Quick! Say something controversial!

[nemafakei]

1. The universe has always existed.

This fits with current scientific thinking, actually. Although evidence points to a 'beginning', a big bang, it seems that this was also the beginning of time. Since there is no time before the universe, the universe has existed for all time, or, as we say, it has always existed.

[Acriku]

To paraphrase a famous quote, (and I address this to no one in particular) I contend that we are both religious. I just believe in one more supernatural, unknowable divine thing than you do. The Big Bang has all the attributes of a god. Not a personal god, but a god nonetheless. A divine force, a deist god, take your pick. And don't try to say that the Big Bang was just one event, limited in time - just boom and it was all over - because the Big Bang created time.

Sure, the Big Bang might be seen as a "creator", but no no shape or form is it worshipped or even respected as a god. And the big bang isn't supernatural, because supernature cannot exist (nature is all there is).

[Dude_Doc]

But today we know that it is physically impossible for the universe to have always existed (this is due to entropy, as you explained). So there must have been a First Cause after all. That's already a big point for religion. We have the ball in our court now; the argument is no longer over the existence of a First Cause, but merely over the question of whether this First Cause was an intelligent entity - God - or something else.

I need to point out:

This argument is not fool-proof, however, as there are stochastic processes associated with many physical theories that can reset the entropy clock through, for example, cosmic inflation.

and

Modern quantum physics is sometimes interpreted to deny the validity of the first premise of this argument (that everything has a cause), showing that subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish, by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum. Though such occurrences do not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, Bell's theorem shows that these are impossible to predict. Because the "nothingness" from which the subatomic particles arise from a sea of fluctuating vacuum energy, it may be that such processes contradict the assertion that all effects have causes.

...from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause     (Under scientific positions-headline.)

[gunner154]

Having no answer is infinitely better than saying Goddidit. It means we're still researching, we're still contemplating, and what we're not doing is just saying Goddidit. That's the most medieval argument I can think of. It's old, it's used, and should be thrown away with witch-burning.

Based on our current knowledge of simple Physics, mass and energy do not create itself. That's why it's Conservation. Therefore, would be quite logical to say that Science agrees with religion (in this aspect). The law of conservation of mass-energy actually agrees that something or someone has to create all this. Until you disprove the conservation of mass-energy with research, it would be very safe to take it that God has to be doing all these.

And what was the outside force caused by, pray tell?

You know it as well as I do. Rhetorical question.

You're saying two very different things. 1) an outside force (which doesn't even make sense since the universe is all-encompassing, thus no 'outside'. and 2) an intelligent creator. Firstly, you're assuming there is one 'force' or 'creator.' There could be millions, each with a specific function. You're also assuming the creator(s) is(are) intelligent. Nothing points to this conclusion. The theorized millions of creators could know only their function, or unknowingly function and therefore are not intelligent. Is there anything in this universe that concretely and unsuggestively points to an intelligent creator.

I do agree that 'outside force' is quite an improper term to use.

If we take Acriku-'s model of millions of little creators, aware or unaware, of their function, we must realise that this results only in randomness. How can a lack of order create anything useful, like putting pieces of a puzzle together when everybody is tossing the pieces all over the place? Even if we were to accept your model of little creators, ultimately the coordination of these little creators has to be achieved by an intelligent being.

Yes, and when do you suppose he created the universe? Without the universe, there is no time. No matter/space, no time. So how did God go from point A to point B when there is no time to do so?

Interesting. Fact is we don't (I think we don't) understand what negative time is. But I liked that argument.

It certainly makes sense for the god to have abandoned his creation because he has not interacted with the world at all. Hmm, I think jefferson might be on to something...

Unless you're a grossly eccentric jerk who creates an artpiece and then simply dumps it in the bin for no particular reason, it's quite logical that creation isn't without purpose. Otherwise, why create?

No, because your God is omnipotent, and is so completely easy to God that there is no accomplishment 'fit' for him. Everything comes easy, and fast.

If you couldn't factorise simple quadratic equations and some math whiz comes over and does it for you in half a second, shouldn't you be awed by and grateful to him?

[Acriku]

Based on our current knowledge of simple Physics, mass and energy do not create itself. That's why it's Conservation. Therefore, would be quite logical to say that Science agrees with religion (in this aspect). The law of conservation of mass-energy actually agrees that something or someone has to create all this. Until you disprove the conservation of mass-energy with research, it would be very safe to take it that God has to be doing all these.

Quantum physics, anyone? you were right in the term "simple" physics. But that's not all that is at play here.  The Big Bang is quite far from simple physics. And going from "conservation of matter" to God is the biggest non-sequitor I've ever seen. It isn't safe at all to take that.

You know it as well as I do. Rhetorical question.

Yeah, I knew the answer, but it wasn't rhetorical. The need for a creator of the universe begs a creator of the creator even more so. To say it doesn't need one means that the universe doesn't need one.

I do agree that 'outside force' is quite an improper term to use.

If we take Acriku-'s model of millions of little creators, aware or unaware, of their function, we must realise that this results only in randomness. How can a lack of order create anything useful, like putting pieces of a puzzle together when everybody is tossing the pieces all over the place? Even if we were to accept your model of little creators, ultimately the coordination of these little creators has to be achieved by an intelligent being.

Not really. If they each knew their function, then there is no randomness. To fit it into your analogy, it would be like each creator knowing what type of piece to create, and what coordinate to create in (thereby completing the puzzle, while remaining unknowledgeable of other functions). These creators could have just existed for all eternity, just like the God is proposed to do.

Interesting. Fact is we don't (I think we don't) understand what negative time is. But I liked that argument.

It hurts my mind to try to think of negative time.

Unless you're a grossly eccentric jerk who creates an artpiece and then simply dumps it in the bin for no particular reason, it's quite logical that creation isn't without purpose. Otherwise, why create?

Why does there always need a purpose? Can't a god just say, "shit, I'll just make a universe and see what happens" ? And it isn't art, if the god is omnipotent. Even from our point of view, if we saw a piece of 'art' drawn by a machine, we'd say it wasn't art because there was no emotion put into it, no effort.

If you couldn't factorise simple quadratic equations and some math whiz comes over and does it for you in half a second, shouldn't you be awed by and grateful to him?

If that whiz was omniscient, then I'd be grateful, but the whiz wouldn't deserve any praise because it took him no effort to gain the knowledge, and he knows everything and has for eternity. We tend to praise those who strived to achieve something. God had everything from the start. One could say he's like a spoiled kid playing with his toys.

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.) There is no such thing as "No time"    Time still exists in a void.... length still exists in a void... width still exists in a void.  Matter is only used to measure time, length, width , etc.

So there was time before the big bang and there is no such thing as  t-0.  I had a discussion with nema and edrico along time ago about "does time exist in a void"

Edrico and Nema assured me that in a void.... time does exist... and length , etc exists.  So there is no t-0.

So i am wondering why nema and edrico are now saying tha the big bang created time.... and i wonder why acriku states that time didnt exist before the universe.

[Acriku]

As I understand it, time exists where there is space. The whole space-time correlation. Is that what you mean?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Quote from Edrico after i asked him if time existed in a hypothetical void of space where no matter or particles or light existed-

he replied:

Time itself exists even if you can't measure it, for the same reason space exists even if you can't measure it. In order to measure space (in other words, distance) you need at least two particles as reference points. In that empty box of yours, there are no particles, and therefore neither space nor time can be measured. But space still exists within it, and so does time.

[GUNWOUNDS]

As I understand it, time exists where there is space. The whole space-time correlation. Is that what you mean?

what is space?...  a void? .....empty volume?   When i think of the Big bang.. i think of a tiny ball of matter and energy swirling about and exploding violenty... now this ball of energy and matter had to already be in "space" or a "void" to explode "in".

So i dont see the Big bang as creating "space" or "time" or the black "void" we know as ...well void.  I see the big bang as a singularity compacted with energy and matter that simply exploded into space.

Therefore, time and space existed before the big bang.

So all this "time zero" crap needs some explaining.

Becuz to me it seems that the "entire  universe is eternal" theory rests on there being no time before the big bang....else the universe would already be in heat death.

So from what i am reading here i see no reason to support time zero.  And if god is in a higher dimension .....then our universe would appear to him as a 4-d crystal.  Meaning we are the ones without "true" time and he is the one with time as he can look  back and forth along the crystal thereby seeing the future, present, and past simultaneously. It would be similar to us (god) flipping thru a comic book(universe)  which fits in line with edrico's deck of cards theory.

Its strange.... becuz we experience time as we flip thru the pages of a comic book and the characters in the comic book experience time as their events are changing.  But who's time is "real"  Perhaps God is the one with "true" time and we are merely the deck of cards or comic book with "pseudo" time.

But i digress.... my main point is that i do not believe that there is a time zero.  I dont see why there cannot be time before the big bang and therefore the eternal universe theory is invalidated and the need for a creator comes in.... in order to avoid heat death.

[Acriku]

If the big bang is just matter and energy exploding into space, then that space is essentially our universe. Which, if it exists outside of energy and matter, could very well be eternal.

I'm not sure about this "true" time stuff, seems like a fancy story to me.

[nemafakei]

If by a void, you mean a vacuum, then yes, time and space exist therein. But there was no vacuum before the BB; there was no period of vacuum - simply put, there was no before the BB. To say that there was vacuum before the big bang is like saying that the square root of a negative number is zero - when really, there isn't a square root to be had.

[Caid Ivik]

All existence is dynamic, same counts for space. We can metaphysicize and say that "potentially" there was a space, where energies were ment to spread into. But it is same as ie animal need for food. Already within the substance of big bang was that need as a potential. However, only since the animals started to exist we can say also that this need started to exist.

You all speak in a chaos, so I'll try to do so as well: there was never nothing, but (yet?) nor everything.

[Dude_Doc]

But if there is no time then matter can not "act". Therefore, yes, time must have existed before the Big Bang, or at least "started" at the very moment of the Big Bang. Who or what decided that the Big Bang would occur at that moment, or if it was coincidental, is beyond us - but it could be so to say God.

I saw another documentary on Discovery Science (cable networks in Europe (or in Sweden at least)), where the argument, perhaps a little bit old, was that universes spontaniously were created out of nothing, and that most withdrew after a short time, but some remained - like ours for example.

But the question still remains: can something come from nothing? Can we argue about the physical rules outside of our universe, specially with our current relatively new science? Have the universe recreated itself over and over again with us living in previous creations, or are we born to live once and then die and unexist? What rules, in whatever place the universe was created in, decides that a universe is something that must exist, rather than let nothing exist (if there is no God)?

[nemafakei]

"But if there is no time then matter can not "act"."

So? There was no matter before the BB to do the acting.

"Therefore, yes, time must have existed before the Big Bang, or at least "started" at the very moment of the Big Bang."

The latter. But t=0 itself may be only on the border of reality - imagine an asymptotic curve.

"Who or what decided that the Big Bang would occur at that moment, or if it was coincidental, is beyond us - but it could be so to say God."

What do you mean "at that moment"? That presupposes an existing timeframe.

You're imagining a long period of quiet and then an explosion, which I contest wasn't the case.

e.g. "But the question still remains: can something come from nothing?"

If there never was a nothing, this is not a problem. If t=-1 did not exist, then we can't say that the change from t=-1 to t=1  cannot be explained.

Incidentally, it has been shown that matter and antimatter particles can be created spontaneously at the same time, and this is possible since their energies add up to zero.

[Caid Ivik]

In time, an "act" is a process of becoming. Mechanically, point comes from position A to position B in a specific time. But then, the act is ended. Pure act is endless, unbound to time, as defined by Aquinus. It simply "is". As in turkic languages, word for "God" is a verb... This is difference between time-bound universe and unbound unknown - great eternal nothing, Crowley would say  ;D

[erjin999]

This all sounds kinda freaky. So our universe contains everything, yet it has boundaries, as its not infinite. Yet outside our boundaries is nothing.

Time didnt exist before the BB, but there always was the universe, for all time. Yet the universe had a beginning. Sounds like a whole load of poo to me. God did it. End of story  ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, as Wittgensteins started his Tractatus, universe is a sum of facts, not things. So boundaries of the universe are those, which we (can) define as limiting facts. All important is the interaction between "I" and the world, what's the only fact "I" know. This interaction means "to be".

[erjin999]

Yeah, shure.

Still, if our universe is everything, and it is not infinite, it has a boundry, but it has a boundry to nothing ?

[Edric O]

what is space?...  a void? .....empty volume?  When i think of the Big bang.. i think of a tiny ball of matter and energy swirling about and exploding violenty... now this ball of energy and matter had to already be in "space" or a "void" to explode "in".

So i dont see the Big bang as creating "space" or "time" or the black "void" we know as ...well void.  I see the big bang as a singularity compacted with energy and matter that simply exploded into space.

Therefore, time and space existed before the big bang.

That is where you are mistaken. The Big Bang was not only the origin of matter, but also the origin of space and time. The entire theory of the Big Bang rests on it being the origin of space and time. There was no void before the Big Bang. I know it is difficult - or perhaps outright impossible - to imagine the non-existence of space and time, but here's a way of seeing it: Imagine the universe as a baloon. At first, the baloon is tiny; a point with no dimensions. Then, all of a sudden, the baloon starts inflating. That is the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang happen "in space" (like the baloon is inflated in space)? Perhaps, but that "space" would have to be the space of a higher universe - perhaps a space with more dimensions - certainly not OUR space.

[Caid Ivik]

Yeah, sure.

Still, if our universe is everything, and it is not infinite, it has a boundry, but it has a boundry to nothing ?

Let's say I ment that universe is a sum of all what you can define. You define things by setting boundaries between the "thing" and "not-that-thing". Defining God or any other form of "meta-world" is an operation similar to defining irrational numbers. We can count complex numbers only if we use both parts of them...

[erjin999]

"not-that-thing".

As in "we explicitly know what that other thing is", or simply saying "it isnt this" ?

Also, we know, I am shure, that the universe isnt what we can define. Its a lot more then that.

[Caid Ivik]

"It isn't this", mathematical negation. Not that much to say about something, but sometimes you haven't more. Or do you, if you are so sure?

[erjin999]

Everything but "this", and we know "this". So another way of saying we dont know nothing about everything else, but we know about this.

So it sheds no light on the question of how our universe can have borders with nothingness and that nothingness isnt like space or anything.  ::)

[Caid Ivik]

If you want to talk accurately about "everything but this", then you must know what all this "this" contains. Let's say that logic is enough for metaphysical research ;) In example, if we have defined a constant of space, its warping would prove some kind of "no-space" (without analogy to Heretics...). From this point, you may find three objects: causal ("meta-space" - logico-natural law causing why it warps), synthetic ("other-space" - characteristics of the third existence between these, warp as itself) or deconstructed ("difference" - logical alternation, sum of predicates which are positive for space or no-space, but not for both at once).

All these you can define as a "border".

[Acriku]

Here's something controversial: Why don't you Christians give up your worldly possessions? Your joysticks and computers (ahem gunwounds)? It says so in the bible, doesn't it? Is it that christians are picky as to what they follow and what they choose not to follow? I wonder what God would say about that.