• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Big Bang - Still Speculation

rhutchin

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
335
Location
DC Area
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist, YEC
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
 

Narapoia

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
160
Location
Antipodes
Basic Beliefs
Scientific humanist and an atheist
Oh my god! You mean that we had not yet scientifically determined everything there is to know!? I thought we had it all wrapped up. Quick - reintroduce hard science courses to the universities, offer incentives to do pure science research again, emphasise science at the primary and second...........wait, hang on. I've just checked and all that is still happening (though there could always be more) - whew I thought it was going to take us years to get back up to steam with a critical mass of research happening all over the world to expand the boundaries of what we know about the universe. Re-reading your post I see where the problem lies - you seem to think that science deals in absolutes. You don't seem to realise that there is a constant unending process of testing and exploration driven by our bottomless curiosity and the desire of some people to know how the universe actually works, best as we can tell.

So our current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. Why is that a problem? All it shows us is that there is new knowledge to be discovered, that is exciting.
 
Last edited:

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,363
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
When I read that article I knew someone was going to use it to attempt to demonstrate the existence of their favorite cosmic magician.

I'm just happy that stellar fusion produces oxygen. If it didn't we'd all be suffocating.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,794
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
 

GenesisNemesis

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,793
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Super evil transhumanist communist
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:

You forgot talking snakes. That's the most important part.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,392
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Even the article says that this is according to one model where they plugged in the Higgs-Boson. One thing we do know, nature has a much better imagination than humankind. Besides, when was the last time you heard about a denomination closing up shop because their particular model didn't work out? Oh yeah. NEVER.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Even the article says that this is according to one model where they plugged in the Higgs-Boson. One thing we do know, nature has a much better imagination than humankind. Besides, when was the last time you heard about a denomination closing up shop because their particular model didn't work out? Oh yeah. NEVER.
No, they usually, when forced, evolve adapt and label parts of the model 'metaphor' as necessary.
And tell anyone who'll listen that this change is not central to the dogma.
 

James Brown

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
3,561
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Atheist
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:

Scientists still don't fully understand what occurs in the human brain when a person falls in love . . .

Therefore Cupid exists.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,363
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
What exactly is it with religionists using science to disprove science? It's like picking up a prescription for antibiotics and then telling your doctor they can't possibly work.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
What exactly is it with religionists using science to disprove science? It's like picking up a prescription for antibiotics and then telling your doctor they can't possibly work.
No, it's using science that doesn't quite say what they think it does, in order to disprove science that supports conclusions they don't like.

It's more like arguing with the professor during a college course in history because of something you kinda remember seeing in a movie, this one time.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Argh! We don't have a TABLE tag implemented yet on this forum? Gah!

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the movement of galaxies
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about the movement of galaxies

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the strength and frequency of the cosmic background microwave radiation
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about cosmic background microwave radiation

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the hydrogen-helium ratios in all those gas clouds that float around in our universe
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about the hydrogen-helium ratios

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the large scale structure of the universe (where galaxies are and where galaxies aren't)
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about the large scale structure of the universe

This is how one theory supplants another theory in science. This is how Einstein's General Relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics. One by one the lines of evidence were examined, and in each case Einstein's equations produced more accurate predictions than Newton's equations.

There are more lines of evidence than what's listed above, but they are less important and are just more of the same. Creation theory completely fails to explain any of the available evidence, much less explain the evidence with greater accuracy than the Big Bang Theory can, thus it completely fails as a competing theory. The Big Bang theory is the best current explanation for the early and current state of the universe, whereas the Talking Snake Theory of Creation isn't any kind of explanation at all. At best the Talking Snake Theory of Creation is a  just-so story (ad hoc fallacy).
 

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
Argh! We don't have a TABLE tag implemented yet on this forum? Gah!

Big Bang Theory Creation Theory
Produces predictions about the movement of galaxies, predictions that rely on  fine tuning of
existing theories with additional entities
Predicts the movement of galaxies is meaningful, beautiful, powerful, ordered, and graceful
Produces predictions about the strength and frequency of the cosmic background microwave radiation, some of
which do not match what is observed
Predicts that there should be some indication of intent in the CMB, and there should be some indication of some violation of the Copernican principle, and
coincidentally there is, although it may be due to foreground contamination
Produces predictions about the large scale structure
of the universe (where galaxies are and where galaxies aren't)
Predicts that the universe evolves according to rules,
and conscious choice about when and where to follow the
rules
Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the  vacuum catastrophe
Only postulates a creator, constantly has to accommodate
knew knowledge acquired, just like the BB theory
Hadron asymmetry problem (perhaps due to antimatter having
gravitational repulsion rather than attraction)
Decision to select one form of charge distribution over
another, manifested as a natural law


Talking snake... :D
 

dockeen

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
489
Location
Florida Panhandle, USA
Basic Beliefs
Ex-Tian, now a general seeker
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"

That does seem to be a fundamental difference. Having an answer for the why, and the rest is unimportant details, even if that answer can not be checked in any way, versus the scientific approach of making predictions and checking one's work.
 

