Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 211 of 273 (473048)
06-26-2008 5:33 PM


Infinity
Talking about infinity is a lot like talking about god. In practice, we don't know if they exist or what they are supposed to be like. If we stick to the BBT, how would the universe be infinite? Wouldn't nothingness, that was there before the BB, be considered infinity?

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 5:47 PM Agobot has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 273 (473053)
06-26-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Agobot
06-26-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Infinity
Wouldn't nothingness, that was there before the BB,
False.
BB theory does not postulate that nothingness preceded the Big Bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Agobot, posted 06-26-2008 5:33 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 9:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 218 by Agobot, posted 06-27-2008 5:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 213 of 273 (473078)
06-26-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Infinity
Correct. But nor does the term 'nothingness' have any meaning, other than an admission for the motion of a finite universe. Both nothing and no-things are universal concepts - as is the half empty part of a half full cup.
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 8:19 AM IamJoseph has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 273 (473129)
06-27-2008 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
06-26-2008 9:15 PM


Re: Infinity
But nor does the term 'nothingness' have any meaning, other than an admission for the motion of a finite universe.
Oh, I'm sure we could come up with some other meanings than that vague load of made up crap
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness. Both nothing and no-things are universal concepts - as is the half empty part of a half full cup.
But the concepts aren't true tothat actual definition of "nothingness". You can't get to nothingness. There's always something.
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.
Then its not an empty bag, now is it?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Striked misquote (quote #2)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 9:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 9:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 219 by Agobot, posted 06-27-2008 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 215 of 273 (473133)
06-27-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 8:19 AM


THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
NOTHING = NO THINGS.
PERIOD.
Here's why I see genesis not as a theology [the NT & Quran are theologies, namely based on belief], while Genesis is science - which does not mean it has to subscribe to all the science of the day, any period - instead, it is 'A' science - one with a different scientific premise. Buddhism is not a theology but a philosophy, while I cannot define Hinduism.
Now we do not have a scientific premise of nothingness or a pre-uni scenario - so Genesis does not go against science in this instant, but posits a different view, while no view is provable about the universe origins; even BBT is only a theory. But as theories, where logic and no contradictions with known science counts, then Genesis wins the day on what prevailed pre-uni, as well as what defines nothingness. Genesis' opening verse says:
'IN THE BEGINNING GOD/CREATOR'
Not provable you say? I already preambled that fact, and instead will rely on logic relating to this non-provable premise, logic being a form of science in itself, or its absolute forerunner requirement. The Q here is, why is a Creator positation logical in this opening statement in Genesis? First thing is to forget the premise of theology and think science, or else, at least logic, and that which does not contradict known science - I believe this is a reasonable scientific methodology.
Firstly, we have no scientific knowledge or proven position of a pre-uni scenario. Secondly, the premise of a beginning point [BB] does not even begin to explain the universe, raising questions such as how can a complexity result from a random or of its own or from chaos or what triggered the activation of the first point particle? A fristrating vaccuum confronts us here.
Now one can say, yes but nor does a verse in Genesis relieve this vaccuum. Let's examine that again. Genesis is saying before the universe there was not NOTHING, but a Creator - and that there was nothing else [it is a pre-uni statement, appearing before the word CREATED occurs]. This statement is not as naive as one may think - for a start it introduces that the universe had a beginning, namely it is the first positation of a finite universe, and correctly contexted in the formation of the universe, namely the heavens [galaxies] and the earth. That is 100% science today.
Then the premise that there was no nothingness but only a creator, is also 100% science: all things are post-uni in a finite universe - thus no things contained in this universe could exist pre-uni, including para- and multi-V universes. Real science and logic.
Then that enigmatic question, how does this point more logically to a Creator creating the universe, as opposed to everything just acculumatively progressing on its own. My answer:
EXCUSE ME! Since when is a creator creating a complex realm, LESS LIKELY than that realm occuring by itself - we need a verb [action] and an actioner [subject] - whatever happened to logic and science suddenly?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 8:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 216 of 273 (473139)
06-27-2008 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by IamJoseph
06-26-2008 3:25 PM


Re: Unchanging
Anything subject to change must be finite.
No. This is exactly what you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate. You are just asserting it again.
You can logically argue that the unchanging and static must be infinite. Fine. I have no problem with that.
But there remains no basis for your assertion that things subject to change must be finite.
One does not lead to the other. Your logic remains flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by IamJoseph, posted 06-26-2008 3:25 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 10:58 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 217 of 273 (473142)
06-27-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by IamJoseph
06-27-2008 9:23 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
Genesis is science?
BBT is only a theory. They are both just points of view etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Science tests it's conclusions regarding nature against the facts of nature. Predictions about physical phenomenon are made and verified or refuted.
If you produce one verifiable prediction regarding an as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of your "Genesis science" I will dedicate my life to God.
If you cannot produce any verifiable predictions then your "Genesis science" just isn't science.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 9:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 10:08 PM Straggler has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 218 of 273 (473198)
06-27-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2008 5:47 PM


Re: Infinity
Agobot writes:
Wouldn't nothingness, that was there before the BB,
Catholic Scientist writes:
False.
BB theory does not postulate that nothingness preceded the Big Bang.
Hehe, game of words. What was there before the Big Bang? If there was something and you know what it is - let us know about it. If there was nothing, then we can conclude there didn't exist anything, hence there was nothingness. That's as far as I can grasp the idea of nothingness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 219 of 273 (473199)
06-27-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by New Cat's Eye
06-27-2008 8:19 AM


Re: Infinity
IamJosif writes:
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then its not an empty bag, now is it?
Wrong. 0+0=0. Nothing+nothing=nothing. Empty+empty=empty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 8:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 9:53 PM Agobot has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 273 (473225)
06-27-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
06-13-2008 12:57 PM


BB Theory/Evolution Of The Universe?
Straggler writes:
BB Theory
The crux of the BB position being that the universe has evolved, and continues to evolve, from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state as evidenced by -
# Observed ongoing expansion of the universe
# Specific measured verification of CMB
# Abundance of light elements as required as a direct logical consequence of BB theory.
If the universe has allegedly evolved how does that go with 2LoT. My understanding is that increased entropy and 2LoT naturally tends towards disorder.
Merriam Webster: Evolution
1 a : a process of change in a certain direction; especially : a process of constant change from a lower or simple state to a higher or complex state : GROWTH b : something evolved
2 : the process of working out or developing

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 06-13-2008 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 7:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 221 of 273 (473228)
06-27-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Buzsaw
06-27-2008 7:27 PM


Re: BB Theory/Evolution Of The Universe?
We have discussed entropy before and it was obvious then that you have no understanding of the concept beyond the sort of misinformation posted on creationist sites regarding life, death, decay, order and development.
Entropy arguably has some very interesting things to say about all of these things and other intriguing areas such as the nature of time. However to even begin to grasp why this is you need to uderstand what entropy is in terms of energy. The physics of simple energy transfer may not ge as sexy as discussing cosmological evolution but there is absolutely no point discussing entropy in cosmological terms with you unless you have a grasp of these basic concepts.
Do you understand, for example, how the sun and your reliance on it as an energy source can be described in terms of simple energy transfers and the minor but increasing entropy of the universe these cause? Can you describe the energy source and the energy transfers involved that allow you to lift a box (for example) in your own words?
Can you explain why a hot cup of water placed in a perfectly sealed room would temporarily reduce the entropy of the room? Can you explain in simple thermodynamic terms how the entropy of the room would subsequently increase until maximum entropy was eventually reached? Can you explain how this relates to incresing disorder of the room?
If you cannot get the concept and practical implications of energy transfer and entropy in terms of these simple examples there is no hope of applying such concepts to an expanding universe.
Where exactly do you think BBT contradicts the 2ndLOT in terms of energy?
Forget your concepts and dictionary definitions of development, complexity etc. etc. for one moment (we can come back to those if you can demonstrate a basic understanding).
If you cannot express your objections in terms of energy then frankly there is no point having this discussion until you have learnt something about energy transfer and entropy from a basic physics text book rather than a creationist website.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2008 7:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 06-27-2008 9:38 PM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 222 of 273 (473242)
06-27-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Straggler
06-27-2008 7:56 PM


Re: BB Theory/Evolution Of The Universe?
Entropy is an effect, not a cause. The effect would not occur without critical factors applying: e.g. reciprocity and intergration factors: these are anticipatory and rely on pre-determined criticality factors.
The sun's energy is not what makes life possible. Photosenthesis, for example, requires the other product it impacts to be receptive to it: that is why the sun cannot create life upon iron ore or other planets. You are confusing a creative factor with the created process; the former must subsist before the latter can: holding a white paper high in the air does not make the car manual the end point of a car.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 7:56 PM Straggler has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 223 of 273 (473244)
06-27-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Agobot
06-27-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Infinity
quote:
Wrong. 0+0=0. Nothing+nothing=nothing. Empty+empty=empty.
And what happens when there is no '0'? Nothing is not zero, but no-things; and all things are uni contained - including no-things. This enigmatic premise is well catered to in the notion all things began with a duality factor; in fact this says there is no 'ONE' in the universe. Track down all things and you find it is a combination of at least a duality - namely a positive and negative force, and no where can any one of those forces subsist in the universe independently or as ONE.
This is the reason particles either attract or repel each other, and levels seek their uniform balance - these are effects of fundamental designs within the deepest realms of the universe. One has to agree with the position prior to the universe [namely, all things], there was ONE - as opposed no things/nothingness. Nothingness is a subjective posiion, meaning it is limited to what one can fathom, discern, calculate, measure, see or contain in their vocab. And this means only that there is ONE factor when no things existed - meaning there is never nothing - else no things could be possible. Even the notion of no-things or nothingness - requires ONE to say that is so!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Agobot, posted 06-27-2008 5:18 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:03 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 224 of 273 (473245)
06-27-2008 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Straggler
06-27-2008 10:28 AM


Re: THE BEST PRE-UNIVERSE SCENARIO?
quote:
Genesis is science?
BBT is only a theory. They are both just points of view etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Science tests it's conclusions regarding nature against the facts of nature. Predictions about physical phenomenon are made and verified or refuted.
Yes, science comes from genesis; science is an explanation how an existing and operating process works - nothing more. Its like a faculty of maths, history and geography. When genesis declares there was a beginning, humanity had to consider it - then fathom it - then endeavour to explain and rationalise it. But if Genesis said there was no beginning and everything was always there, it would be the end of science, or science could not be initiated: what for?
quote:
If you produce one verifiable prediction regarding an as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of your "Genesis science" I will dedicate my life to God.
I just did.
quote:
If you cannot produce any verifiable predictions then your "Genesis science" just isn't science.
That the uni had a beginning; that next came entropy [formless to form]; then came critical seperations of the elements [light from darkness; water from land; etc]; then came life giving luminosity; then came life forms - in a chronological, evolutionary order. Am I still talking science - and is there any science outside these premises?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:33 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-28-2008 12:18 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 225 of 273 (473252)
06-27-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Straggler
06-27-2008 10:17 AM


Re: Unchanging
quote:
But there remains no basis for your assertion that things subject to change must be finite.
Infinite = everlasting = unchanging.
A state of change = the thing was and is finite.
A state of no change = not finite.
All finite things are subject to change.
Something which changes means it was not the same thing 10 seconds ago. Something which does not change means it was always that same thing. There is no other factor which positively and conclusively makes something finite than change.
Name anything which is finite and not subject to change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Straggler, posted 06-28-2008 10:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 227 by AdminNosy, posted 06-28-2008 10:30 AM IamJoseph 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