SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
Science accepts no such thing Mark and particles 'pop into existence' all the time.
And stop pretending to be your idiot 'brother'.
You're a strange fruit.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Brief History of the Universe
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
And stop pretending to be your idiot 'brother'.
You're a strange fruit.
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,525
Science accepts no such thing Mark and particles 'pop into existence' all the time.
And stop pretending to be your idiot 'brother'.
You're a strange fruit.
Read the opening sentence. There not my views. I'm an athiest. But I do love the science v God debates which help me to get a better understanding.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
Read my middle sentence and then hit your theist friend with your tablet.Read the opening sentence. There not my views. I'm an athiest. But I do love the science v God debates which help me to get a better understanding.
'Before' is a question of time which obviously came into existence with the Big Bang, however athiest philosophy HAS to explain how matter came to be, the question still begs, something cannot come from nothing, Your point does address this question only the concept of time which we all agree started at one particular point
I'd like to take umbrage with a couple of things here.
We both seem to agree that the question or concept of "before" the Big Bang is an impossibility which is great.
Matter came to be through the conversion of the expansion and heat energy cooling. Mass-energy equivalence don't forget shows us that matter and energy are just the same thing expressed in a different way like ice, water and steam.
science accepts that SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING
This is one of those questions that's hard to answer unless the other person is literate in physics. I'll just talk as if they do and hope that they'll trust that I'm not lying to them. Though I often refer to matter in these posts as "a thing" like it's a very small but solid object it really isn't, matter is just the excitation in a quantum field which becomes expressed via wave function collapse as a particle. Matter coming in and out of existence isn't really something coming from nothing, that's just a shorthand way people explain it for others to understand without learning quantum mechanics. An analogous situation (and my theology isn't great so apologies if I get this example wrong) might be the idea of hell in Biblical terms - I seem to recall that it doesn't actually reference this in the original language but instead Hell is an analogous example of what the scripture was attempting to convey. This is why I often write in posts that people should try to see the root of the science rather than get stuck on what are the analogies.
To answer your next question hopefully before you ask it, you again have to look at what field theory actually is. A field is just a function that returns a specific value for a point in spacetime; I've always found the idea to be easier to understand when talking about a heat field emitted from a radiator. Close it's hot, further away it's cold but you can pick any single point in the Universe and that field still has a value even if we're talking trillionths of a degree. Sort of like ripples in water.
In the very earliest conditions of the Big Bang the fields that we have that control many of the laws of physics around us today including gravity, matter forming and/or bonding and the like did not exist at those energy levels and instead we're a single unified field. To answer the question, the unified didn't come from anywhere because again the idea that something happens before something else is a function of time and the "time field" didn't exist. Any change of any form is a function of time.
Now here comes the fun part. A time field doesn't exist. And in fact one could argue if done so with an open mind that actually a field doesn't exist. As I stated to Mark, a field is the method of measurement that we use to explain the phenomena in front of us - but this doesn't make the substance measured any less real any more than centimetres don't make distance a fallacy. We presume fields exist because they are an idea that makes predictions which comes true, can be mathematically explained and we observe them around us.
The "substance" is essentially vacuum energy, and fuck me I'm going to have to answer a billion questions now because of this.
But going back to your original point, energy cannot be created. It either exists or it doesn't. The vacuum energy of the Universe 14 billion years ago is the same as now, the only difference is the starting of time which then set into motion greater and greater and greater complexity. I imagine scientifically literate Priests in 2200 will be arguing that time literally IS God/God's Hand and I suppose outside of the usual problems of a complete lack of evidence on existence there's no real objection to this anywhere scientifically.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause, it cannot be matter itself it has to transcend time space and matter, that would point to a trancsendent being
A being needs a creator which is impossible outside of space and time so all you're doing is adding epicycles.
The vacuum energy of the Universe 14 billion years ago is the same as now
This is wrong. I meant to say that the total energy of the Universe was the same then as it is now.
That number is currently thought to be 0.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
Again, can you try and keep on topic. Thanks JC.It is on topic unlike your abusive remarks. How do you get away with these sort of remarks without banning?
Curious.
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,525
Your mood is a matter of complete indifference to me. The appalling tone of your posts should have been moderated upon long before now and now we get the threats. It's a complete disgrace that you are permitted to get away with this sort of abuse.
Your the one spoiling a good thread to be honest. Go away
BlueTangerine
Well-Known Member
http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-answer/
Just thought I'd post a link to this short story. It really is an amazing read. I come back to it a lot and if you're interested in what it might be like for an atheistic physicist to "talk to "God"" and have a spare 10 mins..
Just thought I'd post a link to this short story. It really is an amazing read. I come back to it a lot and if you're interested in what it might be like for an atheistic physicist to "talk to "God"" and have a spare 10 mins..
paulsimpson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 2,830
Science accepts no such thing Mark and particles 'pop into existence' all the time.
And stop pretending to be your idiot 'brother'.
You're a strange fruit.
I'd like to take umbrage with a couple of things here.
We both seem to agree that the question or concept of "before" the Big Bang is an impossibility which is great.
Matter came to be through the conversion of the expansion and heat energy cooling. Mass-energy equivalence don't forget shows us that matter and energy are just the same thing expressed in a different way like ice, water and steam.
This is one of those questions that's hard to answer unless the other person is literate in physics. I'll just talk as if they do and hope that they'll trust that I'm not lying to them. Though I often refer to matter in these posts as "a thing" like it's a very small but solid object it really isn't, matter is just the excitation in a quantum field which becomes expressed via wave function collapse as a particle. Matter coming in and out of existence isn't really something coming from nothing, that's just a shorthand way people explain it for others to understand without learning quantum mechanics. An analogous situation (and my theology isn't great so apologies if I get this example wrong) might be the idea of hell in Biblical terms - I seem to recall that it doesn't actually reference this in the original language but instead Hell is an analogous example of what the scripture was attempting to convey. This is why I often write in posts that people should try to see the root of the science rather than get stuck on what are the analogies.
To answer your next question hopefully before you ask it, you again have to look at what field theory actually is. A field is just a function that returns a specific value for a point in spacetime; I've always found the idea to be easier to understand when talking about a heat field emitted from a radiator. Close it's hot, further away it's cold but you can pick any single point in the Universe and that field still has a value even if we're talking trillionths of a degree. Sort of like ripples in water.
In the very earliest conditions of the Big Bang the fields that we have that control many of the laws of physics around us today including gravity, matter forming and/or bonding and the like did not exist at those energy levels and instead we're a single unified field. To answer the question, the unified didn't come from anywhere because again the idea that something happens before something else is a function of time and the "time field" didn't exist. Any change of any form is a function of time.
Now here comes the fun part. A time field doesn't exist. And in fact one could argue if done so with an open mind that actually a field doesn't exist. As I stated to Mark, a field is the method of measurement that we use to explain the phenomena in front of us - but this doesn't make the substance measured any less real any more than centimetres don't make distance a fallacy. We presume fields exist because they are an idea that makes predictions which comes true, can be mathematically explained and we observe them around us.
The "substance" is essentially vacuum energy, and fuck me I'm going to have to answer a billion questions now because of this.
But going back to your original point, energy cannot be created. It either exists or it doesn't. The vacuum energy of the Universe 14 billion years ago is the same as now, the only difference is the starting of time which then set into motion greater and greater and greater complexity. I imagine scientifically literate Priests in 2200 will be arguing that time literally IS God/God's Hand and I suppose outside of the usual problems of a complete lack of evidence on existence there's no real objection to this anywhere scientifically.
A being needs a creator which is impossible outside of space and time so all you're doing is adding epicycles.
For sake of debate. Let's get my Christian friends point of view.
'Before' is a question of time which obviously came into existence with the Big Bang, however athiest philosophy HAS to explain how matter came to be, the question still begs, something cannot come from nothing, Your point does address this question only the concept of time which we all agree started at one particular point, science accepts that SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING, while that stands then an explanation is needed for the beginning of matter
Something popping into existence out of nothing is science fiction it simply does not happen in physics
Anything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause, it cannot be matter itself it has to transcend time space and matter, that would point to a trancsendent being
All the your point is saying is that time did not exist before the Big Bang, I agree, God BROUGHT time into being, Christian philosophers totally adhere to that concept, theism says that God exists OUTSIDE of time
BlueHammer 85
Thanks for understanding the argument and stating the issues clearly.
Damocles
My argument is not with you personally and your good understanding of the model . Indeed the physics of Hawking I have no real issue with . However even he has to concede that the universe began to exist . There is no " before" the singularity.
There has to be a creation .
Either the universe created itself which is impossible in my view
Or
A supreme being created it .
The Muslim Kalam argument which has it's predecessors in Aquinas and Aristotle still stands .
My argument is not with you personally and your good understanding of the model . Indeed the physics of Hawking I have no real issue with . However even he has to concede that the universe began to exist . There is no " before" the singularity.
There has to be a creation .
Either the universe created itself which is impossible in my view
I think we're close to an understand here.
The Universe "began" to exist. But there was nothing before it began.
In the same way that you began to exist but there was no time or space before you in your mind.
Now the last step is to realise that the idea that every cause needs an effect, or every object a creator, is a function of time as a physical and logical law of this Universe. Time that didn't exist until that event. The entire logic of this Universe applied to the moment of creation is wrong because the moment of creation is by definition the start of all of the physical laws that exist in our reality.