• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God, Big Bang or Both?

Iacchus said:
It's as easy as saying, something cannot come from nothing.
Click to expand...

Why?

As Uruk wrote, try googling virtual particle production.

You might be surprised. Run-of-the-mill "common sense" can not be applied to such issues.
 
Shera said:
No matter what you believe, your belief system requires a belief in something that has no beginning and was always there. If not God than the raw materials for the Big Bang.

I've always been curious as to why some think it is more logical to believe in raw materials that independently developed into the universe compared to a God that created the universe and perhaps left it to run on automatic --- and why others think it is more logical to believe the other way around.
Click to expand...
There are two fundamental flaws in the assumptions here.

1) There is an asumption of absolute time. That is, time's existance "prior" to the beginning of the universe. As we know from Relativity, time is really just one part of spacetime. Spacetime came into existance with the beginning of the universe. There is no rational way to speak of what existed "before" the Big Bang because there was no time (read: "spacetime") to refer to.

2) The current favorite Big Bang theory suggests that the trigger was a quantum fluctuation, in which particle/anti-particle pairs do indeed appear out of nowhere. It's a proven phenomenon and it happens all the time. So, current theory does not stipulate that there were "raw materials" waiting around "before" the Big Bang. If you are worried about conservation of mass and energy, it actually still works out since the net sum of each particle/anti-particle is still zero. That is, the net sum of the matter and energy in the universe is zero.

In conclusion, it is neither logical to believe that God nor the raw materials were around "prior" to the Big Bang.
 
Shera said:
No matter what you believe, your belief system requires a belief in something that has no beginning and was always there. If not God than the raw materials for the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Actually, mine does not. In fact, I think it's illogical to think that time has an infinite existence in either direction. I can go into it if you like but I mainly posted to show that there are belief systems that do not require what you think they require.

Either belief is outside the scope of what we can investigate using empirical methods.
Click to expand...
... with our current abilities. Some day, we may be able to gather experimental data on what the universe was like at the earliest stages of its existence. Our understanding of physics at this point in time is insufficient, granted, but there is no guarantee that it will remain so "forever".
 
Upchurch said:
In conclusion, it is neither logical to believe that God nor the raw materials were around "prior" to the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
So what we see before us is an illusion then huh? ;)
 
Correa Neto said:
Why?

As Uruk wrote, try googling virtual particle production.

You might be surprised. Run-of-the-mill "common sense" can not be applied to such issues.
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to Occam's Razor then? :con2:
 
ReFLeX said:
How does this follow in the slightest?!
Click to expand...
How does something come from nothing? Even if the reality we see before is an illusion, there still must be something tangible behind it which drives it. This is what we should be looking for, rather than suggesting that tangibility doesn't exist.
 
Iamme said:
If you believe that all you see about you was strictly luck, well, it's quite an amazing chain of things that all happened to work out. In fact...the chain is so large, that I'll bet scienticfically, it is some number followed by many many zeros (or, to the nth power)
Click to expand...
... so what? How many "failed" universes are there? I'm pretty sure it was Hawking who said that if the universe expanded just a tiny bit slower or faster, we wouldn't be here. So suppose that did happen, m x 10 to the nth times. Would you know about it? If a kajillion universes failed to produce us, how could you observe them, much less say that they didn't occur? If time doesn't even exist, an infinite number of universes could fail simultaneously (to the extent simultaneity would be meaningful).
The point is, you can't consider a universe improbable unless you know how many other equivalent events also occurred that could possibly have resulted in this universe.
 
Iacchus said:
How does something come from nothing? Even if the reality we see before is an illusion, there still must be something tangible behind it which drives it. This is what we should be looking for, rather than suggesting that tangibility doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you're missing the point. I think that inferring a cause from an effect is mistaken in cosmology.
 
Re: Re: God, Big Bang or Both?

Mercutio said:
Why must one have a belief in one or the other? What is wrong with an honest "I don't know"?
Click to expand...

Because people speculate. They don't like not knowing. Especially on what's probably one of the "big questions".
 
Iacchus said:
Whatever happened to Occam's Razor then? :con2:
Click to expand...

It's just fine. As long as you apply it wisely.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
 
Ratman_tf said:
It's just fine. As long as you apply it wisely.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
Click to expand...
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there had to be -- at the very least -- "one" entity?
 
Iacchus said:
Whatever happened to Occam's Razor then? :con2:
Click to expand...

What the man said above.

Do you had time to google and read the articles?

Here´s one of the places where the clock-without-a-maker line crumbles.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but wouldn't you agree that there had to be -- at the very least -- "one" entity?
Click to expand...
Correa Neto said:
No.

Why should I or anyone else?

See above.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps we should ask what Ratman means by "entities" then?


Ratman_tf said:
It's just fine. As long as you apply it wisely.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."
Click to expand...
 
Just consider the context.

A particle can be reffered as an entity, as well as a constant, a mathematical formula, etc.

You´ll see that the term is not implying a sentient entity.

In the case, when it comes to quantum fluctuations, it can be... nothing. No maker is needed for this clock, no "prima causa", etc. It may have just "popped out" from nothing.

Remember, the quantum world is not exactly the place where "common sense" apply.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, perhaps we should ask what Ratman means by "entities" then?
Click to expand...

It's a quote from Occam himself, not me, but I do believe he's referring to the evidences for a theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom