K: I have no idea what my “favorite political agenda” has to do with science, but
the fact is, BB is still the best theory to describe the universe. Even a modest
goggle search suggests that the BB is the theory of choice of intelligent scientist.
Now, you may favor bad science and even worse theories, but I can’t help you there.
So, give us a theory that better describes the universe. don’t send me to some lame
site or give me some nonsense I have read in this thread, about metaphysical crap.
What is a better theory about the universe than BB and why?
And you professing the grandness of your version of science is no different at all than a Nazi professing how obvious it is that their government method is the best on the planet.
This issue is hardly resolved in physics. Many assume that there was a before the Bang or a kind of metauniverse where bangs occur.
Why is Zeno’s paradox proof. There are mathematical ways of arguing against the ZP. You can’t simply cite the ZP as proof.
Let’s accept your interpretation of the ZP as correct and the ZP as correct. Rematerializatoin could simply be an attribute of matter, like extension. No need to assume a deity.
If you think the chains go back in time somewhat, they it can go on forever.
There is no reason that a divine entity must be causal here. If the ZP proves what you say it does, you could simply be looking at another quality that matter has. It would be strange to say a rock caused its volume, the volume being a facet of matter. So with matter in motion. Even if you are correct and it must rematerialize, this could simply be a property of matter, that it appears and disappears when acted on by force - and we have nice banal explanations for the forces that move matter (or cause it to dematerialize and materialize in your model).
Heck, I’m a theist and I think this line is silly.
The universe/existence is infinite, no beginning nor end.
The Big Bang is a secular-humanist (per)version of Catholic Christian Creation Theory. Same thing, except big bang theorists pass themselves as “scientists” instead of priests.
Priesthood under a secular banner.
I reject secular human, classical teleology, of “beginnings and ends”. These people preach the finite universe model, and always have, for over a thousand years.
K: care to offer some proof instead of just feelings. Everything begins and everything ends, the
only argument is about how long. Why is the universe different than every other thing in the cosmos
by having no beginning or no end? Every other thing in the universe begins and ends, why not
the universe itself?
The problem is derivation of order. Where does the configuration come from if the subsequent series is infinite? What real mechanism is capable of creating an order from which all subsequent order is derived? You simply do not understand the complexity of the issue. An uncaused matter is an assertion that the derivation of order never had a beginning. This is a big problem. Go ahead, try and solve it. Rather, the “Bang” in the Big Bang appears to be the creation of initial starting order, because said initial starting order is necessary for there to be any order. Get it? That’s the point of the “Bang”. So, that means there is something else which is capable of creating an initial Order because something caused the Big Bang. That is God.
The proof that there had to be an initial condition is that there was one, i.e. the Big Bang. The proof for the Big Bang is red shifting galaxies. I’m sure you know this.
By the way, I imagine that a Schwarzchild radius isn’t going to apply to the creation of material reality itself, which obviously is beyond the laws of physics assuming current consensus physics about the breakdown of the laws of physics at the singularity. So, saying the singularity is impossible because it could never expand into the universe doesn’t mean much when the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity, does it?
K: You are making several assumptions, which is impressive given you did it in two lines.
Think of the human body. You have cells which die every day, similar to what happens to
galaxies, stars and planets. these cells reside within a human body. Now the body goes on
even though your individual cells are replaced every seven years. But at one point even the
human body dies. This is similar to what happens in the universe. The individual bodies, not
cells but galaxies, stars and planets all die but the universe goes on, just like the human body.
But the law of entropy is very clear. The universe unless it gets some outside energy, will
slowly lose energy. At some point, it will die. Of course that point is billions of years from now,
but it will finally die. At the same time, there is a great deal of evidence that the universe
is 13.8 billion years old. this suggest that there is a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Now if
everything in the universe dies, why doesn’t the universe not die? That is your point the universe
never began and never ends but if everything else dies, why not the universe? We can see the
beginning of the universe and we can theoretically see the end of the universe.
As far as replicating the beginning of the universe in a lab, we could never do that because
we will never have the energy to do so. You could take all the energy of the sun and all of the
planets including earth and have less than .0000001% of the energy needed to recreate the universe.
We simply cannot recreate the origins of the universe. We just can’t.
there is really no such thing as a scientific fact. We have theories and the facts we have
support the theories but when the facts change as they always do, then we have to adjust the
theories. Take a fact like the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. Now that is true
until it isn’t true. Gravity affects the speed of light for example, a black hole which doesn’t allow
even light to escape which means it is stopped and not traveling 186,000 miles per second.
So is it true that light travels 186,000 miles per second? Given normal circumstances yes, it is
true but not always. It is not fact but theory. Like gravity is a theory. It is a theory but don’t bet
your life against gravity because it won’t turn out well. Gravity always wins.
The problem is derivation of order. Where does the configuration come from if the subsequent series is infinite? What real mechanism is capable of creating an order from which all subsequent order is derived? You simply do not understand the complexity of the issue. An uncaused matter is an assertion that the derivation of order never had a beginning. This is a big problem. Go ahead, try and solve it. Rather, the “Bang” in the Big Bang appears to be the creation of initial starting order, because said initial starting order is necessary for there to be any order. Get it? That’s the point of the “Bang”. So, that means there is something else which is capable of creating an initial Order because something caused the Big Bang. That is God.
[/quote]
K: the real problem is if you don’t understand something, you immediately assume god is the answer
or some other metaphysical answer. To be honest, most likely we will never know what
caused the big bang but to assume it is god is to leap to an unprovable assumption. All we can
say is we don’t know. We can get back to the BB but not beyond it. so we just don’t know
what is on the other side of the BB, but we can know everything from now to the BB, just not before.
Well, we do know what is necessary to create Order don’t we? Omniscience. Omnipotence. Omnipresence. So, yes, we do know it’s God. “I don’t know” is simply incorrect.
K: order can be created without resort to god. Gravity has created the order of the universe
and that was sanctified by time. The shape of the galaxies shows us how gravity creates order.
The solar system is a fine example of how gravity created order. Electric-magnetism has
also been a factor in the creation of order. We have unified three of the 4 forces into a theory
which helps explain the universe, we just haven’t been able to fit gravity into the theory.
You really don’t need god to explain the universe and there is no evidence of god, so
stick to the science and leave god to little children in Sunday school.
why does it require perfect/total knowledge an power to create order. Do you never create order? 2) Why would you word it as ‘we do know what is necessary…’? One tends to believe what one knows, so it is obvious that other people do not know what you say to be the case. They see it as a jump. What you see as self-evident, they do not.
Why does an infinite length suddenly require a God? It seems like you are acknowledge that over a finite period of time, order might come without God, but if it is infinite time, then it must be God. Why? If it functions so for a while, why not eternally?
Is there a difference between a real mechanism and a mechanism? I think it would be better if you demonstrated how it must be the case, rather than asking me to show you some particular order and say, there, that would come to be without God. You are making the claim that your argument demonstrates God. The onus is on you. How do you know that mere material order cannot perpetuate itself?
First of all, I don’t need to. I don’t need to demonstrate that there is no God or that matter can have order without God. I am critical of your argument. I don’t think your argument demonstrates there must be a God.
But we do not know the band was the beginning. That the potential for the universe was there before, or that there is a crunch to bang cycle are just a couple of the more complicated steady state ideas that are gaining ground out there in physics.
You have not demonstrated why matter cannot simply be and organization is a facet of this matter, along with change and disorganisation - at least at the local level. Perhaps everything causal is immanent. why I read you saying is that matter cannot have done this, but I do not see any convincing argument. Perhaps that is why I seem not to understand the complexity of your argument, since it does not seem complex to me. It seems like an assertion of a self-evident truth. Maybe you are right, but it ends up not being an argument. Which is fine in some contexts, but is likely not to be taken as an argument here and find itself criticized as not being (a good) one.