Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,658 Year: 16,694/19,786 Month: 819/2,598 Week: 65/251 Day: 18/24 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 107 of 301 (723208)
03-27-2014 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by shadow71
03-24-2014 12:36 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I'm not a physicist either, but it seems to me the BICEPS2 results support the "Big Bang" theory and therefore support for the theory that the universe had a beginning, thus leading to support for a creator, rather than a spontaneous formation of the universe.

I have never understood this argument.

Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it.

So please explain why this argument makes any sense.

It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.

1. It could be a spontaneous formation out of something.

2. The moving force does not need to be a supernatural deity.

3. You could just be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 7:03 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:47 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 108 of 301 (723210)
03-27-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by shadow71
03-27-2014 12:43 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
What requirements are there to earn a PhD in the sciences?

For the biological sciences . . .

First two years are split between lab work and course work. Last two years are mostly lab work with some TA'ing. At the end of 4 years you should have at least 3 peer reviewed publications based on the research you have done, and will be expected to defend those papers in front of a review panel of several PhD's in your field of work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 12:43 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 6:54 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 127 of 301 (723265)
03-28-2014 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 11:47 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.

How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"?

If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.

No, it would simply become part of nature. At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No. If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 11:47 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 128 of 301 (723266)
03-28-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:55 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence.

Why can't that transcendent cause be a non-sentient process like the transcendent cause of rainbows or clouds?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:55 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 155 of 301 (723377)
03-31-2014 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 3:32 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
"Outside nature" is "super-nature", by definition.

At one time, the Earth was thought to be the complete expanse for the natural universe. When we discovered that nature operated outside of what we defined as the natural universe, did that make it supernatural? No. The Andromeda galaxy is not supernatural, even though it exists outside of what we once defined as Nature.

The same would apply to a natural, non-sentient process that produces new universes. It would simply be added to what we consider Nature just as we have always done.

Many would agree that a "deity" is eternal and uncaused (though this wouldn't apply to minor Greek and Roman deities).

This would make naturally occuring universes a deity, which they clearly aren't.

No, you're not making sense. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. (The idea that something is self-caused is a logical impossibility.)

The cause would become part of nature. That is how science has always worked.

I only see two possibilities:
1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause

False. That would be a natural cause since it involves nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 156 of 301 (723378)
03-31-2014 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 12:25 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
No, I label anything outside the "natural world" as supernatural.

Then why can't we define the "natural world" as the universes and the non-sentient, mechanistic processes that produce universes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 12:25 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 160 of 301 (723391)
03-31-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by kbertsche
03-31-2014 9:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If our universe began to exist, then it needs a cause for its existence.

If it does need a cause, how do you go from "needs a cause" to "a deity did it"?

When has "a deity did it" ever turned out to be the right answer in cases where we did discover the cause for a phenomenon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 172 of 301 (723414)
04-01-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 11:16 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
My question was more fundamental and philosophical. Since we can observe only our present universe, how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse?

We use the scientific method to reconstruct the past using evidence we find in the present. In fact, it is done all of the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 184 of 301 (723462)
04-01-2014 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 5:57 PM


Re: Double talk..
Nonsense. The nucleus decays because it is intrinsically unstable, because a lower potential energy state exists which it can reach by quantum tunneling.

Using that as an analogy for the production of universes, if there are conditions under which universes can appear, then they just appear. No cause is needed other than the possibility that it can happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 5:57 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(4)
Message 222 of 301 (723617)
04-04-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
04-03-2014 10:36 PM


Re: Double talk..
To most physicists, statements of nuclear instability or of the availability of lower energy states are perfectly acceptable causal explanations for nuclear decay.

What they are saying is that given certain conditions, a certain outcome has a certain probability. If you think this is a valid definition of cause, then the cause of the universe shouldn't be a problem for you. If, as some claim, the instability of a vacuum (i.e. nothing) produces a probability that a universe will emerge, then you have your cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2014 10:36 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by cavediver, posted 04-05-2014 6:49 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019