Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. As I said, this is what the data leads us to. Do you have anything to counter it?
To recap, I asked:
Do you have anything beyond "I think" or "Some cosmologists and physicists argue...?"
Your answer above is "Yes."
This is followed by your apparent explanation: "this is where the data leads us."
You seem to be saying here that the data leads us to "I think" and "Some cosmologists argue."
Then you ask: "Do you have anything to counter?"
Just let me get this straight, are you asking ME if I have anything to counter "I think" and "Some cosmologists argue?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Did you see anything in my post that even remotely suggested that the beginning of the universe was eternal, self-created, or appeared out of nothing? Because upon reviewing what I posted, I don't see anything resembling that in my posts.
No. I didn't see you offer any alternatives. That would be why I asked the question.
I ask again, what are your logical and reasonable alternatives to CAUSE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
What I did say is that time and space began at the big bang. As such, there is no before, since there is no temperal frame of reference prior to the big bang. Time and space in this universe can not exist before the universe itself comes to be.
Apparently, part of your inference ("in THIS universe) is that there could hypothetically be more than one universe. I've heard the theory. It still doesn't address the question of causality.
You opine that "time and space began at the big bang." You're in good company, Steven Hawking has also made similar assertions.
"Everything that begins to exist, has a CAUSE."
What CAUSED these things to exist?
Do you have any empirical substantiation that there was no "before" the moment that time began?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
The clock began ticking the moment the expansion began.
Time cannot actually be wound backwards. Time has an arrow that only points forward. The point is that if you take any point in time and look at the entropy of any closed system, it will always have less entropy at t=0 than at any time afterward. Since we know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, we can calculate the amount of energy that existed at t=0 as opposed to how much exists today.
Wonderful. How does this explain what it was that actually caused time to begin?
Do you have anything beyond "I think" or "Some cosmologists and physicists argue...?"
Your answer above is "Yes."
This is followed by your apparent explanation: "this is where the data leads us."
You seem to be saying here that the data leads us to "I think" and "Some cosmologists argue."
Then you ask: "Do you have anything to counter?"
Just let me get this straight, are you asking ME if I have anything to counter "I think" and "Some cosmologists argue?"
Apparently, you have a problem with the notion that humans can think. Why is that? You also appear to believe that science must be absolutely sure of everything it does or says. The fact of the matter is that very little, if anything in science involves absolute statements. Nearly all of it involves approximations. Even something as semingly simple as determining the volume of of a complex structure involves approximations. Sending the Cassini space probe to Saturn involved approximating it's orbital insertion point (though that point was very small compared to the huge distance it had to travel to get there). And yet this tiny robotic machine has been dutifully orbiting the planet and sending back its valuable cahce of data ever day since it arrived. So, to answer your question, based on what we know today, our best approximation for the origin of the universe is the big bang. It fits the data we have (though it is not complete or perfect, and no one is suggesting that it is). Now, do you have something that better fits the data. If so, I am all ears, so to speak.
Quote:
I ask again, what are your logical and reasonable alternatives to CAUSE?
Did you not read my explanation for the origin of time and space (and hence causality)?
Quote:
Apparently, part of your inference ("in THIS universe) is that there could hypothetically be more than one universe. I've heard the theory. It still doesn't address the question of causality.
See above.
Quote:
You opine that "time and space began at the big bang." You're in good company, Steven Hawking has also made similar assertions.
"Everything that begins to exist, has a CAUSE."
What CAUSED these things to exist?
It's like asking what is north of the north pole. It is a meaningless question. There was no before BEFORE the big bang, since our universe (and hence time and space) did not exist until the big bang occurred. Is it possible that there are other universes, other dimensions? Yes it is possible. Does that mean that they actually exist. I don't know.
Quote:
Do you have any empirical substantiation that there was no "before" the moment that time began?
Yes. The laws of thermodynamics, as well as the CMBR makes it apparent that the universe had a beginning, and that that beginning included the beginning of space-time. The universe is finite, but unbounded, much like walking on the surface of a sphere. On that sphere, you can walk forever even though the sphere has a finite volume and surface area.
Quote:
Wonderful. How does this explain what it was that actually caused time to begin?
Another meaningless question. Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. Causality requires time and space. Since time and space IN THIS UNIVERSE did not exist prior to the big bang, causality has no meaning at the moment of the big bang; Causality requires the measurement of events in time and space. If time and space emerged as a consequence of the big bang, there could be no causality before their emergence.
Apparently, you have a problem with the notion that humans can think. Why is that? You also appear to believe that science must be absolutely sure of everything it does or says. The fact of the matter is that very little, if anything in science involves absolute statements. Nearly all of it involves approximations. Even something as seemingly simple as determining the volume of of a complex structure involves approximations. Sending the Cassini space probe to Saturn involved approximating it's orbital insertion point (though that point was very small compared to the huge distance it had to travel to get there). And yet this tiny robotic machine has been dutifully orbiting the planet and sending back its valuable cache of data ever day since it arrived. So, to answer your question, based on what we know today, our best approximation for the origin of the universe is the big bang. It fits the data we have (though it is not complete or perfect, and no one is suggesting that it is). Now, do you have something that better fits the data. If so, I am all ears, so to speak.
What does any of this have to do with my question?
Again: Do you have anything beyond "I think" and "Some cosmologists and physicists argue?" Anything beyond unsubstantiated speculation?
You've based your entire argument here on an assertion which begins with "Some cosmologists and physicists argue."
If I were to base my argument on what 'some theologians and pastors argue,' how much play would that get?
Do I have something better that fits the data?
What data? All you've offered up is speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Did you not read my explanation for the origin of time and space (and hence causality)?
Yes, I read your unsubstantiated opinion on the origin of time and space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
See above.
I looked again...nothings changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
It's like asking what is north of the north pole. It is a meaningless question. There was no before BEFORE the big bang, since our universe (and hence time and space) did not exist until the big bang occurred. Is it possible that there are other universes, other dimensions? Yes it is possible. Does that mean that they actually exist. I don't know.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion and you apparently find all this to be convincing. As for me, it's going to take a little more than your opinion and that of "some cosmologists and physicists." Personally, I prefer logic over nonsense theoretical speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Yes. The laws of thermodynamics, as well as the CMBR makes it apparent that the universe had a beginning, and that that beginning included the beginning of space-time. The universe is finite, but unbounded, much like walking on the surface of a sphere. On that sphere, you can walk forever even though the sphere has a finite volume and surface area.
I agree with the first part. The rest falls in with the unsubstantiated speculation thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Another meaningless question. Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first. Causality requires time and space. Since time and space IN THIS UNIVERSE did not exist prior to the big bang, causality has no meaning at the moment of the big bang; Causality requires the measurement of events in time and space. If time and space emerged as a consequence of the big bang, there could be no causality before their emergence.
I don't doubt that you see it as a meaningless question. As I stated, your certainly entitled.
I'm down with reasoning and logic and, it seems apparent to me, that you are dogmatically committed to ignoring both.
Nevertheless, if that's your response to the Cosmological Argument, shall we proceed to the Moral Argument?
What does any of this have to do with my question?
Again: Do you have anything beyond "I think" and "Some cosmologists and physicists argue?" Anything beyond unsubstantiated speculation?
You've based your entire argument here on an assertion which begins with "Some cosmologists and physicists argue."
If I were to base my argument on what 'some theologians and pastors argue,' how much play would that get?
Do I have something better that fits the data?
What data? All you've offered up is speculation.
It has everything to do with your question. No doubt it was not the answer you were looking for. Cosmologists and physicsts arguing about the nature of the universe is not the same kind of argument you get from the average moron on an internet bulletin board. They typically base their arguments on the latest scientific data available. You appear to have the same kind of mindset that some creationists have with regard to evolution when they say "it's only a theory". Gravitational theory is only a theory. But that theory got us to the Moon, Saturn, and soon, Pluto. So to say that the big bang is unsubstantiated speculation is simply demonstrating scientific ignorance on your part. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.
Now, do you want to have a moral argument? Go ahead, but it isn't going to make the scientific data disappear.
It has everything to do with your question. No doubt it was not the answer you were looking for. Cosmologists and physicists arguing about the nature of the universe is not the same kind of argument you get from the average moron on an internet bulletin board. They typically base their arguments on the latest scientific data available. You appear to have the same kind of mindset that some creationists have with regard to evolution when they say "it's only a theory". Gravitational theory is only a theory. But that theory got us to the Moon, Saturn, and soon, Pluto. So to say that the big bang is unsubstantiated speculation is simply demonstrating scientific ignorance on your part. Sorry, I can't be kind about this.
One can prove the law of gravity by simply jumping off the top of nearest ten story building.
How does one prove the theory that things begin to exist without cause?
Let's say that you were gravely ill and went to the doctor, and the doctor did all the testing, observing, running through all the available data and concluded with the statement: 'Sorry, some of the other doctors and I are in agreement that asking what caused your illness is like asking what's north of the north pole.'
If the scientific community ever gets to the place where reason and logic are ignored, and it appears to certainly be headed in that direction, it will be the end of true science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Now, do you want to have a moral argument? Go ahead, but it isn't going to make the scientific data disappear.
...and how could one possibly cause something that doesn't exist to disappear?
One can prove the law of gravity by simply jumping off the top of nearest ten story building.
Indeed. But since my analogy involved gravitational theory, not just the law of gravity, your point is moot.
Quote:
How does one prove the theory that things begin to exist without cause?
For the second time, science doesn't prove anything. Science is not about proof. Proving is an exercise in logic. In science, we use emperical evidence to develop explanations for our observations and experiments. Maybe you should go here and read the difference and then come back and rephrase your questions.
Indeed. But since my analogy involved gravitational theory, not just the law of gravity, your point is moot.
For the second time, science doesn't prove anything. Science is not about proof. Proving is an exercise in logic. In science, we use empirical evidence to develop explanations for our observations and experiments. Maybe you should go here and read the difference and then come back and rephrase your questions.
The proof assertion has nothing to do with my follow-on questions.
Are you going to continue the discussion by answering my questions or just keep on with your rhetorical games?
You keep asserting that you have scientific data. You know, if you had even one shred of integrity for two minutes you would acknowledge the truth that you have no data. It's nonsense philosophical speculation. Basically, faith. Blind dogmatic faith in unsubstantiated speculation. You sir, are a hypocrite. You're worse than the most dogmatic of Christians whom you apparently despise without reason.
How does one prove the theory that things begin to exist without cause?
Straw man.
Quote:
Let's say that you were gravely ill and went to the doctor, and the doctor did all the testing, observing, running through all the available data and concluded with the statement: 'Sorry, some of the other doctors and I are in agreement that asking what caused your illness is like asking what's north of the north pole.'
Would you have doctors make something up as an explanation if they had no idea and no evidence to give them a clue? Maybe they can bleed you with leeches, it must be corrupted blood that caused it!
The proof assertion has nothing to do with my follow-on questions.
Are you going to continue the discussion by answering my questions or just keep on with your rhetorical games?
You keep asserting that you have scientific data. You know, if you had even one shred of integrity for two minutes you would acknowledge the truth that you have no data. It's nonsense philosophical speculation. Basically, faith. Blind dogmatic faith in unsubstantiated speculation. You sir, are a hypocrite. You're worse than the most dogmatic of Christians whom you apparently despise without reason.
...over to you.
Over to me. That's precious.
So your response to me was not to assess your own posts, and why they contain so many logical fallacies. Your response is an ad hominem? That's just great. You want evidence? Fine. Here it is. Explain this without using the big bang theory:
So your response to me was not to assess your own posts, and why they contain so many logical fallacies. Your response is an ad hominem? That's just great. You want evidence? Fine. Here it is. Explain this without using the big bang theory:
Ad hom? That's precious. Actually, it's simply calling a spade a spade.
You're not going to engage in a back and forth discussion for reasons that are quite obvious - namely, you have nothing to offer besides unsubstantiated nonsense.
It will play well to the local peanut gallery and you'll get some highly esteemed "reps."
Bravo, congratulations!
I will have to give you credit for actually making me think that it all might actually be worth my time. You had me going for a while.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
