|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCXC Inactive Member |
Since we have not witnessed every possible thing that has come into being or will come into being, how is it rational to assume that everything that comes into being must have a cause? But those things that will come into being will probably have a cause. The cure for cancer hasn't come into being yet but if it does (or when it does) it will probably be caused (discovered by scientists, or chemists, or whoever). This is a pretty consistent pattern if not a standard for the way things come to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
except that when imaginary numbers are used, as computational devices, to grease the equations and get the result the mathematicion wants. In what way does the usefulness of imaginary numbers as tools demonstrate that they are not "real"?
Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin, just a mathematical way modeling the universe so a singularity doesn't appear. Does he? Are you sure? Not what I have heard him say. It is certainly not realistic in that the model is very simplifed, but that is not the point...
the idea of imaginary numbers, and infinity, is just conceptual, but not not descriptive of what can happen in the real world How do you know? Explain to me the role of imaginary numbers in quantum mechanics demonstrating that they are just a tool, and not a fundemental property of our universe. You might find this reference helpful Complex Numbers, Quantum Mechanics and the Beginning of TimeG.W. Gibbons, H.J. Pohle Nucl.Phys. B410 (1993) 117-142 available as preprint here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I don't think you really mean this. Probably is not certainly. By using the word "probably" you are acknowledging doubt, and so you are acknowledging the unsoundness of any argument that includes "everything that exists has a cause" as a premise. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You find a place I've used the word "explosion" in a positive context related to the Big Bang and I will give 100 to the charity of your choice
Now, where's that list of posts and the edit button...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posit Inactive Member |
be·gin . To come into being: when life (or universe ) began. I'll go with the dictionary on the definition. The dictionary is only a starting place for definitions, as evidenced by the fact that different dictionaries have different definitions.
If something comes into being then it must have a cause, how is it rational to assume otherwise? if a you hear a loud bang then something probably caused it. it wouldn't make sense to say that the bang came from nothing. if it is necessary for their to be a cause of the small bang then it is necessary for their to be a cause for the Big Bang. quite inescapable. Again, this is equivocation. A loud bang is "caused" by prior interaction of matter and energy. Since no matter or energy existed prior to the origin of the universe, any definition of a "cause" of that matter coming into being is essentially a different use of the word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
But those things that will come into being will probably have a cause. The cure for cancer hasn't come into being yet but if it does (or when it does) it will probably be caused (discovered by scientists, or chemists, or whoever). This is a pretty consistent pattern if not a standard for the way things come to exist.
There are events that do not appearently have causes. QM describes a number of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCXC Inactive Member |
All the responses I'm hearing are just picking at words, and examples that don't negate that the Big Bang has a beginning point...
so, maybe I can get a clearer understanding if someone will just answer yes and no question and explain why. Did the Big Bang have a beginning? Yes or No? And the loud bang was probably caused by someone lighting a firework or some other explosive agent. key word: someone some being set the universe into motion. And apologize. my language may be equivocal, unintentionally, because I'm a mere dabbler in this issue, i don't have a degree to back up my assertions but I'm trying to employ simple logic... If the universe has a beginning then how did that beginning come to be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Who knows? Maybe it just did. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCXC Inactive Member |
it just did? from nothing? how can everything come from nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: If the universe has no cause, then this question cannot be answered. "How can" implies a cause. Let me ask a different question: why couldn't the universe have no cause? "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm not going to reinforce the points Posit was putting forward, but I will point out an issue with your logic in that it goes from 'the universe had a cause' to 'it was caused by a being' with no reason; it appears to be non sequitur.
If the universe had a cause, it could be some entity that can't be described as being a 'being'. That is, it is not some kind of sentience or intelligence. It could be some kind of reality envisioned by M-Theory with colliding 11 dimensional objects being the 'cause' of our 4 dimensional space-time. It might be that this underlying reality has no 'beginning' or 'cause' or perhaps it does, I don't know. I have enough difficulty getting my head around a universe with four dimensions let alone an 11 dimensional hyper-reality. IANAC, YMMV
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCXC Inactive Member |
Let me ask a different question: why couldn't the universe have no cause? Because the universe can't come from nothing. Can you explain how this would be possible? Can any scientific theory how the whole universe could come from nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CCXC Inactive Member |
If the universe had a cause, it could be some entity that can't be described as being a 'being'. That is, it is not some kind of sentience or intelligence. It could be some kind of reality envisioned by M-Theory with colliding 11 dimensional objects being the 'cause' of our 4 dimensional space-time. It might be that this underlying reality has no 'beginning' or 'cause' or perhaps it does, I don't know. I have enough difficulty getting my head around a universe with four dimensions let alone an 11 dimensional hyper-reality. I think Ockham's Razor can be applied here as a scientific principle to not multiply causes beyond what's necessary to explain the effect. One being or intelligent creator is sufficient to explain how the universe came to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One being or intelligent creator is sufficient to explain how the universe came to exist. An infinite intelligent deity always represents more unneccesary entities than any finite number of natural laws or natural phenomena. Don't get caught up on that word "one". One infinity is always more than any finite amount.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posit Inactive Member |
What you call "picking at words" isn't just playing games with semantics. Its an attempt to point out that the universe "having a cause" and events within the universe "having a cause" are fundamentally different concepts.
Did the Big Bang have a beginning? Yes or No? Again, how do you define beginning? Everyday notions of the word fail when applied to the universe as a whole. I would agree that present evidence indicates that the Big Bang occurred, although this has its own definitional issues. The word "begin" is irreconcilably self-referential when applied to the beginning of time itself. Self-reference is a good way to guarantee logical paradoxes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024