Big Bang cannot be caused

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
This sounds like an argument in favor of a non-physical theory to explain the Big Bang, a theory such as creation by an extra-temporal G-d.
Click to expand...
There is an argument for temporal God. God in this picture existed in eternal past. It is however logically impossible to reach from eternal past to now hence the concept of temporal God is false.
 
Lion_IRC said:
Bahman,

Let’s simplify your idea a little bit.

Suppose instead of “Big Bang” we think of a billiard ball sitting on a great big green table.
It’s not moving. That’s ‘the state’ it’s in. It’s just sitting there waiting for the next ‘state’ to happen.

If the billiard ball starts moving, would you not logically refer to the time before and after it started moving? Why would you insist on claiming that there was no point or prior state before the ball started moving?

Moreover, the movement of the billiard ball (obedient to the free will of my mind) can change direction. It could be moving one way, and I can cause it to stop and even go the opposite direction. What would you say about the “prior states” in which the ball was obeying my free will agency? Is my mind (agency) inside or outside of space/time insofar as the billiard balls movement is concerned?
Click to expand...
Big Bang can start to change if it is unstable. There is absolute void outside Big Band hence you cannot have an intellectual agent.
 
Bahman said:
Why or how?
Click to expand...
Correction: How.
We just proved that Big Bang is not physically possible.
Click to expand...
No you didn’t. :confused: No more than you can prove the Earth doesn’t exist. If the BB theory is to be disproved, you would have to make a scientific argument against the evidence for it. You did prove it can’t have a physical origin, but that’s a different matter entirely than proving it cannot happen.
That is not completely true. What are you referring to is conservation law. The is no reason to believe that conservation law are valid at Big Bang.
Click to expand...
No, I am quoting the obvious fact that from non-being (that is, literal nothing), nothing is, by the very definition of the word, capable of coming forth. If you do not have anything it literally cannot become something by definition. There is every reason to believe THIS law holds true (since it is a law of logic), even if conservation (obviously) doesn’t.
What do you mean with cause?
Click to expand...
You know what a cause is as well as I do. 😉 We might tentatively call it the explanation for an object, person, or phenomenon’s existence.

I repeat my statement:
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
 
Bahman said:
Big Bang can start to change if it is unstable. There is absolute void outside Big Band hence you cannot have an intellectual agent.
Click to expand...
God is not a physical being whereby he takes up or requires space. Hence he needs no void anymore than the number “3” needs a space to reside.

Secondly, there is no “void” outside the universe. Space and time are the things expanding; it is hence improper to visualize a space outside the space-time continuum.
 
Bahman said:
Cyclic theory is wrong since the universe existed in eternal past. It is however logically impossible to reach from eternal past to now.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to reach anywhere. All you have is now, this moment. You don’t have or live in the past and you don’t live in the future. You live in the now and that is what is existing. What the cyclic theory is postulating is that regardless of the point of time you are at, there was a time just before that one. For example, today is May 8, 2016 and the time is 2:00 PM. There was a time just before now, namely, May 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM. but there was a time before that. Regardless of how far back you go, there was a time before the one chosen.
 
FractalFire said:
What *exactly *is it being cited as proof of that it does not prove? Do you expect me to believe that if you don’t explain yourself? 🤷
Click to expand...
FractalFire said:
Borde and Vilenkin in cooperation of Alan Guth (the father of inflationary cosmology) were able to generalize their earlier results which show that inflationary models cannot be eternal in the past.
Click to expand...
All that BVG says is that inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime which is what is mentioned in the abstract of the paper. It doesn’t say that the universe had a beginning. It just says that inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary . Also having a singularity in the past is not the same as having a beginning.
 
FractalFire said:
I repeat my statement:
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Click to expand...
This statement is the well known Kalam cosmological argument which is not valid because In a quantum vacuum virtual particles pop in and out of existence without a cause. But what do you mean by cause anyway? The BGV theorem says that some inflationary models have a singularity in the past, but I don’t see why a singularity in the past would necessarily mean that the universe began to exist.
 
I remember when I had my biology class, I never doubted evolution until I took that class (much of that was the arrogance of the professor). Likewise, with regards to existence of God, my astronomy class strengthened my belief in God. Indeed, I use physics to explain the big bang, and why something IN MOTION has to be PUT in motion. Your suggestion is a non sequitur, and make no sense from the standpoint of physics.
 
FractalFire said:
Correction: How.
Click to expand...
No one knows. We still don’t know the quantum theory of gravity so we still don’t understand Big Bang point. How it emerges? We don’t know. My argument only show that a physical theory cannot provide an answer for that.
FractalFire said:
No you didn’t. :confused: No more than you can prove the Earth doesn’t exist. If the BB theory is to be disproved, you would have to make a scientific argument against the evidence for it. You did prove it can’t have a physical origin, but that’s a different matter entirely than proving it cannot happen.
Click to expand...
I have a proof that it cannot happen if we accept that time is objectively real. It simple. Suppose that we have a theory which shows that BB can start from nothing. We have two states of affair in this theory hence we need time. Time cannot be eternal hence we need another theory which show how time can emerge from nothing. This simply leads to infinite regress. So BB cannot happen if time is objectively real.
FractalFire said:
No, I am quoting the obvious fact that from non-being (that is, literal nothing), nothing is, by the very definition of the word, capable of coming forth. If you do not have anything it literally cannot become something by definition. There is every reason to believe THIS law holds true (since it is a law of logic), even if conservation (obviously) doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Again what you are arguing is conservation law which may not be valid at BB point.
FractalFire said:
You know what a cause is as well as I do. 😉 We might tentatively call it the explanation for an object, person, or phenomenon’s existence.

I repeat my statement:
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Click to expand...
I have problem with (1). In physics we have virtual particles which pop up from nothing.
 
FractalFire said:
God is not a physical being whereby he takes up or requires space. Hence he needs no void anymore than the number “3” needs a space to reside.

Secondly, there is no “void” outside the universe. Space and time are the things expanding; it is hence improper to visualize a space outside the space-time continuum.
Click to expand...
An intelligible agent is knowledgeable. Knowledge is structured information. You need a body/brain to store and process information.
 
Tomdstone said:
You don’t have to reach anywhere. All you have is now, this moment. You don’t have or live in the past and you don’t live in the future. You live in the now and that is what is existing. What the cyclic theory is postulating is that regardless of the point of time you are at, there was a time just before that one. For example, today is May 8, 2016 and the time is 2:00 PM. There was a time just before now, namely, May 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM. but there was a time before that. Regardless of how far back you go, there was a time before the one chosen.
Click to expand...
We are at now. Cyclic universe is eternal which means that has existed at eternal past. It takes infinite waiting to reach from eternal past to now. This is logically impossible.
 
Bahman said:
We are at now. Cyclic universe is eternal which means that has existed at eternal past. It takes infinite waiting to reach from eternal past to now. This is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
There is no logical contradiction in assuming infinite regress. There is no rule of logic which is violated.
 
Bahman said:
Big Bang can start to change if it is unstable. There is absolute void outside Big Band hence you cannot have an intellectual agent.
Click to expand...
You are wrongly thinking of God in spacecial sense.
 
Bahman said:
We are at now. Cyclic universe is eternal which means that has existed at eternal past. It takes infinite waiting to reach from eternal past to now. This is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
God is not trapped in time. Think of him more of witnessing all times at once rather than moving with it.
 
pietrocontolini said:
God is not trapped in time. Think of him more of witnessing all times at once rather than moving with it.
Click to expand...
Don’t waste your time. This has been explained to Bahman repeatedly. He either refuses to listen, or just can’t understand it. I know that I personally have explained it to him on at least 5 occasions, and he’s never even acknowledged it, let alone considered it. I know that several others have explained it to him as well.

You can only instruct the ignorant if they are willing to learn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top