Sure the big bang theory makes a lot of sense, it truly does. but what if there really is something bigger out there. to have such a force to create the big bang theory, there would have had to be something out there to create the big force, surely. my vote is god purely because sometimes, you need to think outside the square you live in right?? the big bang theory is purely scientific evidence. For sure science has gone a long way but they are trying to prove that the atmosphere created the big bang theory because the more they "research" the more money they get out of the findings, correct?
Posted 104 days ago | Tagged As: God
"but what if there really is something bigger out there." There could be. And this would have absolutely no impact on whether Big Bang cosmology is correct. "to have such a force to create the big bang theory, there would have had to be something out there to create the big force, surely." And we descend into an infinite regression of inquiry that ultimately leads us nowhere and does not increase our understanding of anything. "my vote is god purely because sometimes, you need to think outside the square you live in right??" Isn't that precisely what we did? For many, many centuries standard knowledge told us that the phenomena within the universe were created or at least guided into existence by god/gods/goddesses/forces/dragons etc... god was and is the "square". Now we have a model of the universe that helps us account for universal constants, experiment and manipulate these phenomena, and increase human knowledge. Big Bang cosmology helped us leave the square "god did it" rhetoric and expanded our understanding of the universe. "For sure science has gone a long way but they are trying to prove that the atmosphere created the big bang theory because the more they "research" the more money they get out of the findings, correct?" This is completely wrong.
The thing is it's impossible for us to know anything about the force that created the universe. It could have been God, it could have been an accidental "explosion", it could have been anything. Because it's impossible for us to understand the force that created the universe, it makes no sense to say God was that force.
i second that......science sure has evolved very much but we cant explain for certain how the earth was made but all we know is that there somthing very powerfull going on in space.....
There is no way to know and it depends on how you interpret god. Even then though, you have to wonder where god came from, and if there is a higher nature than it. If so, then the world came from there... but then again you have to wonder where that came from. I don't like to think about it. No matter which you believe, in god or not, there is no way to humanly explain what reality is beyond your own present feelings.
Posted 104 days ago | Tagged As: We can never know for sure
I agree with what you're saying, but if we know nothing about the initial force, why call it god? That word is just so loaded.
This one's interesting. First of all I accept the big-bang as the best theory on how the universe was created. However we are now faced with the question of wether it was God who created the universe through the big-bang or did the big-bang occur because of other reasons? If God did create our universe through the big-bang then I see no reason for squabbling between scientists and religious people. However if the bigban occured by other means that leads us to an array of questions (as science is supposed to do). What caused that small point that had everything contained in it expand? (extradiensional forces?, a giant spaggeti monster? etc..) And if it was extradimensional forces what caused that? and what caused the previous event. In the end science does not answer all questions and a true scientist does not try to answer al questions. Science does not revoke religion nor religion science; they co-exist, that which we can explain is science, the rest mystical and will be viewed as such. I believe There is no wrong nor falsehood in believing in God (or what you may believe in). Science and mathematics explain how the universe works and was created, they are the building tools of the Great Architect.
Posted 96 days ago | Tagged As: Science and Religion
We can use philosophy to discuss things outside the bounds of science. Philosophy is different from religion in that it is based on reason rather than faith.
Posted 93 days ago | Tagged As: Philosophy vs Religion
We all know that the universe is expanding, which leads to the conclusion that at some point in the very distant past the universe (all of space, time and matter) were infinitely small. This is known as the singularity. Some physicists have attempted to dance around the conclusion that if the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. Einstein had to fudge his numbers to try and get around the singularity, Hartle and Hawking do the same now. The Big Bang was certainly the beginning of the universe. From there it is simple to induce that 'ex nihil nihil fit'...from nothing, nothing comes. To break it down into a logical syllogism... 1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence. The syllogism is logically sound and valid. Both premises are true and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. So what can we induce about the cause of the Big Bang. -it must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter -it must be timeless because it existed in the absence of time. -it must be personal because it intended to create the universe. -it must be enormously powerful because it had the power to create the entire universe Folks, when we talk about something that is enormously powerful, timeless, immaterial and personal, we are talking about God. Some have suggested that the God hypothesis is false because God must have been caused, but this is simply not true. First of all, if God is timeless sans universe, then God is uncaused, eternally existent. Secondly, we do not need to know anything about the nature of the cause of the universe to know that the universe was caused. For example, if we land on Mars and discover a functioning Martian communication device, we do not need to know anything at all about the nature of the Martians to know that they exist. Those who deny that God created the universe are left to explain how something came from absolutely nothing. That is worse than magic. At least a magician has a hat from which to pull the rabbit.
There are some pretty big logical flaws here. "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence." This is an assumption. We know that there was a singularity, and a large explosion occurred which caused the rapid expansion of the universe out of this singularity. The singularity, however, could have existed forever. It could even have been a previous universe going through it's big bang/big crunch. Your argument unfortunately breaks down at this point, as your premises are not shown to be true. "it must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter" Assumption. We don't know what existed before the universe, or indeed if there even was a before. Remember that time is possibly only a property of this universe, so anything outside of the bounds of this universe is purely assumption. "it must be timeless because it existed in the absence of time." Assumption. As I stated above, we can't make any assumptions of time outside of the bounds of the universe. "it must be personal because it intended to create the universe." Ouch! Not only is this a huge assumption, but this one isn't even based on any current knowledge. Quite sneaky as you attempted to throw this line in between three other possibly valid (though, remember, they are all just assumptions) statements. Please show me how you can deduce that there was intention to create the universe. Just because it is here doesn't mean that there was any intention for it to be here. Can you back this statement up? "it must be enormously powerful because it had the power to create the entire universe" Assumption, though this one is highly likely. Within the bounds of the universe, I'd have to agree with you. The first law of thermodynamics also agrees with you. But remember, we're talking possibly about pre-universe here. Or, possibly, about a universe that has always existed. Maybe the power that is used to create the new universe is simply the power emitted by the big crunch of a previous universe? "Some have suggested that the God hypothesis is false because God must have been caused, but this is simply not true." I can assure you that it is. What you've done here is assumed that the universe could never have always existed and that god could have. These are simply assumptions. If you're willing to accept that god has always existed, why are you not willing to accept that the universe has always existed? The fact that the state of our current universe came from an explosion within a singularity is not important. We have no current understanding, evidence, etc, of anything that occurred beforehand; therefore the universe always existing is just as likely as god always existing. If you aren't willing to accept an ever-existing universe, then I am afraid that I am unable to accept an ever-existing god. "Those who deny that God created the universe are left to explain how something came from absolutely nothing." If you can show me that the universe absolutely hasn't always existed, perhaps; but you can't. Regardless, the jump from "something had to exist previously" to "well, it had to be an intelligent personal god then" is too far a jump. It's all just assumptions, which you're trying to back up with logic. The problem is that your logic just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's amazing what people will accept with god ("oh, god, yeah, he's always existed"), but will refuse to accept with the universe.
Posted 105 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
Good show my dearest friend. I thoroughly agree with every one of those points.
Those aren't logical flaws or assumptions my friend. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence" It is absurd to deny that something that begins to exist can do so without a cause. Please provide some examples of things that have begun to exist without cause. (Obviously you can't say the universe because that is exactly what is up for debate here.) Maybe you have a horse that began to exist without cause (no parents, no magician, no illusionists...it just appeared in your living room while you were trying to watch TV.) Maybe a car? Your only response to my premiss is to say "It could have existed forever", or "It couldhave been a previous universe." You posit fanciful imaginary scenarios to try and get around the fact that my premiss is plainly true. "It must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter." How is this an assumption? We cannot talk about 'before the universe' because time and matter came into existence at the same moment. If the cause of the universe existed without the universe, as it must have because the universe could not cause itself, then the cause of the universe existed in the absolute absence of matter. Something that exists in the absence of matter is necessarily immaterial. Same goes for the 'timelessness' of the cause. It must be personal... We know this because an impersonal set of mechanical causes could not exist without their resulting effect. If this were the case, then the universe would have always existed, which is mathematically impossible as it would constitute an infinite regress of cause and effect. Enormously powerful...you seem to agree, although you don't want to. Why am I comfortable with an eternal God but not an eternal universe? As I mentioned previously, the physical universe, if it existed eternally, would constitute an eternal regress of cause and effect. This is mathematically impossible as it lead to several contradictory conclusions, all of which must be true, but some of which are mutually exclusive. An eternal, immaterial, timeless being is certainly logically plausible as established by my arguments previously. The plain science says that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. This fact is just not up for debate among serious scientists. Your oscillating universe idea was debunked long ago, you should drop that one from your list of rebuttals. Sorry xaeon, but your comments do not demonstrate that my premisses are flawed. You seem to think that we can only know things that we can detect empirically. This is far from the truth. There are many things that we know that are impossible to detect empirically, things like the laws of logic ('A' cannot be 'Not A'). The things that we know about what could have existed without the universe are well established by the laws of logic.
Posted 49 days ago | Tagged As: God
"It is absurd to deny that something that begins to exist can do so without a cause." You say it with such conviction, but you don't actually think that way because you're willing to accept that god existed without a cause. You keep saying it, but you still haven't explained adequately why god is an exception to the rule. "Please provide some examples of things that have begun to exist without cause. " Yes. According to you, god. "You posit fanciful imaginary scenarios to try and get around the fact that my premiss is plainly true." I'm afraid that you are kidding yourself with this statement. Is this noty exactly what you are doing with the idea of god? Positing fanciful imaginary scenarios of a timeless immateral being (which can't be the universe, because... well, because it simply can't)? "We cannot talk about 'before the universe' because time and matter came into existence at the same moment." Can you back this statement up? It seems likely, but any statement about pre-big bang is, as I keep saying, purely speculation. Sure, it seems logical, but that's not how science works. As I keep saying, can you show me (with actual evidence, not just your continued assumptions about the universe) why god can exist without a causer but the universe cannot? "It must be personal... We know this because an impersonal set of mechanical causes could not exist without their resulting effect. If this were the case, then the universe would have always existed, which is mathematically impossible as it would constitute an infinite regress of cause and effect." What about a person set of mechanical causes? What are you going to make up about that and claim to be something you "know?" Can a personal set of mechanical causes just happen, or does it present the exact same problem you've just presented to me? "An eternal, immaterial, timeless being is certainly logically plausible as established by my arguments previously." Seeing as I showed all of your previous statements to be based purely on speculation and assumption, I would hazard to disagree with you on this point. You can say that a eternal, immaterial timeless being can exist, and you might think that it ticks all of your boxes. Unfortunately it doesn't tick mine, and it doesn't tick any boxes for science. Untill you can show a reason why god is a special exemption from the points you've made to me, god simply exists in the same set of logically inconceivable ideas, such as an infinite universe. (Notice I used the word inconceivable, not impossible; because to presume something outside the realms of the universe would be incorrect).
Posted 49 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
God didn't begin to exist without cause. The premiss is that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause for its existence. God's begininglessness is not assumed by the argument, it is established by it. Examples of things that begin to exist without cause, please...(not God as established by my arguments)...under your view, this should happen all the time. The universe can't be infinite in the past because an infinite regress of cause and effect is an actually infinite set of events. Any mathemetician knows that an actually infinite set of anything is impossible. Therefore an eternal universe is impossible. This is not speculation. Time and matter came into existence at the same moment. Consult Einstein. I already told you about an impersonal set of mechanical causes. Are you seriously talking about a personal set of mechanical causes?? Read my arguments carefully. You have done nothing to show that my premisses are faulty.
Posted 49 days ago | Tagged As: God
The main point of my argument is that you are assuming that the universe could not have been forever and assuming that it had to be caused. This is purely assumption. The big bang is the furthest point that we can go back to, and anything before that point is purely speculation. The big bang obviously had a cause, but the big bang does not equal the universe. This is the point that you are ignoring. You attempt to talk about matters that you and I are ignorant to as if you are privy to some kind of information that everyone else is not. Logic can not be used to talk about inconceivable concepts such as the state of the universe pre-big bang. The very idea of talking about an infinite universe is also pure assumption, as time itself could be only a property of the universe. Just because our heads can't fathom an existance without the concept of time doesn't mean that it could happen. In this universe there is cause and effect, but this is a property of the universe and may not be the case outside of the bounds of the universe. My problem with your argument is your assumption that god can be/is timeless, yet the universe can not be so. You can not back this assumption up because, as I've said, what happened pre-big bang is currently unknown, and possibly unknowable.
Posted 49 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
I really don't think that I am merely assuming that the universe is finite in time. A quick google search should confirm that for you. You say that the Big Bang obviously had a cause, and I agree. That is the central tenet of my argument. When astronomers and astrophysicists speak of the big bang, they are speaking about the beginning of the universe. So you are right in saying that the Big Bang does not equal the universe. But you are assuming that something physical , the singularity, existed prior to the beginning of matter. That is simply absurd. In cases like this, logic and the laws of logic are all we have to talk about the beginning of time, space and matter. Science is blind prior to t=0. Again, I am not merely assuming God's timelessness, it is established by the arguments. The fact that the universe is finite in time is well established in scientific literature. Again, these are not assumptions. And you labeling them assumptions does nothing to reduce their truth value.
Supporting Evidence:
UCLA
(www.astro.ucla.edu)
Posted 48 days ago | Tagged As: God
"I really don't think that I am merely assuming that the universe is finite in time. A quick google search should confirm that for you." This argument shows me that you haven't understood the point I was making. Time is a property of the universe and therefore you can not confine the universe itself to the property of time. Outside the bounds of the universe (or more accurately, I should say back until the point of the big bang) you cannot speak authoritively about time, and this is why I keep telling you that you are making assumptions. The big bang happened in a finite time in the past, but everything pre-big bang is speculation. "When astronomers and astrophysicists speak of the big bang, they are speaking about the beginning of the universe." No, they are speaking about the rapid expansion from a hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past. Everything from the big bang onwards is finite. Pre-big bang is purely speculation. "So you are right in saying that the Big Bang does not equal the universe. But you are assuming that something physical , the singularity, existed prior to the beginning of matter. That is simply absurd." You tell me that this is absurb, then go on to say that science is blind to t=0. Which one do you want it to be? Do you want to assume to speak authoritively about a pre-big bang universe, or do you want to stick with your (correct) statement that anything pre-big bang is purely speculation? "Again, I am not merely assuming God's timelessness, it is established by the arguments." You're yet to show me why. "The fact that the universe is finite in time is well established in scientific literature." No it isn't. The fact that the big bang happened at a finite time in the past is well established. I can see now that you are confusing the big bang with the "beginning". The big bang is an event that took place which may have been within the existing universe OR maybe have actually created the universe. To say that it is the absolute beginning of everything though is simply naive. We don't know what caused it (whether it be matter outside our universe, matter within our universe, a big crunch from an existing universe, collisions of branes, etc) or what may have been there previously. And as I keep saying, everything pre-big bang (t<0) is purely speculation on your part. Do you entirely reject, say, brane cosmology models? How about chaotic inflation? You obviously do (and you seem to think you do so with authority), as all of these models speak of the big bang as just an event that happened which created the birth and then expansion of our universe from collisions between pre-existing branes or random explosions in quantum gravity foam. To say that my speculation (and I'm willing to accept that I am simply speculation a possible scenario) of matter existing pre-big bang is absurd would put in the very small group of people (I'll give you a hint, the group includes ONLY you) who know what happened pre-big bang. I shall say it again, and this time I hope you will be sporting enough to accept it; your arguments are all based on assumption and speculation. You and I both have no idea what happened t <= 0.
Posted 47 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
Here is where I think we agree... -the big bang happened, likely around 14 billion years ago. -the Big Bang had something profound to do with the universe as we know and can measure it today. -time, space and matter are properties of the universe -the conditions prior to t=0 are not detectable through the scientific method or direct observation Where we disagree... -whether or not anything existed prior to the big bang -whether or not the universe is or could be eternal -whether or not we can induce logically what could or could not have happened prior to the big bang. Is that a fair assessment so far? Would you add anything?
Posted 47 days ago | Tagged As: God
Pretty much spot on. I would hasten to add that some of the points are a little simple, and I am hesitant to completely agree with them. I'll just add some more to those points below to make my stance, hopefully, clearer. "time, space and matter are properties of the universe" They are indeed properties of the universe, but may or may not also be properties of any past universes, any possible multiverses, etc, etc. Remember that accepting time as only a property of this universe, as you seem to be saying, makes it difficult for me to accept your infinite cause and effect argument, as to talk about infinity would require there to be a concept of time. Outside of the bounds of this universe you cannot confidently speak of such things, as to do so would be an assumption. "the conditions prior to t=0 are not detectable through the scientific method or direct observation" I would like to add currently to this sentence. It may be possible in the future with technological and scientific advances to actually investigate the conditions of t<=0. We simply don't know yet. "whether or not anything existed prior to the big bang" I'm comfortable to say that, yes, we can not know anything about t<=0. We can't even accurately say whether a t<0 even did or could have existed. "whether or not we can induce logically what could or could not have happened prior to the big bang." Again, I agree with this point to a degree. We can certainly have a pop at what seems most logical, but to call it "deducing" would give it more significance that it deserves. I believe the concepts required to understand and deal with t<=0 are currently inconceivable. Pretty much overall though, a fair assesment of where we agree and disagree.
Posted 47 days ago | Tagged As: God
While I like your argument much more than the other flaming pieces of ignorance on this side of the debate, I still see some serious flaws. You ask how the universe could have begun without God. One possible explanation is that the universe has simply always existed. Your assumption that "The universe began" is not necessarily true. Second, the laws of physics do not necessarily apply outside of our universe. Therefore it's entirely possible that something can indeed come from "nothing." Here "nothing" could mean "void" or "stuff beyond our universe about which it's impossible to know anything." So your assumption that "Everything... must have a cause" is also not necessarily true. With these flawed assumptions, the rest of your argument has no foundation. "-[the cause of the Big Bang] must be personal because it intended to create the universe." This conclusion is definitely flawed. The cause of the Big Bang could very well have been accidental.
Posted 105 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
|
