Proof of 'God particle' found

Scioch

philologos wrote: »

Some think it is enough just to claim that it is stupid. However, the answers as to why Creation is stupid aren't forthcoming. I'm happy to have atheists claim that I'm an idiot or that I'm stupid, firstly because it looks ridiculous, and secondly because I'd rather be an idiot and believe in God, than be a genius and come before God in judgement.

And now we get to the root of your belief. Fear. You believe this nonsense because you fear the repercussions if your dont.

It's one of the reasons why I find the new-atheism not to be convincing, it's one of the reasons why I'm glad that I stopped being an agnostic. There are sound reasons to believe in God and trust what He says.

Atheism doesnt have to be convincing Religion does. Atheism is what happens when its not.

The simple answer seems to be that people just aren't very keen on the idea that there is a God, and that they might just have to listen to Him.

Because there is no reason to believe in him or take what he apparently says seriously. People in the modern age want facts, knowledge and understanding not myths and superstition based on fear and ignorance.

But I'm sure anything I said is tired old rhetoric while you are a reasonable person willing to engage in meaningful debate. While ignoring anything that doesnt fit with your already established, unmovable, absurd belief in nonsense.

Problem with that is reasonable and meaningful debate cannot be had when one side refuses to deal with reality.

philologos

Blowfish wrote: »

That doesn't change or counter the argument at all. Saying 'x doesn't normally happen, therefore it must have been god' is a completely ridiculous argument, regardless of what x actually is or is not.

All my argument is attempting to refute is the idea that people who believe in a divine creation is stupid.

A. If the universe is of a finite age, and most physicists would agree it's 15.7 billion years old meaning it began 15.7 billion years ago.
B. Finite things, have a cause.
C. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the universe had an ultimate cause.

It's an option that makes good sense.

If it didn't, and if it was completely conjured out of nothing, then I'd agree. I'd be an idiot, but since it is based on reality, it's worthy of consideration.

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

It's an option that makes good sense.

Ah, so god for you is an unproven theory, fine.

I'd disagree that it makes good sense though, it seem a pretty large leap.

philologos

LordSmeg wrote: »

And now we get to the root of your belief. Fear. You believe this nonsense because you fear the repercussions if your dont.

Not the root. There's plenty of other good reasons as to why I can believe in God. Including a few that you've ignored so far.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Atheism doesnt have to be convincing Religion does. Atheism is what happens when its not.

Actually, if atheists are claiming to me that it is more reasonable to hold their position, and that I should do so. Atheism does have to be convincing.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Because there is no reason to believe in him or take what he apparently says seriously. People in the modern age want facts, knowledge and understanding not myths and superstition based on fear and ignorance.

Except, there are plenty. Keep repeating that, and keep ignoring what I've said I guess.

LordSmeg wrote: »

But I'm sure anything I said is tired old rhetoric while you are a reasonable person willing to engage in meaningful debate. While ignoring anything that doesnt fit with your already established, unmovable, absurd belief in nonsense.

Here's an example of your rhetoric:

Thats the thing with belief in god. Unless you first learn about it through fairy tales, and stories that have no grounding in reality there is no reason for it to enter the debate. "We dont know" is not a valid reason to propose anything that pops into your head.

1. You've not explained why one must learn about it through fairy tales.
2. You've not explained why they are fairy tales or stories.
3. You've not explained why they are not grounded in reality.
4. You've not explained why it is just something that popped into my head.
5. You've not explained why you believe "we don't know" is the reason I'm arguing for my position.

Explain why you believe what you do. Then I'll talk in more in depth.

I mean you've made claims without giving any form of reason for thinking what you do. If you said, I believe in X and this is why I do. Then I'd be much more willing and able to engage in what you're saying.,

LordSmeg wrote: »

Problem with that is reasonable and meaningful debate cannot be had when one side refuses to deal with reality.

I don't "refuse to deal with reality". My beliefs are essentially based on reality. The conclusion that I've come to about creation is justifiable given that the generally accepted age of the universe is finite. If it is it's entirely reasonable to think that it has an intelligent cause.

Blowfish wrote: »

Ah, so god for you is an unproven theory, fine.

I'd disagree that it makes good sense though, it seem a pretty large leap.

Again, I don't see why any reasonable person would disagree that it makes sense.

I don't believe there is absolute proof of God, but there are good reasons for believing:
1) In the existence of God.
2) That the Bible is a reliable testimony concerning Him.
A) That the Bible actually communicates truth.
That the Bible is not corrupted.

shizz

philologos wrote: »

All my argument is attempting to refute is the idea that people who believe in a divine creation is stupid.

A. If the universe is of a finite age, and most physicists would agree it's 15.7 billion years old meaning it began 15.7 billion years ago.
B. Finite things, have a cause.
C. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the universe had an ultimate cause.

It's an option that makes good sense.

If it didn't, and if it was completely conjured out of nothing, then I'd agree. I'd be an idiot, but since it is based on reality, it's worthy of consideration.

Well I dunno if there is any theory that sort of considers this, but lately I thought that considering that time exists because of the Universe due to space time and such, why would time have to exist outside of the universe? If there is no "time" then how can something have a beginning? I.E. how can something be created in this region where time doesn't exist?

Of course we don't know what exists outside the Universe so it's just a thought.

philologos

shizz wrote: »

Well I dunno if there is any theory that sort of considers this, but lately I thought that considering that time exists because of the Universe due to space time and such, why would time have to exist outside of the universe? If there is no "time" then how can something have a beginning? I.E. how can something be created in this region where time doesn't exist?

Of course we don't know what exists outside the Universe so it's just a thought.

The point is that given the finite nature of the universe. It is entirely reasonable that there was an external intelligent cause which brought it into being.

My problem isn't with people disagreeing with that claim. It's people who go into the next tier of discussion and claim that people like me are actually stupid for believing in something that is actually reasonable on the basis of what we do know about the universe.

If atheists on boards.ie were more interested in having a good discussion rather than chucking ad-hominems around we could make meaningful progress on this issue.

I think atheists and Christians can agree on at least one thing, that is that being plain rude to people isn't a great start to anything

brimal

We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. At the moment the data suggests it is infinite.

philologos

brimal wrote: »

We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. At the moment the data suggests it is infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

My previous figure was actually wrong - It's estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old.

brimal

philologos wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

My previous figure was actually wrong - It's estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old.

That doesn't prove the universe is finite. The universe is still expanding, and isn't slowing down. In fact it is expanding faster and faster as each day goes by.

How can you determine if something is finite if it hasn't stopped growing/ageing?

Space and time are all one. It's called spacetime. And seeing as it continues to expand (and 'age') there is no way to determine yet if the universe is finite or infinite.

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

My problem isn't with people disagreeing with that claim. It's people who go into the next tier of discussion and claim that people like me are actually stupid for believing in something that is actually reasonable on the basis of what we do know about the universe..

In a similar vein then, the ancient greeks who didn't know why the sky did not fall and crush them, based on what they knew about the universe were entirely reasonable in saying that the sky was held up by the divine, Atlas.

A lack of knowledge does not mean that it's 'reasonable' to assume anything yet unknown was caused by a divine.

Dr.Zeus

It's all overrated, this Higgs-Boson stuff, IMO. Big deal.
You'd swear we asked them to split the atom, or something....

They should try and find a cure for Erectile Dysfunction. That's hard!:p

philologos

Finite - limited.

The universe is limited insofar as it has a limited age. To say something began 13.7 billion years ago is to say it is finite.

How this age is calculated is on the basis of the expansion of the universe since the Big Bang which happened a finite amount of time ago.

Blowfish wrote: »

In a similar vein then, the ancient greeks who didn't know why the sky did not fall and crush them, based on what they knew about the universe were entirely reasonable in saying that the sky was held up by the divine, Atlas.

I don't honestly get your comparison here.

The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old. That is what we know.

Therefore if that is the case it is entirely reasonable to suggest that there was an ultimate cause to that.

My point is really really simple. It's for the atheists who would say that people like me who believe in a Creation and a Creator are idiots. I say on what basis, because it's not all that unreasonable to conclude if the universe is finite that there was an ultimate cause to that occurring.

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

I don't honestly get your comparison here.My

The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old. That is what we know.

Therefore if that is the case it is entirely reasonable to suggest that there was an ultimate cause to that.

My point is really really simple. It's for the atheists who would say that people like me who believe in a Creation and a Creator are idiots. I say on what basis, because it's not all that unreasonable to conclude if the universe is finite that there was an ultimate cause to that occurring.

point is that a lack of knowledge of the universe does not mean that it's 'reasonable' to come to the conclusion that a deity is involved. It means that you are in essence, guessing.

philologos

Blowfish wrote: »

point is that a lack of knowledge of the universe does not mean that it's 'reasonable' to come to the conclusion that a deity is involved. It means that you are in essence, guessing.

No, but if what we do know about the universe can logically lead to something else, then that is valid. It's not stupid to see how X could mean that Y is behind X.

I also don't see how your objection actually makes atheism more reasonable. It is equally possible that atheists make claims and those claims may end up being bunk. The question is why do atheists believe that divine creation is stupid?

The answer is still forthcoming.

Scioch

philologos wrote: »

Not the root. There's plenty of other good reasons as to why I can believe in God. Including a few that you've ignored so far.

If its not the root it certainly compounds your reluctance to sway from it. Either way fear plays a big part in why you hold to your beliefs. Fear is not a good gauge of reality.

Actually, if atheists are claiming to me that it is more reasonable to hold their position, and that I should do so. Atheism does have to be convincing.

No it doesnt. Religion just has to be convincing, which it isnt in regards to factual evidence and rational thought. Atheism will never convince you if you are already convinced that belief in god is valid. If you were looking at it with an open mind however and basing your opinion on the logical conclusion of the evidence available then atheism would seem the more convincing option simply because Religion isnt. But as I said its impossible for you because you are cemented into your irrational view.

Except, there are plenty. Keep repeating that, and keep ignoring what I've said I guess.

No there arent. The only reason to believe is because of the teaching of various religions all of which are based on myth. You havent listed any valid reason to hold your belief. It boils down to one argument. "We dont know therefore there may be a god". Which isnt a valid reason to accept something as true.

Here's an example of your rhetoric:


1. You've not explained why one must learn about it through fairy tales.
2. You've not explained why they are fairy tales or stories.
3. You've not explained why they are not grounded in reality.
4. You've not explained why it is just something that popped into my head.
5. You've not explained why you believe "we don't know" is the reason I'm arguing for my position.

!. Because that is how religious belief is learned, through myths, fairy tales and untrue stories purporting to have come from god himself to teach us. Unverifiable, unbelievable nonsense.

2. Because they have no factual evidence to back up their claims. The claims when analysed using rational thought and knowledge of the basic laws of physics are clearly impossible.

3. As above there is no factual evidence to back up its wild claims and compared to what we have discovered about earth and the universe has been shown to be nonsense. There is no reason to believe it or take it as anything other than fiction and fantasy.

4. Because there is no logical reason to think a god created the universe if you were not taught it as truth. Looking at the evidence of how the universe developed and everything in it developed there is nothing to suggest it was an intelligent design. So when you attribute the creation of the universe to God you are doing so based on nothing credible. Its little more than an unsubstantiated thought popping into your head and then saying this is what I think. "Any evidence for that claim phil?" Nope, just think it is all.

5. Because it was the reason you put forth to validate your argument as being equal to any other.

Explain why you believe what you do. Then I'll talk in more in depth.

I mean you've made claims without giving any form of reason for thinking what you do. If you said, I believe in X and this is why I do. Then I'd be much more willing and able to engage in what you're saying.,

I believe what I do because its proven to be true and verifiable by experiment or is a logical and rational conclusion that is drawn from those things.

I don't "refuse to deal with reality". My beliefs are essentially based on reality. The conclusion that I've come to about creation is justifiable given that the generally accepted age of the universe is finite. If it is it's entirely reasonable to think that it has an intelligent cause.

No its not, the conclusion you have come to has been influenced by your irrational belief in the Judeo Christian god. Its not entirely unreasonable to think it may be an intelligent design. But it is entirely unreasonable to think and believe it has. Which you obviously do given your religious views. There is no possible way you can be open to it because it would contradict your entire belief system.

Again, I don't see why any reasonable person would disagree that it makes sense.

I don't believe there is absolute proof of God, but there are good reasons for believing:
1) In the existence of God.
2) That the Bible is a reliable testimony concerning Him.
A) That the Bible actually communicates truth.
That the Bible is not corrupted.

1. That comes from the bible and other religious documents and histories.
2. The bible is another manifestation of the belief systems which predate it. There is no reason whatsoever to assume its the defining version of truth in regards to a supreme being.
A. Once again and as I have said earlier given what it is and the claims it makes and the contradiction with any knowledge we have gather though intelligent and testable means it is not to be trusted as a truthful document.
B. As above.

nozzferrahhtoo

I could almost sense your presence on this thread just waiting, furtively and sweaty in the corner for some chance to pop in and start evangelising as you always do. Trolling the thread with concepts of morality, gods and other things that have nothing to do with the thread at all. But that never stops you selling your product does it?

philologos wrote: »

Throwing these up in the air and saying they are stupid without providing much other alternative seems a little off to me.

But that is what you do all the time!! You just stroll into threads that have nothing to do with you or your god and say things like "Atheism makes no sense to me therefore there must be a god" and then you run away. Every time.

philologos wrote: »

It's really not that stupid to say that finite entity X, must have a cause Y

It is if the entity you are talking about does not have "time" as an attribute. Time is an attribute of our universe in its current form. It was not an attribute "before" the big bang so your first cause canard falls apart entirely. You can not have a cause without causality, and I am still waiting for you to provide a scientific model of how we can have causality without time. Will that model come in THIS thread or will you be running away again like you do Every. Single. Other. Time. ?

philologos wrote: »

Let me know if you're going to present any argument rather than present rhetoric.

Funny that is what I have been saying to YOU for two years now. You never present any evidence for your nonsense. You just run away every time, and pretend to put people on ignore when you can not answer them. You have never presented a single argument for your position on these fora in all the years I have been here. You just keep declaring yourself to be correct, that atheism makes no sense to you, and that therefore there must be a god.

You are all bark and no bite. Hot air with no argument whatsoever. You just come into random threads, derail them, evangelise on them, then run away screaming and crying and throwing toys out of the pram when no one falls for your nonsense and unsubstantiated fantasy claims.

Scioch

In a futile attempt to get back to more important things here. Can anyone tell me:

If it turns out not to be the Standard Model Higgs then what is it ? A new boson in a new category of higgs bosons ? Or that the standard model higgs may be made up of different higgs bosons ?

Dyr

LordSmeg wrote: »

In a futile attempt to get back to more important things here. Can anyone tell me:

If it turns out not to be the Standard Model Higgs then what is it ? A new boson in a new category of higgs bosons ? Or that the standard model higgs may be made up of different higgs bosons ?

It could be GOD

brimal

philologos wrote: »

Finite - limited.

The universe is limited insofar as it has a limited age. To say something began 13.7 billion years ago is to say it is finite.

You have just described a time frame within the universes life. From big bang to now. That of course is finite as it has beginning and end.

But the universe is still ageing, so you cannot state that it is finite.

If the universe were to show signs of slowing down, then it would be safe to assume that the universe will eventually have an end, and therefore be finite.

But at the moment the continuing expansion of the universe suggests an infinite universe, and the majority of cosmologists agree.

Scioch

Bambi wrote: »

It could be GOD

Lets not jump to conclusions, lets work this out.

I have a question. I dont know the answer......By Christ you could be right !!

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Some think it is enough just to claim that it is stupid. However, the answers as to why Creation is stupid aren't forthcoming.

In terms of the universe, what is your opinion on the importance of humans to god? At what point in our life span did we obtain a soul according to your understanding? Did we have it as homo erectus? How about homo sapiens or was it homo sapiens sapiens? Was there a particular time frame that before which we didn't have souls? Do other life forms have souls?

Creation is stupid when you apply Ockham's Razor. You make too many assumptions. That there was a deity, that the deity set about events of the big bang, that this planet that is said to be of such importance to this deity yet only has been around 1/3 the length of time as the universe. That we, as we now are have only been around for approx 100,000 of the 4.5 billion years. Lots of assumptions about a deity having a hand in this.

Assumptions that it is watching over us. That prayers work. That we have some fate post mortem. There are just too much things which seem only an overly credulous person could suspend disbelief for.

Pushtrak: When I'm talking about objectively binding morality, I'm talking about humanity.

You try to make a point that some innate "this is what is good" is what is objective. Is that the case? Every time you try to discuss objective morality, there is a miscommunication on the part of one of us. Either you aren't stating things well, or I'm just not taking things up right.

I know you say it is something that your god gave everyone, which is a nice work around to allow you to realise atheists can be moral. Do we have any laws in the western world that you would consider objectively immoral?

Can you see how those positions are different? - I don't believe in absolute morality, I believe in objective morality.

Yes, I see the difference between the two, but it doesn't really illustrate much about the qualities that would apply to objective. How you know something is objective, and not a trick of the mind, for instance.

I'll watch your video in a bit.

It's very informative. It only runs 7 and a half minutes, after which it's just an advert.

philologos wrote: »

All my argument is attempting to refute is the idea that people who believe in a divine creation is stupid.

The people might be or might not be, just as in any cross section of populations. I'd certainly say people who stumble upon Pascal's Wager, wonder about the first cause argument or any other theist argumentation and stop looking at what the sciences say certainly can lack any intellectual curiosity. I'd take a dim view to people who don't really want to understand reality as it is, and throw around their deity of choice as if it were compelling.

A. If the universe is of a finite age, and most physicists would agree it's 13.7 billion years old meaning it began 13.7 billion years ago.
B. Finite things, have a cause.
C. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the universe had an ultimate cause.

You corrected the date in a later post, but I'll edit it here, too. You already know about the big bang and time starting at the big bang. So, yeah...

If it didn't, and if it was completely conjured out of nothing, then I'd agree. I'd be an idiot, but since it is based on reality, it's worthy of consideration.

Consideration? Certainly. It definitely is worthy of consideration. The implications if there actually were a deity would be more than I could express, but making crazy illogical leaps is not something anyone should advocate.

philologos wrote: »

Actually, if atheists are claiming to me that it is more reasonable to hold their position, and that I should do so. Atheism does have to be convincing.

The atheist position is refusing the theist position. Or as I posted elsewhere:

Pushtrak wrote: »

A claim is made. Something exists. To jump on board, one ought to be satisfied with the existence. And being satisfied, be able to explain to others the grounds on which the evidence may satisfy another. In other words, atheists reject the claim. So, what does an atheist have to prove?

Now, there are variations on the theme depending on the specific atheist to whom you are discussing. I think I've already made the point that when I look at god beliefs/claims, it is easier to evaluate religions as they posit an interventionist deity.

These are falsifiable. This is important. None of the miracle claims are verified/verifiable to the satisfaction of the non believer, or believers in other religions, I guess I could point out. Deities do seem to be following the god of the gaps. Surely you are aware of this phenomenon. It is pretty much at the point that the deistic god and the interventionist god are on the same footing in terms of their role in the universe at this point. Unfalsifable hypothesis.

Tar.Aldarion

philologos wrote: »

Finite - limited.

The universe is limited insofar as it has a limited age. To say something began 13.7 billion years ago is to say it is finite.

The universe has existed at all points in time. There is no before. There is no 13.89 billion years ago because time and the universe are one, time is a property of the universe. The "length of existence of the universe" is an invalid idea. The universe has actually existed for all time.

crazy cabbage

Havent read most of this so sorry if i am repeating something (32 pages :eek:)

To anyone who is argueing in favour of GOD can i ask a question.

1: Do you believe anything man made will last/live forever?
2: Do you believe in the concept of the soal?
3: Do you believe that the soal is man made?

If you believe in the bible then the answers to the above should have been, no, yes, no.

4: correct?

5: Then you have to ask yourself at what point that God places each soal inside of the woumb/baby. To me asking this question seems silly.
If you want to prove the existance of God that would be a good place to start. Find the exact moment that the soal is placed inside the human body. surly this will cause a mesurable change/effect.

Related issue here that i am just after thinking about is is this argument related to abbortion? Surly from a religous point of view abbortion should be ok as long as it is befor the soal is placed inside the body. They cant say when this happens sooo.....

How did this end up being a squable over God? It really doesn't matter wheather or not God exists. It makes no difference on how one should live there livies. Some of the most spirtual people i know dont belive in God (if that makes sence)

nozzferrahhtoo

A Higgs Boson walks into a Catholic church, but the priest stops him in the vestibule and says 'you really shouldn't come in here. They call you the God particle, and that's sacreligious'. The Higgs Boson says to the priest 'don't be ridiculous, without me, you wouldn't be able to have Mass.'

delad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is if the entity you are talking about does not have "time" as an attribute. Time is an attribute of our universe in its current form. It was not an attribute "before" the big bang

have you got evidence to prove that?

nozzferrahhtoo

delad wrote: »

have you got evidence to prove that?

The current scientific consensus is that the laws of physics we currently know of came into being at the event we have poorly terms the "Big Bang". If someone wants to establish that something like "Time" existed "before" that point then the onus of proof is on them, not me. Anyone touting the "First cause" argument has the onus of proof, not the rest of us.

This lecture from Hawking is likely of interest to you.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

The universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old. That is what we know.

Therefore if that is the case it is entirely reasonable to suggest that there was an ultimate cause to that.

It is reasonable to propose there might be. Not to assume there must be. And if the idea can not be falsified, it isn't really worth discussing. As an illustration, Russel's Teapot.

LordSmeg wrote: »

If it turns out not to be the Standard Model Higgs then what is it ? A new boson in a new category of higgs bosons ? Or that the standard model higgs may be made up of different higgs bosons ?

What they found is a higgs boson, they just aren't sure if it is the higgs boson. They'll be doing more testing, and hopefully we'll know more as time goes on. Though at the end of the year, they'll be closing the LHC for 20 months to upgrade it.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Havent read most of this so sorry if i am repeating something (32 pages :eek:)

You can change how many posts show up per page. Can make it only 12 instead. Control Panel -> Edit Options.

How did this end up being a squable over God? It really doesn't matter wheather or not God exists. It makes no difference on how one should live there livies. Some of the most spirtual people i know dont belive in God (if that makes sence)

Religious people feel the doctrines of their faith are so good they want people who don't share the faith to "enjoy" them too. Like it or not.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

have you got evidence to prove that?

Time is affected by gravity. A singularity is infinitely dense and has infinite gravity. Meaning there is no time. If all matter in the universe was to exist in one point as its believe to have been consistent with the expansion of the universe then pre big bang was a singularity. I think.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

have you got evidence to prove that?

Look up the Big Bang anywhere. If you didn't know that time started at the big bang, then you have a fundamental lack of knowledge of the big bang.

Edit: Crap, that was the entire playlist. The one vid in particular I was going to link was

But the other videos are good, too, so no point removing it.

My name is URL

brimal wrote: »

But at the moment the continuing expansion of the universe suggests an infinite universe, and the majority of cosmologists agree.

Depends on what you mean by expansion and infinity. Do you think that there's an infinite amount of matter in the universe? Just because it's observably inflating does not mean that it's infinite.

Scioch

Pushtrak wrote: »

What they found is a higgs boson, they just aren't sure if it is the higgs boson. They'll be doing more testing, and hopefully we'll know more as time goes on. Though at the end of the year, they'll be closing the LHC for 20 months to upgrade it.

So are there different types of higgs bosons ? Are they unsure if this higgs boson is an fundamental higgs boson as fit the standard model complete or a sub particle that makes up the higgs boson ?

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

That's not true. There is grounding for it. Insofar as finite things don't generally come from nothing. That's a valid reason as delad brought up.

We now know through quantum theory and relativity that things aren't quite as we imagine. Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk (basically all of everything) and things pop in and out of existence all the time from "nothing".
This "grounding" is no more, it has gone to the same place where the "There has to be a god otherwise where does thunder come from?" argument has gone.

shizz

philologos wrote: »

The point is that given the finite nature of the universe. It is entirely reasonable that there was an external intelligent cause which brought it into being.

My point was that "time" is an attribute of the Universe so how can something "begin" from outside of it when there is no "time"?

As someone else pointed out. When you measure how long the universe has been around for you are using "time" to do this. So how can you measure before the Universe using "time" when it is a part of the Universe.

Cú Giobach

shizz wrote: »

My point was that "time" is an attribute of the Universe so how can something "begin" from outside of it when there is no "time"?

As someone else pointed out. When you measure how long the universe has been around for you are using "time" to do this. So how can you measure before the Universe using "time" when it is a part of the Universe.

There are no such things as time, before, after, nothing or something.
Therefore your argument is invalid.

A comment I've often made in the pub when discussing these matters

delad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The current scientific consensus is that the laws of physics we currently know of came into being at the event we have poorly terms the "Big Bang". If someone wants to establish that something like "Time" existed "before" that point then the onus of proof is on them, not me. Anyone touting the "First cause" argument has the onus of proof, not the rest of us.

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Scioch

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Time is a part of this universe interwoven with space itself. Pre Big Bang this universe didnt exist. So we have no reason to believe time did. Even spacetime wasnt created at the instant of the big bang time would be 0 as there would have been infinite gravity. Either way you look at it time couldnt exist.

philologos

Cú Giobach wrote: »

We now know through quantum theory and relativity that things aren't quite as we imagine. Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk (basically all of everything) and things pop in and out of existence all the time from "nothing".
This "grounding" is no more, it has gone to the same place where the "There has to be a god otherwise where does thunder come from?" argument has gone.

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

If you're going to claim it is, I'd like to see good reason with links and citations as to why you think that. I'm more than happy to consider it. By links and citations, I mean independent scientific material rather than atheistic interpretation of scientific material. They aren't the same thing.

My main point was, given what we do know about the universe to claim that those who believe in a Creator God are stupid is a little off. I'm skeptical of claims that there is no possible grounding for a Creator insofar as there are groups of scientists including plenty of physicists who would clearly advocate the existence of God.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

What evidence would satisfy you? You could google "Did time start with the big bang" and see what results you get. You could watch the video I linked in my last post.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/universe.html

Is the universe infinite in space and time?

The question of whether the universe has boundaries in time and space has captivated the imagination of mankind since early times. Some would say the universe had existed forever, while others would say that the universe was created and thus had a beginning in time and space. The second thesis immediately raises the question what exists beyond its temporal and spatial bounds. Could it be nothingness? But then, what is nothingness? The absence of matter, or the absence of space and time itself? The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) dealt intensively with this question. In his book Critique of Pure Reason he came to the conclusion that the question cannot be answered reliably within the limits of human knowledge, since thesis and antithesis are equally valid. Kant thought instead of time and space as fundamental aspects of human perception.

Big Bang - the birth of our universe.

Fast forward: Despite Kant's doubts thereto, it appears that modern cosmology has answered the above question. The universe we can observe is finite. It has a beginning in space and time, before which the concept of space and time has no meaning, because spacetime itself is a property of the universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began about twelve to fifteen billion years ago in a violent explosion. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the universe was an infinitely dense and infinitely hot fireball. A peculiar form of energy that we don't know yet, suddenly pushed out the fabric of spacetime in a process called "inflation", which lasted for only one millionth of a second. Thereafter, the universe continued to expand but not nearly as quickly. The process of phase transition formed out the most basic forces in nature: first gravity, then the strong nuclear force, followed by the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces. After the first second, the universe was made up of fundamental energy and particles like quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and other less familiar particles.

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. Instead, radiation (light, X rays, and radio waves) dominated the early universe. Following the radiation era, atoms were formed by nuclei linking up with free electrons and thus matter slowly became dominant over energy. It took 200 million years until irregularities in the primordial gas began to form galaxies and early stars out of pockets of gas condensing by virtue of gravity. The Sun of our solar system was formed out of such a pocket of gas in a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy roughly five billion years ago. A vast disk of gas and debris swirling around the early Sun gave birth to the planets, including Earth, which is between 4.6 and 4.5 billion years old. This is -in short- the history of our universe according to the Big Bang theory, which constitutes today's most widely accepted cosmological viewpoint.

Time beginning at the big bang is widely accepted.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

You implied in your post that it is a fact that time did not exist before the big bang, therefore the onus is on you to back that up with evidence.

Time is not fixed and can speed up, slow down or stop, time slows down in a strong gravitational field and stops in the infinite gravity of a singularity, the big bang started from a singularity of infinite density, therefore time could not exist before the BB.

delad

Cú Giobach wrote: »

We now know through quantum theory and relativity that things aren't quite as we imagine. Time and concepts like "before" and "after" have no real meaning in the Greater Universe/Multiverse/Bulk (basically all of everything) and things pop in and out of existence all the time from "nothing".
This "grounding" is no more, it has gone to the same place where the "There has to be a god otherwise where does thunder come from?" argument has gone.

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

shizz

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

Of course we would? Because we are within the Universe. Therefore time has an effect on us and everything else in the Universe.

shizz

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

It may make them our "God" in a sense. But would it make them the God that all of the major religions promote? Nope.

Pushtrak

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

See your skepticism on things like "did time start with the big bang"? and other questions. Well, asking questions is good. Looking for answers. My answer to the above is "I don't know what is possible. I know that an interventionist deity as described in any holy text is highly improbable".

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

I'm not sure how many people on this forum would believe in the multiverse. Perhaps some find the idea interesting. For myself, I haven't really looked in to the science behind it, so couldn't say anything regarding its validity. I guess you could say I'm agnostic on the issue.

As for the hypothetical you pose, well, there doesn't sound to be a way of demonstrating such a thing were it to be the case. By the way you have phrased that, yes, I suppose they would. But, here is the kicker. You can't prove or disprove that. So why would you live your life around it? It is based on faith. It is based on not asking questions but jumping on to a belief so as you will have a non-answer instead of having open questions.

The open questions are a lot fewer now than they would have been 100 years, 200 years or so on.

Blowfish

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

Start reading up on the likes of relativity. There are things in our own universe for which both time and distance are nonexistant.

Cú Giobach

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the "grounding" is genuinely gone. I find the no time argument a bit of a cop out when we would naturally conclude that finite entity A, has a cause B for pretty much anything else in existence.

We left the world of classical physics behind over a century ago.

If you're going to claim it is, I'd like to see good reason with links and citations as to why you think that. I'm more than happy to consider it. By links and citations.

Google is your friend, I am not going to teach you about relativity or quantum mechanics, if you genuinely want to know about the subjects and consequently enable yourself to have a discussion on them, it is quite easy using a search engine to get yourself started.
Though here is a little taster,
Lesson #1. Forget everything you think you know about the nature of reality.

My main point was, given what we do know about the universe to claim that those who believe in a Creator God are stupid is a little off. I'm skeptical of claims that there is no possible grounding for a Creator insofar as there are groups of scientists including plenty of physicists who would clearly advocate the existence of God.

A person having a stupid belief does not imply that that person is stupid, misguided or ill-informed yes, but stupid? not necessarily.

I mean independent scientific material rather than atheistic interpretation of scientific material. They aren't the same thing.

What do a persons beliefs or lack of got to do with interpreting scientific results?
Atheist measures time slowing in a strong gravitational field at a set rate, conclusion, time doesn't exist in infinite gravity. PS there is no god.
Christian measures time slowing in a strong gravitational field at a set rate, conclusion, time doesn't exist in infinite gravity. PS there is a god.

Pushtrak

New video:

philologos

Cú Giobach - If you're going to claim that peoples beliefs are stupid, you should be willing to give a good and clear reason as to why they are stupid. That's a reasonable request. In particular you'd also have to explain how quantum mechanics nullifies the possibility of divine creation.

In respect to the topic at hand I find it peculiar that many people have latched onto this particular discovery in order to say that it nullifies God's existence, when it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort:

The Higgs particle was thought up in the 1960’s, and the ideas were contributed by several theorists including Peter Higgs himself, who works at Edinburgh. The goal was to provide a means by which the particles that make up the universe – electrons, protons and so on – can have mass. Otherwise, everything would be massless and travel always at the speed of light, which would make for a very dull universe.

The Higgs particle is a manifestation of the “Higgs field”, which pervades all of space and “clings” to all the other particles. This effect slows them down and gives them their various masses, depending on how strongly the particles interact with the Higgs field. An electron is relatively light because its interaction with the Higgs field is not very strong – other particles have stronger interactions and are heavier.

So, although it does not actually create the other particles, the Higgs particle does give them their different masses, and this makes it possible for atoms, molecules, stars, planets and life to exist! It has been called the “God particle”, a metaphor that does not please everyone, but which does have a certain degree of suitability, given its crucial role in making the universe suitable for ordinary matter to exist, and in the end, life.

Cú Giobach

delad wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that anything is possible, except God?

If you believe in multiverse, how do you know there is not a universe just like ours, except they are billions of years ahead of us, and as an experiment they have replicated the start of their own universe (which is us)? And if thats true, would that not make them our God?

I never said there was no god. It is just so unlikely as to be a pretty silly idea, like elephants standing on turtles.

I don't "believe" in multiverses, the physics show it to be a possibility.
Science has nothing to with "belief" it is about evidence, what one believes is irrelevant what one observes is what matters.
Any scientist worthy of the name would throw out a life's work without a second thought if it was proven he was incorrect (and many many have).

shizz

philologos wrote: »

Cú Giobach - If you're going to claim that peoples beliefs are stupid, you should be willing to give a good and clear reason as to why they are stupid. That's a reasonable request. In particular you'd also have to explain how quantum mechanics nullifies the possibility of divine creation.

In respect to the topic at hand I find it peculiar that many people have latched onto this particular discovery in order to say that it nullifies God's existence, when it doesn't seem to do anything of the sort:

I don't think that anyone with knowledge of the Higgs Boson has claimed that it has. If anything, it has been religious people claiming that it PROVES Gods existence.

philologos

shizz wrote: »

I don't think that anyone with knowledge of the Higgs Boson has claimed that it has. If anything, it has been religious people claiming that it PROVES Gods existence.

At the start of this thread:

shopaholic01 wrote: »

They've found scientific evidence to explain the origin of the universe, therefore offering proof that it was not God's creation.

There's plenty more posts in between that seem to be implying such as well. The name 'God particle' isn't all that helpful perhaps