The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[lunakilo]

A dog is a different kind of animal than a horse. I understand this "species" business gets pretty iffy when it comes to animal classicfication. But nonetheless, a dog is a different kind of animal than a horse.

How do mules, hinnies, ligers and tions fit into this kind-system?

 

[lunakilo]

Borde/Guth/Vilenkin

It sounds like switching cause and effect here.

The theorem you are referring to says a universe which is on average expanding throughout its lifetime must have has a beginning.

If the density of the universe was high enough to make the universe collapse then the universe would NOT on average be expanding throughout its lifetime, and the theorem can say nothing about whether or not the universe had a beginning.

The BGV-theorem says that a universe which is on average expanding throughout its lifetime must have has a beginning, not tha any universe will expand for ever.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ahhh but why would it fall??? If it has been hanging for all eternity, and there is no outside interference, why would it all of a sudden fall??? And if it did fall, why didnt it fall sooner?? Why not later, especially if there is no outside interference. But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more. Now of course, by "freely choose", i mean that it would always have had the eternal will of either falling or hanging. Whatever its eternal will was.

Thats the point i was trying to drive home. Our universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. Why didnt it begin sooner, or later? This would only make sense if a transcendent being CHOOSE to create it at that SPECIFIC moment in time.

I have no idea why it would fall; it did not occur to me that your analogy was going any deeper than 'and Time started'.

 

[lunakilo]

Ahhh but why would it fall??? If it has been hanging for all eternity, and there is no outside interference, why would it all of a sudden fall??? And if it did fall, why didnt it fall sooner?? Why not later, especially if there is no outside interference. But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more. Now of course, by "freely choose", i mean that it would always have had the eternal will of either falling or hanging. Whatever its eternal will was.

Thats the point i was trying to drive home. Our universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. Why didnt it begin sooner, or later? This would only make sense if a transcendent being CHOOSE to create it at that SPECIFIC moment in time.

So you are arguing that the universe is God?
Didn't you just argue against pantheism with idavhttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/idav-30513.html?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ahhh but why would it fall??? If it has been hanging for all eternity, and there is no outside interference, why would it all of a sudden fall??? And if it did fall, why didnt it fall sooner?? Why not later, especially if there is no outside interference. But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more. Now of course, by "freely choose", i mean that it would always have had the eternal will of either falling or hanging. Whatever its eternal will was.

Thats the point i was trying to drive home. Our universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. Why didnt it begin sooner, or later? This would only make sense if a transcendent being CHOOSE to create it at that SPECIFIC moment in time.

Looking at this further, I'm also pleased to comment:

Your last question paragraph makes no sense but it does show your obvious intent to shove God into the equation, where he wasn't needed . In reference to your phrasing, in terms of 'why didn't the universe start sooner/later', that's a nonsense question, since without Time passing independently there is zero frame of reference to say what the universe sprang into being sooner than, or not. In other words it's not possible to compare the 'when' of the big bang to anything else.

As to the chandelier, as I may have noted above you are mixing your metaphors, in that you are describing conditions that apply to a chandelier dropping instantly at the 'instant' of the big bang [for the chandelier]. And THEN you also describe something where the chandelier, having its own will and deciding to fall, has Time pass before it begins falling.

Because, after all, in order for the chandelier to have an 'eternal will', Time must be passing. Because only with Time passing can the chandelier think 'I am hanging right now, and don't like it; I wish to fall'.

It cannot have a will of any kind without Time. Thought requires Time.

That's why God doesn't exist without Time.

 

[idav]

So you are arguing that the universe is God?
Didn't you just argue against pantheism with idavhttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/idav-30513.html?

For what he is arguing you have to add an outside agent that wills the chandalier or what not. The problem is he is saying that the universe went into big bang mode the instant it came into existence. I feel there is no way to prove that as HH is implying, there is no way to know how long the chandelier had been there before it dropped much less whether another agent caused it to fall.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Indeed Idav, in some respects, one of Call's concepts appears to be, that the chandelier universe, exists with the chandelier perpetually in motion and never still; in other words, it was never attached [presumably to its cosmic ceiling] in the 1st place, but is merely in eternal downward motion.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you are arguing that the universe is God?
Didn't you just argue against pantheism with idav?

The chandelier was just an analogy of how a timeless entity could enter time and also be the cause of time. I don't know where you get pantheism from, but that has nothing to do with the analogy nor did I imply it.

 

[Photonic]

The chandelier was just an analogy of how a timeless entity could enter time and also be the cause of time. I don't know where you get pantheism from, but that has nothing to do with the analogy nor did I imply it.

So when did the chandelier start falling?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It sounds like switching cause and effect here.

The theorem you are referring to says a universe which is on average expanding throughout its lifetime must have has a beginning.

true true

If the density of the universe was high enough to make the universe collapse then the universe would NOT on average be expanding throughout its lifetime, and the theorem can say nothing about whether or not the universe had a beginning.

In 1998, two research groups rocked the field of cosmology with their independent announcements that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. By measuring the redshift of light from Type Ia supernovae, deep-space stars that explode with a characteristic energy, teams from the Supernova Cosmology Project headquartered at Berkeley Lab and the High-Z Supernova Search Team centered in Australia determined that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, not decelerating. The unknown force behind this accelerated expansion was given the name “dark energy.”

Prior to the discovery of dark energy, conventional scientific wisdom held that the Big Bang had resulted in an expansion of the universe that would gradually be slowed down by gravity. If the matter content in the universe provided enough gravity, one day the expansion would stop altogether and the universe would fall back on itself in a Big Crunch. If the gravity from matter was insufficient to completely stop the expansion, the universe would continue floating apart forever.
“From the announcements in 1998 and subsequent measurements, we now know that the accelerated expansion of the universe did not start until sometime in the last 10 billion years,” Caldwell says.

Will the Universe Expand Forever?

Now if the accelerated expansion of the universe occurred 10 billion years ago, then what was it doing for the first 3 billion years?? It was accelerating, just at a slower rate. So the BGV theorem applies to this theory, thus, a beginning of the universe.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Looking at this further, I'm also pleased to comment:

Your last question paragraph makes no sense but it does show your obvious intent to shove God into the equation, where he wasn't needed . In reference to your phrasing, in terms of 'why didn't the universe start sooner/later', that's a nonsense question, since without Time passing independently there is zero frame of reference to say what the universe sprang into being sooner than, or not. In other words it's not possible to compare the 'when' of the big bang to anything else.

This is silly. If something began to exist, there not only has to be a cause, but there also has to be a reason WHY. All i asked was, if the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago, why did it happen. There is always a "how", "why", and "what" question that can be asked of ANYTHING that began to exist. Just because you dont know the answer doesn't mean that you are prohibited from asking the question.

As to the chandelier, as I may have noted above you are mixing your metaphors, in that you are describing conditions that apply to a chandelier dropping instantly at the 'instant' of the big bang [for the chandelier].

Even if the singularity popped in to being and started to expand simultaneously, that would still imply that the universe and time itself began to exist.

And THEN you also describe something where the chandelier, having its own will and deciding to fall, has Time pass before it begins falling.

No it didnt. I said the chandelier had an ETERNAL will to fall. So the chandelier never at any point began to decide to fall. It always knew it would fall for eternity.

Because, after all, in order for the chandelier to have an 'eternal will', Time must be passing. Because only with Time passing can the chandelier think 'I am hanging right now, and don't like it; I wish to fall'.
It cannot have a will of any kind without Time. Thought requires Time.
That's why God doesn't exist without Time.

How is time passing in eternity? Eternity is the state of timelessness. If God is ominiscient, his thoughts doesnt require time because he always knew. He doesnt need a brain to assess thoughts, he already knows.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

For what he is arguing you have to add an outside agent that wills the chandalier or what not. The problem is he is saying that the universe went into big bang mode the instant it came into existence. I feel there is no way to prove that as HH is implying, there is no way to know how long the chandelier had been there before it dropped much less whether another agent caused it to fall.

My goodness you people are misinterpreting the anaology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PolyHedral]

How is time passing in eternity? Eternity is the state of timelessness.

I disagree; IMO, eternity is synonymous with "all time." This could quite easily turn out to be finite, or bounded at one or both ends. (Bounded at both ends and being finite are not necessarily connected together. )

 

[gnostic]

My goodness you people are misinterpreting the anaology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:no: You just telling the analogy terribly.

Instead of showing the likeness of your chandelier-analogy to the Big Bang cosmology and gravity/time, what you've given us is open to interpretation.

You have made it too complicated and it contained too many ambiguity in this analogy.

