The Starting Point

GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The Starting Point

The universe. Where did it come from? Why do we exist? What happened? Let us start in the beginning. Let us start with one, big, bang!

 

The big bang theory has an inevitable setback, and if you follow me now, I will show you how. First, scientists say that the big bang theory is when everything was reduced to a singularity. However, this is where the law of physics breakdown, and if the law of physics break down, then this starting point is also not natural. Point two, the law of energy. The big bang caused over a series of energy. However, according to Sir Isaac Newton, energy cannot be brought into existence. Energy cannot cease to exists. You must question where the energy came from. Point three, and here's the punch line. No physical, finite entity explains its own existence. If we were to cut an orange and take it under microscopic study we would end up with the same result; the orange does not explain its own existence. The orange doesn't tell us why it exists; it must find the reason for its existence outside of itself. But we see that the orange came from an orange tree. However, the actuality is, neither does the tree explain its own existence. You end up having to posit a series of causes. Any finite, physical entity needs a cause and is either, caused, self-caused, or caused by another. Caused still questions the reason and self-caused is self-defeating. Hence, we must go back to a state of affairs to explain the existence of every physical entity in this universe. However, even if you were to reduce everything to a singularity, say an atom, you must then question where did the atom came from. Say the "Cosmic Atom" is the entity that went bang and started the rapid expansion of the universe. However, where the cosmic atom come from? Scientist have figured it out! With empirical evidence "A" was before the cosmic atom. Ok, what caused "A" to come into existence? Scientists have figured it out! With empirical, verifiable evidence, "B" was before "A." Ok, what caused "B" to come into existence? And this is the setback that many scientists fail to see. Some scientists will say that "Ah, we don't have the answer yet." But even if they had the answers and the reasons for the cause of every single entity, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes, but you cannot have an infinite series of causes, because, follow me now, if you were to have an infinite series of causes you would never be able to arrive to the present. If you had a domino called "X," and it took an infinite number of dominoes to fall before "X" can fall, you would never have "X" fall. So there must be a starting point alright. Well, what do physicist have to say what was before the big bang? Scientists have went so far as to say that nothing was before the big bang.

“It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.”
- Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Aston University, England [1]

“Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.”
- Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer.” [2]

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing.”
- Scienceline.org [3]

“Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.”
- Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University [4]

“Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.”
- Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist [5]

“Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things—perhaps even the entire universe—can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.”
- Creation ex nihilo—Without God
(1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic [6]

<

[1] http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid
=news&type=anews
[2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364
[3] http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/
[4] http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
[5] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Godless/Origin.pdf
[6] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/
vacuum.html

>

Now wait a minute. Surely this doesn't make any sense. From nothing, nothing comes. Listen to Daniel Dennett in his book "Breaking the Spell." He says that the universe brought itself into existence, also known as the "boot-strapping of the universe." However, surely this suggestions fails as well, because the presupposition of the assertion suggests that there was a time that the universe didn't exists. So the universe would have had to exist prior to its own existence. Surely this doesn't make any sense either. It's a contrariety in terms. Scientists and physicists have realized that the universe cannot be eternal, because again you would have to posit an infinite series of causes for every finite, physical entity. Hence, "nothing" is the only plausible suggestion that can be asserted in any preposition apart from God. Why? Because nothing is eternal, it has no beginning it has no end. And... to add to it. You must posit a being with infinite worth from the moral issues and social issues we see today. The uncaused caused for everything that began to exist must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal. Also known as - God.

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Ok, Tomathy.

GENESIS wrote:

Ok, Tomathy. You're missing the point of my argument. Granted. My first and second point can be refuted, regarding the law of physics and the law of energy. However, my third point still stands. And it's this. Try to listen. Everything needs a starting point. The universe is not infinite, agreed? The universe is on a finite time scale, agreed? Hence, you ask the question where did the universe come from? The planets, the stars, the gas, the spacious space. Everything physical in this universe needs a cause. Now, here's the winner. Follow me now. Even you if you were to have infinite knowledge know what caused what, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes. Wouldn't you. Say you found out that the big bang theory stands. And then you find out that gas and atoms are what caused the big bang. Well, where did the gas and atoms come from? You say "A" caused the gas and atoms to come into existence. What about "A?" What caused "A?" "B" caused "A." What about "B?" "C" caused "B." Well, where did "C" come from? "D" is what caused "C." What about "D?" What brought that into existence? "E" brought "D" into existence. And you'll go on and on and on. Why do you think physicist came down to the suggestion that nothing was before the big bang theory. I'll tell you why. Because "nothing" is infinite. Nothing can't be brought into existence. Nothing has no beginning and has no end. Sound a lot like God, except God actually has the power to create the universe. Where on the other hand, from nothing, surely nothing comes.

