A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

[surreptitious57]

in a Universe as vast and as expanse as this one evolution continues until another creature eventually evolves into an intelligent enough being to create the world that it lives in. And with a time frame as long as the Universe itself an intelligent enough being will eventually evolve into One that is more advanced or as superior as a God like Being is

There is no guarantee of this at all. The vast majority of the universe is not conducive to life. And the mere fact of its existence does not mean life is possible. For once stars cease to exist there will be none. Nor if the universe experiences heat death as a result of maximum entropy and then freezes to just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero

[surreptitious57]

I am sure you can understand where human beings are evolving into a more advanced or into a more superior being all the time

Human evolution may have reached its peak or it may still be advancing but at a significantly slower pace. But I do not see any evidence
of human beings advancing into a more superior being all the time. This phrase is entirely wrong since it implies that human evolution is
observable in real time. But most evolution cannot be observed on such a small time scale. As it is a process nearly four billion years old

[Greta]

I am sure you can understand where human beings are evolving into a more advanced or into a more superior being all the time

Human evolution may have reached its peak or it may still be advancing but at a significantly slower pace. But I do not see any evidence of human beings advancing into a more superior being all the time. This phrase is entirely wrong since it implies that human evolution is observable in real time. But most evolution cannot be observed on such a small time scale. As it is a process nearly four billion years old

Then again, there is the rapid evolution of humanity as a whole and consequent transformation of the biosphere and the Earth's surface (including its atmosphere) generally. It seems that evolution is basically the gestation/development of the biosphere from the perspective of its constituents.

"Evolution" and "gestation" are, of course, just words for change. Ultimately all entities tend to develop in life cycles bounded by the laws of physics, with a common tendency for homogeneous arenas gradually to form concentrations, eg. particles, life, encephalisation, metamorphosis, economics, populations, star and planet formation and so forth.

A recent news item about Laniakea's and Shapley's locations within a void between strands of the cosmic web really hit home this concept for me, especially this image https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startsw ... ?width=960 with the caption "Over time, gravitational interactions will turn a mostly uniform, equal-density Universe into one with large concentrations of matter and huge voids separating them".

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... c799906d05

[ken]

in a Universe as vast and as expanse as this one evolution continues until another creature eventually evolves into an intelligent enough being to create the world that it lives in. And with a time frame as long as the Universe itself an intelligent enough being will eventually evolve into One that is more advanced or as superior as a God like Being is

There is no guarantee of this at all.

You are right, there is no guarantee of this at all. But is there a guarantee of any thing at all?

The vast majority of the universe is not conducive to life. And the mere fact of its existence does not mean life is possible.

That all depends on the definition of 'life' here.

To Me the whole Universe, and ALL of its constituents, are living things and are therefore conducive to life. To Me, ALL things are interacting, and it is this interaction that is what is creating life. If a Universe exists, then there are things reacting. If there are things reacting, with each other, then there is a reaction process going on. If there is a reaction between two things, then that produces a new creation. Therefore, if there is a reaction process going on, then creation of life is happening. By definition a 'Universe' is a moving, changing, and forming thing. A moving, changing, and forming thing is what evolution is. Evolution, itself, is caused by a reaction process going on. Whilst a Universe exists there is always a process of things acting and reacting with each other. This action-reaction process is an always moving, changing, forming, and creating process, and it is how the Universe is a constant creation, Itself. The constant-state-of-change of the Universe is how the Universe creates It's Self, and how, through an evolving consciousness, the Universe evolves into knowing It's Self. The Universe is not just conducive to life but It is Life, Itself.

For once stars cease to exist there will be none.

But there are stars ceasing to exist right now and there is still plenty of life, RIGHT-NOW.

Nor if the universe experiences heat death as a result of maximum entropy and then freezes to just a fraction of a degree above absolute zero

Not that it matters but is there a guarantee of this at all happening?

And if there is, how long will that supposed "death" last for?

[ken]

I am sure you can understand where human beings are evolving into a more advanced or into a more superior being all the time

Human evolution may have reached its peak or it may still be advancing but at a significantly slower pace.

Yes it may be true that human evolution may have reached its peak or that human beings may still be advancing, but a significantly slower pace. But what MAY BE the situation is different from WHAT IS the situation. From everything you can see and understand WHAT IS actually happening, to you?

Instead of telling us all here what MAY BE the situation please tell us what you think/believe IS the situation.

By the way if human evolution is still advancing, but at a significantly slower pace, what is the "slower pace" directly in relation to?

What is the pace of human evolution related to exactly? And, how could it speed up or slow down?

If the slower pace of human evolution is in relation to previous human beings, then what and how was the faster evolutionary rate of pace those human beings had?

But I do not see any evidence
of human beings advancing into a more superior being all the time. This phrase is entirely wrong since it implies that human evolution is
observable in real time. But most evolution cannot be observed on such a small time scale. As it is a process nearly four billion years old

From nearly four billion years ago hitherto can you not see how human beings have evolved, and evolved into a more superior being?

Anyhow, I observe human beings advancing into a more superior being, all the time, that I look.

[surreptitious57]

Instead of telling us all here what MAY BE the situation please tell us what you think / believe IS the situation

Reality does not care what I think of it and so I prefer the former rather than the latter as it is more objective

[ken]

Instead of telling us all here what MAY BE the situation please tell us what you think / believe IS the situation

Reality does not care what I think of it and so I prefer the former rather than the latter as it is more objective

If you know what reality cares about, then you would also know that reality does not care about what MAY BE true. Reality "cares" only about what IS actually true.

What IS true is if human beings really think that they may have reached their peak, then they really have a lot more to learn.

Evolution has not stopped at human beings. And, human beings will not stop evolution.

You say you prefer the former, as it is more objective. But if you really prefer what is more objective, then why do you also think/believe that it is impossible to look at things objectively?

If you can notice the contradiction here, then you will also see that the truth is that reality does not care that you think/believe that it is impossible to look at things objectively, because it really is possible to look at things objectively. Like I am doing right now.

If you can not see how human beings are continually "advancing" and just want to continue to think/believe that human beings will not learn any more about things, including ones such as how the Universe may not have began at all and how the Universe may in fact always be infinite and eternal, then so be it. But what is plainly obvious, and thus easily understood, is reality and the truth, and this is seen when you are open to it.

By the way, How do you differentiate between reality, and what you think of it?

[surreptitious57]

Instead of telling us all here what MAY BE the situation please tell us what you think / believe IS the situation

Reality does not care what I think of it and so I prefer the former rather than the latter as it is more objective

If you know what reality cares about then you would also know that reality does not care about what MAY BE true

Reality cares only about what IS actually true

Actually reality does not care about anything at all

As its sole function is simply to exist in whatever form it can

[ken]

Reality does not care what I think of it and so I prefer the former rather than the latter as it is more objective

If you know what reality cares about then you would also know that reality does not care about what MAY BE true

Reality cares only about what IS actually true

Actually reality does not care about anything at all

As its sole function is simply to exist in whatever form it can

If you want to quote Me please copy EXACTLY what I wrote, and how I wrote it. What you wrote is just copying what I said. The very reason I placed quotation marks around the word 'cares' was obvious. You were just repeating what I wrote, but purposely not quoting Me correctly.

So, now that you have come to realize that your previous reply was meaningless and worthless to this discussion, do you want to now get back to the issue at hand? That is, whether human beings continually evolve into a more advanced being. This being being able to view things from a completely objective perspective, which will show what truth and reality actually are. Then we could proceed on to whether or not all things began with the so called big bang or not.

Or, do you just want to continue with your belief that human beings are not evolving into a more advanced being, who already knows what the answers are?

[surreptitious57]

I do not have any strong opinion either way with regard to that question at this point in time as I simply do not know

[ken]

Fair enough. Everything is relative to the observer, so what is obvious to some is not obvious to others. As has already been proven.

[Walker]

Fair enough. Everything is relative to the observer, so what is obvious to some is not obvious to others. As has already been proven.

That makes the observer, the absolute. The implications are boggling.

[Dontaskme]

Fair enough. Everything is relative to the observer, so what is obvious to some is not obvious to others. As has already been proven.

That makes the observer, the absolute.

The observer is the absolute. There is no mind in the absolute, the mind is it's relative...like a reflection is to a mirror.

The implications are boggling.

Why?

[ken]

Fair enough. Everything is relative to the observer, so what is obvious to some is not obvious to others. As has already been proven.

That makes the observer, the absolute. The implications are boggling.

Would you like to provide some examples so that we could take a look at them and discuss?

[Dontaskme]

Fair enough. Everything is relative to the observer, so what is obvious to some is not obvious to others. As has already been proven.

That makes the observer, the absolute. The implications are boggling.

Would you like to provide some examples so that we could take a look at them and discuss?

I guess s/he hasn't got any ex-samples.