vacuum Ultraviolet, ENEA Report 2012.
    Editor’s Note: A similar paper by the same authors also appeared in the peer reviewed journal Applied Optics, Vol. 51, Issue 36, pp. 8567-8578 (2012), titled Superficial and Shroud-like coloration of linen by short laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet. [21 January 2013]
    https://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers

    Superficial and Shroud-like coloration of linen by short laser pulses in the vacuum ultraviolet -DI LAZZARO, P. – MURRA, D. – NICHELATTI, E. – SANTONI, A.- BALDACCHINI, G.
    Applied Optics, Optical Society of America, vol. 51, pp. 8567-8578 (2012), 2012
    Abstract
    We present a survey on five years of experiments of excimer laser irradiation of linen fabrics, seeking a coloration mechanism able to reproduce the microscopic complexity of the body image embedded onto the Shroud of Turin. We achieved a superficial, Shroud-like coloration in a narrow range of irradiation parameters. We also obtained latent coloration that appears after artificial or natural aging of linen following laser irradiations that, at first, did not generate any visible effect. Most importantly, we have recognized photochemical processes that account for both coloration and latent coloration.
    https://www.academia.edu/3478909/Superficial_and_Shroud-like_coloration_of_linen_by_short_laser_pulses_in_the_vacuum_ultraviolet?auto=download

    And here are the slides to a 2017 powerpoint presentation that was given by Paolo Di Lazzaro where he, (at about the 30th slide of the presentation), discusses the 34 thousand billion watt result,

    Linen Coloration by Pulsed Radiation. A Review.
    Slides of the talk presented at the International Conference on the Shroud of Turin, Pasco (USA) July 2017, Paolo Di Lazzaro
    https://www.academia.edu/38029774/Linen_Coloration_by_Pulsed_Radiation._A_Review

    Specifically, Lazzaro’s (approx.) 30th slide in his powerpoint presentation states,

    34 thousand billion watt is an impressive number but,,
    * Back to basics: let us consider the fraction A/B.
    If B is very small then A/B results in a very large number.,,,
    * 17 joules energy/0.00000001 seconds results in 1.7 billion watt. It is called “peak power” which different of the commonly used “average power”.
    * The above peak power was delivered to 1 cm^2 flax.
    Being the average man skin surface = 2 m^2 = 20,000 cm^2, we have 34 thousand billion watt necessary to complete the body image on the Shroud.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, that it is even possible for the human body to emit such biophotonic ‘quantum light’ is revealed by the following papers and photographs:

    Cellular Communication through Light – 2009
    Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0005086

    Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005
    Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.
    https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/body_and_health/Biophotons%20-%20The%20Lights%20in%20Our%20Cells.pdf

    Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body – 2006
    Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060

    Humans Glow in Visible Light – July 2009
    Excerpt: Past research has shown that the body emits visible light, 1,000 times less intense than the levels to which our naked eyes are sensitive. In fact, virtually all living creatures emit very weak light,
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32090918

    Thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with a very plausible, even empirically backed, reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    As the following verse states, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    So again, as to WJM saying that ‘God somehow removed most of the possibilities from our capacity to experience’, I hold that that “accessible subset of potentials”, i.e. that “tiny range of possibilities”, that God limits us to all boils down to just two options In the end. Eternal life with God, or Eternal life separated from God.

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    Supplemental note:

    December 2021 – Thus in conclusion Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-einstein-believed-in-spinozas-god-who-is-that-god/#comment-741908

  22. 22
    William J Murray says:

    Dogdoc,

    Sure, I can do that.

    The Idea of the World, by Bernardo Kastrup
    https://www.amazon.com/Idea-World-Multi-Disciplinary-Argument-Reality/dp/B082BFK8BC/

    Biocentrism, by Robert Lanza
    https://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe/dp/1935251740

    Quantum Gravity Research (group of physicists)
    https://quantumgravityresearch.org/

    The Essentia Foundation
    https://www.essentiafoundation.org/

  23. 23
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    So again, as to WJM saying that ‘God somehow removed most of the possibilities from our capacity to experience’, I hold that that “accessible subset of potentials”, i.e. that “tiny range of possibilities”, that God limits us to all boils down to just two options In the end.

