|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the evidence may never be found. Not entirely sure what you're shooting at with that statement, but I've been at the point you refer to for a considerable period of time.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Shadow71 writes: The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing. For that, you'll have to learn some physics. It's well above my pay grade. Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
There is no point in time, in the Big Bang Theory, where the Universe does not exist. That is, the Universe exists at every point in time. So there never is a "nothing" for the Universe to be created out of. Is there a theory of what existed pre Big Bang and how it came into existence?I'm serious, I would like to read some papers on that issue.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Is there a theory of what existed pre Big Bang and how it came into existence? Not within the Big Bang Theory.
I'm serious, I would like to read some papers on that issue. You can check out colliding branes:
Here's some wiki links: Brane cosmology - WikipediaEkpyrotic universe - Wikipedia
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thanks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle writes:
But this is not a physics question; it is a philosophy question. And Hawking, like Dawkins, has rejected philsophy as a valid field of knowledge. So he is not equipped to answer the question.
For that, you'll have to learn some physics. It's well above my pay grade. Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. John Lennox writes: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God ...According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.' ... But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.... Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Lennox' full reply here. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
But this is not a physics question; it is a philosophy question.
No it isn't. Your question is purely theological from start to finish, as is that of Lennox.
Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? If this is philosophy, then philosophy ought to be rejected. "Who put it there?" is just question begging And insisting that there must be a "creative force" is the same kind of non-argument.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
kbertshe writes: But this is not a physics question; it is a philosophy question. And Hawking, like Dawkins, has rejected philsophy as a valid field of knowledge. So he is not equipped to answer the question. Philosophy has failed to answer the question of why there's something rather than nothing for thousands of years - all it could do was insert a thing that had previously been called God when it couldn't deduce further. (Gods all the way down?) Now science is having a go at it. But I'm not convinced science is answering exactly the same question - is a quantum vacuum the same as a philosopher's nothing? Is gravity God? Buggered if I know.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
John Lennox writes: But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? It seems as if John Lennox is quite a sloppy thinker. Why specifically a "who"? Why not a "what" or "lots of who's" or lots of "what's"? I mean, the Cango caves were formed by lots of natural processes. Lots of "what's". No "who's" involved anywhere. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: If this is philosophy, then philosophy ought to be rejected. "Who put it there?" is just question begging And insisting that there must be a "creative force" is the same kind of non-argument. If some God or Gods exist, who put those Gods there? And those? And those? You're right, it's question begging and a non-argument. If philosophers do that, then philosophy ought to be rejected.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If philosophers do that, then philosophy ought to be rejected. Just to be clear, I don't think that philosophy ought to be rejected. What I do think is that Feynman was right about scientist opining non-scientific things.
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Images such as this confirm the majesty of my belief. Well isn't that some inflated ego type shit. - Oni
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
I think we can spend a few posts taking apart John Lennox's opinion, and others have done so. I'll just add a few points.
First:
According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The problem I see is that the laws of physics accurately measure reality. We can make predictions using them and test to see if they're confirmed. Like with the new evidence for inflation. However, the "will of God" is simply a reference to the desires of a mythical concept. So to suggest that "the laws of physics provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being" is just the philosophical musings of Hawking, and not a statement based on actual evidence, is flat out wrong. Even if the evidence isn't fully complete yet. Also:
What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a terrible analogy. The main difference between God and Sir Frank Whittle is the is evidence of Frank's existence. So Hawking isn't confusing law with agency because there is no evidence for any agent to consider. All he is saying is that there is no need to imagine anything else to explain the universe when the laws of physics provide plenty of evidence for how the universe came to be. - Oni
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'll jump on:
quote: Every single thing that we have evidence for that can be categorized with the pronoun "who" requires gravity to exist already for them to exist. So anything that could exist before gravity, cannot fall under the pronoun "who".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
I don't object to this, and neither does Lennox. He would agree completely with what you've said.
John Lennox writes:
The problem I see is that the laws of physics accurately measure reality. We can make predictions using them and test to see if they're confirmed. Like with the new evidence for inflation. According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. onifre writes:
Says you; note that you are making a philosophical, non-scientific claim.
However, the "will of God" is simply a reference to the desires of a mythical concept. onifre writes:
No, this position of Hawking's has a number of philosophical problems, one of which is reductionism. Even if the laws of physics can provide a good, true, description of the mechanism by which life came into being, to say that this is the real explanation goes too far. It implies that this is the only, and the complete, explanation for the question.
So to suggest that "the laws of physics provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being" is just the philosophical musings of Hawking, and not a statement based on actual evidence, is flat out wrong. Even if the evidence isn't fully complete yet. onifre writes:
This is a very good analogy to show the error of reductionism. The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture. Natural law describes the mechanism which is at work, but nothing more. In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative. It describes mechanism, not agency. John Lennox writes:
That is a terrible analogy. The main difference between God and Sir Frank Whittle is the is evidence of Frank's existence. So Hawking isn't confusing law with agency because there is no evidence for any agent to consider. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. Many scientists who do not think deeply enough about these things tend to conflate these various concepts. They tend to view natural law as not only a descriptive mechanism (which is all we can definitively say about it from science), but also as a causative agent (which is a philosophical, non-scientific claim). However, there is absolutely no scientific support for this conflation. It is a conflation which, in essence, turns natural law into a god."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024