Dr Rick

Faith is belief in the absence of or even contrary to the evidence. If something in astronomy or cosmology supports your belief, then your belief is no longer faith.

Rick

luvluv

Dr. Rick:

You're misunderstanding my use of the word faith here. I meant that the findings more or less confirm my worldview or belief system.

Faith, by the way, is not as simple as you describe it. IMHO, faith is a very misunderstood topic around here. I would reccomend Tillich.

faustuz

Following this discussion on the Cosmological argument it seems that there is something that is being missed with regards to the big bang. It is meaningless to discuss what happened before the big bang because, according to most cosmologists, time itself begins with the big bang. There is no such thing as infinite regress with the big bang theory, because there is no infinity before the big bang. There can be no God existing in time before the big bang because there is no “before the big bang”.

I did some research on the web before posting this just to make sure that this is the consensus among cosmologists. I can post at least a dozen links if anybody is interested. In looking through these links I didn’t find a single example of anybody saying anything except that time itself began with the big bang. There are some issues as to whether or not we live in an open or closed universe. If we live in a closed universe (which the evidence seems to suggest we do not) then the universe will eventually collapse on itself. In such a scenario there may be multiple big bangs, a sort of bouncing universe. However, even in this model, at the actual point of singularity time can not be considered to exists, so from the perspective of one existing in the universe time itself still begins at the singularity.

Anyway, don’t take my word for it. Use google!

Amergin

All of the philosophical bollocks gives me indigestion. But either there is an infinite regression, or a first cause. The first cause may be a god of some definition, or the cosmos itself. It may be the eternal thing that exists, the cosmos, in which a Big Bang occurs sometimes as a bubble in the fabric of existence and a universe is blown out the hole like a giant fart. A purely natural cause such as this is equally credible as God. Furthermore there is no consistent definition God.

I am perplexed that no poster has ever really attempted to define God. What exactly is God? How can we argue about the existence of God if none of us can define that of which we are debating?

There are several different quasi-definitions of God used on the various forums. The classic type is the anthropomorphic god. This God usually has a human personality with human emotions, human virtues, and human vices. These are manifested by jealousy, anger, rage, love, mercy, capriciousness, justice and injustice, insecurity (need for adoration as assurance of his supremacy), and forgiveness. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of all reality. This anthropomorphic god can range from the minimal anthropomorphism of Monotheistic Allah, to the marked human raging Monotheistic JHWH, to the every human Jesus Christ who is a God-human hybrid in a trinity that believers pretend to be Monotheism.

There are relatively undefined or poorly defined gods such as the one recognised by Deists, Unitarians, and Bahai’s. This god is conscious but clearly not human. He or She may or may not have emotions. That is not defined. He/She has but one function. That is to create the universe and the rules by which it runs.

Then there is the totally undefined God, not of a particular religious school of thought. People say they believe in a god-creator but say that nothing can be known about this god.

Another kind of god, believed by many American scientists, possibly to avert the charge of Atheism is the Inanimate God. This god is defined, as perhaps Steven Hawking would say, as the elementary forces of nature and the unified field theory of reality. This god is not a conscious being. It has no personality. It is incapable of thinking (cognition). It knows nothing. But its action results in the formation of universes, beginning with a big bang from a tiny singularity, and accounts for all of the properties of energy and matter. Those innate properties account for the evolution of matter from energy and nanoparticles, and the evolution of life from atoms combining into a series of increasingly complex molecules. Life evolves through stages of mobility, which requires some self-awareness and reactivity to cognition and intelligence. Intelligence is merely an animal behaviour evolved in stages for adaptation. This adaptation includes finding food, finding reproductive mates, and avoiding predators. As such thinking and intelligence is not necessary for a creator god who needs no food, needs no reproductive mates, and need fear no predators. Such a creator-god needs intelligence no more than a sponge needs a computer keyboard.

This then gets us to the question facing Atheists. In countries like the USA where Atheists are widely hated, would they be better off claiming to be theists. When asked to elaborate on God, they could reply with a Hawking style definition. They would be eligible to join the Boy Scouts of America, and previously Atheistic war veterans (10%) could join the Veterans of Foreign Wars now denied to them.

Amergin

Wiploc

Bingo.


You just said it was either/or. Now you're trying for both? Pick one: infinite regression (eternal thing) or no eternal regression (first cause).

crc

Wiploc

I think that most of them hedge this pronouncement with a line something like, "Actually, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the big bang because nobody knows what happened," or "We may as well *say* that time started before the big bang since nobody knows what happened before that." You can find such a line in Hawkings _A Brief History of Time_.

Whatever it is that they mean when they say time started with the big bang, they don't mean something which precludes an infinite series of big bangs. I understand that that theory (the infinite series of big bangs theory) is out of favor, but not on the grounds that there was no time before the big bang.

So, whatever physicists mean when they say there was no time before the big bang, we don't get to assume there's a clearcut case of them meaning what it sounds like they are saying.

Quote:

There is no such thing as infinite regress with the big bang theory, because there is no infinity before the big bang.

That's assuming the physicists mean what they seem to be saying.

Quote:

There can be no God existing in time before the big bang because there is no “before the big bang”.

I hate to start agreeing with you, but ... yes, if the big bang was actually the first thing that ever happened --- which is how the Christians like to interpret what the physicists say when they (the Christians) are trying to use the big bang as part of the cosmological argument --- then there was no god before the big bang, and therefore any god who exists now had to begin at that time. Or later.

Quote:

I did some research on the web before posting this just to make sure that this is the consensus among cosmologists. I can post at least a dozen links if anybody is interested. In looking through these links I didn’t find a single example of anybody saying anything except that time itself began with the big bang.

Shortly after, anyway. Nobody believes in the singularity. They use quantum mechanics. They say things began a tiny bit "after" the singularity would have existed if the universe weren't grainy.

Quote:

There are some issues as to whether or not we live in an open or closed universe. If we live in a closed universe (which the evidence seems to suggest we do not) then the universe will eventually collapse on itself. In such a scenario there may be multiple big bangs, a sort of bouncing universe. However, even in this model, at the actual point of singularity time can not be considered to exists, so from the perspective of one existing in the universe time itself still begins at the singularity.

I asked a local physicist and he said that the most popular theory these days (this was a couple of years ago) is that the big bang happened infinitley long ago. Because time is speeding up. So the farther back you go the slower things happened. I didn't understand it. And I certainly don't purport to be able to accurately represent an opinion that I didn't understand in the first place. But he, three times, interrupted himself to emphasize that *nobody* knows what happened before the big bang. I'm not even sure I can square that with the big bang happening infinitely long ago.

Conclusions:

1. When they say time started at the big bang, we can't assume they mean it. Or maybe they mean something, but we don't understand what it is. Maybe it only means something like, "The chapter starts on page three hundred." Just because it's the start of a chapter, that doesn't mean it's the start of the book.

2. Since the invention of quantum mechanics, nobody believes there was an actual singularity when time didn't flow. (Did I phrase that claim too strongly? Great; I'd love to be corrected.)

3. When the Christians use the big bang to support the cosmological argument, they *are*assuming that time started at that time, and they should therefore be stuck with the implication: If there is a god, then he began just like the rest of the universe.

crc

Wiploc

LuvLuv, I'd like to discuss this seriously. With you --- because I've seen that you can be reasonable. So I'm going to ask you to do better than, "It's just a story, and this is the way the story is told."

Put yourself in my shoes. Suppose I claimed the universe always existed, and supported my claim based on ancient Inuit folklore. Would you let me base my claim on that? No.

The traditional cosmological argument goes something like this:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. Not everything has a cause.
3. Therefore god.

The premises contradict each other, and the conclusion doesn't flow from the premises.

Now you're claiming that something can be salvaged from this. Your salvage job involves something like this:

1. Everything but god has a beginning.
2. God doesn't have a beginning.

Two strong rules. You must have a reason for applying one rule to god and the other to everything else. I'm asking what the reason is. Is there a reason? Or do you apply the rules arbitrarily to get the result you want?

Note that the revealed god of Christianity has not much to do with the Cosmological argument. Craig plays it this way: The cosmological argument proves there is a creator, a first cause; and then other considerations show that this prime mover is the god of the bible. So you can use the first cause argument to bolster Christianity, if you can get the first cause argument to work. But you can't use Christianity as *part* of the first cause argument; that would be arguing in a circle, assuming the thing you are attempting to prove.

So, *if* the first cause argument works at all, it works without benefit of defining god according to the revealed religion of the Christians and Hebrews.


With all due respect, I think I know as much about it as you do.
Our goal here can be to see *why* we disagree, exactly where we part company. If you think there's some specific thing about the cosmological argument that I don't understand, I'd be pleased to be instructed.

I understand that we have been talking past each other sometimes; and that is certainly frustrating. But it doesn't mean I'm a dunce any more than it means you're a dunce.

For instance, one place we have trouble is the meaning of the word "universe." You use it to mean everything-except-god, and I use it to mean everything. But I'll ask you not to assume this difference means I don't grasp the cosmological argument.


None of them should fool a sixth grader.


But you determine that the universe began by applying a rule. I'm asking why you don't apply that rule to god.


It's not a first principle at all. It is an inference, an induction, based on an overwhelmingly enormous amount of experience. It is, however, seriously undermined by quantum mechanics.

We can ignore quantum mechanics though. We can put it out of our mind. We can take your rule as a given in order to see where it leads us.


I assume you'll say god is incoherent too, in the sense that he cannot be grasped by human minds.


If incoherence isn't an argument against god, we'll not accept it as an argument against uncaused energy.


As explained in my immediately previous post, I don't see this as established. I don't know what physicists mean when they say time started at the big bang, but they don't seem to mean that there wasn't time before that.


I wouldn't think of trying it. I was only illustrating why you shouldn't try it with god. The unbegun god is the very thing the cosmological argument attempts to establish. If you also use it as a premise, you prove nothing.

crc

eh

No, the Hawking module you're thinking about would simply do away with a point of infinities we get at the singularity. As others have pointed out, cosmologists say it is meaningless to talk about a time prior to the big bang. This is not because we cannot know about such a time, it's because the concept is illogical. The meaning is quite literally, that there is no before.

But this is merely passing the mystery of existence from the physical universe to something else. Since the existence of an intelligent being would be no less mysterious than a physical universe, ultimately nothing is explained.

I wasn't saying the universe is a non contingent contingency. Space and time did not begin to exist in any meaningful definition of the concept. The universe is thus eternal, or at least that's the way I see it.

Shadowy Man

No, I wouldn't.

Infinity Lover

I'm deliberately not reading through the whole thread first. If I'm bringing up points that others have adressed as well, that serves an illustrative purpose t.m.h.o.

Take perfection out of the equation as a real absolute, and treat is as a contemplative norm everything in existence inevitably strays from, and the whole argument colapses as a house of cards. Considering everything is subject to limitations, and thus lacks all it doesn't contain, literly nothing is perfect.

An eternal chainreaction is just as acceptable a brutal fact, as an eternal creator, and dare I say even by far a more plausible one.

Nuf said.

No argument there, that's what I think.