There is no possible scientific explanation for the universe

[warpspeedpetey]

But you don’t know what existed before. There could have been physical things there before our universe. The physical things might have had entirely different characteristics. Who knows.

it doesnt matter what properties they might have had, because if something does not exist it cannot act to cause itself. no matter what characteristics it has.

My point was simply that we don’t know what there was, so the debate is moot. Maybe it was God, maybe it was a heard of flying pink monkeys that collided with a group of space-fish, maybe it was the collapse of the previous universe.

because **physical things canot cause themselves **we can eliminate any physical process whatsoever, of any kind.

Physical things can cause other physical things though.

sure, but those physical things also require a cause. they cannot cause themselves. ultimately, by process of elimination, that leaves only a non-physical cause as the origin of the physical universe.

The properties of what we call the physical universe mean that that’s what the properties were from the time of the BB. That’s all. Claiming that you can know anything about what was prior to that is a tall order because there is no current evidence regarding such things, perhaps you would care to provide a citation?

a citation for what? that one can reason from observation to hypothesis? thats the basios of science, i refer you to the last 500 years or so of scientific inquiry. lol

im not claiming to know about previous environments at all, only that no physical process can explain our origins.

Basically, you are assuming that nothing physical could possibly exist before the big bang (or whatever) and thus what you call non-physical must be the cause. “assuming” being the key word there.

im not assuming there was nothing physical prior to the BB, i assume nothing at all in regards to that, rather, that it doesnt matter whether there was anything physical or not, because nothing physical can cause itself.

no matter what was before the current universe, there can be no physical explanation.

because no matter the characteristics of the universe prior to the BB, something that doesnt exist cannot act to cause itself.

that completely excludes any possible scientific explanation.

it seems that you are implying that physical self causation is possible under some circumstances.

the problem is that violates a very simple axiom, something that doesnt exist cannot act to create itself, because it doesnt exist.

that axiom is why no physical explanation, under any circumstances is possible. no possible universal laws or characteristics can change that.

 

[liquidpele]

the problem is that violates a very simple axiom, something that doesnt exist cannot act to create itself, because it doesnt exist.

that axiom is why no physical explanation, under any circumstances is possible. no possible universal laws or characteristics can change that.

You’re claiming something is not possible without proof. I asked you to cite something. I’m not saying the universe can create an exact copy of itself, I’m saying one thing can create another different thing… and that does not mean that the former can’t be like the latter.

Imagine a universe that expands, and then contracts into the singularity, doing this over and over for infinity. Where did that come from, right? That’s your question. My response is that there doesn’t have to be a beginning, as much as that seems odd to you and I which live our lives dealing with things that both begin and end. In this way, the universe can recreate itself over and over infinity. I’m not saying that’s the case, I’m saying that is an example of where matter can re-create itself over and over because that’s what the reality of the situation would be. I hope that was clear enough… this stuff is complicated to talk about because it’s so theoretical and stuff

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re claiming something is not possible without proof.

here is the proof - “something that does not exist cannot act to cause itself, because it doesn’t exist.”

are you saying that is not true?

I asked you to cite something.

but you didn’t specify what you wanted a citation of. i assumed incorrectly then, please be very specific about what you believes needs citation to be true.

I’m not saying the universe can create an exact copy of itself, I’m saying one thing can create another different thing… and that does not mean that the former can’t be like the latter.

? im not sure here what you are saying. do you mean that there are circumstances that the axiom is false?

it doesnt matter how long you make a causal chain, there is still something that must cause the first physical thing. because that physical thing cannot create itself.

Imagine a universe that expands, and then contracts into the singularity, doing this over and over for infinity. Where did that come from, right? That’s your question. My response is that there doesn’t have to be a beginning, as much as that seems odd to you and I which live our lives dealing with things that both begin and end. In this way, the universe can recreate itself over and over infinity. I’m not saying that’s the case, I’m saying that is an example of where matter can re-create itself over and over because that’s what the reality of the situation would be. I hope that was clear enough… this stuff is complicated to talk about because it’s so theoretical and stuff

your talking about a cyclic universe here, one that expands and contracts, not only do we have no such evidence, those theories are impossible because they violate the second law of thermodynamics and the most recent observations of universal expansion, from what we currently observe the universe wont contract because it lacks sufficient mass to overcome the acceleration. those are just the first 2 among several other problems.

that line of argument is a logical fallacy called a special pleading, where in the universe is eternal, while nothing else we know of is, without any evidence to support it.

so the universe cannot be eternal without breaking some pretty fundamental laws and denying what we can physically observe of the universe.

even ignoring the laws of physics and current scientific observation, an eternal universe is impossible, because it lacks a cause, and i dont know of anything that exists with out a cause. that makes it another special pleading, requiring mountains of evidence.

