Quackery
The Theory of Everything, Theology

Existential Considerations and the Singularity of Infinite Bang

Big Bang TimelineTurning nothing into everything. In the beginning was The Singularity, a single point of time (at zero point) and space, which was all at once all-encompassing and non-existent, infinitely dense yet technically without mass. A cosmic pustule stuck in the skin separating “existence” from “non-existence.” The singularity, which didn’t exist, exploded, sending massive amounts of matter and energy into existence, causing the beginning of the universe and time, creating all the forces such as gravity and magnetism and electromagnetism.

Where did The Singularity come from, and how did matter form from nothing? Perhaps from the infusion of light and immense heat. We know from particle physics, if we combine matter with anti-matter, it will annihilate each other and yield massive energy (heat) and a pair of photons. Theoretically, time being reversed, the reaction would be reversible. The Singularity, perhaps, formed in negative time.

The source of heat and light: The Scriptures describe God as radiant light, undetectable, immeasurable, timeless, and as far as we can understand, non-existent (non-created); “non-existent” and dwelling in “non-existence” (non-creation) — a being of such intense luminescence, a momentary glance will burn through your retinas and melt your brain.

Perhaps God, by infusing himself into The Singularity, ignited the Big Bang and set creation into motion.

So, why would such an all-powerful creator go through mysterious and enigmatic means to make His existence known? Why give us the “proof” in the form of a book or series of manuscripts, written by men, passed down through the ages in such a way as to call into question how any such process could qualify as “the words of God“? After all, anyone who’s ever lived, as it were, could’ve just as easily written such a fantastical tale, and have it passed down along to us in the form of legend or fable, as “origins of the cosmos.” Why not do something fantastic, like laser-out some indestructible platinum or create a holographic journal, or just pop in now and then to introduce himself physically?

Would people be more inclined to accept Scripture as “God-given” if it was contained in some sort of “magical” form of super-advanced technology? Or would the artifact itself become the primary focus? We have a remarkable tendency to worship “sacred objects,” whether they be “divine” or not. Memorabilia is a hugely lucrative industry. Such artifacts would be fought over and seen as god-like with mystical powers in their own right. Just look at the history of The Shroud of Turin, The Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, and other such relics. We are prone to ascribe sacred power to objects and ignore the message or meaning behind their existence. Or perhaps such an object would become front and center on Ancient Aliens as proof that God is merely an advanced alien who visited in the ancient past.

And as for popping in and showing himself, doing “miracles” to prove he’s god, etc., I would refer you to the cinematic masterpiece, “Star Trek V, The Final Frontier,” where “god” was merely a clever alien with advanced technological powers. A skeptical mind will always believe in a “rational explanation” for every happenstance. I don’t much believe that anyone who genuinely disavows the possibility of the miraculous, will suddenly believe in God just because he shows up and does a few tricks, like healing an amputee or raising someone from the dead. (Someone already tried that once, and not a whole lot of people were all that impressed by it.)

“Proving God” is not within the means of an intellectual exercise, unfortunately. I can point to reason and science to an extent and find enough evidence to my satisfaction, so I have more to go on besides blind faith. Beyond that, our knowledge and scope of reason only go so far. They say God is only for the weak and simple-minded, the only ones dumb enough to believe in God in an age of reason ruled by science. Perhaps they are right. No one’s ever accused me of being all that bright. And I’m perfectly okay with that.

Advertisements

About Quackzalcoatl

Phoneticist, Palindrologist, and freelance Sharknadologist. Inventor. Ruler of 2-acre lakes and small streams.

Discussion

54 thoughts on “Existential Considerations and the Singularity of Infinite Bang

  1. The real question is why do you believe?

    Posted by Arkenaten | 27 November, 2013, 7:16 am
    • “The answer,” he said, “is that the question has no why.”

      And maybe that’s the best answer I can give you.

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 27 November, 2013, 1:22 pm
      • Then why do you not accept atheism?

        Posted by Arkenaten | 27 November, 2013, 1:24 pm
        • It’s weird how we can both look at the same evidence and reach such divergent conclusions. Lots of ways to consider the ramifications:

          My faith has blinded me to the rational reality you see so plainly; your LACK of faith has blinded you to the spiritual reality I sense with every resonance of my being. Your intellect enables you to answer the bigger questions without a need for faith; my LACK of intellect forces me to answer the bigger questions by HEAVY RELIANCE on faith.

          Naturally, there’s probably more to it than that. Or maybe that’s not it at all. Maybe we are intellectually equal, but choose to apply our intellect differently (or, you would likely counter that I choose not to apply my intellect at all). What is the relationship between intellect and reason, intellect and common sense? And what exactly is common sense? And what is wisdom in relation to intellect? Does knowledge lead to happiness? Does the idiot blissfully unaware of the crappy life he lives, live in a happier reality than we who comprehend the extent of the crap?

          You mentioned elsewhere the lobotomy required for you to accept Christ or become a Christian, and maybe you’re right. Unless true intelligence dwells in the mind of the soul instead of the brain. Who knows??

          Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 27 November, 2013, 6:42 pm
  2. “They say God is only for the weak and simple-minded” Who’s “they”?

    I have to call you up on the singularity, though. We don’t actually know anything about what took place before Inflation. The singularity just seems to fit the model of things regressing, so by extrapolation one naturally arrives at a point. That doesn’t actually mean there was a point. Beyond Inflation everything breaks down and we are never, ever going to see beyond that threshold. It’s physically impossible regardless of how good our tech becomes.

    Here’s a great article by Sean Carroll, one of the leading cosmologists today with a special gift of being able to write exceptionally well.

    http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

    Posted by john zande | 27 November, 2013, 11:10 am
    • The Singularity never existed. Yet it was. Paradox is such a damn fun perplexity!

      I appreciate the link! Good stuff!

      Oh, and “they” — I have heard the argument, from both theists and atheists, that simpler minds are far more accepting of spiritual matters and stronger in their faith. Make of it what you will. Perhaps intellect leads to too much pride in our own understanding, or wills us to reject what we perceive to be “primitive concepts.” There is an old saying, “I’d rather be an imbecile and go to Heaven, than be a genius and go to Hell.”

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 27 November, 2013, 1:15 pm
  3. Quack, you ever read Gods Debris by Scott Adams? It’s short, 100-odd pages, and posits an enchanting idea. It’s free, too! Link below to download.

    http://www.goodreads.com/ebooks/download/50221.God_s_Debris

    Posted by john zande | 27 November, 2013, 11:14 am
  4. Thanks for another good read Quack. Science will never be able to answer the questions of why human beings and the cosmos exists.

    Posted by Marc | 27 November, 2013, 12:16 pm
    • Why do you say this?

      Posted by Arkenaten | 27 November, 2013, 1:31 pm
      • I say this Ark because of the limits of our scientific capacity to observe. John made the point about what our limits are regarding the Big Bang. Science has shown us where many religious concepts are wrong, and I have tried to eliminate from my cosmic understanding those concepts that are clearly in error.

        Posted by Marc | 27 November, 2013, 5:41 pm
        • You phrase the term ”science” as if you are suggesting something else will be able to provide these answers.

          If not science what else could possible provide an answer?

          Posted by Arkenaten | 27 November, 2013, 6:27 pm
          • The Creator could provide revelation from outside of time/space via inspiration and incarnation.

            Posted by Marc | 27 November, 2013, 6:34 pm
            • The operative word here is could
              As yet this has not happened.
              It has not happened to anyone at any time in any recognisable form or in any religion throughout the history of mankind.
              And I stress the word recognisable as it would, for all intent and purpose, be completely counterproductive if any revelation were not recognisable as such.

              So we return to what, faith? Based on what?

              Posted by Arkenaten | 28 November, 2013, 4:18 am
        • Science has shown us where many religious concepts are wrong

          Which religious concepts are right?

          Posted by Arkenaten | 27 November, 2013, 6:29 pm
          • As one who believes in a Gospel that truly is good news, I have to reject the concepts that do not take into consideration the whole human condition. I believe that the human potential extends beyond what is experienced in time/space. I believe that the most ancient Christian tradition reflects this “good news.” I reject all those religious concepts that judges and condemns other human beings to perdition. This judgment can only belong to the Creator. This is all predicated on a faith than cannot be empirically proven. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on my part, but at least it answers the questions of why the Creator created the cosmos and human beings.

            Posted by Marc | 27 November, 2013, 6:50 pm
            • But surely you are aware of the erroneous nature of so much of the gospels?

              As the New Testament is largely considered fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy how do you square this away knowing that almost every archaeologists and recognised scholar on the planet considers the Pentateuch fiction, have known this for decades, and the characters narrative constructs? That the only ones prepared to reject this overwhelming consensus are fundamentalists?

              Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on my part, but at least it answers the questions of why the Creator created the cosmos and human beings.

              In light of the above how, if you are considering that it is ”wishful thinking”, does this answer anything?
              And once again, what is this faith based upon?
              What information. What evidence?

              Would you not consider it highly irresponsible to base one’s whole life/worldview on printed material that has no basis in fact whatsoever?

              And worse, pass on such erroneous beliefs when one knows that it has been clearly demonstrated to be fallacious?

              Posted by Arkenaten | 28 November, 2013, 4:35 am
          • A father understands that tough love may be necessary to let his children deal with reality and understand that they need his guidance. The same father will also make great sacrifice to enable his children to reach their unique potential. This is why the Christian Gospel resonates with me.

            Posted by Marc | 27 November, 2013, 10:49 pm
            • But as already stated, surely this resonance is sullied somewhat knowing that the gospels have suffered interpolation, accretion and outright forgery in some cases.

              How do you come to terms knowing that such texts have been manipulated by people with ulterior motives.
              – the story of the adulterous wife as an example –
              And if you have been previously unaware of this fact how does this now make you feel?

              Posted by Arkenaten | 28 November, 2013, 4:53 am
          • The Gospel was initially spread by an oral tradition in the Apostolic period. The early Church developed prayers, art forms, and worship practices that kept the “good news,” of the Incarnation and Resurrection alive. Even after the four Gospels were written and accepted by the Church, the availability of copies of any scripture tended to be spotty and usually incomplete relative to the canon agreed upon in the late fourth Century. Today the Apostolic Tradition of the early Church remains intact in the family of various Orthodox Christian Churches. On the altar of all of these Churches you will find a book that includes only the four Gospels, because we worship the One spoken of in these books and not the Bible itself. Even the Scriptures tell us that it is not the Bible, but rather the Church that is the pillar and ground of the truth (see 1 Timothy 3:15).

            Posted by Marc | 28 November, 2013, 10:47 am
            • The Gospel was initially spread by an oral tradition in the Apostolic period.

              This is a hypothesis, but there is no evidence to show this is correct.
              However, if the oral tradition is true then the belief in the gospels being eyewitness testimony is fallacious.

              And how does this address the real fact that the gospels suffer from manipulation in the form of interpolation, error and outright fraud?

              Posted by Arkenaten | 28 November, 2013, 12:24 pm
          • Eye witness accounts of an event where the is no photographic or residual physical manifestation is always going to be hearsay from the perspective of those who suspect the eye witnesses are not be truthful. This being the case, it is a matter of conjecture regarding the veracity of the eye witness accounts. Inconsistency between multiple written records of events that happened many years before is not unusual in even modern historical accounts. If one insists that all the eye witnesses of the events recorded are lying or that the records themselves have been altered, then the onus of proof falls upon that individual. They would have to produce substantial evidence and compelling motive to support their accusation of intentional lying and alteration of existing written records. Ark, you have provided neither the substantial evidence or the compelling motive.

            Posted by Marc | 28 November, 2013, 4:33 pm
            • I am not the scholar, but there are enough who have done just that. Ehrman comes immediately to mind.
              And you have still not addressed the major
              problems of interpolation, manipulation and outright fraud. Why are you avoiding these issues?

              Posted by Arkenaten | 28 November, 2013, 4:57 pm
          • Ark, I will try to be more specific regarding your questions about the veracity of the Scriptures. Bart Ehrman used to be a Christian whose faith was based in large part on Sola Scriptura predicated on Biblical inerrancy. As he advanced in his academic career, he realized that the Bible in not inerrant for a number of reasons. He has a very well developed capacity to present his understanding of the reasons why the Bible is not inerrant in controversial ways that are quite helpful in selling books. Although his work likely does have some basis in fact, it is also likely full of conjecture. I suspect that this is the case with most people who write regarding the veracity of the Bible.

            Posted by Marc | 28 November, 2013, 6:00 pm
            • Conjecture? He is a recognised expert in his field. Are you?
              Please explain why his expert opinion is not valid whereas I should consider yours to be?

              As an example, please offer an expert explanation for the Virgin prophecy concerning the verse in Isaiah.

              Posted by Arkenaten | 28 November, 2013, 6:05 pm
          • I am not an expert in anything. If you are seeking expertise in Scriptural matters, St. John Chrysostom would be a good place to start.

            Posted by Marc | 28 November, 2013, 7:06 pm
          • If you are questioning Isaiah 7:14, my understanding is that the Greek Septuagint uses the word parthenos which means a virgin and the Hebrew text uses the word almah which means young woman. Unlike today, most young women remained virgins until married in the society in question so I see no contradiction. It is also interesting to note that the Greek Septuagint is older that the oldest Hebrew manuscripts available.

            Posted by Marc | 29 November, 2013, 9:37 am
          • Prophetic passages of Scripture can have multiple layers. Examples of this would be passages in Ezekiel that talk about the king of Tyre as a type of Satan, and passages in Isaiah that talk about the king of Babylon as a type of Satan.

            The Dead Sea scrolls were written at least one hundred years after the Septuagint. Fragments of their manuscripts date from about the same time. The Masoretic Old Testament was written after AD 100, and the oldest manuscripts date from c. AD 800. That the writers of the Masoretic texts may have made changes to distance Judaism from Christianity is pure speculation.

            Posted by Marc | 29 November, 2013, 11:02 am
            • You see, you are not answering the question, directly , merely adding to it thus obfuscating the dialogue which then causes it to meander off to nowhere.
              Firstly, it is my understanding that the Isaiah scroll is the oldest.
              Carbon dating puts it at between around 300-200 bc.
              As we are talking about the virgin birth prophecy this is relevant.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_scroll

              Rather than go over endless dialogue, let’s just sticjk with the question f the Virgin Birth.

              Now that you know that the supposed prophecy was not even meant for Jesus, and that Mathew actually mistranslated the Hebrew word for what reason one can only speculate how do you reconcile this obvious piece of erroneous text?

              Posted by Arkenaten | 29 November, 2013, 11:28 am
          • That Matthew saw another layer to the passage in question, and that he quoted the Septuagint does not eliminate the possibility that he was correct in his assertion.

            Posted by Marc | 29 November, 2013, 12:26 pm
            • Wrong!
              Have you not taken any notice of the text at all or are you merely replying with an apologetic answer to fit the story? Much as Matthew did, I suspect.
              The word for virgin is Betulah
              There are no ifs buts or maybes about this.
              And this still does not address the fact that the prophecy was not about a coming Messiah in the form of Jesus.

              if you wish to dispute this then do intellectually , Marc, rather than merely dancing around the problem now you have been caught out.
              Have the integrity to at least acknowledge this.

              The prophecy Matthew twisted to fit christian doctrine had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity at all.

              Posted by Arkenaten | 29 November, 2013, 12:36 pm
          • I will acknowledge that Matthew could have been wrong in his assertion Ark. But, I see enough ambiguity here that I do not accept your assertion that the passage in question can have nothing to do with Christianity at all.

            Even if I was convinced to accept your assertion on this matter, it would not alter my faith because I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant.

            Posted by Marc | 29 November, 2013, 12:55 pm
            • What ambiguity?
              The word was translated incorrectly.
              The passage does not allude in any way whatsoever to Yeshua?

              Even if I was convinced to accept your assertion on this matter, it would not alter my faith because I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant.

              At least you have made the effort to reconsider.

              And that is something. A big something.
              Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes. And even if you feel obliged to reject the truth concerning this passage and hang on to what you have been brought up to believe (for now) it might spur you on to investigate it ( and other stuff) some more.

              Millions of Christians are ignorant of little things like this and few will ever be made aware, either.
              But at least now, you can’t say you are one of them, right?

              Peace.

              Posted by Arkenaten | 29 November, 2013, 1:17 pm
              • Nope. Clearly the prophecy had a double bearing and a double fulfillment. The literal meaning is that a young woman, now a virgin, should bring forth a child to such an age that, within a few years, the enemies of Judah would be destroyed. But the prophecy was so worded as to have a further meaning. All the expressions of the prophecy do not suit both its intentions — some are selected with reference to the first, others with reference to the second fulfillment — but all suit one or the other, and some suit both. The first child may have received the name Immanuel from a faithful Jewish mother, who believed that God was with his people, and may have matured about the time that Samaria was carried away captive. The second child is the true “Immanuel,” “God with us,” the king of Isaiah 8:8; his mother who is pointed at in the expression, “the virgin,” and on his account is the grand preamble (which doesn‘t make sense without a grand event to be proclaimed); through him the people of God, the true Israel, is delivered from its spiritual enemies, sin and Satan — the two kings who continually threaten it.

                Nice try, though.

                Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 29 November, 2013, 4:44 pm
              • This is such blatant christian apologetic polemic.
                And I challenge you to find one Jewish scholar who will confirm this ridiculous assertion.

                The Hebrew word for virgin is Betulah, hotshot.
                Period.

                Isaiah used the Hebrew word almah ( young woman) only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), and you still falsely attribute this to the word virgin.

                The word for virgin (betulah) occurs five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5).

                Yes, nice try , though.

                Posted by Arkenaten | 29 November, 2013, 5:05 pm
              • Hey, don’t go trying to pass that crap along as anything remotely credible. What you just did amounts to a virtual fart. I shall turn my cheeks thusly and respond with my own virtual flatulence. HaHA!!!!

                Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 29 November, 2013, 6:16 pm
              • What you espouse is idiotic lies.
                And, sadly every time you write stuff like this you just make yourself look ridiculous.

                if you really want to pursue at least a measure of truth when discussing religion at least have the nouse to go and learn about it.

                Posted by Arkenaten | 29 November, 2013, 6:21 pm
              • Me? Ridiculous? Ha!!! **fart**

                Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 29 November, 2013, 6:36 pm
  5. Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
    Paarsurrey says:
    I like the write-up and the comments made; it is a good effort to understand One-True-God and as to how he created everything from nothing.

    Posted by paarsurrey | 29 November, 2013, 2:38 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: