Before The Big Bang!

[Cantousent]

... To suggest that something "just happened" is just as much a stretch for the human mind as suggesting that it was created.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite. Logically, Occham's Razor is used to simply complex propositions. The universe exists. Axiom: I am here and I exist, whatever that means, therefore whatever this is is here, whatever that means. Adding another, unknown and unknowable quantity, like "God" or a creator for "this" is unwarranted and unreliable. You may choose to do so, but pure, blunt logic tells me "this" is here and that is all that is required.

 

Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apart from the factual errors in your previous post, which I will address later, this is rather sloppy in and of itself. You suggest that I equate one statement, "I exist," as somehow equivalent with another statement, "the universe exists." The fact that I exist is self evident, and my reason for existing is not really the subject of debate at any rate. The question regarding the existence of the universe didn't relate to a question of reality. The issue under discussion is the nature of creation of matter and energy. Your fervent desire to use "Occham's Razor" has created a bit of a problem, as you've rushed headlong into a discussion of whether the universe exists and away from a discussion about how and why the universe exists as it does. The very question of how and why are the basis for science, and yet, to argue against God, you've gleefully run forward waving "Occham's Razor." Well, what am I to say? After all, I thought we were discussing the creation of matter.

 

Furthermore, we have no understanding in our human existence of something "just being." It not only flies in the face of divinity, but also of science. You'd best be careful taking shots at me in regards to my religion lest you end up shooting yourself in the foot, as I submit you have already done. Science will never be happy to say, "it just is." ...And yet, as part of a rather clumsy attack, you are. Since science has not found a logical answer, and since the creation myths of the various religions are in dispute, there is a discussion.

 

...And, yes, the idea that we "just are" is quite a bit foreign to humanity, regardless of how many "Occham's Razors" you pull out of your coat pocket.

[11XHooah]

So if this theory is true (which it's not IMO), what came before space? Was it just an empty area? And what created that empty area?

 

God created it, pure and simple. But that's just my belief.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So if this theory is true (which it's not IMO), what came before space? Was it just an empty area? And what created that empty area?

 

God created it, pure and simple. But that's just my belief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

god created an empty space ? Lack of imagination if you ask me.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I like Lee Smolin's 'fecund universes' idea, that our universe is contained within a black hole in another universe, and every black hole in our universe also contains a separate universe which we can never reach.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

 

It combines ideas of the big bang with evolution theory, for double the annoyance to creationists!

 

Of course, it still doesn't answer the question of how the first universe got started.

[213374U]

Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur.

Assuming that you could find a definite answer using "pure, blunt logic" (and that's an awful lot to assume), that is a flawed reasoning. Occham's razor only serves to simplify unnecessary entities from propositions, but in this case, God is not an unnecessary entity. It serves as cause for the existence of the universe, since the idea that the universe just "existed forever" or "created itself" isn't any more sound, from the standpoint of a "pure, blunt logic". Who or what created God is another matter.

 

 

I just thought of something: IF a fourth-dimensional cube, a Hypercube rotates around a plane, wouldnt and eight-dimensional cube rotate around a cube?

No. A cube is a finite entity. If a plane is generated by the revolution of a line, then the logical evolution would be to revolve a plane, generating the tridimensional space. Thus, an eight-dimensional cube would rotate around a space of infinite dimensions.

 

 

..and how the hell can anything rotate around anything else than an axis?!

It can't, in a tridimensional space. From a mathematical standpoint it should be possible, I guess.

 

 

god created an empty space ? Lack of imagination if you ask me.

Well, if God created an empty space AND the nice set of tidy laws it obeys, which in turn allow for the creation of matter, that would not be so... unimaginative.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I just thought of something: IF a fourth-dimensional cube, a Hypercube rotates around a plane, wouldnt and eight-dimensional cube rotate around a cube?

No. A cube is a finite entity. If a plane is generated by the revolution of a line, then the logical evolution would be to revolve a plane, generating the tridimensional space. Thus, an eight-dimensional cube would rotate around a space of infinite dimensions.

 

I understod it as

-a 2D square rotates around a point

-a 3D cube rotates around an axis(or line)

-a 4D hypercube rotates around a plane(or square)

-and the next one on the scale would rotate around a cube?

 

of course, this is just speculation on my part.

 

 

..and how the hell can anything rotate around anything else than an axis?!

It can't, in a tridimensional space. From a mathematical standpoint it should be possible, I guess.

 

 

Alas, mathematics have pwnd reality "

[213374U]

I understod it as

-a 2D square rotates around a point

-a 3D cube rotates around an axis(or line)

-a 4D hypercube rotates around a plane(or square)

-and  the next one on the scale would rotate around a cube?

 

of course, this is just speculation on my part.

Yes. But those elements are all infinite in their dimensions (including the point which is nothing but a perpendicular axis to the rotation plane), therefore, the next element in the scale should be infinite, too. The problem with considering it a cube of finite dimensions is that if the orbit radius was long enough, the cube could be considered for all intents and purposes a point, and therefore, the eight-dimensional rotation could be impossible.

You could consider it a cube of infinite dimensions, or the element generated by a "plane beam" in which the parameter takes every (infinite cardinal) value.

 

...or something.

[metadigital]

So if this theory is true (which it's not IMO), what came before space? Was it just an empty area? And what created that empty area?

 

God created it, pure and simple. But that's just my belief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Space is a lack of matter. Emptiness. The absence of something. Space. (Think about it. It's a big concept.)

... To suggest that something "just happened" is just as much a stretch for the human mind as suggesting that it was created.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite. Logically, Occham's Razor is used to simply complex propositions. The universe exists. Axiom: I am here and I exist, whatever that means, therefore whatever this is is here, whatever that means. Adding another, unknown and unknowable quantity, like "God" or a creator for "this" is unwarranted and unreliable. You may choose to do so, but pure, blunt logic tells me "this" is here and that is all that is required.

 

Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apart from the factual errors in your previous post, which I will address later, this is rather sloppy in and of itself. You suggest that I equate one statement, "I exist," as somehow equivalent with another statement, "the universe exists." The fact that I exist is self evident, and my reason for existing is not really the subject of debate at any rate. The question regarding the existence of the universe didn't relate to a question of reality. The issue under discussion is the nature of creation of matter and energy. Your fervent desire to use "Occham's Razor" has created a bit of a problem, as you've rushed headlong into a discussion of whether the universe exists and away from a discussion about how and why the universe exists as it does. The very question of how and why are the basis for science, and yet, to argue against God, you've gleefully run forward waving "Occham's Razor." Well, what am I to say? After all, I thought we were discussing the creation of matter.

 

Furthermore, we have no understanding in our human existence of something "just being." It not only flies in the face of divinity, but also of science. You'd best be careful taking shots at me in regards to my religion lest you end up shooting yourself in the foot, as I submit you have already done. Science will never be happy to say, "it just is." ...And yet, as part of a rather clumsy attack, you are. Since science has not found a logical answer, and since the creation myths of the various religions are in dispute, there is a discussion.

 

...And, yes, the idea that we "just are" is quite a bit foreign to humanity, regardless of how many "Occham's Razors" you pull out of your coat pocket.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I wasn't invoking science at all, but philosophy. At no place in that quote am I using science. It's philosophy. Hence all the inverted commas. I say the I exist (and you so kindly put it, that is self-evident: certainly I would call it an axiom, but that's just because that's what Socrates termed it).

 

"It" is is a fact. I'm not inventing or abridging or perverting it, "it" is here. "I" am "here". That is the simplest statement one can make about existence. Full stop. How did "it" get "here"? Well, I think (perhaps you are different) that it is a less complex statement to say that it has always been here -- in some form (matter or energy in a zero dimensional Big Band, or spread out across the universe as we see it now) -- than it is to add a creator of "this".

 

Please, regale me with my factual errors, I'm on the edge of my seat.

Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur.

Assuming that you could find a definite answer using "pure, blunt logic" (and that's an awful lot to assume), that is a flawed reasoning. Occham's razor only serves to simplify unnecessary entities from propositions, but in this case, God is not an unnecessary entity. It serves as cause for the existence of the universe, since the idea that the universe just "existed forever" or "created itself" isn't any more sound, from the standpoint of a "pure, blunt logic". Who or what created God is another matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Occham's Razor is just a fancy way of saying, let's simplify a statement. People of religion will say, "God created the universe". I will ask "Who created God?", they will undoubtably respond either directly or eventually "God has always existed". Occham's Razor simplies the statement:

God -> Universe

to just:

Universe.

That's it. That's what I meant by "blunt logic". Call it naked deductive reasoning, or Socratic Logic, or even specifically Argument from Definition.

 

It's called the Watchmaker's Fallacy, after the usual "By Design" argument is spouted by religious people to induce the existence of God.

 

Two corollories:

"X begat God begat the universe", why is it okay for "X" to exist eternally and not the universe? (This is the same "Watchmaker's Father" fallacy.)

"God is the universe" then all that is different from the above statement is that the universe is a compund substance including the extra "God".

[213374U]

Space is a lack of matter. Emptiness. The absence of something. Space. (Think about it. It's a big concept.)

However, emptiness does exist, too, even if only as the reality within we exist. It is a necessary part of it. Much like before carrying out operations within a mathematical space you need to define that space.

 

 

Occham's Razor is just a fancy way of saying, let's simplify a statement. People of religion will say, "God created the universe". I will ask "Who created God?"

Did you read my post? I'm actually tempted to quote myself.

 

 

they will undoubtably respond either directly or eventually "God has always existed". Occham's Razor simplies the statement:

God -> Universe

to just:

Universe.

Perhaps religious people will, but I'm not religious so the point is moot. And just "Universe" is an even more ineffective and incomplete explanation than God -> Universe. You could try to apply the same reasoning to the Law of Gravity claiming that stuff falls just because it does. However, gravity needs to be introduced in order to satisfactorily explain why does it fall.

 

 

It's called the Watchmaker's Fallacy, after the usual "By Design" argument is spouted by religious people to induce the existence of God.

It's only called a "fallacy" by those arrogant enough to think they can disprove the existance of God by means of logic.

 

 

Two corollories:

"X begat God begat the universe", why is it okay for "X" to exist eternally and not the universe? (This is the same "Watchmaker's Father" fallacy.)

As I said, who or what created God is a different issue. The idea that God exists and created the Universe takes us to an infinite loop of "who created the creator of the creator of the creator...?", that much is true. But that does not warrant the use of Occham's razor to simplify God from a reasoning in which he is necessary.

[metadigital]

Space is a lack of matter. Emptiness. The absence of something. Space. (Think about it. It's a big concept.)

However, emptiness does exist, too, even if only as the reality within we exist. It is a necessary part of it. Much like before carrying out operations within a mathematical space you need to define that space.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think "Space" is an adequate definition without need for mathematical explanation. After all, we are talking about the absence of everything, even mathematics.

Occham's Razor is just a fancy way of saying, let's simplify a statement. People of religion will say, "God created the universe". I will ask "Who created God?"

Did you read my post? I'm actually tempted to quote myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I skimmed it, but I got bored.

they will undoubtably respond either directly or eventually "God has always existed". Occham's Razor simplies the statement:

God -> Universe

to just:

Universe.