Your complete ignorance of what actually constitutes the big bang theory is evidenced by the fact that you seem to think that gas and atoms existed at the time the big bang occurred.  Further, you have yet to actually show how, outside the context of this universe and its specific laws, it's necessary that there not be an infinite causal chain.  You don't seem to appreciate that things like causes don't actually have the same meaning in conditions like the big bang that they do in this universe.  Please, go learn something before you start spouting nonsense you ignorant fool.

 

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Read my argument. I give a

Read my argument. I give a list of examples. Have you not even read the argument?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Read my

GENESIS wrote:

Read my argument. I give a list of examples. Have you not even read the argument?

>.<

 

AHAHAHA!

Oh man Paisley, that was a good one! You had us really going there for a while

What Would Kharn Do?


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

The Doomed Soul wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Read my argument. I give a list of examples. Have you not even read the argument?

>.<

 

AHAHAHA!

Oh man Paisley, that was a good one! You had us really going there for a while

 

But no video...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Ignorance

Again, you did not listen. You cannot possibly posit an infinite series of causes; the universe cannot be eternal. That is clearly no the case. Have you read my domino illustration? Now, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster was before the big bang, instead of gas and atoms. Even if you had infinite knowledge by chance and told me - "You fool! Atoms and gas were not before the big bang, blood was before the big bang." Again, my premise still stands. Then I will ask, where did the blood come from? Where did THAT come from that created the blood? And then "A" and then "B" and so on. You see the setback here? Here's the stinger. The actuality is, you must posit a starting point, because if you do not, you must posit an infinite series of causes. And of course with an infinite series of causes, you then must posit that the universe is infinite, but if the universe is infinite, then you will never arrive to the present finite time. Now, I hope you can rap your head around that, because this is a very important factor that atheism cannot seem to cross. And even if you say well, scientists don't have the answers yet, and they're trying to figure it out. The actuality is, even if they figured it out, my premise still stands. This, my friend, is the setback of atheism's starting point.

Intent is prior to Content.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Clearly you

GENESIS wrote:

Clearly you have ignored my argument. Read what I wrote. Even if scientists had the answers the theory still fails, because you cannot posit an infinite series of physical, finite causes. Hence, they came to the conclusion (at least some) that nothing was before the big bang. Which is irrational.

Clearly you ignored my previous post, energy cannot be created or destroyed and could have always existed, i mean if it's ok that god always existed, then the same can apply to energy, which requires no god to create. Please re-read what I posted, you clearly missed the WHOLE part about the quantum mechanics and the possibility of uncaused causes at the quantum level, which takes out your god in your argument as we can see it could happen without god. I still like to know how they came to the conclusion that nothing was before the big bang, the singularity either existed for an infinite amount of time before (it gets complicated at this point to explain but hey) or is the result of some collapse of energy into the singularity and that after a finite amount of time this unstable singularity or a quantum event caused it to release it's energy. So far as far as I have read and been explained to by a few people, nothing just means we have no clue what happened before the singularity.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh Boy! Christmas came Early... Late.... On Time.... Whatever.

 Your attempt at an argument for gott is delightfully quaint, and retains several flaws.

Flaw 1: Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that you know something about how Creation Works, what it entials, requires, and does.

You do not know this. No one does. Nothing, at all, in the entire Universe, that we know of, has ever been 'created'(Possibly Not completely Entirely Accurate; Expanded on in Flaw 3/1a). Everything in the Universe which we have successfully observed has only ever been a rearrangement of already existing Matter and Energy. No one has ever witnessed any actual creation of anything, and the term itself is ill defined. Thus, any attempt to determine its attributes, what creation would ential, require, or cause, is nought but blind speculation. This is why Science freely admits that we don't know what hapenned during, 'before' (another concept I will expand on), and immediately after the Big Bang. But at least Science is working on it and trying to figure it out instead of inserting whatever random fairytales you happen to like into the gap and asserting you know what hapenned.

