03 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by clearlightYou know, I've heard that one thrown out a few times, usually though the person is claiming that "there is no effect without a cause, so Nature itself must have a cause, and that cause is God" (and of course when we atheists then ask, "well, what caused God?" I see the intellectual equivalent of sticking thumbs in ears and saying "Na Na Na I can't hear you!" ).
There is no such thing as an effect without a cause - therefore the universe existed before the big bang. This universe was made out of the previous universe.
Why must it be that everything has a cause? Imagine that the Universe itself came from some sort of fold in some sort of hyperdimensional space. While the Universe, and thus time itself, had a beginning, clearly this space outside of the Universe, and thus outside of time, itself had no beginning. It couldn't possibly have a beginning--beginning implies time. Can't we ever reach a point where we just say, "Huh. Looks like nothing caused *this*!" That's what the theists do, after all...they cut it off at their God...isn't it possible that we can just cut it off at Nature?
I'm not offering this as a conclusive proof, or a solid belief. And I don't think physicists should ever stop looking into what space and matter actually are--these are interesting questions. But it seems to me just as possible (if not more so) that there is a point at which we can just say, "Well, nature just *is* and we just can't go further" as it is to say, "God did it!"
But hey, I also used to be pretty heavily into Buddhism and they have a whole thing about the Universe coming from the spontaneous co-arising of various dhammas.
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by clearlight…There is no such thing as an effect without a cause.…
There is no such thing as an effect without a cause - therefore the universe existed before the big bang. This universe was made out of the previous universe.
By definition of the word “effect”, yes, that must be true because it is true by definition
….THEREFORE the universe existed before the big bang. .… (my emphasis)
The word “THEREFORE” only applies here IF the universe is an “effect”
-how do you know that the universe is an effect?
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorra…It's a human construct which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality.…
Causality is a bit blurred since one cause can have multiple effects. It's a human construct which doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality.
That is especially true when considering quantum mechanics.
03 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI never claimed creation was a scientific theory, I was under the
But creation is not a scientific theory, is it? BigBang is.
Further, creation is not a unified theory, it is a very diverse one. So in my opinion you don't have any well defined opinion at all...?
I think you should think outside your box, learn about things, and revise your knowledge about the start of our universe.
impression you wanted to avoid creation so your line of questions here
are a bit off the mark are they not?
Kelly
03 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYOU, I mean YOU care about how words are defined, when did this
[b]…There is no such thing as an effect without a cause.…
By definition of the word “effect”, yes, that must be true because it is true by definition
….THEREFORE the universe existed before the big bang. .… (my emphasis)
The word “THEREFORE” only applies here IF the universe is an “effect”
-how do you know that the universe is an effect?[/b]
start?
Kelly
03 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, creation is not a scientific theory, that's right, so now I ask the same question again - what *scientific* theory or explanation do you have if you don't think that the BigBang theory is the best one to explain all the observations we do?
I never claimed creation was a scientific theory, I was under the
impression you wanted to avoid creation so your line of questions here
are a bit off the mark are they not?
Kelly
Because if you say BigBang is false, then what is right? Creation is not an answer.
My impression is that you try to evade my question. You have done it before and I call it KJ retorics. You don't like me when I put my finger at it, but still, you don't like to answer some questions. A "Don't know" is an answer, but you know my response to that, don't you?
03 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…when did this start? ..…
YOU, I mean YOU care about how words are defined, when did this
start?
Kelly
It never “started” at a time I recall -it was always so as far back as I can remember.
Of course I care how words are defined and as far back as I can remember -and, as I stated many time before in other threads, there is nothing wrong with giving a word a non-standard meaning in a given context providing people are in general agreement that that what the word means in that context -but, in this case, this is NOT a context that requires a non-standard meaning -is it! -I mean, if you say it was, then you would be saying that in THIS context the word “effect” CAN refer to something without a “cause” -IS that what you would say here?
04 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't want to avoid creation. I'm just not going to spend much time entertaining hypotheses that on the face of it seem rather unlikely, and more importantly--FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY--don't produce testable predictions that can be verified by observation. Like, you know, cosmic background radiation.
I never claimed creation was a scientific theory, I was under the
impression you wanted to avoid creation so your line of questions here
are a bit off the mark are they not?
Kelly
04 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI feel like this is dodging the point he and I were trying to make, in different ways.
YOU, I mean YOU care about how words are defined, when did this
start?
