Total Posts:183|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why did the big bang happen?

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 9:55:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

What leads you to assume a cause?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 10:02:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact.
There's a lot of specific, precise, correlative evidence for a universe that exploded outward, cooling as it went. But BBT is not a complete theory, and it might be changed as Physics discovers more about about how space, time and energy work.

The great mystery though is what caused it.
I'm not sure that the word 'cause' is meaningful in a space without mass, Beng.

All our notion of causation is confirmed by changes to matter. Our detection of energy itself requires changes to matter, and alterations to matter lie at the heart of empirical observations themselves. What happens if there's no matter to observe, nor any matter to observe it with? What can be said with any confidence?

Our language is built from our experiences of a universe full of matter, and it's always dangerous to argue intuitively in situations we've never experienced and cannot observe.

I'm inclined to ask specifically what is meant by the question, and how one would know if an answer were correct -- or incorrect.

Hope that may be useful.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 10:20:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The big bang was caused by the number of unbelievers rejecting the word of God reaching a critical mass and exploding.

I think the problem is psychological in that we can't imagine a causeless event, or a literal beinning of time. If I say that time itself started 13b billion years ago, then it seems natural to ask what was before then, but - of course - if time iteself started 13 billion years ago there is no before.
But to most people 'there is no before' seems like a cop-out rather than a genuine explaination. It does to me, anyway! But we might have to come to terms with such ideas as a literal 'first moment' or 'causeless event' if that is indeed what happened.

I am not saying anything specific about the origin of the universe. I am saying that the answer may well be counter-intuitive and even unsatifying psychologically. It may only reveal itself to be true by working through logic that is not immediately clear to the 'man in the street' who doesn't want to learn 5 dimensional tensor calculus.

I may be being pessimistic, but it is said that quantum physics can't really be understood, only calculated. The problems of quantum physics are not really very sexy (e.g. the question what determines the value of the fine-structure constant doesn't crop up on DDO as often as the origin of the universe does!) so we don't come across the unintuitive nature of the universe all that often, but if we did we'd be more familiar with the conflict between intution and truth.

So I think one day - possibly soon - we will be able to show with rigourous mathematis and logic why the big bang happened. I am not so sure we will know what all that maths and logic means.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 3:13:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 9:55:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

What leads you to assume a cause?

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Its logical to assume that some kind of event triggered the big bang but thats only my opinion. I have no way of knowing for sure what caused it and to my knowledge neither does anybody else at present. The theory you suggested is certainly plausible and in my view a much better theory then theism.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 10:20:30 AM, kp98 wrote:
The big bang was caused by the number of unbelievers rejecting the word of God reaching a critical mass and exploding.

I think the problem is psychological in that we can't imagine a causeless event, or a literal beinning of time.

Yeah, if you're going to accept either of those you might as well accept an eternal, un-caused God.

But you can't do that if you're gonna be an atheist.
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 5:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

[Insert complete speculation here]

That's why.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 5:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 4:36:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/5/2015 10:20:30 AM, kp98 wrote:
The big bang was caused by the number of unbelievers rejecting the word of God reaching a critical mass and exploding.

I think the problem is psychological in that we can't imagine a causeless event, or a literal beinning of time.

Yeah, if you're going to accept either of those you might as well accept an eternal, un-caused God.

But you can't do that if you're gonna be an atheist.

If you're going to have to believe either an uncaused event of some kind for logical reasons, you may as well shoe horn an entire diety in there as well for no reason and for good measure!
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 6:48:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 10:02:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact.
There's a lot of specific, precise, correlative evidence for a universe that exploded outward, cooling as it went. But BBT is not a complete theory, and it might be changed as Physics discovers more about about how space, time and energy work.

The great mystery though is what caused it.
I'm not sure that the word 'cause' is meaningful in a space without mass, Beng.

All our notion of causation is confirmed by changes to matter. Our detection of energy itself requires changes to matter, and alterations to matter lie at the heart of empirical observations themselves. What happens if there's no matter to observe, nor any matter to observe it with? What can be said with any confidence?

Our language is built from our experiences of a universe full of matter, and it's always dangerous to argue intuitively in situations we've never experienced and cannot observe.

I'm inclined to ask specifically what is meant by the question, and how one would know if an answer were correct -- or incorrect.

Hope that may be useful.

The idea of the question was to generate an interesting discussion. It is obviously a question that is impossible to accurately fully answer but there is a wide range of possibilities, opinions and views of what may have caused the big bang. .
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:24:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you're going to have to believe either an uncaused event of some kind for logical reasons, you may as well shoe horn an entire diety in there as well for no reason and for good measure!

I don't see how that follows. The sort of self-causal beginning I was imagining would be that the logical force of a mathematical description of 'quantum space-time gravity', or some other equally currently bareley imagined wotsit explains it. A loose parallel would be that Dirac's equation for the electron had an expected solution that desribed the (then) unknown positron. I think it very possible that a mathematical desrciption of the universe may well contain the answer as to how the universe is self-caused - with no god required.

But I certainly don't think that has to be the case. In fact I am sure I am dead wrong because science often produces unexpected answers (unlike religion which always gives you the answer you want). My intention in posting is to indicate what would least surprise me if it was some future discovery of the origin of the universe, if that ever happens - in short, self-causality from mathematical neccessity,

I suppose I have to concede it is possible that it was God all along, but I would be very surprised if that was the case. Very, very surprised. The crowing of the religious crowd would no doubt be insufferable and be by far the worst part of it. But I think they'd be too busy arguing amongst themselves over whose god it was that they might not bother with us disbelievers!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 7:55:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 6:48:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 10:02:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
The great mystery though is what caused it.
I'm not sure that the word 'cause' is meaningful in a space without mass, Beng.

All our notion of causation is confirmed by changes to matter. Our detection of energy itself requires changes to matter, and alterations to matter lie at the heart of empirical observations themselves. What happens if there's no matter to observe, nor any matter to observe it with? What can be said with any confidence?

Our language is built from our experiences of a universe full of matter, and it's always dangerous to argue intuitively in situations we've never experienced and cannot observe.

I'm inclined to ask specifically what is meant by the question, and how one would know if an answer were correct -- or incorrect.
The idea of the question was to generate an interesting discussion. It is obviously a question that is impossible to accurately fully answer but there is a wide range of possibilities, opinions and views of what may have caused the big bang. .

I realise the question was posed in good faith, Beng, to stimulate interesting conjectures. Here's my concern though: right now, after four centuries of science demonstrating that there is no ethical way to reason about anything if we are not accountable to meticulous observation, some 84% of humans still believe the world's weather was created either directly or indirectly by an invisible man in the sky. [http://www.adherents.com...]

You yourself implied in your original post that disbelief in intelligent metaphysical agencies makes some sort of naturalistic cosmogenic mechanism a virtual certainty.

But did you posit lack of metaphysical intelligence from observation, or from a priori assumption? If it's observation, then your observations can only be of the actions of matter. Such observations are no longer meaningful when there is no matter to observe or observe with. In fact, as I've suggested, the world 'cause' itself loses all empirical meaning.

Would you like to adopt a non-empirical meaning for 'cause'? One unaccountable to observation and evidence?

That's the kind of thinking that put invisible men in the sky, stirring up the clouds. :D

Empiricism is both a method and an ethic, Beng. In asking for causes before there is matter, and without defining what 'cause' would actually mean in those circumstances, I'm concerned that might both depart from the method, and break the ethics of a scientific discussion.

I'm not saying that's a certainty. If we found ways to move matter or energy outside observable space, and back in again, someplace else, say, we'd have a potential basis for talking about a prime cosmogenic cause for our universe. But I'm not aware of any results of that kind, and there's no assurance that the kinds of symmetries we're used to in our universe -- conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and thermodynamic trends -- would even apply outside observed space.

So here's another way of asking my counter-question: what criteria would make these conjectures constructive, scientific and accountable to evidence?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 8:27:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:55:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/5/2015 6:48:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 10:02:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
The great mystery though is what caused it.
I'm not sure that the word 'cause' is meaningful in a space without mass, Beng.

All our notion of causation is confirmed by changes to matter. Our detection of energy itself requires changes to matter, and alterations to matter lie at the heart of empirical observations themselves. What happens if there's no matter to observe, nor any matter to observe it with? What can be said with any confidence?

Our language is built from our experiences of a universe full of matter, and it's always dangerous to argue intuitively in situations we've never experienced and cannot observe.

I'm inclined to ask specifically what is meant by the question, and how one would know if an answer were correct -- or incorrect.
The idea of the question was to generate an interesting discussion. It is obviously a question that is impossible to accurately fully answer but there is a wide range of possibilities, opinions and views of what may have caused the big bang. .

I realise the question was posed in good faith, Beng, to stimulate interesting conjectures. Here's my concern though: right now, after four centuries of science demonstrating that there is no ethical way to reason about anything if we are not accountable to meticulous observation, some 84% of humans still believe the world's weather was created either directly or indirectly by an invisible man in the sky. [http://www.adherents.com...]

You yourself implied in your original post that disbelief in intelligent metaphysical agencies makes some sort of naturalistic cosmogenic mechanism a virtual certainty.

But did you posit lack of metaphysical intelligence from observation, or from a priori assumption? If it's observation, then your observations can only be of the actions of matter. Such observations are no longer meaningful when there is no matter to observe or observe with. In fact, as I've suggested, the world 'cause' itself loses all empirical meaning.

Would you like to adopt a non-empirical meaning for 'cause'? One unaccountable to observation and evidence?

That's the kind of thinking that put invisible men in the sky, stirring up the clouds. :D

Empiricism is both a method and an ethic, Beng. In asking for causes before there is matter, and without defining what 'cause' would actually mean in those circumstances, I'm concerned that might both depart from the method, and break the ethics of a scientific discussion.

I'm not saying that's a certainty. If we found ways to move matter or energy outside observable space, and back in again, someplace else, say, we'd have a potential basis for talking about a prime cosmogenic cause for our universe. But I'm not aware of any results of that kind, and there's no assurance that the kinds of symmetries we're used to in our universe -- conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and thermodynamic trends -- would even apply outside observed space.

So here's another way of asking my counter-question: what criteria would make these conjectures constructive, scientific and accountable to evidence?

I respect you know what you are talking about but to me this is some pretty complex stuff. I agree it is currently impossible to determine how the universe came to exist although I don't rule out the possibility of one day being able to find out. Quite simply its a question that is of significant interest to me. I was mainly interested in hearing various theories of the reason for the big bang being discussed when writing the opening post. I was not trying to claim i had definative proof or a way existed currently to definitively find out.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 9:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 8:27:19 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:55:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Here's another way of asking my counter-question: what criteria would make these conjectures constructive, scientific and accountable to evidence?

I was mainly interested in hearing various theories of the reason for the big bang being discussed when writing the opening post. I was not trying to claim i had definative proof or a way existed currently to definitively find out.

Yes, I understand and agree you weren't looking for or claiming a definitive answer, Beng. But my line is that the question itself is also a problem, because of how science does information (though that's not your fault.) So without suggesting you've done anything wrong, let me try to explore that a bit.

