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

[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.

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)