Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

welcome

if you wish to avoid being labeled a spammer, it is better form that you quote from and discuss the content of your arguments here, as opposed to linking to a site (which looks like you are simply advertising, which isn't allowed).

post away though, you will get good feedback

Yeah, that's not the way this forum works. You have to actually jump start the conversation in some way.

At least summarize Ross' argument and your own so that we can get some idea of what you're talking about.

Also, advertising your own website is considered to be in poor taste.

very poor taste, it is frowned here to advertise your own site not saying you purposely did it but, some new members have bn banned right off the bat for doing that.

so.. what is your argument?

unless you want us all to go to your site to argue there?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
unless you want us all to go to your site to argue there?

which would mean he is advertising

The crux of your argument is that each moment in time consist of an entirely separate universe of matter. Since you go on to build your entire line of thinking on this you need to support it with more than an appeal to one unnamed physicist, people in the sciences disagree on a great number of things.

Don:
Interesting stuff. However, I did not read the entire treatise. Something else you'll find in this forum is that most of us do not want to read long papers (or watch long videos, but perhaps I'm lazier than most). Best to keep it short and sweet, or as Einstein might've put it, "Tell it like you're explaining it to your grandmother."

That said (and perhaps I missed it), why is "Something Always Was" so objectionable? It's the simplest proposition one can make: always a good place to start.

Also, generally speaking, intellectual arguments can, at best, only imply, not prove the existence of a Creator. Ie, discourse in the mental-symbolic realm can only hint of a transcendent entity, much as a shadow (2 dimensional entity) can only hint of the object (3 dimensional entity) casting it.

Sorry if I short-changed anything you said.

Originally posted by Mindship
That said (and perhaps I missed it), why is "Something Always Was" so objectionable? It's the simplest proposition one can make: always a good place to start.

From a scientific stand point baryon decay rules this out. Admittedly, no one has ever witnessed it but apparently it is predicted by a number of different theories.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From a scientific stand point baryon decay rules this out. Admittedly, no one has ever witnessed it but apparently it is predicted by a number of different theories. But (assuming the theories are correct) it decays into something (quantum foam?), and for that matter (pun intended) it arose from something. Ie, over a "nigh eternal" time frame, one could call matter a transitional phase.

And also, in case I'm not being clear, that Something Always Was does not necessarily mean "God."

I didn't read your article, because imo if you aren't willing to summarize it, its probably not worth the forum's time, and because of the tendency of many christians here to try and use videos and articles to make their arguments for them. However, judging from the excerpts, I really don't get this argument. If it's arguing that if time had a beginning, it must have had a beginning in "higher time" (time2), by that logic shouldn't time2 (and the "creator" have a further cause in time3, and on and on ad infinitum? That seems nonsensical.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From a scientific stand point baryon decay rules this out. Admittedly, no one has ever witnessed it but apparently it is predicted by a number of different theories.
How does it rule out anything? Protons decay into Positrons and Pions, Pions decay into Gamma radiation, and the positron just sits there it seems. But nonetheless, everything is preserved.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How does it rule out anything? Protons decay into Positrons and Pions, Pions decay into Gamma radiation, and the positron just sits there it seems. But nonetheless, everything is preserved.

The universe is full of baryons. If baryon decay turns out to be true then the universe cannot be infinitely old, if it were there wouldn't be any left.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The universe is full of baryons. If baryon decay turns out to be true then the universe cannot be infinitely old, if it were there wouldn't be any left.
Baryons were formed in the big bang. However the big bang itself, is an existence of sorts.

Dear King,

As I stated, my philosophical proof does not purport to prove the existence of God per se, just the necessity for a creator of some sort. That creator could be, among myriad other viable options, a higher dimensional computer programmer as in The Matrix.

A brief summary:

1) By empirical observation we must affirm the existence of causes and effects.

2) By definition a cause must precede its effect: the sperm and the egg must precede the baby in existence.

3) Einstein's STR implies a four dimensional universe in which the past, present and future exist contemporaneously and eternally.

