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

**AntiKarateKid** · 08-10-2009

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.

**Ramadhan** · 08-17-2009

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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** · 08-17-2009

Originally Posted by naidamar

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** · 08-19-2009

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,

Originally Posted by Trumble

...
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.

Originally Posted by Trumble

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.

Originally Posted by Trumble

... 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** · 08-19-2009

Originally Posted by Trumble

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** · 08-19-2009

Originally Posted by gang4

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.

Originally Posted by naidamar

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** · 08-19-2009

At least, we agree on a point...

Originally Posted by Trumble

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

**Azy** · 08-20-2009

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

Originally Posted by gang4

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** · 08-20-2009

Originally Posted by Gubbleknucker

The strawman burns
wwwislamicboardcom - If the universe is finite, how can you not believe in God?

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** · 08-20-2009

Is that a trick question?

**aamirsaab** · 08-20-2009

Originally Posted by Azy

Is that a trick question?

Are you being sarcastic?

**Azy** · 08-20-2009

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** · 08-20-2009

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 08-20-2009

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

**aamirsaab** · 08-20-2009

Originally Posted by Azy

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** · 08-21-2009

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** · 08-21-2009

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** · 08-21-2009

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Gubbleknucker** · 08-21-2009

Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

But BTW the Big Bang doesn't rely on chance

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....