24 Nov 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat is wrong and you know it. As long as it remains unknown whether the vast majority of events in the universe are caused or not, the fact that a small percentage are known to be caused - and these are events in a particular class- proves nothing whatsoever. It is not an extraordinary claim that it may be possible that some events are uncaused. There is nothing logically sensible about your claim. You are claiming without evidence that a rule that is known to apply to one set applies to all sets.
I don't think that follows. Since we live in a world where we observe tirllions things happening for a reason(causality) and so far there is not one single proven event that conclusively shows that something can happen from "nothing" for "no reason" then it is extraordinary to claim that it is possible. Neither do I claim that it is impossible - just that it doesn't make logical sense.
24 Nov 09
I think the big bang theory is very plausible. We know that this universe had a beginning. I have issues with the genesis account if we look at what we see scientifically. I never heard a good answer for how far stars are away from the earth from the creationist point of view. 1000's of light years out some/many older that the earth. Did God make the earth first? Then the stars? That would not align with what we see. Either that or the measurements are way off. I however do believe God started it all. It's interesting that time & space all started at the same point and that it's all intertwined. I'm not sure that genesis was meant to be literal.
Manny
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71The big bang theory makes no claims about the universe having a beginning. In some versions it suggests a singularity about which nothing is known and possibly nothing can be known - but that is only a suggestion, there is no real evidence for anything regarding the very early stages of the big bang - it is all currently at hypothesis stage.
I think the big bang theory is very plausible. We know that this universe had a beginning.
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought that the big bang or expansion would be a better term explained that it started with a beginning. A singularity or point or whatever. We know that galaxies are moving away because of red shift. Also the whole cosmic background radiation thing.
The big bang theory makes no claims about the universe having a beginning. In some versions it suggests a singularity about which nothing is known and possibly nothing can be known - but that is only a suggestion, there is no real evidence for anything regarding the very early stages of the big bang - it is all currently at hypothesis stage.
Manny
25 Nov 09
Originally posted by menace71That expansion started at some point is obvious. That that start of expansion was the start of the universe is not at all obvious and there is exactly zero evidence either way. What happened in the early stages of the big bang is mere speculation based on the laws of physics as we know them - however we simply do not know enough about the laws of physics to do more than speculate.
I thought that the big bang or expansion would be a better term explained that it started with a beginning. A singularity or point or whatever. We know that galaxies are moving away because of red shift. Also the whole cosmic background radiation thing.
Manny
25 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zeger55What exactly do you mean by "the world"?
Okay, so i am just curious how athiests and evolutionists think the world came into being... I'm a Christian, and believe in a God who created the world. I don't think that the difference between the Biblical 7 days and thousands of years really makes a difference, but the idea of God making the world is what i believe. If you believe in the Big Bang, then where did the stuff that made the Big Bang come from?
This is something I wrote on a similar topic. It's copy pasted, so if it reads awkwardly or there are parts that don't seem relevant, that's why.
To Atheists:
Is there anything else besides space and [matter/energy]? ...[If so,] I'd like to know what you might think about what it would be like if there wasn't any space or [matter/energy].
josephw
...tentatively, I'll say, no, there is nothing else....information describes how matter or energy is distributed in space I believe [and abstractions are properties of the brain, which is matter/energy in a certain spacial arrangement]. The fundamental laws simply describe the properties of matter and space...
When you say "what would it be like" - what is "it"? There would be no people to experience anything in such a case...
When it is said that [matter/energy] and space exist, all of the characteristics of both are contained within that statement. When one says information exists they have added nothing to the set of what exists, because it was implied when [matter/energy] and space were said to exist. You could also say mass exists, and protons exist, and electrical charge exists, and rocks exist, and gases exist, and density exists, and volume exists, and cubes exist, etc. but all that has already been implied simply by stating that [matter/energy] and space exist.
In other words, information, abstraction, etc. are not "anything else" other than space and energy/matter as the OP puts it...
Objects differ from one another because of entropy...an even distribution of order would have less entropy than a disordered one. The singularity at the beginning of observable time was highly ordered, and in order to get to a state of maximum disorder it has to go through all states in between. It does so in a non-orderly fashion.
In other words, order is left over from the singularity, and that order is distributed in a more and more chaotic fashion over time...
I don't know why the singularity was ordered, and theoretically it is impossible to know. This thread is about what exists, not why.
Entropy refers to how many possible arrangements of matter would have the properties of the matter in question. Roll two six sided dice; the total "7" would have more entropy than the total "2" because there are 6/36 ways to make 7 and 1/36 ways to make 2. If you took a million pairs of dice and put every die so the "1" was facing up (ordered situation) - and began to vibrate the surface the dice are resting on, you would end up in the long run with more 7's than 1's. Why? Entropy. Why? Because there are more ways to make 7 than 1. That's all entropy is...
The Big Bang occurred and the singularity was shattered. As with the dice, when the singularity shattered, there were more possible ways that ME could be distributed in a disordered fashion than an ordered fashion on a grand scale. However, chunks of order still remained of various "sizes" just as you would still find patches of 1's with the dice.
Now, we know about quarks forming hydrogen early on, and then fusion reactions in stars creating the other elements (at least up to iron, the most stable element). All of these things take place because of electrical and gravitational forces the effects of which are not symmetrical on a grand scale as before described.
I won't bore you with how the solar system formed, etc because I don't think we will have any disagreement there.
So, we have a solar system, and various atoms, including carbon, oxygen, iron, hydrogen etc.
The iron atoms do not tend to have complex chemistries because of the arrangements of valence electrons and the metallic nature of the element (allowing valence electrons to be delocalized instead of associated with particular atoms), so generally just react with oxygen and sit there in the dirt in the form of rust.
Carbon, on the other hand, due to it's small size and four valence electrons, has very, very complex chemistry. All kinds of different forms of carbon molecules with or without other atoms form spontaneously. Some of these will have an enzymatic activity on other substances. Some of those will be floating around in water where lipid molecules drip into the water, forming micelles which help concentrate the enzymes into a localized area, and cells begin to form. Then we have an evolutionary process which again I don't think we'll disagree about and end up with humans and fish, and humans, in order to help feed themselves, mine iron and make spoons with it.
Every single step is simply a complex interaction of various forces and matter and spacial relationships which helps contribute towards universal entropy. Organisms especially are good at manufacturing entropy. We take food and oxygen and turn it into poop and carbon dioxide; take pure water and turn it into urine; etc.
Entropy is not a "selector". It is simply a recognition that the vast majority of possible arrangements of matter will show the same macroscopic properties. I don't know which atom will be where, but it doesn't matter. All I know is that they almost certainly won't randomly all roll 1's. Is entropy "selecting" 7's when you roll pairs of dice? I suppose you could say that, but only barely.
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2009/11/energy-and-space-or-why-are-fish.html