Please Demonstrate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2014, 10:02 PM
Please Demonstrate
Recently on another thread entitled "Is There Such Thing As Creation," there were a few points put up that I feel require further investigation. Here are those points:

1. There is nothing we can possibly know in regards to what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang, therefore we can not assume that there was any kind of existence whatsoever prior to the Big Bang.

2. The universe is expanding, but we do not know what, if anything, it is expanding into, therefore we can not assume it is expanding into anything at all.


On that thread I have heavily derided because I refused to accept that I could not assume that something existed before the Big Bang, and that the universe was expanding into something.

My position on the Big Bang was simple. Yes it happened, but it would have to have come from someplace. I explained that according to everything we have learned from our experiences on earth teaches us that everything we see here had a previous shape and form of existence.

I was told that how we view things on earth in regards to how things constantly change, get recycled et al, should not be applied to what happens elsewhere in the universe. I was told that just because of how things work on earth does not mean that the Big Bang had a previous existence, or was recycled from something previous.

My position on an expanding universe was equally simple. It's probably happening, but in order for it to expand any distance at all, it most certainly needed some place to expand into.

But I was told that I was incorrect to make any kind of assumption that the universe was expanding into anything. I was then given some scientific philosophy that states something to the effect of, "Where one has no knowledge, one must keep silent."

Therefore, I would like to see some of our more knowledgeable persons on this thread demonstrate to me some proven examples of any kind of existence that can be demonstrated as having no previous existence, and that it does not change at all.

I would also like an example of how anything can expand without going anywhere.

My point to this is that, since everything we know tells us that all things do indeed change and recycle over time here on earth via either decay or some other means, then I require a solid argument with proof that this does not happen to all things in the universe, including the Big Bang.

I would like a proven example.

The same thing goes for space expansion. I would like a proven example of how anything can expand into the distance without expanding into something else.

I'm sure there are a few people here who can demonstrate this for me and I would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Thumbsup

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2014 10:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Please Demonstrate
(18-11-2014 10:02 PM)Free Wrote:  My position on the Big Bang was simple. Yes it happened, but it would have to have come from someplace. I explained that according to everything we have learned from our experiences on earth teaches us that everything we see here had a previous shape and form of existence.

"Come from" is meaningless unless space-time is in place, already.
It's like asking what's South of the South Pole.
See : (1:00, among others)



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2014 10:38 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Please Demonstrate
Interview with physicist Gabriele Veneziano sheds some light on what we don't know yet.

"So, clearly the effective big bang was not the beginning of time. There was something before that. The “bang” in people’s mind is the idea that there had to be a beginning. But we don’t know, really, what preceded inflation."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...veneziano/

What Hawkings has to say regarding the begining of time in a lecture.

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Will we ever know?

"Even if eternal inflation or the cyclic model is correct, it pushes the question of ultimate origin into the realm of untestability."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502...e-big-bang

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(18-11-2014 10:25 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Interview with physicist Gabriele Veneziano sheds some light on what we don't know yet.

"So, clearly the effective big bang was not the beginning of time. There was something before that. The “bang” in people’s mind is the idea that there had to be a beginning. But we don’t know, really, what preceded inflation."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...veneziano/

What Hawkings has to say regarding the begining of time in a lecture.

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Will we ever know?

"Even if eternal inflation or the cyclic model is correct, it pushes the question of ultimate origin into the realm of untestability."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502...e-big-bang

I agree that it is untestable, but my point was really all about experience. Since it has been demonstrated that according to everything we know about how things work here on earth, and even in the immediate vicinity of earth, that all observable things are in a constant state of flux, then why can we not assume that just one thing- the Big Bang- was not?

The same thing goes for an expanding universe.

When everything we know points to all observable things to having a prior existence, and when everything we know points to that anything which expands hence expands into something, then why is it not correct to accept that this also happens with both the Big Bang and an expanding universe?

Saying "We don't know, therefore we cannot assume," seems a bit silly to me considering that everything we DO know indicates it as being probable.

I will concede that we cannot test it, but the inability to not test it does not take away the probability factor which is based upon what we DO know.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(18-11-2014 10:02 PM)Free Wrote:  1. There is nothing we can possibly know in regards to what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang, therefore we can not assume that there was any kind of existence whatsoever prior to the Big Bang.

I would restate that as:
We do not currently have any way to determine what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang, therefore we can not make assumptions about what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang.

It isn't that we can never possibly know, just that we don't know now. Any speculations must be tested to see if they can be validated and in the absence of that validation they can't be considered true.

Quote:2. The universe is expanding, but we do not know what, if anything, it is expanding into, therefore we can not assume it is expanding into anything at all.

And I'd restate that as:
The universe is expanding but we currently have no way to determine what, if anything, exists that is not part of our universe. Therefore we can not make any assumptions about what effect the expansion of our universe has on anything that may exist that is not part of the universe.

The problem I have with your conjectures is that you want to extrapolate our understanding of the how things work within the universe to conditions beyond the universe. We do not even know that there is a "beyond" the universe and simply saying that there must be leads us to an infinite regress. If our universe is the only thing that exists then it isn't expanding "into" anything. It isn't even expanding into nothing in any commonly understand way. Existence itself would just be getting larger.

It is often true that one of the hardest things to accept is that "I don't know" is the only reasonable answer given the available information. Making assumptions and then accepting them because they seem to explain things is how we got religion and you can see how well that worked out!

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
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
19-11-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(19-11-2014 08:57 AM)Free Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 10:25 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Interview with physicist Gabriele Veneziano sheds some light on what we don't know yet.

"So, clearly the effective big bang was not the beginning of time. There was something before that. The “bang” in people’s mind is the idea that there had to be a beginning. But we don’t know, really, what preceded inflation."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/crit...veneziano/

What Hawkings has to say regarding the begining of time in a lecture.

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Will we ever know?

"Even if eternal inflation or the cyclic model is correct, it pushes the question of ultimate origin into the realm of untestability."

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502...e-big-bang

I agree that it is untestable, but my point was really all about experience. Since it has been demonstrated that according to everything we know about how things work here on earth, and even in the immediate vicinity of earth, that all observable things are in a constant state of flux, then why can we not assume that just one thing- the Big Bang- was not?

The same thing goes for an expanding universe.

When everything we know points to all observable things to having a prior existence, and when everything we know points to that anything which expands hence expands into something, then why is it not correct to accept that this also happens with both the Big Bang and an expanding universe?

Saying "We don't know, therefore we cannot assume," seems a bit silly to me considering that everything we DO know indicates it as being probable.

I will concede that we cannot test it, but the inability to not test it does not take away the probability factor which is based upon what we DO know.

That is a very weak argument. Your common sense and intuition evolved in the mid-sized world. We know that those don't work in the extremes of small and large. Quantum mechanics and black holes are not within the realm of common sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rik's post
19-11-2014, 09:04 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(19-11-2014 09:02 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 08:57 AM)Free Wrote:  I agree that it is untestable, but my point was really all about experience. Since it has been demonstrated that according to everything we know about how things work here on earth, and even in the immediate vicinity of earth, that all observable things are in a constant state of flux, then why can we not assume that just one thing- the Big Bang- was not?

The same thing goes for an expanding universe.

When everything we know points to all observable things to having a prior existence, and when everything we know points to that anything which expands hence expands into something, then why is it not correct to accept that this also happens with both the Big Bang and an expanding universe?

Saying "We don't know, therefore we cannot assume," seems a bit silly to me considering that everything we DO know indicates it as being probable.

I will concede that we cannot test it, but the inability to not test it does not take away the probability factor which is based upon what we DO know.

That is a very weak argument. Your common sense and intuition evolved in the mid-sized world. We know that those don't work in the extremes of small and large. Quantum mechanics and black holes are not within the realm of common sense.

Can you demonstrate that to be true?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
Historical Jesus did it. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-11-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(19-11-2014 08:59 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 10:02 PM)Free Wrote:  1. There is nothing we can possibly know in regards to what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang, therefore we can not assume that there was any kind of existence whatsoever prior to the Big Bang.

I would restate that as:
We do not currently have any way to determine what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang, therefore we can not make assumptions about what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang.

It isn't that we can never possibly know, just that we don't know now. Any speculations must be tested to see if they can be validated and in the absence of that validation they can't be considered true.

This is merely repeating what has already been stated and is not addressing my point.

You are pointing at 1 thing that is untestable without considering that all other tests provide proof positive that all observable things are in a constant state of flux.

My point is simple; since all things we can observe have been proven to be in a constant state of flux, then why do we single out just one thing- the Big Bang- and state that it is not reasonable to assume that it too had a previous existence?

This is really a question of reasoning.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 09:12 AM
RE: Please Demonstrate
(19-11-2014 09:04 AM)Free Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 09:02 AM)Rik Wrote:  That is a very weak argument. Your common sense and intuition evolved in the mid-sized world. We know that those don't work in the extremes of small and large. Quantum mechanics and black holes are not within the realm of common sense.

Can you demonstrate that to be true?

Which part? Evolution?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: