Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 252 of 389 (630807)
08-28-2011 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Portillo
08-28-2011 2:24 AM


Some atheists believe that the universe did not have a beginning and is eternal and uncaused.
As do many non-atheist scientists. Many advanced speculative cosmological theories involve an eternal Universe, and many Christians, Moslems, Jews, Atheists, etc, etc are involved in this research.
If the atheist can have an eternal uncaused universe, why cant a theist have an eternal uncaused God? Why is it rational to believe that the universe is uncaused and irrational to believe that God is uncaused?
I think that this is really the wrong way round. The argument has typically been:
Theist: everything has a cause, and so the Universe must have a cause, and that cause must be God
Atheist: if everything has a cause, then what caused God?
Theist: Ah, God doesn't require a cause
Atheist: Well then, why does the Universe?
I don't think there is anything wrong in suggesting an eternal uncaused deity, though to have an eternal consciousness is somewhat dubious, and rather smacks of naive anthropomorphism.
Also, the word eternal needs clarifying. Eternal typically refers to time which is is an intrinsic dimension of our Universe. I would have thought that any self-respecting deity would be outside the confines of the dimensions of our Universe, and so perhaps a different word is required?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Portillo, posted 08-28-2011 2:24 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Maartenn100, posted 08-28-2011 8:57 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(3)
Message 333 of 389 (631652)
09-02-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 8:14 AM


if the layman studied physics and mathematics as long as I did, he would have easily seen all the blunders in my reasoning I fail to notice
a layman once did study physics and mathematics for precisely as long as I did, and he saw many blunders, made many of his own, and became an expert of the field. That is what happens to those laymen who put in the necessary work, rather than the laymen that sit in their armchairs, oblivious to their own extreme ignorance, and pontificate to any who will listen to their drivel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 8:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 345 of 389 (631799)
09-03-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Dogmafood
09-03-2011 10:24 AM


Did Einsein actually say something like this and would the readers here agree with it?
I can't find it - and no,I don't really agree with it. If Einstein did say it, it sounds very muc like from his Special Relativity era - it is not an opinion he would likely have had around General Relativity. This somewhat contradictory quote by Albert is one that I can certainly stand by:
quote:
Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena.
Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it.
Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.
from "On the Method of Theoretical Physics", p. 183. The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933). Quoted in Einstein's Philosophy of Science
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Dogmafood, posted 09-03-2011 10:24 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Dogmafood, posted 09-03-2011 12:49 PM cavediver 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