Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Universe
Comments
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Yeah and it has already established that the Big Bang model is the best one. The Big Bang model postulates a beginning in the finite past from a nothingness state – a singularity. Now either the universe just popped into existence from nothing and by nothing or it was created by something beyond space and time by a being of unimaginable power. Simple enough options if you ask me, you just have to choose which is the more plausible. That nothing created everything or an eternal being did it.
Ok, I'll give this a try. Simple options they may appear to be but to be answered they require complex explanations. Firstly, you're going to have to explain what you mean by 'beyond space and time'. By any definition I understand, that's a contraction in terms, i.e. there cannot be anything space and time as, by definition, space and time encompasses everything extant.
Then you'll have to define what you mean by 'nothing'. In physical cosmology, a singularity is not a 'nothing'. The Big Bang model is currently the best supported model alright, and generally refers to the idea that the universe came from an initially hot and possibly infinitely dense condition, the singularity. What it can't and doesn't do is provide any explanation for the initial condition, it only describes the general evolution of the universe from that first instant. Beyond that we currently can't tell what there was, but some hypotheses imply that it is actually possible the universe simply popped into existence. I haven't been keeping up with it in detail, but I believe that some recent findings suggest that the total energy in the universe is zero.
This along with inflation (the Big Bang) suggests that all that is needed is just a tiny bit of energy to get the ball rolling, i.e. a tiny bit of energy in which inflation can begin. The universe can then experience inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy, as the positive energy of the particles of all matter is balanced out by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else, hence a zero-energy universe (this is only a very Very simple overview).
The big question then is where did this bit of energy come from ? And the answer to that lies in quantum theory, where particles and antiparticles can spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. And experiments have proven that these quantum fluctuations do occur everywhere, all the time.
Thus the emergence of complexity from simplicity, precluding the requirement of a complex eternal being. If you want to define god as being simple, e.g. energy or whatever, then feel free, but that's not a personal theistic god or anything which is relevant to us.Soul Winner wrote: »So that “the universe was created” is not even an option to be mused upon? Even though you don’t know how it got here yet? The possibility that it just might have been contrived by intelligence just cannot have a foot in the door? Is that what you are saying?
No, it would be utterly stupid and completely irrational to rule it out, but without any evidence whatsoever of this intelligence it's merely an assertion and explains nothing - there is no evidence, no hypothesis, no theory, no model, nothing. The Big Bang and physical cosmology explains the universe as we see it, and in the face of hypotheses which may explain what went before (which as I've already said may in some ways be a meaningless question) and which may be testable, it provides no answers whatsoever and certainly doesn't warrant investigation by science and I fail to see why it should receive any credence.Soul Winner wrote: »Well when Copernicus was postulating his hypotheses about the heliocentricity of the solar system that too did not adhere with Occam’s razor, it was a much more complicated view than the much simpler and more accepted Ptolemaic (geocentric) view and yet the Ptolemaic view was wrong. The Ptolemaic view was a much simpler explanation than Copernicus’ but it was wrong. So much for applying the principle of Occam ’s razor on that one.
Yes, but Copernicus had evidence to prove his theory. If he simply came out and stated his view without reproducible experiments and evidence to support it then certainly Occam's Razor would apply and you would be correct, but he didn't.Soul Winner wrote: »In any case the explanation “God created it” is a vastly simpler explanation than the more complicated inflationary theory explanation which asks more questions than it answers if one is inclined to ask them.
Once more, I'll have to disagree. "God created it" explains nothing. It's simply saying here's a point in the sand and beyond there you can't go. It's only simpler if you refuse to ask questions
Soul Winner wrote: »And what pray tell is ‘meaning’ in a meaningless, purposeless, goaless universe?
This is moving away from what I was attempting to illustrate. But if you want an answer, personally and simply put I think the only meaning is what you put on it yourself. But this is a separate topic.Soul Winner wrote: »I’m not saying He does. I would just like a level playing field in the possible explanations competition. I understand when some theists who have no interest in Science just say that “God did and that’s all that matters” is not a very good way to look at it but it might be enough for them. I’m not in that camp, I’m all for probing and exploring and studying the evidence and experimenting etc. because my faith is not based on Science. I can still have my faith and also wonder at the advancements in science. But I also believe that you can’t prove everything by the scientific method. For instance you cannot prove that a rose is beautiful by the scientific method or that Michelangelo’s David is a beautiful work of art and so on. Science has its place and it is a wondrous tool and I for one am all for it but it is limited only to what can be observed by the senses. Theology however is an altogether separate and distinct discipline which needs to be studied using a different method, be they speculative, philosophical or whatever.
I agree with you up to this point.Soul Winner wrote: »Cosmology is where the two meet each other because both stake a claim to it, which gives the explanation that “God did it” good reason to be included among the other mostly theoretical explanations in science, and as already said if Occam’s razor is to be applied then the “God did it” explanation wins hands down even though He Himself might be the most complex being imaginable, but the explanation that “God did it” remains the simplest.
And this is where we part company once more :pac: This is probably due to semantics and definitions as we have to be very explicit as to what we mean, in this case defining god.
"God did it" is only simple if you define God as being outside the universe. However, that also means that he/she/it has no interaction whatsover with the universe, which to all intents and purposes means god does not exist !
I.e. as soon as something interacts with the universe, it is imposing upon it - that is, it has a measurable affect, which means it's subject to scientific scrutiny. Which means that you're going to have to come up with an explanation for God, otherwise 'god' is just a word that means nothing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
But what we do know is that the universe exists, and we also know that it had a beginning point in the finite past, beyond that point (if there is a beyond) we don’t know scientifically, therefore enter the explanations. The Biblical claim is that God created it from nothing. It even declares that time began at some point in the finite past. All these ideas (e.g. time having a beginning) where almost universally rejected by the scientific community before the Big Bang theory entered the fray. I find that rather remarkable.Well it depends on what you mean by excluded.
No one, no Christian Muslim Hindu, Atheist, anyone has come up with a way to either model or test the hypothesis that something made the universe.
I wouldn’t say that. Who knows whether or not another Einstein might come along and prove conclusively that it either was or wasn’t created by a verifiable theory of everything.And it is doubtful we ever will unless that something chooses to allow it. As such the hypothesis that something made the universe is unverifiable. It is not considered within science because it is impossible to verify, test or determine.
Religious faith never asks to be accepted as a scientific hypotheses. It is what it is. Again it might never be something that can be verified by the scientific method, just like the beautiful rose from an earlier post.Despite what some may believe or claim, religious faith falls far short of the standards required by science for a hypothesis to be considered.
I know, those darn boundaries againThat though isn't the same as declaring that something didn't make the universe. Something may have made the universe, but at the moment we don't know anything about this and we can't say how likely it is to be true.
And I yours for not concluding that there is no God based on imperfect scientific knowledge.I commend your respect for scienceand if we did actually find a way to model or test a creator, your god or otherwise, that would truly be an exciting land-mark in science.
If God exists then He would need to open the door for it. Maybe somebody might accidentally stumble upon how to do it just like many of the great scientific discoveries were made, seemingly by accident, or was it? 0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »But what we do know is that the universe exists, and we also know that it had a beginning point in the finite past, beyond that point (if there is a beyond) we don’t know scientifically, therefore enter the explanations. The Biblical claim is that God created it from nothing. It even declares that time began at some point in the finite past. All these ideas (e.g. time having a beginning) where almost universally rejected by the scientific community before the Big Bang theory entered the fray. I find that rather remarkable.
A large amount of world religions have what are known as "creation myths", as they believe the world was created some how, often by a deity or deities.
It isn't really that unusual that your religion has a creation myth, it is after all an either or situation (it either does or it doesn't, two options). Most of the religions from the area your religion originated from also have creation myths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
So I can't really see the remarkable aspect of this. If your creation myth had mentioned an inflation field that would be interesting.
Soul Winner wrote: »I wouldn’t say that. Who knows whether or not another Einstein might come along and prove conclusively that it either was or wasn’t created by a verifiable theory of everything.
