Consequent Infidel

hi all, well i want to get some summed up opinions without getting too deep into scientific issues, logically, does the Big Bang cosmology gives an evidence/deny/neutural towords the existence of a cause or not? and why? thanks.

EstherRose

If the universe created itself via the Big bang, does it violate the law of non-contradiction?

RED DAVE

From EstherRose:

If god created himself out of himself or out of nothing or if he was just hanging around forever does it violate the law of common sense?

RED DAVE

Jayhawker Soule

See, for example, Before the Big Bang. BTW, interesting username.

Bill

The most current formulations of the Big Bang theory seem to imply the pre-existence of some minimal sized "nugget" of "stuff" at T=0 time for the Big Bang. In other words, as you analyze your way back in time towards T=0, current scientific findings do not (as Einstein suggested) converge back to a true "singularity" (a point where dividing by zero produces a plethora of infinities), but instead seems to converge back to a "bubble" sort of a thing that is about the Planck size (about 10-to-the-minus-45th-power meters).

Now, its an incredible idea for most people to envision the entire known universe all squished down into that small of a "bubble," but to modern cosmologists, that is what the theory seems to point to.

So, if this tiny "bubble" of "stuff" existed at T=0 time of the Big Bang, then what does that imply for your question, above?

My reply is that the true answer is your "neutral" choice, above.

All of science deals with the study of the transformations of matter and energy from one form to another. The Big Bang seems to be the transformation of this "bubble" of "stuff" into the universe as we know it today. Science does not (and really cannot) answer any question as to the initial cause of existence. The moment a scientist treads into that sort of an assertion, said scientist has left all of science behind and has ventured into the metaphysical arena occupied by philosophy and religion.

Thus, even if science eventually proves that the Big Bang began as just one simple "bubble" of "stuff" from some sort of a cosmic froth-generator, we would still not have located the true point of "the beginning of it all," at which time we could examine the question of whther or not there was a "first cause" or an "infinite regression of causes."

And frankly, from a philosophical point of view, the whole idea seems to be totally unanswerable. In his discussion of the Cosmological Proof in his essay The Mental Discomfort of "Why?", Jim Still discusses Wittgenstein's analysis of the problem of life, ending with this sentence: It is paradoxical to assert that the universe created itself, as some atheists have been known to assert from time-to-time. It is similarly paradoxical to claim to know what the "First Cause" is, because (as stated above) that knowledge becomes part of the facts of current existence within the universe, which would exclude those same facts from being the "outside cause" of the existence of the universe.

For most people, only an "outside cause" will do (because self-causation is paradoxical), and the minute such an alleged "outside cause" is brought within the domain of scientific inquiry, it becomes part of the facts of the universe which must be further explained, and thus only a statement of faith (like "God needs no cause") can possibly terminate such an inquiry. Logically, no scientific fact can ever be the terminus of scientific inquiry! It is the business of science to ever be probing further, seeking to understand even earlier causes to the scientific effects we have analyzed.

Accordingly, the whole question of a "First Cause" is part and parcel of the eternally unanswerable quest for understanding the true nature of our own existencel; and that is an unending quest that can never be satisfied for so long as we remain finite creatures limited to a finite universe.

== Bill

Magus55

How does that violate the law of common sense? The universe is bound to specific laws. By saying the universe formed without a cause, goes against every law we have in regard to the universe. God on the other hand, is a spiritual being, not material. He isn't bound by any laws except His own nature. God would have to be eternal, because if He wasn't - we'd have an infinite regression of "gods", and then we are back to the point of, what was the original cause. There is no instance in human history, where there was an effect without a cause - so why assume the universe was capable of that, but nothing else? Just because you are too close minded to believe there is a being outside the bounds of universal laws, that set everything into motion?

ex-xian

The laws that apply to the things inside the universe do not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. Attributes of the individual parts of something do not always apply to the thing as a whole. For example, atoms are colorless. Cats are made up of atoms, therefore, cats are colorless. This is the classic fallacy of composition.
How wonderful that you close you post with a personal attack! You're willing to accept one effect w/o cause--god. Why won't you consider another--the universe.

eh

Is God bound by logic though? If not, then there is nothing intelligent to be said about him.

emotional

God is by definition an uncaused cause. The universe is by definition not God (unless you are a pantheist), so an uncaused universe does not apply.

Referring to the OP: it is neutral and open to interpretation. I interpret the Big Bang as the creation event by God, just as I interpret NDEs, likewise neutral and open to interpretation, as evidence of life after death.

Bill

This is too narrow of an interpretation. Perhaps Abrahamic religions have this view, but other religions don't restrict themselves to a single god. And you don't need to be a pantheist to believe that the universe caused itself (or is an eternally-uncaused entity). That is, you don't unless you wish to invoke the typical "definition war" reply of "well, that's the way I define things...."

== Bill