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

how can we best explain our existence ?

  • 01-06-2010 10:41PM
    #1
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    how can we best explain our existence ?

    what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

    I think there are 3 options.

    1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

    2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

    3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

    If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

    If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.


«134567

Comments

  • #2
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    If you remove "with the Big Bang" then you've covered all options.
    It could be possible, although probably not very likely, that the universe sprung into existence without a cause but not necessarily through a "Big Bang".
    Although that depends on how wide your definitions of "Possible" and "Big Bang" are :P

    As for me I think option 2 sounds the most likely.
    The Big Bang solution seems to be by far the most likely in terms of fitting the evidence currently available.
    The "without a cause" is mainly because I've never seen anything to strongly and unambiguously suggest that there is one, so there's no reason for me to believe in one.


  • #3
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    The "without a cause" is mainly because I've never seen anything to strongly and unambiguously suggest that there is one, so there's no reason for me to believe in one.

    So that means, you see things coming into existence without a cause all the time ? Could you make some examples ?


  • #4
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    ...
    Rather than coming up with a small set of limited options why not start with the world around us and work our way back as far as we can from the evidence around us... and then admit we don't know what happened before that.

    oh wait... we've done that... and the current answer is 2, with the caveat that it's more like the universe as we know it appears to have begun at the 'big bang'... we don't know why.


    Rather than working our way back we could just debate whether or not there is such a thing as an uncaused cause... and why such an uncaused cause doesn't need a cause when all things need causes... and if there can be an uncaused cause why do we need an uncaused cause for the universe? isn't it just as easy to claim that the universe is itself uncaused... like the uncaused cause, which for some reason people seem to think would be a person.


  • #5
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Assuming you treat time on an equal footing with space (which it essentially is) then events such as the big bang "just happening" are not really all that problematic. We don't understand the big bang, but questions surrounding issues such as "before" the big bang are essentially meaningless. The universe coming into existence is ultimately no more mystifying then particles materialising out of thin air, which happens all the time.


  • #6
    Benny Lava
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 534 ✭✭✭Benny Lava


    Science.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    The universe coming into existence is ultimately no more mystifying then particles materialising out of thin air, which happens all the time.

    you mean virtual particles ?


  • #8
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Time is not a straight forward progression as you understand it. The Big Bang was not the creation of the universe, but rather the destruction of the universe. Time as we perceive it is marching towards it's creation. We'll find out how it was created when we get there.


  • #9
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    The Big Bang seems the most plausible theory even if we'll never grasp how it works or why it happened. As to the "cause" of the universe coming into being - a simple chemical reaction?


  • #10
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    You've got to consider time itself was created with the big bang, hence there never was a time when the universe *didn't* exist, which means that the universe both is eternal and had a beginning.

    Also consider that the sum total of energy and mass in the universe is likely to be zero, ie nothing, so we don't even need to worry about where all this stuff came from, there really is nothing here to see!


  • #11
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jireh777, I suspect you have your own thoughts on the idea of a "first cause", and hope you're not just feeding people ideas just so you can disagree with them.

    People have responded to your OP with some interesting posts, so don't do them the disservice of ignoring them so as you can stick to your plan of attack.

    I hope I'm wrong about you, though. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    how can we best explain our existence ?

    what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

    I think there are 3 options.

    1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

    2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

    3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

    If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

    If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

    You forgot

    4. Something we haven't thought of


  • #13
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Dades wrote: »
    Jireh777, I suspect you have your own thoughts on the idea of a "first cause", and hope you're not just feeding people ideas just so you can disagree with them.

    People have responded to your OP with some interesting posts, so don't do them the disservice of ignoring them so as you can stick to your plan of attack.

    I hope I'm wrong about you, though. :)

    Well, i have my own thougths. I am a theist, i believe in the God of the bible. So i didnt come to learn , and eventually become a atheist, but i am here to expose my conviction . Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang, it must have had a cause. That cause must have been timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful, and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.


  • #14
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Well, i have my own thougths. I am a theist, i believe in the God of the bible. So i didnt come to learn , and eventually become a atheist, but i am here to expose my conviction .

    That's indecent exposure round these parts isn't it?
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang, it must have had a cause. That cause must have been timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful, and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.

    Well you've used "must" enough times that that's me convinced.

    I'm curious why you consider this timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful being as fitting perfectly with the petty, jealous, genocidal bronze age tyrant that shows up in the bible though.


  • #15
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Well, i have my own thougths. I am a theist, i believe in the God of the bible. So i didnt come to learn , and eventually become a atheist, but i am here to expose my conviction . Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang, it must have had a cause. That cause must have been timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful, and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.

    That's not entirely true now is it Jireh? The god of the bible created the Earth the same day he created the universe, he also created light after creating the Earth, I could go on and on. These things do not fit perfectly with the idea of the big bang and the development of the universe.

    You could potentially have a case for saying that you think a god fits perfectly as the uncaused cause of the universe but there is no case at all to be made that the god of the bible fits that role.


  • #16
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    That's indecent exposure round these parts isn't it?



    Well you've used "must" enough times that that's me convinced.

    I'm curious why you consider this timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful being as fitting perfectly with the petty, jealous, genocidal bronze age tyrant that shows up in the bible though.

    Non sequitur. The characteristics, exposed, would not imply God to be morally good, or bad. But your argument is a pre-judgement from someone, that has not studied the bible. Its quit popular to describe the God of the bible the way you did, from these new atheist evangelists, like dawkins. God is quit different.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html

    Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”


  • #17
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Wait just a second..........I smell a bible, creationism and prophecy thread a brewing....:eek:

    itsatarp.png


  • #18
    Blackhorse Slim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

    But then Wodehouse 13:21 tells us that "We proceeded to the tennis court. I played with the sun in my eyes. I might, if I chose, emphasise that fact, and attribute my subsequent rout to it, adding, by way of solidifying the excuse, that I was playing in a strange court with a borrowed racquet, and that my mind was preoccupied"

    :confused:


  • #19
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Non sequitur. The characteristics, exposed, would not imply God to be morally good, or bad. But your argument is a pre-judgement from someone, that has not studied the bible. Its quit popular to describe the God of the bible the way you did, from these new atheist evangelists, like dawkins. God is quit different.

    So it would seem the solution for me is to get to studying the bible, and not be listening to those new atheist evangelists, like dawkins *spit*.

    Where would I get a copy of this "bible" you speak of?


  • #20
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

    Wait, so this God of yours creates the universe, waits around 14 odd billion years, when humanity evolves he waits another 100,000ish, and when one tribe in the middle east finally find out the truth about him and declare him as their God his first thought is to give them a long list how exactly he likes animals killed, chopped and burnt to best please him. That's your story and you're sticking to it?

    http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html


  • #21
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

    Without having to study the bible, we all know, that for every one nice quote you can dig up, we could dig up probably 4 or 5 evil quotes. So this argument is pointless. Murder, rape and genocide aren't okay, end of story.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Xcellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,821 ✭✭✭Xcellor


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Non sequitur. The characteristics, exposed, would not imply God to be morally good, or bad. But your argument is a pre-judgement from someone, that has not studied the bible. Its quit popular to describe the God of the bible the way you did, from these new atheist evangelists, like dawkins. God is quit different.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html

    Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”


    If the god of the old testament were human he would be tried and convicted of war crimes + genocide. He wiped out many tribes that occupied the promised land. Killed countless women and children without mercy. He apparently created humankind but then chooses one nation over all others.
    Psalm 137:9 is a wonderful scripture which highlights how loving a god he is.

    Back to topic. Regardless of if you believe the universe to be created or not, you are still left with the question. If god created the universe, who created god? Or if the universe happened by itself, how did it, I mean when nothing existed how could anything be made...

    Either way you find yourself as puzzled as when you started.


  • #23
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,770 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Origin eh?

    This universe blistered off another resulting in the big bang.

    In a nutshell, that's what I can put together from reading up on various current string theory papers and writings of the great minds of our time....


  • #24
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Well, i have my own thougths. I am a theist, i believe in the God of the bible. So i didnt come to learn , and eventually become a atheist, but i am here to expose my conviction . Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang,
    How do you know the universe had an absolute beginning? The way I understand it, space and time had an absolute beginning (with the big bang) but that you dont necessarily conflate space/time with the universe, as the energy that became the matter that no resides in the universe is possibly infinite itself, it just changed configuration, so to speak, at the point of the big bang.
    Then again, just as matter and energy are interchangable with each other, there is nothing to say that space/time isn't interchangeable with some other element of existence that we simply haven't encountered or cant even comprehend.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    it must have had a cause. That cause must have been timeless,

    Why on earth is that? If space/time did come into being at the point of the big bang, and cause and effect is chronologically restrained (ie as we understand causation, the cause must come before or at the same time as the effect) why would the big bang need to be caused by something that existed at a point "before" it did? Why does there need to be a cause at all?
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    changeless,

    If it is changeless the how did it envoke a change in something else?
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    spaceless,

    Assuming it was outside of space/time, then yes it would be, but then again so was the big bang "until" space/time came into existence, so therefore moot.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    beginningless,

    If the universe or the big bang cant be beginningless, why can this cause be beginningless?
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    unimaginably powerful,

    Really? Have you ever tried to start a big bang in pre-universe conditions? It only takes a littel push.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.