But given that God is supernatural he can influence the universe without indication. So unless God decided to leave evidence of himself that can be modelled and tested it will remain outside of our grasp. And even then there are a lot of potential issues with the idea of modelling a supernatural being. You would have to figure out what he did
And to be honest (and this is just my opinion) one would think that if he was going to do that he would have done it already (the Bible doesn't count)
Religious faith often asks to be accepted as a scientific hypotheses. The world is full of people complaining that science does deal with their particular religious beliefs. That is basically what Creationism is.Soul Winner wrote: »Religious faith never asks to be accepted as a scientific hypotheses.Soul Winner wrote: »If God exists then He would need to open the door for it.
That is the problem. And even then it is debatable whether we can model a deity.0 -
Imagine it had mentioned an inflation field, I wonder how many people would have embraced it when it was written. “In the beginning the inflation field created the heavens and the earth”A large amount of world religions have what are known as "creation myths", as they believe the world was created some how, often by a deity or deities.
It isn't really that unusual that your religion has a creation myth, it is after all an either or situation (it either does or it doesn't, two options). Most of the religions from the area your religion originated from also have creation myths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
So I can't really see the remarkable aspect of this. If your creation myth had mentioned an inflation field that would be interesting. In any case the biblical account for the creation is the only one that has the creator create from nothing. God speaks and the thing spoken becomes reality e.g. “Let there be light”. Contrast that with the Babylonian account of creation. There you have two monsters rearranging stuff that was already there. And only in the Bible do we have the concept of “before time”: “No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” 1 Corinthians 2:7. Most other non Abrahamic faiths have a view of the universe as being eternal in the past.
I have no reason not to conceded that point.But given that God is supernatural he can influence the universe without indication. So unless God decided to leave evidence of himself that can be modelled and tested it will remain outside of our grasp. And even then there are a lot of potential issues with the idea of modelling a supernatural being. You would have to figure out what he did
If we didn’t have the Bible then we could not have a good discussions now could we?And to be honest (and this is just my opinion) one would think that if he was going to do that he would have done it already (the Bible doesn't count
Yes religious people do but religious faith just is what it is and requires now scientific testing to be proved correct or otherwise. There are other ways to determine that and that is done with much research and knowledge of history, philosophy and many other tools. Instead of saying that religious faith issues cannot be tested scientifically what should be said is that science is ill equipped to deal with such things. Most of early science was un-divorced from the theology of its day anyway. It’s only since the likes of Hume, Kant and Darwin that science (especially the area of biology and natural history) that science stepped out on its own two feet. I say fair play, if that is the way it has to be then so be it, but it is noteworthy that it wasn’t always that way, theology was once reckoned among the sciences and nearly all the great thinkers of science to a man was either theistic or deistic in their beliefs, from Plato through Aristotle to Newton and on one might go, even Albert Einstein was Deistic in his view of the universe.Religious faith often asks to be accepted as a scientific hypotheses. The world is full of people complaining that science does deal with their particular religious beliefs. That is basically what Creationism is.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »But I thought Occam’s razor favored the simplest explanation? Inflationary theory is not the simplest explanation, especially when you have to explain how it works which involves understanding a lot of scientific jargon and is still only theoretical an unproven at the end of the day. Whereas “God created it” is still the simplest explanation.
Once again, you are refusing to explain god. Without knowing what god is it doesn't even come into consideration.Soul Winner wrote: »Space and time encompasses everything in our reality. Just because we cannot see outside our own reality does not mean that there is nothing beyond it in a separate reality possibly called eternity. I know this cannot be tested scientifically but as said earlier, science may never be equipped to test all reality, only what is observable by our limited senses.
What are you talking about, separate reality? There can be only one reality, by definition. You just said 'Space and time encompasses everything in our reality' and that's literally it, end of the line, there's no need to go any further because you can't! Repeating myself once more, it's the same as asking what's north of the North Pole, it's meaningless.Soul Winner wrote: »‘Nothing’ cannot be defined because ‘nothing’ isn’t! As soon as you define ‘nothing’ it becomes something. And yet even Stephen Hawking believes that the Universe just popped into existence from ‘nothing’ without violating the laws of physics. Of course it didn’t, because there was no laws of physics to violate, they were created along with everything else in the beginning. From the earliest initial conditions the Universe already encompassed the laws of physics and all this from nothing and also by nothing. If you are a proponent of the Big Bang theory and you are an atheist then this is the position you must hold. That everything just popped into existence from nothing and by nothing.