Kelly
The point is that, we hear the argument, "Everything in Nature has a cause, therefore Nature itself MUST have a cause!" which is a fallacious argument. It is usually followed by, "And the cause of Nature is God! And God has no cause!" Why does God get to have no cause, but Nature must have a cause? That doesn't make sense to me, logically speaking. Why can't nature--the Universe itself--be ultimately uncaused?
And note: this is NOT a belief, or an airtight proof. My position is, "Nature itself may have a cause, or it may not. I support the efforts of those who seek to find a cause (and it seems the most fruitful efforts come out of work in fundamental physics), but I'm perfectly willing to accept that there might ultimately be no cause whatsoever to Nature--Nature just IS. And if you think God did it, you should be able to prove it (to some extent, previous arguments about the provisional nature of scientific 'proof' accepted) in the same way we 'prove' anything else about Nature. But then we get to ask, 'Does God have a cause, or not?' as an honest question."
Please correct me if I have misrepresented your position, Andrew. Also, the previous paragraph should be taken to only represent my position, and not Andrew's.
05 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat's what Bujowold is saying, did you read the Bouncing Universe piece in Scientific American? I got a response from him when I calculated his 'space atoms' would be about 4600 on a side, that is to say all the mass in the universe compress into something that small but he e'd me back and said I was off by a few dozen orders of magnitude🙂 He said the mass of the universe fit into 1E56 space atoms, which is still a very small volume to hold all the mass of the universe, about a cube 1E18 space atoms on a side, that is about 1E-23 meters on a side, if it were cubic which it wouldn't be but just to give a size of some kind. So the idea is we came from another universe or our universe squashes down to that size every now and again and bounces back. I asked him about the density inside black holes and he said the calculations are still going on but it looked like the density is the same, implying black holes on our side become separate universes on the other side which in turn implies our universe came from a larger universe as a black hole.
[b]…There is no such thing as an effect without a cause.…
By definition of the word “effect”, yes, that must be true because it is true by definition
….THEREFORE the universe existed before the big bang. .… (my emphasis)
The word “THEREFORE” only applies here IF the universe is an “effect”
-how do you know that the universe is an effect?[/b]
06 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think creation is the right answer; however, it isn't a scientific theory
No, creation is not a scientific theory, that's right, so now I ask the same question again - what *scientific* theory or explanation do you have if you don't think that the BigBang theory is the best one to explain all the observations we do?
Because if you say BigBang is false, then what is right? Creation is not an answer.
My impression is that y ome questions. A "Don't know" is an answer, but you know my response to that, don't you?
still, and I have issues with Big Bang and I have been expressing
them and all my issues are in the realm of science and logic, getting
everything from nothing just does not happen. Having the issues of
expanding into nothing is an issue, and so on. Those would be issues
for me even if I did not have a belief about creation, and I'm still
telling you science does not have anything that addresses the
beginning of all things in this universe, it always starts in the middle of
a process never at the true beginning of it.
Kelly
06 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhen you attempt to say a word means the exact opposite of its
[b]…when did this start? ..…
It never “started” at a time I recall -it was always so as far back as I can remember.
Of course I care how words are defined and as far back as I can remember -and, as I stated many time before in other threads, there is nothing wrong with giving a word a non-standard meaning in a given context providing people ...[text shortened]... ext the word “effect” CAN refer to something without a “cause” -IS that what you would say here?[/b]
standard meaning, you are not using that word properly at all. Normally
you would put an 'a' in front of something if you were to do that, like
muse and amuse, so for you what you should saying is adesign and
astraight when attempting to make those words fit your desire to use
them in ways that the standard meaning goes directly against how you
desire to use them. Since words do carry meaning, changing them
to suit you without regard to the standard definition is cult like behavior.
Kelly
06 Nov 08
Originally posted by convectCan you look at a rock and tell me why it is there from its very
I don't want to avoid creation. I'm just not going to spend much time entertaining hypotheses that on the face of it seem rather unlikely, and more importantly--FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY--don't produce testable predictions that can be verified by observation. Like, you know, cosmic background radiation.
creation or start of the universe?
Kelly
06 Nov 08
KellyJay, what you fail to realize is that there is no way to empirically verify a cause/effect relationship between events, you can only verify correlations. Therefore you cannot know if the universe, or anything for that matter, has a cause.
If you have a way to empirically verify cause and effect, I'm very interested.