Brief History of the Universe

[paulsimpson]

Ah so the argument that the Big Bang is a myth because it requires no creator is wrong but the argument that God isn't a myth and requires no creator is correct.

Seems perfectly unbiased.

For an Ultimate to have a creator would deny that there is an Ultimate( i.e. a beginning ) and posit an infinite regress - an infinite past which is philosophically and scientifically impossible .
So the Kalam argument goes as follows
1. everything that begins to exist ( comes into being ) has a cause .
2. The universe began to exist ( at the Big Bang time T =0)
3 the universe has a cause
The first two premises are impregnable and cannot be defeated it seems .
Therefore the 3rd logically follows .

 

[Damocles]

1. everything that begins to exist ( comes into being ) has a cause .

This axiom is false, therefore your conclusion can be dismissed

 

[George Hannah]

One of the problems that people often face when first coming across astrophysics is that you're a pretty smart ape-like creature on a non-descript world and the whole thing wasn't made for your bias on what "common sense" entails. The Universe doesn't need to make sense it just needs to be shown to work in that way. In addition to this obvious complexity then our complete inability to keep terms named properly raises another barrier to understanding.

This is why maths is important. Maths is a language that you can use to show things without having to resort to bad analogies and why most accuracy based disciplines such as the sciences or engineering uses it quite heavily

Doesn't it strike you as significant that
Mathematics and Logic work? In other words that there are rules in this "non- descript" place we apes inhabit which work everywhere else.

 

[paulsimpson]

This axiom is false, therefore your conclusion can be dismissed

If it were an axiom it couldnt be false but that is another argument in logic which can be pursued another time .

As was stated -"everything that begins to exist has a cause - the universe began to exist , therefore the universe has a cause . " there is no infinite regress.

 

[lloydie]

This is absolutely and completely wrong and you still cannot accept this, and are continuing to try to make this personal.



Scientific consensus owns science. Consensus which I'm reflecting. You're reflecting a bit of pop science from a BBC documentary of questionable accuracy.

And you are still completely wrong, the Big Bounce model has absolutely no accurate mathematical models supporting it and has no evidence supporting it.

And yes, completely ignoring any ideas that don't have evidence supporting is absolutely definitely the correct thing to do scientifically.

You have now made this into a 6 page argument because you didn't like me pointing out that you're wrong, and are still attempting to twist and turn to seem less wrong and make this about me. If you continue to make this personal we'll pass it to the mods.

1. "Penn State Researchers Look Beyond The Birth Of The Universe". Science Daily. May 17, 2006. Referring to Ashtekar, Abhay; Pawlowski, Tomasz; Singh, Parmpreet (2006). "Quantum Nature of the Big Bang". Physical Review Letters 96 (14): 141301. arXiv:gr-qc/0602086. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96n1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.141301. PMID 16712061.
2. Jump up ^ Kragh, Helge (1996). Cosmology. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00546-X.
3. Jump up ^ Overduin, James; Hans-Joachim Blome; Josef Hoell (June 2007). "Wolfgang Priester: from the big bounce to the Λ-dominated universe". Naturwissenschaften 94 (6): 417–429. arXiv:astro-ph/0608644. Bibcode:2007NW.....94..417O. doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0187-x.
4. Jump up ^ Bojowald, Martin (2007). "What happened before the Big Bang?". Nature Physics 3 (8): 523–525. Bibcode:2007NatPh...3..523B. doi:10.1038/nphys654.
5. Jump up ^ Ashtekar, Abhay; Corichi, Alejandro; Singh, Parampreet (2008). "Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology". Physical Review D 77 (2): 024046. arXiv:0710.3565. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77b4046A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024046.
6. Jump up ^ David Adam (14 August 2003). "The Strange story of Peter Lynds". The Guardian.
7. Jump up ^ Poplawski, N. J. (2012). "Nonsingular, big-bounce cosmology from spinor-torsion coupling". Physical Review D 85: 107502. arXiv:1111.4595. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..85j7502P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.107502.
8. Jump up ^ Cai, Yi-Fu; Damien Easson; Robert Brandenberger (2012). "Towards a Nonsingular Bouncing Cosmology". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08: 020. arXiv:1206.2382. Bibcode:2012JCAP...08..020C. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/020.

I repeat, your appeal to consensus is a farcical u-turn, especially as the theory you support, MOND, is spurned by consensus niche and that "no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the theory" -go running to your mates if you wish, surely I'd have no reason to doubt their integrity, impartiality and honesty.

