Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Sometimes Science DOES rationalize just to discredit religion. However, what's the difference between an infinite atom and God? Two different explanations for the same events.
👆
My thoughts exactly.
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
God, by the purest definition, does not require a beginning. The 'big bang' however certainly does.
Why? After all the primordial atom does not require a beginning either.
If the universe needs a cause for its existence, and there cannot be an unending string of contingent causes, there must be a Cause whose existence is necessary. (“Necessary” is used in opposition to “contingent,” in which a contingent being needs a cause for its existence, and a necessary Being has no cause, and no beginning.)
Something must be eternal for anything else to exist. For nothing produces nothing. If nothing ever existed, then nothing could exist. But the universe, as you have seen, is not eternal; it began to exist. So, there must be something else, or someone else, who does not depend upon any other for existence, but exists by virtue of itself.
This is beyond human understanding (because we have never experienced anything that is without beginning), but it is not illogical for there to be a being without a beginning. No other state of affairs is possible, for if something is not eternal, than nothing could have ever existed at all.
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
If the universe needs a cause for its existence, and there cannot be an unending string of contingent causes, there must be a Cause whose existence is necessary.Something must be eternal for anything else to exist. For nothing produces nothing. If nothing ever existed, then nothing could exist. But the universe, as you have seen, is not eternal; it began to exist. So, there must be something else, or someone else, who does not depend upon any other for existence, but exists by virtue of itself.
I will agree with this for the sake of the discussion.
This is beyond human understanding (because we have never experienced anything that is without beginning), but it is not illogical for there to be a being without a beginning. No other state of affairs is possible, for if something is not eternal, than nothing could have ever existed at all.
Why must it be a "being"?
I'd like to step in here and note that, in the most elaborately explained model of quantum physics to which I've been exposed, the universe has been mathematically shown to have zero energy. For every iota of energy generated during the big bang, an equal and opposite amount of !energy was also created. That is to say, when viewed at the universal level, the Big Bang did not actually generate any energy. We just happen to be in a local pocket of less than zero entropy, which is averaged by a place of more than zero entropy. (I'm explaining this very poorly, mostly because I don't trust myself with the formal definitions of these terms and the math is well above my head.)
Much like particles sometimes erupt spontaneously into existence at the quantum level (paired with their antiparticle) without any violation of conservation of energy, the Big Bang was just a macro-scale eruption of quantum-scale effects that ultimately sum to zero.
Is any of this getting through?
Spoiler:
My personal favorite argument, based in (again, poorly understood) deep mathematics, is that the Big Bang was the beginning of causality. The singularity that expanded during that event literally contained all of time and space. Time literally had not yet started. If time was not passing, and in fact causality itself was on hiatus, then it is fair to say that the Big Bang had an eternity to happen. No matter how unlikely it was, it had all the "time" in the universe. Literally.
Originally posted by Zampanó
I'd like to step in here and note that, in the most elaborately explained model of quantum physics to which I've been exposed, the universe has been mathematically shown to have zero energy. For every iota of energy generated during the big bang, an equal and opposite amount of !energy was also created. That is to say, when viewed at the universal level, the Big Bang did not actually generate any energy. We just happen to be in a local pocket of less than zero entropy, which is averaged by a place of more than zero entropy. [b](I'm explaining this very poorly, mostly because I don't trust myself with the formal definitions of these terms and the math is well above my head.)Much like particles sometimes erupt spontaneously into existence at the quantum level (paired with their antiparticle) without any violation of conservation of energy, the Big Bang was just a macro-scale eruption of quantum-scale effects that ultimately sum to zero.
Is any of this getting through?
Spoiler:
My personal favorite argument, based in (again, poorly understood) deep mathematics, is that the Big Bang was the beginning of causality. The singularity that expanded during that event literally contained all of time and space. Time literally had not yet started. If time was not passing, and in fact causality itself was on hiatus, then it is fair to say that the Big Bang had an eternity to happen. No matter how unlikely it was, it had all the "time" in the universe. Literally.
IANAPhysicist [/B]
True to some extent. Time is by all means, a product of the big bang. God is not confined to our understanding of time, any more than we are confined to a piece of paper that we sketch on.
Something must be eternal for anything else to exist. For nothing produces nothing. If nothing ever existed, then nothing could exist. But the universe, as you have seen, is not eternal; it began to exist. So, there must be something else, or someone else, who does not depend upon any other for existence, but exists by virtue of itself.
Originally posted by Zampanó
The appearance of matter is a spontaneous phenomenon based on the workings of the universe.
And this brings us back to the question of Who (or what, for arguments sake) set forh the workings of the universe before the 'big bang' (whether with regard to extra-dimensional space or not)?
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
True to some extent. Time is by all means, a product of the big bang. God is not confined to our understanding of time, any more than we are confined to a piece of paper that we sketch on.
If your answer is anything less than a rigorous grant proposal, I'd suggest you restrict your assertions to mysticism, and leave cosmology to the professionals. (Of which, again, I am not yet a member.)
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Because matter (atoms, quantum particles, etc...), lacking intelligence, cannot create itself.
If my understanding of it is correct, the Primordial Atom theory holds that said atom contained all matter/energy within it. Thus it really isn't "creating" anything.
Originally posted by ZampanóSpoiler:
My personal favorite argument, based in (again, poorly understood) deep mathematics, is that the Big Bang was the beginning of causality. The singularity that expanded during that event literally contained all of time and space. Time literally had not yet started. If time was not passing, and in fact causality itself was on hiatus, then it is fair to say that the Big Bang had an eternity to happen. No matter how unlikely it was, it had all the "time" in the universe. Literally.
IANAPhysicist
I guess that makes sense. Certainly explains what was happening "before" the Big Bang or God created the Universe.
Originally posted by truejedi
so where did the universe come from?
I cannot emphasize enough how poorly equipped is the human to imagine this state of affairs. We are good at objects that are large relative to the size of an atom moving at slow speeds relative to the speed of light. The singularity and the particles during the first few picoseconds of the Big Bang are neither. It takes supercomputers the size of warehouses and the most bleeding edge mathematics to even begin to account for that handicap.
Originally posted by Zampanó
That's a very pretty piece of rhetoric. However, when actually working with the mechanics of the universe, sounding wise and being productive are not usually compatible goals. Be specific: what do you expect the universe to look like if there is a transcendent Christian Deity that actively interacts with the workings of the universe? How does that particular fact enhance our ability to predict the future (i.e. to understand the causes and effects of observed phenomena)?If your answer is anything less than a rigorous grant proposal, I'd suggest you restrict your assertions to mysticism, and leave cosmology to the professionals. (Of which, again, I am not yet a member.)
Whoa Zampano! let's keep any non-factors out of this (namely refering to the first cause as the Christian God - while I believe this to be true - the argument is for God, NOT necessarily the Christian God). Very uncharacteristic mistake on your part.
Second, I'm not sure what you're asking here. How is this question relevant?