03 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton======================================
[b]…You really do not know if they agree with you for the most part.
.. . .…
Given the fact that main-stream cosmology implies that the universe doesn’t not have a “cause”, I assume they would generally agree with that! -it would be a bit strange if they didn’t! -I mean scientists usually agree with what their own science tells them is true - ...[text shortened]... ld is round and not flat wouldn’t continue to survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny.[/b]
Given the fact that main-stream cosmology implies that the universe doesn’t not have a “cause”, I assume they would generally agree with that! -it would be a bit strange if they didn’t! -I mean scientists usually agree with what their own science tells them is true -yes.
=============================================
I think you are speculating, philosophizing. This is different from stating positively a known science fact - i.e "It is now known that the universe came into existence without a cause."
Some of us can tell the difference.
==========================================
… What is stopping you from submitting your claim to a science journal for peer review? . …
-because, for a start, that has already been done by others -it is called the big-bang theory and I am sure it has been quoted in science journals for peer review.
=======================================
I asked for names of who has made the declaration of this new known science fact of yours. You said you knew of no one who has.
Now you say "Those who write about big Bang are saying what I say."
That is philosophizing. Some of us can detect the difference.
=========================================
… Are you saying that those who agree with you in this matter are at least a little more leaning towards perfection ? . .…
Nop.
…Since no one is perfect, we will have to allow for the possibility that you are neither perfect and really are mistaken. ..…
Possibly yes -can you administrate by logical argument that I am or even that I probably am mistaken on this specific matter?
======================================
You have a presuppositional commitment to the belief that no supernatural cause exists or ever has existed, I think.
I would revize your concept to say something like this:
"The weight of evidence is that the beginning of the universe was not caused by anything we know to exist strictly in the time, space, and matter of the universe."
"The weight of evidence is that if there is a cause to the universe's existence it is supernatural - or it is totally outside of the laws of physics and science as we know them."
I am about to be booted off the Library PC. So I will stop here.
Hey, at least it keeps me from being too verbose.
03 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=======================================
[b]…You really do not know if they agree with you for the most part.
.. . .…
Given the fact that main-stream cosmology implies that the universe doesn’t not have a “cause”, I assume they would generally agree with that! -it would be a bit strange if they didn’t! -I mean scientists usually agree with what their own science tells them is true - ...[text shortened]... ld is round and not flat wouldn’t continue to survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny.[/b]
You have obviously misunderstood the implications of the big-bang theory.
==========================================
I would reply that it appears that YOU are the one who has suppressed or ignored the implications of the Big Bang Theory.
By the way. I notice now that it is a "theory". I agree. The weight of the evidence is for a "Big Bang" beginning of the universe.
Even though as a Theist I welcome this confirming evidence of a Creator I do not cling to it. I am ready to drop it in case scientists of the future lean towards that understanding being not so correct after all.
That may happen. Either way - I believe that the revelation of God is that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Let them continue to study for another 500 years or more. My ultimate trust is in what I believe to be the revelatory communication from God to mankind.
=====================================
…You know maybe the idea of Big Bang will one day be questioned as well.…
It has already been continually question and so far survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny -there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t continue to do so just like there no reason to believe that the theory that the world is round and not flat wouldn’t continue to survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny.
=========================================
I believe that it was Francis Bacon who emphasized that the search for CAUSES is fundamental to science.
Now there may be limit to scientific study and enquiry. The CAUSE of the beginning of the universe may be outside of time, space, and matter. We may call that supernatural.
If you have an a priorl commitment to the nonexistence of anything supernatural than you might arrive at a metaphysical belief that the universe poped into existence uncaused.
I call that a miracle. IMO you believe in a miracle. You do not want to call it a Divine miracle. You probably don't want to be identified with the word miracle at all. But for all intents and purposes I submit that what you believe is that a miracle took place - the uncaused poping of the singularity which became the universe from NOTHING .... NOTHING !
A non-Divine and uncaused miracle.
I believe rather in a miracle sourced in a Divine Being. And I would add that it indicates that this Being has a WILL. And the WILL made the miracle occur.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAs far as I know the Big Bang theory makes no definite statements about what comes before the early stages of expansion. We simply do not know enough about the universe to do anything more than speculate. The physics we generally use simply cannot handle singularities. There are also alternative theories that suggest the possibility of a time line extending back before the big bang - but with the singularity not taking place.
You have obviously misunderstood the implications of the big-bang theory.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywill…I would reply that it appears that YOU are the one who has suppressed or ignored the implications of the Big Bang Theory..…
[b]=======================================
You have obviously misunderstood the implications of the big-bang theory.
==========================================
I would reply that it appears that YOU are the one who has suppressed or ignored the implications of the Big Bang Theory.
By the way. I notice now that it is a "theory". I a ...[text shortened]... hat it indicates that this Being has a WILL. And the WILL made the miracle occur.[/b]
One logical implications of the big-bang is that the universe had no cause -you obviously deny this fact. Here is one way how this fact can be logically derived:
1, according to the big-bang theory time started at the start of the universe.
2, therefore, from 1, according to the big bang theory, there was no “before” the start of the universe.
3, all “causes” come “before” their effects.
4, therefore, from 3, if there is no “before” an event then there can be no “cause” for that event and that event is not an “effect”.
5, therefore, from 2 and 4, according to the big bang theory, there is no “cause” for the start of the universe because there was no “before” the start of the universe.
Exactly which bits of the above logical deduction do you deny?
… I believe that it was Francis Bacon who emphasized that the search for CAUSES is fundamental to science. . …
That is an over-generalisation -which sciences? -certainly not all of them! What about the science of mathematics? -does that deal with “causes“? -what about quantum physics that says some events don’t have causes? And what about the big-bang theory that clearly implies that the start of the universe had no “cause”?
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==========================================
[b]…I would reply that it appears that YOU are the one who has suppressed or ignored the implications of the Big Bang Theory..…
One logical implications of the big-bang is that the universe had no cause -you obviously deny this fact. Here is one way how this fact can be logically derived:
1, according to the big-bang theory time started at ...[text shortened]... at about the big-bang theory that clearly implies that the start of the universe had no “cause”?[/b]
One logical implications of the big-bang is that the universe had no cause
=============================================
That is your philosophizing. That is opinion based on a priori metapgysical commitment.
The implication is that the universe was caused by something outside of time, space, and matter of the universe.
Gotta go now.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhitehead… As far as I know the Big Bang theory makes no definite statements about what comes “BEFORE” the early stages of expansion. . .…(my emphasis)
As far as I know the Big Bang theory makes no definite statements about what comes before the early stages of expansion. We simply do not know enough about the universe to do anything more than speculate. The physics we generally use simply cannot handle singularities. There are also alternative theories that suggest the possibility of a time line extending back before the big bang - but with the singularity not taking place.
Isn’t it an assumption to think there was a “BEFORE”?
…There are also alternative theories that suggest the possibility of a time line extending back before the big bang.…
I am aware of this and I certainly wouldn’t totally exclude these alternative possibilities. Isn’t the main-stream big bang theory basically say that time began at the big bang? -I seem to remember hearing somewhere that this is what it normally says because, I presume, this is considered to be the “simplest” hypothesis? -possibly for some kind of mathematical reason? (the “simplest” hypothesis that explains all the evidence should be considered to be the most probable although I admit that it is extremely hard to define the “complexity” of the hypothesis)
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAnd what about the big-bang theory that clearly implies that the start of the universe had no “cause”?--hammy---
[b]…I would reply that it appears that YOU are the one who has suppressed or ignored the implications of the Big Bang Theory..…
One logical implications of the big-bang is that the universe had no cause -you obviously deny this fact. Here is one way how this fact can be logically derived:
1, according to the big-bang theory time started at ...[text shortened]... at about the big-bang theory that clearly implies that the start of the universe had no “cause”?[/b]
Maybe to you it does. For me the Big Bang seems very suggestive of something that has a cause. Something Uncaused I would expect to not have a beginning at all. Why would something Uncaused need a beginning?
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywill… That is your philosophising. That is opinion based on a priori metaphysical commitment. . . .…
[b]==========================================
One logical implications of the big-bang is that the universe had no cause
=============================================
That is your philosophizing. That is opinion based on a priori metapgysical commitment.
The implication is that the universe was caused by something outside of time, space, and matter of the universe.
Gotta go now.[/b]
That is clearly not true. I have fully explained by logical deduction -have you?
…The implication is that the universe was caused by something outside of time, space, and matter of the universe. .…
“Outside of time“? that would mean that what “caused” it happen existed at NO point in time! -which means it didn’t exist! -thus there can be no “cause” “outside of time” -yes?
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton1, according to the big-bang theory time started at the start of the universe. --------hammy------
[b]…I would reply that it appears that YOU are the one who has suppressed or ignored the implications of the Big Bang Theory..…
One logical implications of the big-bang is that the universe had no cause -you obviously deny this fact. Here is one way how this fact can be logically derived:
1, according to the big-bang theory time started at ...[text shortened]... at about the big-bang theory that clearly implies that the start of the universe had no “cause”?[/b]
And nothing can exist outside of time? Time is the only state in which reality can exist? What is time anyway? You seem to have this deified idea about time in this universe meaning some great "ALL TIME".
All we know is that the process of causality (events) began at the Big Bang and has been going on for 12 billion years. But what you call "time" is just a series of events in the universe to which we have ascribed this abstract value called "time".
You see hammy , some of us don't believe time actually exists an more than a mile exists. I don't believe that time can be separated out from the universe , theY are one and the same. So for me the Big Bang was not the beginning of "time" it was just the beginning of a series of events called the universe. The universe does not need "time" to exist "in" , any more than a road needs a "mile" to exist "in" , or an earthquake needs a "richter" to exist "in".
Time to me is just an abstract measured dimension of the universe. There is no such thing as separate "time" in which the universe happens. Therefore whatever might have caused the Big Bang just is , it doesn't need to exist in "time" because "time" is not a "thing" .
03 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“Outside of time“? that would mean that what “caused” it happen existed at NO point in time! -which means it didn’t exist! -thus there can be no “cause” “outside of time” -yes?
[b]… That is your philosophising. That is opinion based on a priori metaphysical commitment. . . .…
That is clearly not true. I have fully explained by logical deduction -have you?
…The implication is that the universe was caused by something outside of time, space, and matter of the universe. .…
“Outside of time“? that would mea ...[text shortened]... int in time! -which means it didn’t exist! -thus there can be no “cause” “outside of time” -yes?[/b]
------hammy----
What is this "time" that you refer to in which things have their existence? Is time a separate entity?
What caused it existed at no point in the universe (not at no point in "time" ). You are just saying that nothing can exist but the universe. That's all. It's not an argument.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeister… And nothing can exist outside of time?.…
1, according to the big-bang theory time started at the start of the universe. --------hammy------
And nothing can exist outside of time? Time is the only state in which reality can exist? What is time anyway? You seem to have this deified idea about time in this universe meaning some great "ALL TIME".
All we know is that the process of causality ...[text shortened]... doesn't need to exist in "time" because "time" is not a "thing" .
Correct -that is what I am saying.
…Time is the only state in which reality can exist?. .…
Yes.
… But what you call "time" is just a series of events in the universe to which we have ascribed this abstract value called "time" .…
“ "time" is just a series of events “ ?
-to have a “series” of some “things”, by definition, there has to be some property that defines which of those “things” come “before” or “after” any given one of those “things” -yes? -else, by definition, it wouldn’t be a “series”!
You can, for example, have a “series” of objects in space by some being in front or behind others and they are all in a row -in that case the property that defines which of those “things” come “before” or “after” any given one of those “things” is the property of direction in SPACE. Similarly, for a “series” of events to exist in time, each one must come “before” or “after” any other given one else, by definition, it wouldn’t be a “series”. But exactly what is the property that defines which of those events come “before” or “after” any given one of those events if it isn’t direction in “time”? -and if it IS “time” and if time is just a “series of events” then exactly what kind of “series of events” distinguishes the direction in time I.e. exactly what kind of “series of events” distinguishes whether a given event comes “before” or “after” a given other event?
-I think there is no answer to this question thus time cannot simply be a “series of events” else it begs the question “a series of events in what if not in time?”.
04 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton========================================
[b]… That is your philosophising. That is opinion based on a priori metaphysical commitment. . . .…
That is clearly not true. I have fully explained by logical deduction -have you?
…The implication is that the universe was caused by something outside of time, space, and matter of the universe. .…
“Outside of time“? that would mea ...[text shortened]... int in time! -which means it didn’t exist! -thus there can be no “cause” “outside of time” -yes?[/b]
“Outside of time“?
==========================================
Rather astounding, isn't it?
=============================================
that would mean that what “caused” it happen existed at NO point in time! -which means it didn’t exist! -thus there can be no “cause” “outside of time” -yes?
===========================================
Well, I asked for you to indicate what cosmologist, astronomer, or physicist has catagorically said that science has proved that the universe came into being without a cause.
I appreciate your honesty that you have (at least not yet) known of any who have proclaimed the "uncaused universe" as a science fact.
However, I will submit at least one astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder of the NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, opinion of the Big Bang's scientific conclusion:
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
Let me emphasis a little what this scientist said - " ... ALL THIS HAPPENED AS A PRODUCT OF FORCES THEY CANNOT HOPE TO DISCOVER ... THAT THERE ARE WHAT I OR ANYONE ELSE WOULD CALL SUPERNATURAL FORCES AT WORK IS NOW, I THINK, A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT."
Can you locate an equivalent quotation of a reputable scientist declaring that the UNCAUSED creation of the universe is now a scientifically proven fact?
And I would add this further quotation from this confessed agnostic's book "God and the Astronomers" . In its conclusion he writes:
" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centries."
That's one scientist's assessment of the implications of the Big Bang Theory.
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe property of the events is which ones are contingent on which. Time is the unfolding of events , with one event leading to another. That's how we experience the unfolding of events and "time" is what we call it. It's also a measurement of one set of motion against another. When I look at my watch and time a car passing all that I am doing is comparing the motion of my watch relative to the motion of the car. It's a measurement. There is no "time" in which that happens. It just happens. Take away the road and the car will not move , take away time and what happens , well you have to ask yourself what it is that you are taking away?
[b]… And nothing can exist outside of time?.…
Correct -that is what I am saying.
…Time is the only state in which reality can exist?. .…
Yes.
… But what you call "time" is just a series of events in the universe to which we have ascribed this abstract value called "time" .…
“ "time" is just a series of events “ ?
-t ...[text shortened]... “series of events” else it begs the question “a series of events in what if not in time?”.[/b]
Time is not some soup "in" which things exist , like a bacteria exists "in" a pertri dish. You seem to imagine that time is like some canvas on to which the universe is painted. Time isn't made of anything as far as I can see and no-one has ever been able to tell me what it might be made of. Therefore , it seems to be a non-substantial thing of no substance. You could easily argue that time does not even exist.
Before you start claiming that time is some essential soup which is neccessary for events to happen "IN" , you had better define what time actually is and how it can be separated from the universe itself.
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonKM… And nothing can exist outside of time?.…
[b]… And nothing can exist outside of time?.…
Correct -that is what I am saying.
…Time is the only state in which reality can exist?. .…
Yes.
… But what you call "time" is just a series of events in the universe to which we have ascribed this abstract value called "time" .…
“ "time" is just a series of events “ ?
-t ...[text shortened]... “series of events” else it begs the question “a series of events in what if not in time?”.[/b]
HAM Correct -that is what I am saying.
KM…Time is the only state in which reality can exist?. .…
HAM Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any proof for any of this or evidence? Or is it just your position and therefore a mere statement of faith.
04 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe 'before' I was referring to was prior to say 1 second after the hypothesized singularity. The only reason why a singularity is hypothesized is because it is a logical extension backward from an expanding universe. However we simply do not know enough about the physics to be conclusive about it, and there are still other possibilities.
Isn’t it an assumption to think there was a “BEFORE”?
I am aware of this and I certainly wouldn’t totally exclude these alternative possibilities. Isn’t the main-stream big bang theory basically say that time began at the big bang? -I seem to remember hearing somewhere that this is what it normally says because, I presume, this is considered to be the “simplest” hypothesis? -possibly for some kind of mathematical reason? (the “simplest” hypothesis that explains all the evidence should be considered to be the most probable although I admit that it is extremely hard to define the “complexity” of the hypothesis)
The word is parsimonious. To a large extent I agree, but I don't think it fully applies in this case. When we really do not know enough about something we should simply admit it and not promote a parsimonious hypothesis to Theory status. As for evidence, there is precious little. We can observe the expanding universe, we can observe the microwave background, we can observe the distribution of visible matter, but to interpret that evidence correctly requires theory that we simply do not yet have.