From My post #98

““The result is that the universe gets more and more disordered with each collapse and also expands further and further with each Bang.”

No, No, No, a thousands times No. Entropy is NOT disorder, it’s multiplicity. Please don’t get the two confused. Sorry, but it’s become a major pet peeve of mine.”

“All right, let us then assume that the material universe began at the Big Bang and there was some other thing (call it energy if you wish) that existed prior to the material universe. We can still apply my analysis that I explained to Isaac regarding the two types of causes for the Big Bang. The result is the same conclusion. You must have a cause with the ability to freely choose its effect to come into existence; otherwise the material universe is eternal, which is obviously not the case.”

Your analysis was false, that was kind of my point. If all the energy of the universe has always existed it didn’t need to be created at all. Like I said you seem to be some what well read but I don’t think you fully understand the arguments. I guess I have no choice I have to go over your previous arguments and point out the problems whit it.

From your post#76:

“Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.”

Yes, but don’t get hung up on the word usage. That something begins doesn’t mean what it’s actually made of ever began. Your analogy of a Bengal tiger suddenly appearing is bad primarily because it assumes ex nihlo innately.

“Sometimes others have cited the emergence of particles out of the vacuum energy due to its fluctuations as something coming from nothing. This is a confusion regarding the definition of nothing. This is not an example of something coming from nothing, but rather matter coming from energy, which is not “nothing” in the strict philosophical sense.”

Yes and no. Particles can just appear out of the vacuum with out having any energy there to make them real. They’re known as virtual particles, and they come into existence thanks to the inexact relation of energy and time I.e. [E,T] >= iħ. The effect is that particles can pop into and then out of existence with out energy inputed. There are of course exceptions, events which can cause these particles to stick around without added energy, such as hawking radiation. Though that dose alter the mass relation of the body emanating the radiation. Though it might be possible for the energy of the universe to have coalesced with something else, an antienergy of sorts that should have similar properties to the dark energy we see in the universe. Of coarse this is purely hypothetical guess work on my end (though I see no out right problems with this), but the point is to show how it’s possible for the energy of the universe to have come into existence from vacuum fluctuations.

“Due to the red shift, we know that the universe is expanding and therefore if we reverse the flow of time, we find the universe reduced to a infinitely dense point.”

Yes, however our mechanics break before it reaches this point. We don’t know for sure that the energy ever reached a true singularity, just that it was very hot and dense.

“Also, the fact that it is expanding contradicts a steady state universe because such a universe would have no mechanism for expansion.”

Uh, no. There are several different models of the steady state which would allow for pockets of the universe to expand (as well as come into existence), we could be in such a pocket. I don’t really agree with the steady state theory as it lacks any hard evidence but it hasn’t been completely discounted yet.

“Another reason for the universe having a beginning is the fact that the universe is hot. If the universe were eternal, energy available to do work would have eventually been depleted an eternity in the past and we would be left with an ultra-thin gas that permeated the dead cosmos. However, this is not the case, and, far from it, the universe is alive and kicking. Stars are still burning, life is still at it, and consequently we are here to see it.”

This sounds like your arguing about entropy rather then heat, and you might have a point if now for the fact that the universe had a very hot dense phase, i.e. the big bang era (I’ll elaborate on why in my next paragraph). Of course even if it didn’t have an initial superheated past it might still be possible to alleviate the problems of entropy. To start with the universe it self can be modeled primarily as a photon gas which it self has constant entropy. As such the universe as a whole has a mostly constant amount of entropy. The effects of entropy are limited to other forms of matter, and only over long periods of time can have a noticeable effect. The problem with this is that there are phenomenon in the universe which are not fully understood and could very well have a negative effect on entropy. Things which significantly alter space-time unusually are a good example (Dark energy as an example).

“Even if you cite the theory of the oscillating universe as an alternative to the Big Bang, entropy is still conserved from cycle to cycle, and as such you would still eventually end up with the same result of energy being used up, and even if this were true, the universe would still expand from cycle to cycle, and so if you rewound time, once again, you would find that the universe would collapse to a point.”

My first response is where did you hear this from, as it’s not completely true. If the universe had a very hot dense phase it would have the effect of reducing and ‘resetting’ the entropy of the universe. Remember entropy is not disorder but rather multiplicity. When you bring something near an infinite temperature all states become equally probable, and as such you are going to get migration of items into states that are entropic limited at lower temperatures. Once you let this mass expand and cool you will still have items in lower entropy states then before the crunch. The effect is a ‘reversing’ in entropy.

“In addition, there is no known method of collapsing the universe, as the calculated amount of mass in the universe is far too little to cause a collapse like you might see with a black hole.”

It’s not that simple. There are other secondary effects at work in the universe, hence things like accelerated expansion, and dark matter.

“In the 1940s George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, the result would be that background temperature of the universe would be a few degrees above absolute zero. In 1965, measurements of the universe’s background radiation placed the temperature at 3.7 degrees. There is currently no other explanation for this phenomenon other than the Big Bang Theory. Also, the Big Bang theory accurately predicted the ratio of hydrogen to helium that would have been produced by the explosion. Also, while iron and carbon are produced by stars and supernova, materials such as deuterium, light helium, and lithium require an environment with temperatures so extreme that only the Big Bang offers an explanation.”

I concur whole heartedly, the big bang in some form had to have happened, and our patch of the universe (I.e. the visible part) had a hot dense past. Whether it was an out right singularity or not is still hotly debated, and currently unknowable as we lack both a unified theory of the forces and good data from this ultra hot period. For instance we don’t know how a quark gluon plasma would behave which would have been the fundamental substrate with in the universe at this time. The properties of this matter could quite possibly prohibit the formation of a singularity. Additionally we don’t know how big the whole of the universe was at this point, merely our own section.

“Also, lack of old galaxies near ours means that the universe is not extremely old, and lack of very young galaxies near ours means that continual creation is not occurring.”

Not necessarily, granted galaxies aren’t much older then 11-13 billion years or much younger then 7-9 billion, but that doesn’t intrinsically mean that universe had a begging per say, just that it had a hot dense phase. Such an even would have acted like a reset event for any previous events and any other galaxies would cease to exist at the compression phase. Or it’s also possible that the energy came from somewhere else (I.e vacuum fluctuations). Regardless of where it came from the fact is the universe could have just as easily have existed from trillions of years and because of the big bang we couldn’t know for sure (at lest with our current tools).

As for continual creation, you wouldn’t expect to see young galaxies just pop out of no where. Rather you would expect to see any created matter fall into already existing galaxies.

“Also, the lack of galaxies and quasars beyond a certain distance means that the universe could not be infinite in age. Also, there is not an infinite distance between various galaxies that would have resulted from an infinite period of expansion had there been a possible means for driving expansion in a steady state universe.”

Not necessarily. Remember what I’ve been saying, all you need is an entropic reset, ether the creation of energy out of the vacuum (which would likely be in bulk rather then individual) or a mass collapse into a hot dense particle soup.

“I also know the universe had a beginning because an actual infinite cannot exist. By actual infinite, I mean that I could have an actually infinite number of existing things, such as marbles. I do not mean a potential infinite, which is approached but never reached.”

This statement conflicts with what you’ve recently said. I’ve already addressed this point, and you seemed to agree with me so I’m not sure what exactly you’ve meant by this statement. Regardless I’ll get back to this point later.

“Now, let’s say I give you my infinite amount of marbles. The equation that results from this operation is that infinity minus infinity is zero (I have none left).”

What you’ve highlighted hear is a failure of mathematics to quantify infinity. To put it bluntly infinity as it’s understood by mathematics doesn’t readily allow for the operations your trying to use on it. Effectively your trying to make a physical point by using a non physically applicable form of mathematics. This doesn’t preclude that an infinite number of items can’t exist merely that they can not be quantified as whole by the method your trying to use.

“Now let us suppose I want my infinite amount of marbles returned to me, but you still want an infinite amount of marbles, so you strike up a brilliant plan. You decide to number them and give me all the odd marbles, while keeping all the even ones for yourself. The equation that results from this transaction is that infinity minus infinity is infinity. After awhile you get tired of carrying all those marbles around and you decide to give them all back to me save for the prettiest one (how you would have the time to make such a choice is beyond me). The result from this exchange is that infinity minus infinity is one. Thus, as you can see from this short story, applying the theory of the infinite to the real world results in contradictory nonsense. ”

Yes, this is the whole even odd paradox that arise from the use of an infinite set of countable objects. Of course you end up finding out that the carnality of the three sets (even, odd and integer) is all the same, which of course makes sense as they are all countably infinite. This doesn’t prove that an infinite number of objects can’t exist, just that they can be quantified in the same way as we quantified a countably finite set of things.

“Since the eternal past would constitute an infinite number of actual existing past events, the universe cannot be infinite.”

Again your argument here contradicts what you’ve recently said. An infinite must exist somewhere hell I’d argue you agreed to the antithesis of this very statement, and yet according to the argument you’ve made here it can not.

“I also know that the universe cannot be eternal because an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. This argument is independent of the one I just gave, as this argument does not deal with whether an actual infinite can exist, but rather whether it can be formed by successive addition. For instance, if you start at one and start counting, you will never be able to reach an infinite number, as you will always be able to count one more number. Now apply this backwards and try and form an infinite past. It cannot be done. Try and successfully count down from negative infinity to zero. You will never reach the present moment in time.”

Thought your premises is correct the conclusion dose not follow as I elaborated earlier and have again done so further on. In effect this is the idea of an infinite regression.

“After having determined that the universe had a beginning, given the premises, I therefore know that the universe had a cause for its existence.”

Agreed all events which are bound by causality have an initial cause. I believe the universe’s begging was natural and hence is bound by a form of cause and effect.

“Causes can be arranged into two major categories.”

I disagree. All cause and effect is fundamentally the same there is no real distinction. Of course I’ll elaborate as I go on.

“The first category is a cause that immediately results in its effect. An example of this interaction would be exposing gasoline to heat. There is a point where the temperature is such that the gasoline spontaneously combusts. This event is fully dependent on the existence of initial conditions for the instantiation of the state we call an explosion. The gasoline cannot decide to explode, and neither can the temperature decide to prevent the gasoline from doing so.”

Agreed all physical events are bound by this simple cause and effect (though there my be a bit of probability thrown in as opposed to classical determinism).

“The second category is a cause that, unlike the other type of cause, has a choice in allowing its effect to resolve. It may be the case that neither or both of these types of causes exist in reality, but regardless of their actual existence, this means of categorization allows for only these two options when discussing causes.”

This cause wouldn’t seem to exist at all. You may consider it but fundamentally there is no real bases for this premises or evidence of it’s existence. Also such a cause and effect system would undermine the nature of pure cause and effect as well as naturalism it self (including the idea of science).

“There can be no third type of cause that both does and does not have choice in whether its effect comes into being. Now, as a naturalist, you may disagree with the existence of free will or true freedom of choice, as the whole history of the universe is written by the initial conditions that cause our ultimate thought processes. While I would disagree with this conclusion, I will grant you this, as it does not have any bearing on the argument, since, while we may say that this category does not actually exist in the universe, it still exists as a possible category.”

Ok, I’ll agree to this.

“Now, let us consider the two categories and see what happens when we apply them to the universe’s cause. If we assume that the eternal cause of the universe is of the type we first considered, namely that where its effect is coexistent with its cause, the conclusion that arises from this is that the universe should be coexistent with its cause, and therefore coeternal. However, this conflicts with our establishment of a beginning to the universe as evident from the three arguments I gave.”

However your above argument where not only severely lacking in many areas but I’d argue out right wrong. Also even if they where true they would not inherently imply this conclusion, as the cause could still be completely natural. You’ve yet to rule this out.

“Thus, there is only one other viable option as to the nature of the universal cause, this being a cause that exhibits free will of choice.”

Because the premises of this conclusion is false the conclusion is not valid. You’ve yet to actually show this.

“This leads us to the conclusion that the cause of the universe exhibits the ability to choose, and therefore, has that quality that we associate solely with the idea of a mind, at least in the classic philosophical sense. Now even if it is true that a free will chose for the universe to come into being, you might say that we as humans are deprived of free will and cannot truly choose. Perhaps we are strapped in for the ride as it were because our choices are determined by the initial conditions that this universal mind set up at the Big Bang and we are mindlessly following out its whim. Could be.”

If you ‘believe’ in chemistry it would have to be, as our brains work through chemical interactions most of which have been identified and categorized. We know how the brain works on a cellular level, and we have a decent idea of how it works on a macroscopic level, the problem is understanding how it work on the medium scale, and we’ve made significant progress in this area over the past few decades. Hell, it’s possible to predict what someone is going to do or even think about before they do by looking at there brain activity in an MRI.

“I tend to think (though perhaps it is not I thinking such thoughts, but this universal mind) that this idea that we call free will not only applies to this super-mind, but also to the beings that have come about as a product of its choice to create the universe. I have no logical argument at the moment that requires us to be free to choose, but it seems to match up in a pragmatic sense given our preoccupation with ideas of responsibility and obligatory behavior.”

But like you said you have no real reason to believe so, and if fact the evidence would point away from this conclusion. As for responsibility and obligation, these can come about even with out true freewill. All we need is the appearance of it, a virtual freewill for these ideas to work. Even though we don’t actually have freewill we the appearance of it and can not with any accuracy know the future, as such there would be no way to live with out these ideas.

“Call it faith I suppose.”

Unfortunately (from my perspective) I think it is.

“Now this argument does not carry me very far. All it says is that something caused the universe and that that something was what most of us would consider to be a mind, as it has the ability to choose (I tend to think there is one mind, since there is no need to multiply causes). This does not bring one to religion, nor the idea that this mind should be worshipped, and especially not any specific belief. It does however make me wonder about all those shamans, witch doctors, priests, and monks that claim they have had some sort of interaction with this being or beings in the midst of their solitude and contemplation of the world. While this does not legitimize their claims, it at least justifies them in a general theoretical sense and gives warrant for some investigation. It may be that all religions are actually attempts at mankind to understand an innate understanding of this presence of the super-mind, but all fall short of the mark to a greater or lesser degree.”

This is a form of deism with some new age philosophy thrown in. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, I’m just saying that’s what your conclusion is it self implying. Though as I pointed out above I don’t think your conclusion is correct.

End of response to post #76.

Ugh, this is why I didn’t respond to this post earlier, it’s to damn long Xp. Anyway continuing with the rest of your post:

“All right, let’s assume that energy is not created or destroyed. You still have the problem that I explained above. If you have this eternal energy that created the universe, you still have to explain why the material universe is not co-eternal with its causer if you want to avoid the eternal cause as a mind.”

The cause would be internal, as it is with all cause and effect reactions in the real world. It’s just like in a chemical reaction the energy for the reaction comes from the energy of the individual molecules moving around, and from the electron interactions of the atoms. At best your trying to make a metaphysical argument about the nature of existence it self, which is seems to be fundamentally unanswerable with significant certainty.

Sigh, but if I had to argue an answer I’d argue that nothing take up no space, no energy and fundamentally doesn’t exist, while something dose, as such something must exist as it’s the only thing that can.

“I do not disagree with you on this point. Something must be eternal. The question is whether or not that something is a mind, a question I believe I have discovered an answer to.”

Great then you have contradicted your self. Something that is eternal is infinite in at lest some respect (time if nothing else). As such an actual infinite must exist.

“I want to emphasize once again that my argument does not depend upon this “God-of-the-gaps” for reasons that I expressed to Isaac. My argument is far from being bullshit, as it depends upon the logical elimination of one of two types of causes.”

