if not God then who/what?

Well, I am exceedingly pleased to see that I am not the only one on this forum who has witnessed these same things from the member in question. We must do what we must do as Christians.

 

DO YOU CARE TO EXPRESS THESE SUPPOSED 'deceptions'?

While you are at it:

You are very similar in regards to what one poster (Neutral) use to do. Toss ad homs and accuse people of 'deceptions and other plain old malicious BS' with EVER posting ANY evidence to support his accusations.

 

Think nothing of it brother... I am pleased to be of assistance to you.

 

Or Muslims. Don't forget the Muslims.

 

While I understand the futility of attempting to prove any theory that purports to describe the Universe prior to the Big Bang event, I intuitively find this concept to be quite reasonable. I find it ironic that people who believe in an infinite future can't accept the idea of a past that is equally infinite. Cycles are ubiquitous in nature. It seems reasonable to assume that the current expansion of our Universe represents a phase in a longer cycle of expansion and contraction, and that our Big Bang event was merely one of an infinite number that have taken place throughout eternity. I suspect that it is common for humans to expect the Universe to have a beginning and an end simply because we, ourselves, are temporal creatures with limited life-spans. I see no justification for projecting our own mortal limitations onto the entire Universe. Neither do I see the need for a "creation event" to have occurred in order for our Universe (including ourselves) to exist.

 

Well of course. Muslims included as well. The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham.

- - - Updated - - -

Well of course. Muslims included as well. The God of Abraham is the God of Abraham.

 

All of those points highlighted in red leltter are very interesting, coming from someone on your side of the fence. However, your closing comment is extremely odd. Your side of the fence postulates that a BB occured; that in essence would be a "creation event" as the universe was not what it is prior to the BB .. subsequently we could not exist without that "event".

 

What is this fence, of which you speak?

The Big Bang is not a "postulation". The Big Bang is merely the most distant point in time that can possibly be observed by humans on planet Earth. We are able to observe that the Universe is currently expanding. It is therefore possible to predict that, in the past, the Universe was smaller. It is only when we extrapolate how the Universe appeared at the moment at which it was infinitely small and dense that our ability to create a physical model to describe it mathematically fails. We have no means of understanding what preceded that singularity, and yet our inability to understand what occurred prior to the most recent expansion of our Universe in no way implies that nothing existed.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation does NOT say that.

It says wave functions collapse and then evolution of the information continues thereafter in accord with the Natural Laws.

 

You are using what was called Rationalism from the pre-modern science world of the Renaissance.

What "seems" sensible inside your head is what you conclude must be the case.
You ignore the HARD evidence of all Matter in the Universe moving away from ONE point, where it seems it came from.

Reversing the trip made by this Matter, backwards, indicates that a single point in Space/time is where it once started.

 

The line of separation between Theism and Atheism or non-theism.

Who said nothing existed? I did not make such a claim.

 

...and in each case, a Big Bang for each multi-verse would still apply as a beginning point.

What multi-verse thinking has offered is MERELY a different idea than one universe existing after an observation of a series of Wave Functions.

The Multi-verse argument does not claim the absence of an observer, but only a result of the collapse, which goes into the universe of the observer and also continues on, with the other option, in a separate universe where the observer is not present.

So, even if we consider Multi-verse hypothesis, we do NOT really change what happens in our earthly experiments, here, with the double slit experiments.

 

The misunderstanding here is that The Copenhagen Interpretation is the most widely accepted and taught explanation for the EXPERIMENTAL observations of the Double Slit phenomenon.

That ALONE is "scientific evidence" for a pre-existing Observer of the Big Bang creation.

The hypothesis of Multi-verses does NOT deny a collapse of the Wave Function.
The hypothesis of Multi-verses does NOT deny an Observer.
The hypothesis of Multi-verses does NOT deny the results of the observation.

The hypothesis of Multi-verses does say that a collapse into our universe is accompanied by another collapse into a different universe which we do not exist in.

 

Closed ~ Surpassed Post Capacity