Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
[

There are many big bang theories, such as the inflationary model, or the hawking model as well. Just as a minor point, I think the big bang started 15 billion years ago, not 40. [/B]

that works for me.

Jet Grind · 05-21-2003, 04:34 PM

Yuor argument begins with an invalid assumtion. Physicists have conducted controlled experiements where things have come from nothing. Something can come from nothing a subatomic level, particularly psotron/electron pairs (they manifest themselves from nothingness and eventually return to nothingness). Victor Stenger explaines this all in his latest book, "Had Science Found God?" Quantum Mechanics and the Inflationary Big Bang Modlel do provide at least a conceptual framework for a natural explantion of the origin of the universe. We know that the amount of energy in our universe is about zero. Since matter and energy are the same thing (E=mc^2), and zero does not have come from anywhere (according to what we know about Quantum Mechanics). I think we are more justified than you think in saying that the big bang was an acausal event as qunatum events go without cause.

Autonemesis · 05-21-2003, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
the best, current, and most widely accepted cosmological theory is that the Big Bang occured and due to that, space, time, matter and energy came into existence. and that this happened approx. 40 billion years ago. does anyone have issue with this? did i get it wrong?

Yes you did (and badly, I might add) but it doesn't matter.

Quote:

if we can trace the approximate age of the universe, by virtue of that we can trace the approximate age of time.

The "age of time"? That's as meaningless a phrase as the "length of distance" or the "height of altitude."

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Yes you did (and badly, I might add) but it doesn't matter.

why dont you correct me then?

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Victor Stenger explaines this all in his latest book, "Had Science Found God?" Quantum Mechanics and the Inflationary Big Bang Modlel do provide at least a conceptual framework for a natural explantion of the origin of the universe. We know that the amount of energy in our universe is about zero. Since matter and energy are the same thing (E=mc^2), and zero does not have come from anywhere (according to what we know about Quantum Mechanics). I think we are more justified than you think in saying that the big bang was an acausal event as qunatum events go without cause.

i'll read that book. sounds interesting. i have a question for you, is it absurd to talk about the "beginning of time"? just curious.

StillDreaming · 05-21-2003, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
... if i was standing up, and an infinite amount of people had to sit down before i could sit down, i would never sit down. if an infinite amount of moments would have to pass before we get to the present, we would not have a present.

Why could only a finite amount of moments pass in an infinite amount of time - or even in a finite amount of time?

Jet Grind · 05-21-2003, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
i'll read that book. sounds interesting. i have a question for you, is it absurd to talk about the "beginning of time"? just curious.

Time is relative to physical objects, at least in the observable universe anyway. Most scientist believe that our universe began as a quantum singularity in which there was perfect symmetry between nine and ten dimensions. During the chaotic inflation that most cosmologists think happened in the early universe, the symmetry was broken between them and we now see the 4 dimensions of space and time. This is what they think happened in our universe, we don't know about other universes (if any exist). So I guess I would have to say that overall, I don't have enough information to determine, ask a physics professor next time you meet one.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Yuor argument begins with an invalid assumtion. Physicists have conducted controlled experiements where things have come from nothing. Something can come from nothing a subatomic level, particularly psotron/electron pairs (they manifest themselves from nothingness and eventually return to nothingness). Victor Stenger explaines this all in his latest book, "Had Science Found God?" Quantum Mechanics and the Inflationary Big Bang Modlel do provide at least a conceptual framework for a natural explantion of the origin of the universe. We know that the amount of energy in our universe is about zero. Since matter and energy are the same thing (E=mc^2), and zero does not have come from anywhere (according to what we know about Quantum Mechanics). I think we are more justified than you think in saying that the big bang was an acausal event as qunatum events go without cause.

here is a quote from Bill Snedden on page 4 of this thread.

"Nothingness" as a putative state of affairs is logically impossible. If "nothingness" were ever to have actually been instantiated, then "nothingness" would still be the case (as "nothingness" represents a lack of everything, including potential). As "something" exists now, "something" must always have existed.
Regards,
Bill Snedden"
how would you respond to Bill Snedden?

and further, has anyone been able to experiment with anything below the subatomic level? and further, what is the location where these subatomic particles are popping into existence? does it occur within a quantum field? and is a quantum field something?

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Yuor argument begins with an invalid assumtion. Physicists have conducted controlled experiements where things have come from nothing. Something can come from nothing a subatomic level, particularly psotron/electron pairs (they manifest themselves from nothingness and eventually return to nothingness)............. I think we are more justified than you think in saying that the big bang was an acausal event as qunatum events go without cause.

so do you vote for example one on the original post of this thread? - something came from nothing.

and do you think that option two is irrational? that the universe always existed in either a changeless (timeless state) or always existed for all time stretching back into the infinite past?

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 05:22 PM

the conclusion is: it is irrational to believe that the universe began to exist from nothing

Quote:

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Secondly, as has been stated a number of times before, the theme that this model is irrational has nothing to do with atheism, since nobody here thinks it is an adequate cosmology.

Jet Grind seems to think its an adequate cosmology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2003, 04:34 PM	#102
Jet Grind Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southern Maine, USA Posts: 220	Yuor argument begins with an invalid assumtion. Physicists have conducted controlled experiements where things have come from nothing. Something can come from nothing a subatomic level, particularly psotron/electron pairs (they manifest themselves from nothingness and eventually return to nothingness). Victor Stenger explaines this all in his latest book, "Had Science Found God?" Quantum Mechanics and the Inflationary Big Bang Modlel do provide at least a conceptual framework for a natural explantion of the origin of the universe. We know that the amount of energy in our universe is about zero. Since matter and energy are the same thing (E=mc^2), and zero does not have come from anywhere (according to what we know about Quantum Mechanics). I think we are more justified than you think in saying that the big bang was an acausal event as qunatum events go without cause.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.