You could have fooled me. Most of your reasoning is questionable at best and requires the presupposition that a creator exist in order to be correct. For instance your original statement: “ you still have to explain why the material universe is not co-eternal with its causer” is a perfect example of presupposing a causer out side of the physical. There is no reason to believe the cause was metaphysical yet by this statement you are requiring me to give one. I’m sorry but that looks very much like a “god-of-the-gaps” argument to me.

“If we assume that a mind created the universe, we cannot conclude necessarily that it does not interfere with the workings of the universe. Such a claim simply does not follow logically. Far from it, if a mind was able to create the universe, small incidents such as communicating with human beings seems rather trivial in comparison.”

While in principle it may be trivial to do so the point of the matter is you’ve already excluded such possibilities by using a natural explanation for things. If you want to claim that this entity has interfered with the natural world then you’ve destroyed the fundamental principle upon which science rest. Additionally while I can’t out right discount it the lack of any empirical evidence for it leads to the question of why it should even be considered. We don’t seriously consider anything if there is no physical reason to consider it otherwise you have to ask yourself why you believe in one thing without evidence and not another, for instance why god, but not fairies? If you want to believe in a god which physical effects the world and science at the same time then at best your beliefs are inconsistent.

“You said, “Just as the space mars occupies exist simultaneously with the space that earth exist, so to dose the present exist simultaneously with any point in the past, or the future for that matter. I hope you can see my point, but if not I can try to elaborate more if you’d like.”
Please do so.”

Ok, space and time are related entities. In fact they share a similar relation between the rate of change. For instance the faster that something moves through space the slower it moves through time, and vise a versa. SR gives the relation t = t_0 (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2 ) a little manipulation can give you a similar relation for spacial distortion (length contraction), GR gives a form which is more complex, but has the same basic premises, namely that position and time are deeply related and have similar properties. One of these properties is that of coexistence at all points. If space exist at a point so must time, and again vise a versa. As such if space existed I the past so must have time, and like space can have static points time can as well. It’s not a formal argument, but I think it’s completing enough.

“Endgameomega, you mentioned that there are other means of particle creation. To what are you referring exactly?”

Any number of events can create particles, all you need is ether a surplus of energy, a short time frame (plank scale) or a variety of other physical events. Any number of particles can be created provided they satisfy the various conservation equations. Off the top of my head I’d point to free neutron decay which has the form N → [P+] + [e-] + [ῡe], or the production of a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino. Here you have one particle decaying into three, you can have similar reactions with photons or other energy carrying particles, all you need is to conserve the various quantities such as charge, spin, etc. Thought there are some exceptions, such as in perfection in mass conservation over short time spans allowing for more heavy particle interaction in some decay changes where it normally wouldn’t be possible.

Post2:

“Oh, Saudrapsmann, I just noticed your comment about the oscillating universe theory. That theory has actually been disproved.”

No it hasn’t. There’s insufficient evidence to believe it happened yes, but it has not been out right disproven. You would have been correct to say that the most popular model for an oscillating universe has been disproven, but there are multiple models, and not all have been disproven.

“There are a couple reasons. One is that the mass of the universe is not sufficient for a Big Crunch. There simply is not enough stuff for it to be unstable.”

Uh, it’s not that simple, at all. According to calculations the mass of the universe isn’t negative ether yet it seems to be behaving as such. Hence expansion.

“Second, the universe is expanding at an accelerate rate, so far from slowing down and reversing, we are actually speeding up.”

Yes, and there are models which take this acceleration into account, and even predict it. For instance there are models which predict that the universe came about through a massive quantum fluctuation and it currently undergoing acceleration because of it. Eventually it will accelerate to the point at which matter, energy and spacetime are moving so fast from each other they will effective vanish. The decreasing size of the visible universe is actually a good argument for this.

“Third, entropy would be conserved from cycle to cycle according to the equations, and thus subsequent expansions would have less free energy available to do work.”

No it wouldn’t. Like I said there are many models out there and most do not conserver entropy from cycle to cycle. Hell like I argued in my above post I don’t even think conservation of entropy wold be possible.

“The result is that the universe gets more and more disordered with each collapse and also expands further and further with each Bang.”

No, No, No, a thousands times No. Entropy is NOT disorder, it’s multiplicity. Please don’t get the two confused. Sorry, but it’s become a major pet peeve of mine.

“Thus, if you rewind time you still have a singularity and if you fast forward time you still have an ultra-thin gas that results from an eternal past. This of course leads into the question of the nature of the cause of the material universe that allows for what we observe today, a question I address in my previous postings.”

And whit which I had serious questions about. I don’t think you fully understand the theories your trying to argue.

Anyway I done for a while this took to long to write. If you have any small questions or request for clarification on a point or two I’d be happy to help, but I’m not writing this much again for a while.

Joel

Here is a story of my own which is a bit more relevant:

Two students, Jim and Bob, are working in the lab one day and Jim comes up to Bob and says, “Hey, I want you to look at this.” He brings Bob over to a piece of tape he has hanging off the edge of one of the lab benches. Jim takes an additional two pieces of tape, sticks them together, pulls them apart, and then brings one of the pieces near the tape stuck to the table. An unseen force pulls the two pieces towards one another. “Oh, that’s easily explained by gravity,” says Bob, “all the particles in the universe are attracted to one another.” Jim looks quizzically at Bob. “I agree with you that gravity may be at work here, but your theory is not sufficient to explain the situation. The phenomenon you are describing has certain limits on how it can interact with things.” “Oh, I agree with you there as well,” says Bob, “but since these pieces of tape are being pulled towards one another, gravity must be doing it. There must be some other factor here that allows gravity to do this.” “But we have never seen gravity act in this manner, and there is also no theory of how it could act in this manner, even if there were other factors present,” says Jim. Bob begins to get frustrated with Jim at this point. “Jim, we know that the pieces of tape are moving towards one another. We also know that gravity pulls things together. It therefore must be gravity acting in a way we do not understand.” “Bob, I am not saying that it cannot be gravity. I am just saying that if it is gravity, you will have to give some explanation of why it is doing this when this seems beyond the scope of the force you are describing. If you try and write a force diagram for this situation, the numbers do not work out according to the rules of gravity.”

Bob tries to explain the function of charge attraction via gravity and fails. Dismissing his arguments for why gravity does not apply to the situation are “intelligent, honest, and correct”. By the same token, I argue that your theory for the existence of the universe falls short. I am not simply arguing that there is an absence of evidence for the theory, and therefore it is wrong. I am arguing from positive evidence that the phenomenon you are pointing to as an explanation does not have the scope required to explain the effect, a point that has been admitted by scientists. The phenomenon as an idea itself is the limiting factor here, not just the absence of evidence.

To address your claim that, “no one can know anything before the starting of the universe and no data can be obtained prior to this point of beginning, therefore it is irrelevant”:

You state that we cannot address questions that cannot be verified by experimentation, and yet you are willing to throw your faith upon a theory that, not only lacks evidence to back it up, but has evidence that would point towards its insufficiency as an explanation. If we want to talk about believing in things that cannot be observed, let’s start there.

Additionally, I would argue that you are able know something about the cause of the universe through logical analysis, regardless of whether you can observe the cause or not. If we assume that the cause of the universe was a set of initial conditions that could not choose for the universe to come into existence, then the universe must be co-eternal with its causer, and therefore material existence should be eternal. However, we see that the universe is not a cold dead ultra-thin gas, and thus we know that a cause of that kind, namely the kind that does not have free will, is insufficient as an explanation. I come to this using scientific information we have gathered about the universe, but I am not required to actually observe the cause of the universe in order to come to this logical conclusion. Thus, the question of what caused the universe is not a moot one. This argument does not present a “God-of-the-gaps”. Such arguments depend on the lack of an explanation or evidence and posit God as an arbitrary answer. I am arguing from evidence based upon the logical impossibility of one of two possible types of causes. Thus, I am left with one and only one viable option.

As for your parting comment, “To make a mythological claim is fallacious and ridiculous,” that is only true if such a claim is made without evidence. Gods, goddesses, spirits, nymphs, faeries, and the like are no different than aliens. Without evidence to back them up there is no reason to suppose that they exist, but that does not mean that they themselves are fallacious. There is nothing inherently contradictory about the existence of a deity. There may be reasons to outlaw specific deities based on their characteristics, but I would challenge you to explain why a god (that is not Christian, Jewish, Indian, or otherwise) as an idea is fallacious.

EndGameOmega, you said,”… but even if it it dose not it still would not imply the beginning of the universe at the big bang.”

All right, let us then assume that the material universe began at the Big Bang and there was some other thing (call it energy if you wish) that existed prior to the material universe. We can still apply my analysis that I explained to Isaac regarding the two types of causes for the Big Bang. The result is the same conclusion. You must have a cause with the ability to freely choose its effect to come into existence; otherwise the material universe is eternal, which is obviously not the case.

You then said, “Further more given that we’ve never observed matter and energy being created, it seems likely thought not definite that the energy/matter was there since before the big bang, and when it comes down to it we have no real reason to assume otherwise.” All right, let’s assume that energy is not created or destroyed. You still have the problem that I explained above. If you have this eternal energy that created the universe, you still have to explain why the material universe is not co-eternal with its causer if you want to avoid the eternal cause as a mind.

You said, “As for your comments on infinity, something has had to always exist.” I do not disagree with you on this point. Something must be eternal. The question is whether or not that something is a mind, a question I believe I have discovered an answer to.

You said, “What you’re trying to do is say that since we don’t know it must be god. I’m sorry but such answers are bull shit, and have no evidentary backing.” I want to emphasize once again that my argument does not depend upon this “God-of-the-gaps” for reasons that I expressed to Isaac. My argument is far from being bullshit, as it depends upon the logical elimination of one of two types of causes.

You said, “Once the big bang happened all other events took place naturally, which implies that evolution took place and that humans are no more special then any other animal (at lest intrinsically). At best you’ve put forward a deist god, and removed the god of the bible.” If we assume that a mind created the universe, we cannot conclude necessarily that it does not interfere with the workings of the universe. Such a claim simply does not follow logically. Far from it, if a mind was able to create the universe, small incidents such as communicating with human beings seems rather trivial in comparison.

You said, “Just as the space mars occupies exist simultaneously with the space that earth exist, so to dose the present exist simultaneously with any point in the past, or the future for that matter. I hope you can see my point, but if not I can try to elaborate more if you’d like.”
Please do so.

Endgameomega, you mentioned that there are other means of particle creation. To what are you referring exactly?

Joel

P.S. To Joel, you seem some what well read in the areas of cosmology, but still you seem to be jumping to conclusions at points and making several assertions that aren’t completely correct (such as pair production being the only form of particle creation). I would be happy to discuss some of your point with you in ether the forum or in person (preferably in person I’d also rather not have to wright everything out as I’d have to wright several pages), this particular board is ill suited to such long arguments.

Your understand of the big bang and how it relates to the formation of the universe is surly lacking. I’ve said this once, but I guess it bares repeating, there is no reason to presuppose that all the energy of the universe came into existence at the big bang. The singularity was just a point when all the energy of the universe was condensed into a very small area, and as such our current theories describing the nature of matter are inadequate to explain what happened here. Hell we haven’t even unified gravity yet so we can’t say for sure what happened prior to this point or if there even was a prior point. Given what we know of energy it’s a leap to argue that it was created at all.

Even if for the sake of argument it was created, it had to have been created from something that already existed. As such the possibility for a completely naturalistic explanation is still present. What you’re trying to do is say that since we don’t know it must be god. I’m sorry but such answers are bull shit, and have no evidentary backing. You can believe it all you like but you have no physical or logical reason to presuppose it. No matter how you look at it some form of infinite regress must exist, whether it be supernatural or natural, nether are impossible, but I’d argue that only one (the naturalistic one) is probable.

I’m an atheist and I accept that the big bang happened. I have no real reason to doubt otherwise, however this is a detrimental blow to most forms of Christianity as it out right contradicts the genesis account of creation and pushes the age of the universe back 13.7 billion years. Once the big bang happened all other events took place naturally, which implies that evolution took place and that humans are no more special then any other animal (at lest intrinsically). At best you’ve put forward a deist god, and removed the god of the bible. Personally I’m ok whit that, as it’s not directly contradictory to the evidence, however it’s still a leap which is taken for no real reason.

In response to comment#77 Joe’s original rebuttal to Joel’s original argument for the existence of God:

“The big bang hypothesis has been embraced for the past 100 years by leading scientists. Here is just a snippet:

“Now, as a result of the singularity theorems, nearly everyone believes that the universe began with a singularity.”

(Stephen Hawking, “Origin of the Universe,” Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Bantam Books, [1993])

“Yes, it is true that not all Big Bang supporters like, or accept, the idea put forward by some that our universe was created from nothing. But, what does seem to be the popular belief, by a majority of cosmologists who make their ideas known to the public, are the notions that our universe is finite and is of a finite age.”

(Vincent Sauve,”Is Big Bang Cosmology Good Science or ‘Creation Science’?”)

“There are some skeptics who have written ‘the Big Bang never happened’, by which they mean that the universe is not expanding today and it never has been. They say this despite overwhelming evidence in favor of expansion and cooling today and for the last 15 billion years.”

(Physicist Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University, http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/)

Moreover, its implications in pointing to theism has been well-understood by scientists as well:

“[The Big Bang] smacks of divine intervention.”

(Stephen Hawking. 1988. A Brief History of Time, New York, Bantam Books, p. 46.)

“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”

(P.C.W. Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster: 1992), p. 16.)

“Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.”

(Christopher Isham, 1988. “Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process,” in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.)

“[The Big Bang] involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting”

(Hubert Reeves., Andouze, J., Fowler, W. A., and Schramm, D. N. 1973. “On the Origin of the Light Elements”. Astrophysical Journal 179: p. 912)

“The problem we have is that every particle in the universe originated in the singularity . . . That’s unacceptable because there are no laws of physics that tell you how they came out of it.”

(Cambridge University Professor Neil Turok cited in Astronomy Magazine [September, 1999], p. 38)

“What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation.”

(Robert Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, 1977)

“Apart from being philosophically unacceptable, the Big-Bang is an over-simple view of how the Universe began, and it is unlikely to survive the decade ahead.”

(John Maddox. 1989. “Down with the Big Bang.” Nature 340: p. 425)

The sting of big bang cosmology has surely been felt. The other point, brought up through the Sagan quote, was, “If the general picture of a Big Bang, followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before then?…”

Presumably, the universe is eternal then. But you spent quite a bit of space in point #3 explaining how this cannot be right, thus the “infinite regression” suggestion cannot be promoted uncritically.

Finally, regarding Occam’s Razor, I have to say that when you weigh the hypotheses against each other, theism looks pretty simple: You have either (i) the atheist’s scenario – which is that the universe suddenly popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing (which is worse than magic since in magic at least you have the magician), or (ii) that a transcendent mind brought the universe into being. Apply this to the bengal tiger scenario. Is it simpler to prefer that the tiger just popped into being without a cause or that an animal specialist brought it into the room? And keep in mind how complicated it is to imagine an animal specialist – a person with parents, a history of schooling, someone who possesses a complicated brain neurophysiology, someone who possesses trillions of cells (where such cells are themselves complex machines), etc. I ask, which of the two hypotheses would you embrace?

In any case, and from what I gather, your adversary here accepts your premises, but he doesn’t want to accept the conclusion that the universe was caused.”