|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3860 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'll make a few points:
"compatible with" is not the same as "supports". Which did you mean ? It's a big step from saying that our universe had a cause to saying that that cause was a god, as the term is usually understood. Your OP does not include any support for making that leap. The notion of "beginning" used in your argument would seem to require that there was a prior state where the object in question did not exist. We do not know that to be the case for our universe - and if it is not the case then there is neither need, nor room, for a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If spacetime begins with the Big Bang then there is no time before the Big Bang, no time when the universe does not exist and therefore no reason to think that the universe has a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: If the universe has existed for all time, why would it need a cause ? Wouldn't you agree that we only need to invoke causes to account for changes and that changes only happen in time ?
quote: Hold on, what we don't know is if the Universe had a beginning as we understand it, or whether 13.7 billion years ago simply represents the first moment of time. We can't say that the universe came into existence at that point if it always existed.
quote: But if there is no time before the universe existed, how can you say that the universe "happened" ?
quote: Which only goes to support my point. You are assuming a state "before" time when the universe did not exist. However there cannot be a state before time, because "before" is a temporal term. It is logically impossible. So, we cannot have anything acting "before" time existed. At this point you have a number of alternatives: 1) You can propose that time precedes the universe, thus losing your argument that the cause must be outside of spacetime. 2) You can propose that our universe is embedded in a larger spacetime, again losing your argument that the cause must exist outside spacetime. 3) You can try and come up with some other way to make sense of your position. One that doesn't come across as a "contrived theory" since you have such a negative opinion of such things. Good luck. You'll need it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Actually I am not holding to both ideas. I assert that both are possible, but I do not hold that both are true. You are the one who seems to hold both simultaneously.
quote: This is completely irrelevant. My point is very simple. If the universe has existed for all of time, then it has always existed. If there is a time prior to the universe's existence than it has not. Which alternative do you choose ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I would say that you were already confused, because you hadn't seen the problem with your argument. Also my argument should have been clearer in context with the other points made - which you did not address. (e.g.)
If the universe has existed for all time, why would it need a cause ? Wouldn't you agree that we only need to invoke causes to account for changes and that changes only happen in time ?
So, we come to the question of which position you are going to take. Are you going to argue that the universe has existed for all time and also needs a cause ? If so, we need to see that argument because it is certainly not obvious that something that has always existed would need a cause. Or are you going to find a different argument for your claim that the cause of the universe must be outside of spacetime ? Or drop that argument altogether ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: No, you are confused again And ignoring points which would clarify what I am saying. I am not talking about a static universe, I am talking about the idea that there is no time preceding the existence of the universe. Here's where you argue it: Message 59
Essentially, because spacetime was created at the big bang, the cause of the big bang has to be outside of spacetime.
quote: However, as I have already pointed out if there is no time before the universe existed it did not have a beginning as we understand it, and it is questionable whether it needs a cause.
quote: Actually you can't because it is logically incoherent. And physicists don't speak of that at all (they will sometimes speak of time extending before the Big Bang, but that is different). As Son Goku has pointed out in this thread the reason why we are forced to speculation is because our current understanding of Physics is not adequate to deal with anything past a certain point (and as I understand it the singularity blocks observation of any hypothetical preceding state)
quote: And you call ME confused ? No, it is not logically consistent. "Prior" is a temporal term which requires time. Let us also note that this disposes of your argument about conservation of mass and energy - if all of the mass/energy of the universe existed at the Big Bang, with no prior state where it did not exist, then there is no violation.
quote: Actually according to your quote Davies says:
To repeat: time itself began with the big bang. This neatly disposes of the awkward question of what happened before the big bang. If there was no time before the big bang, then the question is meaningless. In the same way, speculation about what caused the big bang is also out of place because causes normally precede effects. If there was no time (or place) before the big bang for a causative agency to exist, then we can attribute no physical cause to the big bang. It seems to me that he is not suggesting that it had a supernatural cause, but that there was NO cause. Note also that Davies expressly agrees with my point that it is logically incoherent to speak of anything before the Big Bang, if we accept that the Big Bang is the start of time. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If there was no time preceding the universe - the view you were putting forward - we are speaking of something different from our intuitive idea of a "beginning". It is certainly questionable whether our intuitive ideas about "beginnings" can be applies in this situation.I would say not, for the reason I have already given: Only changes require causes, and there is no change outside of time. Or put another way - if, as you are proposing, the universe has always existed there is no reason to suppose that there must be a cause of that existence. (Just to forestall your repeated confusion, this is NOT speaking of a static universe, just your proposal that there was no time preceding the universe).
quote: This is a misrepresentation of Davies. Davies states that the concept of "before" time is meaningless. In the quote given, Davies does not even consider the possibility of a non-physical cause, which suggests that we are dealing with something of a quote-mine here. If Davies really proposed a non-physical cause, why not quote him saying so ?It seems more likely that Davies is rejecting the notion of a cause of the Big Bang altogether. quote:Davies does NOT say this. Davies states that such talk is meaningless. quote: Since you have gone against your own source and assumed a logical contradiction (that Davies rejects) this only follows in the degenerate sense that anything may be derived from a falsehood. Misrepresentation is in no way a substitute for actually dealing with the problems of timeless causation at the least. There is no need to say more. Your case rests on misrepresentation and logical falsehood. Therefore it fails. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Name me one thing that has begun to exist, and always existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The initial claim of this thread ha not been supported. What we have seen from the proponents is:
A failure to think about the arguments. Proposing that time began with the universe is not just an excuse to label the hypothetical cause as "timeless", it has profound consequences. The abuse of quotes and misrepresentation (e.g. Davies rejects talk about "before the Big Bang" as meaningless, but this is ignored). An amazing failure of imagination. The inability to imagine a non-personal cause for the universe is a severe mental limitation, not an argument ! The more so when such a cause - one actually proposed as a serious scientific proposal - has already been presented in the thread ! If that's what religion does to you, I'm glad I don't have it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024