Let's try and start here: where did our idea of 'cause' come from? Did we invent it or observe it?

I think we observed it. We might've noticed that it never rained without clouds, for example, and perhaps that made us ask whether clouds somehow had something to do with rain. So the question 'do clouds cause rain' is constructive and empirical. We can think of experiments that might help answer the question: perhaps send up a weather balloon to take a sample of clouds, and see what they're made of.

Nowadays, we know that both clouds and rain are caused by the same thing: the condensation of water vapour in the air, itself arising from the evaporation of liquid water on the earth's surface. We know this because we've observed all the key mechanisms in cloud formation. Once we know how the mechanisms work, we have a comprehensive account for cause.

But when we don't have a clear mechanism we can still infer cause too. For example, we knew there was a strong and significant statistical correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer long before we understood how smoking helped bring lung cancer about. This kind of causal inference is made more confident by eliminating other variables -- the job, environment, diet and hobbies of lung cancer patients, for example. So we got strong indirect evidence that smoking causes lung-cancer, even if we couldn't be sure how it did.

Bringing it back to cosmology, we know that energy 'causes' matter, and vice-versa (this comes out of nuclear physics and the E=mc^2 of relativity.) We know how and when this takes place, and have some theoretical mechanisms by which it occurs. But because of the way thermodynamics work, it might be truer to say that energy 'causes' matter rather than vice-versa: 'cooling' energy tends to 'condense' into matter, much like cooling water vapour condenses into liquid water. Sometimes that process is reversed (e.g. in nuclear fission), but over all, our universe is tending toward more matter and less energy over time, which means that earlier in its history it likely had less matter and more energy.

So for this reason and some others, BBT 'starts' with a concentration of high energy -- too hot to form matter of any kind -- expanding, cooling, and eventually creating matter. But we don't really know that was the start of things, and here's why:

Energy is change -- it's a sort of verb. Matter is the stuff that is changed -- it's a noun. So unless you have something to be changed -- to leave a record of change -- it's difficult to say exactly what's happening.

In fact, I think it's hard to say what time means, since we can only recognise time as a record of change. Think about it this way: your sense of time is created entirely by your memories -- which arise from the structure of your neurons, which themselves contain some record of their past configurations, much as the structure of rocks contain their past history as well as their present state.

But when there isn't any matter, what does time mean?

Heck, when there is matter, what does time mean?

Time can be thought of as a relative rate of change between two frames: in observing a ticking clock, I can tell that time is passing. The clock converts the energy of a spring into mechanical energy at a regular rate. Meanwhile my body is converting chemical energy into neural activity. My brain becomes aware of the ticking and records it... the relative energy flows between the clock and my brain give me a sense of time.

But put me in a sensory deprivation tank, and I quickly lose sense of how much time is passing. My brain hears the beating of my heart, but my thoughts meander and circle. If I don't count beats, my sense of time becomes intangible and vague. Those external cues -- relative frames -- matter a great deal to the way time is experienced and observed.

Yet what are the frames if there is no matter? If we measure time through relative rates of energy flow in different frames -- and if energy flow is measured by change, and change is recorded in matter -- where are the frames, and how do we compare flows?

I'm not a physicist or cosmologist -- my scientific training is in logic and informatics -- but such stuff concerns me epistemologically. I'm quite happy to accept an early universe without matter, but once we postulate that as our earliest known origin, I'm not sure there's much we can say about it; I'm not sure we can talk about 'the first moment of the bang', or 'moments before the bang' -- at that point, the definition of time itself seems dubious to me.

Religion doesn't care about such stuff. It's happy to appeal to ignorance, intuitions and emotions to gain credulence. Theology accepts some very lazy, sloppy and conceited thinking; and that's why so few theological conversations produce anything useful.

But science should care about such stuff. It should hold itself to a high ethical standard of observation and definition. And I have no idea what we're talking about when we start to discuss the early moments of the Big Bang, and it'd be unethical for me to say I did, or to refrain from pointing out that I'm dubious that anyone else really understands the question either. :D

Hence my line of questions and concerns. :D
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 10:15:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 9:33:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/5/2015 8:27:19 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 7:55:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Here's another way of asking my counter-question: what criteria would make these conjectures constructive, scientific and accountable to evidence?

I was mainly interested in hearing various theories of the reason for the big bang being discussed when writing the opening post. I was not trying to claim i had definative proof or a way existed currently to definitively find out.

Yes, I understand and agree you weren't looking for or claiming a definitive answer, Beng. But my line is that the question itself is also a problem, because of how science does information (though that's not your fault.) So without suggesting you've done anything wrong, let me try to explore that a bit.

Let's try and start here: where did our idea of 'cause' come from? Did we invent it or observe it?

I think we observed it. We might've noticed that it never rained without clouds, for example, and perhaps that made us ask whether clouds somehow had something to do with rain. So the question 'do clouds cause rain' is constructive and empirical. We can think of experiments that might help answer the question: perhaps send up a weather balloon to take a sample of clouds, and see what they're made of.

Nowadays, we know that both clouds and rain are caused by the same thing: the condensation of water vapour in the air, itself arising from the evaporation of liquid water on the earth's surface. We know this because we've observed all the key mechanisms in cloud formation. Once we know how the mechanisms work, we have a comprehensive account for cause.

But when we don't have a clear mechanism we can still infer cause too. For example, we knew there was a strong and significant statistical correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer long before we understood how smoking helped bring lung cancer about. This kind of causal inference is made more confident by eliminating other variables -- the job, environment, diet and hobbies of lung cancer patients, for example. So we got strong indirect evidence that smoking causes lung-cancer, even if we couldn't be sure how it did.

Bringing it back to cosmology, we know that energy 'causes' matter, and vice-versa (this comes out of nuclear physics and the E=mc^2 of relativity.) We know how and when this takes place, and have some theoretical mechanisms by which it occurs. But because of the way thermodynamics work, it might be truer to say that energy 'causes' matter rather than vice-versa: 'cooling' energy tends to 'condense' into matter, much like cooling water vapour condenses into liquid water. Sometimes that process is reversed (e.g. in nuclear fission), but over all, our universe is tending toward more matter and less energy over time, which means that earlier in its history it likely had less matter and more energy.

So for this reason and some others, BBT 'starts' with a concentration of high energy -- too hot to form matter of any kind -- expanding, cooling, and eventually creating matter. But we don't really know that was the start of things, and here's why:

Energy is change -- it's a sort of verb. Matter is the stuff that is changed -- it's a noun. So unless you have something to be changed -- to leave a record of change -- it's difficult to say exactly what's happening.

In fact, I think it's hard to say what time means, since we can only recognise time as a record of change. Think about it this way: your sense of time is created entirely by your memories -- which arise from the structure of your neurons, which themselves contain some record of their past configurations, much as the structure of rocks contain their past history as well as their present state.

But when there isn't any matter, what does time mean?

Heck, when there is matter, what does time mean?

Time can be thought of as a relative rate of change between two frames: in observing a ticking clock, I can tell that time is passing. The clock converts the energy of a spring into mechanical energy at a regular rate. Meanwhile my body is converting chemical energy into neural activity. My brain becomes aware of the ticking and records it... the relative energy flows between the clock and my brain give me a sense of time.

But put me in a sensory deprivation tank, and I quickly lose sense of how much time is passing. My brain hears the beating of my heart, but my thoughts meander and circle. If I don't count beats, my sense of time becomes intangible and vague. Those external cues -- relative frames -- matter a great deal to the way time is experienced and observed.

Yet what are the frames if there is no matter? If we measure time through relative rates of energy flow in different frames -- and if energy flow is measured by change, and change is recorded in matter -- where are the frames, and how do we compare flows?

I'm not a physicist or cosmologist -- my scientific training is in logic and informatics -- but such stuff concerns me epistemologically. I'm quite happy to accept an early universe without matter, but once we postulate that as our earliest known origin, I'm not sure there's much we can say about it; I'm not sure we can talk about 'the first moment of the bang', or 'moments before the bang' -- at that point, the definition of time itself seems dubious to me.

Religion doesn't care about such stuff. It's happy to appeal to ignorance, intuitions and emotions to gain credulence. Theology accepts some very lazy, sloppy and conceited thinking; and that's why so few theological conversations produce anything useful.

But science should care about such stuff. It should hold itself to a high ethical standard of observation and definition. And I have no idea what we're talking about when we start to discuss the early moments of the Big Bang, and it'd be unethical for me to say I did, or to refrain from pointing out that I'm dubious that anyone else really understands the question either. :D

Hence my line of questions and concerns. :D

Yes i respect as a scientist you have considerably more knowledge on this subject than I do and what you have said seems logical. Some interesting information. I see your point that as it is unknown what happened in the early moments of the big bang and that no one can conclusively prove what actually happened. I also see that by asking this question it promotes speculative theories as to what happened that have either no or limited factual basis. I do not see how the discussion or question itself is unethical though. What is the problem with people discussing an issue even if there is no answer? It is by asking questions and seeking knowledge we individually and collectively learn things.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 10:47:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 10:15:07 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 9:33:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm quite happy to accept an early universe without matter, but once we postulate that as our earliest known origin, I'm not sure there's much we can say about it; I'm not sure we can talk about 'the first moment of the bang', or 'moments before the bang' -- at that point, the definition of time itself seems dubious to me.
I see your point that as it is unknown what happened in the early moments of the big bang and that no one can conclusively prove what actually happened.
I'm saying more than that, Beng. I'm suggesting that until we can define empirically what 'time' and 'cause' should mean in the early moments of the universe, the question may not have a scientific meaning at all.

And without matter as a referent, I'm not sure how we'd define either 'time' or 'cause'. And if we can't, then the question isn't scientifically legitimate. You can't even offer a scientific conjecture, because the conjecture might be (the worst thing a scientist can ever say about a conjecture) 'Not even wrong'. :D

I do not see how the discussion or question itself is unethical though.
Science is built on the ethics of honesty, transparency, and accountability. These are its ethics of service, in that a scientist must:

* be honest about what is observed and known, and what is not;
* offer full and precise, detail about how phenomena were observed, and ideas and results derived, including any assumptions and definitions and measurements, and any known or suspected imprecisions; and
* promptly and fully admit ignorance and error, whenever that is detected or suspected.

So how can a scientist ethically make guesses about 'cause' or 'time' early in the history of the universe, if both cause and time are defined in terms of stuff that may not have existed then?

What is the problem with people discussing an issue even if there is no answer?
If the question is scientifically legitimate -- i.e. one science believes it might one day be able to explore or answer -- then it's fine to offer conjectures. But if the question itself is incoherent, or depends on dubious definitions , then seeking to answer a poorly-framed question gives it a legitimacy it may not deserve. (Or as scientists sometimes say, some ideas are 'Not even wrong'. :D)

I can't say for certain that this is a poorly-framed question, Beng. Perhaps time and cause can be given some sort of empirical grounding one day, in a universe of no matter but intense energy and very small space.

I just can't myself see how to do it, and don't know any result in this field that has managed to do it yet.

So... I'm flagging this question as scientifically dubious, and possibly unethical to try and answer at this time.

And you can see why it might be unethical: already we have people of theological persuasion wanting to argue that if you accept the legitimacy of the question, then you accept that theological conjectures must be equally legitimate.

But theology loves unethical thought. It can grow nowhere else but in an environment where people are satisfied with ignorance, laziness and dishonesty and conceit. Adherents love finding such sloppiness in others, because it smells like home.

That's an intellectual environment science opposes, and I think it's right to do so.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 11:21:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 10:47:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/5/2015 10:15:07 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 9:33:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm quite happy to accept an early universe without matter, but once we postulate that as our earliest known origin, I'm not sure there's much we can say about it; I'm not sure we can talk about 'the first moment of the bang', or 'moments before the bang' -- at that point, the definition of time itself seems dubious to me.
I see your point that as it is unknown what happened in the early moments of the big bang and that no one can conclusively prove what actually happened.
I'm saying more than that, Beng. I'm suggesting that until we can define empirically what 'time' and 'cause' should mean in the early moments of the universe, the question may not have a scientific meaning at all.

And without matter as a referent, I'm not sure how we'd define either 'time' or 'cause'. And if we can't, then the question isn't scientifically legitimate. You can't even offer a scientific conjecture, because the conjecture might be (the worst thing a scientist can ever say about a conjecture) 'Not even wrong'. :D

I do not see how the discussion or question itself is unethical though.
Science is built on the ethics of honesty, transparency, and accountability. These are its ethics of service, in that a scientist must:

* be honest about what is observed and known, and what is not;
* offer full and precise, detail about how phenomena were observed, and ideas and results derived, including any assumptions and definitions and measurements, and any known or suspected imprecisions; and
* promptly and fully admit ignorance and error, whenever that is detected or suspected.

So how can a scientist ethically make guesses about 'cause' or 'time' early in the history of the universe, if both cause and time are defined in terms of stuff that may not have existed then?

What is the problem with people discussing an issue even if there is no answer?
If the question is scientifically legitimate -- i.e. one science believes it might one day be able to explore or answer -- then it's fine to offer conjectures. But if the question itself is incoherent, or depends on dubious definitions , then seeking to answer a poorly-framed question gives it a legitimacy it may not deserve. (Or as scientists sometimes say, some ideas are 'Not even wrong'. :D)

I can't say for certain that this is a poorly-framed question, Beng. Perhaps time and cause can be given some sort of empirical grounding one day, in a universe of no matter but intense energy and very small space.

I just can't myself see how to do it, and don't know any result in this field that has managed to do it yet.

So... I'm flagging this question as scientifically dubious, and possibly unethical to try and answer at this time.

And you can see why it might be unethical: already we have people of theological persuasion wanting to argue that if you accept the legitimacy of the question, then you accept that theological conjectures must be equally legitimate.

But theology loves unethical thought. It can grow nowhere else but in an environment where people are satisfied with ignorance, laziness and dishonesty and conceit. Adherents love finding such sloppiness in others, because it smells like home.

That's an intellectual environment science opposes, and I think it's right to do so.

I can see what you are saying. Science should not promote wild or unproven theories. Something should be proven beyond reasonable doubt before being promoted as factual. However I am not a scientist. Do you think the ethical responsibility to not discuss unfounded theories extends to non scientists and ordinary people? I also think that discussing potential theories is a good way to learn and explore different views and that not discussing these issues may limit both learning and development of new factual evidence. I think as long as people do not claim theories as facts discussion is reasonable, ethical and useful for both individual and collective development. I understand unproven speculation is the territory of theism and religion but I believe it is reasonable to discuss these issues in able to obtain greater knowledge. Your understanding of the early universe is at a high level. Many other people though are still learning about it and discussion is a key part of learning.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2015 11:34:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 11:21:30 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/5/2015 10:47:35 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I can't say for certain that this is a poorly-framed question, Beng. Perhaps time and cause can be given some sort of empirical grounding one day, in a universe of no matter but intense energy and very small space.

I just can't myself see how to do it, and don't know any result in this field that has managed to do it yet. So... I'm flagging this question as scientifically dubious, and possibly unethical to try and answer at this time.

I can see what you are saying. Science should not promote wild or unproven theories.
It's not even that, Beng. Some ideas aren't and can never be a scientific theory simply because they lack the empirical character needed to be scientific.

In this case, I personally think that talking about time and cause early in the history of the universe may not be scientific -- even though science usually loves splashing about in time and causality. :D

I am not a scientist. Do you think the ethical responsibility to not discuss unfounded theories extends to non scientists and ordinary people?
Again, with no sense of blame or personal criticism, Beng, I think it might be mistaken to consider intuitive conjectures about the early moments of the universe to be a discussion about science.

Sure, it might use scientific language -- but so does science fiction. Language alone isn't enough to make a discussion scientific. Accountability to observation and evidence is needed, and I'm concerned that these ideas aren't presently grounded or groundable in observation, and I'm not sure whether or when they will be.

So it's not that some theory is right or wrong -- I think the language may be wrong for discussing things at all.

And I'm not sure what the right language is, or should be, or how we'd know when it was.

That's not to say: don't have the conversation. One might still have it philosophically, because philosophy is happy to cavort in ideas whether they're empirically grounded or not.

It's more a warning that the conversation might be running off the edge of anything science can legitimately and ethically talk about -- not just now, but for the indefinite future.

I suppose if this conversation were a Swiss ski-slope, I'm just the guy planting chequered black and yellow flags in a place of suspected avalanche. :D
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 12:02:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's another way of saying it:

Let's define a natural cause as a theoretical mechanism of consequence for which we can construct ways to gather natural evidence supporting or refuting it.

We could define science then, as the investigation of natural causes.

But science has never assumed nor claimed that all phenomena have natural causes, or that any investigation will necessarily identify a likely candidate. (Some philosophers might do this, but science in general doesn't.)

And when qualities fundamental to evidence -- like mass, time and consequence -- are missing or poorly defined (as they seem to be in our current account of early cosmology) then science may need to be silent on those phenomena.

That isn't license for fantasy, superstition or religion to claim ownership, nor are such speculations free from accountability if they do speak. It may simply not be constructive for science to speak on those matters.
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 3:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 4:36:05 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/5/2015 10:20:30 AM, kp98 wrote:
The big bang was caused by the number of unbelievers rejecting the word of God reaching a critical mass and exploding.

I think the problem is psychological in that we can't imagine a causeless event, or a literal beinning of time.

Yeah, if you're going to accept either of those you might as well accept an eternal, un-caused God.

But you can't do that if you're gonna be an atheist.

Just as easy to accept an eternal un-caused non-intelligent state which would allow a big bang. Why put on all the add ins such as intelligence, omniscience and other features which are based upon nothing but conjecture?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 5:18:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 7:24:39 PM, kp98 wrote:
If you're going to have to believe either an uncaused event of some kind for logical reasons, you may as well shoe horn an entire diety in there as well for no reason and for good measure!

I don't see how that follows. The sort of self-causal beginning I was imagining would be that the logical force of a mathematical description of 'quantum space-time gravity', or some other equally currently bareley imagined wotsit explains it. A loose parallel would be that Dirac's equation for the electron had an expected solution that desribed the (then) unknown positron. I think it very possible that a mathematical desrciption of the universe may well contain the answer as to how the universe is self-caused - with no god required.

But I certainly don't think that has to be the case. In fact I am sure I am dead wrong because science often produces unexpected answers (unlike religion which always gives you the answer you want). My intention in posting is to indicate what would least surprise me if it was some future discovery of the origin of the universe, if that ever happens - in short, self-causality from mathematical neccessity,

I suppose I have to concede it is possible that it was God all along, but I would be very surprised if that was the case. Very, very surprised. The crowing of the religious crowd would no doubt be insufferable and be by far the worst part of it. But I think they'd be too busy arguing amongst themselves over whose god it was that they might not bother with us disbelievers!

I was being sarcastic. Hopefully I haven't misread your reply, but apologies if you got that :)

This is the standard God of the gaps hopplah. The right answer is we don't know, and we don't even know whether the question itself is even valid.

However, when silence is the most appropriate response, that's when theists get the loudest, and assert knowledge or reasoning that can't be supported.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/5/2015 10:20:30 AM, kp98 wrote:
The big bang was caused by the number of unbelievers rejecting the word of God reaching a critical mass and exploding.

I think the problem is psychological in that we can't imagine a causeless event, or a literal beinning of time. If I say that time itself started 13b billion years ago, then it seems natural to ask what was before then, but - of course - if time iteself started 13 billion years ago there is no before.
But to most people 'there is no before' seems like a cop-out rather than a genuine explaination. It does to me, anyway! But we might have to come to terms with such ideas as a literal 'first moment' or 'causeless event' if that is indeed what happened.

I am not saying anything specific about the origin of the universe. I am saying that the answer may well be counter-intuitive and even unsatifying psychologically. It may only reveal itself to be true by working through logic that is not immediately clear to the 'man in the street' who doesn't want to learn 5 dimensional tensor calculus.

I may be being pessimistic, but it is said that quantum physics can't really be understood, only calculated. The problems of quantum physics are not really very sexy (e.g. the question what determines the value of the fine-structure constant doesn't crop up on DDO as often as the origin of the universe does!) so we don't come across the unintuitive nature of the universe all that often, but if we did we'd be more familiar with the conflict between intution and truth.

So I think one day - possibly soon - we will be able to show with rigourous mathematis and logic why the big bang happened. I am not so sure we will know what all that maths and logic means.

A sensible answer :)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:21:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.

Did you even attempt to justify your position by analyzing the logical reasoning of the opposing point of view before launching into such an incoherent rant?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:22:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.

I dont understand your point. It makes no sense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:33:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:21:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.

Did you even attempt to justify your position by analyzing the logical reasoning of the opposing point of view before launching into such an incoherent rant?

Nothing incoherent about it.

Atheist avoid the thinking of what could exist or happen to cause the universe, by attacking the language used. While the cause for the universe can not be entangled in the timeline of the universe, the Atheist refuses to presuppose other timelines... but other universes are fine (what ever can deny God but nothing that supports God)

It's Atheist sophistry at it's best.

So when a theist asks what caused the universe? DO you say it could be a number of things... or do you want to avoid the argument completely by talking about how this time could not because by something in this time. Making the word beginning irrelevant, as if it can not shift to a extra universal reference frame.

Pathetic. Atheism is a mental poison. Not that the lack of believe in God is disruptive to human thinking, BUT that the illogical superficial inconsistent rebuttals require rejecting facts, history, human nature, observation, logic, math to accept as substantial. ((I didn't say claims, cause we all know Atheist make no claims.. ever))
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:47:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:22:26 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.

I dont understand your point. It makes no sense.

Quite simply as An Atheist if you intend on ridiculing any theist you want to keep your questions and ideas to empirically verifiable material things.

The beginning of Space and Time is not one of those things.

You need to understand how to attack the words someone uses instead of the idea or concept. While I get what you are asking, you know what conditions lead to the universe being Big banged.. but how can you use words contingent on temporal space when no temporal space (at least not this one) existed??

See How we avoid talking about anything and we can walk away being no more enlightened and actually feel dumb for asking such questions.. that's how you need to act as an Atheist.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:33:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:21:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.

Did you even attempt to justify your position by analyzing the logical reasoning of the opposing point of view before launching into such an incoherent rant?

Nothing incoherent about it.

Atheist avoid the thinking of what could exist or happen to cause the universe, by attacking the language used. While the cause for the universe can not be entangled in the timeline of the universe, the Atheist refuses to presuppose other timelines... but other universes are fine (what ever can deny God but nothing that supports God)

It's not the language that is being objected to, it's the concepts that are invoked. One cannot assume things unless the assumptions can be tested or verified, no matter how reasonable one may think of them now.

This is done for very good reason; as you can't make assumptions about anything unless you have reason to believe that assumption, and have a way of performing some testing of it. This is why none of the speculative answers to this question are really treated as anything more than speculation; there are idea's for them, but none of them are testable, and all of them have their own problems.

God on the other hand, as I and I am sure many other Atheists have thought about, fails as a solution in one key way: It's not actually a solution.

While I don't reject God out of hand, the notion of God as a cause (or timeline) for the beginning of the universe simply moves the problem up one level. You believe it's a solution because you refuse to actually acknowledge that you have simply moved the problem, because you insert all sorts of metaphysical baggage with God.

Indeed, many non-God solutions inserts the same metaphysical baggage, but work quite happily without unnecessarily inserting God.

Most importantly, while you are happy consider God; it's not a valuable scientific question to ask because in general when you posit God as an answer; knowledge stops being generated.

It's not that it is pre-assumed there is no God; but simply that God is neither a solution, nor a particularly coherent answer to anything.

It's Atheist sophistry at it's best.

So when a theist asks what caused the universe? DO you say it could be a number of things... or do you want to avoid the argument completely by talking about how this time could not because by something in this time. Making the word beginning irrelevant, as if it can not shift to a extra universal reference frame.

Oh no, the Multi-verse, 0 bounded universes do just that; except they do it without invoking an unnecessary deity that simply shifts the problem one level deeper.

Even so, these are possibilities. But you have to admit that the universe was created in any conventional sense, is an assumption; and not one we have enough evidence to more than speculate on the validity of.

Pathetic. Atheism is a mental poison. Not that the lack of believe in God is disruptive to human thinking, BUT that the illogical superficial inconsistent rebuttals require rejecting facts, history, human nature, observation, logic, math to accept as substantial. ((I didn't say claims, cause we all know Atheist make no claims.. ever))

So far, nothing you have said, nor that I can ever remember reading of yours EVER relating or regarding atheism has ever come even close to describing how Atheists reject facts, history, human nature, observational logic or math as you assert here.

Indeed, most Atheists that I am aware of, and I obviously agree there are probably some idiots there, so it's hard to lay claim to everyone, is based at least in the acceptance of facts and empirical rationalism to a greater or lesser extent; that truth claims about ANYTHING need to be demonstrable, and simply asserting something is true from a position of authority is not enough to actually show it's true.

Theism, instead is the reliance of belief over knowledge; and indeed in many cases the confusion of the two.

Religion and Theism to a greater or lesser extent requires the suspension of reason, as you have done here by quietly and conveniently ignoring the key fault in your argument as I pointed out. And not only that, it paints the suspension of reason and rationality as some sort of virtue.

I have never heard any Atheist claim that no matter what the evidence that is ever presented to them, they will never change their mind; yet this is quite a common occurrence with many of Creationist and Theistic public figures.

Nor have I seen many atheists post endless sets of post that abuse reality, riddled with equivocatory statements including the use of words such as "Information", "kinds", straw men, and circular reasoning. Yet I have rarely, if ever seen Theists here and in the public domain do anything else.

Positions are asserted rather than defended, and there is not even a semblance of ability to think critically about their own position and defend or answer questions about the consequences of what their assertions about reality should be.

Even here, you making sweeping statements about Atheism, you can't mean all Atheists, because that is a claim you cannot possibly support in any way shape or form. Even when using the word to refute your claims here, I get a deep seated itch to be specific and definitive, because l know that I can't possibly speak for all of them, or even rationalize down to the world view level because every one has their own unique and specific perspectives.

You seem quite happy to ignore that; and that is indicative of intellectual laziness where you just want to bash someone, without paying good heed or attention to the detail of what you're actually saying.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:33:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:21:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am an atheist and consider the big bang theory a proven fact. The great mystery though is what caused it. Personally I think the most likely explanation is the effects of gravity slowly pulling a previously existing universe together into a tight space, creating a very dense small mass containing all current mass of the universe triggering an explosion and the creation of a new universe.

You're an Atheist. You are going about it all wrong. Forget a beginning. The best thing for an Atheist to understand is the use of sophistry. Don't fight an atheist about the facts and evidence... NO, argue about the words being used.

Make the question so meaningless, that it can't even be asked correctly or answered thereby preserving you from up holding any onus and maintaining an Atheist mentality.

Did you even attempt to justify your position by analyzing the logical reasoning of the opposing point of view before launching into such an incoherent rant?

Nothing incoherent about it.

Atheist avoid the thinking of what could exist or happen to cause the universe, by attacking the language used. While the cause for the universe can not be entangled in the timeline of the universe, the Atheist refuses to presuppose other timelines... but other universes are fine (what ever can deny God but nothing that supports God)

It's not the language that is being objected to, it's the concepts that are invoked. One cannot assume things unless the assumptions can be tested or verified, no matter how reasonable one may think of them now.

In empirical Science. But assuming metaphysics and discussing the matters of things unseen and unverifiable didn't stop Einstein and Bohr from debating so. And much of what they discussed was considered philosophical at the time. Didn't become any less presupposition or assumptive until technology advanced.


This is done for very good reason; as you can't make assumptions about anything unless you have reason to believe that assumption, and have a way of performing some testing of it. This is why none of the speculative answers to this question are really treated as anything more than speculation; there are idea's for them, but none of them are testable, and all of them have their own problems.

Right I know I know.. That's why I told Beng if he wants to be a good Atheist he has to keep everything in a empirically testable materialistic world. I mean that's not how real advancements are made, or how people think, or explain theoretical positions being hired... but I get your point keep things in the real of testable fact and material. It's the best way to eliminate any question of God, because technology will have to advance a long way to reach God. We may have a couple 1000 years to remain ignorant and blind till then.


God on the other hand, as I and I am sure many other Atheists have thought about, fails as a solution in one key way: It's not actually a solution.

Solution to what question? If I ask why monkeys sling crud, and I answer with Air in the atmosphere.. I can Say air isn't a solution.


While I don't reject God out of hand, the notion of God as a cause (or timeline) for the beginning of the universe simply moves the problem up one level. You believe it's a solution because you refuse to actually acknowledge that you have simply moved the problem, because you insert all sorts of metaphysical baggage with God.

The way God has been described, omniscient, seeing the future, outside of this physical realm... transcendent is a property that a cause to the universe will have to have.


Indeed, many non-God solutions inserts the same metaphysical baggage, but work quite happily without unnecessarily inserting God.

Most importantly, while you are happy consider God; it's not a valuable scientific question to ask because in general when you posit God as an answer; knowledge stops being generated.

False. As a general Rule where God has been accepted as truth learning centers have been established. Stop spreading such a lie.

Read the history books, See that the advancements in Science, Math, Art, and Literature were all forwarded by a theology based and/or supported education.

Accepting God has never stopped the search of knowledge.

To say other wise is spreading Atheist erroneous jargon.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:27:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:33:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:21:57 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/6/2015 9:04:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 10/4/2015 6:12:24 PM, beng100 wrote:


It's not that it is pre-assumed there is no God; but simply that God is neither a solution, nor a particularly coherent answer to anything.

It's Atheist sophistry at it's best.

So when a theist asks what caused the universe? DO you say it could be a number of things... or do you want to avoid the argument completely by talking about how this time could not because by something in this time. Making the word beginning irrelevant, as if it can not shift to a extra universal reference frame.

Oh no, the Multi-verse, 0 bounded universes do just that; except they do it without invoking an unnecessary deity that simply shifts the problem one level deeper.

multiverse shifts the problem infinitely deeper than God. If God is one assumption and line then a multiverse is a pit of them.


Even so, these are possibilities. But you have to admit that the universe was created in any conventional sense, is an assumption; and not one we have enough evidence to more than speculate on the validity of.

I'm not saying it was created in a conventional sense but a miraculous one.


Pathetic. Atheism is a mental poison. Not that the lack of believe in God is disruptive to human thinking, BUT that the illogical superficial inconsistent rebuttals require rejecting facts, history, human nature, observation, logic, math to accept as substantial. ((I didn't say claims, cause we all know Atheist make no claims.. ever))

So far, nothing you have said, nor that I can ever remember reading of yours EVER relating or regarding atheism has ever come even close to describing how Atheists reject facts, history, human nature, observational logic or math as you assert here.

Indeed, most Atheists that I am aware of, and I obviously agree there are probably some idiots there, so it's hard to lay claim to everyone, is based at least in the acceptance of facts and empirical rationalism to a greater or lesser extent; that truth claims about ANYTHING need to be demonstrable, and simply asserting something is true from a position of authority is not enough to actually show it's true.

demonstrable by what means?.. please pigeon whole all of human understanding into scientism again.

Truth claims need to only be true to be true. For others to accept such a claim as truth requires justification.

AND GUESS WHAT! justification doesn't mean it must be scientifically verifiable by some repeatable experiment!

See how you just made a claim about truth and truthful claims that is contrary to recognized historical acceptance of logic, reason and justification. thanks for the example dip shizit.

Don't speak as if you know how to discern truth. You don't even know what logic is bro. Stick to your Atheist jargon, youtube videos, and textbooks that speak in an authoritative voice from scientific imperialism.

In a 100 years when your dead 50% of what you think is true will be rewritten by the same text books.


Theism, instead is the reliance of belief over knowledge; and indeed in many cases the confusion of the two.

Religion and Theism to a greater or lesser extent requires the suspension of reason, as you have done here by quietly and conveniently ignoring the key fault in your argument as I pointed out. And not only that, it paints the suspension of reason and rationality as some sort of virtue.

I have never heard any Atheist claim that no matter what the evidence that is ever presented to them, they will never change their mind; yet this is quite a common occurrence with many of Creationist and Theistic public figures.

Nor have I seen many atheists post endless sets of post that abuse reality, riddled with equivocatory statements including the use of words such as "Information", "kinds", straw men, and circular reasoning. Yet I have rarely, if ever seen Theists here and in the public domain do anything else.

Positions are asserted rather than defended, and there is not even a semblance of ability to think critically about their own position and defend or answer questions about the consequences of what their assertions about reality should be.

Even here, you making sweeping statements about Atheism, you can't mean all Atheists, because that is a claim you cannot possibly support in any way shape or form. Even when using the word to refute your claims here, I get a deep seated itch to be specific and definitive, because l know that I can't possibly speak for all of them, or even rationalize down to the world view level because every one has their own unique and specific perspectives.

You seem quite happy to ignore that; and that is indicative of intellectual laziness where you just want to bash someone, without paying good heed or attention to the detail of what you're actually saying.