Our best estimates and the limit of our data collection stops a very very small but still significant distance After the actual Big Bang. We are working to close this gap, and I understand there's some big project near Switzerland that's hoping to shed light on this. Perhaps you've heard of such a thing?

Flaw 2: Your entire argument for the impossibility of an infinite string of finite causal agents is predicated on a Linear Understanding of Time and Causality.

Anyone who has even slightly looked at the science of the Big Bang would know that the current theory suggests the Big Bang was the beginning of the entirety of Space-Time. Thus, asking what hapenned 'before' the Big Bang is a non-sequiter, because first we must determine what 'before' would actually entail in whatever Cosmic Whatsit existed or exists beyond the Big Bang. Time may function completely differently in the 'Multiverse' or whatever might have existed or might exist beyond our Finite Understanding of Existence. If Time does function differently, it is a fool thing at best to try and apply our notions of the working of time to this Extra-Universal Reality.

You Deluded Fool wrote:
Now, I hope you can rap your head around that,


Thus, an infinite Causal Regression might be completely possible, as Time might function along a completely different axis of progression. Of course, what I think is more likely is that eventually there was something that didn't need a cause other than nothing;

Flaw 3/1a: Returning to the flaws in your understanding of creation, your argument essentially boils down to 'everything that is created has a cause, and thus eventually the cause must have been gott." This is based on flawed thinking, for as I have already stated, no one has ever actually observed any instance of actual creation. Except we might have actually seen real creation in one spot; Quantum Mechanics. Now keep in mind that Quantum Mechanics is not my speciality by any stretch of the imagination. But from what I understand, Quantum Mechanics perports 'Virtual Particles' which are spontaneously created and destroyed without cause, merely due to the inherent uncertainties in the Universe itself.

Get that? Let's Summarize; Only non-Creation Events have been observed to have causes, and all supposed 'creation' events observed have had no cause. According to this data, we should expect Creation Events to have no cause, and any cause to be a sign that no creation event occured. So thanks for arguing that your gott did NOT create the Universe.

Unfortunately, you still have a long way to go before you will be as amusing as eXnihilO was. I kind of miss him. I want my boppit clown back...
.
.
.
Moving on; Your attempt to paint valid research as 'not making sense' is nothing more than evidence of your own lack of imagination. You are attempting to apply the physical laws of this reality to the reality that might or might not exist outside of it. You are essentially throwing an Iron Ingot in a Lake and then getting pissy when it doesn't float like Ice. Our Reality and any Potential Multiverse or 'Super-Reality' that exists outside of it need not have the same characteristics or Physical Laws. They need not be even slightly similar.

This is what the Scientists are actually saying when they state that the Laws of Physics break down in and before the Big Bang. They are not stating that there is no method or Physical Laws that govern this hypothetical Pre-Big Bang State, they are merely pointing out that, until we have evidence to back such claims up, we can neither apply our current understanding and Laws to this Pre-Big-Bang Existence, nor can we determine the New Laws for this existence.

The Laws that governed whatever Whatsit came before us, ignoring for a moment that the very idea of 'before' loses its meaning as our notion of time is innextricably bound to our position in this Frame of Existence, need not look nor act anything like the Laws that govern our Current Universe. We currently have no way of stating anything positively of this state.

For all we know, our entire Universe could just be one cosmic 'uncertainty' in a Massive Multiverse. This is what is meant by the 'unstable nothingness'.

Funny, Huh?

Or we could be in a Universe created and propogated by Colliding Branes. I've always been partial to that idea, because nothing is more awesome than being the direct result of two insanely powerful cosmic superstring masses of energy colliding with cataclysmic force*.

Or we could be in a universe created by the Fart of an Argolflartblaster.
Or we could be a Glitch in the Matrix.
Or we could be hanging in a Soap Bubble.
Or we could have been created three years ago to amuse a Bored Japanese Girl.

See? Coming up with possible causes or origins for the Universe is pathetically simple, I came up with the above four in under a minute, and could produce 500 more in an hour if I felt like it (which I don't).

Actually doing the research and studying reality to try and figure out what really hapenned? That's kind of hard, I would entirely understand if you didn't want to deal with it, I don't. But then again, I don't go around trying to convince people that my random book of desert scribblings is the accurate account of the creation or purpose of the Universe. At least real scientists admit they don't know what caused the Big Bang, if anything caused it at all.

And what's really funny, is your entirely arbitrary list of characteristics a supposed 'Creative' Force would require. Personal? Why?

You know what's even funnier? Your blatant quote mining and intellectual dishonesty.
1: He goes on to address your 'common sense' claim in the very next paragraph and points out that even if his statement violates common sense, it has evidence to back it up, so common sense can get over it.
2: Didn't find it on the page or any of the five 'Related Questions' on the front page, don't feel like looking for it.
3: The Page admits this is a purely mathematical idea without evidence, an interesting hypothesis that still needs to be tested, so grow som patience.
4: In this case, the entire sentance is fully explained in the paragraph it is contained in and those above it where it again states that, even if this is counter-intuitive, it is what the evidence suggests is at least possible, so common sense can shove off.
5: Seriously? This one is just too blatant. Hey Everyone, you see that "..."? That is his placeholder for the ENTIRE 10 PAGE PAPER. Truly, Quote Mining is your Art My Good Sir.
6: You once again miss the point. You know what, I'm going to collect this point;

It does Not matter if Common Sense or you quaint ideas of Logic deem an idea Nonsense, the Evidence Supports it as at least a possibility, thus; Common Sense can Shove Off. And You, my Good Sir, as I have now demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty with your blatant Quote Mining, can also Please just Shove Off.

*NOTE: This might be an utterly incorrect way of looking at the Colliding Branes Idea, but it sounds cool.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Again, you did

GENESIS wrote:

Again, you did not listen. You cannot possibly posit an infinite series of causes; the universe cannot be eternal. That is clearly no the case. Have you read my domino illustration? Now, maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster was before the big bang, instead of gas and atoms. Even if you had infinite knowledge by chance and told me - "You fool! Atoms and gas were not before the big bang, blood was before the big bang." Again, my premise still stands. Then I will ask, where did the blood come from? Where did THAT come from that created the blood? And then "A" and then "B" and so on. You see the setback here? Here's the stinger. The actuality is, you must posit a starting point, because if you do not, you must posit an infinite series of causes. And of course with an infinite series of causes, you then must posit that the universe is infinite, but if the universe is infinite, then you will never arrive to the present finite time. Now, I hope you can rap your head around that, because this is a very important factor that atheism cannot seem to cross. And even if you say well, scientists don't have the answers yet, and they're trying to figure it out. The actuality is, even if they figured it out, my premise still stands. This, my friend, is the setback of atheism's starting point.

why can god be eternal, but not energy? second no one has ever stated that the universe is eternal, actually the big bang is the kinda the starting area of this universe, before that the universe did not exist, all the energy was in the singularity, it wasn't a universe at all. So your argument about an infinite universe is based on what exactly? Oh and which scientists have made this statement that the universe must have been eternal in the last say 30 years.?

Also what factor that atheism cannot cross? All atheists state is that god doesn't exist, any god or deity or supernatural deity exist. Beyond that, the simple answer to your OP is we don't know and they can leave it at that. No atheist has to believe that science is correct on anything. I think your not understanding what atheism means actually.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Now, Genesis

GENESIS wrote:

Now, I hope you can wrap your head around that, because this is a very important factor that atheism cannot seem to cross.

This is a very important point that no one can cross...

The difference in the cases the 2 sides are making is that we are saying we cannot be sure of anything pre-bang while you are claiming a magic invisible deity is the cause of everything. But sadly for you, this guy must exist outside the reality we exist in and therefore none of us are in any position to comment on it.

Can we bring the debate back to earth? Unless of course, you have some non-philosophical proof we can address with our five senses...

Where are Indeterminate, Bob and Unrepentant when we need robust speculation on the birth of the universe. How dare they take holidays....

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the universe cannot be

Quote:

the universe cannot be eternal

[/quote

 

Says who?  The fact is that we don't know what happened before the BB.  You are claiming that it requires something beforehand.  Why?


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science FreakGold Member
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:The universe.

