Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What caused the Big Bang

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 11:49:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ?

God told Mother Nature to pull his finger and it resulted in a Big Bang as a great and mighty wind rushed into the universe and expanded all over the place but what does it matter? It's just fiction anyway. It is just hidden under the illusion of scientific theory and presented as facts to the gullible who need facts as evidence.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2015 11:58:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:49:29 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ?

God told Mother Nature to pull his finger and it resulted in a Big Bang as a great and mighty wind rushed into the universe and expanded all over the place but what does it matter? It's just fiction anyway. It is just hidden under the illusion of scientific theory and presented as facts to the gullible who need facts as evidence.

So you have no answer. Creationism is true then.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 12:12:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:58:35 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/19/2015 11:49:29 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ?

God told Mother Nature to pull his finger and it resulted in a Big Bang as a great and mighty wind rushed into the universe and expanded all over the place but what does it matter? It's just fiction anyway. It is just hidden under the illusion of scientific theory and presented as facts to the gullible who need facts as evidence.

So you have no answer. Creationism is true then.

Sure LIFE creates LIFE all the time. You can even observe it if you pay attention.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 12:55:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:58:35 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/19/2015 11:49:29 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ?

God told Mother Nature to pull his finger and it resulted in a Big Bang as a great and mighty wind rushed into the universe and expanded all over the place but what does it matter? It's just fiction anyway. It is just hidden under the illusion of scientific theory and presented as facts to the gullible who need facts as evidence.

So you have no answer. Creationism is true then.

Just because God is the most complete answer, in no way does it mean that it's the correct one. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It's about what we actually can know and how we can use that knowledge for our benefit. That seems like a position of honesty and humility, with the demonstrated ability to create actual miracles. All hail our true saviors; the doctors, the biologists, the engineers, the chemists, the psychologists and so on. The only news we ever hear about religion is an institutional culture of covering up child abuse or some self-proclaimed martyr blowing up innocent people. Vaccinate your kids and stop being a retard.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 2:59:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ?

Everywhere.
Laws of fundamental physics.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:33:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ?

I think the Big Bang happened because an old and dying universe (one where entropy ruled and usable energy was lacking) sacrificed itself by ripping itself to shreds, to produce baby universes with a lot of usable energy.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 3:35:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Our universe is one of the daughter universes that was produced by the self-termination event of a parent universe. Or that's what I believe.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:28:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:35:06 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Our universe is one of the daughter universes that was produced by the self-termination event of a parent universe. Or that's what I believe.

So in a metaphoric sense you believe the Father sacrificed himself for his sons ?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:40:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:58:35 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
So you have no answer. Creationism is true then.

The creationist argument in a nut shell.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:45:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.

So it has always had potential and has always been creating. There has never been a true beginning. There was not a first anything.(based on this assertion.)
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:45:17 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.

So it has always had potential and has always been creating. There has never been a true beginning. There was not a first anything.(based on this assertion.)

The Big Bang was an expansion of energy and the separation of the four fundamental forces. It's the beginning of time for this universe, but not a "beginning" of anything.
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:56:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I shall presume when you say "caused the Big Bang," you mean "caused the universe" or "caused inflation."

The idea that something caused the Big Bang itself is incoherent. You can't generalize from "who threw the cat in the well" to "what caused the universe." Stephen Hawking -- despite being a physicist, not a philosopher -- made a very valid philosophical point: it's incoherent to speak of causation when humans lack cognition of such a level of causation. Sans the universe, there is (probably) no time, and all our ideas of cause-effect relationships assume the flow of time. Without the flow of time, we can't even *conceive* of a cause producing an effect. It's beyond our cognition, since for human cognition there has to be a "when" for any cause-effect relationship. Us speculating about the cause of the Big Bang is like a rabbit researching quantum mechanics.

William Lane Craig makes the argument that simultaneous causation is a means by which the universe could have been caused, i.e. one instantaneous moment in time. That would mean, for the sake of simplicity, the universe caused itself (since that would be possible under simultaneous causality). To speculate that a creator caused the universe in presence of simultaneous causation is merely adding another assumption, thus failing Occam's razor. There's an interesting argument the user Sargon had that uses general relativity and Cauchy surfaces to disprove simultaneous causality (look for his debate on "the argument from general relativity").

Finally, the idea that the universe was "caused" delves into a realm of cosmology that assumes an absolute beginning of the universe. A popular objection to this involves the idea that time is not a straightforward arrow, and that it lacks a clear direction; the passage of time is not linear, but merely static and the past, present, and future are all equally real. We perceive time as linear due to our brains, under such a viewpoint. If there's no linear time, the universe is simultaneously static and expanding, which entails that -- from the perspective of an external (hypothetical) observer -- the universe is a static, tenseless four-dimensional block. So there wouldn't be an external cause of inflation. Such a view of time can be supported by special relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

Of course, such a view of time isn't necessary, due to the possibility of a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, but then (due to the idea of an aether rejecting the principle of the uniformity of nature) cosmology itself is no longer a science, so using cosmology to affirm a beginning is impossible.

Fkkize also had an interesting argument in the Philosophy forum for eternalism (which is definitely a fun read).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:48:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:56:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
I shall presume when you say "caused the Big Bang," you mean "caused the universe" or "caused inflation."

The idea that something caused the Big Bang itself is incoherent. You can't generalize from "who threw the cat in the well" to "what caused the universe." Stephen Hawking -- despite being a physicist, not a philosopher -- made a very valid philosophical point: it's incoherent to speak of causation when humans lack cognition of such a level of causation. Sans the universe, there is (probably) no time, and all our ideas of cause-effect relationships assume the flow of time. Without the flow of time, we can't even *conceive* of a cause producing an effect. It's beyond our cognition, since for human cognition there has to be a "when" for any cause-effect relationship. Us speculating about the cause of the Big Bang is like a rabbit researching quantum mechanics.

Well said. That's why I find all the debate over the subject to be a bit silly.


William Lane Craig makes the argument that simultaneous causation is a means by which the universe could have been caused, i.e. one instantaneous moment in time. That would mean, for the sake of simplicity, the universe caused itself (since that would be possible under simultaneous causality). To speculate that a creator caused the universe in presence of simultaneous causation is merely adding another assumption, thus failing Occam's razor. There's an interesting argument the user Sargon had that uses general relativity and Cauchy surfaces to disprove simultaneous causality (look for his debate on "the argument from general relativity").

I don't believe in the traditional abrahamic conception of God, but given his omnipotence and transcendence over space/time, I don't see why his creation of the universe would have to be subject to our notions of temporal causation. Like you said previously, we are cognitively incapable of conceptualizing these things, which renders speculation on such matters to be futile. But I agree that in general, traditional abrahamic theism does require a lot of ad-hoc reasoning and semantic appeals. Pantheism is so much less problematic...


Finally, the idea that the universe was "caused" delves into a realm of cosmology that assumes an absolute beginning of the universe. A popular objection to this involves the idea that time is not a straightforward arrow, and that it lacks a clear direction; the passage of time is not linear, but merely static and the past, present, and future are all equally real. We perceive time as linear due to our brains, under such a viewpoint. If there's no linear time, the universe is simultaneously static and expanding, which entails that -- from the perspective of an external (hypothetical) observer -- the universe is a static, tenseless four-dimensional block. So there wouldn't be an external cause of inflation. Such a view of time can be supported by special relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

Eternalism is awesome.


Of course, such a view of time isn't necessary, due to the possibility of a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, but then (due to the idea of an aether rejecting the principle of the uniformity of nature) cosmology itself is no longer a science, so using cosmology to affirm a beginning is impossible.

Why does an aether reject the uniformity of nature? And why do you think science requires the uniformity of nature?
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:42:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:45:17 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.

So it has always had potential and has always been creating. There has never been a true beginning. There was not a first anything.(based on this assertion.)

Correct. The Truth can be a lot stranger than fiction.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:49:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:56:09 PM, Pollux wrote:
At 12/20/2015 4:45:17 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.

So it has always had potential and has always been creating. There has never been a true beginning. There was not a first anything.(based on this assertion.)

The Big Bang was an expansion of energy and the separation of the four fundamental forces. It's the beginning of time for this universe, but not a "beginning" of anything.

Energy has no boundaries. How do you suggest that anything without boundaries expand? What part of it expands? You can't measure something that has no boundaries any better than you can measure your own imagination.
Implying the four fundamental forces once needed separating is science fiction and fantasy.
You cannot prove or disprove it any better than you can prove or disprove God.
If you believe it, your belief is based on blind faith in what the teachers of science fiction teach you under the guise of scientific theory.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 7:51:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 3:35:06 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Our universe is one of the daughter universes that was produced by the self-termination event of a parent universe. Or that's what I believe.

Your faith in sci fi is noted.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:56:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
" Stephen Hawking -- despite being a physicist, not a philosopher -- made a very valid philosophical point: it's incoherent to speak of causation when humans lack cognition of such a level of causation. Sans the universe, there is (probably) no time, and all our ideas of cause-effect relationships assume the flow of time. Without the flow of time, we can't even *conceive* of a cause producing an effect. It's beyond our cognition, since for human cognition there has to be a "when" for any cause-effect relationship. Us speculating about the cause of the Big Bang is like a rabbit researching quantum mechanics.

Time is a human construct, a measurement invented by humans.
The universe does not and did not create time. The universe is filled with movement and energy not time. Without humans, time would not exist but the universe would still exist without us in the expanse of eternity and still do the same as it always has in its various patterns of movement.

Human measurements are simply part of the way we communicate our perception and understanding of what we observe.
Those measurements are all relative to Earth and to human perceptions. They are basically meaningless to anything except humans and definitely meaningless to the universe itself.

It is foolish to attempt to assign an age to something when you cannot find a beginning or end of it.
It is foolish to speculate about when something that has no boundaries began to expand.
You simply cannot expand something that has no boundaries in the first place. It is as ridiculous as trying to expand infinity or eternity. It is inconceivable.

