The Next Leader Of The Opposition Speaks...
Politics3 mins ago
In The Beginning ........
107 Answers
If you are a materialistic secular atheist, then by definition, you believe that everything, that is all matter, energy, space, time and physical laws are contained within the universe.
Therefore, the cause of the universes existence must also be included somewhere in that list.
So, based on the latest from science and your own experiences and opinions, given that you preclude any outside agency, that is, God, as a cause, are you happy to shrug off the question of origin, and simply say, "don't know," or do you have a sensible theory you would be willing to defend?
Therefore, the cause of the universes existence must also be included somewhere in that list.
So, based on the latest from science and your own experiences and opinions, given that you preclude any outside agency, that is, God, as a cause, are you happy to shrug off the question of origin, and simply say, "don't know," or do you have a sensible theory you would be willing to defend?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim360// The Universe is usually held to be spatially infinite, which is impossible to attain in finite time if it started off as a literal, infinitesimally small dot. //
I have never heard of it being considered infinite. Bigger than the we can see due to expansion beyond the light horizon yes. But are you saying the edges are considered to have expanded infinitely? Wow! My lack of training showing I guess.
My understanding is that it is indescribable what happens before it was a Planck Length across so infinitesimally small was never part of the picture.
I often consider the Planck Length as the pixel pitch of the Universe.
However the proposition of being unable to grow if infinitesimally small strikes me as a case of one of Zeno's more famous paradoxes.
I have never heard of it being considered infinite. Bigger than the we can see due to expansion beyond the light horizon yes. But are you saying the edges are considered to have expanded infinitely? Wow! My lack of training showing I guess.
My understanding is that it is indescribable what happens before it was a Planck Length across so infinitesimally small was never part of the picture.
I often consider the Planck Length as the pixel pitch of the Universe.
However the proposition of being unable to grow if infinitesimally small strikes me as a case of one of Zeno's more famous paradoxes.
jim360. You have blown my mind.
I can't grasp how the Universe can expand to spacial infinity whatever size it started at, even with Expansion. I accepted it was just such a long way to the edge it might as well be infinity. But actual infinity?
I have never really thought about that end of it, being focused wholly on the beginning.
I can't grasp how the Universe can expand to spacial infinity whatever size it started at, even with Expansion. I accepted it was just such a long way to the edge it might as well be infinity. But actual infinity?
I have never really thought about that end of it, being focused wholly on the beginning.
I may have misunderstood it myself, of course. Still, as far as I am aware, the "expansion" of the Big Bang is an expansion of how you measure distance between two points (eg, two given points that were 1 unit apart a billion years ago might be two units apart today), rather than a literal expansion of space itself.
In practice it's probably impossible to distinguish an infinite Universe from a merely stupidly large one, although there are some reasons to prefer infinite universes: no weird effects at the boundary (because there is no boundary), and no way of defining a meaningful "centre".
In practice it's probably impossible to distinguish an infinite Universe from a merely stupidly large one, although there are some reasons to prefer infinite universes: no weird effects at the boundary (because there is no boundary), and no way of defining a meaningful "centre".
Hazi-Hammenuhoth //If we see a painting, we know there was an artist. If we see a house, we know there was an architect and a builder. If we see book, we know there was a writer.
Yet when we see creation....!//
You are relying too much on limited human experience and trying to extrapolate it beyond where it holds. The following explanation is not rigorous but serves to explain to a curious open-minded person.
Many people assume that there is a cause for every effect because that is our experience. Quantum Mechanics showed us that this assumption does not hold and reality is ultimately about probabilities.
This fact is readily demonstrable at very small scales. Indeed there are many real world technologies which depend on Quantum probabilities to work.
One of the most comprehensible examples for Quantum neophytes is the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope.
https:/
In this device an electrically charged needle, so sharp that its tip is a single atom, is held very close to a surface to be imaged. It is held so close that electrons which don't have enough energy to actually jump across the gap have a significant probability of turning up on the other side of the gap by "Quantum Tunnelling". Reality doesn't "care" enough about the spacial detail to decide exactly where the electron exists from moment to moment so sometimes they turn up on the "wrong" side of the gap. It didn't jump the gap and nothing "caused" it to manifest on the other side. It was just a probability.
The smaller the gap the more electrons will tunnel. The surface is scanned with the tip while maintaining a constant tunnelling current. The movement of the needle is plotted, thus imaging the surface down to the atomic level. (How the needle is moved so precisely and
how vibrations are prevented is a fascinating story in its own right.)
What is less obvious is that these Quantum probabilities don't just apply at microscopic scales. They do become vastly less probable at larger scales but there is an infinitesimally small though non-zero probability that a macroscopic item could spontaneously turn up in a different place just like the electron in the microscope. However it would be so rare that the age of the Universe is nowhere near long enough to expect to see it happen even if we observed every object in it.
But what about in an infinite eternal situation? That small probability and the long wait don't matter any more. Eventually enough energy for an entire Universe will inevitably appear. And so here we are.
As for the "design", science shows there is no need for a designer. What we see today simply grew from the first pixel of energy by itself due to the nature of a small number of physical constants that happen to govern this universe.
If God were involved, science has already reduced His role so far that Genesis could stop at "Let there be light". Humans used to attribute every unknown phenomenon to gods. There is no reason to assume that this trivial remaining role will not eventually fall the same way as the myriad of other gods of our ancestors.
Yet when we see creation....!//
You are relying too much on limited human experience and trying to extrapolate it beyond where it holds. The following explanation is not rigorous but serves to explain to a curious open-minded person.
Many people assume that there is a cause for every effect because that is our experience. Quantum Mechanics showed us that this assumption does not hold and reality is ultimately about probabilities.
This fact is readily demonstrable at very small scales. Indeed there are many real world technologies which depend on Quantum probabilities to work.
One of the most comprehensible examples for Quantum neophytes is the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope.
https:/
In this device an electrically charged needle, so sharp that its tip is a single atom, is held very close to a surface to be imaged. It is held so close that electrons which don't have enough energy to actually jump across the gap have a significant probability of turning up on the other side of the gap by "Quantum Tunnelling". Reality doesn't "care" enough about the spacial detail to decide exactly where the electron exists from moment to moment so sometimes they turn up on the "wrong" side of the gap. It didn't jump the gap and nothing "caused" it to manifest on the other side. It was just a probability.
The smaller the gap the more electrons will tunnel. The surface is scanned with the tip while maintaining a constant tunnelling current. The movement of the needle is plotted, thus imaging the surface down to the atomic level. (How the needle is moved so precisely and
how vibrations are prevented is a fascinating story in its own right.)
What is less obvious is that these Quantum probabilities don't just apply at microscopic scales. They do become vastly less probable at larger scales but there is an infinitesimally small though non-zero probability that a macroscopic item could spontaneously turn up in a different place just like the electron in the microscope. However it would be so rare that the age of the Universe is nowhere near long enough to expect to see it happen even if we observed every object in it.
But what about in an infinite eternal situation? That small probability and the long wait don't matter any more. Eventually enough energy for an entire Universe will inevitably appear. And so here we are.
As for the "design", science shows there is no need for a designer. What we see today simply grew from the first pixel of energy by itself due to the nature of a small number of physical constants that happen to govern this universe.
If God were involved, science has already reduced His role so far that Genesis could stop at "Let there be light". Humans used to attribute every unknown phenomenon to gods. There is no reason to assume that this trivial remaining role will not eventually fall the same way as the myriad of other gods of our ancestors.
jim360 //Still, as far as I am aware, the "expansion" of the Big Bang is an expansion of how you measure distance between two points (eg, two given points that were 1 unit apart a billion years ago might be two units apart today), rather than a literal expansion of space itself.//
I know what you are saying but the meaning of words created for the real world fail us here so your statement may be ambiguous to some readers.