GENESIS wrote:

The universe. Where did it come from? Why do we exist? What happened? Let us start in the beginning. Let us start with one, big, bang!

 

The big bang theory has an inevitable setback, and if you follow me now, I will show you how. First, scientists say that the big bang theory is when everything was reduced to a singularity. However, this is where the law of physics breakdown, and if the law of physics break down, then this starting point is also not natural. Point two, the law of energy. The big bang caused over a series of energy. However, according to Sir Isaac Newton, energy cannot be brought into existence. Energy cannot cease to exists. You must question where the energy came from. Point three, and here's the punch line. No physical, finite entity explains its own existence. If we were to cut an orange and take it under microscopic study we would end up with the same result; the orange does not explain its own existence. The orange doesn't tell us why it exists; it must find the reason for its existence outside of itself. But we see that the orange came from an orange tree. However, the actuality is, neither does the tree explain its own existence. You end up having to posit a series of causes. Any finite, physical entity needs a cause and is either, caused, self-caused, or caused by another. Caused still questions the reason and self-caused is self-defeating. Hence, we must go back to a state of affairs to explain the existence of every physical entity in this universe. However, even if you were to reduce everything to a singularity, say an atom, you must then question where did the atom came from. Say the "Cosmic Atom" is the entity that went bang and started the rapid expansion of the universe. However, where the cosmic atom come from? Scientist have figured it out! With empirical evidence "A" was before the cosmic atom. Ok, what caused "A" to come into existence? Scientists have figured it out! With empirical, verifiable evidence, "B" was before "A." Ok, what caused "B" to come into existence? And this is the setback that many scientists fail to see. Some scientists will say that "Ah, we don't have the answer yet." But even if they had the answers and the reasons for the cause of every single entity, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes, but you cannot have an infinite series of causes, because, follow me now, if you were to have an infinite series of causes you would never be able to arrive to the present. If you had a domino called "X," and it took an infinite number of dominoes to fall before "X" can fall, you would never have "X" fall. So there must be a starting point alright. Well, what do physicist have to say what was before the big bang? Scientists have went so far as to say that nothing was before the big bang.

“It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.”
- Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Aston University, England [1]

“Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.”
- Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer.” [2]

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing.”
- Scienceline.org [3]

“Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.”
- Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University [4]

“Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.”
- Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist [5]

“Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things—perhaps even the entire universe—can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.”
- Creation ex nihilo—Without God
(1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic [6]

<

[1] http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid
=news&type=anews
[2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364
[3] http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/
[4] http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
[5] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Godless/Origin.pdf
[6] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/
vacuum.html

>

Now wait a minute. Surely this doesn't make any sense. From nothing, nothing comes. Listen to Daniel Dennett in his book "Breaking the Spell." He says that the universe brought itself into existence, also known as the "boot-strapping of the universe." However, surely this suggestions fails as well, because the presupposition of the assertion suggests that there was a time that the universe didn't exists. So the universe would have had to exist prior to its own existence. Surely this doesn't make any sense either. It's a contrariety in terms. Scientists and physicists have realized that the universe cannot be eternal, because again you would have to posit an infinite series of causes for every finite, physical entity. Hence, "nothing" is the only plausible suggestion that can be asserted in any preposition apart from God. Why? Because nothing is eternal, it has no beginning it has no end. And... to add to it. You must posit a being with infinite worth from the moral issues and social issues we see today. The uncaused caused for everything that began to exist must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal. Also known as - God.

 

Hi Genesis,

A few notes regarding your argument:

Per point one, you note that the problem of a singularity is definitive of the inadequacy of the big bang construct. In contemporary string theory, the singularity is described as a point at which the standard laws of physics break down; this is not to imply the singularity (more specifically, Plank era time) is necessarily inscrutable. Rather, it shows that contemporary pictures of the "universe" as being an isolated cosmological event may not bear out as simply as we have posited. 

Per point two, Newtonian physics have been greatly refined in the past century; to quote them as definitive of a universal conception is inadequate. For example, I would submit that the existence of quantum vacuum fluctuations imply that energy is not necessarily a thoroughly time-defined idea. If point-particles can pop into and out of existence provided that the net system gain is zero, perhaps our concept of energy is a bit unrefined. 

Per point three, your argument tends towards the metaphysical conception of the universe vice the admittedly deficient scientific conception. While the anomalies of sub-Plank era physics defy current descriptions, I fail to see how this is an indictment of the generalizations of the Big Bang per se. I would hazard that the true beauty of science is that it does not seek to wallow in self-doubt or uncertainty; instead, it continues to seek answers regardless of panacea-type ointments applied to difficult questions by organized religions. 

At base, it appears you have found a limit to your conceptual understanding of the universe; please understand that this is not an insult- everyone (with the possible exception of Edward Witten) will find this point if they think about the problem. My question to you is: absent a sufficiently comprehensible explanation of gray areas, what is your rationale behind the safe response of "god did it?"

Regards,

UE    


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science FreakGold Member
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Now, I hope you can wrap your head around that, because this is a very important factor that atheism cannot seem to cross.

This is a very important point that no one can cross...

The difference in the cases the 2 sides are making is that we are saying we cannot be sure of anything pre-bang while you are claiming a magic invisible deity is the cause of everything. But sadly for you, this guy must exist outside the reality we exist in and therefore none of us are in any position to comment on it.

Can we bring the debate back to earth? Unless of course, you have some non-philosophical proof we can address with our five senses...

Where are Indeterminate, Bob and Unrepentant when we need robust speculation on the birth of the universe. How dare they take holidays....

 

 

 

My apologies.

I hereby promise that I shall take no further holidays- the word bothers me to some extent, so this is not all that great of a sacrifice. Having said as much, I did not find this particular argument by Genesis to be either original or provocative; I found that many people, when faced with an insurmountable cognitive dissonance tend to revert to the familiar. In the case of Genesis, "god" fulfills this role; for me, it simply means that I need to think more deeply on the subject. I refuse to accept the idea that my intellectual inadequacies may be ameliorated by a nebulous concept replete with rules and suggestions best left to history. 


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:You are an

GENESIS wrote:

You are an embarrassment on the behalf of atheists. You just insult me. But when it comes to intellectual logic and cogent suggestions, I am met with silence.

I'll respond this way -

There is a Nobel Prize in Physics, as you might know. Clearly, you should submit your findings to the Nobel Committee so you can collect your prize. You have clearly proven that God created the universe.

 

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Genesis, as others have

Genesis, as others have pointed out, read up on Quantum Mechanics. 

 

Also, I will argue that your argument is fallacious because it is based entirely on the notion that everything that exists has a cause, and that cause is god.  But in order for god to exist, he too needs a cause.  Your own argument fails if you accept that god does not have a cause, but does exist, because this clearly shows that things that exist may not have a cause.  You now need to show why god is exempt from the argument that proves he exists in the first place. (In case you don't realize it, this means your argument doesn't apply to god and is consequently useless as an argument as to why he exists)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Marquis

stuntgibbon wrote:

Marquis wrote:
 You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

Ooh, I know this one.  Theists won't read.  Really, quite embarrassing for them. 

 

 

I read.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:stuntgibbon

Ciarin wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

Marquis wrote:
 You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

Ooh, I know this one.  Theists won't read.  Really, quite embarrassing for them. 

 

 

I read.

You are an exception and your creation story is cooler.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Marquis

GENESIS wrote:

Marquis wrote:

GENESIS wrote:
If a supernatural being exists, that is spiritual and infinite, then the atheism breaks down.

 

Uh... okay.

If Bugs Bunny exists, then Elmer Fudd better watch out for them carrots!

 

You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

Who's "M-theory?"

 

M theory aka Membrane theory and string theory. Find the box marked Google or Bing and type it in to learn what it is about.

You even referenced Michio Kaku in your OP who specializes in string theory.

 

GENESIS wrote:

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] . . . . .

So, what are you doing, cherry picking without understanding? Using simple theistic arguments you find here and there? If you reference someone as you did with Kaku, you ought to at least know what field he specializes in.  Perhaps you need to learn more about theoretical physics before making assertions as you have just demonstrated you don't have a clue about current theories.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't know the origin of

I don't know the origin of the universe.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Marquis wrote:

GENESIS wrote:
If a supernatural being exists, that is spiritual and infinite, then the atheism breaks down.

 

Uh... okay.

If Bugs Bunny exists, then Elmer Fudd better watch out for them carrots!

 

You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

Who's "M-theory?"

