Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

Here we go again, ICANT. You're so desperate to be able to say science and faith are the same thing, aren't you.Nothing in cosmology or any other field of science is based on faith.In Big Bang cosmology, there is a point prior to which we know very little with any degree of certainty because our classical models break down mathematically.Your position is that we take everything, even the existence of the Universe, prior to that point on faith. But we do know just a few scant details about the period between T=0 and T=10^-43. We know that the Universe exists in some way - time is a component of the Universe, so it's utter nonsense to say that the Universe might not exist until a fraction of a second into the time dimension of the Universe. That's like saying the Earth might not exist beyond a given latitude. We also know the trend that the Universe follows for every moment leading all the way back to T=10^-43: as you approach T=0, the Universe is smaller, hotter, and more dense. It is a reasonable, logical inference from that evidence to say "we don't really know much about the state of the Universe prior to T=10^-43 other than that it was hotter, denser, and smaller than at T=10^-43."You realize that the reason the math breaks down is because the Universe prior to T=1-^-43 was too hot, too dense, and too small for us to model with current math, right? We have to know it was hotter and denser and smaller even for the math to break down.Now, is it possible that the Universe prior to T=10^-43 suddenly alters, and that as we approach T=0 from that point the Universe expands? Not according to the evidence we do have. But then, that's why even when we say that we "know" something, it's still tentative pending additional information. That's the point of science - we change our models, even to the point of throwing them out completely, based on evidence. We don't change our models without evidence that they are inaccurate.We aren't taking anything on faith, ICANT, because we are only putting forth reasonable, logical inferences based on the evidence we do have. We aren't claiming to be positively correct about any of it, we are saying "from the evidence we posses, this is what looks most likely." This educated guess is based on evidence - and as such, it is not faith.The other big part you're missing is the "We don't really know with any degree of certainty." We're making educated guesses and reasonable inferences based on what evidence we posses, but we're prefacing that with "but we really don't know for sure because our math breaks down." As others have pointed out, it's hardly a statement of faith to say "I really don't know."You seem to think that even making rational educated guesses and logical inferences based on limited evidence involves taking the conclusions on faith. This is not the case, because those conclusions are still based on evidence. Nobody ever said that our conclusions based on limited evidence need to be correct. When we have a model that has proven to be extremely accurate, it is in fact the opposite of faith to infer that the same model can be used to make a reasonable inference for those points for which we have little evidence.The position of science is this: "We don't really know much. The trend leading back to T=10^-43 is that, as you move backwards in time, the Universe becomes smaller, hotter, and more dense. Prior to that point, the Universe under this model is so small, hot, and dense, that the model stops working. So it looks like the Universe was even hotter, smaller, and denser moving back, continuing the same trend, but the conditions were so exotic that the math stops working. Really, we need some more experimental evidence to shed some light here, because we're honestly just making educated guesses in the dark based on the little we do have information about."Are you really of the opinion that such a position is based on faith?

I think the problem is that ICANT is stuck on the word "proof" in the definition.ICANT, do you think we mean "a belief that has been proven?" Because that's much different from "a belief based on proof." We are led to our conclusions regarding the Big Bang by objective evidence. That means those conclusions are "based on proof." That does not mean those conclusions have been proven.Faith can involve subjective evidence, that which is only valid for an individual, but never involves objective evidence. That's why we say faith is defined as "beliefs not based on proof." The basis of faith is not objective evidence. The basis of all science is objective evidence.The state of the Universe has not been proven for between T=0 and T=10^-43, but then, we never claimed it was. We said "we don't really know, becasue when we follow the evidence we do have, the model stops working. But continuing the trend backwards, it looks like it was even smaller, even denser, and even hotter as you continue to approach T=0." That's not a statement of faith, ICANT. That's not a statement of certainty, or a claim of having proven anything. It is, however, a statement based around the objective evidence we do have available.

We have evidence that the Universe exists after T=0. It is perfectly logical to conclude from that objective, observable evidence that it is highly likely "something" also exists at T=0.We're saying "we're not entirely sure, but from what we know, we think it might be this."That's not a statement of faith, ICANT.A statement of faith would be "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that the Christian God created the Universe."A similar statement of faith with exactly the same amount of objective evidence would be "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that the Universe was assembled from spongecake by 100 giant supernatural kittens."A similar statement of faith with exactly the same amount of objective evidence and the same amount of subjective evidence would be "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that the Muslim god Allah created the Universe." Or "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that Kronos created the Universe." (Insert religious creation myth here.)The only thing we're saying with any real degree of certainty is that the Universe exists between T=0 and T=10^-43. This is a logical necessity - time is a component of the Universe. Suggesting otherwise is like saying the Universe may not have existed at a point where matter exists - since matter is also a component of the Universe, such a statement is nonsense. Time is just one of the corrdinates that identify locations in the Universe. The period between T=0 and T=10^-43 is a segment of the Universe.We're saying that, for that particular segment of the Universe, we don't really know much about what conditions were like, because the conditions we do have information about become so exotic that the models stop working. We can say "it looks like it was even hotter, even denser, and even smaller." That is a very tentative educated guess based on the very limited evidence we have - and since it's based on evidence, it is not a statement of faith.

How surprising - the same exact misconception that you demonstrated three threads ago. You'll note that I explained in greater detail in the same exact post you just quoted, but you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just ignored it.Time is part of the Universe. You cannot possibly have coordinates of time for which the Universe does not exist. It's like saying there is a latitude/longitude where there is no Earth! The coordinates T=0, T=10^-43, T=1, etc, are all locations in one dimension of the Universe. To say that the Universe may not have existed at a coordinate of the Universe itself is pure nonsense. It's like saying there is a place on my body where I don't exist.

It most certainly does matter how they arrived at their numbers. A broken clock is still right twice a day, ICANT. Depending on how one arrives at a conclusion, the model may produce accurate results for one case, and completely inaccurate results for everything else. The mark of a highly accurate model is one that is accurate in accounting for all available evidence.But perhaps you could enlighten us - how exactly is the dynamical equilibrium model more accurate than the Big Bang model? In your own words please, not cut-n-pastes. See, you don't even understand the Big Bang, or what a singularity is, so I have sever doubts that you comprehend any of the other physics literature that you're reading, either.While you've not cut-n-pasted a few scant paragraphs of the article you're referring to without putting anything in your own words, I still don't see an explanation of how, exactly, these predictions are more accurate than those of the Big Bang model. Please illuminate us, ICANT. Until you can show, in your own words and with the article as support, that the numbers arrived at by the "dynamical equilibrium" model are more accurate in predicting the CMB than Big Bang cosmology (which would require posting the numbers arrived at by the "DE" supporters, the numbers actually measured for the CMB, and the numbers arrived at using the Big Bang model for comparison), you're just blowing hot air.And why does nearly every cosmological physicist support the Big Bang model if there is another, more accurate model available? Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy? The peer review process and the scientific method are designed specifically to ensure that inaccurate models are discarded in favor of more accurate models. Why would the overwhelming majority of physicists continue to use a less accurate model when the only result will be ever more inaccurate conclusions in the field of cosmology?And why would you, of all people, argue against the Big Bang? I thought it was your opinion that the Big Bang model is in perfect agreement with Genesis 1:1, while the dynamical equilibrium model is not.Methinks that, as t4c said, you're just trying to be difficult.

Irrelevant. It's not our job to do your homework for you. You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you to support it. Then you've done nothing. A single article is meaningless in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. I note that you're only willing to take "the expert's word for it" when the experts agree with you. How convenient. You won't accept cavediver's or Son Goku's word regarding the Big Bang, but you'll accept this article despite not being able to tell us what it says in your own words rather than a copy/paste, simply becasue it lets you say "see? the Big Bang isn't the only possible explanation, so you take it on faith!" I'm not a cosmologist. When alternative models are proposed that prove to be more accurate than existing models, those in the field do tend to hear about it.But then, if you did even a cursory investigation of your source (the scientific journal Apeiron), you would have seen this:

quote:

---

Apeiron is applying a peer review system involving internationally established researchers, most of whom, however, cannot be regarded as mainstream. Apeiron has become a forum for "dissident" researchers and opinions not accepted by the conventional system, mostly on the plea of speculation and fringe science. Apeiron has had notable contributions from authors involved in the early work of quantum mechanics and relativity such as JP Vigier.

​

Apeiron is not indexed by the Web of Science abstract and citation database.

---

Emphasis mine. This is not a mainstream scientific journal. Its publications should be taken with a grain of salt, at best. I'll look around as I get more time and see how "fringe" they actually get with their science.Simply put, ICANT, this article you managed to find has zero credibility in the face of near-universal scientific concensus. In other words you are just trying to be difficult.Your only topic-oriented point here has to be "since there are competing models to explain the state of the Universe, and since I have found one that claims to be more accurate in predicting the CMB than the Big Bang model, you all must be taking the Big Bang model on faith."That position is false. Even if you were correct with regards to a competing model that results in greater accuracy than the Big Bang model, the Big Bang model is still based entirely on available evidence. Whether it's right or not is irrelevant to whether it is based on evidence or based on faith (though I would certainly say that positions based on evidence are infinitely more likely to reflect reality than those based on faith).The Big Bang model of cosmology is based on objective, observable evidence. This means that it is not based on faith. Even if it is proven wrong tomorrow, it is still not based on faith.In order for you to show that a scientific theory is based on faith, you must show that it is not based on objective, observable evidence. To prove that a given theory is not based on faith, all we have to do is show you the observable, objective evidence that lead to the theory and its conclusions. We have done so repeatedly for the Big Bang model. It's obvious at this point to anyone who is not just trying to be difficult that the Big Bang model is based on objective evidence. By any rational definition of the word "faith," the Big Bang model is not a faith-based position.

In other words, you made a logical inference based on the observational evidence you had. You can't say for certain the bullet was fired from a gun - you didn't see the gun. But you have excellent reason to infer that this was the case. You are also not equipped with the means to accurately measure the real speed of the bullet, but you know enough from what you saw to believe that it was probably going pretty damned fast.Likewise, while we can't model T=0 (the gunshot, offscreen), we have some pretty good evidence from after T=0 (the observed bullet) suggesting that it was probably continuing the same trend if you were to model it's path backwards from where you see it (it looks like the Universe was smaller and hotter and denser because that was the trend immediately after T=0).Is any of this based on faith? Not by any sane definition of the term. You're making a logical inference, a model, based on what information you do have.You're just being difficult and arguing out of desperation because you so badly want to say that your evidence-less faith stands on the same ground as a scientific model. It's painfully obvious to the rest of us, ICANT. There's nothing to suggest there was "nothing" at T-0, and a lot to suggest that there was, considering we see the entire universe existing a fraction of a moment later. It's exactly like the bullet - there's nothing to suggest the bullet existed before entering the camera frame, either - or at least nothing different from what suggests there was "something" between T=0 ant T=10^-43. We aren't certain, ICANT, but it's a pretty damned obvious conclusion from the evidence we actually have.

That's an educated guess, as well. Bullets can be molded individually without casings, you know. And then the bullet could have been propelled without the use of a gun.You're making reasonable conclusions about things you cannot be certain of based on the evidence you are provided with. The Big Bang model is the same thing - reasonable conclusions are tentatively drawn based on available evidence. Those conclusions are based on that evidence. That means that they are not based on faith. Saying"from what we do know, it looks like the Unvierse existed in a form we cannot currently describe between T=0 and T=10^-43"is exactly the same as saying"from what I saw in the video screen, it looks like that a bullet was ejected from its casing by igniting the powder in the cartridge"Both are reasonable conclusions based on evidence. Neither involves faith. It's reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence currently available, that it looks like the Unvierse existed, albeit in a state we cannot currently describe, betwen T=0 and T=10^-43. There is currently no reason to assume the Universe did not exist prior to that point and just magically winked into being. We know it exists after T=10^-43. It is reasonable to conclude that it exists immediately prior to that, as well. It's just as reasonable as concluding that the bullet in the video existed off-camera, and that it did not suddenly wink into existence by magic at the exact moment it comes into view. Saying "we don't know, it may have simply existed by itself, or been created, or whatever, we just don't know" is nt a statement of faith. If I have a rock, and I don't know where it came from, do I need faith to tell me that it simply exists? Of course not - it's right in front of me. Do I need faith to conclude that it likely existed a month ago, even if I don't know the state it was in (possibly part of a larger rock, for instance)? No, that's a reasonable, logical inference based on the evidence at hand. Do I need faith to conclude that it is highly unlikely that a magic leprechaun put the rock here when I wasn't looking? No, that would be a compeltely unfounded premise based on nothing but my imagination.Saying "I think it's likely that a supernatural entity for which there is no objective evidence created x" is a statement of faith. There is no eidence.Saying "I don't know how it got here, and I can't really describe it, but here's what looks likely from what I do know" is based on evidence, and is not a statement of faith.

...except for my very next line... Nobody has ever said the Universe was "created by the Big Bang!" Now you really are just being difficult, ICANT. Surely you can see that, when you see that something exists, it very likely existed a moment ago as well? Just like your bullet - isn't it reasonable from the evidence in the video to conclude that the bullet very likely existed before coming into the frame? A 10-year old can see this. You really do take every single opportunity to say "it had to be created," don't you. You love to take analogies farther just to be difficult. This isn't honest debate any more, ICANT. You only know the bullet was created because of additional experiences and observational evidence of other bullets. We have no such information about the Universe. You know full well that you have no objective evidence showing the Universe was created, and you know full well that your comment here isn't even related to the topic. You're just trying to squeeze it in, once again trying to equate your faith-based beliefs with the evidence-based conclusions of science.Why don't you respond to my statements rather than some wild tangent?I'll be really direct, ICANT.What is the difference between these two statements?"The existence of the bullet in the video leads us to conclude that the bullet likely existed a moment prior to entering the frame, even though we cannot see it and do not know for certain from the video its point of origin.""The existence of the Universe at T=10^-43 leads us to conclude that the universe likely existed a moment prior as well, even though we currently lack the ability to model the exact state it was in at that prior moment and cannot tell for certain its origin, or if it even has an origin."Don't respond with more "if the bullet was created, the Universe was created" tangential asshattery. Respond very specifically with what makes those two statements different, or how either one of them is based on faith. Don't just say "it's faith," either. Be very specific and show how either one involves a belief not based on evidence. I'm not even going to respond to this. You aren't practicing honest debate, ICANT - you're spouting barely related off-topic nonsense rather than responding to an actual statement. You're purposefully being difficult and taking analogies farther than they are intended to apply, and you know it.Worst of all, you're trying to argue cosmological theories you do not comprehend, and can't even grasp as you do not posses the mathematical ability to work these ideas through yourself. I cringe every time you bring up Hawking, becasue you don't even posses the prerequisite knowledge to pass physics 101, let alone follow along on one of Hawking's lectures.Your asinine discussions of "imaginary time" aren't even related to the topic. This topic is not about arguing back and forth over Hawkings perspectives on cosmology, or even about trying to teach you the basics, since we've tried that repeatedly and failed.This topic is about whether scientific models of cosmological origins are based on evidence, or based on faith. That's the extent of this topic. Thus far you have failed, miserably in showing that any part of a scientific model is based on faith rather than the available evidence. All you have done so far is ignored various people's comments, instead picking out a particular aspect of an analogy and running away with a tangent you think helps your cause.Respond to people's statements, ICANT, not what you see as more "proof" that the Universe has been created by your deity. Show where, specifically, cosmological models are based on faith, or concede that faith and science are based on wholly different things and cannot be considered the same.If you cannot do even this, then I see no point in anyone continuing to respond to your broken-record "see, it was created!!1!" garbage.

You have not shown how those two statements are different. Both the Big bang model and the bullet video have an unknown origin. Both involve making logical conclusions from limited evidence. Neither involve any statement of faith. Your statements surrounding the bullet are based on your knowledge of objective evidence relating to bullets, but somehow you have an aversion to using exactly the same sort of reasoning as it applies to cosmological models.It is very likely that the Universe exists between T=0 and T=10^-43. My evidence for this conclusion is that the universe exists immediately after T=10^-43. While it is remotely possible that the Universe simply winked into existence at T=10^-43, there is nothing to suggest this, so I conclude that the trend (existence) likely continues into the unknown region.Let's try to be even more simplistic.Situation: Object x is observed over a limited timeframe. Its point of origin is not definitively observed - that is, as observation began, object x existed.Which of these is a likely conclusion? Which conclusions are based on evidence? Which are based on faith?A) Object x existed only for the time observed. Prior to being observed, it did not exist, and it appeared by unknown means at the exact moment the observations began.B) Object x likely existed immediately prior to being observed, though it is possible object x existed in a differnt state than the state observed.C) Object x was likely (certainly?) created by some unknown intelligent entity.D) Object x was created by (insert nonexistent fairytale character here)E) If object x is moving, or has a temperature, it's state immediately preceding observation is very likely similar to its state during the observation. Any trends (acceleration, etc) likely continued prior to the object being observed.

We've been explaining this, in a dozen different ways from a dozen different angles, for some time now. As Percy mentioned, the striking of the target is irrelevant. The point of the video was that you conclude that the bullet exists prior to entering the frame of the video, despite no direct observation.I think this shows once again that you're hung up on the "bang" part of the Big Bang model. As we've told you, a conventional explosion is not comparable to the expansion of the Universe. As we've said before, the term "Big Bang" was originally used mockingly, is not a good, descriptive name of the model, and causes a great deal of confusion for many people, including you. It's unfortunate that the name stuck. If bullets were not in existence prior to the video being made (or rather, if you were ignorant of them), would you conclude that the bullet winked into existence at the very moment it comes into view?If the object were not a bullet, but rather a mysterious object of indeterminate origin, would you conclude that it may not have existed prior to coming into view? Would you have concluded that it was likely at rest immediately prior to coming into view? Would you have concluded that it suddenly makes a 76 degree turn immediately after leaving the camera's view, travels at a completely different speed for exactly three seconds, and then disappears?You would not, unless you're insane. You would still conclude that the mysterious object of indeterminate origin very likely (almost certainly) existed travelling at a similar speed to that observed in the video both slightly before and slightly after your direct observation. Once again you latch onto individual words and completely lose the meaning of a statement becasue the individual words sound like they agree with you. Stop it."May or may not have existed" is a very poor representation of my statement, as is shown by your very own quote. All knowledge is tentative - it's entirely possible that we are all living in the Matrix, or that I'm asleep and you are an unfortunate figment of my masochistic imagination. The likelihood of the Universe not existing at a magic line just before T=10^-43 when we know it does exist at T=10^-43 is roughly the same as the likelihood that I'm about to get a phone call from Morpheus. I wouldn't hold my breath. It's existence isn't what's really called into question, ICANT. It's state is. We can't model the Universe prior to T=10^-43, but we have every reason to believe it's there from the evidence that shows us the Universe exists at T=10^-43. The reason is exactly the same as the reason you know (or should know) that the bullet in the video very likely existed just prior to coming into view.Imagine a ball of clay. You can describe very accurately the shape of the clay while you're observing it. Now put the clay in a box. You can still make very reasonable conclusions about the shape of the clay - it should be very similar to the shape it had when you put it in the box. Now shake the box, vigorously. You can no longer describe the shape - you lack sufficient information to describe the clay...does the clay now magically not exist?That's what you're proposing, ICANT. The Unvierse is the ball of clay. We can describe it very accurately all the way back to T=10^-43. Prior to that, the model breaks down - we don't know enough about the conditions of the Universe to be able to describe it, just as you don't know enough about the ball of clay after it's been shaken in the box. But saying that the Universe didn't exist prior to some magical barrier at T=10^-43 is as ridiculous as saying the clay stopped existing when you shook it. They aren't even remotely comparable. Abiogenesis doesn't involve spontaneous appearance of matter, which is what you're suggesting. Abiogenesis concerns the possible spontaneous rearranging of existant nonliving chemical componds into the state we would identify as "living," which basically just means self-replicating and metabolizing. The only similarity is the word "spontaneous," in which case you could view a trip to the movies as just as effective an analogy.I want to make this as simple as possible, ICANT, so I'm going to repeat my earlier question:Situation: Object x is observed over a limited timeframe. Its point of origin is not definitively observed - that is, as observation began, object x existed.Which of these is a likely conclusion? Which conclusions are based on evidence? Which are based on faith?A) Object x existed only for the time observed. Prior to being observed, it did not exist, and it appeared by unknown means at the exact moment the observations began.B) Object x likely existed immediately prior to being observed, though it is possible object x existed in a differnt state than the state observed.C) Object x was likely (certainly?) created by some unknown intelligent entity.D) Object x was created by (insert nonexistent fairytale character here)E) If object x is moving, or has a temperature, it's state immediately preceding observation is very likely similar to its state during the observation. Any trends (acceleration, etc) likely continued prior to the object being observed.Which of these is a likely conclusion?