Perhaps religious people will, but I'm not religious so the point is moot. And just "Universe" is an even more ineffective and incomplete explanation than God -> Universe. You could try to apply the same reasoning to the Law of Gravity claiming that stuff falls just because it does. However, gravity needs to be introduced in order to satisfactorily explain why does it fall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which should have been your first clue; I was responding to a certain Eldar point that my "science" was faulty, when in fact I was speaking in (I thought rather obviously) philosophical terms. I thought it was especially obvious, since quite a few posters (including your good self) have already established that science is not equipt to deal with concepts outside the universe of space and time that we inhabit. But I am merely stating a very basic concept, and one that is axiomatic: I exist (cogito ergo sum, as Ren

[Cantousent]

I say the I exist (and you so kindly put it, that is self-evident: certainly I would call it an axiom, but that's just because that's what Socrates termed it).

 

Socrates has said many things, by reputation. Since Socrates did not write anything in his own person, we'll have to take for granted those writers who claim to speak on behalf of Socrates. I've had the pleasure of reading both Plato's and Xenophon's apology of Socrates in which Socrates most vehemently defends himself against the charge that he worshiped different gods than the state deities of Athens. Actually, though, he was defending himself against the charge of atheism and, at least from what Plato tells us, his philosophy was quite respectful of divinity. In fact, divinity comes part and parcel of Socrates' philosophy. So, you cite Socrates in order to say that it is "...I think (perhaps you are different) that it is a less complex statement to say that it has always been here -- in some form (matter or energy in a zero dimensional Big Band, or spread out across the universe as we see it now) -- than it is to add a creator of "this"."

 

Indeed, you are quite different. In fact, you are quite different from the mass of humanity, both believers and non-believers, because humans look for both causes and effects. Since you're an expert on Socrates, then perhaps you have an understanding of other ancient philosophers as well. For instance, Plato (writing in Socrates' person), Plato (writing in his own person), and Aristotle all write about both gods, god, the god, and all sorts of variants. What is the purpose of these gods? To define a prime cause for things that have no discernable cause otherwise. It is not simpler, ultimately, to believe that we "just are." The reason that humans have belief in God is that they can't fathom anything less than supernatural for that first cause. Some folks do, but it's notable that science itself looks for the preceding cause the second the current cause is found.

 

It's more acceptable to say things "just are?" Perhaps, but it is not nearly so neat as you apparently propose. "Occham's Razon" surely doesn't suggest that we ignore facts that exist. Effects have a cause in our universe with one sole exception... matter exits. So, we accept this odious and, I will say, cowardly response that things "just are?" That's your idea of philosophy? How eloquently put. I'm sure that we can all rest now knowing that metadigital has put to rest the burning questions of mankind. We no longer need to explore the nature of our universe. It "just is." Please understand, I'm not ridiculing you as a person, but your position deserves all the scorn I heap upon it.

 

Please, regale me with my factual errors, I'm on the edge of my seat.

Of that there is no doubt.

 

It's called the Watchmaker's Fallacy, after the usual "By Design" argument is spouted by religious people to induce the existence of God.

 

Actually, you've managed to torture logic to your own ends, as the question remains unanswered by your own reasoning. After all, the initial question revolved around the creation of matter. If I'm understanding your mental gymnastics, then it's clear that you don't care to discuss how matter came into existence. Fair enough. It's a cop out, largely so you can argue against the reality of God.

 

What's odd to me, however, is that we've managed to take a discussion about the nature of our origins, argued by and large along scientific lines, and turn it into a freshman philosophy course. There's one thing that proves the lie in your assessment that it's more simple to believe it all just exists: folks don't seem to believe it. Scientists continue to search for answers in science. Believers continue to search for answers in God. Virtually everyone searches for meaning, even those who have no God.

 

Now it's your turn. Regale me with quotes from Socrates. I'm waiting with baited breath for you to flex your mental muscles.

[Cantousent]

"You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion.

 

The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever.

 

Simple really."

 

Apparently, I'm guilty of skimming also. I didn't read the highlighted portion of your quote. At the time, I believed that you were leaving it off with "[t]hen it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion."

 

My biggest beef with your post, then, was the fact that you were stating something as fact when even that issue was in dispute. I'll tip my hat in that regard.

 

EDIT: Okay, I'm a wimpy Christian. I actually feel guilty for attacking you, meta. You've always seemed like a decent fellow. ...A good sort, even. It's not that I want to attack you. It's just that I thought you were trying to be tricky concerning religion rather than discuss the actual issue. I apologize and humbly ask for forgiveness. Note, however, that my argument remains largely the same. I shoud have acted with more restraint when making it.

[metadigital]

I say the I exist (and you so kindly put it, that is self-evident: certainly I would call it an axiom, but that's just because that's what Socrates termed it).

 

Socrates has said many things, by reputation. ... [snip boring irrelevant biography of Socrates and feeble attempt to compare ancient philosophy with modern science] ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I was simply restating the first "misapprehension" you made of my earlier post, that I was asserting that science tells us there is no god.

 

... Indeed, you are quite different.  In fact, you are quite different from the mass of humanity, both believers and non-believers, because humans look for both causes and effects.  Since you're an expert on Socrates, then perhaps you have an understanding of other ancient philosophers as well.  For instance, Plato (writing in Socrates' person), Plato (writing in his own person), and Aristotle all write about both gods, god, the god, and all sorts of variants.  What is the purpose of these gods?  To define a prime cause for things that have no discernable cause otherwise.  It is not simpler, ultimately, to believe that we "just are."  The reason that humans have belief in God is that they can't fathom anything less than supernatural for that first cause.  Some folks do, but it's notable that science itself looks for the preceding cause the second the current cause is found.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why stop there? Why not simply use all of antiquity as your palate? The Earth is stting on the backs of two giant turtles, isn't it? Just because science hasn't given us the raw information from which we can jump off the cliff of blind faith, doesn't mean we have to jump now. I am confident, certainly, that as much as I know about science (and I'll bet its more than most people on these boards, but that is moot for my point) there is a lot more I don't know, and I am patient enough to keep my powder dry before starting the final apocalyse and sending out the invitations to the three horsemen.

It's more acceptable to say things "just are?"  Perhaps, but it is not nearly so neat as you apparently propose.  "Occham's Razon" surely doesn't suggest that we ignore facts that exist.  Effects have a cause in our universe with one sole exception... matter exits.  So, we accept this odious and, I will say, cowardly response that things "just are?"  That's your idea of philosophy?  How eloquently put.  I'm sure that we can all rest now knowing that metadigital has put to rest the burning questions of mankind.  We no longer need to explore the nature of our universe.  It "just is."  Please understand, I'm not ridiculing you as a person, but your position deserves all the scorn I heap upon it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I was giving a simplistic view of the Big Bang, and commenting that yours and others' predeliction for a magical cause because you haven't found a scientific one is patently illogical. But that's okay, you are a person of faith, and faith abhors proof, lest it deminish to nothing. Where did matter ultimately derive from? I don't know, yet, but I'll keep looking, rather than scream in fear and say "It must be GOD!".

Please, regale me with my factual errors, I'm on the edge of my seat.

Of that there is no doubt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm still waiting ...

It's called the Watchmaker's Fallacy, after the usual "By Design" argument is spouted by religious people to induce the existence of God.

Actually, you've managed to torture logic to your own ends, as the question remains unanswered by your own reasoning. After all, the initial question revolved around the creation of matter. If I'm understanding your mental gymnastics, then it's clear that you don't care to discuss how matter came into existence. Fair enough. It's a cop out, largely so you can argue against the reality of God.

 

What's odd to me, however, is that we've managed to take a discussion about the nature of our origins, argued by and large along scientific lines, and turn it into a freshman philosophy course. There's one thing that proves the lie in your assessment that it's more simple to believe it all just exists: folks don't seem to believe it. Scientists continue to search for answers in science. Believers continue to search for answers in God. Virtually everyone searches for meaning, even those who have no God.

 

Now it's your turn. Regale me with quotes from Socrates. I'm waiting with baited breath for you to flex your mental muscles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I shall resort to science, as this is the main point of the thread. (I was demonstrating the utter absurdity of using faith in a scientific discussion with philosophy, as it has zero bearing on real science.)

 

It is probable that as a scientific community we have not matured enough in our studies to answer this question to any degree of satisfaction (if we could then there would hardly be a need to discuss it, it would be clear for all to see). I wouldn't be at all surprised if an entire new system of thought would be required to frame the discussion, much like quantum mechanics was necessary because Newtonian theory was insufficient -- not irrelevant, mind you, just not sufficient to describe the new terms. I wouldn't be surprised if we needed a new system defined by this new system, either. Our science, if you believe Professor Stephen Hawking, cannot explain what is before the Big Bang by definition. To explain, it is similar to trying to represent a negative number on the natural number system. Or for me to try to speak Chinese. It just isn't built for it.

 

Shall I ruminate? Okay, why not (as I have an audience)?

 

The universe is infinite. But matter is finite. Therefore life is finite, ergo life is non-existent (as any finite divisor into an infinite dividend equates to zero). Yet here we are. So perhaps this entire universe is nothing more than a ripple on the pond of -- whatever the universe exists in (we have no word for the "beyond everything", the meta-universe, so I'll use that) -- the meta-universe. Therefore it is not difficult to imagine that, much as a positron and an electron can simultaneously and without direct known cause spontaneously appear (and indeed disapear), it is only a question of scale to include the universe or the point of Big Bang origin.

 

I suspect we will have a better idea what caused matter and energy to "precipitate" or "incorporate" once we have a better idea what these forms are. We can still only think about such concepts as gravitrons as force particles. FORCE PARTICLES. And light has mass, I've seen it push a metal flange in a vacuum. We don't know enough about the essence of matter and energy YET to make any meaningful guess as to what the universe came from.

 

This is what seperates us, though; my inability to explain something scientifically does not make me reach for a complex diatribe of convoluted, translated, abridged and edited aphorisms and fables in the hope that, by geographic accident, this particular book and no other is the real word of the alleged creator, and that I and people I necessarily entrust, can and will faithfully interpret it to our and my best interests. That's a lot of faith. (If it came to it, I would sooner be Jewish; at least their religion is reasonable.)

 

I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic. You, on the other hand, would have me believe in a God, because you cannot conceive of a universe without one.

 

I'll throw the ball back to you: where did God come from? Oh that's right, God has always been here. And that's not a paradoxical double standard, because it's religion.

[metadigital]

"You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion.

 

The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever.

 

Simple really."

 

Apparently, I'm guilty of skimming also.  I didn't read the highlighted portion of your quote.  At the time, I believed that you were leaving it off with "[t]hen it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion."

 

My biggest beef with your post, then, was the fact that you were stating something as fact when even that issue was in dispute.  I'll tip my hat in that regard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops, I just wrote a big tirade. :D

 

I'll have to continue tomorrow, the Boss has called time for today.

[Cantousent]

That's okay I edited my post in the interim. heh heh

[213374U]

I think "Space" is an adequate definition without need for mathematical explanation. After all, we are talking about the absence of everything, even mathematics. 

Is it?

 

I'm not so sure, since space and time are closely related, and it looks like time began with the Big Bang. Theoretically, it is space that is bent in the presence of large masses creating the effect known as a gravitational field. While we tend to equate "vacuum" and "nothingness" with "space", they are not the same thing.

[213374U]

Actually I was giving a simplistic view of the Big Bang, and commenting that yours and others'  predeliction for a magical cause because you haven't found a scientific one is patently illogical. But that's okay, you are a person of faith, and faith abhors proof, lest it deminish to nothing. Where did matter ultimately derive from? I don't know, yet, but I'll keep looking, rather than scream in fear and say "It must be GOD!".

I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic.

There's nothing magical about God. And there's no need to scream in fear either. You see, it's the default explanation, until we can get us a better one. You are defending the idea that we are, and I agree with you. But simply accepting that we have always been is like not wanting to know more.

 

And as for God always being there, it's not really a double-standard or a contradiction because while we need to find logical mechanisms for the Universe, the same may not be true for God if he exists outside this universe, and therefore outside logic. I don't believe it's that way, but I see no fault with that reasoning.

 

Unfortunately, you have to make assumptions (some would call them beliefs) either way to reach a conclusion. But obviously, the validity of said conclusion depends on the assumption being true. And since, by definition, those premises can't be proven, we have effectively reached a dead end.

[Cantousent]

...And yet you still make assumptions and present them as science, metadigital. For instance, you wrote: "You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion.

 

The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever.

 

Simple really."

 

Is it so simple? You give two alternatives for the nature of the universe where, in reality, the true answer is not known at this point. This isn't the argument over evolution. The evidence for these things is sparse. Finding some evidence to support a theory is not the same as proving the theory.

 

Furthermore, you state: "The universe is infinite. But matter is finite." How do we know for certain that the universe is infinite? You make a bold claim in order to support your statement. ...But the basis for your argument is, at the end, reliant on supposition as much as anyone else in this thread. When you're in a corner, then you respond with "it just is."

 

You write: This is what seperates us, though; my inability to explain something scientifically does not make me reach for a complex diatribe of convoluted, translated, abridged and edited aphorisms and fables in the hope that, by geographic accident, this particular book and no other is the real word of the alleged creator, and that I and people I necessarily entrust, can and will faithfully interpret it to our and my best interests. That's a lot of faith. (If it came to it, I would sooner be Jewish; at least their religion is reasonable.)

 

I did not state that you should believe in God. I was engaging in a discussion. You, on the other hand, have been far more concerned with religion than have I. After all, I have proposed two ways of looking at the issue: either religious or scientific. In either case, the prime cause is an area for legitimate discussion.

 

You write: I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic. You, on the other hand, would have me believe in a God, because you cannot conceive of a universe without one.

 

When did I tell you it was necessary that you believe in God? I only propose that you should not ridicule me for my personal beliefs. I don't even think you've helped your own case. Really, the waters are muddied when the discussion at hand never relied upon God. Sure, some folks believe in God. I am such a one. Nevertheless, you could do well to argue for your scientific answers rather than argue against another's religous beliefs. If your science is true, then it will be convincing.

 

You write: Why stop there? Why not simply use all of antiquity as your palate? The Earth is stting on the backs of two giant turtles, isn't it? Just because science hasn't given us the raw information from which we can jump off the cliff of blind faith, doesn't mean we have to jump now.

 

...And yet I'm not the one who broached the subject of Socrates, you are. I was just making it clear that I am familiar with the subject of ancient philosophy. The fact that you used Socrates as part of your argument makes your preceeding statement all the more strange.

 

You need not believe in God. I will think no less of you if you do not. Nevertheless, you really should not pretend that I have been recalcitrant. I'm willing to accept that you don't believe in God far more readily than you are to accept that I do.

 

Finally, you write: Actually I was giving a simplistic view of the Big Bang, and commenting that yours and others' predeliction for a magical cause because you haven't found a scientific one is patently illogical. But that's okay, you are a person of faith, and faith abhors proof, lest it deminish to nothing. Where did matter ultimately derive from? I don't know, yet, but I'll keep looking, rather than scream in fear and say "It must be GOD!"

 

...And this is the cruelest characterization of all. After all, I thought better of you than to think that you would claim that I "scream in fear and say 't must be GOD!'" I answer that I have not. I have stated the fact that science does not account for the creation of matter. I also claimed that science will continue to seek the answer to the question. In the meantime, I will believe in God. I will not scream at you to believe in God, but I'll be damned if I will be ashamed of myself for my beliefs. (pun intended)

 

...And I know that I was not particularly kind in my post and that you were responding likewise. Let us not forget that we are both gentlemen. I respect your right to your views and, by and large, I actually respect and appreciate your views. I hope that mine are not always so loathesome to you.

[metadigital]

I think "Space" is an adequate definition without need for mathematical explanation. After all, we are talking about the absence of everything, even mathematics. 

Is it?

 

I'm not so sure, since space and time are closely related, and it looks like time began with the Big Bang. Theoretically, it is space that is bent in the presence of large masses creating the effect known as a gravitational field. While we tend to equate "vacuum" and "nothingness" with "space", they are not the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think you are confusing "Space" and the "fabric of Space", which I think the latter is the (known) three dimiensional "spatial" volume that we exist in of length, width and depth. What does this finite "Space" you talk about exist inside of? A vacuum, perhaps? Space.

I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic.

There's nothing magical about God. And there's no need to scream in fear either. You see, it's the default explanation, until we can get us a better one. You are defending the idea that we are, and I agree with you. But simply accepting that we have always been is like not wanting to know more.

 

And as for God always being there, it's not really a double-standard or a contradiction because while we need to find logical mechanisms for the Universe, the same may not be true for God if he exists outside this universe, and therefore outside logic. I don't believe it's that way, but I see no fault with that reasoning.

 

Unfortunately, you have to make assumptions (some would call them beliefs) either way to reach a conclusion. But obviously, the validity of said conclusion depends on the assumption being true. And since, by definition, those premises can't be proven, we have effectively reached a dead end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see it as a default explanation. I see it as an additional construct.

 

We are discussing the "laws" or "physics" of events and objects that are by definition outside the "universe" that we have experienced. I think we need to nail down some definitions, because we are in danger of endlessly arguing semantics.

 

Universe seems to be a much mis-used word. It can mean "all we have evidence of", "all we know or hypothesize about" or even more simply "everything". (The "multi-verse" is really a semantic clarification, not an actual difference to the universe in this respect.) You can argue that God is outside the universe, and you would be right if God exists and we don't use the last definition.

 

The beauty of science is that it does not limit what might be the cause of the universe, I'm sure if scientists found evidence for a super-being that sneezed the universe out of its nose then they would measure the blast radius and nasal rifling of the being. Seriously, though, there is nothing in science that restricts the existence of "life" above our comprehension; we just don't have a way of measuring it yet. Would this life be divine? Depends on your definition, again.

 

Religious doctrines actually limit the possiblities, and are based merely anecdotal heresay that allegedly is divinely inspired (and I just had to work heresy into the same sentence -- maybe if I said that dogma is the heresay heresy of science! :cool: ).

 

If we look at strict probablity, it is much more likely that my unlimited scientific "let's wait and see based on further evidence" approach will be proved correct rather than the impulsive "God did it" one. The latter mean the definition of "God" must be continually redefined, or at least the boundaries between us re-drawn. If there is a divine world I would prefer to think it is more in the mold of the Robert Heinlein approach in Job.

 

So, I would rather say "I don't know" and stare into the void looking for answers without knowing, then stand back and say "I know -- God told me". I think that is more cowardly. Seek the truth, don't invent it.

[213374U]

Well, I think you are confusing "Space" and the "fabric of Space", which I think the latter is the (known) three dimiensional "spatial" volume that we exist in of length, width and depth. What does this finite "Space" you talk about exist inside of? A vacuum, perhaps? Space.

And why does it need to exist inside of anything? You are applying a mundane, limited approach which may not be valid since it's the framework we are talking about, not what's inside it.

Space exists in itself, and has some observable properties. If you think that "the fabric of space" exists within a reality of nothingness that you refer to as "space", you are introducing an unnecessary entity into the reasoning. Occham's razor?

 

 

The beauty of science is that it does not limit what might be the cause of the universe, I'm sure if scientists found evidence for a super-being that sneezed the universe out of its nose then they would measure the blast radius and nasal rifling of the being. Seriously, though, there is nothing in science that restricts the existence of "life" above our comprehension; we just don't have a way of measuring it yet. Would this life be divine? Depends on your definition, again.

There is the assumption I was talking about before. You may believe that science may be a pathway to the ultimate philosophical answers, but that's just a supposition.

 

Take for instance the notion of "luck". An idea as old as mankind itself, and still we have found no explanation for it. In all of this time, science has not come a single step closer to answering metaphisical questions than it was when we first began to develop numerical systems. You have faith in science and logic, but as any belief, it is not something absolute, not a self-evident truth. Is it so hard to picture that there may be something beyond the feeble grasp of our reason?

 

 

So, I would rather say "I don't know" and stare into the void looking for answers without knowing, then stand back and say "I know -- God told me". I think that is more cowardly. Seek the truth, don't invent it.

No. It's more like "I would rather say 'I don't know' and forget about it". If Sir Isaac Newton had had the same attitude, he wouldn't have formulated his Principia.

 

I'm not talking about religious revelations, mind you, because for starters, I'm not a religious person. However, "God" is a metaphysical entity needed to explain reality and existence in certain philosophical schemes. You might not accept those schemes, and that's just fine. But trying to prove them wrong wielding other arguments based in different kinds of faith is absurd.

[metadigital]

...And yet you still make assumptions and present them as science, metadigital.  For instance, you wrote:  "You are also not including the later corollory to the Big Bang, which includes the "Big Crunch", so that all the matter and energy in the universe will reach a point where the energy released from the Big Bang is exhasuted and gravity is still strong enough to reverse the process and drag everything back into the single point again. Then it all happens again, a perpetual exploding implosion.

 

The other outcome is that the energy released is not exhausted before universal gravity is overcome, and instead of a Big Crunch, there is a slow, lingering cooling of the universe as everything just keeps careening off forever into limitless space, forever.

 

Simple really."

 

Is it so simple?  You give two alternatives for the nature of the universe where, in reality, the true answer is not known at this point.  This isn't the argument over evolution.  The evidence for these things is sparse.  Finding some evidence to support a theory is not the same as proving the theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed neither theory is proved; and agreed I know it is not possible at this time to prove either one. But more information is pending from the scientific community ...

Furthermore, you state:  "The universe is infinite. But matter is finite."  How do we know for certain that the universe is infinite?  You make a bold claim in order to support your statement.  ...But the basis for your argument is, at the end, reliant on supposition as much as anyone else in this thread.  When you're in a corner, then you respond with "it just is."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I didn't "state" the universe was infinite, I ruminated. Conjecture. Blue sky mining. Thought experiments.

 

And it seems to me that any discussion on the explanation of what is beyond what we know as "everything we can observe" is going to consist mainly -- if not solely -- of conjecture.

You write:  This is what seperates us, though; my inability to explain something scientifically does not make me reach for a complex diatribe of convoluted, translated, abridged and edited aphorisms and fables in the hope that, by geographic accident, this particular book and no other is the real word of the alleged creator, and that I and people I necessarily entrust, can and will faithfully interpret it to our and my best interests. That's a lot of faith. (If it came to it, I would sooner be Jewish; at least their religion is reasonable.)

 

I did not state that you should believe in God.  I was engaging in a discussion.  You, on the other hand, have been far more concerned with religion than have I.  After all, I have proposed two ways of looking at the issue:  either religious or scientific.  In either case, the prime cause is an area for legitimate discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but as I have already said above, religious dogma actually restricts your options quite significantly. (And, you are having a bet each way, saying either scripture is right or science!)

You write:  I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic. You, on the other hand, would have me believe in a God, because you cannot conceive of a universe without one.

 

When did I tell you it was necessary that you believe in God?  I only propose that you should not ridicule me for my personal beliefs.  I don't even think you've helped your own case.  Really, the waters are muddied when the discussion at hand never relied upon God.  Sure, some folks believe in God.  I am such a one.  Nevertheless, you could do well to argue for your scientific answers rather than argue against another's religous beliefs.  If your science is true, then it will be convincing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, but my absence of "proof" is seen by some expedient religious dogmatists (not you, of course) as proof of the divine hand. Not so much anymore, I grant you, but I will always make sure this conceit remains as unpopular as it is illogical.

You write:  Why stop there? Why not simply use all of antiquity as your palate? The Earth is stting on the backs of two giant turtles, isn't it? Just because science hasn't given us the raw information from which we can jump off the cliff of blind faith, doesn't mean we have to jump now.

 

...And yet I'm not the one who broached the subject of Socrates, you are.  I was just making it clear that I am familiar with the subject of ancient philosophy.  The fact that you used Socrates as part of your argument makes your preceeding statement all the more strange.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mentioned Socrates to underline my use of the word "axiom", which seemed to be totally misapprehended. Newton beleived in astrologoy and alchemy; I need not believe in either to calculate the velocty of an apple falling from a tree.

You need not believe in God.  I will think no less of you if you do not.  Nevertheless, you really should not pretend that I have been recalcitrant.  I'm willing to accept that you don't believe in God far more readily than you are to accept that I do.

 

Finally, you write:  Actually I was giving a simplistic view of the Big Bang, and commenting that yours and others' predeliction for a magical cause because you haven't found a scientific one is patently illogical. But that's okay, you are a person of faith, and faith abhors proof, lest it deminish to nothing. Where did matter ultimately derive from? I don't know, yet, but I'll keep looking, rather than scream in fear and say "It must be GOD!"

 

...And this is the cruelest characterization of all.  After all, I thought better of you than to think that you would claim that I "scream in fear and say 't must be GOD!'"  I answer that I have not.  I have stated the fact that science does not account for the creation of matter.  I also claimed that science will continue to seek the answer to the question.  In the meantime, I will believe in God.  I will not scream at you to believe in God, but I'll be damned if I will be ashamed of myself for my beliefs.  (pun intended)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will put it down to my personal uncomfortableness with the faith in what I believe an inherently untrustworthy plethora of documents, and scientific rigour, being bedfellows within the same mind.

...And I know that I was not particularly kind in my post and that you were responding likewise.  Let us not forget that we are both gentlemen.  I respect your right to your views and, by and large, I actually respect and appreciate your views.  I hope that mine are not always so loathesome to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, you started it.

[Cantousent]

I did not state that you should believe in God.  I was engaging in a discussion.  You, on the other hand, have been far more concerned with religion than have I.  After all, I have proposed two ways of looking at the issue:  either religious or scientific.  In either case, the prime cause is an area for legitimate discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but as I have already said above, religious dogma actually restricts your options quite significantly. (And, you are having a bet each way, saying either scripture is right or science!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Strictly speaking, this isn't true, either. What I've done is approach the subject both ways. ...But I'm all for discussing the issue in t erms of science. There's a good reason for this. Suppose that you were religious, but not Catholic. What if you believed in the classical Greek gods or something even more foreign to my religious views? That would make conversation on the nature of the universe pretty damned difficult.

 

As such, I'd actually rather discuss the issue along the lines of science. The fact that I believe in God doesn't prevent me from limiting the conversation to science because, as it stands, the language best suited for discussing our reality is science.

 

Moreover, I don't think folks should be forced to believe in God. It is a leap of faith that they should make voluntarily. Indeed, What value would faith be if it were proven? At the very least, it would cease to be faith.

 

If we wish to discuss theology, then I'm all for your arguments, but I'm willing to discuss the issue along scientific terms as long as we understand that there is far, far more that science doesn't know than it knows. We can't pretend that the answers that science gives us at this stage are reliable, let alone certain. Science will undoubtedly keep searching for the answers, as well it should. ...But let us not create in science the very religion which you hate. Don't worship science. The wait and see approach is our only option at any rate, regardless of how heated are our arguments.

 

I've been personifying science, but the truth is, science really doesn't do anything. It is mankind's creation for explaining the nature of our surroundings, nothing more or less. I'm not afraid of science. I see no reason to fear it.

[metadigital]

Well, I think you are confusing "Space" and the "fabric of Space", which I think the latter is the (known) three dimiensional "spatial" volume that we exist in of length, width and depth. What does this finite "Space" you talk about exist inside of? A vacuum, perhaps? Space.

And why does it need to exist inside of anything? You are applying a mundane, limited approach which may not be valid since it's the framework we are talking about, not what's inside it.

Space exists in itself, and has some observable properties. If you think that "the fabric of space" exists within a reality of nothingness that you refer to as "space", you are introducing an unnecessary entity into the reasoning. Occham's razor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think your concept of a finite space introduces a bigger problem of what's outside the finite space. At least I haven't added arbitrary boundaries.

The beauty of science is that it does not limit what might be the cause of the universe, I'm sure if scientists found evidence for a super-being that sneezed the universe out of its nose then they would measure the blast radius and nasal rifling of the being. Seriously, though, there is nothing in science that restricts the existence of "life" above our comprehension; we just don't have a way of measuring it yet. Would this life be divine? Depends on your definition, again.

There is the assumption I was talking about before. You may believe that science may be a pathway to the ultimate philosophical answers, but that's just a supposition.

 

Take for instance the notion of "luck". An idea as old as mankind itself, and still we have found no explanation for it. In all of this time, science has not come a single step closer to answering metaphisical questions than it was when we first began to develop numerical systems. You have faith in science and logic, but as any belief, it is not something absolute, not a self-evident truth. Is it so hard to picture that there may be something beyond the feeble grasp of our reason?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It may well be hubris to believe that -- certainly in our lifetimes -- science will explain the universe, chapter and verse.

 

I take issue with science not being self-evident; it is there for all to test and re-test and observe the laws of physics and chemical reactions in situ, without any dogma from the scientific establishment. As for mathematics, one of the defining characteristics of mathematics is the ability to prove a concept, be it the description of the series of Fibonacci numbers by induction or FLT (Fermat's Great Theorem). Baring existential philosophical debate on the reliability of our senses to consistently describe the "all we can observe" universe to all of us identically, science is self-evident.

So, I would rather say "I don't know" and stare into the void looking for answers without knowing, then stand back and say "I know -- God told me". I think that is more cowardly. Seek the truth, don't invent it.

No. It's more like "I would rather say 'I don't know' and forget about it". If Sir Isaac Newton had had the same attitude, he wouldn't have formulated his Principia.

 

I'm not talking about religious revelations, mind you, because for starters, I'm not a religious person. However, "God" is a metaphysical entity needed to explain reality and existence in certain philosophical schemes. You might not accept those schemes, and that's just fine. But trying to prove them wrong wielding other arguments based in different kinds of faith is absurd.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I am merely providing evidence that -- using the most reliable scientific rigour we have, i.e. logical reasoning -- religious doctrines are less reliable and therefore less good science than real science.

 

God requires no science for faith. But science requires no god, either.

[213374U]

Well, I think your concept of a finite space introduces a bigger problem of what's outside the finite space. At least I haven't added arbitrary boundaries.

I have not said that space is finite. In fact, current theories sustain the opposite. But you are still applying a mundane perspective. Why does it have to be anything outside space, even space itself?

 

But at any rate, it is still possible that there is something outside the infinite space. Those are not mutually precluding statements. Infinite units or sets can be contained within other infinite sets.

 

I take issue with science not being self-evident; it is there for all to test and re-test and observe the laws of physics and chemical reactions in situ, without any dogma from the scientific establishment. As for mathematics, one of the defining characteristics of mathematics is the ability to prove a concept, be it the description of the series of Fibonacci numbers by induction or FLT (Fermat's Great Theorem). Baring existential philosophical debate on the reliability of our senses to consistently describe the "all we can observe" universe to all of us identically, science is self-evident.

Yes, yes. That's great and all, but it's not what I meant. I know that scientific laws are reliable enough. What is not a self-evident truth is that science will be able to explain everything. You said so yourself in a previous post, in a quote of Stephen Hawking, I think. And even if we do what Hawking proposes, there is still no guarantee that reason can find answers for everything.

[metadigital]

Well, I think your concept of a finite space introduces a bigger problem of what's outside the finite space. At least I haven't added arbitrary boundaries.

I have not said that space is finite. In fact, current theories sustain the opposite. But you are still applying a mundane perspective. Why does it have to be anything outside space, even space itself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may be misinterpreting your concept of space, then. Infinite and with bendable properties like length, bredth and height AND vacuumous? It is not clear whether gravity is expressable in gravitron particles, for example, yet I would hold that space has no such particles. The space you refer to is jsut where those particles are present, on an energetic trajectory out from the Big Bang. (that's what I'd call the fabric of space and time.) So, technically you could term space inside a bigger infitinte vacuum, but this seems the most logical explanation to the observable pattern of star systems, so far.

But at any rate, it is still possible that there is something outside the infinite space. Those are not mutually precluding statements. Infinite units or sets can be contained within other infinite sets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure is, I agree with that. I don't see how the universe of stars can be infinite, though, even if the Big Bang were many times further back in time than we presently believe. It would have to be infinitely far back.

I take issue with science not being self-evident; it is there for all to test and re-test and observe the laws of physics and chemical reactions in situ, without any dogma from the scientific establishment. As for mathematics, one of the defining characteristics of mathematics is the ability to prove a concept, be it the description of the series of Fibonacci numbers by induction or FLT (Fermat's Great Theorem). Baring existential philosophical debate on the reliability of our senses to consistently describe the "all we can observe" universe to all of us identically, science is self-evident.

Yes, yes. That's great and all, but it's not what I meant. I know that scientific laws are reliable enough. What is not a self-evident truth is that science will be able to explain everything. You said so yourself in a previous post, in a quote of Stephen Hawking, I think. And even if we do what Hawking proposes, there is still no guarantee that reason can find answers for everything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, no guarantee. As a punter I'd wager on scientific reason before religious dogma, though.