If the universe is finite, how can you not believe in God?

[AntiKarateKid]

While procrastinating at my desk, I started wondering this. The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted view out there right now and seems to have a mountain of evidence behind it. The steady state theory and its "infinite universe" has been all but disproven. An oscillating universe theory has also been widely abandoned. So if the universe and time have a beginning, then how do atheists not see God's hand in it?

Might be a dense question, might not.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

This might seem a strange question, but I believe it's a valid one:

What reasons are there (outside of a theistic perspective) to believe that the Big Bang was definitely the beginning of everything?

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,

This might seem a strange question, but I believe it's a valid one:

What reasons are there (outside of a theistic perspective) to believe that the Big Bang was definitely the beginning of everything?

Peace

I'm hesitant to jump and use the Quran to back the Big Bang. Even though I believe science, which is simply observing Allah's creation, cannot contradict it, I don't want to make the same mistake as those who tried to prove the Big Crunch using the Quran, only to find out later that the theory was false in the first place.

I'm not sure if you're asking about what the technical merits of the theory are. I'm certainly not versed enough in the theory to hold a true scientific debate but from what I have read in magazines, online, and my high school science project (LOL), I'd say that a "beginning" is a necessary part of the theory.

There seems to be every indication that the universe did in fact have a beginning (expanding universe, galaxies moving away from us, background radiation) and will have an end. The idea of an infinite universe has been largely abandoned by the scientific community.

In any case, the mere existence of reality, energy, and the universe necessitates the question "where did it come from."

I simply can't see it coming of itself. Though you may criticize my belief in Allah being eternal, He is not subject to laws but is their creator. As opposed to the observable universe which is based on laws.

[Trumble]

I think czgibson is simply suggesting that, if we assume the Big Bang hypothesis is correct, it is possible that our universe is only one in a sequence of universes, big bang followed by big crunch followed by big bang etc?

In answer to the original question, I just view a creator God as far more improbable than even a spontaneous universe out of 'nothing'. In the latter case a ball of elementary particles pops out of 'nowhere' and in the second, by definition, the most complex entity that could possibly be concieved, i.e. God, pops out of nowhere - or is eternal, which in this context makes no sense anyway, there being no time for Him to be 'eternal' in. God "is not subject to laws but is their creator" is only true because you define Him that way and while you can support that conception using some very old and inconclusive metaphysical arguments, that in itself amounts to pretty much an unconditional surrender as far as the science itself goes. It's just God of the gaps, yet again.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

It would be far easier if nothing existed for a couple of reasons.

First there would not be people constantly asking these seemingly unanswerable questions.

Secondly for anything to exist at all, something must have had no beginning, or come from nothing.

Neither of these options make sense, how can you write a science paper and say, something had no beginning, and now we have the universe. Or something came from nowhere and nothing, then we have the universe.

In the spirit of searching for truth.

Eric

[AntiKarateKid]

I think czgibson is simply suggesting that, if we assume the Big Bang hypothesis is correct, it is possible that our universe is only one in a sequence of universes, big bang followed by big crunch followed by big bang etc?

In answer to the original question, I just view a creator God as far more improbable than even a spontaneous universe out of 'nothing'. In the latter case a ball of elementary particles pops out of 'nowhere' and in the second, by definition, the most complex entity that could possibly be concieved, i.e. God, pops out of nowhere - or is eternal, which in this context makes no sense anyway, there being no time for Him to be 'eternal' in. God "is not subject to laws but is their creator" is only true because you define Him that way and while you can support that conception using some very old and inconclusive metaphysical arguments, that in itself amounts to pretty much an unconditional surrender as far as the science itself goes. It's just God of the gaps, yet again.

I see nothing wrong with filling in this gap with God. It seems absurd that you say "a particle pops out of nowhere" as if that would answer the question. What made that particle pop out of no where? What laws govern it? Where did those laws come from? Each answer spawns more questions.

It seems like you're just pushing away the logical explanation of God who is not bound by such laws and making up theories which don't even exist.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I see nothing wrong with filling in this gap with God. It seems absurd that you say "a particle pops out of nowhere" as if that would answer the question. What made that particle pop out of no where? What laws govern it? Where did those laws come from? Each answer spawns more questions.

And the answers are basically "nobody knows".

It seems like you're just pushing away the logical explanation of God who is not bound by such laws and making up theories which don't even exist.

It's a big step to go from "nobody knows" to "it must have been an omnipotent being".

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


And the answers are basically "nobody knows".

But do you really expect to ever find an explanation without God?

It's a big step to go from "nobody knows" to "it must have been an omnipotent being".

No it isn't. I'd say the bigger step is expecting any possible answer to not spawn a hundred more questions. The next logical step is Allah, but some people just have an aversion to belief that prevents them from taking the next step.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But do you really expect to ever find an explanation without God?

It's quite possible, and I remain optimistic. Just because I don't know the answer now doesn't mean I'm going to accept the answer that people living in the desert came up with a few thousand years ago.

No it isn't. I'd say the bigger step is expecting any possible answer to not spawn a hundred more questions.

I fully expect any answer to bring with it further questions. That is often the way it goes.

The next logical step is Allah, but some people just have an aversion to belief that prevents them from taking the next step.

First you would have to show that an omnipotent being is even possible. That's long before you get into the details of what this being does or doesn't want you to do / eat / think etc.

AKK, while I'm here, I'd like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts these days. It seems that everywhere I look I find a thoughtful and interesting post from you. Keep doing what you're doing. :)

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


It's quite possible, and I remain optimistic. Just because I don't know the answer now doesn't mean I'm going to accept the answer that people living in the desert came up with a few thousand years ago.

Though God has been brought up by all people throughout time. The concept certainly isn't exclusive to the Arabs.

I fully expect any answer to bring with it further questions. That is often the way it goes.

If it would bring more questions, you can never be sure you have found the answer, correct?

First you would have to show that an omnipotent being is even possible. That's long before you get into the details of what this being does or doesn't want you to do / eat / think etc.

I'm not sure why the concept of an omnipotent being wouldn't be possible. I can image one existing but you may not be able to. That doesn't change the fact that an uncreated being provides the only way out of infinite regression.

AKK, while I'm here, I'd like to say how much I enjoy reading your posts these days. It seems that everywhere I look I find a thoughtful and interesting post from you. Keep doing what you're doing. :)

Peace

I have my ups and downs. :p

[A-Believer-25]

The whole universe is a sign of God. The universe could not have created itself. Just like TV's and tables and houses can not build themselves.

I think Atheists should sincerely study the creations of God around them with an open mind. :)

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/...AskAboutIslamE

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/26745

[Pygoscelis]

I am enjoying the conversation between the two of you in this thread. I just wanted to slip in a compliment to both of you on how civil and constructive it has been so far.

On the topic I'll just add that even if you were to establish a creator God exists, you'd still be in deist territory and a far cry from Islam (or any other particular religion or concept of creator or God). At the end of the day nobody knows how (or if) the universe started. I for one am content to admit not knowing and don't feel a need to invent or adopt a creation story.

[Trumble]

I see nothing wrong with filling in this gap with God.

Of course you don't; you believe God exists.

It seems absurd that you say "a particle pops out of nowhere" as if that would answer the question. What made that particle pop out of no where? What laws govern it? Where did those laws come from? Each answer spawns more questions.

The whole field is one of questions; if it weren't we - and large numbers of cosmologists - wouldn't be discussing it. What I actually said was that I find it less improbable that elementary physical particles should just pop up out of nowhere than an all-powerful supreme being should just pop up out of nowhere. I'm not 'making up' any theory.

It seems like you're just pushing away the logical explanation of God who is not bound by such laws and making up theories which don't even exist.

Again, that only makes sense if you accept God exists. I, though, don't accept your essential premise. You believe there is a real entity, God, who has certain properties, specifically here not being "bound by such laws". Yet I believe God to be an intellectual construct defined by those properties, i.e (here) God = fictional entity with property of not being bound by such laws, because such an entity might fill a gap in our knowledge of cosmology. It's no different in spawning questions, either. Defining God according to particular properties is very different to explaining WHY and HOW He has such properties.

There is no resolution; it's just theist, atheist and never the twain shall meet. :)

[gang4]

Lots of people know the conservative law of energy is a member set of scientific laws found in our space-time dimension (universe).
Scientific laws are time-invariant meaning future inventions will NOT trash n invalid them. They are differ than scientific theories which subject to expire or may experience an upgrade into the elite set of scientific laws.
"A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy...

Since energy can not be created that telling us the sum of total finite energy in any given time stays equal event to the moment of big-bang... only the form of energy changes. In the 90's, looking closely into Grand Unified Theory, physicist were on something at t=10^27
but what they were after at t=10^43
that is 1 second divided by 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
So when we talk about the “moment of big-bang” that is t>0 yet still early in the 'moment' whatever definition of 'moment' in the sequence of time onward.
take a look into University of Michigan web site. Btw, the university has produced twenty-six Rhodes Scholars[80], numerous Marshall Scholars, seven Nobel Prize winners.. it ain't a crackpot school.

Greetings,

What reasons are there (outside of a theistic perspective) to believe that the Big Bang was definitely the beginning of everything?

Peace

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.*
as the universe began to cool and was still expanding, small fluctuations began to exist due to temperature differences. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation.
Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.*

Notice the word 'finite,beginning,creation' that explains why physicist never bother to look into t=0... why not? Because at the beginning of creation all unit of measurements were created including space, time, matters,energy themselves. Those unit of measurements were and still are finites. All scientific data are finites... Input-Process-Output... garbage-in garbage-out. .When t=0 we have no access to the unit of measurements since they were not yet created. No data, no calculations, resulting no conclusions....Hence questions like What happened before the moment of time, why energy exists in the first place, why universe exists.... science is crippled to answer them.

Note: The use of “I” implies I can be right or be wrong but Al-Qur'an is the truth

Greetings,


And the answers are basically "nobody knows".

Peace

Not quite cut it...As a muslim, I know some of these answers. I use 'Iman' to believe in Al-Qur'an, which explains why universe exists, why Allah created human beings, what will happen after 'Qiyamah'... all those questions atheist, due to his disbelieve, will never get the answers.
If one said I do not use my brain... the power of brain (nervous system, logic etc) does not govern everything found in human system. During early stage in the mother's womb why the heart beating first prior to the physical development of the brain?
When you hit your 9-iron, your logic does not perform complex calculus.to attempt hole-in-one but you use your heart/feeling to do the task.... Nope, logic/brain isn't everything. It is only useful for created things, but to approach the Creator.is 'Iman'.

25:2 He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten, nor has He a partner in His dominion: it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions.

1400 years ago, how does The Book knows all created things are finites/proportions...? I wonder

Greetings,

It's a big step to go from "nobody knows" to "it must have been an omnipotent being".

Peace

It's stepping out of bounce,
If your house/apartment built by nobody....it popped up out of nothing...nobody believes it....Yet, atheist believes this universe with its tremendous energy, more complicated than merely a house, has no Creator..

Yet scientific laws in our universe fill with order in the form of equations....left side = right side....Just open any mathematics books, physics books, economics books almost any scientific books...any formulas, equations found indicate in-order...Who gives orders in due proportions ? I wonder...


Randomness denotes a lack of order, closely connected with entropy. Atheisme has huge problems to explain why so many orders surrounds us. Randomness definitely fail to explains why Entropy was at the minimum in the moment of big-bang... It just stepping out of bounce.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Lots of people know the conservative law of energy is a member set of scientific laws found in our space-time dimension (universe).
Scientific laws are time-invariant meaning future inventions will NOT trash n invalid them. They are differ than scientific theories which subject to expire or may experience an upgrade into the elite set of scientific laws.

The Big Bang is a theory, not a law, so I'm not sure how this sets up your quote from the University of Michigan.

Notice the word 'finite,beginning,creation' that explains why physicist never bother to look into t=0... why not? Because at the beginning of creation all unit of measurements were created including space, time, matters,energy themselves. Those unit of measurements were and still are finites. All scientific data are finites... Input-Process-Output... garbage-in garbage-out. .When t=0 we have no access to the unit of measurements since they were not yet created. No data, no calculations, resulting no conclusions....Hence questions like What happened before the moment of time, why energy exists in the first place, why universe exists.... science is crippled to answer them.

Exactly, hence my comment: "nobody knows".

Not quite cut it...As a muslim, I know some of these answers. I use 'Iman' to believe in Al-Qur'an, which explains why universe exists, why Allah created human beings, what will happen after 'Qiyamah'... all those questions atheist, due to his disbelieve, will never get the answers.

The simple fact that the Qur'an provides answers doesn't necessarily mean they are the right answers.

It's stepping out of bounce,

No, it's a big leap of faith.

Randomness denotes a lack of order, closely connected with entropy. Atheisme has huge problems to explain why so many orders surrounds us. Randomness definitely fail to explains why Entropy was at the minimum in the moment of big-bang... It just stepping out of bounce.

Order can be generated in small parts of the universe while the overall entropy increases.

Peace

[gang4]

Greetings,


The Big Bang is a theory, not a law, so I'm not sure how this sets up your quote from the University of Michigan.

Peace

The Big Bang is a theory, who says it is a law ?
Read The link to U. Michigan again
“The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.* “

That means it is subject to fail or promoted into a law...it is the best we have so far....

This link is to show the word 'finite,beginning,creation' to establish the incapability of science to answer many basic questions....

The Conservative Law of Energy is mentioned to show the impossibility to create something out of nothing.
Nobody believes a house popped out of nothing...yet, how amazing over 300 millions people believe universe has no Creator.

Greetings,

The simple fact that the Qur'an provides answers doesn't necessarily mean they are the right answers.

Peace

Al-Qur'an is the right answer to all Muslims....but Not to those who are not God-conscious, hence it goes perfectly with the “No compulsion in Religion”...You have the option to disbelieve....

Since science fails to provide answers, you use a big leap of faith to disbelieve while we use our “Iman” to believe the given right answer mentioned in the Al-Qur'an....we have the answers which you have the option to consider 'the answer is wrong...' yet you have nothing, no answers what soever by disbelieve...

Greetings,

Order can be generated in small parts of the universe while the overall entropy increases.
Peace

According to second law of thermodynamics....in the given time, entropy increases...
True, order can be generated though in the process the overall entropy increases...but according to Stephen Hawking only conscious being capables to generate order.....
Any order in the far galaxies or in the universe obviously has nothing to do with being on earth...Back to the question, Who gives orders in due proportions ?
As Muslim it is an easy answer....you may disbelieve or dislike our answer, that is your option....but, again you have nothing, no answer at all....

Believers are always in better position in this life and the next than the disbelievers....

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you czgibson;

No, it's a big leap of faith.

That is the bottom line, we are stuck with faith and trust. And it seems most daunting, that the same One God has given us faith through many diverse religions.

We should really be kinder to each other despite all our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.

In the spirit of searching for a greater faith and trust in God

Eric

[Trumble]

"A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy...

The law of conservation of energy and matter is irrelevant in the context of the Big Bang which was itself the origin of that space-time dimension. In other words, there was no time before the Big Bang from which energy could be conserved from.

Scientific laws are time-invariant meaning future inventions will NOT trash n invalid them

'Scientific laws' are merely statements, usually in terms of mathematics, of relationships that we observe - or theorize - to exist. Physical theories usually postulate such laws. Far from being 'time-invariant' they are frequently discarded or, as with Newtonian mechanics, recognised as being only a special case. Below one Planck time the whole lot goes out of the window.

[gang4]

You said it yourself,

The law of conservation of energy and matter is
irrelevant in the context of the Big Bang which was itself the origin of that space-time dimension. In other words, there was no time before the Big Bang from which energy could be conserved from.

I said,
"A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy (CLOE)..

At t<0 all unit of measurements (time, space, energy, mass etc) are Unobservable, hence science will never able to provide the answers...that means, CLOE is not applicable
at t=0... the best we can say: time=0;space=0; energy=0 etc..i.e.CLOE is 0 ...whatever the definitiions of zero means...
at t=10^-43 something beautiful took place...


