Questions the BB proponents have no answers for.

[oldbadger]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

A short reply to your long OP.... I hope...

Just as we have slowly discovered more and more, beyond the previous 'beyonds', I have little doubt that there countless Universes beyond, before and around our own Universe. The idea that everything started with the BB is already naive, imo.

There were no 'higher' elements in our universe at or just after the BB, these had to be formed from existing elements such as Helium and Hydrogen in giant starrs and super novae.

Astronomers, physicians and mathematicians are in contention about everything to do with the BB and Universe, professional opinions ranging from BB, BigBounce, BB within existing Universe etc etc...... but the most interesting observation imo is that some galaxies are measured to be moving out-of-sync with their anticipated trajectories, which suggests that acctractive powers exist OUTSIDE of our Universe. This could show that our Universe is one of many, possibly billions, and maybe our Universe is tiny by comparison with the whole.

Whatever the 'Reason for our existence' it surely is an almighty big presence. I choose to think of the reason for our existence as God, but at the same time this God is far too huge to have ever taken much notice of a few lives living on a very tiny particle of matter such as Earth. That makes me some kind of Deist.

 

[Ted Evans]

A short reply to your long OP.... I hope...

Speculation and conjecture are fun to engage in which you seem to agree with. Opinions may or may not be provable and unless, or until, they are proven, by more than the person's word, then they remain "opinions".....IMO.

 

[ChristineM]

The point is, why do you continue to bring it up when I have repeatedly stated that I would not even try to prove my belief? Deflection perhaps for the questions that you cannot answer defending your beliefs? That is my belief.

The point is, your stance is one of god magic in which you use deliberate ignorance, misrepresentation, evasion, hyperbole and even untruth to whine about cosmology because it pops your bubble. You want to make things up about my beliefs i will reciprocate based on the content of your posts

 

[Ted Evans]

The point is, your stance is one of god magic in which you use deliberate ignorance,

Good grief, you go about adamantly ignoring anything that does not suit your narrative and no wonder, you cannot answer questions that challenge your "beliefs" so you want to dwell on mine, which I admit is not provable with empirical evidence. It has something to do with integrity, IMO.

 

[ChristineM]

Good grief, you go about adamantly ignoring anything that does not suit your narrative and no wonder, you cannot answer questions that challenge your "beliefs" so you want to dwell on mine, which I admit is not provable with empirical evidence. It has something to do with integrity, IMO.

Provide evidence and it will be considered, seems you are vocally unwilling to do so.

I have answered as have several other posters, first to your op, to which you have not responded in any meaningful way other than childish mockery and to your subsequent posts. No ones fault but your own if you choose to ignore or mock (based on ignorance) those answers.

 

[oldbadger]

Speculation and conjecture are fun to engage in which you seem to agree with. Opinions may or may not be provable and unless, or until, they are proven, by more than the person's word, then they remain "opinions".....IMO.

Surely, and even the experts can only offer those. And so, let us discuss opinions.

 

[Ted Evans]

Surely, and even the experts can only offer those

Is that only your opinion?

 

[The magical volleyball]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

If a god can exist without being created why not the universe? Why does space energy matter and everything else that exists need to be created? If it was created please present the evidence of a creator. Until then the idea of a created universe is no more true or valid than any other hypothesis.

 

[Ted Evans]

If a god can exist without being created why not the universe?

Can you quote me anywhere claiming that my "beliefs" can be proven with empirical evidence? Can you quote those who believe in the BB theory ever admitting that it is their "belief"?

Supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained by natural laws. OTOH, proponents of the BB try to explain their beliefs within the laws of nature, which, they should be able to do, if, their view is more than an opinion but they cannot.

Why does space energy matter and everything else that exists need to be created?

???Are you saying that space, energy and matter are not needed for the universe to come into existence, or, are you claiming that it has always been?

Until then the idea of a created universe is no more true or valid than any other hypothesis.

Have I suggested otherwise? I believe that I have only expressed my "belief" which seems that many are determined to ignore that word.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

IMO, it was obvious in my first post in this group what the intent was but I was very mistaken. No one seems to have grasped the intent or perhaps, just chose to ignore it. Therefore, I will state as clearly as I can the intent of this post.

I use, enjoy and believe in all science that can be proven as fact with empirical evidence. Civilization would not have advanced very far without science and I believe most honest people will agree that true science deserves respect and admiration. I even appreciate scientific hypothesis and scientific theories without which, there probably would not be a lot of scientific facts.

This is about cosmology creation and since, IMO, there could be no biological evolution without first having creation, I am posting in this category.

1) The entire focus is on “in the beginning”, IOW, before the BB that many, but not all believe in.

2) For there to be a BB, there had to be certain elements, according to natural laws, space being one of them.

3) When was space created? Some say at the BB so my questions would be for those.

4) Some believe that all elements required to create the universe were contained in the BB, the Dot, the Singularity.

5) IF, that is true, could those exist without space and if so, can it be proven with empirical evidence? I do not think so and for those that contend that space and time were created with the BB, that is a point that you cannot plausibly and logically explain.

6) Therefore, in order for the BB to exist, there had to be space, according to natural laws, to contain it before the “explosion/rapid expansion”, you cannot have it both ways, space was created before the BB or, there was no BB.

