Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Before the Big Bang
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 311 (317369)
06-03-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
02-16-2005 6:39 PM


quote:
Why do the people who believe in God have worse real actions in spite of their supposed better real beliefs?
I don't believe this. Some, yes, but anyone can wear sheep's clothing, hiding the fangs underneath. If the fruit is bad the tree is bad. How can a good tree bring forth bad fruit? If we see the nettles, it just isn't a plum tree. Even if there is a little sign on the plants saying 'plum tree'. Even if they teach in scool that it is a plum tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2005 6:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

DivineBeginning
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-16-2006


Message 122 of 311 (366393)
11-27-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
11-20-2004 2:09 PM


Re: Things in common
How do you know that what you have faith in or believe to be true isn't just in your head?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 11-20-2004 2:09 PM sidelined has not replied

ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6181 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 123 of 311 (396071)
04-18-2007 7:56 PM


Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
I don't understand it. Scientists say that things cannot be created nor distroyed. They then turn around and say that we came from nothing.
If you trace it all the way back, there had to be a beginning of physical matter. For example: "Oh...we came from minute particles." Well then where did those particles come from?.....and where did we come from that? .....and that? Eventually they are going to run out of thier answers.. Where are we going to turn if not to a creator? Something cannot come from nothing. It is even mathematically impossible. For example, does 0+0=1,000? NO!! I believe that there was in fact a creator.

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 04-18-2007 8:10 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 125 by anglagard, posted 04-18-2007 8:16 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 04-19-2007 6:33 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 311 (396078)
04-18-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:56 PM


Where did you learn all this?
I don't understand it. Scientists say that things cannot be created nor distroyed. They then turn around and say that we came from nothing.
If you trace it all the way back, there had to be a beginning of physical matter. For example: "Oh...we came from minute particles." Well then where did those particles come from?.....and where did we come from that? .....and that? Eventually they are going to run out of thier answers.. Where are we going to turn if not to a creator? Something cannot come from nothing. It is even mathematically impossible. For example, does 0+0=1,000? NO!! I believe that there was in fact a creator.
Can you show where science says something came from nothing?
The big bang only talks about the development of the universe from a point a small fraction of a second after the origin of space-time. It does not know what kicked that off or what was "before". The particles came from energy well after the big bang. Do you know what the total net energy content of the universe is today?
Do you understand that, in fact, we dedect particles coming from nothing now?
It is a bad idea to make such strong statements when you have clearly not attempted to learn anything about the actual cosmology and physics involved.
It might be better if you started off with things like:
"I've been told that.... by this source ...."
You might be wise then to learn not to be so trusting of that source when you find out you have been deliberately (it appears) lied to by that source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:56 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2007 3:43 PM NosyNed has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 125 of 311 (396083)
04-18-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
AA writes:
I don't understand it. Scientists say that things cannot be created nor distroyed. They then turn around and say that we came from nothing.
Where does it say scientists believe matter was created from nothing? According to my understanding, the 'big bang' is the point where no properties of the universe can be known prior to the singularity point.
What scientists are saying is 'we don't know' or even 'we cant know because no observations can be made due to the physical laws of this universe.'
I don't know of any scientist that says matter that resulted from the expansion of the universe after the singularity point 'came from nothing.'
If you are going to criticize science as false, you should know what science says first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:56 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2007 11:20 PM anglagard has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 126 of 311 (396312)
04-19-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
04-18-2007 8:10 PM


Re: Where did you learn all this?
Do you understand that, in fact, we dedect particles coming from nothing now?
I think it easiest if I quote cavediver:
cavediver writes:
The Casimir Effect, virtual particles, vacuum/quantum fluctuations... none of these are an example of something from nothing, despite what popular science may say.
All are "simple" features of the underlying quantum fields. In fact, the Casimir Effect precisely proves that even in its vacuum state, a quantum field cannot possibly be regarded as "nothing".
Message 103

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 04-18-2007 8:10 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2007 4:52 PM Modulous has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 127 of 311 (396339)
04-19-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Modulous
04-19-2007 3:43 PM


Thanks for the reminder, Mod
Thanks Mod. You are, of course, (or CD is) right.
However, a quantum field looks a lot like nothing compared to stars and planets and even atoms. Maybe I oversimplified too much (and forgot as well).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2007 3:43 PM Modulous has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 128 of 311 (396362)
04-19-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
ArchArchitect
Scientists say that things cannot be created nor distroyed
Not things but a property of things known as mass. To be correct we should say mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed since the nature of mass/energy is that it is conserved in all the changes nature undergoes.
Something cannot come from nothing
So where did your creator come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 7:56 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 7:14 PM sidelined has replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 129 of 311 (396983)
04-23-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by sidelined
04-19-2007 6:33 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
Here is a more scientific approach to the big bang.
In order for some thing to happen (like the big bang) you need equations. Equations to tell it what size it will be, what the constants will be, how many equations, how big, What the equations include, the forces required to expand space, the relationship between gravity and time, etc.
Only two possible conclusions exist.
1) An eternal self sustaining being exists which designed the equations and the whole system we observe today or...
2) Nothing exists.
Any other conclusion, and you believe in a choatic universe where nothing can be predictted, but random events happen and stop happening. In other words, you believe something that is not observed today. You believe a lie. For scientists can only work on the idea that we live in an ordered universe and can make predictions.
So where did your creator come from?
Good question, if you believe He came from somewhere. But to say God has an origin is an oxymoron (a.k.a. contradiction). This is saying God is not eternal. Therefore you stopped talking about God when you talk about His cause. Instead you started talking about a creation event instead of the Eternal Creator.
Here,
Where did this god come from which created the heavens and the earth?
Well, this god was created by a super god (more powerful than the one he created).
This super god was created by a super-super god etc... to infinite super god.
An easier and something that makes more sense is to talk about this Infinite God, and get rid of all the in between super gods....
So This is our God. Infinite and self sustaining.
But I am sure you will now say that this universe is infinite and self sustaining and no need of a creator.
Fair enough. Except you place all design on random chance collisions which unsupervised gives rise to information, laws governing the universe, life as we know it. In other words.. randomness producess non-random information (equations, dna etc). An absurd contradiction. Not only that, but everything observed today, including me typing this message, is just a consequence of interactions of atoms that can be traced back to the "beginning" of the big bang and time.
And yet, scientist say you cannot talk about before this "time". I can. For we KNOW that before this event, equations existed to make all this happen, outside of time. Why do we know this? well, the other idea is that it all happened out of nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 04-19-2007 6:33 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 04-23-2007 7:27 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2007 10:27 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 04-25-2007 5:51 PM Reserve has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 130 of 311 (396984)
04-23-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Reserve
04-23-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
In order for some thing to happen (like the big bang) you need equations.
Sorry but that is just nonsense and only makes Christians look stupid. Is that your goal?
Things happen whether there are equations to explain it or not.
Only two possible conclusions exist.
1) An eternal self sustaining being exists which designed the equations and the whole system we observe today or...
2) Nothing exists.
Yet again with trying to make Christians look stupid?
Equations are nothing more than our human created shorthand that we use to try to help explain what happened.
Your first premise is just plain nonsense, and the second is like unto it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 7:14 PM Reserve has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 311 (397023)
04-23-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Reserve
04-23-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
In order for some thing to happen (like the big bang) you need equations.
That's retarded.
Equations come after the thing happens.
We know that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s after they have fallen, they don't fall at that rate because of the equation.
What were you trying to say?
For scientists can only work on the idea that we live in an ordered universe and can make predictions.
That's reatarded too.
Scientists can work because we live in an ordered universe and can make predictions.
And yet, scientist say you cannot talk about before this "time". I can.
Can you also answer the question:
quote:
What is north of the Noth Pole?
Because that's the metaphor for the beginning of time. It is a point on a sphere, not a line, and there is nothing before it (accoding to modern science){nor north of it}.
For we KNOW that before this event, equations existed to make all this happen, outside of time.
Dude... the equations didn't exist before we approximated them. They are our creation. They didn't exist before we wrote them down.
Why do we know this? well, the other idea is that it all happened out of nothing.
Look, I beleive in God too. But yall are going about this the wrong way. You can't fight science to prove god. God relies on faith. A faith that requires proof is no faith at all.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added signature

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 7:14 PM Reserve has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 132 of 311 (397377)
04-25-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Reserve
04-23-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
Reserve
Good question, if you believe He came from somewhere. But to say God has an origin is an oxymoron (a.k.a. contradiction). This is saying God is not eternal. Therefore you stopped talking about God when you talk about His cause. Instead you started talking about a creation event instead of the Eternal Creator.
We have not determined and you have not shown that God is eternal. You say that God had no beginning yet also state that something cannot come from nothing. Since having no beginning is equivalent to "coming from nothing" then we are shown to be observing a case of special pleading on your behalf here aren't we?
Since we cannot ever reach a point in the past where God {according to your statement} did not exist then this is equivalent to saying he never existed at all. Any point in time where you can say he exists means that he has arrived there from some past point which he cannot do since we cannot show a point in time from which he could have started in order to arrive at any given point along eternity.

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Reserve, posted 04-23-2007 7:14 PM Reserve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Reserve, posted 04-25-2007 7:49 PM sidelined has not replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 133 of 311 (397394)
04-25-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by sidelined
04-25-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
How can I show God is eternal?
God is eternal by definition, not because I have shown it to you.
Likewise, I am not asking you to show me how before time cannot exist. But you are telling me that it cannot because that the definition of before time is meaningless. I agree with your definition of time and that there is no time before this.
But if you talk about God not being eternal, you have a different definition, and of course we will be on a different page.
You say that God had no beginning yet also state that something cannot come from nothing
Those two statements are not the same, something coming from nothing is not saying the same thing as something ALWAYS there. Since time is related to matter, and God not being matter. Maybe its more accurate to say that God exists outside of time, since God created time with matter "In the beginning God created..." instead of saying God existed before time.
Likewise, instead of saying before the beginning of time (before the big bang) we should say, outside of the beginning of the Big Bang was what???
So something has to exist outside of this time/matter relationship to set this time/big bang in motion.
Since having no beginning is equivalent to "coming from nothing"
Not true. Coming from nothing implies not existing and then existing. We can logically put this into two events, where existing is a beginning to that existance. We can even talk about the "before" this event, namely, not existing. Even though talking about "before" time makes no sense, we can talk about the "before" of an event.
God had no event before His existance, He just exists. He exists outside of time.
Now, when talking about the big bang and its beginning, we can talk about before its existence. We can say, it did not exist before time and matter existed. Two conclusions come from this;
1. Since we had nothing before something, it either came out of nothing or
2. Something exists outside of time and matter and put time and matter in motion.
Since we cannot ever reach a point in the past where God {according to your statement} did not exist then this is equivalent to saying he never existed at all
Your logic is baffling, how can something equal not existing by always having an existance?? Maybe you meant this:
because we cannot reach a point in the past where God did not exist, then this is equivalent to saying that this point never existed at all. This is true.
Edited by Reserve, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 04-25-2007 5:51 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by numnuts, posted 06-20-2007 6:50 PM Reserve has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 311 (397441)
04-25-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by anglagard
04-18-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
anglagard writes:
What scientists are saying is 'we don't know' or even 'we cant know because no observations can be made due to the physical laws of this universe.'
By the same token we creationists can't explain how the supreme designer/creator from whom all energy comes has eternally existed. At least our hypothesis leaves no problem with 1LoT which states that no energy is created or destroyed.
Abe: And btw, doesn't your statement strongly imply that your BB theory is not falsifyable and therefore not scientific? Don't you people keep telling us creos that unless our hypothesis is falsifyable it's not scientific, or have I got that wrong?
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by anglagard, posted 04-18-2007 8:16 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by anglagard, posted 04-26-2007 8:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 135 of 311 (397601)
04-26-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Buzsaw
04-25-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Big Bang = Big Contradiction?
Buzsaw writes:
By the same token we creationists can't explain how the supreme designer/creator from whom all energy comes has eternally existed. At least our hypothesis leaves no problem with 1LoT which states that no energy is created or destroyed.
If the 1LoT states energy can't be created then it violates E=mc2.
Are you not sure it is your understanding of the 1LoT that violates E=mc2?
Upthread there are explanations as to the current and possibly eternal unknowability of what happened before or what caused the singularity, even why it may be difficult to say what was before, what is outside, or what created spacetime.
Some have even suggested the question has no meaning, similar to the question, "who were god's parents?" may have for you.
Abe: And btw, doesn't your statement strongly imply that your BB theory is not falsifyable and therefore not scientific? Don't you people keep telling us creos that unless our hypothesis is falsifyable it's not scientific, or have I got that wrong?
First, it's not 'my' theory as I had no role in creating it and it is a disparaging moniker first used by the detractor Fred Hoyle.
There is evidence used in support of various models of cosmology and some previous models have fallen into disrepute because they were not supported by the evidence. But as you should know by now, that is how science works.
Maybe God said "let there be light" and science explains what happens after to those who are curious and can deal with a higher level of uncertainty as opposed to others who are obviously uncomfortable with uncertainty, curiosity, and perhaps even 'knowing' God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2007 11:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024