    Fits perfectly to Death from Terry Pratchetts discworld too, if you think about it.


  • #25
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Jireh777 wrote: »

    Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

    One word: Lott

    Poor fella.


  • #26
    Jayla Moldy Wheat
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Jayla Moldy Wheat


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang, it must have had a cause.
    Mark answered this part best :)
    That cause must have been timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful, and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.

    Well, here's where it all falls down.
    First, if something can be beginningless/causeless, then the universe could.
    Secondly, there's a hell of a huge gap between the steps below:
    uncaused cause -> god -> christian bible god

    Whether there was an uncaused cause or not, you need to show it was a god. And if it was a god you need to show it was your one specifically and not any of the other hundreds of them.

    And no, "I don't know so it must be god" is not a proof ;)


  • #27
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Well, i have my own thougths. I am a theist, i believe in the God of the bible. So i didnt come to learn , and eventually become a atheist, but i am here to expose my conviction . Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang, it must have had a cause. That cause must have been timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful, and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.

    Why do you guys bother with this nonsense, pretending that there is a logical route from the Big Bang to God? None of what I highlighted is supported by anything. You just made it up.

    If you are going to do that why not just skip all that and say The universe must have been created by God. That is as logical and as supported as the other stuff you said.


  • #28
    iBumblebeetuna
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33 ✭iBumblebeetuna


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning with the Big Bang, it must have had a cause. That cause must have been timeless, changeless, spaceless, beginningless, unimaginably powerful, and fits perfectly to the God presented through the bible.

    Turns out he's not that powerful:
    Judges 1:19
    And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

    Granted, he no problem dispatching chariots a little later. Pretty inconsistent for an all powerful deity.


  • #29
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    strobe wrote: »
    That's not entirely true now is it Jireh? The god of the bible created the Earth the same day he created the universe, he also created light after creating the Earth, I could go on and on. These things do not fit perfectly with the idea of the big bang and the development of the universe.

    You could potentially have a case for saying that you think a god fits perfectly as the uncaused cause of the universe but there is no case at all to be made that the god of the bible fits that role.

    Genesis must be interpreted. I admit there are things difficult for us to understand. The days ( yom ) in Genesis can mean a long period of time, but also a literal 24h day. Furthermore, the bible does not give a timetable of how old the universe and the earth are.

    http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/ot/sixday.htm


  • #30
    Blackhorse Slim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    Admit it Jireh, for the purpose of discovering where the universe came from, your bible is pretty useless.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why do you guys bother with this nonsense, pretending that there is a logical route from the Big Bang to God? None of what I highlighted is supported by anything. You just made it up.

    No, its a logical deduction. If the universe was created at a finite time ago, and time, space and matter came into being at the Big Bang, than the cause must have the properties in the post above stated. Of course that is not a scientific deduction, but a philosophical one. nevertheless, its logical , and reasonable, and therefore makes sense. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Along with that reasoning, the universe is extremely fine-tuned to life. Even the Big Bang was finely-tuned at a unimaginable degree, amongst over more than 140 fine - tune constants that were tuned to permit life.

    http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

    The Big-bang

    The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
    This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
    This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
    Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

    the probability calculation makes theism be VERY reasonable, while it takes a very big leap of faith to believe, the tuning of the universe was due to pure chance, and natural phenomenons.


  • #32
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Blackhorse Slim wrote: »
    Admit it Jireh, for the purpose of discovering where the universe came from, your bible is pretty useless.

    Actually, the contrary is the case.

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

    A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century.

    Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

    Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

    Whether the world was created by God or evolved by chance without cause has been debated a long time. It's been debated since Darwin. But the debate comes down to this, either you believe the Bible or you don't.

    does it make more sense to you , to believe

    Nothing x Nobody = Everthing ??


  • #33
    Blackhorse Slim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
    This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
    This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
    Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

    the probability calculation makes theism be VERY reasonable, while it takes a very big leap of faith to believe, the tuning of the universe was due to pure chance, and natural phenomenons.