 

[PennitentMan]

But you are proceeding on the assumption that it didn’t exist.

What proof have you that we started from nothing? You don’t have any…therein lies the fault in that reasoning. The whole I.D. Argument since Aquinas’ time is based on the assumption that there was nothing in the beginning. That’s not true.

The correct assumption is simply that we do not know. That’s what science says. To state that there was nothing is a baseless assumption
What’s more is that cosmologists are now starting to postulate that there was in fact something before the big bang,

Read Scientists Sean Carroll:

“What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.”

One of the big questions about the initial conditions of the universe is why did entropy start out so low? “And low entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time” said Carroll. “Life and death, memory, the flow of time.” Events happen in order and can’t be reversed.

“Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you’re doing observational cosmology,” Carroll said

Therefore, in order to answer our questions about the universe and the arrow of time, we might need to consider what happened before the Big Bang.

Carroll insisted these are important issues to think about. “This is not just recreational theology,” he said. “We want a story of the universe that makes sense. When we have things that seem surprising, we look for an underlying mechanism that makes what was a puzzle understandable. The low entropy universe is clue to something and we should work to find it.”

Don’t be so quick to jump to a conclusion that you can’t prove.
That’s why I re-wrote your statement slightly…because we can’t prove it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But you are proceeding on the assumption that it didn’t exist.

What proof have you that we started from nothing? You don’t have any…therein lies the fault in that reasoning. The whole I.D. Argument since Aquinas’ time is based on the assumption that there was nothing in the beginning. That’s not true.

The correct assumption is simply that we do not know. That’s what science says. To state that there was nothing is a baseless assumption
What’s more is that cosmologists are now starting to postulate that there was in fact something before the big bang,

Read Scientists Sean Carroll:

Don’t be so quick to jump to a conclusion that you can’t prove.
That’s why I re-wrote your statement slightly…because we can’t prove it.

it doesnt matter whether there was a pre BB environment or not or even what it might have been, something physical that doesnt exist cannot act to cause its own existence regardless of environment.

science can offer then, no ultimate answer. science only deals with the physical, as the physical can not cause itself, science cant give an answer.

i think thats pretty much proof of my argument.

 

[liquidpele]

it doesnt matter whether there was a pre BB environment or not or even what it might have been, something physical that doesnt exist cannot act to cause its own existence regardless of environment.

science can offer then, no ultimate answer. science only deals with the physical, as the physical can not cause itself, science cant give an answer.

i think thats pretty much proof of my argument.

I feel like I’m talking to a wall at this point. You have offered no proof. You ask what I need a citation for, I asked for a citation of what research you did to decide what was before the BB (including nothingness) that invalidates the universe taking it’s present form from that.

Basically, you claim that the only thing that could be before the big bang was nothingness, and then just poof there is stuff. If that were the case, I can see your argument that there is a God that caused it. HOWEVER, my argument is that nothingness before the big bang is just your opinion, in all liklyhood there WAS something before it, we just don’t know what.

I hope that is clearer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I feel like I’m talking to a wall at this point. You have offered no proof.

the proof is in the OP. once again just to be clear here is the proof.

if something physical doesnt exist, it cant act to cause itself. agreed?

as science only deals with the physical, it then, can give no explanation for the origins of the universe.

essentialy, since the physical cannot cause itself, and science only deals with the physical, there can be no scientific explanation.

this is my proof, what part of it specifically do you consider false?

You ask what I need a citation for, I asked for a citation of what research you did to decide what was before the BB (including nothingness) that invalidates the universe taking it’s present form from that.

 

[liquidpele]

if something physical doesnt exist, it cant act to cause itself. agreed?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;5226614:

That said, it is entirely possible that we find evidence that disproves the big bang, or shows that something did exist before it, in which case the theory would have to be revised to take this new evidence into account.

yeah, it threw them for a loop when they realized that the expansion is accelerating.

That was the point I was trying to make in our earlier discussion, that just because the BB theory says something now, doesn’t mean that it can’t be revised. Honestly, my personal opinion is that the BB is not correct, simply because I find the notion of a definite starting point as something that doesn’t make much sense to me in this context.

awhile back i pinned a physicist down here on the forums, it took a few dozen tries, but he finally admitted the singularity or monobloc was an assumption.

i dont think to much of it either, for me the BB is like a fish in a lake, someone dabbles their fingers in the water, and the fish only sees the ripples. saying there is a monobloc, because something must have exploded is an article of faith in the scientific community. i think thats a little funny.

 

[liquidpele]

awhile back i pinned a physicist down here on the forums, it took a few dozen tries, but he finally admitted the singularity or monobloc was an assumption.

i dont think to much of it either, for me the BB is like a fish in a lake, someone dabbles their fingers in the water, and the fish only sees the ripples. saying there is a monobloc, because something must have exploded is an article of faith in the scientific community. i think thats a little funny.

Ha! Physicists hate to admit that most of their field is just theory

I also agree that there is a lot of bias in the scientific community, which is ironic at times, but I guess that’s just humanity for you. We are not very rational creatures a lot of the time.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ha! Physicists hate to admit that most of their field is just theory

I also agree that there is a lot of bias in the scientific community, which is ironic at times, but I guess that’s just humanity for you. We are not very rational creatures a lot of the time.

ya want to see it? it really ticked them off, they were so busy telling me i didnt understand physics and science, acting like they were somehow a little smarter than poor old me, i still smile when i think about it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=288380&highlight=monobloc&page=3

post 42 and 43.

 

[JDaniel]

ya want to see it? it really ticked them off, they were so busy telling me i didnt understand physics and science, acting like they were somehow a little smarter than poor old me, i still smile when i think about it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=288380&highlight=monobloc&page=3

post 42 and 43.

Warp:

What you are contending though, is that it doesn’t matter what thing or, environment existed on the front side of the BB. It wouldn’t matter if it was an expanding-contracting universe or, a multiverse, or anything else physical. It, too, would be subject to the same rule: that which doesn’t exist cannot bring itself into existence. Thus, it, too, would have to have had a “beginning” and that beginning would have to have had a cause.

Now, here’s a great spot to introduce that old, faulty concept of infinity. But, faulty or not, we have arrived at this point in time or, space-time or, STEM, it doesn’t matter; we simply can’t exist on some sort of hypothetical, as you said, Star Trekky sort of infinite chain - for all of the non-faulty reasons. If we were to conjecture that the universe has been expanding and contracting for infinity, there are two huge problems: (1) we’re here now (can’t be explained); and, (2) all of this would have to exist in an infinite regress (can’t be explained). Even time would then have to be infinite. Another huge dilemma.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp:

What you are contending though, is that it doesn’t matter what thing or, environment existed on the front side of the BB. It wouldn’t matter if it was an expanding-contracting universe or, a multiverse, or anything else physical. It, too, would be subject to the same rule: that which doesn’t exist cannot bring itself into existence. Thus, it, too, would have to have had a “beginning” and that beginning would have to have had a cause.

thats a very good statement of the situation, i couldnt put it better.

Now, here’s a great spot to introduce that old, faulty concept of infinity. But, faulty or not, we have arrived at this point in time or, space-time or, STEM, it doesn’t matter; we simply can’t exist on some sort of hypothetical, as you said, Star Trekky sort of infinite chain - for all of the non-faulty reasons. If we were to conjecture that the universe has been expanding and contracting for infinity, there are two huge problems: (1) we’re here now (can’t be explained); and, (2) all of this would have to exist in an infinite regress (can’t be explained). Even time would then have to be infinite. Another huge dilemma.

jd

long time no see jd, on my way to bed, i can come out to play tomorrow. lol

 

[liquidpele]

Warp:

What you are contending though, is that it doesn’t matter what thing or, environment existed on the front side of the BB. It wouldn’t matter if it was an expanding-contracting universe or, a multiverse, or anything else physical. It, too, would be subject to the same rule: that which doesn’t exist cannot bring itself into existence. Thus, it, too, would have to have had a “beginning” and that beginning would have to have had a cause.

Now, here’s a great spot to introduce that old, faulty concept of infinity. But, faulty or not, we have arrived at this point in time or, space-time or, STEM, it doesn’t matter; we simply can’t exist on some sort of hypothetical, as you said, Star Trekky sort of infinite chain - for all of the non-faulty reasons. If we were to conjecture that the universe has been expanding and contracting for infinity, there are two huge problems: (1) we’re here now (can’t be explained); and, (2) all of this would have to exist in an infinite regress (can’t be explained). Even time would then have to be infinite. Another huge dilemma.

jd

I’m not sure why you think those two things are impossible with such a universe. Just because we happen to exist now doesn’t have any bearing on how reality actually works. And what’s wrong with us existing over and over? It might be silly to us, but we are animals defined by starting and stopping points everywhere we look, we’re just not used to such ideas.

As for time… time is defined by our universe (as was proposed by the whole E=mc^2 thing)… it’s relative to the universe and the matter/energy. Time would literally be destroyed and would start over in the collapsing/exploding universe theory.

But anyway, it’s all hypothetical.

 

[PennitentMan]

it doesnt matter whether there was a pre BB environment or not or even what it might have been, something physical that doesnt exist cannot act to cause its own existence regardless of environment.

science can offer then, no ultimate answer. science only deals with the physical, as the physical can not cause itself, science cant give an answer.

i think thats pretty much proof of my argument.

You just need to back up your thinking process one step. Your first step is assuming that there was nothing, and you state that as proof. Before we can start a discussion we have to find out what statements are true. You can’t pass that first statement off as truth.
You cannot know….matter may have existed for ever…we can’t comprehend the size and scope of the universe. We discover as we go and learn more each day, but we can’t assume things and pass that off as proof as the first step in a 3 step statement like that.
There are many theories i.e. phase shifting matter, or inter-dimensional universes…we just don’t know yet

science can offer then, no ultimate answer

again, I’d say yet. Science is always learning more, but we don’t know that yet. We acknowledge that we don’t’ know it, but that we one day might, or will.
You then, are claiming that metaphysics can give proof where science can’t….but the proof you offer is speculation. I understand why you claim this…Sadly, religion does this…they claim things as truth that they cannot and can never prove.
Just don’t expect to be taken too seriously in a scientific discussion if you keep on putting forth metaphysical hypotheses as maintain that it’s your proof.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure why you think those two things are impossible with such a universe. Just because we happen to exist now doesn’t have any bearing on how reality actually works.

The fact that we exist now means that a sequence of events also exists.

And what’s wrong with us existing over and over?

It violates the law of contradiction.

It might be silly to us, but we are animals defined by starting and stopping points everywhere we look, we’re just not used to such ideas.

The fact that you propose starting and stopping points is precisely the problem.

 

[tr1954]

there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe.

specifically, it is impossible for any physical process to be responsible for the causation of the universe.

nothing physical can cause itself, if it does not exist then it cannot act, if it cannot act than it cannot form its own existence. nothing physical can therefore cause itself

therefore, there is no possible empirically verifiable, physical process, to explain how our universe happened.

simply,

a scientific explanation is impossible

I couldn’t agree with you more, although I will try to bring the discussion to a different level…

2 explanations are possible:

1. We don’t know the answer to the question in the OP…YET! …and it will probably take a few more thousands of years before we start to better understand our origins, if ever!..it sure looks that we’ve arrived to a dead end…
2. What if our existence in this universe is not grounded in reality?..What if all this, what we perceive as “reality” is nothing more than a figment of our imagination…or a possible virtual reality program playing out in our minds? Is there any chance that our 5 dimensional existence is not real?

If answer #1 is true, then the discussion should end here…but if the possibility exist for exploring question #2, then we could easily find the answer for the question raised in the OP… don’t you think?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I couldn’t agree with you more, although I will try to bring the discussion to a different level…

2 explanations are possible:

1. We don’t know the answer to the question in the OP…YET! …and it will probably take a few more thousands of years before we start to better understand our origins, if ever!..it sure looks that we’ve arrived to a dead end…

i think the OP might not be clear. i mean to say that a scientific explanation, will never, under any circumstances be possible. here is why.

1. science only speaks about the physical reality. empirically observable phenomenon…agreed?
2. physical things cannot cause themselves, as something cannot act if it does not first exist, and physical things can not be eternal, as they change, among other reasons…agreed?

if there is no possible physical explanation, and science only deals with physical phenomenon, then science can never offer any explanation for the origin of our universe.

1. What if our existence in this universe is not grounded in reality?..What if all this, what we perceive as “reality” is nothing more than a figment of our imagination…or a possible virtual reality program playing out in our minds? Is there any chance that our 5 dimensional existence is not real?

we cant cause ourselves either, these scenarios are dependent on our pre existence.

If answer #1 is true, then the discussion should end here…but if the possibility exist for exploring question #2, then we could easily find the answer for the question raised in the OP… don’t you think?

#1 is false

#2 can be excluded because it depends on our pre existence.

i dont know the nature of reality, i see the disconnect between what people believe is possible by discovery channel science, and what is actually known by science.

i guess im saying that im not sure, i know that #2 cannot account for our origins for the previously mentioned reason, as to reality? i havent the foggiest baby!

 

[tr1954]

i think the OP might not be clear. i mean to say that a scientific explanation, will never, under any circumstances be possible. here is why.

1. science only speaks about the physical reality. empirically observable phenomenon…agreed?
2. physical things cannot cause themselves, as something cannot act if it does not first exist, and physical things can not be eternal, as they change, among other reasons…agreed?

if there is no possible physical explanation, and science only deals with physical phenomenon, then science can never offer any explanation for the origin of our universe.

Hello warpspeedpetey…thanks for responding to my post.

Agreed 100%…I have to say that science is at a dead end. If science can’t find an answer by scientific means to the origin of the universe…“other” un-scientific means (hypothesis) might have to be considered…like ID (intelligent design)…if nothing comes out of nothing…and we do have something (our universe) which exists, then 'something" had to cause it. (a Creator, maybe??). Our science cannot possibly offer up any evidence, (which only deals in physical reality)…so it seem that physical science is inadequate to answer that. Today just about everybody dismisses ID, & they accuse it as un-scientific, yet offer up no alternative explanation.

we cant cause ourselves either, these scenarios are dependent on our pre existence.

With regard to our existence in the physical universe, I agree…but we know that our existence consist in two parts…physical body, which exist in the physical universe, and a spiritual one. (soul)…We also believe (through faith) that our spiritual existence pre-dates our physical one…if we’re created by intelligent design, (if we believe that) then our spiritual existence goes back to something which is not grounded in physical reality. Therefore if our universe has a beginning…(and all indications are that it does) then our spiritual existence had to pre-date that, and it is possible that it is grounded in eternity (what else is there??)…don’t you think? …

But to stick to the OP…I find myself in total agreement with the points you make about science…

i dont know the nature of reality, i see the disconnect between what people believe is possible by discovery channel science, and what is actually known by science.

i guess im saying that im not sure, i know that #2 cannot account for our origins for the previously mentioned reason, as to reality? i havent the foggiest baby!

It is nothing more than a hypothesis…At this point all that we have is some unproven ideas about some of the possibilities, that’s all…but I have to admit…it is an intriguing question, and I ask for your indulgence if it looks like …'discovery channel science"?? LOL!

 

[liquidpele]

Hello warpspeedpetey…thanks for responding to my post.

Agreed 100%…I have to say that science is at a dead end. If science can’t find an answer by scientific means to the origin of the universe…“other” un-scientific means (hypothesis) might have to be considered…like ID (intelligent design)…if nothing comes out of nothing…and we do have something (our universe) which exists, then 'something" had to cause it. (a Creator, maybe??). Our science cannot possibly offer up any evidence, (which only deals in physical reality)…so it seem that physical science is inadequate to answer that. Today just about everybody dismisses ID, & they accuse it as un-scientific, yet offer up no alternative explanation.

With regard to our existence in the physical universe, I agree…but we know that our existence consist in two parts…physical body, which exist in the physical universe, and a spiritual one. (soul)…We also believe (through faith) that our spiritual existence pre-dates our physical one…if we’re created by intelligent design, (if we believe that) then our spiritual existence goes back to something which is not grounded in physical reality. Therefore if our universe has a beginning…(and all indications are that it does) then our spiritual existence had to pre-date that, and it is possible that it is grounded in eternity (what else is there??)…don’t you think? …

But to stick to the OP…I find myself in total agreement with the points you make about science…

It is nothing more than a hypothesis…At this point all that we have is some unproven ideas about some of the possibilities, that’s all…but I have to admit…it is an intriguing question, and I ask for your indulgence if it looks like …'discovery channel science"?? LOL!

Science is about what we can learn through experimentation and logic (mathematics) that the universe defines itself by. Saying that the fact that it has not (or maybe can’t) define the actual origin of the universe does not lend credibility to any other idea. I can’t come along and say I think the universe was created by a tribe of unicorns colliding with a talking flower, because there is no evidence for it… even if it’s technically possible, trying to claim one idea is true, without evidence, out of the infinite possibilities is just being arrogant.

Strictly speaking, science is the ONLY thing that can tell us about our universe short of the answer being made known to us (i.e. God coming down and saying hello) because you can only learn 2 ways: 1) find out yourself (science) or 2) Someone teaches you (whatever knows the answer - i.e. God), so Until God comes down here I’ll stick to science.

I’ll leave your other comments I disagree with alone, since it would be off topic.