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"
I don't see how "God created the universe" leads someone away from curiosity about the universe and the way it works?
 

dockeen

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
489
Location
Florida Panhandle, USA
Basic Beliefs
Ex-Tian, now a general seeker
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"
I don't see how "God created the universe" leads someone away from curiosity about the universe and the way it works?

Such an answer likely does not lead someone away from a curiosity driven examination of the universe. But such curiosity is most often not a feature of the
creationist mindset. The simple answer of the form "God did it, and here's why" will always have the ability to fill in the blank for many folks.
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,178
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
Actually, Asherah said that Yahweh really farted on a cosmic scale, but was too embarrassed to admit it...so he obfuscated and called it speech :D
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,178
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
Shocking isn't it that we humans still have things to figure out...:rolleyes: How often has Christian thought been right with now known scientific realities? Or do you think the earth is the center of the universe? Yeah, why listen to those foolish scientists...

Over 2000 years ago, the flat earth notion was crumbling.
Almost a 1000 years ago, an Islamic scholar rejected the idea of a earth centric universe.
A little over 300 years ago we got Newtons law.
250ish years ago preachers were angry at Ben Franklin for taking away their lightening daemons.
A hundred years ago, scientists were just beginning to unravel bits and pieces that would later break down the belief in a steady state universe.
The BB theory is just over 60 years old, and the first useful computers were just emerging.
53 years ago the first man went into space.
45 years ago the first man landed on the moon


What might we know in 2114? Hard to say...
 

steve_bnk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
646
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.

It all depends on what you mean by universe.


The BB starts with observed galactic motions and extrapolates back to a theoretical event. The model serves to explain the genesis of the modern particle theory of today.


The BB does not explain what led up tothe pre conditions of the event. It does not explain any ultimateorigins of the observable and measurable universe.


'…."So if the universe shouldn'texist, why is it here?...' is not a question science addresses, subjective questions of why and meaning are for philosophy and religion. Philosophical speculations by those with scientificcredentials gets conflated with the actual science.


Science proper deals solely with predictive mathematical models..


My view is there is no ultimate meaning or why to the universe, the question itself is useless. The universe just is.

From Newtonian physics we have Force = Mass x Acceleration. It is a useful predictive scientific model. 'Why' the relationship exist to begin with has no meaning in science, we make use of the fact that it does.

Likewise the BB is a useful predictive model.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Argh! We don't have a TABLE tag implemented yet on this forum? Gah!

Big Bang Theory Creation Theory
Produces predictions about the movement of galaxies, predictions that rely on  fine tuning of
existing theories with additional entities
Predicts the movement of galaxies is meaningful, beautiful, powerful, ordered, and graceful
Produces predictions about the strength and frequency of the cosmic background microwave radiation, some of
which do not match what is observed
Predicts that there should be some indication of intent in the CMB, and there should be some indication of some violation of the Copernican principle, and
coincidentally there is, although it may be due to foreground contamination
Produces predictions about the large scale structure
of the universe (where galaxies are and where galaxies aren't)
Predicts that the universe evolves according to rules,
and conscious choice about when and where to follow the
rules
Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the  vacuum catastrophe
Only postulates a creator, constantly has to accommodate
knew knowledge acquired, just like the BB theory
Hadron asymmetry problem (perhaps due to antimatter having
gravitational repulsion rather than attraction)
Decision to select one form of charge distribution over
another, manifested as a natural law


Talking snake... :D

Thanks for showing me wrong about the TABLE tag.

Predicts the movement of galaxies is meaningful, beautiful, powerful, ordered, and graceful
You don't seem to understand the standard here. Using the Big Bang Theory, we can predict the motion of galaxies. In order to replace the Big Bang Theory, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation would have to produce more accurate predictions than the Big Bang Theory, and "galaxies move, an' ah shore thank that iz purdy!" doesn't get you there.

Your comment about fine tuning also does not cause the Talking Snake theory to produce better predictions about the motion of galaxies, but it does tell us something important that you think it could, and it also shows that you think holes in the ground are shaped to fit the puddles that form in them, rather than that that the shape of the water conforms to fit the hole.

some of which do not match what is observed
See? There's room for improvement. If you can show that creation theory can explain these few details that the big bang theory cannot, you will demonstrate that creation theory fits the evidence better. Got anything?

Predicts that there should be some indication of intent in the CMB, and there should be some indication of some violation of the Copernican principle, and coincidentally there is, although it may be due to foreground contamination
Again, you don't seem to understand the standard. Creation theory needs to produce more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory about the cosmic background microwave radiation (e.g. strength, frequency, direction). Not one single thing you said here does that. In fact, you have not demonstrated how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions about the cosmic background radiation at all in any meaningful sense. The fact that you even mention Copernican theory suggest that you either don't actually understand the conversation we are having.

Predicts that the universe evolves according to rules,
and conscious choice about when and where to follow the
rules
If you can demonstrate how creation theory can be used to make more accurate predictions about the large scale structure of the universe, then do so. Simply saying that you have done so does not advance your argument.

Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the vacuum catastrophe
Two things:
  1. The universe does not have to be fine tuned. There are actually a lot of values those constants can have that would produce life as we know it.
  2. Again, the hole is not shaped to fit the puddle, the puddle is shaped to fit the hole.
  3. Until we can make measurements of other universes, you can't honestly say you know what any of the relevant probabilities are, so you can't say that this configuration is unlikely at all

Only postulates a creator, constantly has to accommodate
knew knowledge acquired, just like the BB theory
You seem to have completely missed the standard. In each category of evidence, creation theory needs to make more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory, and thus far you have completely failed to demonstrate how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions at all in any of these categories of evidence.

So my previous statement stands. Right now, the Big Bang theory is the best guess we have, while the Talking Snake Theory of Creation does not rise above the level of a  just-so story (i.e. ad hoc fallacy). There is no discernible difference between your explanation for where the universe comes from and the ancient Greek myth that tried to explain where echoes come from.
 

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"
I don't see how "God created the universe" leads someone away from curiosity about the universe and the way it works?

Such an answer likely does not lead someone away from a curiosity driven examination of the universe. But such curiosity is most often not a feature of the creationist mindset. The simple answer of the form "God did it, and here's why" will always have the ability to fill in the blank for many folks.
Hmm. Ok. <-- that's a subtle joke.

I don't think the creationist mindset can be summed up with that one statement- in fact I don't think it even applies to the majority of creationists. Instead I see that statement as something that would satisfy an anti-creationist's desire for knowledge of a creationist's mindset.

Note that I said "anti-creationist", not atheist. There is a difference, although many anti-creationists are also atheists. And many anti-atheists are also creationists.
 

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
Again, you don't seem to understand the standard. Creation theory needs to produce more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory about the cosmic background microwave radiation (e.g. strength, frequency, direction).
The BB theory is a creation theory. As we discover more about the intricacies of creation, we don't have to say "because we discovered this, God didn't create it!"
In fact, you have not demonstrated how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions about the cosmic background radiation at all in any meaningful sense.
Creation theory would assume some type of message, or view of the form of God, in the CMB. Strictly physical theories would assume that there is no message, or hints at God's existence, in the CMB. That's the division.

The fact that you even mention Copernican theory suggest that you either don't actually understand the conversation we are having.
You don't understand what the violation of the Copernican principle would imply?

Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the vacuum catastrophe
The universe does not have to be fine tuned.
Huh? No, various theories that are tied into the BB theory are  fine tuned to match observations. You know  General Relativity, with the  ad hoc hypothesis of  dark matter +  dark energy to justify observations?

Mentioned the  vacuum catastrophe, because it is one of the largest failures of physical theories to date.
You seem to have completely missed the standard. In each category of evidence, creation theory needs to make more accurate predictions than the Big Bang theory, and thus far you have completely failed to demonstrate how creation theory can be used to produce any predictions at all in any of these categories of evidence.
The only distinguishing characteristic of creation theory is that it posits a creator, and BB theory does not include statements about a creator.

Hell, a bunch of proponents of the BB theory also believe in God- creation theory and BB theory are not at odds with one another.



So my previous statement stands. Right now, the Big Bang theory is the best guess we have, while the Talking Snake Theory of Creation does not rise above the level of a  just-so story (i.e. ad hoc fallacy). There is no discernible difference between your explanation for where the universe comes from and the ancient Greek myth that tried to explain where echoes come from.
Nah. I think ultimately you'll find that the TSToC is the same thing as the BB theory, both being metaphors about genesis through hot hot love... although your dick won't start talking until you're mature enough to handle it. :p And you really want a gene sis for it, doncha? Y you gotta broken chromosome boy? Y that hot chick got 2 whole sexy chromosomes, and you just got the xy? Missin' something?

 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,363
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
"Where did the universe come from?"

The formative event was the Big Bang, which is supported by scientific observation.

"That's speculation."

Where do you think the universe came from?

"It was created by a god."

What's a god?

"A god is what created the universe."

Brilliant!
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:

You forgot talking snakes. That's the most important part.

No, no.. it's original sin.. THATs the most important part... without it, there would be nothing to save us from and no excuses for all the "mistakes" in creation.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,139
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The BB is a theory that extrapolates far back in tine to a theoretical event for which the initial conditions are unknown.

It is a good theory based on our limited observations in modern astronomy and particle physics. It is not a fact althrough some in science seem to see it that way.

There is no provable explanation of how the universe began. The universe does not need a beginning or end, that is my view.

I doubt the quote literally meant 'the universe should not be here', it is more a manner of speaking in saying that our science is lacking, which I whole heatedly agree with.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,139
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
"Where did the universe come from?"

The formative event was the Big Bang, which is supported by scientific observation.

"That's speculation."

Where do you think the universe came from?

"It was created by a god."

What's a god?

"A god is what created the universe."

Brilliant!
The Sun goes round the Earth, this too is 'supported by observation'. Considered fact until there were better observations.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,139
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The Big Wang Theory.

The unverse is the ejaculation of god. The universe was created by the hand of god so to speak.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,139
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The Sun goes round the Earth, this too is 'supported by observation'. Considered fact until there were better observations.
You may be confusing fact with belief.
There are no and can be no absolutes with science. At this time relativity and the non existence of a preferred or absolute reference frame says that.

All SI units and measurements are relative to arbitrary standards. SI is what science is based on.

Somebody discovers that observation does not match cosmology. Somebody invents dark matter to bring theory in line with observation. That is how science advances. BB radiation a good example.

The idea that BB is absolute truth from our tiny Earth viewpoint, our tiny brains, and our limited technology is high order hubris and arrogance. Theists do have a point, for some 'scientism' takes on a relgious kind of faith and theory is holy scripture.
 

Ephesians

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
65
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
So, let's see here... the universe should have collapsed, appears to be designed, and appears to have come out of not anything.

But no God, amirite fellas? lolol
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
You apprehend that trial and error is a design process, right?

So, undirected evolution, 'trying' random things,trimming 'errors' by lethal feedback, would produce designed products without being an intended products. It's not a difficulty, or even an anomaly.

But, you know, you lol you.
 

Ephesians

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
65
You apprehend that trial and error is a design process, right?
Yes.
So, undirected evolution, 'trying' random things,trimming 'errors' by lethal feedback
All you're doing is describing how evolution works while tacking on 'undesigned,' but what you're describing doesn't sound undesigned. It sounds like an ingenious designed process of trial and error, as you put it.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
You apprehend that trial and error is a design process, right?
Yes.
So, undirected evolution, 'trying' random things,trimming 'errors' by lethal feedback
All you're doing is describing how evolution works while tacking on 'undesigned,' but what you're describing doesn't sound undersigned. It sounds like a designed process of trial and error, as you put it.
No, i offer an example of 'appears designed' which is not compelling evidence that there is any intent behind that design. Design is possible without intelligence.

You just move your desire for a designer back one step as necessary.
 

Ephesians

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
65
No, i offer an example of 'appears designed' which is not compelling evidence that there is any intent behind that design.

Well, again, you're taking something that looks designed and saying, "Yes, it looks designed, but it really isn't..."

Sorry, bruh.

Design is possible without intelligence.

Atheism is hilarious. God bless you, bro.

You just move your desire for a designer back one step as necessary.

I think you're ignoring the universe appearing to be designed because you're afraid of God.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
No, i offer an example of 'appears designed' which is not compelling evidence that there is any intent behind that design.

Well, again, you're taking something that looks designed and saying, "Yes, it looks designed, but it really isn't..."
No, that's not at all what i am saying.
I'm saying 'designed' maybe evidence of a process, but not evidence for an intelligent designer.

Sorry, bruh.

Design is possible without intelligence.

Atheism is hilarious. God bless you, bro.

Do i threaten you?
You just move your desire for a designer back one step as necessary.

I think you're ignoring the universe appearing to be designed because you're afraid of God.
I accept the appearance of design. Really.
It just doesn't mean what you need it to mean.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,858
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Do i threaten you?

Look at my profile pic. Now look at my gender. How could you possibly threaten me?
And WHHOOOOSH! The point....

I accept the appearance of design. Really.

So, the universe looks designed,
So does the Roman Nose on the side of a cliff near where i grew up. Very clearly Patrician. Very clesrly the result of erosion.
I just don't find that compelling evidence of a prehistoric sculptor.

This one time, I saw a cloud that looked just like a Missile Onload Prism fixture. I accept that for about 40 seconds, there, the cloud appeared designed.

but for some odd reason you won't believe it is.
Words seem hard for you.

Interesting, lul. Atheism is hilarious.
And crearionism is pathetic. Kind of a one-trick pony.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,722
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
So, let's see here... the universe should have collapsed, appears to be designed, and appears to have come out of not anything.

But no God, amirite fellas? lolol
What is a god? What are its characteristics? How does a god create universes? How can we verify that gods exist?

You don't have any answers, you are only here to peddle your the stale mythology that you were weak-minded enough to buy into. amirite fella? lolol
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,664
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
So, let's see here... the universe should have collapsed, appears to be designed, and appears to have come out of not anything.

But no God, amirite fellas? lolol
What is a god? What are its characteristics? How does a god create universes? How can we verify that gods exist?

You don't have any answers, you are only here to peddle your the stale mythology that you were weak-minded enough to buy into. amirite fella? lolol
I mean, I've answered all those questions and then some across my participation in these threads, and in fact am "a god who created a universe".

We can verify "gods exist" just by looking in the mirror.

The problem is in holding up not just "a god, small and miserable and made of meat, only god over something smaller and made of sand", but "god, grand by comparison to us in form or dimension over so much material as exists in its context to provision our meat and sand in as number."

The former does not imply visibility or reality of the latter; rather the "this" implies all and no such circumstances that make this be as it is, though it need not be considered as being in a place.

I am not even the sole or necessary god of the universe I created.
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
506
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,794
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.
The biggest problem with that is that current observations suggest very strongly that the universe will never quite cease expanding; Its gravity is never going to overcome its expansion.

Several cyclical hypotheses have been proposed, of which yours is one of the simplest. A stronger contender, given the failure of the universe to have sufficient gravity to collapse itself, is that a high entropy 'heat death' state will inevitably generate arbitrarily large quantum fluctuations given all the time in the universe, and that such fluctuations can become very small universes with arbitrarily low starting entropy - which is exactly the pre-inflationary state we deduce for the 'beginning' of our universe.

If you are waiting for a cosmology that both "makes sense" and complies with observed reality, then you may still be waiting when this occurs. :)
 

Marvin Edwards

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
506
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.
The biggest problem with that is that current observations suggest very strongly that the universe will never quite cease expanding; Its gravity is never going to overcome its expansion.

Several cyclical hypotheses have been proposed, of which yours is one of the simplest. A stronger contender, given the failure of the universe to have sufficient gravity to collapse itself, is that a high entropy 'heat death' state will inevitably generate arbitrarily large quantum fluctuations given all the time in the universe, and that such fluctuations can become very small universes with arbitrarily low starting entropy - which is exactly the pre-inflationary state we deduce for the 'beginning' of our universe.

If you are waiting for a cosmology that both "makes sense" and complies with observed reality, then you may still be waiting when this occurs. :)

I don't get it. I understand that (a) one theory is that expansion will lead to the exhaustion of all energy and matter into infinite space. But I don't know what is meant by "quantum fluctuations" that (b) become new universes with "low starting entropy". And then saying that is the same as the (c) pre-inflationary state at the beginning of our universe.

The problem with (a) is that, we may assume that we sit precisely in the middle of eternity, with one eternity behind us and one eternity still ahead. Give that one eternity has already passed, everything should be gone by now. But apparently it's still here. So, entropy can only be viewed as a local phenomena, and the universe as a whole would not be subject to entropy over eternity.

The problem with (b) is the conservation of energy/matter. Assuming that "something cannot come from nothing", a universe cannot come from nowhere. So, how does a "quantum fluctuation" become a new universe? What is it that is "fluctuating"?

The problem with (c) is that, if any energy/matter is lost, then each new universe would be getting smaller and smaller. And, again, given eternity, it should be gone by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,139
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The only cosmology that makes sense is the Big Bounce. A super-condensed ball of everything reaches some tipping point, and boom!, we get a Big Bang. Black holes within that new universe begin accumulating stuff into super-condensed balls of matter over time in a Big Crunch. Eventually the crunch reaches a tipping point and we get a big bang again. The cycle goes on forever.
The unverse is a ping pong game for gods?
 
Top Bottom