However, foolish people cannot help but be foolish. It is part of their nature.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:38:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 7:49:59 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 4:56:09 PM, Pollux wrote:
At 12/20/2015 4:45:17 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.

So it has always had potential and has always been creating. There has never been a true beginning. There was not a first anything.(based on this assertion.)

The Big Bang was an expansion of energy and the separation of the four fundamental forces. It's the beginning of time for this universe, but not a "beginning" of anything.

Energy has no boundaries. How do you suggest that anything without boundaries expand? What part of it expands? You can't measure something that has no boundaries any better than you can measure your own imagination.
Implying the four fundamental forces once needed separating is science fiction and fantasy.
You cannot prove or disprove it any better than you can prove or disprove God.
If you believe it, your belief is based on blind faith in what the teachers of science fiction teach you under the guise of scientific theory.
What is energy? Is it a physical thing?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:39:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 8:33:27 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 4:56:23 PM, tejretics wrote:
" Stephen Hawking -- despite being a physicist, not a philosopher -- made a very valid philosophical point: it's incoherent to speak of causation when humans lack cognition of such a level of causation. Sans the universe, there is (probably) no time, and all our ideas of cause-effect relationships assume the flow of time. Without the flow of time, we can't even *conceive* of a cause producing an effect. It's beyond our cognition, since for human cognition there has to be a "when" for any cause-effect relationship. Us speculating about the cause of the Big Bang is like a rabbit researching quantum mechanics.

Time is a human construct, a measurement invented by humans.
The universe does not and did not create time. The universe is filled with movement and energy not time. Without humans, time would not exist but the universe would still exist without us in the expanse of eternity and still do the same as it always has in its various patterns of movement.

Human measurements are simply part of the way we communicate our perception and understanding of what we observe.
Those measurements are all relative to Earth and to human perceptions. They are basically meaningless to anything except humans and definitely meaningless to the universe itself.

It is foolish to attempt to assign an age to something when you cannot find a beginning or end of it.
It is foolish to speculate about when something that has no boundaries began to expand.
You simply cannot expand something that has no boundaries in the first place. It is as ridiculous as trying to expand infinity or eternity. It is inconceivable.

However, foolish people cannot help but be foolish. It is part of their nature.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:40:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:56:09 PM, Pollux wrote:
At 12/20/2015 4:45:17 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/20/2015 5:26:08 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/20/2015 3:41:16 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Correction:

lacking = depleted

How can energy be depleted if it cannot be created or destroyed?
If something cannot be created or destroyed, the same amount of it must always exist.

So it has always had potential and has always been creating. There has never been a true beginning. There was not a first anything.(based on this assertion.)

The Big Bang was an expansion of energy and the separation of the four fundamental forces. It's the beginning of time for this universe, but not a "beginning" of anything.

Actually, energy can take on different forms. It can also be usable or unusable. When energy goes from a usable to an usable form, we refer to this as an increase in entropy, meaning that that energy cannot be used again. I hope this helps to clarify what I'm saying.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 8:43:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Heat energy (kinetic energy) is a common type of energy that get's wasted, because it disperses. So when another type of energy (chemical bond energy, nuclear energy, etc) gets transformed into heat energy, it drives entropy upward, and once usable energy takes on a form that cannot be used for other processes.
aquilla
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:43:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/19/2015 11:26:09 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Where and how did that happen ? : :

God's creation didn't happen in the way scientists try tell us but everything we experience started out as thoughts. Then those thoughts were spoken into what we describe as life.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:14:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Exist is defined as having physical presence, that is having shape and location.
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.
(No capacities exist, its just the ability of an object)
So does energy exists?
If yes can anybody draw a picture of it, as anything that exist has a shape and anything with a shape can be drawn.
If no then what is this stuff called energy that is used to describe every phenomenon?

Thus it is a logical fallacy to say energy made it happen or potential made it happen. This is impossible because energy/potential can do nothing without a something to put them in motion in the first place.
aquilla
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:22:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:14:47 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Exist is defined as having physical presence, that is having shape and location.
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.
(No capacities exist, its just the ability of an object)
So does energy exists? : :

If you think of energy as invisible vibrations as God's computing language, then it's possible for you to imagine how He can use those vibrations to make created people and beast to experience all sorts of visible illusions that aren't real. The visible objects we observe in his simulation are FORMED within each created being's mind. They are not real objects made out of hard physical matter.

Here's what our Creator said about the earth He created;

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The earth was created as information that is without form and void of any matter, shape or time. It can only be observed by a created being who is like a computer processor, also made from invisible information.

It's very difficult for His people to understand that they are not real people.

If yes can anybody draw a picture of it, as anything that exist has a shape and anything with a shape can be drawn.
If no then what is this stuff called energy that is used to describe every phenomenon?

Thus it is a logical fallacy to say energy made it happen or potential made it happen. This is impossible because energy/potential can do nothing without a something to put them in motion in the first place.