By Steve Marshall | ForteanTimes.com
Sheldrake questions many of science’s basic ‘truths’, which are revealed, with splendid irony, to be either assumptions or, heaven forbid, beliefs. That the Universe began with a Big Bang has been orthodoxy since the 1960s, but it is actually a theory, and one that raises as many questions as it provides answers. Sheldrake does not dispute the theory but compares it to religious creation myths, all of which begin with an initial act of creation by God; the Big Bang theory is different only in that God has been removed from the story. One of the basic tenets of physics is the law of conservation of matter and energy, which asserts that neither can be created or destroyed: the amount of matter and energy in the Universe is always the same. Except of course, in the primal singularity of the Big Bang, when the Universe appeared from nothing, violating all of science’s laws. Sheldrake quotes Terence McKenna: “It’s almost as if science said, ‘Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.’”
Read the full article at: forteantimes.com
~ApotheosisNow555
Replies
For those of you unwilling to do continual research into subjects I will help you out with this one.
The Big Bang theory is no longer considered to have happened through a singularity exploding.
Scientists have upgraded this theory because of new evidence, they now understand that the universe did not start at a single location. The universe started at all locations at the same time. No one, not scientific or spiritual knows what occurred before this time. We can speculate, however once again I feel it is necessary to point out to people to remember to KEEP BELIEF AND FACT SEPARATE.
Thanks One. Thanks for sharing your knowledge about changes in the Big Bang theory. Very good reminder about keeping belief and fact separate as well.
There is a large distinction between fact and belief but maybe not as large as I used to think... Things deemed as fact are constantly changing as new information comes to light so facts are not a constant by any means. In actuality there are not as many "100%" true" facts as one may think!. Facts are merely concensus assumptions that have been viewed or labeled as fact and presented as fact due to a vast number of people thinking that something is a certain way and have observed and experienced something as fact, like wood is strong, water is wet, etc. But what about back in the day people said that the earth was flat and to them it was a fact, but later proved wrong so what was accepted as a fact was not fact at all. I could make a HUGE list of things that were deemed fact that were not true but won't bother, you get the drift. So the line can get fuzzy when comparing Fact and Belief. So just because someone "feels" that something is a fact or real does not make it a fact but facts too can change as well and be "demoted, lol, back to beliefs and erroneous assumptions.
Just as an example, to me it would be a fact that many people are very gullible for instance. It has been observed in human nature so often that it has become a fact due to the vast number of people who have observed this behavior in such vast numbers of humans, so it viewed as fact of human nature, but in some future time people may have more information and may not believe things as easily without physical, observable or tangible proof and then it might mean that "people can be gullible" may no longer be a fact.. Just as a for instance. I am feeling philosophical today, sorry for the ramble. Just pointing out the fuzziness between belief and fact, and how facts come to be believed as facts and may be later demoted back to just feelings and beliefs and assumptions again.. Hope this makes sense to someone, I am having a hard time expressing it.
You are using the term belief but I think meant to use the term theory. It was a theory that the Earth was flat, someone else had a theory it was round, one theory was proven becoming fact. A belief OF a theory is different than just a belief in general. people believe god made it all, others have other gods, they are all theories, yet none of them have the evidence required to make them theories in a true sense.
To illustrate the difference between the "belief" absurdity and the rational working out of a theory I will use the situation of a light bulb going out.
To the rational thinking person not prone to fanciful nonsense, yet still ripe with imagination, the light bulb going out has many possibilities. The power is out, the switch is broken, a wire is loose, the bulb is broken, the fixture is broken, forgot to pay bill etc.
To the person who bases their life on beliefs and not theories the bulb went out becuase 10 billion years ago the zorlons defeated the gribblgorps and took over the milky way which then caused the years of darkness blah blah blah.
There is a big difference.
Haha, I love your example....the zorlons defeated the gribbegorps....hahaha....yup big difference......I am still splitting hairs about beliefs vs theories however......In my eyes people truly BELIEVED that that the world was flat and accepted it as a fact. I do not think people thought to themselves" well there is this theory that the world is flat". I am pretty much thinking that they "believed as fact that the world is flat". You may BELIEVE that I really meant to use the word theory instead of beliefs, is not a fact to me because it was my intention to use the word belief, lol. I do see what you are saying, but I think there is a fine line between belief and theory as well, and you and I could go round and round all day but I don't have the inclination or time to do so, haha....I do get what you are saying though....
For me the Big Bang theory just does not resonate. The idea that from nothing came everything just seems illogical to me. I just feel in my heart that there had to be a presence of some kind, a "god" if you want to call it that, or a consciousness or something....I just can't wrap around the Big Bang, sorry..Then one goes down the rabbit hole of "but where did that consciousness or presence come from?" and then it is back to the drawing board again. I think we are all parts of the original energy if energy can not be destroyed,,,but where did that energy come from? I have always felt that we were created for godsource to experience him/herself through our lives...with we being littler mirrors for "presence" to experience itself. But where did the original source come from....ahh that is the question.....Big Bang just does not cut it for me.
Yep, the Big Bang theory feels like a hail-mary pass to try and explain the unexplainable... I suppose that's the point. So much of what is accepted as 'real' in the current timeline equates to little more than 'theory'... merely another fading shadow of the Illusion of Duality. No doubt more will be revealed... & yeah, where did the original 'Source' come from? A key question indeed ;-)