    The evidence from multiple lines of research for 100+ years indicates otherwise.

    ADC (After Death Communication) in the form of signs, mental-auditory, physical auditory, semi-physical and fully physical manifestation contact, scents and touch, both waking an in dreams. Research data and website about ADCs. Book that examines this evidence: Hello From Heaven.

    Mediums – tested, highly-observed, credible physical, evidential, and direct-voice communication, including decades of rigorous, scientific experimentation and study by the University of Virginia Dept. of Perceptual Studies and others.

    ITC (Instrumental Transcommunication) using various technological means to communicate, including radio, TV, and various electronic devices, usually recorded, often under rigorous conditions, including the current successful development “soul phone” technology : “The SoulPhone™ refers to integrative technologies for communicating with postmaterial (so-called “deceased”) persons.  Devices are being developed by Gary E. Schwartz PhD and his team at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness & Health.”

    Astral Projection and OOBEs (Out Of Body Experience) Countless, credible, first-person accounts of visiting the dead while fully conscious, in a “different world” that is fully physical and real. Michael Raduga developed an entirely secular training course that has a high success rate.

    NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – including cases where the brain has been drained of blood and the brainwaves are entirely flat for extended periods of time. Here is a good paper that examines the evidence and explains why scientists refuse to even consider the afterlife theory to explain the evidence, and ignore evidence that contradicts their anti-afterlife predisposition.

    Reincarnation research that indicates that children not only often remember past lives, but often have physical markers on their bodies from past lives. Sample of evidence.

    Hypnotic Regression to life between lives.

    Quantum Physics – 100 years of quantum physics research and experimentation has provided the scientific foundation for how and why our conscious experiences continue after physical death: our experience of physical reality occurs entirely in what we call “mind” or “consciousness.” There is no independent world of matter and energy. Consciousness causes our experience of a physical world, which includes our physical bodies; thus our consciousness is not dependent on our physical body. It cannot be. There are currently at least two groups of scientists who are working on mental reality theories of our existence:

    A lot of this is not new evidence or information, some of the leading scientists of the past 100 years agreed that the evidence was compelling and proved the existence of the afterlife:

    Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory of evolution: ” My position is that the phenomena of communicating with those who crossed over – in their entirety do not require further confirmation. They are proved quite as well as facts are proved in other sciences.”

    Sir William Barrett, (1844-1925) – Professor of physics at the Royal College of Science in Dublin for 37 years, “I’m absolutely convinced of the fact that those who once lived on earth can and do communicate with us. It is hardly possible to convey to the inexperienced an adequate idea of the strength and cumulative force of the evidence (for the afterlife).”

    Sir William Crookes (1832-1919) – A physicist and chemist, the most decorated scientist in his time. He discovered the element thallium and was a pioneer in radioactivity. ” “It is quite true that a connection has been set up between this world and the next.”

    Sir Oliver Lodge (1851-1940) – Professor of physics at University College in Liverpool, England and later principal at the University of Birmingham, Lodge achieved world fame for his pioneering work in electricity, including the radio and spark plug. ” I tell you with all my strength of the conviction which I can muster that we do persist, that people still continue to take an interest in what is going on, that they know far more about things on this earth than we do, and are able from time to time to communicate with us…I do not say it is easy, but it is possible, and I have conversed with my friends just as I can converse with anyone in this audience now.”

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, here you go again, hypocritically quoting supposed evidence even though you yourself have said that you refuse to ever let any evidence and/or logic challenge your own worldview.

    “So no, no logic or evidence can pry me from this, and I’m perfectly willing to admit it.”
    – WJM
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50-christmases-later/#comment-743504

    But anyways, despite your blatant hypocrisy, and refusal to ever give counter arguments to your position a fair hearing, and as your own references to me made clear, your foreign, non-Judeo-Christian, near death experiences, (etc..) (and although they offer evidence for life after death, which I certainly do not contest), have a profound lack of going to a higher ‘heavenly’ dimension.

    If evidence mattered to you, (and you have said repeatedly now that it doesn’t), that profound lack of going to higher heaven dimension in foreign NDEs should concern you very much.

    Near-Death Experiences in Thailand – Todd Murphy:
    Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of ‘going’. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves.
    http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm

    Near Death Experience Thailand Asia – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g

    December 2021 – Thus in conclusion Einstein himself may not have personally believed in life after death, (nor in a personal God), but Special Relativity itself contradicts Einstein and offers stunning confirmation that Near Death Testimonies are accurate ‘physical’ descriptions of what happens after death, i.e. going to a ‘higher timeless/eternal dimension’, i.e. heavenly dimension, that exists above this temporal realm.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-einstein-believed-in-spinozas-god-who-is-that-god/#comment-741908

    John 3:13-15
    No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.…

  25. 25
    William J Murray says:

    WJM, here you go again, hypocritically quoting supposed evidence even though you yourself have said that you refuse to ever let any evidence and/or logic challenge your own worldview.

    What’s hypocritical about it?

    … and refusal to ever give counter arguments to your position a fair hearing, …

    I guess if you ignore the fact that not only did I give your argument and evidence for geocentrism a fair hearing, I agreed with you that you were right about it after you made your argument and presented compelling evidence I could understand.

    If evidence mattered to you, that profound lack of going to heaven in foreign NDEs should concern you very much.

    This is another case of my giving an argument a fair reading and agreeing with you on the merits of your argument and evidence. I have already told you that I agree that you make a sound case for “the only way” to get into the Christian heaven.

    What I’ve pointed out – repeatedly – is that the binary afterlife outcome predicted by your view is not supported by the very evidence you are relying on to make your case. In fact, that NDE evidence, if taken as equal evidence per experience and not modified by bias and emotional attachment to an ideology, clearly shows many different afterlife outcomes are available other than the (general) Christian concept of heaven and hell.

    Whenever I bring this up, you avoid attempting to explain that contra-indicative NDE evidence where the experiencers finds themselves neither in a Christian heaven or hell, but rather something similar to their own beliefs about the afterlife (generally speaking, not in every case, similar to their cultural perspective.)

    I’m not trying to get to the Christian heaven, BA77. I just want to get to wherever my wife is. I don’t mind living in an afterlife that isn’t pure joy and love – in fact, I would prefer a far more ordinary afterlife such as many of those reported in NDEs and through other lines of evidence.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Yeah I get it WJM, you will give evidence a fair hearing just as long at it doesn’t directly conflict with your own new age worldview, but once conflict occurs, the blinders and ear plugs go on.

    But anyways, despite your self-admitted hypocrisy, and again, I don’t contest life after death, (shoot I whole-heartedly endorse it), I merely hold that the ‘timeless eternities’ revealed to us by two of our most powerful theories in science today, special relativity and general relativity respectfully, reveal a binary choice for ultimate ‘eternal/timeless’ destinations.

    to clip post 18,

    Specifically, the eternity within special relativity is associated with the extremely orderly entropy, 1 in 10^10^123, found at the creation of the universe,

    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    – Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    Whereas the eternity within general relativity is associated with the ‘infinitely destructive’ entropy of black holes;

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
    – Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), considered a definitive textbook on general relativity.

    And please note that this is not me, in any way, shape, or form, playing favoritism with the scientific evidence, but merely me laying out what two of our most powerful theories in science today indicate in regards to ‘eternity’.

  27. 27
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 @26:
    First, the “eternal” nature of those “destinations” is only applicable to the perspective of those who are observing those things from the outside. IOW, it is only to outside observers that the person falling into the black hole is perched on the event horizon forever; to the person going through that process, it happens in an instant before they are obliterated. This does not comport with the Christian perspective you are arguing for re eternal suffering of the individual.

    Second, traveling at the speed of light has other consequences your argument fails to account for: infinite mass, for one, but let’s say the soul has no mass; you still have another problem. From https://www.universetoday.com/119042/when-light-just-isnt-fast-enough/

    To better imagine a day in the life of a photon, let’s go along for the ride. Photons are the particle form of light, which for a long time was only understood as waves of electromagnetic energy. In the weirdness of quantum world, light is both a particle and a wave. From our perspective, a photon rip by at 186,000 miles per second, but to the photon itself, the world stands still and time stops. Photons are everywhere at once. Omnipresent. No time passes for them.

    The eternal quality of the nature of light cannot be divorced from its omnipresent and “frozen time” qualities. You can’t have one without the others. So, unless your argument is that Christians who die also become omnipresent, you cannot assign them only an eternal quality from the evidence and argument you are presenting here. Also, from the photon’s perspective, no time passes; that is how it is they are “eternal.” Surely you’re not arguing that, in heaven, from our perspective, we are frozen in an omnipresent state of “now,” with no time passing from our perspective? That sounds more like a “God” perspective than a “someone enjoying their life in heaven” perspective.

    Third, even if one has a good argument, and a large amount of supportive evidence for their theoretical model, the existence of contradicting evidence indicates one’s model is erroneous or incomplete. How do you account for the non-Christian (non-binary) NDEs?

  28. 28
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    But anyways, despite your self-admitted hypocrisy, …

    I’m not saying I’m never a hypocrite, but I never admitted that I was being hypocritical about this. I don’t see how I am.

    Are you admitting that you are a liar? Or, are you admitting that you are attempting to mind-read me? I mean, if we’re going to start arguing via incitement, I’m down for a little of that.

  29. 29
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    Yeah I get it WJM, you will give evidence a fair hearing just as long at it doesn’t directly conflict with your own new age worldview, but once conflict occurs, the blinders and ear plugs go on.

    Then you don’t actually get it. I don’t need to put blinders or ear plugs on about anything. I’m willing to give every argument and all evidence a fair view and concede an argument because doing so doesn’t impact my personal beliefs one bit.

    You do realize, don’t you, that just because someone has the better argument and evidence, that doesn’t require me to adopt that view as my own, right?

    Perhaps you need some further explanation.

    Throughout history, people have believed all sorts of things due to the “best evidence and argument” at the time. Over time, we’ve learned a lot of those beliefs were wrong, largely because they began with premises found later to be incorrect, or because new evidence invalidated the old theory.

    Taking that into account, I personally don’t think it is likely that humans have come to the end of mistaken premises and an end to new evidence. I certainly don’t consider myself infallible or in a unique position in human history to assess these things. Given all of that, and given that humans throughout history have been able to live relatively enjoyable, productive lives even given their erroneous beliefs, I just made the decision to personally believe whatever made my life the most enjoyable. It was a pragmatic decision.

    However, I still enjoy making logical, evidential arguments, so I continue to do so. I actually love it when someone comes up with a better argument or presents good evidence, which is why I have said you bring the goods with the evidence you provide, and you’re generally really good at making your arguments. If anyone chooses to argue with you about certain subjects, they better be ready for you to bring the pain, man, because you’re going to b****slap them with a mountain of evidence.

    It’s really, really impressive.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Omnipresence and light? And you see that conflicting with my Christian Theism how exactly?

    For crying out loud, I hold that God, who is, by definition, ominpresent, created light, (as well as creating our eternal souls)

    James 1:17
    “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow”

    Seeing you suggest that I’m a liar, after I quoted you verbatim as to your refusal to ever let the evidence pry you from your new age worldview, pretty much means that we have reached an end to our relationship.

    Oh well, have a good life. Don’t bother me anymore.

  31. 31
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    Omnipresence and light? And you see that conflicting with my Christian Theism how exactly?

    I didn’t say it contradicted your Christian theism. I said that the “omnipresence” and “frozen time” aspect of light are additional qualities of light that your argument about our “eternal destination” fails to account for. IOW, if you’re going to use “light” to characterize the nature of our eternal destination on the heaven side, then you don’t get to cherry-pick one quality and take that quality out of context of what it actually means in the personal perspective to make your case.

    If your argument is true, then from our perspective we become omnipresent and frozen in time (the real nature of “eternity” from the perspective of light.) I don’t think those qualities are congruent with the Christian narrative of what “heaven” is like; nor does it match the reports from people who have Christian-friendly NDEs.

    Also, I pointed out that the “eternity” of being on the event horizon of a black hole is not an “eternity” experienced by the person. So that, and being instantly obliterated from his/her perspective, certainly does not comport with your particular Christian paradigm.

    Seeing you suggest that I’m a liar, after I quoted you verbatim as to your refusal to ever let the evidence pry you from your new age worldview, pretty much means that we have reached an end to our relationship.

    Um, you didn’t say that in your opinion I was being a hypocrite, or explain why you thought that I was, even after I asked you. You said I admitted to being a hypocrite. I didn’t do any such thing.

    Oh well, have a good life. Don’t bother me anymore.

    I wonder why it is that you terminate discussions every time I challenge you to explain the existence of non-Christian binary NDE evidence?

  32. 32
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 doesn’t terminate discussions “every time.” NDEs are widely reported and some have been recanted. As such, NDEs qualify as anecdotal testimony, not “evidence” and do not constitute a “challenge” by any stretch of the imagination.

    Maybe it would be more productive if you engaged at a more intellectual and scientific basis than at an emotional level.

    I’m willing to give every argument and all evidence a fair view and concede an argument because doing so doesn’t impact my personal beliefs one bit.

    Thanks, I suspected this was the case. You might ask yourself why, someday.

    -Q

  33. 33
    William J Murray says:

    Querius said:

    Bornagain77 doesn’t terminate discussions “every time.” NDEs are widely reported and some have been recanted. As such, NDEs qualify as anecdotal testimony, not “evidence” and do not constitute a “challenge” by any stretch of the imagination.

    You may not have been here to see it, but this debate between BA77 and I stretches back a long time to when he argued that the evidence from NDEs supported the Christian-binary afterlife destination perspective. It’s been a recurring theme since then that BA77 stops participating in our debate about the NDE evidence when I challenge him on it. If he is going to make a claim about what the NDE evidence means by using NDE reports, he cannot then simply dismiss the contradicting evidence found in that NDE information.

    Maybe it would be more productive if you engaged at a more intellectual and scientific basis than at an emotional level.

    I’m not engaging in arguments here at an emotional level. What gives you the idea that I am?

    Thanks, I suspected this was the case. You might ask yourself why, someday.

    I explained why in #29. I don’t have to ask myself why; I knew exactly why when I made that decision.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM has a very warped, ’emotionally’ biased, memory of our NDE discussions.

    Moreover, my ‘terminating’ of this discussion, (indeed my terminating my entire relationship with WJM), has nothing whatsoever to do with the NDEs evidence, (which I hold to be in my favor not his), and everything to do with the fact WJM suggested I was a liar for holding him accountable for his own words.

    “So no, no logic or evidence can pry me from this, and I’m perfectly willing to admit it.”
    – WJM

    i.e. As his own words, and as my own experience with him, testify, WJM is very ’emotionally’ biased whenever he handles evidence and logic, especially as it pertains to questioning his New Age worldview.

    i.e. trying to reason with the unreasonable is certainly not my cup of tea.

    Hence, ‘don’t bother me anymore’. (And if WJM persists in pestering me, we can have admin decide between the two of us as to who stays and who goes)

  35. 35
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    WJM has a very warped, ’emotionally’ biased, memory of our NDE discussions.

    Mind reading. Do Christians ever make arguments that don’t involve mind-reading? (I’m being facetious with that comment. Of course many do, just not many here.)

    and everything to do with the fact WJM suggested I was a liar for holding him accountable for his own words.

    The fact is that I asked you if you were admitting to be a liar when you said – falsely – that I admitted to being a hypocrite about the way I separate arguments I involve myself in from my personal beliefs.

    As his own words, and as my own experience with him, testify, WJM is very ’emotionally’ biased whenever he handles evidence and logic,

    I actually said exactly the opposite, that because my personal beliefs are not affected by the outcome of any argument, I’m not personally, emotionally invested, leaving me fully capable of admitting when someone has the better argument/evidence. Which I in fact, on record, have done here, specifically in an argument you presented about geocentrism.

    trying to reason with the unreasonable is certainly not my cup of tea.

    On the NDE topic, BA77 argued from the evidence that Western/Christian NDEs had qualities not found in other NDEs; I agreed that he made his case for that. I agreed he made a good case that Christian NDEs about heaven were more enjoyable than most non-Christian NDEs. However, when I bring up the clear NDE evidence that contradicts the “Christian binary-destination” wrt the afterlife, and challenge BA77 to explain that evidence, he doesn’t deny such evidence exists, he terminates the discussion. In the past, he said he made the point he was arguing for, and refused to account for the non-binary evidence. He still hasn’t accounted for/explained it.

    Hence, ‘don’t bother me anymore’. (And if you persist, we can have admin decide between to two of us as to who stays and who goes))

    Oh, come on, BA77. Let me extend an olive branch: I apologize if I have offended you by anything I’ve said. That wasn’t my intent. I did not call you a liar or insinuate you are a liar. I was attempting to give you a mild dose of your own medicine when you falsely claimed I had admitted to being hypocritical wrt how I separate arguments from personal beliefs. Note: I did not go so far as you did by claiming you were a self-admitted liar; I – tongue in cheek – asked you if you were admitting to being one. You didn’t seem to care if I would be offended by your false assertion that I had admitted to hypocrisy, yet now you are offended because I just asked you if you were admitting to being a liar?

    There’s a word for that, isn’t there? What the dickens is that word? I can’t think of it right now.

    I don’t think you are a liar because I don’t think you deliberately misrepresent things I’ve said. I just think you have a difficult time comprehending some things I say. Even when I correct you. Repeatedly.

    Hence, ‘don’t bother me anymore’. (And if you persist, we can have admin decide between to two of us as to who stays and who goes))

    So, it’s “ban WJM or I’ll take my ball and go home?” What are you, 8 yrs old?

  36. 36
    jerry says:

    There should be an analysis of how long it takes a series of comments to get off topic. Here is NDE being discussed in a Big Bang OP.

    Maybe all such comments should be sent to the “Off Comment” thread.

  37. 37
    ram says:

    jerry,

    Is it upsetting your sleep? 😉 If so, maybe a new hobby is warranted.

    –Ram

  38. 38
    ram says:

    Here’s what we all agree on:

    Existence exists.

    Beyond that, it’s all about the details.

    –Ram

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    An apology where the person admits to no wrong doing is no apology at all, but is rhetoric.

    Hence my position stands, “don’t bother me anymore’ or we will have the admin decide between the two of us.

  40. 40
    jerry says:

    don’t bother me anymore’ or we will have the admin decide between the two of us.

    Not necessary!!!

    Why do people respond continuously to inane comments? If they were ignored (always an option,) they (the commenters and inane comments) would eventually go away.

    Meanwhile, there is a new very detailed discussion of the Big Bang and the universe. My guess is no one is really interested.

    I’m sure to be followed by more inane comments which will then generate lots of responses instead of disregarding. People on this site constantly feed the trolls. That must be their objective.

  41. 41
    William J Murray says:

    Hence my position stands, “don’t bother me anymore’ or we will have the admin decide between the two of us.

    There’s no “we” about it. I’m not issuing any ultimatum here.

  42. 42
    ram says:

    Jerry: Why do people respond continuously to inane comments?

    Why do you care? Is someone forcing you to read anything here?

    –Ram

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection
    – Brian Miller – January 11, 2022
    Excerpt: The website The Conversation recently published an article by philosopher of science Alastair Wilson titled “How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?” Wilson presents a cosmological model constructed by mathematical physicist and cosmologist Roger Penrose dubbed “conformal cyclical cosmology” (CCC) that purportedly avoids a beginning.
    Penrose is considered one of the preeminent physicists of our day. He performed the famous calculation that the fine tuning of the entropy at the beginning of the universe measures at 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. This number could not be written if a zero were placed on every particle in the visible universe. Penrose is a true genius, and he has performed a herculean effort to avoid the universe’s beginning. But CCC is founded on numerous highly dubious assumptions, and it contradicts the empirical evidence.,,,
    ,,,”The predictions that he’s made are refuted by the data, and his claims to see these effects are only reproducible if one analyzes the data in a scientifically unsound and illegitimate fashion. Hundreds of scientists have pointed this out to Penrose — repeatedly and consistently over a period of more than 10 years — who continues to ignore the field and plow ahead with his contentions.”
    – Ethan Segal,,,
    Questionable Assumptions
    An additional problem is that Penrose’s model requires several highly questionable assumptions. First, it must overcome the implications of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that proves that expanding universes must have an absolute beginning. To avoid this conclusion, Penrose must assume that the universe was infinitely large in the infinite past, which is philosophically problematic. Additional unproven assumptions include the following:
    *All particle masses dropping to zero.
    *Presence of a scalar field that becomes active at the right time to trigger crossover.
    *Mass of the scalar field rapidly increases after crossover.
    Given the lack to supporting evidence and the ad hoc assumptions, CCC offers no serious challenge to the evidence that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, something, or more likely someone, outside of time and space must have created it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/another-attempt-by-an-esteemed-cosmologist-to-avoid-a-cosmic-beginning-collapses-on-inspection/
    Dr. Brian Miller holds a B.S. in physics with a minor in engineering from MIT and a Ph.D. in physics from Duke University.

    It seems that Penrose’s fairly devastating criticism of Hawking’s theory, a theory which also sought to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe, i.e. to avoid God, can be readily applied to Penrose’s own current theory as well,

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.”
    – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote is in the following video clip:
    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4

  44. 44
    William J Murray says:

    An additional problem is that Penrose’s model requires several highly questionable assumptions.

    Wait. There is a simpler explanation: In the beginning, the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

    The ouroboros of the one cyclic universe…

    It’s like watching people argue whether or not there is a cliff or a wall at the edge of the world, completely ignorant of the scientific evidence for it’s spherical nature. What “universe” are these people even talking about? Are they totally unaware of 100+ years of repeated quantum experimentation?

    There is no “universe” we can find that was created by God, “nothing,” or some initial cosmic soup precursor way back in time. The only thing that appears to be happening is that observers are themselves engaged in an ongoing process of drawing patterns of experience from nothing but potential. The only thing we can actually, scientifically demonstrate is “creating” an experiential, mental “universe” is us, now.

    And, if you think a universe coming from nothing has deep philosophical issues, so does the idea that some eternal being “outside” of space-time decided to create, and then created, “the universe.” That there is an alliterative doozy of a philosophically problematic premise.

  45. 45
    Truth Will Set You Free says:

    WJM@44: Please unpack the following statement and explain your meaning. Thanks.

    “It’s like watching people argue whether or not there is a cliff or a wall at the edge of the world, completely ignorant of the scientific evidence for it’s spherical nature. What “universe” are these people even talking about? Are they totally unaware of 100+ years of repeated quantum experimentation?”

Leave a Reply