Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
I'm just going to ask a few more questions.

If all space, time etc occupied a single point just prior to expansion, then does that single point indicate a place of existence?

Could that single point occupy a place that did not exist before the single point existed?

Is it logical to assume that for something to occupy a place, then first the place it is occupying must exist?

Just some simple questions.

Tongue

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:10 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2014 03:16 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Again, none of this even approaches a miserable attempt to answer the questions.

If my repeated and consistent position is that your question is invalid, then no, I will not be answering it.

For me to answer it would require adopting premises I actively reject. I know that wouldn't make much sense to me. Would it make sense to you?

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Just because I don't have a PHd in cosmology in no way whatsoever invalidates my questions.

Would you care to address my evolution analogy?

"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

How valid is that question? A question isn't meaningful just becauase the questioner thinks it is.

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  You made a positive statement that the universe is not expanding into anything.

Prove it.

I made a statement dismissing your positive claim that it must be. If I reject your premise I am not endorsing its negation. I am rejecting it entirely.

If you're not going to interpret that honestly, I don't see much point in trying to discuss this any further.

I conclude - based on strong and indeed overwhelming evidence - that the universe is expanding. There are physical theories which attempt to explain this.

None of them - that's none, mind you, Free - come remotely close to suggesting that it "must" be expanding "into" something. Those concepts are not even defined! I therefore dismiss the idea that it might be - let alone must be! - as incoherent and irrelevant.

The universe is not a box. It doesn't have to be inside another larger box in order to expand.

I don't care how much it feels, to you, that it "must" be. Your feels are not compelling. Sorry.

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Since we can demonstrate physically that when anything moves that it then has occupied two points- origin and destination- then you must demonstrate how this cannot be true with the expansion of space.

I previously demonstrated physically that this "rule" is poppycock. Would you care to address my observations on quantum mechanics?

Furthermore, it follows from the precepts of relativity that there is no privileged reference frame, and that what appears to be motion to one observer will not appear to be motion to another. Would you care to address this observation as well?

Given that naive intution is woefully inadequate when speaking to scientific situations beyond our immediate surroundings, why should I extend special credit to yours when it comes to cosmology?

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Am I assuming that space is expanding into something else? Yes I am, and based upon observations of the observable universe, the assumption is valid.

Yes, yes. Your feels. Gotcha - we've established that. Your special little feels say so.

Remind me again why I should listen to your feels?

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  You are suggesting that this is not true based upon your presumption of my lack of education, but providing no evidence to support your positive claim.

I made my claim based upon everything we can observe in the universe.

Assuming they're being honest, everyone makes every claim based upon everything they can observe in the universe. So freaking what?

At best you have presented an invalid generalisation.
A: "X must be Y."
B: "Why?"
A: "Because Z is Y."
B: "But X is not Z"
A: "Z is Y. Therefore X is Y. It is logical."
B: "That's not logic."
A: "My observation says Z is Y. Therefore X is Y, because it feels right to me."
B: "Do you have anything other than feels to justify that extension?"
A: ...

and so on.

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  You made your claim based upon what?

Everything we can observe in the universe.

Do you see how much of a vacuous non-answer that is?

(11-11-2014 02:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Some evidence trumps no evidence 100% of the time. It doesn't mean I am correct, but only that I am not showing up at the table with empty hands.

Big Grin

Your feels are a losing hand every time.

Not that I expect an answer, but - do you have some other coherent explanation for the universal observation of cosmological redshift indicative of an expanding universe?

I mean, yes, we've already established that every current scientific conclusion and theory might be completely wrong*, but until such time as there is actual compelling reason to think so**, I'll stand by them.
(*: I don't actually know this, and I may be wrong)
(**: your feels are not compelling reason)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 03:08 PM)Free Wrote:  I'm just going to ask a few more questions.

If all space, time etc occupied a single point just prior to expansion, then does that single point indicate a place of existence?

Could that single point occupy a place that did not exist before the single point existed?

Is it logical to assume that for something to occupy a place, then first the place it is occupying must exist?

Just some simple questions.

Tongue

Define "place". Define "occupy". Define "existence".
(no, "lol dictionary" is not sufficient)

Those are contingent terms describing interactions within observable conditions.

What are the observable conditions open to us? The post-big-big universe.

To speak of things "before" or "outside" the universe is incoherent. It's meaningless.

On what grounds do you generalise these contingent terms to outside contexts?
(okay, yes, we all know the answer's feels, but that's a terrible answer)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 03:08 PM)Free Wrote:  If all space, time etc occupied a single point just prior to expansion, then does that single point indicate a place of existence?

cjlr is the resident physicist so I may be way off base but as I understand it...

It did once it existed or, rather, at least once it started to expand then there were "places of existence" inside it.

Quote:Is it logical to assume that for something to occupy a place, then first the place it is occupying must exist?

You are assuming that the universe as a whole is occupying a place. That is probably a very questionable assumption since you'd have to have some sort of "place" outside the universe that contains the universe in order for the universe to be in a particular place.

It still looks to me like you are committing a category error by assuming that the universe itself is subject to the same rules as objects within it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 03:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 03:08 PM)Free Wrote:  I'm just going to ask a few more questions.

If all space, time etc occupied a single point just prior to expansion, then does that single point indicate a place of existence?

Could that single point occupy a place that did not exist before the single point existed?

Is it logical to assume that for something to occupy a place, then first the place it is occupying must exist?

Just some simple questions.

Tongue

Define "place". Define "occupy". Define "existence".
(no, "lol dictionary" is not sufficient)

Those are contingent terms describing interactions within observable conditions.

What are the observable conditions open to us? The post-big-big universe.

To speak of things "before" or "outside" the universe is incoherent. It's meaningless.

On what grounds do you generalise these contingent terms to outside contexts?
(okay, yes, we all know the answer's feels, but that's a terrible answer)

Pulease ...just make some effort to answer the questions with "earthly" understanding?

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 03:16 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 03:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "place". Define "occupy". Define "existence".
(no, "lol dictionary" is not sufficient)

Those are contingent terms describing interactions within observable conditions.

What are the observable conditions open to us? The post-big-big universe.

To speak of things "before" or "outside" the universe is incoherent. It's meaningless.

On what grounds do you generalise these contingent terms to outside contexts?
(okay, yes, we all know the answer's feels, but that's a terrible answer)

Pulease ...just make some effort to answer the questions with "earthly" understanding?

Drinking Beverage

So, in light of my response to the effect that the questions are too ill-defined to be answerable, your rebuttal is "answer them anyway lol"?

It simply does not make sense to speak of "outside" the universe as you repeatedly do. It's not defined. It's not coherent. It's not meaningful.

If one imagines the universe as a ballon being inflated within a box, then, sure, I guess. The balloon is expanding "into" the rest of the box. There is no reason whatsoever to think this is a good model of anything.

You were earlier a little pissy about me seeming to claim to know things you didn't think I could justify. Well; here I am telling you that I most assuredly do not know some things - and neither do you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 03:21 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 03:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Pulease ...just make some effort to answer the questions with "earthly" understanding?

Drinking Beverage

So, in light of my response to the effect that the questions are too ill-defined to be answerable, your rebuttal is "answer them anyway lol"?

It simply does not make sense to speak of "outside" the universe as you repeatedly do. It's not defined. It's not coherent. It's not meaningful.

If one imagines the universe as a ballon being inflated within a box, then, sure, I guess. The balloon is expanding "into" the rest of the box. There is no reason whatsoever to think this is a good model of anything.

You were earlier a little pissy about me seeming to claim to know things you didn't think I could justify. Well; here I am telling you that I most assuredly do not know some things - and neither do you.

What's painfully obvious here is you simply do not like the questions, so then you ask me to invent new definitions for words because you do not like the obvious answers to those questions.

It's okay.

I get it.

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 03:16 PM)Free Wrote:  Pulease ...just make some effort to answer the questions with "earthly" understanding?

But the questions aren't about anything remotely "earthly"

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
11-11-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Earthly understanding doesn't get you anywhere when you're talking about events and states of existence that don't have any parallel examples to what we experience.

Quantum mechanics is a great example.
So much of it is counter intuitive.

Have you heard of a Tardis ?
Time and relative dimensions in space.

The inside of a tardis could expand to be a near infinite space while the outside hasn't expanded at all.
We observe expansion in our observation of the universe and that part of it is all we can talk about.
I have given you an example of an expansion that isn't expanding into anywhere.

Common sense doesn't work when you're dealing with situations that aren't common.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
11-11-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  A: The question of the origin of the Big Bang is currently unknown. I find myself at a logical impasse to accept that nothing existed before the Big Bang for the simple reason that I cannot logically accept that all the elements that comprised the Big Bang before expansion/explosion came from no where.
Scientists have so far accounted for all the significant events from now going right back to sub seconds after the big bang event.

It's a matter of wait and see with regards to what the scientist may come up. Although its fun to speculate, it doesn't make much sense for us (non cosmological scientists) to put much stock into our guesses.


(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  B: The current model of the Big Bang suggests that all of space was contained in a single point. To me, even a single point suggests an occupation of a place.
An infinitely small, infinitely dense 1 dimensional point.
Three dimensional space is not required.

(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, I logically determine...
Yes, fun to speculate, but lets leave the discovery to the scientists.


(11-11-2014 01:02 PM)Free Wrote:  ...that if all of space was contained in a specific place
Where would this specific place be? What are its coordinates?
If there was a single point of origin from where an explosion happened then there would only be one place in the universe where we would observe from all directions objects moving away at predictable speeds, independent of direction.
If for example Earth were flying away from the point of origin in the East direction then we would see the objects East of us would be traveling away from us, the near by objects to our West would be traveling towards us. Objects to our West that are past the point of origin they would be traveling away from us. However, what we do see, is that the vast majority of objects are traveling away from us. That it doesn't matter what direction we look, we see the same thing.
Are you assuming that the Earth is at the point of origin of the Big Bang. Out of the 10^22 stars in the observable universe it just so happens that our Sun is the one at this point of origin?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: