Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
76 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Dm14174, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, xongsmith (5 members, 1 guest login, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,043 Year: 5,155/6,534 Month: 575/794 Week: 66/135 Day: 6/6 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 317 (640534)
11-10-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by thingamabob
11-10-2011 11:49 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Catholic Scientist writes:

Colliding Branes.


If there was no time and no space where would the colliding branes exist to be able to collide?

Higher dimensions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by thingamabob, posted 11-10-2011 11:49 AM thingamabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by thingamabob, posted 11-10-2011 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 287 of 317 (640535)
11-10-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Dr Adequate
11-10-2011 11:18 AM


Re: Allan Sandage
Hi Dr A,

I gave you a link to the interview, you know. You could have read it, if you were actually interested in what he has to say.

The really sad thing is that he's already been told this.

Twice.

Once I would call an honest mistake. Twice seems like foolishness. But designtheorist has been told this at least four times now; that seems like either a deliberate lie or just a highly developed ability to avoid noticing inconvenient facts.

So in other words, an archetypal creationist.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 11:18 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 1889 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 288 of 317 (640536)
11-10-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
11-10-2011 11:59 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Catholic Scientist writes:

Higher dimensions.

No time.
No space.

Where would these higher dimensions exist?

thing,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 12:10 PM thingamabob has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 289 of 317 (640537)
11-10-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by 1.61803
11-10-2011 11:51 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
quote:
There need not be a cause.

Really?!? Please name even one thing physical thing which has "begun to exist" which has no "cause."

quote:
A self existant universe is just as likely as a created one.

Really?!? Please name one physical thing which is generally accepted to be "self existent."

You could perhaps argue that "A self existent universe is just as likely as a self existent God", but that's not what you said. Even then, I don't know how you could objectively judge the "likelihood" of such things. (And this would be tantamount to making the universe your God.)

Edited by kbertsche, : Add comment re likelihood.


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by 1.61803, posted 11-10-2011 11:51 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by PaulK, posted 11-10-2011 12:15 PM kbertsche has taken no action
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 12:28 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 294 by 1.61803, posted 11-10-2011 12:42 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 290 of 317 (640538)
11-10-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by thingamabob
11-10-2011 12:03 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
No time.
No space.

Where would these higher dimensions exist?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by thingamabob, posted 11-10-2011 12:03 PM thingamabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by thingamabob, posted 11-10-2011 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 291 of 317 (640539)
11-10-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by kbertsche
11-10-2011 12:07 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Name me one thing that has begun to exist, and always existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 12:07 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 292 of 317 (640540)
11-10-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by kbertsche
11-10-2011 12:07 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Really?!? Please name even one thing physical thing which has "begun to exist" which has no "cause."

We could look at the decay products of any unstable isotope. The decay is the result of spontaneous quantum tunneling. There is no cause in the normal sense. It is a spontaneous and uncaused event.

We could also look at quantum fluctuations, the uncaused and spontaneous appearance of virtual particles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 12:07 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 1:01 PM Taq has taken no action

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 1889 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 293 of 317 (640545)
11-10-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by New Cat's Eye
11-10-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Catholic Scientist writes:

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.

The colliding branes have to exist somewhere.

But you said they caused the universe to exist.

Catholic Scientist writes:

As I said, for the big bang to have a cause other than a being is inconceivable.

Colliding Branes.

Did the colliding Branes exist in time and space in the universe?

If they did how did they cause the universe to exist.

Outside the universe there was no time or space so there was no place for the universe to exist for time and space to exist in.

Maybe somebody will figure it out one day.

Thanks for the responses anyway.

thing,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 1:03 PM thingamabob has taken no action

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 776 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 294 of 317 (640547)
11-10-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by kbertsche
11-10-2011 12:07 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
kbertsche writes:

Really?!? Please name even one thing physical thing which has "begun to exist" which has no "cause."

Hello kbertsche, by stating begun you automatically infer a beginning and by inferring a beginning you infer a cause.

No one knows the answer. It is a mystery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 12:07 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
Dirk
Member (Idle past 3296 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 295 of 317 (640549)
11-10-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
It is not possible to have an impersonal Designer because design requires intelligence.

The problem with this is - obviously - that you have not proven that the universe is designed. As others have pointed out, its creation - if it was created - might have been an accident or by-product.

Previously you were only talking about what caused the universe, and now all of a sudden you switched to what designed it. Wouldn't you agree that you are shifting the goalposts quite a bit here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


(5)
Message 296 of 317 (640550)
11-10-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:22 AM


On Causality, Creation and Existence
Hi designtheorist,

Throughout this thread, you've expressed your assertion that Big Bang cosmology requires an intelligent causal agent. Your assertion, however, has been based on a series of misconceptions about the Big Bang and the nature of the Universe as a whole, coupled with some unfounded assumptions and a few logical fallacies sprinkled on for good measure.

Let's start by pointing out that conceivability by a human brain is not a requirement for any aspect of the Universe. After all, there are stranger things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your, or any other, philosophy. There are many aspects of the Universe that are counter-intuitive to the human mind - and that doesn't stop those concepts from accurately representing the reality of the Universe. Human beings, after all, evolved on Earth, and our base of knowledge, our familiarity, is based on the limits of our own experiences. We cannot see atoms, we cannot see electrons, we cannot directly observe quarks, we have no experience that can relate to gluons. Galaxies and globular clusters and nebulae are, to us, just pretty pictures from telescopes.

Arguing that alternative hypotheses are invalid because they are "inconceivable" to your mind is nothing more than an Argument from Incredulity, a logical fallacy.

To really delve into the mysteries of the Universe, we need mathematics. And the math shows us that our experience of the Universe is, frankly, illusory.

You and I experience "time" as a constant-rate continuum of events moving in the direction of increasing entropy. We cannot go backward, and we have no control over its rate of passage (except through relativistic velocities in different inertial frames, but then, we can't actually do that at the moment either). We experience time this way because our brains are themselves entropy machines - our very thoughts require the passage of time in the direction of increasing entropy. That's how the electrochemical processes that drive our minds work. The consequence of this is an anthropomorphized concept of "causality."

To a human mind, we see all events as causes and effects, related points in a never-ending chain that make up the continuum of time.

But time is just another dimension, no different really than length, or width, or height. If you could experience the Universe independently of time, you would be able to see the entire course of your life as a set of interconnected events. You could look forward, or backward, and see the exact state of the Universe at any given moment. The Universe would appear unchanging, because change requires time.

So do causes, and effects. A "cause" is an event which precedes its effect in time. To be "caused," there must be an earlier point in time for the "cause" to occupy.

When we're talking about the Universe as a whole, were talking about time itself as well, because time is nothing more than a property of the Universe, just like width, or length, or the total mass-energy it contains.

If the opening moment of the Big Bang was in fact T=0, the very earliest moment of time...then when would the "cause" occur? What time, exactly? T=-1?

The concept of an earlier moment in time than the first moment, a "cause" for the beginning of time itself, is literally as meaningless as conceiving of a point further North than the North Pole. The concept ceases to make sense to human intuition.

The reality of the first moment of time is that all of our predictive models break down in that first moment. The Universe was too hot, and too small, and too massive for any of our current observations to relate to. The math simply breaks down.

So the real answer, here, is that we don't know much about the reason the Universe exists.

Perhaps the Universe was inevitable. Perhaps "existence" is favored over "nonexistence." Perhaps there are infinite Universes floating in some extra-Universal space-like dimension. Perhaps reality exists as a probability field, and the Universe we experience is simply the result of the most probable series of events. Perhaps the Universe hatched from an egg. Perhaps an extra-Universal intelligence, using technology we cannot even yet imagine, created the Universe. Perhaps one of these, or one of an infinite number of alternative hypotheses, explains the origin of our Universe.

The honest answer is that we don't know. What we do know is that our concept of causality breaks down when we talk about the origins of the Universe itself, just as the concept of the direction "North" breaks down when we start talking about movement in outer space.

Big Bang cosmology tells us only that, as you look through time, the Universe exists in different states. The farther back you go, the smaller all of the spacial dimensions become, while the mass-energy of the Universe remains the same. If we trace the trend all the way back, we arrive at a point where our ability to mathematically describe the Universe breaks down.

That's all. It does not even tell us if those so-far-indescribable moments (typically called the Singularity, which is just physics-speak for "we don't know what's going on here with any reasonable degree of accuracy") were the actual beginning of the Universe...or whether our concept of "beginnings" even has relevance.

These open questions and uncertainties are why we continue to study the Universe, why we create such facilities as the Large Hadron Collider to duplicate as closely as we can the conditions of those first moments, so that we can develop the math to describe them.

But the Big Bang does not support the idea of a religious "god" as a creator any more than any other hypothesis. It doesn't contradict any of them, but then, what would? A magic omnipotent Creator could just as easily Create a static Universe, one that does not appear to have a beginning. After all, the vast majority of physicists were still religious before the discovery that the Universe is expanding.

If there is a god, the Big Bang doesn't help us see it. It would look the same to us, either way, given the information we currently have.

"Failing to contradict" is not the same as "supporting evidence." Evidence needs to adjust the relative probability of accuracy among competing hypotheses...and nothing about the Big Bang increases the likelihood that there is a deity beyond competing hypotheses that are also not contradicted.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:22 AM designtheorist has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 1:12 PM Rahvin has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 297 of 317 (640551)
11-10-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taq
11-10-2011 12:28 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
quote:
We could look at the decay products of any unstable isotope. The decay is the result of spontaneous quantum tunneling. There is no cause in the normal sense. It is a spontaneous and uncaused event.

Wrong. This is the same erroneous argument that Stenger uses. Radioactive decay has a definite cause--the instability of its nucleus, which leads to the spontaneous quantum tunneling that you mention. "Spontaneous" is not the same as "uncaused".

quote:
We could also look at quantum fluctuations, the uncaused and spontaneous appearance of virtual particles.

Wrong again. The cause of quantum fluctuations and virtual particles can be ascribed to the nature of the universe, the nature of the vacuum, the standard model, and/or a variety of other physical causes. "Random" or "stochastic" is not the same as "uncaused".

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 12:28 PM Taq has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 317 (640553)
11-10-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by thingamabob
11-10-2011 12:36 PM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
The colliding branes have to exist somewhere.

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".

But you said they caused the universe to exist.

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.

Did the colliding Branes exist in time and space in the universe?

No, I don't think so. But I don't really know.

Outside the universe there was no time or space so there was no place for the universe to exist for time and space to exist in.

Unless you start getting into higher deminsions or some kind of Greaterverse, or something.

Maybe somebody will figure it out one day.

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?

Thanks for the responses anyway.

Cheers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by thingamabob, posted 11-10-2011 12:36 PM thingamabob has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 317 (640555)
11-10-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Rahvin
11-10-2011 1:01 PM


Re: On Causality, Creation and Existence
If the opening moment of the Big Bang was in fact T=0, the very earliest moment of time...then when would the "cause" occur? What time, exactly? T=-1?

The concept of an earlier moment in time than the first moment, a "cause" for the beginning of time itself, is literally as meaningless as conceiving of a point further North than the North Pole. The concept ceases to make sense to human intuition.

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.jpg

Still though, no support for God in there somewhere...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Rahvin, posted 11-10-2011 1:01 PM Rahvin has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 317 (640557)
11-10-2011 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by designtheorist
11-10-2011 11:24 AM


I'm posting the 300th message to you, which will put us into summation mode, with a plea to stay here at EvC and open another thread and continue with these discussions.

This one wasn't too bad, and actually pretty good for your first one. Hopefully we didn't rub you the wrong way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by designtheorist, posted 11-10-2011 11:24 AM designtheorist has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022