A universe without God.

[Iacchus]

I don't know. As far as I know there is no evidence either way. However, I will resist calling my ignorance "God".

Understood.

Quantum fluctuations seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. All the time. Although this does not reveal the mechanism of the Big Bang, it does at least remove the false premise of primal cause.

Your argument seems to be rather circular here.

 

[DarkMagician]

Or, what if I said a primal-cause does exists, or else we all came from nothing? And what is it about the Big Bang then, which most "theorists" claim to be the primal-cause? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing?

We have brought up points that need no cause, (my Pointcare Recurrence, their quantum fluctuations, etc.), and you haven't managed to explain them or read up on them.

The big bang theory says there was no "before the big bang," and thus no time where there was "nothing".

 

[Suddenly]

There is still a 'god of the gaps' in this thread.

What a theist doesn't understand becomes 'god'.

Hey!!

Most theists I know do not understand me....

 

[Iacchus]

The big bang theory says there was no "before the big bang," and thus no time where there was "nothing".

So which is it? Are you in agreement with the Big Bang theory or, something else? And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

 

[Yahweh]

Let's examine existence without God...

Without God, there is no primal-cause for existence. A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself.
Hence, without God, there is no primal-cause within existence.

The absence of a primal-cause means that everything in existence is an effect. Who amongst you wants to defend this absurd position? I'll wait for rational responses. If none are forthcoming, I shall destroy the position anyway and show you that there is a primal-cause = there is a God.

What caused God?

Why doesnt God need cause?

What makes God the primal-cause?

Your logic is very circular.

(Note: No offense to deists.)


But to answer you question:

Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).

Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on. For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.

Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit. So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!

And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.

- Yahzi

 

[DarkMagician]

So which is it? Are you in agreement with the Big Bang theory, or something else?

Yes, I agree with the Big Bang Theory. Just not your straw-man of it.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, I agree with the Big Bang Theory. Just not your straw-man of it.

And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

 

[Zero]

Lifegazer has taken on the idiotic postion: "everything has a cause, therefore something exists that DOESN'T have a cause", contradicting himself right up front.

 

[DarkMagician]

And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

 

[Yahweh]

And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

You are thinking on a macro-scale.

Reduce the scale down to the Quantum Level.

Does that help?

 

[Iacchus]

But to answer you question:

Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).

So would you say that Planck's length is ever-stretching then?

Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on. For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.

Wait a second! How can you get from Stephen Hawking says so, to it happens gazillion times a second? How can you be so sure?

Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!

But what I want to know is "who" printed the money?

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit. So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.

Okay, why is it so important then for us (man) to see beyond our "physical senses?" For according to Planck's length, it isn't a requirement in order for us to exist or, be fully functional.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!

All based upon the assumption that something comes from nothing of course.

And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.

- Yahzi

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?

 

[Iacchus]

You are thinking on a macro-scale.

Reduce the scale down to the Quantum Level.

Does that help?

What for? I'd rather think of it in the "holistic sense." Besides, Planck's length says it isn't necessary to break things down into such small increments, not in order to understand something anyway.

 

[Zero]

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?

The problem is, as soon as you make a guess as to "who laid the egg", I am going to ask "who made the egg-layer?" It is like when you have a mirror behind and in front of you, with infinite reflections going on. Every time you suggest a "final" creator, you will be asked to show why there isn't another creator behind that one.

 

[Tricky]

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?

And this sums up the entire gist of the question that you and Lifegazer seek. You want to know who. You cannot accept "nobody". You cannot accept "nothing". You cannot accept "I don't know". You must assign this existence to something.

Try saying it. "I don't know". It doesn't hurt. It will give you a new sense of humility. The whole reason religion has been such a powerful and often evil force in the world is simply because of Man's inability to say those three words. Religion invents explanations to cover for its ignorance because it can't stand not knowing.

The whole reason science has become such a useful and positive force in the world is because it says, "...but I will try to find out."

 

[Iacchus]

DarkMagician has attached this image:

Another artificially contrived "formula" by science no doubt.

 

[Zero]

*snip*
The whole reason science has become such a useful and positive force in the world is because it says, "...but I will try to find out."

Exactly...


You know, as I said before, I have known lifegazer online for about 2 and a half years, and he has never said anything except 'goddidit'. For him, as soon as he decided that 'goddidit', he closed his mind to ever learning anything new, anything that might interfere with the perfection of his assurance.

 

[Iacchus]

The problem is, as soon as you make a guess as to "who laid the egg", I am going to ask "who made the egg-layer?" It is like when you have a mirror behind and in front of you, with infinite reflections going on. Every time you suggest a "final" creator, you will be asked to show why there isn't another creator behind that one.

So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause?

 

[Zero]

So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause?

Maybe it doesn't end at all? That's an option that some people, for all their calls for open-mindedness, never seem willing to contemplate.

 

[Iacchus]

And this sums up the entire gist of the question that you and Lifegazer seek. You want to know who. You cannot accept "nobody". You cannot accept "nothing". You cannot accept "I don't know". You must assign this existence to something.

It was just a rhetorical statement by the way.

Try saying it. "I don't know". It doesn't hurt. It will give you a new sense of humility. The whole reason religion has been such a powerful and often evil force in the world is simply because of Man's inability to say those three words. Religion invents explanations to cover for its ignorance because it can't stand not knowing.

And why is it that you insist on speaking about that which "you" know nothing about? ... i.e., the purpose behind religion.

The whole reason science has become such a useful and positive force in the world is because it says, "...but I will try to find out."

Except that it won't touch "the cause," of all the effects.

 

[Tricky]

So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause?

This line of questioning can never end, because you cannot establish "primal cause". The instant you do, you have to then ask, "what caused the primal cause". That is why this line of questioning is circular (as you accused one of my earlier arguments as being).

There's a funny phrase that I learned on these boards that describes this line of reasoning. It's called, "Turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down." What it refers to is one of the ancient beliefs that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle. When it became obvious that the giant turtle must itself rest on something, then it was hypothesized that the turtle stood on the back of an even greater turtle. And that one on another, ad infinitum. At some point you must decide that there is a turtle that need not stand on anything (the "primal turtle", if you will) but the point at which you choose to do this is absolutely arbitrary.

It is the same with primal cause. You must, at some point, agree that there is something which doesn't require a creator, or a primal cause. You may choose to call it God. But there is really no need to go down even one "turtle". You can simply start with "the universe" as not needing a creator, rather than creating additional layers of creators. Besides, giant turtles are an endangered species. Let's not use too many of them