Gah, please reread my post in it's entirety.Soul Winner wrote: »Yes and this infinitude of mass and temperature means it had zero mass, and zero everything else, i.e. ‘nothing’.
That's self-contradictory, how can an infinitude of mass = zero mass. What?Soul Winner wrote: »When you measure the positive and negative forces in the universe like the positive and negative charge and put the resulting values side by side then of course it will come out at a ‘0’ value, but that does not mean that there is nothing there. If you weigh two elephants that have the exact same weight say 2 tones each, then obviously they will cancel each other out on the weighing scale but you wouldn’t then turn around and say that because of that there are no elephants on the scales would you? Well that is what this theory is implying, that there is really no universe after all because when all its positive and negative components are balanced together the value comes to zero.
This is what you're (emphasis on you!) implying from the theory, the theory itself says no such thing, it's self-contained. Here's where you need to begin studying physics Here's a link to paper by Andre Linde, one of the scientists working on inflationary cosmology, enjoy!
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203Soul Winner wrote: »Well there are billions and billions of particles of energy in existence now so why don’t we observe things popping into existing like our universe all the time anymore?
In my very first post and my second post I said that we do.Soul Winner wrote: »Why only our Universe? Why can’t we observe galaxies just popping into existence? Planets, Stars etc?? If all that is needed are tiny bits of energy?
This universe, the one we are in, may have come from ONE piece of energy, and evolved via the Big Bang - over a very long period of time, the slightly denser regions of the distributed matter gravitationally attracted nearby matter and thus grew even denser, forming the galaxies, gas clouds, stars and all the other things we can see today. I.E. the singularity popped into existence, the suggestion that entire complex structures pop into existence is ludicrous. The hypothesis may very well mean that other bits of energy may spawn other universes entirely, but we'll probably never know of them. Read the paper I linked above.Soul Winner wrote: »Yes but they don’t create universes anymore. Why not? Why do they just annihilate each other all the time instead of creating a new universes or galaxies or stars or something that we have never observed before?
As above, perhaps they may create other universes, but by the very definition of a universe, we'll never know about them. Look up the various multiverse theories and the paper above.Soul Winner wrote: »If we define God as comprising of ‘Mind’ with no matter or substance as some theologians do then we would have the simplest of entities that could not only be immaterial but also personal.
If something has no matter or no substance then it's immaterial alright, you've just defined it right out of existence.Soul Winner wrote: »There are very good reasons and plenty of evidence that show that God exists.
What evidence? Don't you understand that if there is evidence of a god it would be the most fantastic thing ever for science, scientists would be tripping over themselves to investigate it.Soul Winner wrote: »The problem with people who don’t want to believe is that they have excluded this evidence as good enough because it is not scientific evidence.
What evidence ?Soul Winner wrote: »It’s like locking yourself into your room and refusing to believe in other rooms because there is no evidence in your room that other rooms exists. Stop limiting yourself to what you can prove whilst locked in your room and try unlocking the door and looking out side. Ok you might have to employ other methods of investigation which only work when your door is unlocked but that doesn’t mean that is in anyway invalid as a method or that it even invalidates your locked door method as sufficient for investigations things locked in your room.
I'm afraid this analogy completely fails as the door and the lock are evidence that there may be other rooms so there is no reason to refuse to believe in them.Soul Winner wrote: »Like I said, I don’t need science to have a faith in God, I have that by other means.
Interesting, what are these if you don't mind me asking ?Soul Winner wrote: »Like I said, if we only use the scientific method then we may never find God. Maybe God has so constituted the Universe that He will not allow personal knowledge of Him to come via that route.
The universe is by definition everything, therefore no info can come from any other route. You can't keep changing the definitions to what suits you.Soul Winner wrote: »The God of the Bible at least does not like being tested.
So what's the point in praying or asking him for help in anything?Soul Winner wrote: »From His point of view we are to be tested by Him, not the other way around. In the NT Jesus would not submit to performing miracles by means of proving who He was to anybody, be they ordinary folk, religious leaders or even earthly rulers.
Why not ?Soul Winner wrote: »All the recorded miracles in the NT came as result of prior faith in Him by the individual(s) for whom the miracle(s) were performed.
If the only source and evidence for these miracles is the NT then that means nothing to me. Without those you're saying - miracles in NT mean NT speaks of genuine god, thus NT is genuine, thus miracles are genuine = circular reasoning.Soul Winner wrote: »If God really did create it then as an explanation of how it got here we can’t go any further.
You're asking me to explain how the Big Bang came about from 'nothing', you're not satisfied that at this particular moment there is no definitive answer, while simultaneously as soon as god is mentioned you are willing to stop questioning right there - why the different standards ?Soul Winner wrote: »If I understand it correctly even now when delving into the microscopic elementary particle world, science can go no further than theoretical naming conventions, quarks, gluons, bosons and so on. (snippety snip). It’s like both ends of reality are cut off from a full understanding of our minds, with us sort of stuck in the middle, at least that is how I see it.
The important bit above is "even now". Science is an ongoing process and these questions might be answered tomorrow. You're simply using the god of the gaps argument.Soul Winner wrote: »If there is such a being as God then God would be defined as the greatest conceivable being, anything greater than that, is God.
I don't understand, anything greater than god, is god ? That makes no logical sense whatsover
Soul Winner wrote: »Science and Scripture agree on this point, that space and time had a beginning in the finite past. If God really did do it, then obviously He exists outside the universe which had this beginning in order to create it. But I fail to see how you can make the leap that just because He exists outside the universe that He cannot interact with it, especially being a being powerful enough to create the universe in the first place. That would be like saying that a keeper of fish who exists outside his fish tank cannot interact with his fish tank, like cleaning it out and introducing new fish and so on.
Awful analogy, but if you want to use it.. e.g. if I were a fish in the tank I could simply look through the sides and see the keeper outside. If the sides were black and another fish suddenly plopped in I could measure it's size, length, calculate where it came from, etc.
It would be obvious that there's something outside, thus the fish tank is not the entire universe, i.e. the observable universe expands and we can make diret measurements, i.e. it's subject to science.
If the sides are black so that I can't see out, and/or the top is blocked off or whatever else, then the keeper cannot put another fish in or make any changes, he cannot interact! So to repeat myself again, by definition there cannot be anything outside the universe.Soul Winner wrote: »If God exists at all then He is the greatest conceivable being, powerful enough to create a universe plus is not made of the same stuff as the universe i.e. matter, energy etc then surely his interaction with it would not effect it in the same way that say an object made of solid iron the size of a billion billion galaxies would affect it if it was suddenly and instantly added to its composition would affect it, just like how the arm of the fish keeper would affect the behavior of the water in the fish tank and the objects that he touches in it would be affected once he decides to interact with them.
See above.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Imagine it had mentioned an inflation field, I wonder how many people would have embraced it when it was written. “In the beginning the inflation field created the heavens and the earth” In any case the biblical account for the creation is the only one that has the creator create from nothing. God speaks and the thing spoken becomes reality e.g. “Let there be light”. Contrast that with the Babylonian account of creation. There you have two monsters rearranging stuff that was already there. And only in the Bible do we have the concept of “before time”: “No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” 1 Corinthians 2:7. Most other non Abrahamic faiths have a view of the universe as being eternal in the past.
I'd recommend reading Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha von Dechend; it deals with creation myths in a facinating way.
Taoism creation myths state that all was created from nothing, that nothing existed before; as do Sikhist creation myths and the creation myths in Mandaeism; likewise, the Apaches stated that nothing existed before the creation. So you see that the idea of nothing existing before isn't confined to Christianity.
Anyway, I don't think even mentioning that there was nothing before lends any credence to the idea. In human life, there is always a start and a finish with all things we deal with; so I don't find it too difficult to see how humans may have thought that the universe had to have started at some stage: It's the natural conclusion.Nearly all the great thinkers of science to a man was either theistic or deistic in their beliefs, from Plato through Aristotle to Newton and on one might go, even Albert Einstein was Deistic in his view of the universe.
I'd have to disagree on the case of Einstein. Einstein certainly wasn't theistic; but, I'm not so sure about him being deistic. There are many, many quotes expressing his lack of a belief in any god, and, I think that when he expressed his disbelief in a god, that he is talking about both a theistic god and a deistic god. From what I've read about him, the general consensus is that he was pantheistic; and I think that most scientists who mention a god are doing so in a pantheistic way.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement