The Big Bang and Evolution

[metis]

I have proved the existence of God with the use of Logic but

No, you haven't. Not even close.

And if your position was so "logical", then why don't most cosmologists, some of which are theists, agree with you?

 

[Ben Avraham]

I am not an atheist, but let me just mention that I did posit what most cosmologists tend to think is most likely on this issue of "creation", and that is that all may well go back into infinity, thus no "primal cause". Mathematically, it does work out, but we don't have the ability to double-check the math on this issue.

Okay, no Primal Cause. If there is no Primal Cause, the Universe was not caused. In other words, It did not have a beginning. So, about 90% of the scientists who speak of an age for the Universe and the BB as the origin of that age, are either ignorant of what they claim or have no knowledge of the effects of Carbon-14. If that goes, the credibility of Science follows through.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No, you haven't. Not even close. And if your position was so "logical", then why don't most cosmologists, some of which are theists, agree with you?

How do you know they don't? Okay, you deny that I have not proved the existence of the Primal Cause. Can you tell me then what or Who caused the Universe to exist if it could not have caused itself to exist? If you can't, you cannot claim that I have not proved the existence of the Universe. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[metis]

Okay, no Primal Cause. If there is no Primal Cause, the Universe was not caused. In other words, It did not have a beginning. So, about 90% of the scientists who speak of an age for the Universe and the BB as the origin of that age, are either ignorant of what they claim

You don't seem to grasp exactly what "infinity" actually means in this context, and there's simply no reason to believe that it can't be true since it does work out mathematically.

or have no knowledge of the effects of Carbon-14

Carbon-14, as I mentioned to you before, has literally nothing to do with the BB.

Gotta go for now.

 

[metis]

How do you know they don't?

Because I have read numerous books written by research cosmologists, and there are two sources in particular that I have relied on for this, and one is Leonard Susskind, who's a research scientist who covered this in one of his books on cosmology, and the other is from a Pew research poll of scientists taken a while back.

Can you tell me then what or Who caused the Universe to exist if it could not have caused itself to exist?

"Infinity".

With infinity, there simply is no "primary cause" since it basically states that there may have been always something, whether they be sub-atomic particles, energy waves, or whatever.

And let me repeat, we know our universe works out mathematically, and we also know that the use of "infinity" in some equations does work out mathematically as well, therefore it has to be considered as a logical possibility or the equations simply would not work out.

Finally, the concept of a "primary cause" is contrary to logic as a sole argument in that it has to beg the question as to what caused the "primary cause"? If one says that the "primary cause" was always there, then how is that any different than possibly accepting that "infinity" maybe was always there? Why is one supposedly logical but the other not?

As for me, I just keep saying "I don't know".

 

[Valjean]

I understand and, by the same token, I am entitled to correct an atheist if he or she is drawing incorrect conclusions.
Agree?

Absolutely -- I'd expect no less.

Okay, no Primal Cause. If there is no Primal Cause, the Universe was not caused. In other words, It did not have a beginning. So, about 90% of the scientists who speak of an age for the Universe and the BB as the origin of that age, are either ignorant of what they claim or have no knowledge of the effects of Carbon-14. If that goes, the credibility of Science follows through.

See, this what's frustrating BA. You're either not reading posts or not comprehending them. We've told you things don't need a cause, and we've told you carbon 14 -- or any other form of radiometric dating has nothing to do with dating the universe. I even included a link explaining how they did arrive at the age of the universe, yet here you are still talking about primal causes and C14.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Avraham]

Absolutely -- I'd expect no less.
See, this what's frustrating BA. You're either not reading posts or not comprehending them. We've told you things don't need a cause, and we've told you carbon 14 -- or any other form of radiometric dating has nothing to do with dating the universe. I even included a link explaining how they did arrive at the age of the universe, yet here you are still talking about primal causes and C14.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

And I will remain there until you tell me how the universe began because, nothing begins from nothing. If the Universe has an age it somehow began to exist. Since it could not have caused itself to begin, it is only obvious that something or someone activated that beginning. Nu! I am all ears!

 

[Ben Avraham]

Absolutely -- I'd expect no less.
See, this what's frustrating BA. You're either not reading posts or not comprehending them. We've told you things don't need a cause, and we've told you carbon 14 -- or any other form of radiometric dating has nothing to do with dating the universe. I even included a link explaining how they did arrive at the age of the universe, yet here you are still talking about primal causes and C14.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

And I will remain there until you tell me how the universe began because, nothing begins from nothing. If the Universe has an age it somehow began to exist. Since it could not have caused itself to begin, it is only obvious that something
or someone activated that beginning. Nu! I am all ears!

 

[Ben Avraham]

Because I have read numerous books written by research cosmologists, and there are two sources in particular that I have relied on for this, and one is Leonard Susskind, who's a research scientist who covered this in one of his books on cosmology, and the other is from a Pew research poll of scientists taken a while back. "Infinity". With infinity, there simply is no "primary cause" since it basically states that there may have been always something, whether they be sub-atomic particles, energy waves, or whatever. And let me repeat, we know our universe works out mathematically, and we also know that the use of "infinity" in some equations does work out mathematically as well, therefore it has to be considered as a logical possibility or the equations simply would not work out. Finally, the concept of a "primary cause" is contrary to logic as a sole argument in that it has to beg the question as to what caused the "primary cause"? If one says that the "primary cause" was always there, then how is that any different than possibly accepting that "infinity" maybe was always there? Why is one supposedly logical but the other not? As for me, I just keep saying "I don't know".

"Infinity" is no answer to what caused the Universe to exist. To translate what you are saying above is that the scientists are either stupid or lying when they say that the BB caused the beginning of the Universe. If the Universe started with the BB, it did not come from infinity. Now, if the idea of the Primal Cause bags for the question of what caused the Primal Cause, I see above that you seem to believe in the logical possibility to solve problems. So, use it! Indeed, it has solved for me. How? Thus: If the Primal Cause was caused, It could no longer be the Primal Cause but a caused cause as we all are: A caused cause of our parents that caused us to exist. But then if you go back all the way to the origin of the first couple of parents, you will, so-to-speak, meet the Primal Cause. I love Logic!

 

[metis]

"Infinity" is no answer to what caused the Universe to exist. To translate what you are saying above is that the scientists are either stupid or lying when they say that the BB caused the beginning of the Universe. If the Universe started with the BB, it did not come from infinity.

Most cosmologists believe there was somethings before the BB that led up to it. IOW, the BB only represents a speck in space-time, and it's not at all likely that it was the beginning of everything according to them, and part of this is based on what we now know about quantum mechanics.

The mathematical models based on the evidence that's available indicate our universe before the BB was probably around the size of a present day atom, pearl, or marble (pick one as it really doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other). What cause the expansion (actually two expansions a small fraction of a second apart) is unknown, but there are numerous hypotheses as to how it could have happened. Many of these are covered in an excellent book entitled "The Universe Before the Big Bang" by Maurizio Gasperini.

So, do we exist just in a universe or is there a multiverse that we're also part of? Because of what we know about q.m., it's likely the latter according to them and quantum physicists.

 

[metis]

Now, if the idea of the Primal Cause bags for the question of what caused the Primal Cause, I see above that you seem to believe in the logical possibility to solve problems. So, use it!

I am a scientist, now retired, and we use "logic" all the time in our profession. Because of this, I simply cannot jump to the unsupported conclusions that you adhere to. There simply is not one iota of objectively-derived evidence that points to a theistic causation.

A caused cause of our parents that caused us to exist.

Except that our parents had previous parents that had previous parents ...

But then if you go back all the way to the origin of the first couple of parents, you will, so-to-speak, meet the Primal Cause.

See above.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I am a scientist, now retired, and we use "logic" all the time in our profession. Because of this, I simply cannot jump to the unsupported conclusions that you adhere to. There simply is not one iota of objectively-derived evidence that points to a theistic causation. Except that our parents had previous parents that had previous parents ... See above.

If mine is an unsupported conclusion, why you don't speak when I ask what caused the Universe to exist if there is no Primal Cause? Oh yes, you said the Universe exists from infinity. Most the scientists report the beginning of the Universe from the BB. What kind of scientist were you to deny the BB on the pretext that the Universe is without a beginning? Yes, "unless our parents that had previous parent that had previous parents" and so on until the very first parents who were caused to exist by the Primal Cause.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

I once thought along these lines. Problem is predictability. If god's actions are exactly as predictable as any science, than what is the point of acknowledging him? If god works exactly, precisely, according to natural laws, then he is entirely undetectable. The only possible evidence of god, in a physical world, are bona fide miracles; not things which can't be explained, but phenomena which explicitly contradict predictable science.

This is not to say that it's not entirely possible that god exists and created a universe that behaves in a completely orderly and predictable manner. But if so it merely means he has written himself out of the human narrative. God may exist, but there's no reason to believe in him.

 

[metis]

Oh yes, you said the Universe exists from infinity.

I did not say that. What I said is that which ultimately led to our universe may well go back into infinity, which I spelled out in my post #250.

What kind of scientist were you to deny the BB on the pretext that the Universe is without a beginning?

Huh? I never denied the BB, nor did I ever deny that the BB helped to lead to our universe. When one uses the word "beginning", what they are doing, usually inadvertently so, is to draw a line and say that "X started here". However, the reality is different as there are causes to the cause.

BTW, why are you being so insulting?

Yes, "unless our parents that had previous parent that had previous parents" and so on until the very first parents who were caused to exist by the Primal Cause.

But the reality is that it's far more likely that there aren't any "first parents"-- just a continuum of life forms leading to us.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I did not say that. What I said is that which ultimately led to our universe may well go back into infinity, which I spelled out in my post #250.

Huh? I never denied the BB, nor did I ever deny that the BB helped to lead to our universe. When one uses the word "beginning", what they are doing, usually inadvertently so, is to draw a line and say that "X started here". However, the reality is different as there are causes to the cause.

But the reality is that it's far more likely that there aren't any "first parents"-- just a continuum of life forms leading to us.

Sorry, because I was talking about your post #245. I asked, "Can you tell me then what or Who caused the Universe to exist if it could not have caused itself to exist? And your answer was, "Infinity." Then, you proceeded, "With infinity, there simply is no "primary cause" since it basically states that there may have been always something, whether they be sub-atomic particles, energy waves, or whatever." Remember now? That's okay! I forget too from time to time.

Now, you say that the BB helped to lead to our Universe. Are you implying that the Universe existed before the BB? Yes, you are right that there are causes to the cause, but I say, not to the Primal Cause or there would be no Primal Cause.

Last but not least, you imply above that there were no first parents to ignite the sequence of genetic Causality. So, where have we all come from, the stone? Please, Mr Metis! Sometimes it helps to reach for the help of Logic!

 

[metis]

I asked, "Can you tell me then what or Who caused the Universe to exist if it could not have caused itself to exist? And your answer was, "Infinity." Then, you proceeded, "With infinity, there simply is no "primary cause" since it basically states that there may have been always something, whether they be sub-atomic particles, energy waves, or whatever." Remember now? That's okay! I forget too from time to time.

I did not say that this is what happened but said that this is in the realm of possibility. Remember me posting "I don't know".

Now, you say that the BB helped to lead to our Universe. Are you implying that the Universe existed before the BB?

I have also made that clear in my reference to the minute size of our universe prior to the BB, plus stating that we do not know what may have preceded that.

Yes, you are right that there are causes to the cause, but I say, not to the Primal Cause or there would be no Primal Cause.

And that is the point of the concept of "infinity" which, again, most cosmologists now tend to think is most likely.

Last but not least, you imply above that there were no first parents to ignite the sequence of genetic Causality. So, where have we all come from, the stone?

The evidence, which is overwhelming, is that life has evolved for at the least about 3 billion years here on Earth, but it is impossible to say how it all stated. Did God do it? Gods? I don't know.

Please, Mr Metis! Sometimes it helps to reach for the help of Logic!

You've insulted me for the last time, so I will no longer be directly responding to your posts. If throwing insults around are a mark of your faith, maybe seek out another.

Take care.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I did not say that this is what happened but said that this is in the realm of possibility. Remember me posting "I don't know". I have also made that clear in my reference to the minute size of our universe prior to the BB, plus stating that we do not know what may have preceded that. And that is the point of the concept of "infinity" which, again, most cosmologists now tend to think is most likely. The evidence, which is overwhelming, is that life has evolved for at the least about 3 billion years here on Earth, but it is impossible to say how it all stated. Did God do it? Gods? I don't know. You've insulted me for the last time, so I will no longer be directly responding to your posts. If throwing insults around are a mark of your faith, maybe seek out another.

Aha! So, there was a minute universe prior to the BB! Can you then tell me if this minute universe caused itself to exist or it was caused by something else that preceded it? I think I am going to leave you at it before you charge me with insulting you. That's all I need!

 

[Valjean]

And I will remain there until you tell me how the universe began because, nothing begins from nothing. If the Universe has an age it somehow began to exist. Since it could not have caused itself to begin, it is only obvious that something
or someone activated that beginning. Nu! I am all ears!

How the Universe began is a hot topic in cosmology, and nobody knows for sure.

"Nothing begins from nothing" You keep saying this, and I still don't know how you came to that conclusion. I'm guessing commonsense, but you've been told commonsense doesn't apply to Reality. You'll be telling us something can't be in two places at once, next.

Why does a beginning have to have a cause? Why couldn't the Universe have caused itself to begin? "only obvious" only applies to everyday experience. The 'obvious' was discredited 112 years ago.

 

[Ben Avraham]

How the Universe began is a hot topic in cosmology, and nobody knows for sure. "Nothing begins from nothing" You keep saying this, and I still don't know how you came to that conclusion. I'm guessing commonsense, but you've been told commonsense doesn't apply to Reality. You'll be telling us something can't be in two places at once, next. Why does a beginning have to have a cause? Why couldn't the Universe have caused itself to begin? "only obvious" only applies to everyday experience. The 'obvious' was discredited 112 years ago.

Well, regarding the fact that nothing begins from nothing, mention an evidence of something that has begun out of nothing. And, can you think of some thing that had no cause to exist? Enlighten me! Now, comes your golden question. "Why couldn't the Universe have caused itself to begin?" That's in the field of Logic. For the Universe to have caused itself to begin, it had to exist to do so. If it already existed, why would it still cause itself to exist? On the other hand, if the Universe did not exist, how could it cause itself to exist if it was not there to do the causing? Have I given you the golden answer to your golden question?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

For all you k now God may have creatded it that way. However, think abut this.

Bingo! God created this way...which means god is worth no more than an algebra equation..God tells me no more about the universe, physics, chemistry, life, the human experience...then an algebra equation I learned from 5th grade. If god made it like it is, then god is nothing more than the body of physical laws and equation we use every day to predict all manner of things.

If god created it this way..then god is predictable....