Worse of all, your own interpretations changes (to your chandelier analogy) from one moment to next, thereby rendering it absolutely meaningless.

BTW, did you read my post 336? You have quoted (post 331) from koldo's reply (I think), but you put my name to his quotes. Either correct your errors, or put an apology (if you can no longer edit post 331).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

:no: You just telling the analogy terribly.

No im not. You people are either misinterpreting the analogy or you are over analyzing it. Based on the standard model of the big bang, there WAS no time before the big bang, but yet it happened. The only way this could happen is if the big bang was the effect of a timeless cause. The chandelier is a good example, the chandelier, fell from the celing after being in a timeless state, and God, caused the big bang after being in a timeless state. So what part of that you people fail to understand?

Instead of showing the likeness of your chandelier-analogy to the Big Bang cosmology and gravity/time, what you've given us is open to interpretation.

Its not open to interpretation. The analogy is what it is.

You have made it too complicated and it contained too many ambiguity in this analogy.
Worse of all, your own interpretations changes (to your chandelier analogy) from one moment to next, thereby rendering it absolutely meaningless.

Complicated? I said a chandelier is hanging from a ceiling for all eternity. It never moved. From this ALONE, it symbolizes a timeless state. Then the chandelier all of a sudden FELL FROM THE CELING. Time began from the instant the chandelier fell. The chandelier went from a timeless state to a temporal state. The universe....it began from a singularity state and expanded simultaneously, and from that moment of motion time began. What is so hard about this?

BTW, did you read my post 336? You have quoted (post 331) from koldo's reply (I think), but you put my name to his quotes. Either correct your errors, or put an apology (if you can no longer edit post 331).

My bad. That is my apology.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I disagree; IMO, eternity is synonymous with "all time." This could quite easily turn out to be finite, or bounded at one or both ends. (Bounded at both ends and being finite are not necessarily connected together. )

Well according to my dictionary: Eternal can either mean...

1. infinite time: time without beginning or end lost for all eternity
2. timelessness: the condition, quality, or fact of being without beginning or end

God is eternal in the sense of timelessness.

 

[idav]

This is silly. If something began to exist, there not only has to be a cause, but there also has to be a reason WHY......

So if God exists then he needs a cause. Apply the same logic to your creator otherwise you still are not solving the infinite regression issue.

 

[McBell]

Well according to my dictionary: Eternal can either mean...

1. infinite time: time without beginning or end lost for all eternity
2. timelessness: the condition, quality, or fact of being without beginning or end

God is eternal in the sense of timelessness.

Why did you add "without beginning"?


"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
eternal
adj 1: continuing forever or indefinitely; "the ageless themes
of love and revenge"; "eternal truths"; "life
everlasting"; "hell's perpetual fires"; "the unending
bliss of heaven" [syn: ageless, aeonian, eonian,
eternal, everlasting, perpetual, unending,
unceasing]
2: tiresomely long; seemingly without end; "endless debates";
"an endless conversation"; "the wait seemed eternal";
"eternal quarreling"; "an interminable sermon" [syn:
endless, eternal, interminable]

 

[McBell]

So if God exists then he needs a cause. Apply the same logic to your creator otherwise you still are not solving the infinite regression issue.

I agree.

However, he did not say that for something to exist it needs a cause.
he said " If something began to exist" it needs a cause.

Which I also agree with.
However, he sidesteps the whole issue by making the unsubstantiated claim that god had no beginning.

It is the same as the whole "created things need a creator" nonsense that creationists pull. As stated it is true.
It becomes problematic when they go on to claim that humans were "created" thus god has to exist.
Then many creationists further their ratification by claiming it has to be true because it has not been proven to be not true.

 

[idav]

I agree.

However, he did not say that for something to exist it needs a cause.
he said " If something began to exist" it needs a cause.

Which I also agree with.
However, he sidesteps the whole issue by making the unsubstantiated claim that god had no beginning.

It is the same as the whole "created things need a creator" nonsense that creationists pull. As stated it is true.
It becomes problematic when they go on to claim that humans were "created" thus god has to exist.
Then many creationists further their ratification by claiming it has to be true because it has not been proven to be not true.

I noticed he said began but yes if he applied the same logic to god then he should end up with the same problem. Just copping out by saying God is eternal can just as easily be applied to the singularity for example. We can't explain where the singularity so placing God before what we know is the ultimate god of the gaps which is about the only place people have left to hide god since most everything else has natural explanations.