    Look at your computer. Given the conditions that existed just one billion years ago, what was the likelihood that there would be a computer exactly there right now? Astronomical. But it doesn't matter, because it is there.

    Your probability calculation means precisely nothing.


  • #34
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    the universe is extremely fine-tuned to life.
    Really? And outside of zero and 8,000 metres above sea level on our planet, where exactly do you believe you could survive in the universe?

    See this recent post for perspective on how big the universe (that we can not inhabit) really is.


  • #35
    Dr. Loon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭Dr. Loon


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Genesis must be interpreted.

    This is the problem. The word of God should not require interpretation. You would think this omniscient, omnipresent being would have the decency to give his word to us clearly and concisely. How do you know which verses are to be interpreted and which taken literally? Bollox is what I say. The Bible is a man made tome which contributes nothing towards explaining the universe.


  • #36
    Blackhorse Slim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Whether the world was created by God or evolved by chance without cause has been debated a long time. It's been debated since Darwin. But the debate comes down to this, either you believe the Bible or you don't.

    does it make more sense to you , to believe

    Nothing x Nobody = Everthing ??

    Given where you are posting this, surely the answer is obvious?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

    Ah, but ezekiel 23:20! ;)


  • #38
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Frankly discussions on the origin of the universe are pointless. Trying to come up with a sensible intuitive answer is like trying use your intuition to make sense of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is does not make intuitive sense, quantum mechanics only works mathematically. Quantum mechanics infact behaves completely counter to our intuition, yet it is extremely accurate.

    If quantum mechanics explains the most fundamental structure of the fabric of our universe there is no reason to believe that the answers to any of the big questions will be in anyway intuitively comprehensible and we are likely only to able to understand through mathematics. Trying to think about this stuff the way you would something in our everyday experience is only going to lead to a severe headache.

    To get to the point there is no requisite that the universe be easily understood.


  • #39
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    No, its a logical deduction. If the universe was created at a finite time ago, and time, space and matter came into being at the Big Bang, than the cause must have the properties in the post above stated.

    I already responded to this kind of spurious reasoning here, please responde to my it.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Along with that reasoning, the universe is extremely fine-tuned to life. Even the Big Bang was finely-tuned at a unimaginable degree, amongst over more than 140 fine - tune constants that were tuned to permit life.

    And these constants are a result of only 5 fundamnetal forces. They are the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, sub-miniature radi-atomic force, gravitation, and electromagnetism. Everything else is a result of these forces.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

    The Big-bang

    The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
    This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
    This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
    Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

    the probability calculation makes theism be VERY reasonable, while it takes a very big leap of faith to believe, the tuning of the universe was due to pure chance, and natural phenomenons.

    Even assuming these numbers are right, it means nothing. We dont know how many big bangs there were. Since the big bang created time it means that it is not subject to time, therefore every possible outcome of the big bang had an infinite probabilty of occuring. All things were equally likely and there is no way of saying wether or not a different strength of gravity would not have ended up with a stable universe with slightly different constants.
    Assuming, of course, your statement, above, about the explosive force is not just nonsense :).


  • #40
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    The Big-bang

    The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
    This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
    This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
    Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

    the probability calculation makes theism be VERY reasonable, while it takes a very big leap of faith to believe, the tuning of the universe was due to pure chance, and natural phenomenons.

    Probability doesn't really mean anything to existence tho...

    What are the odds of winning the euromillions? Around 76 x 10^6:1, yeah? And yet pretty much every week someone, somewhere wins it. Out of the 18 x 10^9 possible variations, somebody manages to guess or be given the winning combination - the odds are astronomical yet it happens on a weekly basis. Given the approx 14 x 10^9 yrs the universe has existed, is hitting upon the winning combination for life somewhere at this juncture really that implausible?


  • #41
    toiletduck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Along with that reasoning, the universe is extremely fine-tuned to life. Even the Big Bang was finely-tuned at a unimaginable degree, amongst over more than 140 fine - tune constants that were tuned to permit life.

    http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

    The Big-bang

    The explosive-force of the big-bang had to be fine-tuned to match the strength of gravity to one part in 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000.
    This is one part in 10^60. The number 10^60 = 1 followed by 60 zeros.
    This precision is the same as the odds of a random shot (bullet from a gun) hitting a one-inch target from a distance of 20 billion light-years.
    Epistemic probability: 0.00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00001

    the probability calculation makes theism be VERY reasonable, while it takes a very big leap of faith to believe, the tuning of the universe was due to pure chance, and natural phenomenons.

