Summations Only

What suggests the cause was a "being"?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : changed subtitle

As far as we know, beings exist within the Universe, not outside of it. Even the notion of "existing" implies being within the Uni-verse, i.e. all that exists. The singularity is just one point on the 4D manifold that is spacetime. It no more requires a cause than any other particular point. It "just is". Sort of, but not really. Assuming god and then asking "why not god?" isn't all that thought-provoking for me. Excepting "inanimate" beings (I assume you don't think god is inanimate), the word "being" implies its something that is alive. I don't think its a good description and its really only came up after all the Intelligent Designer nonsense. People are trying to disguise the religious aspects of the argument so god gets dumbbed down to being a "being". We can't really look to the evidence we can't perceive, can we? There is no "fine-tuning". Life can only exist where it can. The argument is the same as looking at a puddle and concluding the pothole was fine-tuned to fit around the water. I wouldn't expect people to attribute words to the "Being" Himself that were inconsistent with what they could observe. You have to assume god first, to get that "largest body of evidence" to suggest god, so it is not the default unless you make it so.

I've been posting here for over 6 years with over 6000 posts... I've been around the block a few time. Yes, or; it is not impossible. "Prior time" is a nonsensical phrase. Being "prior" requires time, so it cannot exist without the creation of time already. Assuming their was a cause (which *is* still an assumption here), I'll grant you that it is "not physical/material". But that's starting to contradict the definition of a "being". "Before time" is a nonsensical phrase. Being "before" requires time, so it cannot exist without the creation of time already. So it exists never? How is never existing different from not existing? Being a "being" implies that it is some thing that exists within time. Its a bad description. Well, the argument that got you there is weak and flawed, but I'll grant you these for the sake of discussion. Really? I asked you: "What suggests the cause was a "being"?", and you're answer is an Argument from Incredulity? Weak.But to answer your question: Yes, colliding branes would not be a being. Nope, here is a conception of colliding branes: Anyways, being a "being" makes this whole thing paradoxical. If you rewind the Universe back to the singularity, and then place god beside it as the creator, then as a thing he would have to be included within the Universe, by definition because the universe is everything. Any"thing" you place next to the universe will immediately be swallowed by it as a part of it because it is every"thing". In order for the "cause" of the Universe to be outside of it, the Universe would have to be a subset of some Greaterverse. If you're going to have this Greaterverse be god, then its no good calling him a "being" because that implies something that exists within the Universe.Your supposations turn god into a kid with an antfarm... er, well, I guess Family Guy provided a better illustration: This 'Being Illustration' works good for cartoons and the silly idea of Intelligent Design, but its piss poor science, and frankly, piss poor theology too. Lets start with this: ABE (added by edit):I don't think that last picture is showing up so here's the direct link:http://universe-review.ca/I15-39-collision.jpgEdited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Some people here are jerks. Don't let that affect the rest of us. You don't have to reply to everybody. Just ignore them.

I'm disappointed that you didn't get a chance to reply to my Message 185.The main points are offering Colliding Branes as an alternative to a being as the Big Banger. That the phrase "before time" is nonsensical because you have to have time already to have something be "before". I also point out that your "support" for the Big Banger being a being was simply an Argument from Incredultiy. I'd also like to add that your argument that the Big Banger must be a being doesn't rule out multiple beings nor ones that where cosumed in the creation process, among other things. No, there is no point in time where the Universe does not exist. It exist in all points of time because time, itself, is a part of it. The Big Bang Theory does have the Universe existing for all time. The big band does not say the universe had a beginning in the same way that you're using it in your arguments. I'm going to trout out this same old analogy to explain this:Spacetime is a four deminsional manifold with some particular "shape". We can't really imagine that, so to make it easier we'll have to reduce the number of dimensions, and have the shape be a sphere. The globe of the Earth works well for this. Imagine that the sruface of the earth represents all four dimentions. Just the surface, not the inside of it nor the space around it. Let the lines of latitude represent different times. As you go southward from the north pole, you are going forward in time. The circumferance of the Earth gets bigger the farther you tavel (forget about passing the equator), and this represents the expansion of the three dimensions of space. As you go north towards the north pole, space gets smaller and smaller, until you get to the north pole, itself. You can't go farther north than that, there is no north direction from the north pole. In the same way, when you get to the singularity, there is no time "before" that. The surface of the Earth exists at all the points of latitude, just like the Universe exists at all points of time. There is no point of latitude where the Earth doesn't exist like there is no point in time where the Universe doesn't exist.Now, it doesn't really make sense to say that the Earth "begins to exist" at the north pole, as if there's some place beside the Earth where it doesn't exist. Remember that in the analogy, we are limited to just the surface of the Earth, itself, and cannot use the space around it. Too, the fact that the Earth has a north pole doesn't necessitate that there is some "cause" for the Earth to exist there. That's just the shape that it has. The same goes for the Universe. Not really. Not in the sense of an Effect that requires a Cause. Just like the Earth doesn't begin to exist at the north pole. That's as nonsensical as asking what is north of the north pole. There is nothing thatta way, because you can't even point in that direction. All directions are south from the north pole. As you approach the singularity back in time, you're approaching the smoothing out of the direction in which your traveling like the surface of a Earth smooths out at the north pole into a place where all directions become south. That makes no more sense that speaking of the cause of the north pole, as if there is some place on the surface of the earth, that is not on the surface of the earth, and from which the north pole emerges.You need to understand this to get the appropriate view of what the big bang is actually describing. It is not some "thing" that existed, its a descritption of the behavior of the universe... or more specifically, its a description of the shape of the four deminsional manifold that is spacetime.

See Message 185 for information on Colliding Branes. There's even pictures! If your only "support" for the Big Banger being a being is an Argument from Incredulity, then you don't really have support.In Message 253, you wrote:

quote:

---

First, let’s start at the goal of the argument. The point is to persuade people that the big bang is both compatible with and supportive of the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God.

---

You fail your first goal, that the big bang is supportive of a Universe Designer or Creator God, if you cannot support the notion of the Big Banger as a being with nothing more that an Argument from Incredulity. Has to be? No. It could be quasinatural, or seminatural, or anatural, etc. Well, its not. You have time not existing outside of the big bang, but then also things existing before it. That is inconsistent.You employ a logical fallacy, the Argument from Incredulity, to finish the last step of your argument and that is unreasonable.Please see Message 247 for an analogy of the Big Bang that I believe can help clear up some of your misconsceptions.

I totally disagree with you about the quotes. It doesn't matter what other people think. We're here to discuss this between each other. Also, quotes are terribly twisted and misunderstood, taken out of context and misused, so you never really know what the person who was quoted actually thought.They just draw the focus away from the things we should be discussing: how the big bang supports a creator. Instead, we'd be talking about what and whether or not another person meant by a few words that are attributed to them. You know, they could just be wrong too. Its a waste of time.

You write:

quote:

---

I would be interested in hearing details.

---

I provide the details. You hand wave them away!Your sincerity and honesty are becomming suspect. Except for the part where your adding a Big Banger to it! There's nothing in the Big Bang Theory about a Big Banger. You're not "only dealing with the big bang". And, you specifically asked for alternatives. But now that you have it, you don't want to deal with it.And you totally avoided all the other refutations of your specualtions that I provided.Good day, sir.Sorry about your epic fail...

Sure, but he also said that the Big Band is supportive of a designer (and further that the desgner is a being), and I think that is definately a major blunder. That's been the source of my disagreement.Simply "being compatible with" doesn't leave much to argue about.

What you've just written (and mine here now) exactly proves why using quotes like that is what is totally counterproductive to the purpose of this site. Nothing in these two posts has anything to do with the Big Bang supporting a Universe Designer or Creator God!You've wasted this time that would be better served addressing the analogy that I provided that explains why you're wrong.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typoEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Intelligence also requires a brain. And brains require matter and time. Therefore, there couldn't be any intelligence before matter existed in the Universe. Ergo, no Designer of the Big Bang. Colliding Branes. http://universe-review.ca/I15-39-collision.jpgEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Higher dimensions.

The higher dimensions are independent of time and space. They don't exist in a "place" that allows for your question of 'where' they exist to make sense.Too, there was never a point in the universe where time and space didn't exist.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Why?Does time exist somewhere? Do the spatial dimensions, themselves, exist in a "place"? Or are they the places where things, themselves, exist?That "where" part implies a spatial dimention already... If the branes are extra-(spatially)-dimensional, then they would not have to exist in some "where". I offered them as an alternative to a being as the cause of the Big Bang, which was said to be inconceivable.Heh... INCONCEIVABLE! I love that movie. No, I don't think so. But I don't really know. Unless you start getting into higher deminsions or some kind of Greaterverse, or something. Yeah, far from me to be the one. But I do think that the claim that it can't be anything besides a 'being' has been thoroughly refuted. Dontcha think? Cheers.

If you put the south pole of another earth on the tangent point of the north pole of this one, then you could still go north, just on the other earth. At T=0 you'd be simultaneously existing on both earths and then could go toward T=-1.But I'd bet you've already heard of the Big Bounce, so this is more for the lurkers. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/big_bounce_new_scientist.jpgStill though, no support for God in there somewhere...