Existence of God (split from old thread)

[El_Machinae]

I'm fairly certain that's exactly what science says. All known facts point to it. In fact, science has already progressed to within fractures of seconds post-Big Bang. That, of course, doesn't mean there's some magic trick at 'the beginning', but science doesn't deal with magic. It deals instead with the known universe. (That still leaves room for plenty of speculation, of course.)

You might be talking about different things. The Big Bang is to cosmology as evolution is to life. It very nicely explains a great deal of the present and past. But it says nothing concrete of the initial conditions.

Big Bang theory has an amount of theory that is, for all useful purposes, 'known'. But when dealing with t=0 and singularities, there's an infinite amount of distance between 'the beginning of time' and 'a few nanoseconds in' (though, if I recall correctly, there are a variety of mathematical models for 'a few nanoseconds in' that fit the known facts, so we don't even have super-strong theory at 'close' to the beginning).

You're right that the Big Bang deals with the 'known' universe. But that's not a complete statement. The Big Bang talks about how a mass of condensed plasma became what we see today. But it's not so good at explaining the origins of the condensed matter. It actually doesn't make any statements at all about that.

......
In concession to the theists, I'll agree that I short-cut to the idea that the Universe is a self-existing phenomena, much like how they'll short-cut to that conception of God. As far as I can tell, their description of God is a lot like my description of the (total) Universe. They just seem to throw in some attributes into God that I think are unwarranted based on either philosophical necessity or evidence.

"The universe needs no Creator", they'll say. "okay", I"ll say back. "Oh, and he told Jews to not eat pork"

"Huh?"

As a wannabe vegetarian, I'll agree that the universe is telling us to not eat pork. But it's hardly an exhaustive list, and not for the reasons given.

 

[Agent327]

You might be talking about different things. The Big Bang is to cosmology as evolution is to life. It very nicely explains a great deal of the present and past. But it says nothing concrete of the initial conditions.

Nor does it say anything about God. Which seems appropriate, not to make statements about unknowns.

Big Bang theory has an amount of theory that is, for all useful purposes, 'known'. But when dealing with t=0 and singularities, there's an infinite amount of distance between 'the beginning of time' and 'a few nanoseconds in' (though, if I recall correctly, there are a variety of mathematical models for 'a few nanoseconds in' that fit the known facts, so we don't even have super-strong theory at 'close' to the beginning).

Screeching logic.

- 'there's an infinite amount of distance between 'the beginning of time' and ' a few nanoseconds in' (So, not just a few nanoseconds 'distance'?)

- 'there are a variety of mathematical models for 'a few nanoseconds in' that fit the known facts, so we don't even have super-strong theory at 'close' to the beginning' (I'm not sure how the one follows from the other)

You're right that the Big Bang deals with the 'known' universe. But that's not a complete statement. The Big Bang talks about how a mass of condensed plasma became what we see today. But it's not so good at explaining the origins of the condensed matter. It actually doesn't make any statements at all about that.

As well it shouldn't.

In concession to the theists, I'll agree that I short-cut to the idea that the Universe is a self-existing phenomena, much like how they'll short-cut to that conception of God. As far as I can tell, their description of God is a lot like my description of the (total) Universe. They just seem to throw in some attributes into God that I think are unwarranted based on either philosophical necessity or evidence.

It's religion; don't expect logic.

"The universe needs no Creator", they'll say. "okay", I"ll say back. "Oh, and he told Jews to not eat pork"

"Huh?"

As a wannabe vegetarian, I'll agree that the universe is telling us to not eat pork. But it's hardly an exhaustive list, and not for the reasons given.

'The universe is telling us to not eat pork'. OK.

I think we best stick with 'The Big Bang is to cosmology as evolution is to life'.

 

[El_Machinae]

- 'there's an infinite amount of distance between 'the beginning of time' and ' a few nanoseconds in' (So, not just a few nanoseconds 'distance'?)

A few nanoseconds is an infinite distance away when dealing with singularities. The state of your graph at t = 0.00001 tells you nothing about t = 0.

- 'there are a variety of mathematical models for 'a few nanoseconds in' that fit the known facts, so we don't even have super-strong theory at 'close' to the beginning' (I'm not sure how the one follows from the other)

'Close' was in quotemarks. I was disputing your specific claim, that science had the BB within even 'a few fractions of a second'

So, it was two-parts - the nature of the problem means that getting within a few fractions doesn't mean that you're 'close' to zero in any meaningful sense if the question is about zero.

And secondly, that your summary 'within a few fractions' was technically incorrect as well.

 

[Agent327]

With evolution, as with the universe, the question isn't about 'zero'. But there's an interesting analogy in both cases. We can't get to t=0. In other words, the origin of the universe (life) is an unknown. And this, of course, explains why there is so much speculation about it. But the point is, at that point science (knowledge) stops. Metaphysically there may be an infinite distance between t=0 and t+1. At one 'point' there was no universe - and then there was (essentially). At one point there was life - and then there was. We'd like to know why, of course. But maybe there isn't a why, and maybe we'll never find out how exactly. It's a mystery. (Or magic, if you will.)

But I would like to point out that a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang falls well within a few fractions of a second. Technically. Not that it detracts from the model.

 

[El_Machinae]

We're agreeing on the first paragraph. I think I misread what you and Zig were disagreeing about. And we agree on the accuracy of the second as well

What I am denying is that 'science' has 'a factual model' within fractions of a second. I'm responding specifically to the timeframe you expressed confidence over. Our models break down into assumptions before that, in that there's no broad consensus like there is for later stages.

The transition from 0.1 to 1.0 is unknown in a different way than (say) the transition between 100,000 and one million.

Edit: I'll retract this as a point. It's not easy to show that there's still discussion regarding that first second. I think it's unimportant, too. Anyway, there's already knowledge that there's some fraction of a second during which the 'commonly accepted' becomes 'a little too theoretical' to rely on as a defacto 'fact'. I'm also extending the lack of knowledge regarding baryons a little too far into the timeline. The part that 'we don't know' on this front is certainly within the nanosecond range. I'm merely implicitly extending the consequences of that lack of knowledge forwards into future things we actually do know.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was indeed talking about t=0, as in the moment the Big Banged. There are quite a few scientists who have opted that time existed before the Big Bang, and the process is a part of a recurring cycle of contraction and expansion. Others have opted that the Big Bang could be a result from an event in another dimension/universe.

Many are motivated to avoid the singularity, because having infinity as an answer to their models usually means the model is faulty.

 

[Agent327]

What I am denying is that 'science' has 'a factual model' within fractions of a second. I'm responding specifically to the timeframe you expressed confidence over. Our models break down into assumptions before that, in that there's no broad consensus like there is for later stages.

All models are abstractions. They're not reality. Reality is complex. And the Big Bang is so complex I doubt science will ever get to exactly decipher it. So we'll have to make do with several nanoseconds after the Big Bang and try and extrapolate back. None of which alters that, to all intents and purpose, the Big Bang, as a scientific theory, is what we call in everyday life fact.

The transition from 0.1 to 1.0 is unknown in a different way than (say) the transition between 100,000 and one million.

I'd agree if you said t=0.1 to t=1.0, but not on the second, as there's no unknown from 100,000 to 1 million.

It's not easy to show that there's still discussion regarding that first second. I think it's unimportant, too. Anyway, there's already knowledge that there's some fraction of a second during which the 'commonly accepted' becomes 'a little too theoretical' to rely on as a defacto 'fact'. I'm also extending the lack of knowledge regarding baryons a little too far into the timeline. The part that 'we don't know' on this front is certainly within the nanosecond range. I'm merely implicitly extending the consequences of that lack of knowledge forwards into future things we actually do know.

I'm not sure if it's difficult to show. After all. t=0 equates the Big Bang itself. The singularity which has neither time nor space. From that to space and time is a gigantic step - even if it only lasted some nanoseconds.

I was indeed talking about t=0, as in the moment the Big Banged. There are quite a few scientists who have opted that time existed before the Big Bang, and the process is a part of a recurring cycle of contraction and expansion. Others have opted that the Big Bang could be a result from an event in another dimension/universe.

Many are motivated to avoid the singularity, because having infinity as an answer to their models usually means the model is faulty.

Not necessarily. But it is hard to catch a one-time-only phenomenon in a model. And I'm sure there are scientists who have opted that time existed before the Big Bang, and the process is a part of a recurring cycle of contraction and expansion. Others have opted that the Big Bang could be a result from an event in another dimension/universe.

That's fine. However, it's not science, but speculation. In the same vein as the God explanation, because such theories can't be tested. which kind of is the issue with a singularity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not necessarily. But it is hard to catch a one-time-only phenomenon in a model. And I'm sure there are scientists who have opted that time existed before the Big Bang, and the process is a part of a recurring cycle of contraction and expansion. Others have opted that the Big Bang could be a result from an event in another dimension/universe.

That's fine. However, it's not science, but speculation. In the same vein as the God explanation, because such theories can't be tested. which kind of is the issue with a singularity.

Which is what I mean when I said:

Science for instance doesn't say: the big bang is the way in which the Universe was created.

With which I mean, we can observe the aftermath, we have evidence of the aftermath, but the actual process is subject to speculation.

 

[Agent327]

Which is a good thing, as otherwise we wouldn't have the Big Bang theory. I'm not sure though if I agree with 'the actual process is subject to speculation'. Further speculation perhaps, if that leads to a better theory. And testable speculation, obviously.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not being sure is an excellent mindset, neither am I

 

[onejayhawk]

I am sure--that we know very little and speculate a great deal.

Does God want it that way?

J

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd craft my answer to my audience. A grounding question would be 'does Superman want it that way?'

 

[Broken_Erika]

Does the Dark Lord Fire-Ape in New Jersey want it that way?

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd craft my answer to my audience. A grounding question would be 'does Superman want it that way?'

Spoiler :

 

[Ryika]

Here's a question Atheists just can't answer: If God doesn't exist, who sent Jesus to Earth?
You'd have to be silly enough to believe Sons of God can materialize out of thin air.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's a question Atheists just can't answer: If God doesn't exist, who sent Jesus to Earth?
You'd have to be silly enough to believe Sons of God can materialize out of thin air.

When a man and a woman love each other very much ... a bee goes from flower to flower ....

 

[Ryika]

When a man and a woman love each other very much ... a bee goes from flower to flower ....

What? I'm not talking about bees, I'm talking about Jesus, the Son of God.
It's like saying you made cake, but flour doesn't exist, and Milk is hard as stone.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'd craft my answer to my audience. A grounding question would be 'does Superman want it that way?'

Non sequatur. Superman does not cover the whole world, much less the universe. Nor does Superman care what people outside his circle think, much less what every person thinks.

The question remains, does God want the world to be mysterious but not completely incomprehensible?

J

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not a non-sequiter. I need to know if your question regarding 'want' would include the wants of an imagined being. Then I just work within the paradigm of the being I assume you're describing

If you'd said "Superman does not want the same thing, only actual beings can have wants.", then I'd know how to craft the answer differently

Now I only need to figure out which description of 'God' you mean. In the West, lotsa people mean the Abrahamic god when they say 'God'. Other people mean a more theoretical construct. I can talk about God's wants as authoritatively as I can talk about Superman's wants.

Neither of them seem particularly bothered that reality is perceived through our senses as a false illusion.

Edit: oop, phrasing. I'm not saying God is fictional. Merely that I can describe the wants of an entity, even if I don't think it exists

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Evolution is not finished; reason is not the last word nor the reasoning animal the supreme figure of Nature. As man emerged out of the animal, so out of man the superman emerges.