cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[We Never Know]

The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy.


What God? Why are any religious ideas necessary? Or relevant?


The physical laws are just part of existing energy.


This statement is not factual. So we throw it out.

"The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy."

Did that energy exist before the big bang?
If not then your comment makes no sense.

 

[F1fan]

"The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy."

Did that energy exist before the big bang?

It's referred to by experts as a singularity.

 

[We Never Know]

It's referred to by experts as a singularity.

So do the experts say the singularity existed before the big bang?

Lets look at your post again...

" "The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy."

Was the event "the big bang" an effect of existing energy changing?
OR
Was the event "the big bang" the effect that changed energy into existance?

 

[F1fan]

So do the experts say the singularity existed before the big bang?

Lets look at your post again...

" "The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy."

Was the event "the big bang" an effect of existing energy changing?
OR
Was the event "the big bang" the effect that changed energy into existance?

So you haven't read? You don't know what a singularity is?

The singularity was what existed at the Big Bang event.

 

[We Never Know]

So you haven't read? You don't know what a singularity is?



The singularity was what existed at the Big Bang event.

I actually know lots of things. However....

Was "the big bang" an effect from the singularity
OR
Was the singularity an effect from "the big bang"?



Did you miss these?....

Was the event "the big bang" an effect of existing energy changing?
OR
Was the event "the big bang" the effect that changed energy into existance?

 

[F1fan]

Was "the big bang" an effect from the singularity
OR
Was the singularity an effect from "the big bang"?


Did you miss these?....

Was the event "the big bang" an effect of existing energy changing?
OR
Was the event "the big bang" the effect that changed energy into existance?

If you are interested just read what experts say. It's on the internet.

 

[We Never Know]

If you are interested just read what experts say. It's on the internet.

So "the big bang" came from a singularity?
Wouldn't that make the singularity exist before "the big bang"?

Doesn't something have to first exist before anything can be a result of/from it?

 

[F1fan]

So "the big bang" came from a singularity?
Wouldn't that make the singularity exist before "the big bang"?

That is what experts say. Of course there was no time at the Big Bang event. The four forces took about 2 seconds to work. The only elelments were helium and hydrogen. All other elements were forged in stars.

Doesn't something have to first exist before anything can be a result of/from it?

Hence the signularity existing. Experts know what happened up to about 1/43 of a second after the expansion began. Before that they don't know.

 

[LIIA]

The Big Bang was just an event. It was an event that marked the change of state of existing energy.

There is no physical existence of any kind beyond the BB.

What God? Why are any religious ideas necessary? Or relevant?

”We Never Know” proposed a couple of scenarios; I was addressing the second one.

The physical laws are just part of existing energy.

Within the physical realm, not beyond the BB.

This statement is not factual. So we throw it out.

Per whom?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The answer to the question 'How do I combat ignorance and apathy?'

Well, I find effective to me to be honest and state that I don't know and that I feel that I don't care. I mean I care about knowledge as per natural science, medicine, social-, psychological- and human-science as to how we get a good and healthy life.
As for the start of the universe or whatever the definition of that problem is, I don't. To me it is no different than debating: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
I mean T=0, right?!!! How do we observe that? Theoretical physics and all it's models are in effect no different than the theological debates of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Yes, one of them could lead to practical applications and yes, those STEM people also need a life and something to play around with. But seriously, that part of science is modern theology. I mean some of the posters treat it as a fact that T=0. Science says so and that can't be doubted.

And don't get me started on effective, unless you can direct me to the scientific international measurement standard for measuring effective and what instrument is used and how it is calibrated?
Let me explain to you the problem of using definitions. Let us say that we ask: What is a good and healthy life? Well, there is a lot of ambiguity in that, so we let the natural scientist define that the good and healthy life is X and not anything else. Then we have removed ambiguity, there is no more problem and we can start using natural science on it.
The problem is that if to a person for which that is not the case, we can end up hurting that person.

So I am currently reading several university level books on the good and healthy life and no, you can't just define your way out of the problem and then make a nice scientific theory. Humans are in effect to diverse for than and there are to many factors including that how you treat another human as a human. That is not natural science as that ends in morality. In short it is nothing but ambiguity as you see it and if you reduce away that human diversity. you end up hurting some humans.

That is the limit of your world view and how ever nice and polite you are, your world view is still a problem, because your training on the objective leads you to believe that it works on the subjective. It doesn't. STEM and medicine is a part of the answer, but not all of it.
There is no model of humans and the human life independent of humans. That is where natural science fails in practice, because there is no human life in itself independent of humans.

See that was simple, once you realize that humans don't actually live in the model room making models of objective reality. They live in the universe as parts of the universe and you can't define away subjectivity, because that you choose to define it away, is a subjective act in you. You can't avoid self-referencing when it comes to humans, because you are not just a scientist and mathematician. You are also a human and that is not just objective, rational and with evidence. It is also that, but not just that.

So here is the ambiguity that you can't solve as a "we", because I can do it different in some cases, but not all.
The everyday world is a mess of that which is independent of human thinking and emotions, that which we share when we interact as humans (social) and how we cope as individuals. And that is even more complicated than that.
And there is no single measurement standard or category for that. Neither with science, philosophy nor religion.

So back to your answer. as quoted That is not science. That is you coping with the fact that I can do it differently. And yes, that is a mess and no, there is no scientific theory of that, because you can't actual reduce away humans to be independent of the everyday world, no matter how much you claim that you decide what is efficient to you and therefore that is the correct way to understand the everyday world.
You can't do and the theists can't. And I can either, but I know that.

So do what you want and if it makes sense to me as individual I will still do it differently.
And, no, you are not a negative as a human. You just do it differently than me. And you cope differently than me. That is the end game for humans and there is no objective way to do that as the only way. Nether with science, philosophy nor religion.
And no, that is not an absolute. It is conditional on that we remain humans in the everyday world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is what experts say. Of course there was no time at the Big Bang event. The four forces took about 2 seconds to work. The only elelments were helium and hydrogen. All other elements were forged in stars.


Hence the signularity existing. Experts know what happened up to about 1/43 of a second after the expansion began. Before that they don't know.

Then they don't know that the singularity exists.

 

[Brian2]

There are many who do say "we don't know so God did it"

Yes that's the old God of the Gaps argument I hear.

Saying I don't know is as honest as it gets because thats exactly what it is.

Except when there is no god.

Saying I don't know but I believe one way or another is also honest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes that's the old God of the Gaps argument I hear.



Saying I don't know but I believe one way or another is also honest.

Yeah, I mean even if and that is an if, the world is natural, it is a fact, that people believe in different Gods and thus I have never been able to figure of how that is wrong for how the natural world works, because it is a part of the natural world.
I really can't explain that other than wrong doesn't rely apply to that.

 

[Brian2]

Example?

God says "universe come into existence" in a timeless realm and time and space come into existence when time begins. It all happens in the instant called the beginning.

is there any reason to think causality even makes sense outside of the universe and natural laws?

Is there any reason to think it does not make sense. If rationality exists here then it could exist elsewhere.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God says "universe come into existence" in a timeless realm and time and space come into existence when time begins. It all happens in the instant called the beginning.



Is there any reason to think it does not make sense. If rationality exists here then it could exist elsewhere.

The beauty of reason and making sense is that it is in part individual. The problem is that is in part individual. Go figure.

 

[Brian2]

It is almost universal, yes. General relativity models both space and time as a unified geometry.

But you state it wrong. To say 'always' implies a time aspect that is not present. To say time goes backwards is not even wrong. And no, causes still precede effects in time.

Think of it like this. Imagine the latitude and longitude lines of the Earth, but imagine that latitude measures time and longitude measures space. Space and time together determine the geometry of the spherical Earth.

In this model, time has a 'beginning' at the South pole and an 'End' at the North pole. As we move from the South pole to the North pole, space expands out of a 'singularity' (the South pole) until the equator, when it begins to contract, until a final 'singularity' at the North pole.

We exist as decorations on this sphere. Our lives start at one time (latitude), we move around a bit, and end at another time (latitude). So, the whole of your life is in spacetime and that spacetime 'just exists' as a unified geometry.

All causality happens from the south to the north. Our consciousnesses only remember things to the South (in the past). But the more northerly part of your timeline is there 'in the future' (to the North).

Also, 'north' and 'south' only make sense on the Earth (so 'before' and 'after' only make sense within the universe). There is no 'south' of the South pole and no 'north' of the North pole. Analogously, there is no 'before' the Big Bang singularity.

And would it be that outside this geometry there is no time space?
I suppose this time space universe could exist in a bigger time space universe and timelessness might be outside that.
So is part of the B model the idea that our future and past self and the events we will and have done, actually exist now?
Is so, why?

 

[Brian2]

No, I do not think that it is needed for all physical things. In fact, the evidence is that most quantum level processes are uncaused.

So the universe could have sprung from an uncaused event at the quantum level and instantaneously become the whole B model space time universe which exists in a timeless realm and eventually goes back to the singularity and timeless realm. Or do I have it wrong?
The events in the space time B Model would take X years to run through I guess even if they all exist at the same time.

Yes, that is done in biochemistry and biology. Life is a complex collection of chemical interactions driven by some outside power source.

What do you mean by some outside power source?

Are you saying there was a time when the laws of physics did not apply? Can you prove this? or is it merely an unsubstantiated belief?

I have been told that the laws of physics no longer apply the closer we get to the BB. So if it is unsubstantiated, it is unsubstantiated by science.

No. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions that has the ability to maintain internal state and reproduce. Rocks don't do that.

But there is no difference between an oxygen atom in a rock and one in your body. There is no difference between a water molecule in a crystal and one in your body.

Chemicals are not inert (which seems to be what you are claiming about them being dead). They strongly interact with other chemicals. That interaction is, in certain systems, the basis for life.

You're the one who said matter is not dead, hence the question.
Chemical interaction is the basis of the activities in the life forms, the bodies, but that does not mean it is the nature of life itself. It is one of those things that science might claim but only because science cannot study spirits.
In this respect science creeps into the theological field because of not being able to detect spirit and because of the naturalistic methodology.

 

[Brian2]

I would say that people who want to hold onto their beliefs need to reinterpret their scriptures when new information is found.

It isn't a 'better' interpretation. It is only a different interpretation.

It's an interpretation according to the accepted science of the time. If the Bible is true and the science is true that should be able to be done.

..if we can explain what happens without needing a God in the explanation, then God is not needed to explain, right? That alone doesn't say anything about whether a God exists, but it does make such unnecessary for an explanation.

True. I do have a problem with atheists saying that everything can be explained without the need for inserting a God into it. I see that life and existence have not been explained, the very things that God said He did.

Nope. It is simply realizing that the 'God hypothesis' doesn't actually carry any explanatory power.

It is religious type faith when it comes to those things that science has not explained.
It could be said to be Gaps to push God into but it could also be see as Gaps that science is being pushed into, especially by militant atheists.

 

[Brian2]

Nobody claims to know what "caused" the big bang (quotes, because it might not be a sensible term to use in that context).

The only people who claim to know, are theists making faith-based religious assertions.
I've never seen a physicist claim that (s)he, or science in general, knows what "caused" the BB.

Some atheists do claim that science can explain everything however, and I have heard a physicist atheist say that.

Having said what I said above... there is "speculation" and there is "speculation".

For example......
Suppose I walk into a room and there is a corpse their with a knife placed firmly in the chest.
I could then speculate that the person was killed by another human who no longer is present, but went away.
I could also speculate that aliens beamed into the room star trek style, stabbed the person with a know and then beamed out again.


I have no doubt that you can see the difference.
Would you say both these speculations are on par with one another?
Which is more likely and why?

So scientifically you think that the best speculation is that the stuff of the universe did not need creating because it was there to form the universe through some unknown mechanism?

 

[Brian2]

It's not.

Point to any point in time.
A universe existed then.

At no point in time did no universe exist.

Hmmm, maybe, maybe not.