7) Which brings us back to where did space, time, energy and matter come from, in the beginning since it seems many, if not most, physicists believe the universe ihad a beginning.

9) When and how did the laws of nature come into being?


10) Now the intent of the post, to demonstrate there are a plethora of questions relative to the creation of the universe that science cannot answer, they have hypothesis, theories, beliefs, conjectures, speculations but no answers for much of how creation began and some contradictions.

It always comes to the problem of an infinite regression of naturalistic cause and effect- the only phenomena we know of empirically, that can transcend this and solve the paradox, is creative intelligence

 

[Polymath257]

It always comes to the problem of an infinite regression of naturalistic cause and effect- the only phenomena we know of empirically, that can transcend this and solve the paradox, is creative intelligence

Why is an infinite regression a problem?

How does a 'creative intelligence' solve this problem?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why is an infinite regression a problem?

How does a 'creative intelligence' solve this problem?

The laws of nature being ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws.. is inherently paradoxical- leaving an infinite regression of pre-existing naturalistic mechanisms to support the next...

Creative intelligence is the one phenomena we know of that can break the paradox of creation without creativity.., arguably the only phenomena we know of that can truly create anything, unrestrained by predetermined cause and effect

 

[Polymath257]

The laws of nature being ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws.. is inherently paradoxical- leaving an infinite regression of pre-existing naturalistic mechanisms to support the next...

Since causality only makes sense in the context of natural laws, to even consider the 'cause' of natural laws is self-contradictory.

An infinite regression is merely paradoxical, not contradictory. It is perfectly consistent, but non-intuitive at first.

Creative intelligence is the one phenomena we know of that can break the paradox of creation without creativity.., arguably the only phenomena we know of that can truly create anything, unrestrained by predetermined cause and effect

Can you give me *any* example of an intelligence that isn't restrained by cause and effect? More specifically, that doesn't depend on natural laws?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Since causality only makes sense in the context of natural laws, to even consider the 'cause' of natural laws is self-contradictory.

An infinite regression is merely paradoxical, not contradictory. It is perfectly consistent, but non-intuitive at first.



Can you give me *any* example of an intelligence that isn't restrained by cause and effect? More specifically, that doesn't depend on natural laws?

The key distinction being purpose. A phenomena that in turn only exists within the phenomena of a conscious mind, right?

It is purpose that allows us to create, to make things happen, that natural laws alone could never achieve. Without purpose, natural mechanisms are constrained within their predetermined limits.

In short: no purpose = no true creative power

With purpose, their is no such inherent limit on what may be created. So when it comes to our universe, the ultimate creation, the less restrictive mechanism has the greater power of explanation here does it not?

 

[Polymath257]

The key distinction being purpose. A phenomena that in turn only exists within the phenomena of a conscious mind, right?

It is purpose that allows us to create, to make things happen, that natural laws alone could never achieve. Without purpose, natural mechanisms are constrained within their predetermined limits.

In short: no purpose = no true creative power

With purpose, their is no such inherent limit on what may be created. So when it comes to our universe, the ultimate creation, the less restrictive mechanism has the greater power of explanation here does it not?

Humans have purpose: they decide to do things. But their decisions are still restrained by the laws of nature.

Don't believe me? Jump off a building and *desire* to not fall.

The constraints of 'natural mechanisms' are quite broad, especially for complex things like brains.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Jump off a building and *desire* to not fall.

good example! The creative power of purpose is that desire, to make something happen.

So it looks inherently into the future, at specific outcomes to be achieved, rather than relying entirely on the consequences of previously existing natural laws- which would not have worked out so well... for this guy, or the universe I would argue!

 

[DavidFirth]

Ted, I still don't know what your point is. Let's try this again.

The origin of the universe is scientific mystery. Therefore ______________________?

Therefore scientists cannot know what came before, during and after the Big Bang. Speculation, anyone? Scientists cannot even be sure there ever was a Big Bang.

The background cosmic mircowave radiation could have come from Thor's toaster.

 

[Jose Fly]

Therefore scientists cannot know what came before, during and after the Big Bang. Speculation, anyone? Scientists cannot even be sure there ever was a Big Bang.

The background cosmic mircowave radiation could have come from Thor's toaster.

Ah, so you operate according to the same simplistic black/white mode of thinking as @Ted Evans, where there are only two categories......100% scientifically proven and complete speculation.

Again, all I can do is express my bewilderment at such a ridiculous way of thinking.

 

[McBell]

Ah, so you operate according to the same simplistic black/white mode of thinking as @Ted Evans, where there are only two categories......100% scientifically proven and complete speculation.

Again, all I can do is express my bewilderment at such a ridiculous way of thinking.

Seems to me it is nothing more than a sad attempt to bring science down to the same level as their faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seems to me it is nothing more than a sad attempt to bring science down to the same level as their faith.

I dunno......I've read a few articles that include a tendency towards black/white thinking among the common traits of fundamentalists. I even see them apply it to their own faith and members of their own faith (along the lines of the Bible is either 100% reliable and true, or it's worthless).

So I tend to think of it more as a character trait than a deliberate tactic. Of course, it could be them using that trait as part of the tactic you describe.