The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[shawn001]

It used to be thought that gravity might pull the universe back to the singularity, called the big crunch. As mentioned that has been ruled out.

Instead we learned the universe is expanding faster then the speed of light. Its believed dark matter and dark energy are playing a role in this.

However, this is bascially where were at now in regards to expansion.

The End of Everything

 

[shawn001]

There is also the possiblity there could be another bang in this universe at anytime.

 

[gnostic]

Thats no surpise because science cant trace anything beyond nature. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. In order to look for the origin of the universe, you have to look beyond the universe. A transcendent cause is necessary.

If the scientist can't explain something AT THIS TIME, then they will either give possible logical scenario or possibilities (hypothesis), or they will admit that they don't know.

In regard with study of nature (eg evolutionary biology) and scientific cosmology (like the Big Bang), theories can be explain without the need for some supposed divine or transcendent being(s).

One thing they won't do (nor will I), is to go backward to the ANCIENT or MEDIEVAL SUPERSTITIONS that every unexplainable occurrences will result in - "God did it".

That's being lazy and using fearmongrring idiocy, and not using your brain. If want to resort to such primitive superstition, then be my guest.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That's being lazy and using fearmongrring idiocy, and not using your brain. If want to resort to such primitive superstition, then be my guest.

Interesting sentence given your username lol

Science begins with the position that we think A is true, we think B is False and we don't know C; where C is the main focus of scientific study

Science begins in ignorance and searches for answers, evidence obtained during that search may challenge assumptions, but is incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge on the basis that it advances our understanding and therefore brings us closer to those answers.


Most Religions begin with the position that we know A is true, we know B is False and we don't know C; where A is the focus of religious dogma (through scriptures and so forth)

Religions begin with dogma and seek to either accept what evidence can be incorporated into their dogmatic truths or reject anything that cannot be incorporated.


It is their approach to explanations that gives science the advantage, science accepts that what they have are theories of how they think the world works, when evidence challenges those explanations, this is an 'opportunity' to advance science. Most Religions on the other hand (particularly those that have a literal interpretation of their religious literature and stories) already believe they have the answer, so any evidence that challenges those explanations is a 'threat'.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

"If there are ONLY two explanations"

There is more then two as has been shown to you.

What has been shown to me are scientific explanations, 1 of the 2 types of explanations. So what are you talking about?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What is an immaterial spirit then?

A spirit is a supernatural being that doesnt have a material body.

How do we know the existence of an immaterial spirit?

An immaterial spirit is postulated after all possible scientific explanations have been found to be unlikely or impossible. As i stated for the 50th time, a scientific explanation cannot be used as means of explaining the absolute origins of nature. Impossible.

Is there anyway we can observe, feel, test, see or imagine an immaterial spirit?

From the Christian point of view you can certainly feel the Holy Spirit. I don't know about observing, unless God chooses to reveal himself to you that way. I dont think you can test for it in a scientific way and you can certainly imagine it. Just imagine an immaterial form of yourself.

So where does God dwell? the skies or outer space?

Gods dwelling place is beyond outer space

I imagine that infinite space-time can exist. That the space-time created from the BB occupy part of the space-time of the infinite space-time of something like an ultraverse.

Then it would be potentially infinite, not actual infinite.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

At present we can look at all the galaxies as mathematical points moving away from each other. But if you run the equation backwards then at some point the description of galaxies as simple points stop making sense.

Thats exactly why general relativity breaks down once you reach Planck time. That is when space is shrunk down to sub atomic portions. So you are right, it stops making sense.

There is a lot of stuff in the universe.
When you bring all that stuff very close together how will it behave?

Dunno. How was it behaving before it expanded? Do we know? All we know is that for some reason, it expanded. Why?

You assume that you can just keep going backwards treating galaxies as points, but those "points" are made up of a lot of stuff so that when they come close together they probably don't behave as points anymore. And at some point things are so close together that a lot of quantum effects become important.

No one is sure how to introduce quantum physics to this phenomenon.

There is no reason to think it will shrink into an infinitly dense point.

I never said that it was

Take your ballon example.
It is true that when you let out the air it shrinks, but it doesn't shrink to a point. it shrinks to a limp peace of plastic.

The limp piece of plastic represents the singularity.

 

[idav]

It used to be thought that gravity might pull the universe back to the singularity, called the big crunch. As mentioned that has been ruled out.

Instead we learned the universe is expanding faster then the speed of light. Its believed dark matter and dark energy are playing a role in this.

However, this is bascially where were at now in regards to expansion.

The End of Everything

I'm not even really sure enough about what the dark matter is doing to make space do that. Depending there could be a bounce back or spring back like a rubber band or balloon isn't being stretched any further. In which case space will either come back in or get ripped apart.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Erm, from your answer it looks like you didn't understand what i said.
If i concede there are only two KINDS of explanations, the scientific and the personal ones ( and the scientific not being possible), i want you to say why within the whole realm of personal explanations available you chose the one you did. In other words, before the moment you let your religious bias into the matter, how did you come to the conclusion a personal deity was involved? What intrigues me the most is that you are so certain of your choice and yet you state that it is all a matter of personal explanation.

Um Koldo....allow me to let you in on a big secret...a personal explanation requires an effect from a conscious entity. That is why it is called a PERSONal explanation. PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON.

I didn't know God was a regular object ( ), but nevertheless....
Then let me rewrite my question: In your analogy, what represents God and what represents the universe singularity?

God is neither one. I kind of forgot which analogy I used lol. If it was the chandelier falling, I was using that analogy as a way to show how something can exist in a timeless state and be the cause of time.

Just because you have never seen something happening it doesn't mean it didn't happen. But you do know this much, don't you? We have never seen an impersonal entity creating intelligent beings in the same manner we have also never seen a personal deity creating intelligent beings.

Yeah but which one is more logical??? Intelligence is the ability to think and learn. How can you recieve the ability to think and learn from a entity that doesn't have the ability to think and learn??? My argument is the source of all intelligence can only come from an entity that is intelligent. On a naturalistic view, from the very beginning there was no thinking, there was no learning, there was no study, there was no logic and reasoning. You cant get get these things from something that doesn't haven these things. Which would be more logical, to ask a monkey to teach you how to play chess, or to ask a grandmaster of chess how to play chess? You cant learn the game of chess from something or someone that doesn't know how to play it. The fact that we are even entertaining this is showing me what people will believe just because they dont want to believe in God.

What?
I was considering a ball that was lying in the cushion since the start of time or during the eternity in a timeless state. There was no moment 'before the ball dropped on it'.

Oh yeah, on the ball/cushion view i was only trying to show simulatenous causation. That is because God creating the universe occurred simulatenously with the beginning of time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And what does the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation have to say about density parameter, Ω? ]

What does it need to say?

I will say it again. You cannot conclude from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that Ω is larger than or equal to 1.

Huh?

The only thin you can cloclude is that the universe is expanding and has been doing so for quite a while.

THATS THE WHOLE POINT. The standard big bang model predicted that the universe was expanding years before the expansion was observed. The background radiation only confirmed this even more so. So tell me something that i dont know

Because it in 1998 seemed that Ω was smaller than 1 doesn't mean it is so.
The latest figure I heard was 1.02 +- 0.02.
But again, new observations constantly change the best guess of that number so...

This has nothing to do with anything. It doesnt effect the empirical evidence that we have for the big bang. So what you are attempting to prove, i have no idea.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am puzzled.
Why do you find it more logical to assume that god never began to exist, than that the universe never began to exist?

Because God is timeless (without the universe). We cant say that the universe is infinite because that would imply infinite in time. Time cannot be infinite. The universe cannot exist and not be in time. So if time is not infinite, the universe cannot be infinite. And by "infinite", i mean that both time and the universe are not "actually" infinite. But they are "potentially" infinite. It is important to make that distinction when talking about infinity. Second, I find it more logical to assume that the universe began to exist because of the evidence against an infinite universe. I will continue to be in line with science on this view. The universe began to exist and therefore it requires a transcendent cause as the best explanation for its origin.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If the scientist can't explain something AT THIS TIME, then they will either give possible logical scenario or possibilities (hypothesis), or they will admit that they don't know.

Science cannot be used to explain the absolute origins of itself (has got to be the 85th time i said this).

In regard with study of nature (eg evolutionary biology) and scientific cosmology (like the Big Bang), theories can be explain without the need for some supposed divine or transcendent being(s).

You can't use biology as a way to explain the absolute origins of life. I don't believe in evolution, btw. I think it is the biggest lie to ever hit our text books.

One thing they won't do (nor will I), is to go backward to the ANCIENT or MEDIEVAL SUPERSTITIONS that every unexplainable occurrences will result in - "God did it".

Well, thats fine. For theists, we dont need science to explain everything, unlike naturalists. All we need science to do is tell us that the universe began to exist, which we already knew in the first place

That's being lazy and using fearmongrring idiocy, and not using your brain. If want to resort to such primitive superstition, then be my guest.

As I said before, you continue to believe that life came from non-life, intelligence came from non-intelligence, and that order came from chaos. I will stick to my belief that a intelligent entity is the source of intelligence. But to each his own.

 

[Photonic]

Science cannot be used to explain the absolute origins of itself (has got to be the 85th time i said this).



You can't use biology as a way to explain the absolute origins of life. I don't believe in evolution, btw. I think it is the biggest lie to ever hit our text books.



Well, thats fine. For theists, we dont need science to explain everything, unlike naturalists. All we need science to do is tell us that the universe began to exist, which we already knew in the first place



As I said before, you continue to believe that life came from non-life, intelligence came from non-intelligence, and that order came from chaos. I will stick to my belief that a intelligent entity is the source of intelligence. But to each his own.

Again, you can say something as much as you want, but quantity isn't truth.

You still skirted around my question. Is the matter that makes you up intelligent and alive or is it not?

 

[gnostic]

You can't use biology as a way to explain the absolute origins of life. I don't believe in evolution, btw. I think it is the biggest lie to ever hit our text books.

Science don't care if you believe in evolution or not. You belief is irrelevant.

The only thing it show is your utter ignorance on the matter, because evolution was never about the "Origin of Life" (or how the first life began).

If you even bother to read what Natural Selection in a textbook, you would see that it doesn't speak of anything about how life began. It is only about biological changes to life (that already exist), so that it can survive in changing environment. Evolution also explain the wide diversity of life (hence about species).

Get this through your thick head: Evolution IS NOT about the origin of life.

There are countless evidences to support evolution as a theory and as a science...even more than the Big Bang Theory, or even gravity.

But why do I even bother to explain it to you. You have already have your head in the sand, so no how many evidences are presented to you, you would still deny what you can see.

 

[lunakilo]

I have to say here, we have pictures of the universe before any galaxies existed at all. The galaxies are of course made up of stars and gas and dust.

We know the first starts starting forming around 200 million years after the bang.


"There is no reason to think it will shrink into an infinitly dense point."

actually there is

"When you bring all that stuff very close together how will it behave?"

a singularity, although different then a black hole singularity.


"

I am beginning to think that all we are arguing over is the meaning of words.
The word singulatity in particulat

Take your ballon example.
It is true that when you let out the air it shrinks, but it doesn't shrink to a point. it shrinks to a limp peace of plastic"

This is not a good analogy.

It was originally Call_of_the_Wild's analogy.
I was just trying to indicate that you have to be careful when you apply simple mathematical formulas to the real world as it may not be an adequate description in all cases.

If you go back as far as you can in planck time, you get all four fundemental forces combined.

Right, but that does NOT make it a singularity.
a planck distance is NOT zero.

...

lunakilo, are you aware of the Cosmic Background Radation and what it actually is and tells us?

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

I did take basic cosmology once upon a time

The cosmic background radiation is assumed to be the 'light' that was let loose when the universe 'became transparent'.
That is when the universe cooled to about 2.7 K and protons and electrons could form neutral atoms. In contrast to the proton/electron plasma, the neutral atoms did no longer absorbed the photons, leaving them to travel freely.
The fact that they were let loose with an energy of 2.7K means they have a spectrum of a black body of 2.7 K which peeks in the microwave range.

What this tells us is that the universe was once so hot and dense that atoms could not exist. It then expanded and cooled allowing atoms to form.
It expanded then about (13.7 billion years ago) and it is still expanding.

My objection to what Call_of_the_Wild writes is that he extrapolates back in time far beyond this point even though we don't really know how things behave under such extreme conditions.

High energy particle physics is trying to push back the line, but we hit a point beyond which we just don't know what happened.

Assuming that everything would collapes into a point is assuming that only attractive forces are at work.
As you said "If you go back as far as you can in planck time, you get all four fundemental forces combined.", but we don't (to my knowledge) yet have a proper theory which combines these.
So all this talk about the singulatity that must have existed makes no sense to me.

 

[lunakilo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunakilo
There is no reason to think it will shrink into an infinitly dense point.

I never said that it was

Well you keep saying that there was a singularity, and that is what a singularity is. The whole univers shunk to a point.

So yes, you did say that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunakilo
Take your ballon example.
It is true that when you let out the air it shrinks, but it doesn't shrink to a point. it shrinks to a limp peace of plastic.

The limp piece of plastic represents the singularity.

But the limp piece of plasitc is not a point.

Likewise there is no reason to think that the whole universe would shink to a point.

 

[lunakilo]

What does it need to say?



Huh?



THATS THE WHOLE POINT. The standard big bang model predicted that the universe was expanding years before the expansion was observed. The background radiation only confirmed this even more so. So tell me something that i dont know



This has nothing to do with anything. It doesnt effect the empirical evidence that we have for the big bang. So what you are attempting to prove, i have no idea.

[sigh!]

You are the one who keep saying that the universe will expand forever.
You use the background radiation as "proof"for this.
I am just telling you that the background radiation does NOT say the universe will expand forever.

What determines if the universe will expand forever is not the density parameret, aka Ω. If it is larger than one the universe will collapse. Otherwise it will expand forever.
The value of Ω is not determined at the present time.
Most guesses are somwhere around 1, but the best guess of the number keeps changing.

So I say again [sigh!] You do not know that the universe will expand forever.

 

[lunakilo]

Because God is timeless (without the universe). We cant say that the universe is infinite because that would imply infinite in time. Time cannot be infinite. The universe cannot exist and not be in time. So if time is not infinite, the universe cannot be infinite. And by "infinite", i mean that both time and the universe are not "actually" infinite. But they are "potentially" infinite. It is important to make that distinction when talking about infinity. Second, I find it more logical to assume that the universe began to exist because of the evidence against an infinite universe. I will continue to be in line with science on this view. The universe began to exist and therefore it requires a transcendent cause as the best explanation for its origin.

Mhh, if time cannot be infinite how can the universe expand forever?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I would point out Call of the Wild that a transcendent (not necessarily divine, but merely transcendent to natural law as we currently understand it) cause is only necessary if you hold that the 'universe began to exist' as well as our understandings of the laws surrounding the preservation of matter and energy. This implies that time has an origin and this is a position which you have yet to supported with evidence (note that the potential 'age' of the universe does not necessitate that 'time' did not exist prior to this, though we may use it as a means by which to attribute time relative to this event as the nearest that we can consider an 'absolute' of time)

 

[outhouse]

Science cannot be used to explain the absolute origins of itself (has got to be the 85th time i said this).

And you have been wrong ALL 85 times