    I won't read that as having calculated the odds of you actually being born with your specific DNA sequence, I can only conclude that you don't exist. The odds are just against it.

    Karl Hungus wrote:
    Ah, but ezekiel 23:20! ;)

    Yeah, and you remember... Matthew 21:17


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Actually, the contrary is the case.

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

    A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century.

    Pity its wrong. Space and time are actually the same thing, and action and matter are simply representations of force, as observed by humans.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

    Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

    Or, you know, there is every other religon on the planet. You could believe one of those. Maybe because the incorrect musings on reality by an 19th century philosoper being incredibly loosely tied to the first book of the christian bible arent very impressive or convincing
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    Whether the world was created by God or evolved by chance without cause has been debated a long time.

    Mainly debate on who you think says that the world evolved by chance without cause. I dont think anyone here would hold to that and I've never heard anyone outside of boards say it either (exept for creationists strawmanning the evolution theory).
    The world didn't evolve by chance, it evolved through (mostly) well known and understood naturalistic processes and it was caused by suitable conditions being present for those natural processes to occur. We dont say that an apple that falls from a tree, does so by chance without cause, we say it falls because of gravity.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    It's been debated since Darwin. But the debate comes down to this, either you believe the Bible or you don't.

    Pity, I would have hoped that any rational debate would come down on what the evidence shows.
    Jireh777 wrote: »
    does it make more sense to you , to believe

    Nothing x Nobody = Everthing ??

    Not really, but nobody is claiming this. Its closer to something like:

    Something we dont really understand x timeless eternity before space/time existed = the universe as we experience it now.

    It makes more sense than

    Something we dont really understand GOD x timeless eternity before space/time existed He felt like it= the universe as we experience it now.


  • #43
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Probability doesn't really mean anything to existence tho...

    What are the odds of winning the euromillions? Around 76 x 10^6:1, yeah? And yet pretty much every week someone, somewhere wins it. Out of the 18 x 10^9 possible variations, somebody manages to guess or be given the winning combination - the odds are astronomical yet it happens on a weekly basis. Given the approx 14 x 10^9 yrs the universe has existed, is hitting upon the winning combination for life somewhere at this juncture really that implausible?

    Hmmm given that the odds of winning the euromillions is 76 x 10^6:1, and the euromillions have been going on since february 2004 (Approx 380 draws) and there has been a winner, lets say 100 times, then, accoring to my Creationist MathiMagics ®, the odds of this happening is 76 x 10^600:1 !:eek: 66 x 10^540 times (?) less likely than the universe being created!!


  • #44
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Blackhorse Slim wrote: »
    Look at your computer. Given the conditions that existed just one billion years ago, what was the likelihood that there would be a computer exactly there right now? Astronomical. But it doesn't matter, because it is there.

    Your probability calculation means precisely nothing.


    hahahahaha. Are you not aware about your fallacious thinking ?


  • #45
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    Dades wrote: »
    Really? And outside of zero and 8,000 metres above sea level on our planet, where exactly do you believe you could survive in the universe?

    See this recent post for perspective on how big the universe (that we can not inhabit) really is.

    The universe is finely tuned to permit life on this earth.

    permit to cite from my own virtual library :

    Why the Universe is so large

    http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/why-is-our-universe-so-large-t249.htm

    The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
    The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
    This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it.     The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
    This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.


  • #46
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    how can we best explain our existence?

    My honest answer is: 4a. We can't, but I'm pretty sure it didn't involve a god.

    My speculative answer is: 4b. We can't fully, although the Big Bang looks to be the furthest we can go back to look for any evidence, but I'm still pretty sure it didn't involve a god.


  • #47
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    hahahahaha. Are you not aware about your fallacious thinking ?

    Hello pot, meet black kettle. :pac:


  • #48
    Jireh777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭Jireh777


    sink wrote: »
    To get to the point there is no requisite that the universe be easily understood.

    I don't say the universe is easily understood. I think however, based on what we do understand, we can make pretty accurate predictions.


  • #49
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    hahahahaha. Are you not aware about your fallacious thinking ?

    That same reply could could have been accurately directed at some of your posts, particularly #13.


  • #50
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    uh oh... Red highlighted text. Now we're in for it.

    It'll be smileys next.


  • #51
    Blackhorse Slim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    Jireh777 wrote: »
    hahahahaha. Are you not aware about your fallacious thinking ?

    I don't like internet cliches, but sometimes a facepalm is the only answer.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement