Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Could you rephrase that question, please? o_o
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 08:25:57 PM
Could you rephrase that question, please? o_o
What's confusing?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Scientists haven't worked out exactly what caused the big bang yet.
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.
Can you please explain how the big bang needs a big banger?
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 08:30:49 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Scientists haven't worked out exactly what caused the big bang yet.
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.
Can you please explain how the big bang needs a big banger?
I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.
Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:35:41 PM
I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.
Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".
You are acting trollish, if you want a real conversation then please act in a more honest manner otherwise I will find it a waste of time discussing this with you.
As you know I did not say that we know a naturalist explaination. My key word was speculation.
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 08:41:17 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:35:41 PM
I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.
Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".
You are acting trollish, if you want a real conversation then please act in a more honest manner otherwise I will find it a waste of time discussing this with you.
As you know I did not say that we know a naturalist explaination. My key word was speculation.
Ok then, what type of discovery are you anticipating?
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 08:30:49 PM
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.
So, what caused or organized this possible scenario. If one were to regress to the original cause, what other cause could there be than an un-caused, first cause? Or, do you believe in an infinite regress?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 08:30:49 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Scientists haven't worked out exactly what caused the big bang yet.
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.
Can you please explain how the big bang needs a big banger?
I love the naturalist of the gaps explanation. "Scientists haven't yet discovered what we already know to be a naturalist explanation." A bit circular.
Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".
So you are saying that something cannot come from nothing?
Why would this be so given the The Force of Empty Space (http://focus.aps.org/story/v2/st28)
QuoteAccording to quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not empty, but teeming with virtual particles that constantly wink in and out of existence. One strange consequence of this sea of activity is the Casimir effect: Two flat metal surfaces automatically attract one another if they get close enough. The Casimir force is so weak that it has rarely been detected at all, but now a team reports in the 23 November PRL that they have made the most precise measurement ever of the phenomenon. They claim that their technique, using an atomic force microscope, has the capacity to test the strangest aspects of the Casimir effect, ones that have never before been tested...
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 08:30:49 PM
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.
So, what caused or organized this possible scenario. If one were to regress to the original cause, what other cause could there be than an un-caused, first cause? Or, do you believe in an infinite regress?
All explainations are only speculation. We do not know with any level of certainty the details leading upto or at the exact time of the big bang event.
My speculation is that over eons, sufficient energy has be gathered into a blackhole, by gravity.
The energy might have come into existence by quantum fluctuations or may simply be an eternal state of pure space, we don't know how energy comes into existence and remains in existence.
B36
Common sense "Something cannot come from nothing." works fine in the world of normal human experience, but the same cannot be said for the highly counter intuitive world of the sub-atomic particle. The theory of Quantum Mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) has been tested over and over again and has proved to be accurate and highly predictive. So predictive in fact that one of the largest, most complex and most expensive scientific instruments ever made, the Large Hadron Collider (http://www.lhc.ac.uk/), has been built to test its claims.
So applying common sense is not always the right tool to discover what is actually going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
What physicists mean when they say 'nothing' in this context. You're essentially throwing out strawman arguments.
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 09:01:06 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 08:30:49 PM
My speculation is that there was enough energy gathered into a huge black hole that it eventually exploded.
So, what caused or organized this possible scenario. If one were to regress to the original cause, what other cause could there be than an un-caused, first cause? Or, do you believe in an infinite regress?
All explainations are only speculation. We do not know with any level of certainty the details leading upto or at the exact time of the big bang event.
My speculation is that over eons, sufficient energy has be gathered into a blackhole, by gravity.
The energy might have come into existence by quantum fluctuations or may simply be an eternal state of pure space, we don't know how energy comes into existence and remains in existence.
I am not asking about the what you believe to be the means. You keep giving means. How could have your scenario or means have begun without an uncaused first cause?
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 09:10:44 PM
B36
Common sense "Something cannot come from nothing." works fine in the world of normal human experience, but the same cannot be said for the highly counter intuitive world of the sub-atomic particle. The theory of Quantum Mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) has been tested over and over again and has proved to be accurate and highly predictive. So predictive in fact that one of the largest, most complex and most expensive scientific instruments ever made, the Large Hadron Collider (http://www.lhc.ac.uk/), has been built to test its claims.
So applying common sense is not always the right tool to discover what is actually going on.
Quantum theories only work in quantum math scenarios.
"So applying common sense is not always the right tool to discover what is actually going on." You're going to stand by this statement?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era (http://www.universetoday.com/59825/big-bang-theory-2/). As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.
Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm); matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.
Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.
Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now. There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
There are many theories that explain that the big bang would not need a "big banger" but honestly do not have the intellect or full understanding of those theories to discuss them properly.
Here are some starting points to look at if you are actually interested in the speculative physics that may have caused the big bang:
• Brane Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology)
• Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems)
• Chaotic Inflation theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation)
Some of the theories rely on the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse) theory which may actually have some legs to stand on due to recent findings, 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387).
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:35:41 PM
Well, without a big banger one must then believe that something comes from nothing. Not to "scientific".
Well the idea isn't all that new, about 3,000 years old to my knowledge and is the basic fundamentals of many eastern religions (which ironically fit better with current scientific understanding than any of the monotheistic religions). Concerning the "big bang" though you are assuming that nothing came before it, the big bang may have been an accumulation of events which created what we now see around us but was the reaction to an event prior to the big bang in another universe prior to our own.
Also to expand on what tank was talking about with quantum physics this program Everything and Nothing: Nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ8rd7AkMmY) goes in-depth and makes it understandable to the layman. Because this discussion is about the big bang this episode of the above mentioned program Everything and Nothing: Everything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YEjiYHl4to) is more about that side of things.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
What physicists mean when they say 'nothing' in this context. You're essentially throwing out strawman arguments.
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
And of course, as the Muslims recognise, there is no way to quantify what 'Allah' is anyway. God could be the simplest possible element that has no consiousness at all that we would understand, have no thoughts or ideas, pay no attention to it's 'creation' at all. To God our universe could be no more important to him as a fart is to us. Now there are a number of scientific speculations, not really hypothesis, not even theories, about how our universe came into being and they are all infinitly simpler than the requirements put on a god(s) by any holy book(s).
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
As far as is known, this is a unique event
We have no knowledge that the big bang was a unique event, there could well be an infinite amount of these happening within the entirety of space.
We have only observed the consequence of one big bang event though.
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place.
We don't know this, there could well have been a black hole there, or a couple of them colliding? Many possibilities, we just don't know
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 09:54:09 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
What physicists mean when they say 'nothing' in this context. You're essentially throwing out strawman arguments.
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
And of course, as the Muslims recognise, there is no way to quantify what 'Allah' is anyway. God could be the simplest possible element that has no consciousness at all that we would understand, have no thoughts or ideas, pay no attention to it's 'creation' at all. To God our universe could be no more important to him as a fart is to us. Now there are a number of scientific speculations, not really hypothesis, not even theories, about how our universe came into being and they are all infinitely simpler than the requirements put on a god(s) by any holy book(s).
If god is simply the first cause, then why call him god and worship the first cause?
It's a case of logical progression going into a non absurd conclusion (first cause) to and absurd idea (infinite regress), but to say that it's anything more doesn't make god simple. But we don't actually know where we are on the chain of (in)finite regress.
For all we know infinite regress probably could be real, it's just an idea that doesn't sit well in the mind. Common sense is not all that it's made up to be. Quantum physics completely violates common sense and yet it's one of the most accurately tested fields around.
Saying that the universe was always there is much simpler than positing the existence of any conscious god actually capable of planning out and creating a universe with purpose.
Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:17:09 PM
Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.
I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term :-\ So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) see the Big Bang Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang). We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:17:09 PM
Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.
I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term :-\ So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) see the Big Bang Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang). We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.
That's probably the most honest response this thread has given so far. Kudos my dear man.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Because for all we know the universe (or possibly even multiverse if new models are correct) could be eternal. That's why there is no logical reason to assume that there must be some eternal being outside of the universe to jump start it. Look up Occam's Razor.
And you can't say it's impossible for something to be eternal because then your god can't be either.
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era (http://www.universetoday.com/59825/big-bang-theory-2/). As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.
Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm); matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.
Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.
Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now. There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.
Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle. Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time. An uncaused first cause can cause without time. In your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make. Then at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 10:30:40 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Because for all we know the universe (or possibly even multiverse if new models are correct) could be eternal. That's why there is no logical reason to assume that there must be some eternal being outside of the universe to jump start it. Look up Occam's Razor.
And you can't say it's impossible for something to be eternal because then your god can't be either.
Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:17:09 PM
Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.
I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term :-\ So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) see the Big Bang Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang). We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.
That's probably the most honest response this thread has given so far. Kudos my dear man.
Okayyy, You're being nice, now I'm worried ;D
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:28:24 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:17:09 PM
Ok I'm dumb. I get there doesn't need to be an intelligent anything to get the big bang BANGED (loss for a better word) My question. All the stuff (that is not intelligent anything) that got to the point of the big bang..where did that come from? And from that source, where did that come from? Yeah, I'm asking.
I think I get what you're asking. AFAIK the net energy in the universe is/was zero, we are the miniscule scum left over due to quantum fluctuations. So it would appear that there was nothing 'before' where 'before' could also be a meaningless term :-\ So the fact is that when discussing what happend approximatly 13.75 billion years ago we don't really have a clue prior to Planck time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) see the Big Bang Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang). We have a question, it may not even be the right question, we do not have an answer yet.
That's probably the most honest response this thread has given so far. Kudos my dear man.
Okayyy, You're being nice, now I'm worried ;D
Well 2 of my molars were pulled yesterday. And the ordeal of the bad tooth joojoo they were giving me is over. So..maybe I was just grumpy before due to pain! ;)
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era (http://www.universetoday.com/59825/big-bang-theory-2/). As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.
Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm); matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.
Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.
Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now. There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.
Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle. Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time. An uncaused first cause can cause without time. In your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make. Then at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.
And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer,
irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:36:36 PM
Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?
It could...but there is no reason to assume one.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 10:30:40 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
Because for all we know the universe (or possibly even multiverse if new models are correct) could be eternal. That's why there is no logical reason to assume that there must be some eternal being outside of the universe to jump start it. Look up Occam's Razor.
And you can't say it's impossible for something to be eternal because then your god can't be either.
Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?
It could be a god, but what is the probability that it would be a god? And why should it be a god and not just an eternal entity?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 08:10:16 PM
Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.
If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era (http://www.universetoday.com/59825/big-bang-theory-2/). As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.
Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations (http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm); matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.
Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.
Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now. There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.
Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle. Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time. An uncaused first cause can cause without time. In your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make. Then at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.
... But, you're a theist. :( Do you see the hypocrisy in your reply?
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 10:46:20 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:36:36 PM
Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?
It could...but there is no reason to assume one.
Exactly. But for theists there is no reason to assume the eternal thing is not God either. It's just what you personally decide to believe. In the end, I mean the real end...no one really knows either way. We have to then say this is what I CHOOSE. Not what is true. But what we CHOOSE to be true. The difference between a theist and non is that confession. A theist won't say it's a choice. And alot of hard nose militant non theists won't say so either (Which to me puts them squarely in the same box as the theists. Which I know both hate, but hey the same shoes fits)but some non theists will be ego free enough to say it's a possibility both ways. And I choose to go with my way. It makes more sense. The logic and reason around me points to it. But I also understand logic and reason can only go so far as the human mind wants it to. And seeing that most humans think YELLOW light means SPEED UP tells me we shouldn't tout our smartness so much. Ending with my same assumption as before: A finite mind cannot grasp the truth of the infinite. Whether that being an infinite being or an infinite 'big bang material stuff'. We can only grasp to the finite mind and no more.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Why?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Why?
Why what?
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Why?
Why what?
Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Why?
Why what?
Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?
To give you an edge.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Why?
Why what?
Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?
Why not?
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.
Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation. There are 2 types of causation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 11:21:24 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:13:56 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 09:49:54 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 09:36:53 PM
And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?
I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.
Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.
Why?
Why what?
Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?
To give you an edge.
Thanks
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:38:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.
Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation.
Something may be logical but need not be true.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:38:09 PMThere are 2 types of causeation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the speculates that there is an agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.
Fixed it for you.
If you're saying that theism is the most logical answer to ultimate causation, then there must be something there to help you differentiate between the first cause being caused by an agent (who) and not an event (what). What would that be?
Quote from: MedusaExactly. But for theists there is no reason to assume the eternal thing is not God either. It's just what you personally decide to believe. In the end, I mean the real end...no one really knows either way. We have to then say this is what I CHOOSE. Not what is true. But what we CHOOSE to be true. The difference between a theist and non is that confession. A theist won't say it's a choice. And alot of hard nose militant non theists won't say so either (Which to me puts them squarely in the same box as the theists. Which I know both hate, but hey the same shoes fits)but some non theists will be ego free enough to say it's a possibility both ways. And I choose to go with my way. It makes more sense. The logic and reason around me points to it. But I also understand logic and reason can only go so far as the human mind wants it to. And seeing that most humans think YELLOW light means SPEED UP tells me we shouldn't tout our smartness so much. Ending with my same assumption as before: A finite mind cannot grasp the truth of the infinite. Whether that being an infinite being or an infinite 'big bang material stuff'. We can only grasp to the finite mind and no more.
I agree with you. In fact I think theists are a lot more willing to raise this point than atheists a lot of the time, which is odd, because it's one of the main freeways to epistemological nihilism. Starting from the claim that we cannot know
everything it's easy to conclude that we cannot know
anything, since all information now necessarily lacks context. More importantly, we can't even measure our own intellectual limits because to do so would require us to see beyond them, and if we could do that they wouldn't be limits. We might see (or think we see) the flawed reasoning in others, for example, but our own is always totally invisible to us. Since that is the case, and the personal element cannot be removed, we have no ultimate way of gauging who is in the right and who is in the wrong, who is rational or irrational etc. and all these concepts become, if not totally fictitious, extremely unreliable at best.
I think there's a danger here though. If you draw a line somewhere out in the abstract to separate '
the finite, where conventional logic applies' from '
the infinite, where it does not, being beyond comprehension' then you render any discussion of the latter a complete waste of time. Fine if you can admit that, of course, but most theists who posit the idea cannot. I could say that circular squares exist in realms beyond our comprehension, where conventional logic does not apply, and there would be nothing you could do with that statement. I could say that the universe was born out of a cosmic bowl of ambrosia, then say that I'm speaking allegorically of course, in limited human terms, of something that's really beyond our understanding - cosmic bowls of ambrosia is just the most accessible way to think about it. Literally anything goes. If you place God in such a category then you condemn him to being totally pointless.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:38:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.
Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation. There are 2 types of causation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.
And yet again you apply human expectations to the non-human world of sub-atomic particles and forces, presuming that there must be a first cause and worst still that the first cause is, to quote from Richard Dawkins "the most unpleasant character in all fiction ... a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".
QuoteIf you place God in such a category then you condemn him to being totally pointless.
Thank you for your reply. It was a good read!
I think (about the quoted part in particular) that it's not God's fault (or the other big bang starter stuff) that we do not understand. It's not ours either. Limits are limits. We can simply understand what we are capable of understanding. On the time line of OH THE WORLD IS FLAT to OH THERE IS NO GOD, well that's not that much of a speck on the timeline to be quite honest. We think we are in the 11th grade of our smartypants. When we are probably just in the 5th barely learning about the word 'humping' and how some dude and girl are doing it behind the classroom.
In essence the infinite is not pointless because we don't understand it. It's still going to keep on trucking regardless of how far our little minds can catch up. Whatever side that infinite turns to be of. I can say maybe it's how the God created everything. Through this process. Or maybe it's not. Or maybe this or maybe that. No one here can reaise their hand in 100% certainty. I wouldn't mind some arguments. With the understanding that you can't use the word 100% , or ONLY in your arguments. It's a lie. But it seems some people (on both sides of the deity fence) cannot simply say the words I am not sure or I don't know. We believe a hell of a lot of things. Why can't we believe we just don't know for sure? Ego.
Quote from: Melmoth on August 27, 2011, 11:52:30 PM
Quote from: MedusaExactly. But for theists there is no reason to assume the eternal thing is not God either. It's just what you personally decide to believe. In the end, I mean the real end...no one really knows either way. We have to then say this is what I CHOOSE. Not what is true. But what we CHOOSE to be true. The difference between a theist and non is that confession. A theist won't say it's a choice. And alot of hard nose militant non theists won't say so either (Which to me puts them squarely in the same box as the theists. Which I know both hate, but hey the same shoes fits)but some non theists will be ego free enough to say it's a possibility both ways. And I choose to go with my way. It makes more sense. The logic and reason around me points to it. But I also understand logic and reason can only go so far as the human mind wants it to. And seeing that most humans think YELLOW light means SPEED UP tells me we shouldn't tout our smartness so much. Ending with my same assumption as before: A finite mind cannot grasp the truth of the infinite. Whether that being an infinite being or an infinite 'big bang material stuff'. We can only grasp to the finite mind and no more.
I agree with you. In fact I think theists are a lot more willing to raise this point than atheists a lot of the time, which is odd, because it's one of the main freeways to epistemological nihilism. Starting from the claim that we cannot know everything it's easy to conclude that we cannot know anything, since all information now necessarily lacks context. More importantly, we can't even measure our own intellectual limits because to do so would require us to see beyond them, and if we could do that they wouldn't be limits. We might see (or think we see) the flawed reasoning in others, for example, but our own is always totally invisible to us. Since that is the case, and the personal element cannot be removed, we have no ultimate way of gauging who is in the right and who is in the wrong, who is rational or irrational etc. and all these concepts become, if not totally fictitious, extremely unreliable at best.
I think there's a danger here though. If you draw a line somewhere out in the abstract to separate 'the finite, where conventional logic applies' from 'the infinite, where it does not, being beyond comprehension' then you render any discussion of the latter a complete waste of time. Fine if you can admit that, of course, but most theists who posit the idea cannot. I could say that circular squares exist in realms beyond our comprehension, where conventional logic does not apply, and there would be nothing you could do with that statement. I could say that the universe was born out of a cosmic bowl of ambrosia, then say that I'm speaking allegorically of course, in limited human terms, of something that's really beyond our understanding - cosmic bowls of ambrosia is just the most accessible way to think about it. Literally anything goes. If you place God in such a category then you condemn him to being totally pointless.
Just because we cannot know someone exhaustively, it does not mean we cannot know them, and it does not mean we cannot know them intimately. I do not know my wife exhaustively, but I know her intimately, the same with God, who is infinite, yet I am finite.
I agree you can know him. But you probably can't understand him all the time. I mean your wife is another human being. We have some relevant experiences to exchange. What could we possibly understand about infinite wisdom?
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 11:57:23 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:38:09 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.
Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation. There are 2 types of causation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.
And yet again you apply human expectations to the non-human world of sub-atomic particles and forces, presuming that there must be a first cause and worst still that the first cause is, to quote from Richard Dawkins "the most unpleasant character in all fiction ... a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".
Whether cinsidered unpleasant or loving, we all KNOW that God is there.
QuoteWhether cinsidered unpleasant or loving, we all KNOW that God is there.
I had no idea you knew every person in the world. Who is this WE you speak of? I KNOW i want 2 dollars to appear under my pillow today from the tooth fairy. I know it. Ain't gonna happen it. But I KNOW IT!
no.
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
As far as is known, this is a unique event
We have no knowledge that the big bang was a unique event, there could well be an infinite amount of these happening within the entirety of space.
We have only observed the consequence of one big bang event though.
Do we know of any other "big bangs"? To put my sentence more clearly for your benefit: As far as is known, this was a unique event
pertaining to our universe. And since (as commonly defined) we can only perceive what is in our universe, then to that extent it was a unique event. We theorize that
something occurred in the Planck era, and we have evidence which points to this occurrence. Beyond that is conjecture, including, as you pointed out, whether the event was unique or not.
Quote from: Stevil on August 27, 2011, 10:13:05 PMQuote from: Recusant on August 27, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place.
We don't know this, there could well have been a black hole there, or a couple of them colliding? Many possibilities, we just don't know.
I agree. And I did say that it was "one way of looking at it." I didn't say that was the only acceptable alternative. You're probably aware that time, according to the theory of general relativity, does not exist from the "point of view" of the singularity which is theorized to exist inside the event horizon of a black hole. So does time exist in the interaction of two black holes? Possibly, but we have no evidence which makes a "black hole" or "two black holes" hypothesis more likely than others. We can make a conjecture that time existed prior to the existence of our universe, but there is presently no way of knowing that it did. I think that it's just as valid to conjecture that time as we know it began to exist with the big bang, especially in view of the hypothesis that the initial condition of the universe was a singularity.
In general I would say that we are in agreement in regards to acknowledging the lack of scientific evidence which could lead to a definitive answer on the topic of what (if anything) "caused" (if that concept is even applicable) the big bang. I already admitted my ignorance. Maybe I wasn't cautious enough for your taste in how I expressed it, though. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PM
Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle.
If you want to smell miracles, go right ahead. Your sense of smell isn't valid scientific evidence, however.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PMThen you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time.
Show me causality existing independently of time.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PMAn uncaused first cause can cause without time.
A verifiable example of "an uncaused first cause" would be required as evidence that the above sentence is anything but the "word gymnastics" you accused me of.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PMIn your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make.
I don't recall making a statement to the effect that I'm confident that scientists will make any discovery. "Still working on it" doesn't mean that any tangible result is in the offing.
* Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 10:33:11 PMThen at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.
Apparently you would prefer an answer based on your personal faith to one based on scientific evidence. Fine for you, but I do not accept your personal faith as telling me anything about the world we live in, nor can i see why anyone else would either. On the other hand, scientific evidence has been shown to be fairly reliable. By definition it doesn't depend on any particular person's point of view. We don't have any scientific evidence which gives us information about our universe prior to the Planck era, thus in my opinion anybody who tries to tell us about what occurred then is hypothesizing, rather than describing something known or understood. This includes the god hypothesis. The principle of parsimony would lead me to discard that hypothesis: Science has done a respectable job of helping us understand the universe without ever once using a deity to explain anything. I see nothing in the beginning of the universe, whether unique or not, which necessitates positing a deity. So although I admit that I don't know how the universe began, unless scientific evidence for the existence of a deity is presented my inclination is to think that it began without the intervention of a deity.
I'm not clinging to ignorance as a viable explanation; I'm acknowledging that it is the present state of scientific knowledge in regards to the universe prior to the Planck era.
*I request that you refrain from mis-characterizing what I've written.
By the bye,
Black36, I'd just like to express my appreciation for you engendering this lively conversation. Sincerely: Thank you
No...
Hence the term fiction in accordance to god.
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:08:27 AM
I agree you can know him. But you probably can't understand him all the time. I mean your wife is another human being. We have some relevant experiences to exchange. What could we possibly understand about infinite wisdom?
God gave us the creation to know He is there, He gave us a conscience to know that we have violated His purpose, He gave us His Word in order to reveal Himself, and He gave us His Son so that we may be reconciled to Him. This is the Christian perspective.
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:08:27 AM
I agree you can know him. But you probably can't understand him all the time. I mean your wife is another human being. We have some relevant experiences to exchange. What could we possibly understand about infinite wisdom?
God gave us the creation to know He is there, He gave us a conscience to know that we have violated His purpose, He gave us His Word in order to reveal Himself, and He gave us His Son so that we may be reconciled to Him. This is the Christian perspective.
LOL :D
OK, And the christian view is factual and correct, right?
Btw, god owes me $10 for a defective CD player.
END DERAIL.
This thread is about the Big Bang. If there is any more discussion of god being known by everyone or about god being loving/unloving it's moving to the religion section and being renamed the "big bang of detrail"
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:08:27 AM
I agree you can know him. But you probably can't understand him all the time. I mean your wife is another human being. We have some relevant experiences to exchange. What could we possibly understand about infinite wisdom?
God gave us the creation to know He is there, He gave us a conscience to know that we have violated His purpose, He gave us His Word in order to reveal Himself, and He gave us His Son so that we may be reconciled to Him. This is the Christian perspective.
I agree. Except when referring to God I am not always referring to The Christian God. Because God is not a Christian. No one group OWNS God. Unless of course you want to call that voluntary deity slavery. ;)
*edit. Sorry Whitney didn't see your reply before mine. I can't exactly delete it. So maybe another thread for it?
Quote from: Recusant on August 28, 2011, 12:12:19 AM
In general I would say that we are in agreement in regards to acknowledging the lack of scientific evidence which could lead to a definitive answer on the topic of what (if anything) "caused" (if that concept is even applicable) the big bang. I already admitted my ignorance. Maybe I wasn't cautious enough for your taste in how I expressed it, though. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)
I wasn't trying to argue with you, I just had a different view to you on a couple of things, well, actually, after your clarification, it just seems that I didn't realise you were limiting this unique event within the confines of our universe.
But anyway, the point is that we can think of a few natural explainations to the creation of our universe. Yes there are gaps in our explainations, there are also many other natural explainations that others have thought of and also probably lots that people haven't thought of yet.
We just have no idea , but an open mind is a good think rather than sticking to one conclusion.
I think what's interesting about cosmogony is that there's still a lot of mystery surrounding it all. There's another hypothesis involving repeated big bangs, which would be Roger Penrose's Cyclic Universe. Last time I checked, they were waiting for a satellite image to confirm what could be radiation evidence supporting his view. Brane theory also makes room for successive big bangs over eons.
It's one area where many different naturalistic paradigms can explain the event, without enough conclusive evidence favouring some over others yet.
I was considering B36's domino cause question. Instead of dominos falling why not waves arriving at a beach? Waves don't need a causation in the same way that the dominos fall, waves are the result of a natural effect, so is our universe, we just don't know which natural cause yet.
Quote from: Tank on September 02, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
I was considering B36's domino cause question. Instead of dominos falling why not waves arriving at a beach? Waves don't need a causation in the same way that the dominos fall, waves are the result of a natural effect, so is our universe, we just don't know which natural cause yet.
Well, you could argue that we don't know that the cause was natural.
But theists take it too far by stating that the cause could not be natural, concluding that the must be a god.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F500x%2F9728067.jpg&hash=4a999aad4cacd325196376bbee2fe31e11fe1e3c)
Never a mis-communication.
Quote from: Recusant on September 02, 2011, 09:45:05 PM
Waves come in, waves go out. Never a mis-communication. You can't explain that!
Bill O'Reilly?
ROFL XDDD