So, the Conservative law of energy has a meaning only at t>=10^-43 till the moment of big crunch and/or where units of measurements (space, time, energy etc) have a meaning (according to Einstein, in the singularity all natural laws also break down )...


if at t<=0.it those units of measurements are irrelevant...then why make a comparison,

"I just view a creator God as far more improbable than even a spontaneous universe out of 'nothing'. In the latter case a ball of elementary particles pops out of 'nowhere' and in the second, by definition, the most complex entity that could possibly be concieved, i.e. God, pops out of nowhere - or is eternal..."

which in this context the comparison makes no sense anyway..

'Scientific laws' are merely statements, usually in terms of mathematics, of relationships that we observe - or theorize - to exist. Physical theories usually postulate such laws. Far from being 'time-invariant' they are frequently discarded or, as with Newtonian mechanics, recognised as being only a special case. Below one Planck time the whole lot goes out of the window.

"Scientific laws are time-invariant "
is a statement from a physics book written by one of the Nobel laureates committed to the memory. But since I am not up to the task to find which books... let's go to wiki....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.[8]


according to this,

scientific theory promoted into a law is a common misconception....Ok, I can that...

but notice, "A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law"

A law WILL ALWAYS remain a law....does it not mean Scientific laws are time-invariant? Far from "being frequently discarded out of the window"?

[Azy]

gang4, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about science at all since it's painfully apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

[AntiKarateKid]

gang4, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about science at all since it's painfully apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Funny. He made sense to me. Could you be more specific?

[Trumble]

At t<0 all unit of measurements (time, space, energy, mass etc) are Unobservable, hence science will never able to provide the answers...that means, CLOE is not applicable
at t=0... the best we can say: time=0;space=0; energy=0 etc..i.e.CLOE is 0 ...whatever the definitiions of zero means...
at t=10^-43 something beautiful took place...

So, the Conservative law of energy has a meaning only at t>=10^-43 till the moment of big crunch and/or where units of measurements (space, time, energy etc) have a meaning (according to Einstein, in the singularity all natural laws also break down )...

Just to clarify that, as I think you are somewhat contradicting yourself in the parts I have identified, 10^-43 seconds is the time taken for a photon to travel the 'Planck length' (1.616x10-35 app.), which is itself derived by chucking assorted known physical constants into the quantum mechanical and relativistic math - which is easy enough to find if you hunt around (I make no claims to be a mathematician!). It's significance is that the Planck time, your 10^-43 seconds is the smallest discrete measurement of time we can ever theoretically measure or observe. Between t=0 and t=10^-43, though, it is not simply that things are happening as usual but we cannot observe them. According to physics as currently understood it is meaningless to talk of any smaller division of time. It is equally meaningless to apply the 'CLOE' at any 'time' before that as before that point in time the universe, part of the behaviour of which we predict using the CLOE, did not exist... it came into existence when it was already 10^-43 seconds old!

As I said, scientific laws are merely descriptions of relationships we observe, or theorize exist or existed. They have no existence outside those observations or theories.. and they were not floating around somewhere ready to dictate the behaviour of a universe should one happen to pop up. It may well be possible that the physical laws of the universe could have been completely different.. indeed several people (such as Paul Davies) have argued that the fact they turned out to be as they are, capable of supporting life, rather than any of a virtual infinity of possibilities that probably couldn't have supported life, is evidence for the existence of God.

A law WILL ALWAYS remain a law....does it not mean Scientific laws are time-invariant? Far from "being frequently discarded out of the window"?

No, it doesn't mean that. The passage, quite correctly, identifies a common misconception, that a scientific theory is some sort of proto-scientific law that, when sufficiently well established can be 'promoted' to a law proper. The point being made is that a theory stays a theory, and a law stays a law because they are different things, a theory does not become a law.

Quite apart from that your own argument doesn't make sense. If saying "a law will always remain a law" means that all scientific laws are 'time-invariant' then saying "a theory will always remain a theory" must mean all theories are 'time-invariant' in the sense you are using as well! That's obvious nonsense.

Just to finish, I'll give the obvious example of some scientific laws that were 'discarded', Newton's laws of motion. For several hundred years nobody doubted them. Even after people changed their mind, they were still a good enough predictor of the motion of physical objects to take man to the moon. But Einstein showed they are wrong ! Or, to be precise that they were simply a special case, that work perfectly fine in relation to our everyday experience but not to the universe as a whole. But, even more than we cannot apply Newtonian mechanics to relativistic events (which at least we can measure), we cannot apply any physical laws to something that falls completely outside - because those same laws dictate it must be completely outside! - all our models of how the universe works.

[gang4]

Trumble, I was about to prepare a respond to you... what we agree on and what we differ...but I put it on hold since Azy response is more interesting....

gang4, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about science at all since it's painfully apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Ok, Azy I'll shut up for now about science since it is painful to you... with a condition... you take over...
Probably, I am not alone , Let see Azy in action talking about science... you may response to trumble last arguments...

[Ramadhan]

gang4, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about science at all since it's painfully apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

What he wrote made sense to me, although some are not accurate.
FYI, I'm a chemical engineer graduate from The University of Adelaide, so I learned and studied 'hard' science (and especially thermodynamics) in depth.

Gang4, I think you have been writing great posts so I would like very much to see you posting a lot more.

[Azy]

What he wrote made sense to me, although some are not accurate.

I don't see the point in making long posts about how science works and how this thing and that thing validate Islamic creationism when, as you say, most of it is inaccurate. Then other people start posting "yeah that was great, carry on" knowing full well that it is mostly wrong.

Trumble has made the main point I was going to post about laws and theories and that a good portion of what we call "laws" are not even correct but more of an approximation.

My last point was going to be something that seems to appear on here with alarming regularity recently, that being "creating something from nothing" and how unscientific such a thing is. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time and for a brief moment break the conservation of energy law, at least the classical version of it.

[gang4]

I don't see the point in making long posts about how science works and how this thing and that thing validate Islamic creationism when, as you say, most of it is inaccurate. Then other people start posting "yeah that was great, carry on" knowing full well that it is mostly wrong.

Trumble has made the main point I was going to post about laws and theories and that a good portion of what we call "laws" are not even correct but more of an approximation.

My last point was going to be something that seems to appear on here with alarming regularity recently, that being "creating something from nothing" and how unscientific such a thing is. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time and for a brief moment break the conservation of energy law, at least the classical version of it.

Almost all what I wrote were directly retrieved from what committed in memory...Sure, it is subject to err (the figures etc) but pls do not tell me thousand of other posts are error-free.

Only Book of Allah is free from error!

Azy said,
"I don't see the point in making long posts..."

I do not read in FAQ when one posts "science things" Azy must see the point or else it is painful to Azy and Azy will ask the poster to stop. Wow... I did not know you have special authority.

Azy said,
"...most of it is inaccurate."

Do details the inaccuracies...and detail the accurate ones...

[Azy]

As I said in my previous post, Trumble has done a decent job of addressing those since my first post, there's not a great deal for me to add.

[Gubbleknucker]

Just regarding the title of this thread:

Finite number of elementary particles that follow certain rules vs. infinitely complex supernatural being....

hm...

Which is heavier?

[gang4]

DISLCAIMER: pls note the meaning scientific writing is writing that involves science...not a standard scientific paper like found in physics journal etc...


When Azy said,

gang4, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about science at all since it's painfully apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

What I learn from the quote,
1. It displays your superiority in science.
2. When I wrote stuff, I had no intention to cause you a pain.. I did not know it would hurt you but you have an intention to inflict pain by pointing at my inferiority in science (as per your standard of knowledge).
3. It does not have a data to support your claim, only merely a conclusion...unscientific in its nature (non-science)!


I could respond:
Data/input, process, and conclusions were found in my writing. Sure I could be wrong in all three accounts but at least I tried to follow the methodology.

But, at the above quote, you only gave a conclusion that was hardly comply to the scientific methodology. with the absence of data, your superiority in science was only a claim.

On the minor note:
Naidamar said: "SOME are inaccurate"... but, you jotted down "...MOST are inaccurate" is this not a manipulation of datum? It is a "No-No" for those who claim a superiority.

So far, by disregard other you've displayed arrogance. According to Sheik Hamza Yusuf,
"arrogance is a quality that most people are unaware of themselves but they see it in other people....and they don't like it. people do not like arrogant... even an arrogant people do not like other arrogant people..."

and I am not claiming I do not show a symptom of arrogance myself. But at least, I have no intention to hurt other first unless it is a reactional response (following the law of balance)



But the above writing I put it on hold since I am really interested to see your scientific superior writing. So, I am asking the details of "...Most are inaccurate".

And you disappointed me by saying:

As I said in my previous post, Trumble has done a decent job of addressing those since my first post, there's not a great deal for me to add.

Trumble and I are in the middle of back and forth...we are not done... yet you cut in claiming a superiority.

Let say Trumble has done a decent job... it is to his credit...Not yours! yet he did not claim a superiority, you did.

Moreover, your adjective to rate Trumble is just 'decent'... the implication... you can perform far superiority job than his....another claim, yet where is your scientific superior writing?


If your refering to your first post at this thread..
I say it is inaccurate: your first post does not contain any scientific writing...


if your refering to your second post...Let take a look at first paragraph:
"I don't see the point in making long posts about how science works and how this thing and that thing validate Islamic creationism..."

Looking at Your way of life is undisclosed.
If you are a Muslim, you know well Muslims are commanded to tafakur about creations.

If you are not then you are preventing Muslims to do what they are commanded to do. That is not very wise of you specially in Islamicboard.

Also, nothing scientific about first paragraph.


at second paragraph the credit goes to Trumble... you can not claim your scientific superiority.

Only at third you can claim your scientific writing...but can we detect any superiority?
That is debatable...but Let see the fact... When I count your scientific points...I only found ONE! It is about the virtual particle but you said "...Most are inaccurate".

'MOST' indicates more than one...Your superiority should know 'most' requires more than one point, yet you said "there's not a great deal for me to add"


So on this note, Unfortunately, from time to time I will still talk about science and

Azy, for your own health, I suggest do not read any posts by 'gang4' since surgeon general may say:"it may cause a cancer, a heart attack, and impotency"

or

What I propose to you,
I stop talking about science if you stop talking about non-science since based on my personal experience you have tendency to hurt other...In you own words,

"Azy, I don't want to sound harsh but it's probably best if you don't speak about non-science at all since it's painful to others apparent you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about."


I see no points arguing with you, Azy...simply because you are too superior for me. This is my last reply to you...I try to endure your response (if any).

Trumble, shall we continue what we left off, or you think we have enough....

[Woodrow]

While procrastinating at my desk, I started wondering this. The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted view out there right now and seems to have a mountain of evidence behind it. The steady state theory and its "infinite universe" has been all but disproven. An oscillating universe theory has also been widely abandoned. So if the universe and time have a beginning, then how do atheists not see God's hand in it?

Might be a dense question, might not.

:sl:

Not a dense question. A very good one. But it does have a flawed assumption that those of us who believe in the existance of Allaah(swt) seem to have. We tend to assume that which is proof to us, will be proof to a non-believer.

What are self evident facts to us, are not seen as such to non-believers and what is seen as self evident facts to non-believers are not seen by us.

The only way we can convince a non-believer as to the existence of Allaah(swt) would be if we can do so in terms of what they see as self evident facts. Or quite simply, neither of us have the ability to prove the existence of Allaah(swt) to a non-believer. That will only happen if they discover irrefutable proof in their own terms of proof.

That does not mean we should stop trying to offer proof as we may just be the reason a non-believer decides to seek Allaah(st) in terms he understands.

[AntiKarateKid]

Just regarding the title of this thread:

Finite number of elementary particles that follow certain rules vs. infinitely complex supernatural being....

hm...

Which is heavier?

And where did these rules come from? Theoretically an uncreated being would answer the problem. But your insistence on propounding "elementary particles that pop out of nowhere following laws that themselves had to be created" as an an alternate is unimpressive to me.

[Gubbleknucker]

Oi!

Stop putting words in my mouth!

I said nothing about "Popping out of nowhere" or "laws that had to be created."

God is superfluous. If he is not, then he also needs a creator, and I'm sure that that's an argument you are absolutely sick of if you, as a theist, discuss such things with atheists at all.

Quite simply, we don't know how the universe came to be, and I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to have all the answers. Even all of the evidence for a Big Bang does not discount the possibility of a universe without a beginning. Our concept of "beginning" may even be entirely inapplicable to the universe--the scope is certainly much larger than anything we have actually experienced.
A finite universe is just as difficult for me to comprehend as an infinite universe or an infinite creator. This does not make any of them impossible.

It's a jump of faith, not a conclusion of logic, to accredit that which we do not understand to be the doings of a mighty being which is apparently impossible to understand. It is yet another leap of faith to say that any particular religion describes this entity.

Keep your faith, but do not try to claim that it is anything more than faith.

To some people, faith is more than anything else... though not to me.

[AntiKarateKid]

Oi!

Stop putting words in my mouth!

I said nothing about "Popping out of nowhere" or "laws that had to be created."

I didn't mean that those were your words. I meant that those were the implications of your words.

God is superfluous. If he is not, then he also needs a creator, and I'm sure that that's an argument you are absolutely sick of if you, as a theist, discuss such things with atheists at all.

It is redundant to ask about the creator of an uncreated being. As opposed to a universe which has been shown to have a beginning and an end. You have not shown at all why He is superfluous.

Quite simply, we don't know how the universe came to be, and I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to have all the answers. Even all of the evidence for a Big Bang does not discount the possibility of a universe without a beginning. Our concept of "beginning" may even be entirely inapplicable to the universe--the scope is certainly much larger than anything we have actually experienced.

Don't get all abstract with me ;D. The universe is governed by laws just as anything else is. It is an observable and tangible entity and for you to single this out as the one exception to the "has to come from somewhere" rule makes little sense. It's size and complexity has nothing whatsoever to do with the property of having an origin.

A finite universe is just as difficult for me to comprehend as an infinite universe or an infinite creator. This does not make any of them impossible.

What's difficult? It is a physical entity like anything else and bound by laws. A metaphysical creator who is defined as being uncreated certainly poses fewer problems than a universe that in explicable came to exist by itself.

It's a jump of faith, not a conclusion of logic, to accredit that which we do not understand to be the doings of a mighty being which is apparently impossible to understand. It is yet another leap of faith to say that any particular religion describes this entity.

It is completely logical to say that the first origins had to be uncreated. Yoy are the one making a tremendous leap of faith by imagining some physical entity governed by laws to be somehow created by itself. It is absolutely ridiculous considering that, correct me if I'm wrong, you deny the metaphysical yet expect the physical to magically appear by itself. Also, I am not talking about religions here so please keep it on the origins of the universe.

Keep your faith, but do not try to claim that it is anything more than faith.

My faith is grounded upon logical conclusions while you sedate yourself with not knowing anything about the origins of the universe, which has been shown to have a beginning, and the ever present problem of infinite regression which you too easily dismiss.

To some people, faith is more than anything else... though not to me.

Nonsense. You are the one who is basing their entire existence on the faith that Allah the uncreated didn't create the universe which magically wrote laws and appeared by itself. The scientific community accepts that the universe is finite, why can't you?

[Azy]

I see no points arguing with you, Azy...simply because you are too superior for me. This is my last reply to you...I try to endure your response (if any).

There's not much point in a detailed response if this is your last reply.

I never claimed 'superiority in science', whatever that means. If pointing out that you don't even understand the words you are using means I'm claiming superiority then I suppose it must be true.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's an interesting discussion going on here, people. I only have a small point to make to register my amazement that AKK said this:

It is completely logical to say that the first origins had to be uncreated.

This is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming about god setting things in motion with the Big Bang. You are working on the basis of pure guesswork with no real connection to logic at all.

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

It is redundant to ask about the creator of an uncreated being. As opposed to a universe which has been shown to have a beginning and an end. You have not shown at all why He is superfluous.

What evidence is there for this uncreated force being a being? And what evidence is there for it being a "him"? And what evidence is there for it being any particular God you may care to claim? All pretty light I'm afraid.

The simple fact of the matter is we don't know how or if the universe came to be. And the more specific your claim, the more likely you are to be wrong by making it. Saying "there is was a creation force" is a lot less dangerous for example than saying "His name is Yorpov and he forbids you to eat oranges or have sex on airplanes".

Some of us are honest and humble enough to admit to ourselves we don't know, and others NEED to "know", and create or adopt creation stories that they then speak with certainty about. THe unkown is an uncomfortable thing for many and easy answers are one of the main draws to religion.

It is completely logical to say that the first origins had to be uncreated.

I'd agree with that. In fact its a tautology. If we accept its the "first origin" then by definition isn't it "uncreated"? What makes you think that the creator of our universe is the first origin though? Or that there was an origin? Or that the whole thing isn't cyclical or something. Who knows? Maybe time is a giant cycle and we wind up creating the universe in a lab a few million years from now and keep it in a jar. Makes as much sense to me as any other creation story.

My faith is grounded upon logical conclusions while you sedate yourself with not knowing anything about the origins of the universe, which has been shown to have a beginning

No... it really hasn't.

Edited to add: I think the idea of some all powerful superbeing pre-existing the universe seems ridiculus, but so does the idea of the universe spontaneously coming into being. I personally lean towards that something has always existed and has led us eventually to where we are through natural forces. But really, I have no more evidence for that than for the other ideas above. It just "rings more true" for me, as I suspect is how we all are finding our views on this, since there really is nothing even approaching conclusive evidence in any direction. Peoples' opinions on this particular topic are far more faith and gut feeling than science.

[abdullah_001]

No... it really hasn't.

http://www.harunyahya.com/create01.php

Here, have a blast.

In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore, it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Sir Arthur Eddington's statement that "the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of nature was repugnant to him" was an admission of the discomfort that the Big Bang caused for materialists.

Within two decades, observational proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.

[Pygoscelis]

That only works towards a theory of a sudden cataclysmic explosion and a universe clustered together tightly at that point. It says nothing about that being the origin of the universe or of matter within it.


I haven't heard anybody in this thread mention the END of the universe. Why is the end of the universe (or its going on for infinity) not as controversial as its begining (or lack thereof)?

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,

It's an interesting discussion going on here, people. I only have a small point to make to register my amazement that AKK said this:



This is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming about god setting things in motion with the Big Bang. You are working on the basis of pure guesswork with no real connection to logic at all.

Peace

I'm having a dense moment here. Could you explain what exactly you mean?

[AntiKarateKid]

What evidence is there for this uncreated force being a being? And what evidence is there for it being a "him"? And what evidence is there for it being any particular God you may care to claim? All pretty light I'm afraid.

I don't think the specifics are relevant to this. All I am proposing is an uncreated omnipotent being. His details could be debated in other threads.

The simple fact of the matter is we don't know how or if the universe came to be. And the more specific your claim, the more likely you are to be wrong by making it. Saying "there is was a creation force" is a lot less dangerous for example than saying "His name is Yorpov and he forbids you to eat oranges or have sex on airplanes".

Do you expect there to be any real answer? 2000 into the future you find that event X created all known energy and matter and follows Y rules. Well... how did event X happen and were did Y rules come from? Event Z triggered event X and follows Q rules.

As opposed to an uncreated omnipotent being which ends it right there.

Pygo, from your post, it seems that you are averse to being specific? ^o)

Some of us are honest and humble enough to admit to ourselves we don't know, and others NEED to "know", and create or adopt creation stories that they then speak with certainty about. THe unkown is an uncomfortable thing for many and easy answers are one of the main draws to religion.

And some of us are brave enough to say we DO know in a world that needs answers about where we came from and hat the purpose is. You are completely right that religion gives answers to questions that you will never be able to solve without it.

I'd agree with that. In fact its a tautology. If we accept its the "first origin" then by definition isn't it "uncreated"? What makes you think that the creator of our universe is the first origin though? Or that there was an origin? Or that the whole thing isn't cyclical or something. Who knows? Maybe time is a giant cycle and we wind up creating the universe in a lab a few million years from now and keep it in a jar. Makes as much sense to me as any other creation story.

I don't follow, honestly. What is wrong with saying the first thing was Allah who has no beginning or end.

A cyclical universe is hardly an answer at all. When did the cycle begin and where did the components for the cycles come from? If we ever created a new universe, then where did ours come from? Another intelligent being I presume.

No... it really hasn't.

Edited to add: I think the idea of some all powerful superbeing pre-existing the universe seems ridiculus, but so does the idea of the universe spontaneously coming into being. I personally lean towards that something has always existed and has led us eventually to where we are through natural forces. But really, I have no more evidence for that than for the other ideas above. It just "rings more true" for me, as I suspect is how we all are finding our views on this, since there really is nothing even approaching conclusive evidence in any direction. Peoples' opinions on this particular topic are far more faith and gut feeling than science.

Of course you lean towards the universe "always existing". It conflicts with atheism the least. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community rejects the notion and that you are hoping a physical entity governed by laws and somehow has no beginning or end.

Personally, I don't think you need a scientific paper to tell you that the universe had a beginning. Why should it be the one exception? You and I ahd one. The earth had one. Why can't the larger universe have one?

I suspect because were you to seriously entertains such an idea, you would see the necessity of believing in Allah.


Were they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing! (Quran 52:35-36)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm having a dense moment here. Could you explain what exactly you mean?

The point of the thread seems to be based on the following reasoning:

The first origins of the universe can be traced to the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe was created by something. This something is god.

Now you are saying:

It is completely logical to say that the first origins had to be uncreated.

So which is it, do you think?

Or are you free to choose which things do and do not need a creator in order to be brought about?

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;

I don't think the specifics are relevant to this. All I am proposing is an uncreated omnipotent being. His details could be debated in other threads.

If God the creator of the universe exists fully and totally, then he has to be the most important being in our lives, there is a great need to search for God.

In the spirit of searching for a just and merciful God

Eric

[Muslimlearner]

Everything is by CHANCE for the atheist,so what to explain?
This is the easiest way..

[abdullah_001]

That only works towards a theory of a sudden cataclysmic explosion and a universe clustered together tightly at that point. It says nothing about that being the origin of the universe or of matter within it.


I haven't heard anybody in this thread mention the END of the universe. Why is the end of the universe (or its going on for infinity) not as controversial as its begining (or lack thereof)?

The whole point of the post was to explain the origin of universe (which was from a, you guessed it, big bang) and that was proof for the big bang which i presented... I dont think you read the article from the link i posted earlier.

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


The point of the thread seems to be based on the following reasoning:

The first origins of the universe can be traced to the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe was created by something. This something is god.

Now you are saying:



So which is it, do you think?

Or are you free to choose which things do and do not need a creator in order to be brought about?

Peace

Oh I see. I meant that the "originator" had to be uncreated, if that clears it up at all.

[abdullah_001]

Everything is by CHANCE for the atheist,so what to explain?
This is the easiest way..

If everything is by chance then how do we not see a human being come into existence out of nowhere by chance? or how do we not see a plane just come into existence by chance?

We don't even need to get into the intricacies of cosmic and microscopic phenomenons to conclude that we have a creator. Do you think the universe is finite or infinite (on a time scale)? How can you say that we are a result of a random probability when we as humans, as advanced as were are, can't even manufacture a camera that could even be comparable to the human eye? If the human eye is complex then the human body is much more complex, and the universe is far more complex than the human body, and when it is really outrageously absurd to think that a human being is an outcome of chance then it is much more absurd to think that universe is just an outcome of chance.

[Gubbleknucker]

how do we not see a human being come into existence out of nowhere by chance? or how do we not see a plane just come into existence by chance?

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think the specifics are relevant to this. All I am proposing is an uncreated omnipotent being. His details could be debated in other threads.

But you are proposing specifics. You are proposing that the force that created the universe is a being, a sentient one, and a "him".

Do you expect there to be any real answer?

Surely there is an answer. Do I think we will ever know it? I highly doubt it, and I'm ok with that. I feel no need to make up or adopt an explanation so I can say I know.

Pygo, from your post, it seems that you are averse to being specific? ^o)

You guess right. The more specific your claim, the more likely you are to be wrong. I myself make no specific claim, no.

And some of us are brave enough to say we DO know in a world that needs answers about where we came from and hat the purpose is. You are completely right that religion gives answers to questions that you will never be able to solve without it.

Completely agree. Religion gives answers where there would otherwise be none (or as yet be none). Gods used to be the explanation for thunder and lightning. God of the gaps and all that.

I don't follow, honestly. What is wrong with saying the first thing was Allah who has no beginning or end.

Nothing wrong with saying that. It just isn't any more likely or credible to me than any other creation story, like the cyclical one I proposed (which I don't actually endorse)

A cyclical universe is hardly an answer at all. When did the cycle begin and where did the components for the cycles come from?

Those are meaningless questions to a cyclical universe and timestream. There would be no particular starting point, as its cyclical. You couldn't name the begining of time just like you can't name the edge of the earth (it being cyclical/round).

Actually thats a pretty cool idea and should be in a sci fi film. Time as cyclical and us as eventually being what creates the universe (and thus the earth, and thus ourselves).

As for my leaning towards the physical always existing being caused by my materialism... I'd have to agree. Just as your leaning towards the physical having a starting point is caused by your belief in the supernatural. As I said above, all either of us really have to go on is gut feelings and faith. Neither of us can claim to know one way or the other with any credibility.

I suspect because were you to seriously entertains such an idea, you would see the necessity of believing in Allah.

Go back to the top of this post. It would not require a belief in Allah. Thats an awfully particular claim. It would require a belief in a creation force. Such a force would not necesarily be a being, or be sentient, or be a god, or be your particular God.

[Pygoscelis]

The whole point of the post was to explain the origin of universe (which was from a, you guessed it, big bang) and that was proof for the big bang which i presented... I dont think you read the article from the link i posted earlier.

If you were to prove that the big bang happened, you would not have proved that it started the universe. For all you'd know it could have been a phase the universe went through well after its creation (or its always having been).

[Pygoscelis]

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

This is true and I often see it in these discussions. Materialists do not believe everything happened by chance. I don't know where supernaturalists get that straw man. If anything it is the creation people who believe in chance creation. They presume that by mere chance a God existed in the first place. :)

[abdullah_001]

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

Uh, hate to break it to you but that is what the theory of evolution states

Yes, if we agreed to spontaneous formation, it is very clear that the big bang theory supports this.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Trumble]

Uh, hate to break it to you but that is what the theory of evolution states

Nonsense. The theory of evolution doesn't involve the spontaneous formation of anything.

Yes, if we agreed to spontaneous formation, it is very clear that the big bang theory supports this.

The Big Bang theory might be compatible with it, but it 'supports' it no more than it does anything else. According to that theory and the mathematics used to construct not only don't we know but we can't know what happened. It is totally meaningless to talk of 'spontaneous creation' as no universe in which that phrase has any relevance existed or, to be precise, we can never know if it did.

Thinking back to my earlier post, there is actually rather more a case for 'God of the gaps' here than is usual as it at least seems likely (if not certain) that physical science as we currently understand it can never fill the 'gap' concerned. However, even if we are forced to resort to metaphysics - rather than, perhaps, just graciously accepting our fate - in this context the God hypothesis has nothing to recommend it over any other, as Pygoscelis said. If anything, why conjour up intelligence? There are clearly alternative metaphysical hypotheses that do not require it.

[abdullah_001]

that was my point... theory of evolution DOES NOT support it...

In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?

Now, keep in mind that big bang theory has been PROVED through cosmic background radiation. I really don't think I need to add anymore.

[Gubbleknucker]

that was my point... theory of evolution DOES NOT support it...

He assumed you were doing the usual creationist "evolution says life pops out of nowhere" bit.

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe, though, so of course it doesn't support any particular hypothesis.

[Azy]

for you to single this out as the one exception to the "has to come from somewhere" rule makes little sense.

I.. don't even know what to say here... Did I read that right?

[Ramadhan]

Those are meaningless questions to a cyclical universe and timestream. There would be no particular starting point, as its cyclical. You couldn't name the begining of time just like you can't name the edge of the earth (it being cyclical/round).

of course the earth has the edge. The edge of the earth is the boundary between its land and/water with the air/atmosphere.

EVERYTHING in the universe is finite. Even time itself has been shown to only start existing at the time of the big bang.

[Ramadhan]

clearly, logic has deserted atheists for they reject the most elegant solution, and resort to mumbo jumbo fantasy such as "cyclical universe" and the likes

[Trumble]

that was my point... theory of evolution DOES NOT support it...]

Now, keep in mind that big bang theory has been PROVED through cosmic background radiation.

No it hasn't. It hasn't yet been demonstrated to be incompatible with the observational data we have. It is the generally accepted theory, that is all.. just like Newtonian mechanics was before being shown to be wrong first theoretically, and then observationally. As Gubbleknucker says, the theory of evolution is totally irrelevant to this debate.

clearly, logic has deserted atheists for they reject the most elegant solution, and resort to mumbo jumbo fantasy such as "cyclical universe" and the likes

In metaphysics as in physics there is nothing remotely 'logical' or elegant about accepting what is by definition an infinitely complex solution to a problem ahead of less complex alternatives, even if you do have a neat three letter (or five letter) abbreviation for it.

Virtually ever facet of modern and recent cosmology that has at one time or another captured the public imagination was considered 'mumbo jumbo fantasy' by large numbers of people, including the conservative scientific establishment. That 'cyclical universe', as with parallel universes, is actually pretty mainstream now, at least as speculative hypotheses.

[Pygoscelis]

of course the earth has the edge. The edge of the earth is the boundary between its land and/water with the air/atmosphere.

EVERYTHING in the universe is finite. Even time itself has been shown to only start existing at the time of the big bang.

clearly, logic has deserted atheists for they reject the most elegant solution, and resort to mumbo jumbo fantasy such as "cyclical universe" and the likes

Is this a matter of english not being your first language or did you intentionally miss both of the points these quotes "respond" to and rudely attack your own straw men?

[Ramadhan]

In metaphysics as in physics there is nothing remotely 'logical' or elegant about accepting what is by definition an infinitely complex solution to a problem ahead of less complex alternatives, even if you do have a neat three letter (or five letter) abbreviation for it.

Virtually ever facet of modern and recent cosmology that has at one time or another captured the public imagination was considered 'mumbo jumbo fantasy' by large numbers of people, including the conservative scientific establishment. That 'cyclical universe', as with parallel universes, is actually pretty mainstream now, at least as speculative hypotheses.

how can you say that cyclical universe or parallel universes is an answer to the question as to how our universe exists?
They do not even answer the question and you are inviting more problems that are not even yet shown to exist!

[Ramadhan]

Is this a matter of english not being your first language or did you intentionally miss both of the points these quotes "respond" to and rudely attack your own straw men?

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Please elucidate and elaborate.

[Trumble]

how can you say that cyclical universe or parallel universes is an answer to the question as to how our universe exists?
They do not even answer the question and you are inviting more problems that are not even yet shown to exist!

Hi naidamar,

I think you have munderstood my post; my apologies if it was not clear.

In my first paragraph, having previously established that we are (arguably) unlikely ever to find a scientific answer, I suggested that among the metaphysical solutions, 'God' was neither the most elegant or 'logical' one as it is the most complex one, when simpler alternatives exist. For example, if you can solve the problem by invoking an 'uncreated' God, why not just cut out the metaphorical middle-man and invoke an 'uncreated' singularity?

In my second paragraph I was merely pointing out that cyclical universes and such are perfectly respectable speculative hypotheses in cosmology - at least as far as any speculative hypothesis can be respectable! - and not the "mumbo jumbo fantasy" you dismiss them as. Quite apart from which, let's be honest, the theoretical physics and much of the mathematics of the Big Bang theory itself is 'mumbo jumbo' to the vast majority of people everywhere and I suspect everybody in this thread!

[gang4]

DISCLAIMER: This writing is not about displaying one superiority or inferiority in the knowledge of science nor to have a contempt to another fellow human being.Rather, if it is possible, to assist a non-believer to discover irrefutable proof in their own terms of proof. With a hope, a non-believer may decide to seek Allah (SWT) in terms of his/her understanding...As per Woodrow beautiful statements.

In an attempt to close the loose ends:
I said (not necessarily in this order):

Point1. "Scientific laws are time-invariant "

Point2. "A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy (CLOE)..


Let start with Point1,

http://evidence-based-science.blogsp...aw-theory.html
Give a list, here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: .....

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
[...]


From Wiki,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves.

One particularly important physical result concerning conservation laws is Noether's Theorem, which states that there is a one-to-one correspondence between conservation laws and differentiable symmetries of physical systems. For example, the conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems, and the fact that physical systems behave the same regardless of how they are oriented in space gives rise to the conservation of angular momentum.

A partial listing of conservation laws that are said to be exact laws, or more precisely have never been shown to be violated:

* Conservation of energy....etc "

There are also approximate conservation laws. These are approximately true in particular situations, such as low speeds, short time scales, or certain interactions.

* Conservation of mass (applies for low speeds)...etc

Interestingly, these so-called "laws" can essentially be viewed as a series of approximations: well-established physical laws are found to be invalid in some special cases, and the new theory created to explain these discrepencies can be said to have generalized the original, rather than superseded it. One well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it described the world accurately in most normal circumstances, such as the movement of the planets around the sun, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to very large masses or very high velocities. Einstein developed the theory of general relativity, which accurately handled gravitational interactions both those extreme conditions and in the range occupied by Newton's law. However, Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational interaction. The same phenomena can be observed when comparing Maxwell's Equations with the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and in other cases.

Trumble said,

...
Just to finish, I'll give the obvious example of some scientific laws that were 'discarded', Newton's laws of motion.

True, Einstein's GR when applied to Mercury's orbit, does predict a difference of precisely 43 second of arcs. But, Newton's laws of motion are still being used in MOST circumstances today, far from being 'discarded'. In other words, Einstein' GR will NOT trash n invalid Newton's law.

Quite apart from that your own argument doesn't make sense. If saying "a law will always remain a law" means that all scientific laws are 'time-invariant' then saying "a theory will always remain a theory" must mean all theories are 'time-invariant' in the sense you are using as well! That's obvious nonsense.

First the last part,
"then saying "a theory will always remain a theory" must mean all theories are 'time-invariant' in the sense you are using as well! That's obvious nonsense."

Look at my post about theory.. it is you who said all theories are time-invariant...That's obvious nonsense.

Now the first part,
"If saying "a law will always remain a law" means that all scientific laws are 'time-invariant'"

Why you added up 'all'? I said 'scientific laws are time-invariant'and in the context of CLOE from the above the conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems

In physics, invariants are usually quantities conserved (unchanged) by the symmetries of the physical system. (See Noether's theorem.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Informal statement of the Noether's theorem

If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time.

... It is equally meaningless to apply the 'CLOE' at any 'time' before that as before that point in time the universe, part of the behaviour of which we predict using the CLOE, did not exist...

Agree! hence when we say time, by default, it means when time has a meaning though it is not written.... likewise Noether's theorem says"...are conserved in time" by default, it does not refer to t<10^-43.




Point2. "A particle pops out of nowhere" is impossible since it is a direct violation of the conservative law of energy (CLOE)..


When your friend says: "Let's play basket ball"
It is a general understanding, your friend referring to play 'real' basket ball in the court...not some play station 'virtual basket ball' game.

"A particle pops out of nowhere" by general understanding refers to 'real' particle. And if a particle still pops out then it follows E=MC2 since energy and mass are interchangeable. It can not pop up out of nothing.

What about virtual particle?

Do Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time and for a brief moment break the conservation of energy law, at least the classical version of it?


http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-28611....
If an old lousy form of perturbation theory is used then virtual particles violate conservation of energy-momentum. But since Richard Feynman came along, most of use a form of perturbation theory in which virtual particles obey conservation of energy-momentum.

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...particles.html

"...the energy of the system becomes uncertain for a short period of time, that energy is somehow "borrowed" for a brief interval. This is just another way of talking about the same mathematics. However, it obscures the fact that all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times. The way I've described it also corresponds to the usual way of talking about Feynman diagrams, in which energy is conserved, but virtual particles can carry amounts of energy not normally allowed by the laws of motion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
"Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws. If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles"





In quantum mechanics, a virtual particle can never be directly detected in the sense that they appear in calculations, but are not detected as single particles. "they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modelled" but whose existence does have measurable effects.

The interesting part, some atheists may believe the existence of virtual particles without the impossible direct observations but it is enough for them to have indirect measurable effects.

The strange thing why some atheists do not believe in God without the impossible direct observations ... Is it NOT enough for them to have indirect measurable effects (all created things)?

Is it because a virtual particle obeys a mathematical term to explain its existence?

Please, whatever your definition of G__ is, you can not expect to obey a mathematical term (May Allah forgives me).

[Ramadhan]

Hi naidamar,

I think you have munderstood my post; my apologies if it was not clear.

In my first paragraph, having previously established that we are (arguably) unlikely ever to find a scientific answer, I suggested that among the metaphysical solutions, 'God' was neither the most elegant or 'logical' one as it is the most complex one, when simpler alternatives exist. For example, if you can solve the problem by invoking an 'uncreated' God, why not just cut out the metaphorical middle-man and invoke an 'uncreated' singularity?

Our universe follows its own laws. Since everything in the universe cannot come out of absolute nothing, then it is impossible that our universe also come out from absolute nothing. And hence our universe cannot be "uncreated", and hence even cyclical universe must have beginning at some point.

God, by definition, overcome this problem. In elegant and simple way.

In my second paragraph I was merely pointing out that cyclical universes and such are perfectly respectable speculative hypotheses in cosmology - at least as far as any speculative hypothesis can be respectable! - and not the "mumbo jumbo fantasy" you dismiss them as. Quite apart from which, let's be honest, the theoretical physics and much of the mathematics of the Big Bang theory itself is 'mumbo jumbo' to the vast majority of people everywhere and I suspect everybody in this thread!

I am no theoritical physicist, but I have interest in the development of latest theoritical physics, such as the development of superstrings theory etc. I suggest anyone without background in science to read "The Elegant Universe" by Bryan Green that explains in laymen terms quantum mechanics and a list of candidate theories that attempts to unify Einstein's GR and Quantum Mechanics, or more popularly known as "Theory of Everything"
But all that does not answer the question of "how did the universe came into being" and/or why/how our universe posses/runs on such orderly laws.

[Trumble]

Interestingly, these so-called "laws" can essentially be viewed as a series of approximations: well-established physical laws are found to be invalid in some special cases, and the new theory created to explain these discrepencies can be said to have generalized the original, rather than superseded it. One well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it described the world accurately in most normal circumstances, such as the movement of the planets around the sun, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to very large masses or very high velocities. Einstein developed the theory of general relativity, which accurately handled gravitational interactions both those extreme conditions and in the range occupied by Newton's law. However, Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational interaction. The same phenomena can be observed when comparing Maxwell's Equations with the theory of quantum electrodynamics, and in other cases.

True, Einstein's GR when applied to Mercury's orbit, does predict a difference of precisely 43 second of arcs. But, Newton's laws of motion are still being used in MOST circumstances today, far from being 'discarded'. In other words, Einstein' GR will NOT trash n invalid Newton's law.

What point are you trying to make with this attempted argument by Wiki? A 'so-called "law"', and/or series of approximations is not an immutable law.

I have already said both that application of Newton's laws took us to the moon and that they are a special case of their relativistic equivalents. But it really doesn't matter in the slightest in the context of the debate; the simple fact is even at the level where they can be, and are, used as practical approximations the results they forecast are wrong, even if that wrong-ness is within practically acceptable boundaries. Even what we would total consider some of the whackiest 'theories' and 'laws', such as those from alchemy for example, can be applied as special cases - otherwise they would have never have been accepted in the first place. What constitutes a special case is purely relative (something you wouldn't claim applies to the immutable laws, surely?); actually while from our perspective most physical events can be regarded as Newtonian on the scale of the universe as a whole they are relativistic. Newtonian mechanics is actually a very limited special case... it just happens that we live in the special case, as it were.

Look at my post about theory.. it is you who said all theories are time-invariant...That's obvious nonsense.

I'm sorry?! Of course it is obvious nonsense - that was the whole point. But it follows directly from your argument!

Let's just keep focused on that argument, which nothing whatsoever to do with Noether's theorum, Richard Feynman or anything or anybody else neither of us had even heard of until this morning.

You quoted from Wiki'

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law

and suggested that

A law WILL ALWAYS remain a law....does it not mean Scientific laws are time-invariant?

The answer, as I explained, is no. The first reason is simply semantical; what the statement is saying is that laws do not become theories and theories do not become laws, in contrast to what that 'common misconception' suggests. And that is all it says, there is no suggestion of time-invariance regarding the nature of laws outside that context - they never become theories. I won't argue that further, if you wish to convince yourself it means something else I can't stop you. I do, though, defy anyone else here with a grasp of the English language sufficient for scientific and philosophical debate to agree with your interpretation!

The other part of the argument was in simple logic, the syntax rather than semantics as it were. You claimed that, to expand the implicit argument;

Premise 1. If something always remains a law, it is time invariant.

Premise 2. Scientific laws always remain a law

Conclusion: Therefore, scientific laws are time-invariant.

which is of course, a perfectly valid argument. It is only sound (that is, 'true'), though, if both premises are correct, but we'll leave that as a semantic matter and put it aside. But if that argument were sound, then so is one created by a simple substution, hence;

Premise 1. If something always remains a theory, it is time invariant.

Premise 2. Scientific theories always remain a theory

Conclusion: Therefore, scientific theories are time-invariant.

According to your own argument, therefore, if scientific laws are time-invariant, scientific theories must also be time invariant! As we both agree that is nonsense, then your argument cannot be sound. As it is valid, that means one or both of the premises must be wrong.

Next up,

Now the first part,
"If saying "a law will always remain a law" means that all scientific laws are 'time-invariant'"

Why you added up 'all'? I said 'scientific laws are time-invariant'and in the context of CLOE from the above the conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems

You can take or leave the 'all' as you wish, as it is implied anyway. Firstly, the simple logic I have just set out is totally context independent. Secondly, you are either claiming a universal or you are not. If you are not claiming that all scientific laws are time-invariant, what are you claiming? That only some are? That they all are, but only for some of the time? How can I tell which scientific laws are or are not time invariant? No offence, but one of us seems very confused here, and I don't think its me.

Our universe follows its own laws. Since everything in the universe cannot come out of absolute nothing, then it is impossible that our universe also come out from absolute nothing.

And hence our universe cannot be "uncreated", and hence even cyclical universe must have beginning at some point.

We had already agreed, I thought, that those 'laws' (which must be distinguished from any human interpretation or assignation of them) did not exist prior to the universe being 10^-43 seconds old. You therefore have no justification in extrapolating them 'backwards' and, hence, no such conclusion can be drawn. Even if it could, if the universe cannot be "uncreated" then God cannot be "uncreated" by exactly the same reasoning.

God, by definition, overcome this problem. In elegant and simple way.

As I have already said, there is nothing elegant about postulating an infinitely complex entity, or series of entities, when a much simpler one/ones will do. The case for God is ultimately faith based, not philosophically based, and least of all science based. There's nothing wrong with that - my religion has its fair share of faith, too - but its as well to be honest about it. God does solve the problem if you define God as the solution, yes - but how can that be convincing when theoretically any problem can be solved by in exactly the same way?

[gang4]

At least, we agree on a point...

No offence, but one of us seems very confused here, and I don't think its me.

[Azy]

I didn't really want to get involved in this thread again.. :s oh well.

The interesting part, some atheists may believe the existence of virtual particles without the impossible direct observations but it is enough for them to have indirect measurable effects.

The strange thing why some atheists do not believe in God without the impossible direct observations ... Is it NOT enough for them to have indirect measurable effects (all created things)?

There are many problems with this approach, but I think the major one is that, by it's definition, the supernatural can not be detected using natural means.

You can say that X, Y or Z natural mechanisms did not cause all created things to come into being, but you cannot use scientific methods or logical reasoning to prove that all things were created by mechanisms which do not conform to any natural rules.

[aamirsaab]

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

What's more ridiculous: believing in spontaneous life formation (religion) or statistical improbabilities (evolution)?

[Azy]

Is that a trick question?

[aamirsaab]

Is that a trick question?

Are you being sarcastic?

[Azy]

Not at all, I just thought there might be something you'd forgot to mention that might make spontaneous creation seem less ridiculous than evolution. Forget I said anything.

[aamirsaab]

Not at all, I just thought there might be something you'd forgot to mention that might make spontaneous creation seem less ridiculous than evolution. Forget I said anything.

Wait just a minute; you actually subscribe to the notion that humans are 0.0000000000000000 (don't remember the exact amount of zeroes since it was so many).....1% chance and call spontaneous creation ridiculous?!

Sorry but I just don't buy that; you cannot subscribe to that and call spntaneous creation ridiculous AND not believe in the existence of God; the sheer amount of zeroes in that statistical improbability for human evolution should make you a believer alone.

So I'll ask again (but I'll amend it slightly lest we run around in circles): which is more ridiculous: evolution, which has a statistical probability of 0.many many zeros and 1 percent (by itself and no God in the equation) or spontaneous creation?

[Azy]

It's pretty pointless using probabilities like that after the fact. I think you should read this (pdf). It's not very long.

[aamirsaab]

It's pretty pointless using probabilities like that after the fact. I think you should read this (pdf). It's not very long.

Thanks for the read. Though it only brings me more issues with this concept. Particularly in comparing human evolution to snowflakes...me thinks that's an apples and oranges argument.

But I'll roll with it because it's essentially saying those patterns exist initially. I don't see how that rules out a designer and actually provides me with more reason to believe in a designer. Unless you are going to argue those patterns are another statistical insignficance....

[AntiKarateKid]

Normally I don't like to deal with probability because it doesn't matter to me how probable or improbable life was while keeping in mind Allah is the one who created the matter for evolution to work in the first place.

But if I consider the probability, it puts atheists in a funny position. I doubt any of them would leave their house if there was only a .1% chance for them to survive and yet they are fine with the .0000000 whatever % of life developing as it did today by chance instead of design.


Anyways, this thread is NOT about evolution. I'd really like for it not to be sidetracked like that.

[Gubbleknucker]

Wow.... disputing evolution, but supporting the big bang so ferociously? My jaw hangs agape.

Evolution is just the result of the three simple facts:

1)There is variation between organisms in a population
2)Organisms pass their characteristics on to their offspring
3)Some organisms are more likely to pass on their characteristics than others

It's not rocket science.

[AntiKarateKid]

Wow.... disputing evolution, but supporting the big bang so ferociously? My jaw hangs agape.

Evolution is just the result of the three simple facts:

1)There is variation between organisms in a population
2)Organisms pass their characteristics on to their offspring
3)Some organisms are more likely to pass on their characteristics than others

It's not rocket science.

Keep evolution for a different thread please. This is strictly about the origins of the universe itself and by extension the big bang.

But BTW the Big Bang doesn't rely on chance :omg:

[Gubbleknucker]

But BTW the Big Bang doesn't rely on chance :omg:

Neither does evolution, and I'm far less sure about the big bang.


Let's go with your idea of an intelligent "banger" who created the universe at the time of the big bang. He created all of the matter and energy in the universe as well as the laws by which it would abide.

What if he created it such that the outcome would be certain to be what he wanted somewhere in the universe?

You seem to be set on the idea that he wanted us. Perhaps he simply made the conditions by which we would come to be....