10 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88Why can't physics itself be an "uncaused cause"…? Why does there have to be a consciousness added on, with its own built-in moral code and wild emotions?
The creator is the uncaused cause
There are lots of things that can be said to "exist" that were not "caused." Like the number 1, and pi. The laws of thermodynamics, which you mention, are also strictly mathematical entities: pure probability is all that "compels" hot and cold regions to equilibrate. One could say all the laws of physics are precisely that: mathematical constructs such as the integers. God is not needed to explain the origins of numbers, and so god is not needed to explain the origins of physics or the universe.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Stella,
i dont have a position per'se. the theories we have that describe events before a few milliseconds after the big bang just beg more questions. we cannot define a 'beginning' the big bang could be just another step in process. i remain open minded and interested in all theories put forward.
You remain open minded about all theories ? All theories ? ?
The problem with "another step in the process" is that there appears to have been nothing to work with. Lawrence Krauss argues strenuously about another step in the process. But I think the criticism of him not really coming to grips with nothing being NOTHING being NOTHING being NO THING - Nada, Zippo, the ith root of zilch, what rocks dream of. No quantum vacuum, not anything of fields, potentialities, nothing to fluctuate.
It seems to have all had its beginning at the Big Bang.
im happy to accept we do not know and wait for science to figure it out. rather than making conclusive decisions based on 'events' we only have a vague concept of.
Sure, but then don't cry "God of the gaps" when you want the same thing in terms of "Naturalism of the gaps."
Fair ?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipi said im interested in all theories. the more evidence or science there is to back up a theory the more credit i give it. being interested in all theories doesnt mean i believe them.
Stella,
i dont have a position per'se. the theories we have that describe events before a few milliseconds after the big bang just beg more questions. we cannot define a 'beginning' the big bang could be just another step in process. i remain open minded and interested in all theories put forward.
You remain open minded about all ...[text shortened]... God of the gaps" when you want the same thing in terms of "Naturalism of the gaps."
Fair ?
im not sure im following your point about 'another step in the process' having a problem rooted in the concept of 'nothingness'. saying that the big bang could be a step in a process does not necessitate at state of nothingness at any point. some people may speculate that there was 'nothing' others dont. so i dont see how 'nothing' is a problem for thinking the big bang was a part of a longer process.
"It seems to have all had its beginning at the Big Bang"
why? we dont know what was before the big bang, so why say things so definite as 'it seems', why not just accept that for the moment we dont know.
the "naturalism of the gaps"??? i cant agree (yet) because i dont know what this is. can you give me some examples of naturalism of gaps??
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Dec 13
im not sure im following your point about 'another step in the process' having a problem rooted in the concept of 'nothingness'.
I don't think it is at all difficult to understand.
saying that the big bang could be a step in a process does not necessitate at state of nothingness at any point.
To the current consensus of cosmology it does mean that.
I think some people are in denial about this.
I have listened to physicist Lawrence Krauss argue for your point of view.
That is a pre - Big Bang (something - nothing).
"Something - nothing" is purely my own expression to grasp a few ideas about the refusal to admit a universal negation of NOTHING existing "before" the cosmic creation event as we presently understand it.
some people may speculate that there was 'nothing' others dont. so i dont see how 'nothing' is a problem for thinking the big bang was a part of a longer process.
Hold on now. Look at what you're saying.
1.) Some people speculate it is not the case that there was nothing.
2.) You don't see how there being nothing is a problem.
Now you have two lines of thought there. Which one do you believe ?
1.) There WAS something before the Big Bang ?
2.) There WAS nothing, but that is not a problem ?
the "naturalism of the gaps"??? i cant agree (yet) because i dont know what this is. can you give me some examples of naturalism of gaps??
First you tell me which position you want to throw your support behind.
Space / time / matter / energy WAS there before the big bang or
No space / no time / no matter and energy existed before the big bang ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipThose are not the only options.
First you tell me which position you want to throw your support behind.
Space / time / matter / energy WAS there before the big bang or
No space / no time / no matter and energy existed before the big bang ?
And nobody knows.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonship"Hold on now. Look at what you're saying."im not sure im following your point about 'another step in the process' having a problem rooted in the concept of 'nothingness'.
I don't think it is at all difficult to understand.
saying that the big bang could be a step in a process does not necessitate at state of nothingness at any point.
To the current cons ...[text shortened]... big bang [b] or
No space / no time / no matter and energy existed before the big bang ?[/b]
no, thats not what i was saying. i was saying that thinking that the big bang was just another step in a process doest mean that 'nothingness' was a part of any of the other steps...so nothingness isnt always a problem for steps in the process. 'nothingness' only becomes an issue if you believe it was part of the steps.
now when you say the common view in cosmology is that there once was a state of nothingness. it needs to be clarified that even the people who think this was case, do not believe in it 100% they just think so far its the most likely option, they do not argue it as fact.
on a second note, i disagree that it is the common view. im aware that around the 1980's it seemed to be the main theory, but i would say from the media i read and watch currently nobody really talks about 'nothing' anymore. collapsing higgs fields is where its at.
in your reply you keep asking what i believe - do i believe there was something or do i believe there was nothing.
i dont 'believe' in either. we do not know, so it would be stupid to believe. i think the theory that there was something seems more interesting and currently makes more sense to me. but i wouldnt say i believed it. it is beyond what we know, so ill sit nice and patiently on the fence until we have more information.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Dec 13
7 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastWhat I wrote was that there was a consensus generally that space, time, matter came to be in the big bang. I did not say that there was a consensus on the "precise origin" of the Big Bang.
There is no consensus among cosmologists regarding the precise origin of the Big Bang. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.
To the current consensus of cosmology it does mean that.
The word "that" meaning space, time, matter did come about in this big bang.
The charge of being " Disingenuous " amounts to saying it is lying to say that general consensus is that space, time, matter did not come about in the big bang.
Since you take the stance of calling me a liar then let me see your proof that generally this is denied.
And I do not mean an alternative viewpoint here and there, because I already know that other theories are out there.
Show me some proof that I am "disingenuous" to claim what I claimed about the general consensus concerning the big bang other than a few vocal exceptions.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Dec 13
i dont 'believe' in either. we do not know, so it would be stupid to believe. i think the theory that there was something seems more interesting and currently makes more sense to me. but i wouldnt say i believed it. it is beyond what we know, so ill sit nice and patiently on the fence until we have more information.
What is the harm in believing something when you do not know for sure ?
You can say latter you changed your belief.
You can say latter, "You know, I turned out to be wrong in my belief."
I don't see the harm in taking a position for now.
I believe a few things that may turn out to be incorrect.
At least logically speaking.
Besides, if you say "this seems to make more sense to me" that amounts to admitting a belief.
So I take this to mean that you lean on the side of something of either space / time / matter / energy existing apart from and "prior" to the Big Bang.
You put it this way -
i think the theory that there was something seems more interesting and currently makes more sense to me.
Originally posted by tim88Its about whose claim speaks to truth more, God who is eternal is an
if you would like to view all http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God's_existence#Evidence_in_creation
A Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
There is a basic principle that everything that began had a cause; something or someone that caused that thing to begin to exist. From the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics ...[text shortened]... e parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.
uncaused cause, while a universe that requires a cause is impossible
without one.
Kelly
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
11 Dec 13
now when you say the common view in cosmology is that there once was a state of nothingness. it needs to be clarified that even the people who think this was case, do not believe in it 100% they just think so far its the most likely option, they do not argue it as fact.
That's about what I mean.
The phrase "a state of nothingness" I think is your expression.
I understand nothing to mean nothing - no "state" either.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonshipI think this was the lengthy exchange on Nothing between Krauss and Craig.
I had the wrong discussion and would have to find it.
C'mon atheists, watch the whole thing. I am re-watching the entire video now. Krauss gets some good points. Craig, better, IMO.
Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonship"Space / time / matter / energy WAS there before the big bang orim not sure im following your point about 'another step in the process' having a problem rooted in the concept of 'nothingness'.
I don't think it is at all difficult to understand.
saying that the big bang could be a step in a process does not necessitate at state of nothingness at any point.
To the current cons ...[text shortened]... big bang [b] or
No space / no time / no matter and energy existed before the big bang ?[/b]
No space / no time / no matter and energy existed before the big bang ?"
Couldn't there have been something which differentiated into those aspects of the natural world that we see in it? It would be natural, just different.
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by JS357If there is anything than you don't have nothing! Nothing isn't a place
"Space / time / matter / energy WAS there before the big bang or
No space / no time / no matter and energy existed before the big bang ?"
Couldn't there have been something which differentiated into those aspects of the natural world that we see in it? It would be natural, just different.
holder, it isn't a space, it isn't a bunch of other stuff not on a list. So either
there is an eternal cause or not, if its required, than God cannot be thought
of as something/someone who isn't required.
Kelly