There was and is, A CAUSE, prior to the big bang By Gunther Ostermann

By Gunther Ostermann
Guest Writer
Dandelion Salad
Kelowna, BC. Canada
Dec. 17, 2010

The prominent scientist Stephen Hawking warned humanity that, “We’re acting with reckless indifference to the future on planet earth. It will be difficult to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million.”

Why is humanity hell-bent on destroying the world? Has humanity lost its moral compass, if it ever had a real one? Numerous people, disappointed in church and religion, are embracing atheism, but in so doing throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Maybe the time has come to replace the archaic and man-made concept of God, with a new science based understanding. However, despite the fact that ten thousand scientists are working on the Large Hadron Collider, in trying to recreate the Big-Bang and looking for the God particle, the Higgs boson, by smashing subatomic particles together, not one scientist came out and admit, perhaps for fear of ridicule that, before the big bang, and as THE CAUSE, there was and is a Super-Intelligence, who is as invisible and intangible as is our mind, that is me, the I?

It may take many years before that happens, since even Stephen Hawking says, “The universe can create itself spontaneously out of nothing and it has no creator.” Wow! Is then the belief in God any less fantastic? Is it too much of a conjecture to presume that the big bang was designed, just like any seed, with the Anthropic principle, and the process of Creavolution, to produce in time, exactly what exists today?

Lastly, I add my own prophetic words from the 80s to Stephen Hawking’s…every year lost in curbing the violence of man against man and nature will require eons for the earth to heal itself, and nobody really knows the day of no return.


Creavolution By Gunther Ostermann

Stop sleepwalking into the future By Gunther Ostermann

20 thoughts on “There was and is, A CAUSE, prior to the big bang By Gunther Ostermann

  1. Pingback: Daniel Buxhoeveden: Science and Religion « Dandelion Salad

  2. 1) We might destroy ourselves because we have the technology to do so. This concept is new. By the way, some theists crave the end of the world.

    2) I do not hold the view that the brain and mind are separate things, brain-mind dualism is a fringe view well out of the consensus.

    3) The “god particle” was called “that god damned particle” because it is so elusive. Its not religious in nature, never was, the publishers just changed the name to make it more marketable for a book cover.

    4) Sure, you can conjecture that God was the catalyst that initiated the Big Bang but it really has no meaning at all because the next question would be what created God. If your answer to that is God is special and does not follow any of your previous rules, then your theory does not hold water.

    • Erkd1 –in response to you point by point:
      1. it is true , some theist crave the end of the world , but then again so do some atheists ( nihilism). here you are not making a point , but rather expressing a prejudice that does not add to the dialogue -debate.
      however i do agree with you that we have the technology to destroy the world .
      2. you sound Spinozan in your view of the mind/brain issue. in reference to the mind/body issue –john searle has documented in his work the mind/body debate between Eccles and Crick that can shed alot of light on the subject of where the self may be found . when Eccles got the noble prize for Brain science you threw the gauntlet down and said thatthe self cannot be found in the brain . after a lifetime of looking for it there he ended up agreeing with the Kantian notion of the observer . of course Crick the discoverer of the DNA set about to disprove him by taking a reductionist view that it can be found in the brain . both men died recently , and the whole debate is left at a mexican standoff. suffice to say , that the reason why searl wrote about this is becuase of the stakes being so high if Eccles was right about the self not coming fro the brain . that means that we are not our brains . major paradigmn shift. this shift would go well beyond Decarte verse Spinoza.
      3.publishers are out to sell books . agreed.
      4. the conflict in the view of accident or design comes down to reductio ad absurdum verses credo ad absurdum . in other words ; both views are equally absurd . Camus’s Atheism , and Kirkegaard’s Christianity both express and understand this as ”by virtue of the absurd”. you state that taking the God view does not hold water. but what makes St. Anselms Ontological argument any less absurd than a reductionist one ? if the Credo qou absurdum holds no water , than neither does the reductionists absurdum either. we are back to a standoff. my trouble with most rationilistsis is that are not rational enough to admit this equality of absurdity in both paradigmns. they think we the believers are the dumb ones and that they are the smart ones , when the most intellegent minds in western civ have been theists , from Augustine to Einstien .

      • Thanks rocket for the reply,

        1. We agree.
        2. I was stating that the phase “who is as invisible and intangible as is our mind, that is me, the I” is not held by everyone or even in the majority of that study.
        3. We agree.
        4. I am fine with both being absurd. But saying you know the less absurd and therefore its a fact is another matter completely.

        • Erkd1– nice clarification . i wish i could be so brief in my writing . the ”equality of the absurd” in our differing worldviews has to do with the” instrinsic quality” of the absurd itself rather than any sort of a postiori empirical evidence. if you remember , i am a cold stone Kierkegaardian and therfore only state as fact my own subjective experience . Ergo , as S.K. states that there must be a subjective process for truth to be held fast in a ”objective uncertainty”. speaking of ”objective uncertaintys ” makes both believers and non believers nervous , but i believe it to be the most honest position , and the true faith position , becuase at the end of the day faith is unprovable . if it was provable it would not be faith .

          of course reconciling faith and reason is a headache that i will leave to Augustine and Aquanis . becuase i sure as hell cant do it .

        • Rocket, I actually made a at length response to you in the comment section of the video “Creation is a Scientific Fact”, but I am going to respond here too because this is a different topic and its just fun to talk to you, I like your input.

          I also appreciate the reminder of your position, in fact, we actually hold similar stances: my atheism is only the assertion of my awareness of my own psychological states. I do not state there is no god or gods, I am only stating I have no psychological belief in anything I term a god or gods being real. And I do consider myself to be the foremost authority on what I am thinking, as I am sure you consider yourself the same 😀 We are our subjective experience to be sure.

          It might just be that all of this topic started with how we rationalize that mother-of-all a priori quandaries…”this is all really absurd!”

          I like to use “How vs Why” to illustrate viewpoints. Language is sloppy business, so keep that in mind. If we take the classic “why did the chicken cross the road?” of which the punch line is “to get to the other side” is an anti humor riddle because “why” questions are usually asking about motivation rather then stating the simple fact. This riddle would not work if you used “how” as in: “how did the chicken cross the road?” as that would imply more of the mechanics of chicken locomotion.

          But we switch “how” and “why” often when pondering the absurdities. For example in the video mentioned above “Creation is a Scientific Fact” at one dramatic portion the question is posed “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. Again, the person being asked would be led to assume what is the motivation, or to put it more simply, “why” questions imply some sort of agency. If the same question is asked, with the same absurdity involved, but with “how” the question is much different: “How is there something rather than nothing?” its still a very challenging question to anyone, but it implies more of the mechanics of reality.

        • ERKD1 — I wrote something real long and it just erased ! so instead of re-writing i will recap .

          people want objective certainty . doubting thomas stuff. but life is not lived there , but in the unconscious. so they try and engage me in stupid arguments about the bible . this misses the point . i am not interested in textural accuracy . i am interested in being INSPIRED . masterpiece Literature from the Theocratic age , like Homer , the greek tragedys , and people want to argue about it instead of asking the real questions –what is the writer really trying to say ? how does effect me inwardly ?

          so because of this stupid approach from both sides of the belief /unbelief aisle , the real nuances are lost . that is also why instrumental music is more of a challenge to me to play to get to the unconscious terrain so to speak and let the muse do its thing .

        • Rocket, I couldn’t reply to your last comment, I think the thread was too long so I am replying to this post.

          For a time when I was a Christian, people would ask me what type of Christian I was and I would often answer “a Sermon on the Mount Christian”. Help the poor, tend to the ill, feed the hungry, be your brother’s keeper. Thats certainly a message I can get behind and admire, even if I lost faith in the other details.

        • erkd1 — well , you can never go wrong with the sermon on the mount , that is for sure. i wish more christians actually believed that jesus really meant what he said in that sermon .

          here is where i am at on this whole thing — Paul said that there is only one gospel , not two. Amercian christianity has a split personality . some go for the ”social gospel” , others for the ”evangelical gospel ”. but both christ and the apostles did both . they preached the good news and they took care of the needs of people . it is not a either/or , but a both/and .

          this is the” whole council of GOD” since the messiah came. no more , no less. when all of philosophy since Thales to the Stoics were looking for not only the ”Urstoff” ( german ) cosmological substratum that held the universe together, but what is the way to live that is the best for man’s well being , St.Augustine trumped all of the variuos schools of thought in this and said ”the best thing for man’s well being is the grace of God thru jesus christ”. the one statement in his Citivas Deo looms large in its conclusion of all ancient longings in the west. and is all encompassing .

          the fact that you were as you say ”a sermon on the mount ” christian is great , but only half the picture. our needs need more , and that is a deep inner change via rebirth , and the power and grace to live that sermon will follow …hence —one gospel , not two.

  3. Pingback: “The Big Bang as God’s plan”? by Gunther Ostermann « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Creation Is A Scientific Fact « Dandelion Salad

  5. There is a huge chasm between atheists and religious fundamentalists. It is from there that new ideas will arise. Please Google, “Matter does not exist,” and a whole new dimension will open up. I’m in awe of the wonders of nature. For those who believe it is all happenstance, well, so be it for them. Would anybody believe in the metamorphosis of the butterfly, if it weren’t an established fact? Not in a million years. I humbly agree with the late physicist John Wheeler, “We do not know the first thing about the universe, about ourselves, and about our place in the universe.”

    • love the john wheeler quote . when i hear creationists and evolutionists debate ..i start to laugh. i say ” none of you knows how old the earth is cause none of you were there”. period .

      the wheeler quote is good because it forces us to ask the question of what it means to be human , since we humans are question marks . what lies between atheism and fundamentalism is a sort of christian-humanism as Erasmus defined it .

      this is were great literature in the Theocratic age of tragedy gets inverted into Good news with the Gospel of Mark . asking whether the text is accurate is the wrong question , but only rather , what does it tell us about being human .

  6. Gunther,

    One of Hawking’s positions is that there are likely many universes. The outcome of this one is dependent on its particular laws of nature.

    However, your idea that it was some sort of great clock put in motion to intelligently result in humanity flies in the face of the uncertainty principle per niels bohr et. al. (or so I’m lead to believe).

    In any case, were the laws of nature immutable, and everything we are a product of them, then indeed violence is also a product of such laws.

    Which bring us right back to science, in this case brain science. Why are people irrationally selfish, destructive & violent? Is it the eternal struggle of good vs. evil, or are we dealing with evolutionary psychology, relics of clanist competition for resources, the dominance & control impulses left over from an obsolete pack mentality, the existence of ‘sociopaths’, or those without conscience who comprise a documented 3% of society, and who aparrently lack activity in a certain portion of their brains and therefore oprerate completely differently than we can comprehend?

    The idea of intelligent design would seem to lack intelligence. The psychology resulting from the haphazard evolution of the brain clearly clacks a consistent intelligent purpose, and instead shows every evidence of the ruthless selections over millions of years.

    The conflict of good v. evile is better summed up as the conflict between ‘survival through cooperative, compassionate community’ (a recent evolutionary adaptation) vs. ‘the biggest, meanest asshole wins’ (a far more ancient, limbic, reptilian impulse, which still works quite well for crocodiles & sharks).

    The point of pacifism & environmentalism, IMO, is that our reptilian impulses (a far easier, ancient psychology to fall into) combined with our industrious craftiness are causing the violent destruction of the planet and misery & murder of each other & all else. The compassionate, intelligent, communal impulse, a far more evolved adaptation unique to our big brains, dictates a moderation of the reptilian brain-dead mode.

    The function of Christianity is to sublimate our selfishness in this world as justified by scripture (‘Domininism’), all the world a stage to prove our worthiness of the afterlife, and all will be burned by fire in the second-coming anyway, and as ever, those who don’t agree with judeo/Christian/American exceptionalism and selfish capitalism should be slaughtered, for in colonialism by Christians, as with the Conquistadores, Inquisitors, Missionaries, Colonial Empires all, you are doing God’s work and therefore guaranteeing your place in heaven (while justifying your selfish, destructive detestable behavior).

    Compassionate, tolerant, loving Christians are as much the exception as their secular counterparts. Christianity does not beget compassion. Nothing intelligent could have possibly created such a destructive institution as the church.

    An intelligent designer would not have created species only to wipe them out. The body has a head, we have a choice. Christianity & Islam requires its followers to abandon intelligence & choice and relegate all mindfulness to a ruthless, vindictive, extremist totalitarian god who requires blind belief in a cryptic scripture that promises eternal hell if you misstep ever.

    That is not compassion nor salvation, nor hope, nor intelligence, and hardly good news worth propagating in any form. That is a myth invented by primitive, pre-scientific paleo-humans and has zero relevance in our evolved, evidence-based reality.

    Why did it happen? We don’t know, nor do we know if there needs to be a ‘why’. But it definitely didn’t happen per scripture, that’s been disproved.

  7. It’s extremely important for the scientists working on LHC to remain neutral until evidence of anything is found. Avoiding confirmation bias is paramount even for the smallest scientific experiments.

  8. brick wall here with science , because they think that Aristotles uncaused Cause is out dated. they categorically reject Aristotle because his physics were drawn from his metaphysics , and therefore they have nothing but contempt for his cosmology , and his 4 fold law of causality .

    as far as the archaic man made God . well , this is problematic. if you refer to the sky -god concept . yes , there needs to be re-definition of divinity . but we can find it in the words of the Roman soldier at the foot of Christ’s cross when he said ”truly this was the Son of God ”. that was the paradigm shift away from divinity being one of violence , might , and power humility , servanthood , and love.

    the sharing of this good news in word and deed will shift it now like it shifted it then .

    • You can’t know what the Roman said any more than you can know what happened to the dead Jesus. The bible is too twisted to be evidence. And why would you believe a Roman anyway? Or perhaps Jesus wasn’t the only son of god??

      Hawking is basing his new thinking on physics. Quantum physics has gone from theory to proof using colliders. You have no evidence nor proof of anything in the bible, least of all the old testament let alone the new. Any words attributable to Jesus are far too incomplete, cryptic & brief to be evidence of a great leader, or compelling reason to believe.

      Have you read Hawking’s new book? Do you understand his equations? If not than you can’t discount his findings.

      If you refute the idea of ‘god in the sky’ then you must refute the rest, the bible is quite clear. it’s an all or nothing game, no room for interpretations, it’s the Word or eternal brimstone. You must now roast in hell for all eternity for having said what you have, if you are a believer! Repent.

      If you use your two examples of the two good christians to discount the vast endless sea of corrupt, violent & sadistic ones include MLK, then read MLK’s theology. MLK had far more followers in his day than Jesus. He was hardly a biblical literalist:

      • again –wrong question natureboy . text accuracy is missing the point . the question is ”what is the writer really trying to tell us ?” it is easy to get sidetracked by proofs. that is not what masterpiece literature is about . Mark is a stripped down masterpiece of Theocratic age of Lit . it is enigmatic to the max. profound . and it takes no prisoners.

        Homer tells us that Ulysses is the wisest of all greeks . why ? cause he feared the gods. he made it home because of that . when everyone else perished. that is how we must approach this era of Lit . not trying to prove or disprove Homer or Mark . we dont even know who they are. it is what they have to say that matters and that can illuminate.

        • and might i add , i dont know where you get bible literalism out of what i said . what is REALLY being said her is not literal . the nuances are amazing when that roman soldier looks up and says what he says . what did he see ? there was something in the way christ died that Mark is trying to show us made this man commit treason . this is a paradigm shift . like tectonic plates. and the first century rippled against the empire as the martyrs bled before the Caesars in public view. now that really happened ! in the arenas . why ? what inspired this madness ? or is it sanity after all. ?

Comments are closed.