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I will be sure to look up the Membrane Theory.

 

M theory aka Membrane theory and string theory. Find the box marked Google or Bing and type it in to learn what it is about.

You even referenced Michio Kaku in your OP who specializes in string theory.

 

GENESIS wrote:

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] . . . . .

So, what are you doing, cherry picking without understanding? Using simple theistic arguments you find here and there? If you reference someone as you did with Kaku, you ought to at least know what field he specializes in.  Perhaps you need to learn more about theoretical physics before making assertions as you have just demonstrated you don't have a clue about current theories.

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
You have ignored my premise

You have ignored my premise on the infinite series of causes. Tell me, is the universe eternal? If not, then what is it's starting point. Answer me that.

Intent is prior to Content.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:You have

GENESIS wrote:

You have ignored my premise on the infinite series of causes. Tell me, is the universe eternal? If not, then what is it's starting point. Answer me that.

 

You have not clearly stated why there cannot be an infinite series of causes.  You've just repeatedly asserted it.  Also you have not addressed my post.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is nothing in science

There is nothing in science that would present a problem for the idea of a base-level energy field existing indefinitely. Random statistical behaviour is more than adequate for explaining how something can occasionally occur with no apparent cause. Quantum Theory further points to an intrinsic a-casual random element at the base of reality.

There is nothing necessarily 'irrational' about the proposition that Time began at the Big Bang. Although it is obviously counter-intuitive, it is an area beyond our intuitions, which ultimately derive from normal life experience, so they cannot be trusted in such things. Quantum mechanics is totally counter-intuitive, but demonstrably accurately describes some aspects of reality, so informal 'rationality' is not adequate to cope with such ideas, we have to stick to mathematical analysis and rigorous experiment and observation.

Whatever the issues and mysteries of time and origins, there is absolutely nothing pointing to an intentional sentient creator. Such an idea is far more problematic than modern ideas of random processes as in Quantum Mechanics in accounting for why something happens at a particular time, with no apparent cause, as occurs every time a radioactive atom decays.

Moral issues are totally irrelevant to such arguments, since the origins of moral feelings and behaviour are quite adequately addressed by evolution, psychology, cognitive science, etc.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I don't

butterbattle wrote:

I don't know the origin of the universe.

An honest statement.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Are you prepared to make the same admission?

Dragoon wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I don't know the origin of the universe.

An honest statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I don't know the origin of the universe.

An honest statement.

 

Are you prepared to make the same admission?

Absolutely. I may have faith that all things were somehow created by God, but I don't know the origin of it.

I think science has some wonderful adventures in store for us as it explores origins of the universe (the recent two 'hot companions' found by the Kepler for example).


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well Dragoon

Dragoon wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I don't know the origin of the universe.

An honest statement.

 

Are you prepared to make the same admission?

Absolutely. I may have faith that all things were somehow created by God, but I don't know the origin of it.

I think science has some wonderful adventures in store for us as it explores origins of the universe (the recent two 'hot companions' found by the Kepler for example).

 

I wish could discover 2 hot companions. That bastard Kepler has all the luck.

 

P.S. Most theists aren't prepared to acknowledge the unknowable - good for you. What a shame the fog of the bang creates such a big gap for god to sneak in through.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I just noticed the concern

I just noticed the concern of GENESIS about an infinite sequence of causes.

This does not imply an infinity of time unless it is assumed each preceding cause must be greater and occupying longer duration than what it causes.

Since the sum of an infinite  sequence of numbers starting with 1 and reducing by an amount k at each step is equal to 1/(1 - k) where k <= 1.

IOW it is finite.

So an infinite sequence of 'causes' is not necessarily infinite. This is a mathematical truth.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

I wish could discover 2 hot companions. That bastard Kepler has all the luck.

Nah... its a curse. They're how many trillion miles away, and if you touch them your hands would melt

 

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

P.S. Most theists aren't prepared to acknowledge the unknowable - good for you. What a shame the fog of the bang creates such a big gap for god to sneak in through.

We are just human. Human error and pride afflict Christians as much as any other person. There are many things (such as the timing of Christ's return) that we are specifically told we will never know... yet that doesn't stop some Christians from endless silly predictions about it. I love my brothers and sisters, but that doesn't mean that they don't annoy me sometimes.