4) If the sperm, the egg and the baby all exist contemporaneously and eternally then how could the sperm and egg transaction have caused the baby?

5) Therefore, the obvious existence of causes and effects must have originally occurred outside our dimension of reality by virtue of some dynamic force and then became static as our reality, just as a painting does when finished by the artist.

Your question concerning the problem of avoiding an infinite regress of creators is what I have been discussing with Mind. My proof only purports to prove the necessity of a creator for our reality. I cannot answer the question as to the origins of our creator or whether he, she or it still exists.

Don

Originally posted by Don Schneider
Dear King,

As I stated, my philosophical proof does not purport to prove the existence of God per se, just the necessity for a creator of some sort. That creator could be, among myriad other viable options, a higher dimensional computer programmer as in The Matrix.

A brief summary:

1) By empirical observation we must affirm the existence of causes and effects.

2) By definition a cause must precede its effect: the sperm and the egg must precede the baby in existence.

3) Einstein's STR implies a four dimensional universe in which the past, present and future exist contemporaneously and eternally.

4) If the sperm, the egg and the baby all exist contemporaneously and eternally then how could the sperm and egg transaction have caused the baby?

5) Therefore, the obvious existence of causes and effects must have originally occurred outside our dimension of reality by virtue of some dynamic force and then became static as our reality, just as a painting does when finished by the artist.

Your question concerning the problem of avoiding an infinite regress of creators is what I have been discussing with Mind. My proof only purports to prove the necessity of a creator for our reality. I cannot answer the question as to the origins of our creator or whether he, she or it still exists.

Don
But your "proof" also dictates that there must be a cause for the effects of the one causing first cause. As long as a being causes something to happen, that cause is itself an effect of whatever caused such an act to occur.

Additionally, the "contemporaneous" existence you propose, only exists in many worlds theory and that is not proven. You have to also address the fact that the big bang could have simply self-fluctuated to cause itself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You don't get to have the Big Band and an infinitely old universe . . .

However the Big Bang doesn't allow people to shoehorn in a creator simply because there is a point of creation.
Not even true. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. But as we know now, "nothing" actually is something because it still has zero-point energy. Zero-point energy can undergo quantum fluctuations which probably caused the big bang to begin with.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not even true. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. But as we know now, "nothing" actually is something because it still has zero-point energy. Zero-point energy can undergo quantum fluctuations which probably caused the big bang to begin with.

And thus the universe as we know it is not infinite in age since it came into being at some point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And thus the universe as we know it is not infinite in age since it came into being at some point.
I never said "the universe as we know it", i'm just saying that in some form existence has always been around, so a creator isn't really needed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"nothing" actually is something because it still has zero-point energy.

How can nothing be something? That makes no sense, unless language has no meaning. Before the big bang, there was either something or nothing.

Scientifically speaking, there's no such thing as nothing.

Should science then re-evaluate its rules?

Do they (pyhsicists and other experts) have any idea what was before the big bang? Is it an actual theory that can be tested or "Hypothetical conjecture" (translation: We don't know shit)? Like that stupid "multiverse" theory.

No, there was 'nothing' (or rather, the closest approximation of nothing possible under the laws of physics).

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Should science then re-evaluate its rules? Not so much its "rules" as its language. Quantum mechanics--the most accurate and productive theory in human history--already forces scientists to adapt language so they can express (nonmathematically) a "nonsensical" reality. And I believe this is what Don is addressing: whatever context our spacetime bubble (or "brane" is taking place in (I think scientists call it the "bulk"*), conventional language and meaning fall short.

Do they (pyhsicists and other experts) have any idea what was before the big bang? Is it an actual theory that can be tested or "Hypothetical conjecture" (translation: We don't know shit)? Like that stupid "multiverse" theory. One of the hopes of the LHC is that it will indirectly reveal the presence of other dimensions via "disappearing" particles.



* I can't believe they chose "bulk." Something like "plenum" would've been so much better, IMO. Or even Wheeler's "superspace." Bulk. "Bulk smash puny universe!"

The problem with theories like the one proposed in this thread is that you need an intimate knowledge of science to refute it, but also an intimate knowledge of nonsense to understand it in the first place. Scientific discoveries about the universe, rarely, if ever, point us to conclusions that can be considered religious. It's people taking the conclusions and shaping them to their own ends, and it usually involves large gaps in logic to reach a particular conclusion. But the desperation to find God in the machine is palpable in society, so such ideas sell.

I've encountered similar "proofs" for a creator by scientific means, though not this particular one. Others seem to be doing a better job of questioning this one than I could, though, so I'll likely leave it alone.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Bulk smash puny universe!"

Rawr.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How can nothing be something? That makes no sense, unless language has no meaning. Before the big bang, there was either something or nothing.

It suggests a multiverse. If space and time were created at the big bang, then the question of what happened before would be invalid because the question has time as a key element. If time was created at the big bang, then time did not exist before. There would not even be nothing. The question should be, why was the universe at such a low entropy state at the time of the big bang? This leads to the incorrect idea that the universe is somehow special. If there is a multiverse, then the fact of a low entropy state at it beginning would mean that this universe is not special, and simply part of a bigger natural process.

Why time appears to be directional is an unsolved problem in physics. Likewise stagnant time is speculation as well.

i dont get it

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i dont get it

Which part? There is a lot to not get.

The eigenstate, no doubt.

Originally posted by Mindship
The eigenstate, no doubt.

No, the eigenstate is easy; it's all around us. It's the wave form that blows my mind.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The universe is a waveform that is in an eigenstate.

What exactly does that mean?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What exactly does that mean? Look up eigenstate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Look up eigenstate. Right now, I'm just having fun, joking with Mindship.

"A dynamical state whose state vector (or wave function) is an eigenvector (or eigenfunction) of an operator corresponding to a specified physical quantity."

That was the most comprehensible answer I could find and it means absolutely nothing to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"A dynamical state whose state vector (or wave function) is an eigenvector (or eigenfunction) of an operator corresponding to a specified physical quantity."

That was the most comprehensible answer I could find and it means absolutely nothing to me.

Well, to tell you the truth, it's above my head too. In quantum mechanics, when a waveform has been viewed or measured (whatever that really means) it is no longer a waveform but becomes an eigenstate. Do you remember the cat in the box thought experiment? When the door is closed, the cat is in a waveform of being dead or alive. Once you open the door, the cat enters an eigenstate, ether dead or alive, but not both. In the way I see it, and this is just my opinion, the universe, before the big band, was a waveform, but once the big band happened, it became an eigenstate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In the way I see it, and this is just my opinion, the universe, before the big band, was a waveform

But made of what, though? A wave is just a transfer of energy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eigenstate.

I always thought that word was some kind of anagram of "Einstein"...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But made of what, though? A wave is just a transfer of energy.



I always thought that word was some kind of anagram of "Einstein"...

Not a wave, but a quantum waveform.

As I (barely) understand it, an eigenvector is a vector which remains unchanged in direction but changes in magnitude, depending on how the mathematical matrix ("context" it is in changes. If this eigenvector represents a wavefunction, than that wavefunction is said to exist in an eigenstate.

Originally posted by Don Schneider
...
Therefore, it seems like you are arguing that the before the universe materialized it existed as a potential in the form of a quantum wave. It then materialized into the actualized reality in which we know and live within via one of the interpretations of QM, such as, for example, the MWI. But how exactly does one account for existence of the wave and its potentialities?

...

The answer to your question is the multiverse. Sense the multiverse is a resultant phenomenon of multiple universes, and not a thing within its self, it is inappropriate to ask any question involving multiverse and time. As I illustrated previously, space-time is only an aspect of a universe, and there is nothing preventing the arrow of time from flowing contrary in one universe to another. Please keep in mind that this is all speculative, and no one really knows. But I think this is what is meant by saying that the multiverse is eternal. The word eternal is a short cut to explain a difficult concept that we really don't know much about. To place so much of your counter on an unfortunate word, is to miss some interesting possibilities about the multiverse.