Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9079 total)
142 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 141 visitors)
Newest Member: Test Moose
Post Volume: Total: 895,222 Year: 6,334/6,534 Month: 527/650 Week: 65/232 Day: 4/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1332
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 52 of 301 (722713)
03-24-2014 12:56 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. It does not seem logical that there would be a spontaneous formation out of nothing w/o some moving force.

You're forgetting that, inextricably linked with the creation of space, the singularity which we know as "the big bang" also created time. Actually created time itself. There is no "before" the big bang - the concept is as meaningless as asking someone at the north pole to walk further north.

As a result, concepts like "logic", and our day to day experience of cause and effect don't apply. There wasn't a "moving force", which you refer to, to create anything, because there was no time before the big bang for it to move in.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 3:28 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1332
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 57 of 301 (722740)
03-24-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by shadow71
03-24-2014 3:28 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
That is compatable with a Supernatural being creating everything out of nothing.

If wands were real, they'd be compatible with anything. But for as long as we have no evidence that magic exists, we'll keep going where the evidence leads us. Saying that a scenario is compatible with a supernaturally omnipotent being is semantically circular and trivial - a meaningless statement which takes us nowhere. It's the same as me saying that if I had Superman's powers, I could leap tall buildings. True enough semantically, but nothing that gets us anywhere.

The principle of "Occam"s razor basically states that when you have 2 competing theories making the same prediction the simplest one is the better theory.

You've got two problems here.

First, the supernatural is not a theory - it's an abstract concept, with no basis in observed evidence. Applying Occam's Razor to the supernatural and a scientific theory is inappropriate.

Second, even if you could apply Occam's Razor in this way, how on earth do you know if the supernatural is the more parsimonious explanation ? If it existed, maybe its processes and steps would be hugely more convoluted, involved and complex than those of the scientific theory - there is no way you could tell, unless you could test the supernatural explanation. By definition, you cannot.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 3:28 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 4:52 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1332
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 61 of 301 (722748)
03-24-2014 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by shadow71
03-24-2014 4:52 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the evidence may never be found.

Not entirely sure what you're shooting at with that statement, but I've been at the point you refer to for a considerable period of time.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 4:52 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1332
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 152 of 301 (723357)
03-31-2014 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by frako
03-31-2014 8:16 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
So Kim Jong Un is god ?

Heaven is clearly short of a decent barber or two then.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by frako, posted 03-31-2014 8:16 AM frako has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1332
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 161 of 301 (723397)
04-01-2014 5:38 AM
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.

In an environment where every physical law of our universe seems not to apply, what is it that leads to your conviction that the law of causation continues to apply ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by kbertsche, posted 03-31-2014 9:28 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:45 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1332
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 170 of 301 (723412)
04-01-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 10:45 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
But this is precisely my point. If the very laws of physics themselves break down and cease to apply prior to Planck time = 1, then what chance do those constructs have, which we loosely term the laws of logic ?

Logic is a series of constructs based on day to day human experience. It already breaks down at the quantum level of physical science - the double slit experiment, for example, defies "logic". Why should the human, logical construct which we call the law of causation (actually, it would be better to call it the law of causality) have any necessity at the very start of our universe, if physical laws themselves don't apply then ? Human experience, on which logic is based, stands no chance of being relevant at that point.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 10:45 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022