Big Bang!!!

[Medusa]

If 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.

[Black36]

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.

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.

[Medusa]

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?

[Black36]

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.

[Medusa]

Whether 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.

[Recusant]

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.

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.

* * *

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.

Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time.

Show me causality existing independently of time.

An 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.

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.

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.* 

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.

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

[Sweetdeath]

No...
Hence the term fiction in accordance to god.

[Black36]

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.

[Sweetdeath]

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 
OK, And the christian view is factual and correct, right?

Btw, god owes me $10 for a defective CD player.

[Whitney]

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"

[Medusa]

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?

[Stevil]

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.

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

[Tank]

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.

[Stevil]

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.