It is quite literally the expansion of space itself. Not that the things in space got further apart by moving. The distance itself got bigger. According to Inflation Theory, during the inflationary phase, the points in space moved away from each other at more than the speed of light. Nothing material exceeded the speed of light, space just got bigger faster than photons could travel.
Consequently much of the Universe is now too far away for the light to ever reach us. And despite only having 13.8 billion years to expand, the Universe is much more than 27.6 billion light years across.
I know what you are saying but the meaning of words created for the real world fail us here so your statement may be ambiguous to some readers.
It is quite literally the expansion of space itself. Not that the things in space got further apart by moving. The distance itself got bigger. According to Inflation Theory, during the inflationary phase, the points in space moved away from each other at more than the speed of light. Nothing material exceeded the speed of light, space just got bigger faster than photons could travel.
Consequently much of the Universe is now too far away for the light to ever reach us. And despite only having 13.8 billion years to expand, the Universe is much more than 27.6 billion light years across.
If you were to believe in the Big Crunch, you don't have to believe in any origin at all. You can believe that the universe has always existed. There's a big bang, everything expands, eventually it all stops expanding, and begins contracting into a big crunch, which itself become the next big bang. Every big bang is the result of the previous big crunch, ( literally ) ad infinitum
Theland won't be back to this thread. Too many questions have been posed that he cannot answer after having shot himself in the foot.
Why cannot scientists start with a universe (or even just a void) that just IS, when he has claimed his God just IS?
What is the nature of the Biblical Void?
Where was God if in the beginning there was a void?
You are completely outgunned again Theland. That is what happens when you try to argue a subject you know nothing about against people who do. One of the principles of debating is to never try to prove something by asking a question you don't know the answer to.
Now we can wait until this thread slides off the bottom of the R&S list and Theland returns with another variant for us to demolish.
Why cannot scientists start with a universe (or even just a void) that just IS, when he has claimed his God just IS?
What is the nature of the Biblical Void?
Where was God if in the beginning there was a void?
You are completely outgunned again Theland. That is what happens when you try to argue a subject you know nothing about against people who do. One of the principles of debating is to never try to prove something by asking a question you don't know the answer to.
Now we can wait until this thread slides off the bottom of the R&S list and Theland returns with another variant for us to demolish.
https:/
An excellent debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll.
I am not down and out just yet!
An excellent debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll.
I am not down and out just yet!
William Craig: "Since the Mother Universe is a de Sitter space in which thermal fluctuations occur, and since baby Universes grow into de Sitter spaces themselves, there's no explanation why there is a genuine low-entropy Universe around us, rather than the mere appearance of such a Universe; an illusion of isolated branes which have fluctuated into existence out of the quantum vacuum!"
So how much of Craig's argument did you understand, then?
So how much of Craig's argument did you understand, then?
So far as I am aware, there has never been a serious scientific claim that the creator has been, or will be, proved not to exist. The argument is simply that such a creator isn't necessary. "I had no need of that hypothesis," as Laplace said.
Therefore, anyone is free to believe in a Creator. That's not in dispute. It is difficult, however, to go further than that.
Therefore, anyone is free to believe in a Creator. That's not in dispute. It is difficult, however, to go further than that.
Perhaps you're too keen to seek purpose where there need be none.
Regardless, the other question remains: I don't think William Craig understood his own argument either, as I got the impression that he was stringing together science-y words to sound impressive without properly understanding their meaning, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't know what a de Sitter space is or any of the other technical language used.
Although I am sure there are those on this site who will baulk at this suggestion, sometimes it really does pay, in understanding arguments about the origin of the Universe, to understand the scientific vocabulary properly.
Regardless, the other question remains: I don't think William Craig understood his own argument either, as I got the impression that he was stringing together science-y words to sound impressive without properly understanding their meaning, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't know what a de Sitter space is or any of the other technical language used.
Although I am sure there are those on this site who will baulk at this suggestion, sometimes it really does pay, in understanding arguments about the origin of the Universe, to understand the scientific vocabulary properly.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
The Religion Of Peace Strike Again...and...
News24 mins ago
