What may have been the initial cause?

So you're saying to argue the tangible here, rather than the abstract?
-AM

No, I am saying god is concept, a tree is reality. If I talk of a concept I am refering to an invention from the mind to explain the evidence. That concept could be right or wrong. If you want to argue about a tree go ahead by I will not join you. In my opinion the Big Bang is possible a false concept. Any description of god is a concept. There are many conflicting concepts but initial they are all concepts. The problem with concepts they can breed. The BB has bred dark energy , dark matter. They invented them because the universe is not expanding at the rate they anticipated. To correct that observation they had to invent. No one has seen or even found one ounce of the stuff but because of the BB it exists. Bleeding amazing bit of logic that is accepted by one and all. It's the same with the god concept, when the image does not fit the description men have to invent alternative descriptions.

Exactly! I agree, so we need to argue with tangible evidence and not just concepts. The tree was just a horribly attempted metaphor. But then again, with distant ideas about the universe, if we cannot truly "touch" any of the evidence, the BB theory seems to offer the most sound concepts. But it is definitely still completely open for flaws and/or an even better theory.
-AM

Exactly! I agree, so we need to argue with tangible evidence and not just concepts. The tree was just a horribly attempted metaphor. But then again, with distant ideas about the universe, if we cannot truly "touch" any of the evidence, the BB theory seems to offer the most sound concepts. But it is definitely still completely open for flaws and/or an even better theory.
-AM

It is only considered the best because of propaganda. Just like the Abrahamic gods. Now the two concepts are using each other for support. We accept a concept and build all our faith an argument on them. If they fail then all our investment in that concept is threatened so we become defencive and inventive. Arrogantly hanging on to them even knowing in our hearts we are wrong.

"We accept a concept and build all our faith an argument on them"
That is science. And science is controlled by a certain elite just like religion. They are equally flawed; they both build on flawed and not-fully-proven ideas. Just like evidence of evolution; we see many cases now being discredited of evidence with skulls and timelines etc. So what does your heart tell you about the BBT?
-AM

"We accept a concept and build all our faith an argument on them"
That is science. And science is controlled by a certain elite just like religion. They are equally flawed; they both build on flawed and not-fully-proven ideas. Just like evidence of evolution; we see many cases now being discredited of evidence with skulls and timelines etc. So what does your heart tell you about the BBT?
-AM

The BB sounds illogical, looks illogical and is built on faith rather than god science. There are so many alternatives but we are stuck with this damned one with all it's contradictions. If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

Btw, to all of you guys arguing that God is merely an invented concept and therefore doesn't exist, realize that what you call your "self" or "you" (from the English "ewe") is also no more than an abstract concept that you naturally invent but doesn't physically exist. Thus you must not exist either. That same abstraction in religion is referred to as "your soul".

Your comparrison of the ontological concept of God and the abstract concept the mind creates of it's own persona is not coherant. They are by no means the same thing, the abstract concept of "self" is the minds experience of itself, the brain is aware that it is a thinking and aware thing which is contained in a living body. The concept of god is based from a dualistic perspective where first one believes that intelligent entities can exist whilst not being attached to a material source, secondly the ontological concept of God is itself based on concepts and idea's NOT materialistic forms such as the abstract concpet of "self".

It appears all your pointing out is concepts exist, if you deny one you deny them all. There is no argument that concepts which consist of no matter can still be applied to the material world, maths is a great example, we can't see, hear, smell or feel maths but we can apply it an experience the concepts so it is fair to say that maths very much exists, just not in the way humans exist or in the way minds exist. Mental concepts, ideas and thoughts are the only tool we have to experience reality, it comes as no surpise that things which exist at a mental level to some people seem so real they believe that it must literally exist as a entity itself, however if you are willing to argue that may the case, then you might as well argue that maths is also a metaphysical being which exist in some other realm.

If the soul is only an abstract meaning for the consious persona of an individual then yes we all have souls, and souls can live after the body dies, due to other people having the ability to also create abstract concepts of other individuals.We all create concpets of other people, we understand them at a mental level, this is how we remember what sort of person someone is, therefore souls live in other peoples memories.

If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

It seems as though the Torus Universe, which I found Xris also discussing on another site which helped me find a better understanding of the theory, is also based on concepts is it not? just like the BBT?
-Amakatura Murou

If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

It seems as though the Torus Universe, which I found Xris also discussing on another site which helped me find a better understanding of the theory, is also based on concepts is it not? just like the BBT?
-Amakatura Murou

Yes of course it is a concept but it does not come with all the false certainty the BB enrages. I have no problem with concepts only the dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them.

99% of Christians believe jesus is the son of god but it does not indicate that he is.

??????????

You have it partially correct but background radiation does not indicate a BB and the red shift observations have and are questionable. The concept of the BB is totally dependent on suspect red shift observations.

There is more: Entropy is the biggest enemy of an infinite past Universe. There are sooo many things.

99% of Christians believe jesus is the son of god but it does not indicate that he is.

??????????

You have it partially correct but background radiation does not indicate a BB and the red shift observations have and are questionable. The concept of the BB is totally dependent on suspect red shift observations.

There is more: Entropy is the biggest enemy of an infinite past Universe. There are sooo many things.

why are you confused? I do not believe jesus was the son of god.

So the BB is proven because you can not conceive of anything else? I find that just a little strange.

Thinking critical,

We can't agree the universe is finite because you have not defined precisely what you mean by the universe. If you mean the universe as in everything physical than of course it is finite. That is not a definition of everything there is however, there are things that are not physical such as: thoughts, quanta, potential.

I am more interested in what may have been the initial cause to the domino affect or chain reaction that resulted in the universe as we know it.

In a word: potential. There was always potential, zero is a limit not achievable. The initial cause has to be potential as it always existed, and must as there is always potential.

When you refer to black holes from other universe seeding this universe you make things more vague. We cant possibly know the qualities of the other universe, it may well be infinite. Since the two are connected or at least can be, then we would have to add their spaces(1+x=?) to the total universal space, presently with our knowledge this is not possible.

Actually, just as a side note and for reasons that I won't bother you with, the physical universe is necessarily infinite.

99% of Christians believe jesus is the son of god but it does not indicate that he is.

??????????

You have it partially correct but background radiation does not indicate a BB and the red shift observations have and are questionable. The concept of the BB is totally dependent on suspect red shift observations.

There is more: Entropy is the biggest enemy of an infinite past Universe. There are sooo many things.

why are you confused? I do not believe jesus was the son of god.

So the BB is proven because you can not conceive of anything else? I find that just a little strange.

I'm not confused... I just failed to see the relevance

Oh no! I can conceive other things, I actually already seen the redshift critics long ago. I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it's very unlikely... but hell! you maybe right! We can't see the Universe as a whole we are limited to a 13,7 billion light year bubble.
I have pretty unorthodox ideas too so it would be very hypocritical of me to reject other's ideas straight out.

Oh I give you this one for free! The fact that the Universe is flat (probably) is a point in your favor!

If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

It seems as though the Torus Universe, which I found Xris also discussing on another site which helped me find a better understanding of the theory, is also based on concepts is it not? just like the BBT?
-Amakatura Murou

Yes of course it is a concept but it does not come with all the false certainty the BB enrages. I have no problem with concepts only the dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them.

But at one point, could the Torus theory also have "all the false certainty"? And eventually the "dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them"?
-AM

the physical universe is necessarily infinite.

How so?