Critique This: Rainbow Gravity Theory of the Universe

[Philip]

Says the universe had NO beginning and stretches out infinitely: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... itely.html

Creative theory with little real science behind it. But never underestimate those determined to "prove" that the universe had no beginning - and, obviously - no Beginner.

[Byblos]

Says the universe had NO beginning and stretches out infinitely: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... itely.html

Creative theory with little real science behind it. But never underestimate those determined to "prove" that the universe had no beginning - and, obviously - no Beginner.

Even if the no beginning part were to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (in this universe or an infinite multi-verse), it does nothing to defeat the necessity of a first cause. Aquinas hedged his first argument (from motion) on precisely that point. While he did not believe in an infinite universe, he did not think it to be provable one way or the other so he steered away from it. In other words, Aquinas' first argument holds true regardless of the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe.

[PaulSacramento]

I didn't read the article so how does he address that fact that the universe is expanding if it never had a start?

[Byblos]

I didn't read the article so how does he address that fact that the universe is expanding if it never had a start?

It doesn't say. The author even credits the wrong person for proposing the big bang theory: "The Big Bang theory was formulated in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann". It was actually first proposed by a Belgian priest, George LaMaitre, who was an acquaintance of Einstein's.

[bippy123]

It seems like this is a theory that is trying to postulate Materialism and the belief that there is nothing beyond the universe. Veridical NDE's themselves show that there is more out there then materialism, plus the BGV theorem , which is very solidly accepted in mainstream science holds that whether there is one universe or zillions, the multiverse must also have a beginning and therefore a beginning-er, and correct Byblos that this does nothing to discredit the need for a first cause.

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

[Kurieuo]

This is my subjective observation, but Materialism looks to me to be really crumbling within in intellectual thinking circles of philosophers.

I wouldn't be surprised if within a century we see the current reigning paradigm in society turned upside down. Shame I won't be around to see it.

Here's a book someone referred to me today: The Waning of Materialism

Looks to show how incoherent a position it really when it comes to many other obvious beliefs we accept. Certainly on my to read list. I challenge any Materialist here to read it.

[bippy123]

A great article on why NDE's destroy every materialist explanation for these events.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/a ... 2.html#a02

Kurieuo, I agree that it will take about a century for materialism to die its slow death and that is only because they have clung to the current paradigm and have actually tried to suppress the evidences against materialism at every chance they get. When these cracks finally come together its gonna cause materialism to pop. Right now they are in denial.

Rupert Sheldrake has impeccable scientific credential and yet one of his video presentations was taken off of TEDX and it was found out that pseudo skeptic atheists had put pressure on TEDX to take it off, and later on it was also found out that the scientific board at TEDX were anonymous. Sheldrakes research is in ESP and PSI and is very sound research.

Here is one of his other video's that is called the science delusion which thankfully was reuploaded by someone. It has caused quite a stir online.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

As you can see here his credentials are top of the line.

http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/

[1over137]

Mentioning LeMaitre i just found this:

"“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.”
― Georges Lemaitre