Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2010, 07:43 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(11-11-2010 02:58 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  
(11-11-2010 02:32 AM)No J. Wrote:  
(11-11-2010 12:04 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  well you seem to be an expert on the Kalam argument so you should also know that it shows time can't be eternal or else time and everything would have ended an infinite amount of time and permanently without hope of being restarted infinite amounts of time too.

WTF

Simple if something has an infinite history everything has happened an infinite amount of times including the end of time.

A cyclical universe is one of many theories in physics, but I fail to see how this supports your argument.
Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 08:02 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
I don't get that either. I'm not in any way a science guy but I read a lot. I know one of the potential theories on the universe is at some point it will stop expanding and collapse on itself, resulting in another Big Bang and starting the whole process over. It takes probably a few trillion years for each cycle to complete.

I also recall that some recent studies predict that the universe will just keep expanding without a collapse but I may not have properly understood the science.

Regardless, I don't see how a potentially cyclical universe in any way validates a belief in god. If anything, I think it hurts the god theory.

Emperor - I'm having a really tough time following your logic, and judging by the various reactions I don't think I'm the only one. I'm getting the impression you are throwing out jargon that you've read but really don't understand. Perhaps I'm wrong and its just an inability to properly articulate your position, but it really seems that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 08:26 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(11-11-2010 12:04 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  
(08-11-2010 09:13 AM)gamutman Wrote:  So, yes, the universe has a beginning, but so does time, therefore to argue that the universe has a cause is nonsensical.

well you seem to be an expert on the Kalam argument so you should also know that it shows time can't be eternal or else time and everything would have ended an infinite amount of time and permanently without hope of being restarted infinite amounts of time too.

Thank you for proving that you didn't actually read gamutman's post. Tell me: since you don't actually take the time to read and understand what we say, why should we extend that courtesy to you?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 09:57 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(11-11-2010 08:02 AM)BnW Wrote:  I don't get that either. I'm not in any way a science guy but I read a lot. I know one of the potential theories on the universe is at some point it will stop expanding and collapse on itself, resulting in another Big Bang and starting the whole process over. It takes probably a few trillion years for each cycle to complete.

I also recall that some recent studies predict that the universe will just keep expanding without a collapse but I may not have properly understood the science.

The expansion of the universe is currently accelerating due to an unknown force scientists call "dark energy." This is completely separate from "dark matter."

Together, they account for 96 % of the "stuff" in the universe, at least when you compare their measurable effect on the universe.

At current rates, models predict that gravity will become more and more diluted as things are pushed farther and farther apart. Local structures will remain fairly close together (such as the local group of galaxies, or the galaxy itself), but as space continues to expand, gravity will be unable to hold anything together. Eventually, even atoms will be ripped apart (I know they aren't held together by gravity, but apparently this repulsion force will become so strong that the other fundamental forces will be helpless as well). It is a scary and dismal end to existence as the universe is just a huge cavern of heat.

The idea for a cyclical universe does go with the notion that the expansion of the universe will gradually be slowed down by gravity. But that is not the case.

There is another theory (and this is purely theoretical), that regardless of what happens in this universe, the "big bang" may happen again even if the universe is reduced to heat. In this case, the universe is just a "membrane" suspended in a multi verse (possibly with 11 dimensions). Whenever another universe "membrane" collides with ours, the kinetic energy (or whatever energy is represented by this) will cause a "big bang."

Weird shit. Almost sounds like something someone just made up if it didn't have a basis in mathematics.
Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 12:19 PM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
I'm familiar with dark matter and I've read some of this. I went through a "recreational physics" phase a few years ago and was reading everything I could get my hands on. Some of it I got, some of it was over my head.

I'm not aware of to many things, I know what I know if you know what I mean - New Bohemians.

How old are you again? 15? 16? Jeez, I never knew this stuff at that age. I'm actually extremely impressed with the knowledge base of some of the younger people on this forum.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 12:35 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
I believe that there is a third idea of how the universe will expand until it becomes a cold desolete place, spread out so far that stars cannot form any more and as existing stars burn out the universe gets darker, but no ripping apart of atoms, just cold, dark, dead planets, stars and space dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 10:43 PM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(11-11-2010 09:57 AM)TruthAddict Wrote:  The expansion of the universe is currently accelerating due to an unknown force scientists call "dark energy." This is completely separate from "dark matter."

Together, they account for 96 % of the "stuff" in the universe, at least when you compare their measurable effect on the universe.

At current rates, models predict that gravity will become more and more diluted as things are pushed farther and farther apart. Local structures will remain fairly close together (such as the local group of galaxies, or the galaxy itself), but as space continues to expand, gravity will be unable to hold anything together. Eventually, even atoms will be ripped apart (I know they aren't held together by gravity, but apparently this repulsion force will become so strong that the other fundamental forces will be helpless as well). It is a scary and dismal end to existence as the universe is just a huge cavern of heat.

Then again, dark energy may be even weirder than we think it is now, and it may act differently than simply linear, as we think it does right now. We have only started investigating it, we know nothing at all about its nature, only about the effects that it is having right now. In the 19th century it was "known" that light always travels in a straight line; now we know it doesn't.
Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 06:52 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Well -technically- light does still travel in straight lines. Its just the space through which the line is traveling is bent by gravity Smile
Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2010, 06:38 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Hello, I'm a new member. So forgive my late post on this thread. First question: are you William Lane Craig? Just joking, but those three statements are his version of the KCA. Let's look at that syllogism

(08-11-2010 12:23 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause
This means that when something has a beginning e.g. and explosion it has to have a cause though not necessarily a man made one.

That premise has not been proved to be true. In the If P then Q, P must imply Q in order for the statement to be true. We don't know in this case if the implication is true. There is the problem with time. Can time exist without space and matter? A philosopher might say yes, but a physicist will tell you that without space and matter, time can't exist, and if there is no time then the cause prior to the beginning of time would not exist. You then need to postulate that a cause existed outside of time, space and matter. That's speculation.

Quote:2 - The universe has a beginning
The big bang proves this.
That's not correct. The Big Bang does not prove that the universe has a beginning. It's an extrapolation from the BBT. All the BBT says is that at one point in time, the universe was a singularity. There are two major problems:1) the singularity itself being that the universe has an infinite density; 2) both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not valid at distances smaller than the Planck's length. Until we develop a theory that can help us at those distances, we really don't know what happen in the most crucial time of the universe.

Secondly, the BBT is not satisfactory for other reasons. One of them is that we must introduce by hand an ad hoc hypothesis of an inflation in the early beginning of the universe. This is Alan Guth's inflationary theory. There is no explanation for this mechanism -- what it is, and why it occured so briefly. Other theories have been developped to get away from this ad hoc hypothesis: namely theories of a cyclic nature.

Quote:3 - The universe had a beginning and therefore a cause

Since the two premises are flawed, the syllogism is unsound.

Quote:Now this means that the cause of the universe must be eternal as everything with a beginning must have a cause.

This statement does not follow from your unsound conclusion. The cause would have to be outside spacetime, outside the universe, but not necessarily eternal. Let me clarify. Call this cause, an O-cause. It might have been caused by other O-causes outside spacetime and the universe, since these O-causes don't follow the normal course of logic. Since we have no tools to investigate this realm, anything is possible. And infinite regress is possible in a realm where O-causes don't depend on time, space, matter and logic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2010, 11:33 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Has anybody here heard the theory of reversed time? That after a certain point of expansion that the properties of the universe would reverse on themselves (including time) and the universe would collapse back into itself reversing these properties again and causing an infinite loop with a definite beginning and end.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: