Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 76 of 301 (722846)
03-25-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 11:27 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
This is a very good analogy to show the error of reductionism. The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture. Natural law describes the mechanism which is at work, but nothing more. In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative. It describes mechanism, not agency.
Sure, just because we have a correct explanation for how lightning happens, doesn't mean that Thor isn't really responsible.
But from a scientific perspective, nobody cares. We can explain lightning without the need for Thor, so we just ignore him and go about our day.
We may be missing something, like Thor, but it doesn't matter because our explanations work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 11:27 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 8:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 77 of 301 (722850)
03-25-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 11:27 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Many scientists who do not think deeply enough about these things tend to conflate these various concepts.
But you know better right? Physicists as a class are some kind of idiots who just think more shallowly than do you.
Actually, that's naval gazing nonsense. Some scientists are fools as are some non-scientists. But as a class, scientists do not consider the laws of science as anything but descriptive. What many scientists question is the need for injecting causing agent. And a scientist that does not assume such an agent is not making a philosophical error, he is simply not making a theological leap.
Just how many scientists claim that science can demonstrate that there is no God. Those few scientists are the ones that have the issue you described. That class would not include the scientists mentioned in this thread.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 11:27 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 12:48 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 78 of 301 (722855)
03-25-2014 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by NoNukes
03-25-2014 12:14 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
But as a class, scientists do not consider the laws of science as anything but descriptive. What many scientists question is the need for injecting causing agent. And a scientist that does not assume such an agent is not making a philosophical error, he is simply not making a theological leap.
Just how many scientists claim that science can demonstrate that there is no God. Those few scientists are the ones that have the issue you described. That class would not include the scientists mentioned in this thread.
No, when Hawking claims that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he is claiming causation. He claims that the laws of nature cause the universe. But he doesn't explain where the laws of nature come from. He seems to treat them as pre-existent and eternal; they are effectively his god.

"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 77 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2014 12:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 03-25-2014 12:59 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 03-26-2014 2:15 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 79 of 301 (722856)
03-25-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 12:48 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
kbertsche writes:
He claims that the laws of nature cause the universe. But he doesn't explain where the laws of nature come from.
Several years ago I witnessed a phenomenon in which snowballs formed spontaneously on everybody's lawn. It's a rare phenomenon requiring exact wind and temperature conditions but it is a well-understood phenomenon.
The laws of nature "caused" those snowballs without the intervention of any outside entity (though it was tempting to think that it was some kind of gigantic prank).
The laws of nature don't have to "come from" anywhere. They just are. They're properties of nature, just like wind conditions and snow conditions. Anything that exists will have properties whether anybody/anything "puts" them there or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 12:48 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 1:14 PM ringo has replied
 Message 229 by Phat, posted 04-05-2014 10:25 AM ringo has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 80 of 301 (722857)
03-25-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
03-25-2014 12:59 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
ringo writes:
The laws of nature don't have to "come from" anywhere. They just are. They're properties of nature, just like wind conditions and snow conditions. Anything that exists will have properties whether anybody/anything "puts" them there or not.
Did the laws of nature always exist?
Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 03-25-2014 12:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 03-25-2014 2:19 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 3:06 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 03-26-2014 11:38 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 81 of 301 (722861)
03-25-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by shadow71
03-25-2014 1:14 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
shadow71 writes:
Prior to the big bang, when time did not exist, were there laws of nature
The fundalmental forces that manifest reality would not be able to influence a vaccum. So in order for there to be something there must first be spacetime. Prior to the existance of the universe there was no strong force, because there were no atoms. There was no gravity because gravity requires spacetime and matter..
There was no weak force either. Nor electromagnatism.
So in essence the answer seems to be prior to the big bang the forces that drive our cosmos did not exist.
I say that tentatively.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 1:14 PM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NoNukes, posted 03-26-2014 11:47 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 301 (722870)
03-25-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by shadow71
03-25-2014 1:14 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
when time did not exist
If time doesn't exist, then you cannot have a "when".
were there laws of nature
In order for something "to be", there has to be time for it to be in.
Have you read the North Pole analogy for the Big Bang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 1:14 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 83 of 301 (722875)
03-25-2014 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 3:06 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Catholic Scientist writes:
If time doesn't exist, then you cannot have a "when".
In order for something "to be", there has to be time for it to be in.
Have you read the North Pole analogy for the Big Bang?
Then gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 4:25 PM shadow71 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 84 of 301 (722879)
03-25-2014 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by shadow71
03-25-2014 4:11 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Then gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang?
"Existing prior" to the Big Bang implies that there was some time before T=0, but there's no such thing as negative time in the Big Bang Theory.
The question just doesn't make sense. Its like asking what is north of the North Pole. You can't, all directions are pointing south at that place.
Sorry, its just counter-intuitive.
ABE:
To directly answer your question: No, the Big Bang Theory does not have gravity existing before the Big Bang.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 4:11 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 85 of 301 (722901)
03-25-2014 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 4:25 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
tangle message62 writes:
Shadow71 writes:
The next step would be for you to tell us how something was created out of nothing.
For that, you'll have to learn some physics. It's well above my pay grade. Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 5:38 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 87 by 1.61803, posted 03-25-2014 5:51 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 301 (722907)
03-25-2014 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by shadow71
03-25-2014 5:27 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?
I don't know, I'm not familiar with the Hawking's theory that you're talking about. I saw that one quote, but that's just him talking, that's not really the theory, itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 87 of 301 (722916)
03-25-2014 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by shadow71
03-25-2014 5:27 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
shadow71 writes:
So if the Big bang theory is correct, Hawking's theory is false?
No, I believe Stephen Hawking was talking candidly in that little quote.
The only theory I know of in question of his is related to Hawking radiation. Whether or not black holes evaporate.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 301 (722957)
03-25-2014 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 11:27 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Says you; note that you are making a philosophical, non-scientific claim.
First, if you have evidence that god is something orther than a mythical concept please present it. However, my point is that using the term "The will of God" is, as you admit, just philosophical musing.
Saying the laws of physicis explains the origin of the universe is not. It is based on facts.
It implies that this is the only, and the complete, explanation for the question.
CS put it perfectly with his lightening/Thor example.
I'll just add that something for which there is evidence for will always be a more complete and accurate explanation than concepts for which no evidence exists. I don't see how you can argue against that.
The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture.
Again, we have evidence for Whittle. There is no evidence at all for god. So until there is some, god isn't infered just as magical pixies aren't either.
In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative.
Natural laws are evidenced. Simple as that. The describe the reality we live in accurately and the origin of our universe without positing anything unevidenced or magical.
Think of the lightening example.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 11:27 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 89 of 301 (722967)
03-25-2014 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2014 11:49 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
CS writes:
Sure, just because we have a correct explanation for how lightning happens, doesn't mean that Thor isn't really responsible.
But from a scientific perspective, nobody cares. We can explain lightning without the need for Thor, so we just ignore him and go about our day.
We may be missing something, like Thor, but it doesn't matter because our explanations work.
Good science can be done from any philosophical or theological position. So yes, if one's only concern is to do science, one's philosophical/theological position is irrelevant.
But if one's concern is to understand the world on something deeper than just a mechanistic level, these philosophical/theological issues matter a great deal.

"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 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 9:13 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 90 of 301 (722992)
03-25-2014 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by kbertsche
03-25-2014 8:09 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
these philosophical/theological issues matter a great deal.
I disagree. I'll go a step further: they're practically worthless.
That is, in practicality, they don't provide any value.
Philosophical/theological issues are the same they've been for centuries. There's never any advancement, because its not rigorous enough to put the results into practice. You never know if its working or not, so nothing ever gets solved.
So, yeah, maybe we should just agree to disagree on that one rather than discuss philosophy in a big bang thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by kbertsche, posted 03-25-2014 8:09 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2014 12:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024