 

[Damocles]

If it were an axiom it couldnt be false but that is another argument in logic which can be pursued another time .

Yeah you couldn't be wrong about this, an axiom is something that is presumed to be self evidentially true for the purposes of the argument and not something that is true but we can go into this later if you like.

As was stated -"everything that begins to exist has a cause - the universe began to exist , therefore the universe has a cause . " there is no infinite regress.

You're telling me that if the Universe were actually a purple dinosaur called Pete then some other things would be true. Which is perfectly fine, but the Universe is not a purple dinosaur called Pete any more than the first clause in your statement is true. Essentially you've built your whole argument on false assumptions so you can really come to any conclusion that you like and it makes no difference because the starting point was false.

 

[Damocles]

Let's start from scratch with this one.

1. "Penn State Researchers Look Beyond The Birth Of The Universe". Science Daily. May 17, 2006. Referring to Ashtekar, Abhay; Pawlowski, Tomasz; Singh, Parmpreet (2006). "Quantum Nature of the Big Bang". Physical Review Letters 96 (14): 141301. arXiv:gr-qc/0602086. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96n1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.141301. PMID 16712061.
2. Jump up ^ Kragh, Helge (1996). Cosmology. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00546-X.
3. Jump up ^ Overduin, James; Hans-Joachim Blome; Josef Hoell (June 2007). "Wolfgang Priester: from the big bounce to the Λ-dominated universe". Naturwissenschaften 94 (6): 417–429. arXiv:astro-ph/0608644. Bibcode:2007NW.....94..417O. doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0187-x.
4. Jump up ^ Bojowald, Martin (2007). "What happened before the Big Bang?". Nature Physics 3 (8): 523–525. Bibcode:2007NatPh...3..523B. doi:10.1038/nphys654.
5. Jump up ^ Ashtekar, Abhay; Corichi, Alejandro; Singh, Parampreet (2008). "Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology". Physical Review D 77 (2): 024046. arXiv:0710.3565. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77b4046A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024046.
6. Jump up ^ David Adam (14 August 2003). "The Strange story of Peter Lynds". The Guardian.
7. Jump up ^ Poplawski, N. J. (2012). "Nonsingular, big-bounce cosmology from spinor-torsion coupling". Physical Review D 85: 107502. arXiv:1111.4595. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..85j7502P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.107502.
8. Jump up ^ Cai, Yi-Fu; Damien Easson; Robert Brandenberger (2012). "Towards a Nonsingular Bouncing Cosmology". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08: 020. arXiv:1206.2382. Bibcode:2012JCAP...08..020C. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/020.

Have you actually read these things? Do you even know what they say?

I repeat, your appeal to consensus is a farcical u-turn, especially as the theory you support, MOND, is spurned by consensus niche and that "no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the theory" -go running to your mates if you wish, surely I'd have no reason to doubt their integrity, impartiality and honesty.

What the hell are you talking about? When talking about scientific consensus appeal to consensus is literally a description of the thing that people are doing.

MOND is a model that I have previously said that I'm interested in. IN NO WAY THIS DOES CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT YOU BEING WRONG. I never claimed MOND was anything but unsupported idea at the time, and again, THIS IN NO WAY CHANGES THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

 

[George Hannah]

Yeah you couldn't be wrong about this, an axiom is something that is presumed to be self evidentially true for the purposes of the argument and not something that is true but we can go into this later if you like.



You're telling me that if the Universe were actually a purple dinosaur called Pete then some other things would be true. Which is perfectly fine, but the Universe is not a purple dinosaur called Pete any more than the first clause in your statement is true. Essentially you've built your whole argument on false assumptions so you can really come to any conclusion that you like and it makes no difference because the starting point was false.

I think you are underestimating the challenge of defeating the Kalam cosmological argument Damo. J L Mackie, one of the most celebrated modern atheist philosophers, died after trying unsuccessfully for over twenty years.

 

[80s Shorts]

This Neil de Grasse fella likes the sound of his own voice doesnt he.

Just watched him debunking alien anal probing.

 

[allan harper]

You lot can't agree what happened in the past, so can you agree what is going to happen in the future?

We've gone from a pin prick, to protons and neutrons doing mad shit, to galaxies to champions, what's next in line for us and space?

Clever cunts will go on my first whistle....