eh

We actually get 'Ted' here in Canada. Not bad, I must say. But anyway, back to the point...

If God is essentially a mind, does his thoughts occur in sequence or not? If so, then we have an infinite amount of thoughts prior to the Big Bang. What is the traditional explaination of the mind of God?

eh

It has already been pointed out that a field and energy are the same thing. Let's assume we have vibrating strings of energy as the building blocks of everything in the universe. Nothing can exist without them. Everything, including the 4 forces, is merely these strings of energy vibrating in some manner. Much like you have the same string on a violin able to make many different sounds, these fundemental strings are the cause of everything. Even gravity and fields are just the strings vibrating in a certain way.

String theory is not yet proven, so we're just assuming at this point. But given that assumption, how would you say these strings fair as necessarily existing? And, if we were to confirm that in fact, this assumption was true, how would this effect the argument that God is a logical necessity?

Certainly, the amount of usable energy in the universe decreases with the passage of time. But if the universe is only of finite age, then we do not need to say it has existed forever and end up running into infinite regress. If there was no time before the BB, there is simply no 'before' the BB to speak of, making the universe eternal in a sense.

The modern day Big bang theory includes inflation, which shows how a minimum amount of energy would be needed to create the massive expanding fireball that was our universe shortly after the BB. Why can't this 'energy' be the answer, especially considering that everything seems to fit in place?

Technos

I think that meta feels threatened by the fact that his god isn't required. It has never been proven that energy can either A: Be Created nor B: Be destroyed. Any tests to prove one or the other could not provide conclusive results as the only way to measure the results would be to introduce more energy into the environment, in addition any "vacuum" environment has walls composed of atoms, which are, of course composed of quarks and electrons on a quantum scale. What strikes me most is Meta's failure to understand what subatomic particles are composed of and his misunderstanding of the entire argument at hand.

I hold that Energy can not be created nor destroyed, if someone can prove that it can be created or destroyed, then I'll shape my view of the universe around the new discovery. No magical space being or mystical creator figure is needed, and to say "if the cause is unknown, my god did it" is simply absurd. The "first cause" mystery only displays the ignorance of man, not the validity of superstition or gods.

[Edited to remove unrequired equasions directed at Meta's quotes and not Meta's Post]

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Technos ]</p>

E_muse

Here you conclude that any tests could not provide conclusive proofs that matter could either be created or destroyed.

Yet here you say.....

But you've just said that any test would be inconclusive.

However, energy, as we experience it, forms a part of the universe that had a point where it began to exist. We cannot observe it in any other way.

On what basis would we rule energy out of the creation event?

String theory is another attempt to create a theory of quantum gravity. Again.. just to summarize:

The general theory of relativity predicts universal expansion (including space) which originated at a point of singularity. At this point space is infinitely curved and dense and, if the theory is correct, all the known laws of physics break down. Science cannot use this theory to say anything meaningful about what happened prior to this event.

The idea that the laws of physics could break down has bothered cosmologists like Stephen Hawking. If they could break down at the BB, then they could break down anywhere. Stephen Hawking (and others) have used quantum theory to remove the singularity. This is appropriate given the size of the universe at the point of the BB and the fact that it is the only other theory available. It isn't necessarily the best explanation for the early universe, it is the only one.

Because of this, efforts are being made to combine the theories, and string theory is one expression of this. Several different theories exist but the search is on for the mother of all theories.

However, with this whole approach, there are problems.

For example, Hawking's no boundary proposal states that the universe has no beginning and no end. However, he achieves this through the use of a mathematical approach known as imaginary time. However, this means that Hawking's cosmological model exists in mathematical terms only. In 'real' time, the time in which we live, the universe does begin and end and there are still singularities and Hawking is emphatic in emphasising that his ideas are only a proposal. He goes even further to say that scientific theory is nothing more than a mathematical model and exists only in our minds. It is simply a matter of what is the most useful description.

Technos

Two things E_Muse. I said energy, not matter, and it's safe to assume a negative until there is viable evidence of the positive. The positive is that energy CAN indeed be created or destroyed, I don't believe that it can. I don't believe that the beginning of this universe, nor the big bang, was the beginning of energy. I'm not trying to disrespect any other person's theories, but break down an atom as far as it will go and what more than energy do you have? Everything in the universe is ultimately composed of energy, and thus everything that has a beginning or an end is ultimately composed of energy (on a quantum scale).

tronvillain

An infinite regress is not necessarily a problem, but even if time is finite in extent a first cause is not necessary required. The universe itself can be eternal, making God an unecessary hypothesis. Theists fall prey to their own argument, in that if there is no "before the big bang" it is not apparent that the big bang requires a cause.

E_muse

Yes. I was aware that you were talking about energy and not matter.

However, if the result of testing is inconclusive (as you've stated) can this then be used as a solid basis for holding to a view that energy definitely did not have a beginning unless one is being dictated to by a form of linear either/or thinking? Why can't one be agnostic with regard to energy?

I'm genuinely interested to know why you think this. I'm not trying to disprove your point .. I'm testing it to see whether I can incorporate it into my belief system .. or whether in my belief system needs to change.

Your above arguement is an arguement from personal incredulity .. "I don't believe that ...." which I don't think would be tolerated by many atheists concerning a belief in God. I could argue that, "I don't believe that energy could have just happened.", or, "I don't believe that energy always existed." but neither of these statements would prove anything.

One can only observe the effects of elemental particles and energy - none of these things can be directly observed.

Exactly. Everything in the universe is ultimately composed of energy. But the universe began to exist. Everthing that has a beginning or end within the observable universe that has a beginning and an end is ultimately composed of energy on the quantum scale. It therefore follows that, if one uses quantum mechanics to describe the early universe that energy will form the basis of that description and that such description will obey the scientific laws.

However, general relativity predicts that the scientific laws will break down and reconciling the two theories is far from easy and full of problems. A little bit more research is necessary on my part before I can outline these though.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

eh

E-muse,

You have not answered the question of how the universe could have begun to exist, if there was no before the big bang to speak of. If there is no time, and no prior state to the BB, then the universe did not begin to exist at a point.

Liquidrage

E-Muse,

In your response to my post on page 1 I believe my stance was not understood by you.
I do not believe in god therefor, my personal belief is that the universe started with out god.

Though this is the point I was making.

Time is a product of the universe. Time does not exist without the universe. This does not mean that nothing could have existed before the universe's creation.

Though when taking about First Cause, if what could have been in existance before the universe's creation is not taken into account, then there is no reason to argue it. Why? Because if one were to consider *something* existing prior to our universe then there is an obvious suspect for the First Cause.

Time is a property of the universe. It is very hard for mankind to fathom existance without time, but this does not mean that it is so. Just because *time* might have come into being with the creation of our universe, does not mean that there was nothing prior to the beginning of our universe. Though again, when talking about First Cause, whatever was existing prior to the Universe (if indeed anything did exist) *must* be taken into account. Two examples would be "God" and p-branes.

One cannot simple say, God does not need a First Cause while the Universe does. That is simply using semantics to change the object in focus.
Logically, if one were to belive God does not need a First Case, then one must assume that it would be possible for a Universe to exist without a First Cause. In this case believing A but not B is contradictory.

Jimmy Higgins

Metacrock, I will always disagree with this logic. Why? Mainly because you refuse to see the fatal flaw in it.

Problem: Universe is causal. What created the universe?

Your answer: God. Your god could do it because you define him as: "God is the final cause".

You say this is a necessary determination, but is it truly as necessary as say the speed of light being constant in a vacuum as Einstein saw such an idea as necessary?

You say god doesn't need a cause because he is the final cause, however, that is part of your own definition of god. Are you allowed to do that?

Once again, the problem: Universes cause?
Your answer: God because he had no cause.

Furthermore, you say that god doesn't need a cause because he is the final cause. You've created a segmented line for cause, and start it with god. Take a line, with five points, A,B,C,D,E with A at one point, B to the right of A, C to the right of B, etc... The segment starts at A and continues on towards infinity past E. All of our worldly observations are c,d,e. E is caused by D, D by C. C is eventually caused by B (the big bang). Now you claim to have defeated the cause issue, but snipping the cause line at A. Call pt A god and say everythings solved, because it has to be that way.

But lets look at the line. At what point to the left of B does something need to be the Final Cause? Can anything to the left of B be a cause? Does the Final Cause have to be singular? Finally, if there must be a Final Cause, how did this Final Cause become the Final Cause? By also saying there must be a Final Cause, you are ignoring the fact that if one god can exist without creation, that there should be no reason why other gods can't exist.

What prohibited the existence of other gods?