singularity

If you cant tell me where this "singularity" that supposedly happened before the universe was created, then we need not go further. You see, if no one created the singularity, then the universe would have ALREADY existed.

We all know that matter is neither created or destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics). This law governs everything in this universe because no one as ever created matter, nor destroyed it. So what created this singularity? Whatever this singularity was, it MUST follow the 1st law of thermodynamics, because if the universe came about from it, then it MUST follow the law. But it doesnt, because it was created! What can explain this? God.

"What can explain this? God."

Ok, so you stumbled upon something you cannot explain. So you create an invisible magical all powerfull being called God that must explain it. Why?

Just because you dont know the answer to the question, doesn't mean there is a God. You just don't know the answer.

"Just because you dont know the answer to the question, doesn't mean there is a God. You just don't know the answer."

Why dont you try looking at both sides. Why dont you study the bible, and study the evolutionist side of things. Then you tell me the answer. There has to be an answer, because things just dont come out of nowhere. My answer, after years of research and years of searching, is God.

"Ok, so you stumbled upon something you cannot explain. So you create an invisible magical all powerfull being called God that must explain it. Why?"

Firstly I cannot explain it, God does. Secondly, I did not create God. Can you find an explanation? As I have stated, this singularity can never be explained with earthly thinking, because it violates a law (1st thermo) in which the universe is governed by. The bible explains it and if you allow yourself to gravitate your faith, you'd see it. But as the bible states, only those who seek Him will reach Him. If not, then I guess he is invisible.

I dont think that he was saying that he doesn't believe in God because of science...he was just pointing out that because you can't explain something doesn't nessessarily happen to mean that God is the explanation behind it...although I think your correct.

Well, if you want to apply the laws of science then you must also accept the fact that whatever was on the other side of that singularity can't have any effect on this side. All information of the prior universe is destroyed in the singularity, leaving only indistinguishable mass. So even if there were a creator on the other side he wouldn't be active here. He would be forever cut off from his creation.

I mean, if you are trying to scientifically explain things, then you can't pick and choose only what supports your idea.

Also, the laws of thermodynamics don't necessarily apply to the singularity of the big bang. We aren't sure of the properties inside that. Everything was so dense and crazy that the forces like nuclear and magnetic were all mixed up. After the first few trillionths of a second after the big bang they seperated and the laws began to apply. But before that it's hard to know. So you misapplied the law of thermodynamics there.


Although you didn't explain anything in science. You used a few snippets of science and tried to couple that with an appeal to ignorance to make it sound kind of feasible.

BTW nothing you stated in your first post is the evolutionist side of things. That's the cosmologist side.

"So even if there were a creator on the other side he wouldn't be active here. He would be forever cut off from his creation. "

That´s based on the assumtion that information and/or God is materialistic.

Isn't that what kal is doing by trying to justify God scientifically?

I have no problem with someone believing in God by faith. But when you try to use science to justify God then you have to keep it in the realm of science. And that's the problem. You have to introduce non-scientific elements in order to give God a place. Like making him non-materialistic. Well, you just put yourself in a hole because science can't explain that. So you just ran yourself in a circle.

There's also another problem withthese explanations that I find odd that noone notices. When you explain Him you destroy Him. When an ancient culture made sacrifices during an eclipse to appease their god we find that archaic because everyone knows that it's just the moon getting in the way, not some angry god eating the sun. Yet people all the time try to find a way to make God scientifically feasible. For instance all the attempts to try to make the flood physically possible. Like "Dr" Hovind's supposed theory that the water from the flood came from a comet. Even though that's impossible, assuming it could be explained naturally, where is the need for God? Wouldn't crediting a diety with something that is explained naturally archaic whether it's an eclipse or flood?

"Isn't that what kal is doing by trying to justify God scientifically? "

Perhaps, I don´t know.

"You have to introduce non-scientific elements in order to give God a place."

Like you have to introduce non-scientific (non-empiric) elements in order to give material objects a place. Like assuming causation and that material objects actually (and only) exist. Well, you just put yourself in a hole because science can't explain that. So you just ran yourself in a circle.

Like you though I don´t believe Religious Dogma and bad explenations that Science can provide better explenations of.

Like assuming that material objects actually (and only) exist. I said science can only explain the material objects. Non-material objects are outside the scope of science. I never said that they can't exist. What I'm saying is if they do exist, science is unfit to explain it so kal's post is a catch 22. He's trying to use science outside of its limits. And that by definition makes him incorrect.

"Non-material objects are outside the scope of science."

Yes, because Science is unfortunatly a self-confirming activity. It assumes that only material objects exist, so they only look for material objects. Because they only look for material objects and causal explenations, that´s of course only what will be found. Thus it´s a self-confirming circle as well.

imo Science´s objective *should* be to understand what our Reality really is, and that can´t be done as long as Science works under it´s present assumptions.


But we agree that Science as it is today is unfit to explain things like God, Love, Free will, creativity, rational decisions etc.

I see it as rather science assuming only material things exist, science is aware of its limitations. It only deals with the material not because of an assumption of non-existance, but because it's futile to try.

Furthermore, science will always be unfit to explain things like God. That's why threads like these are so frustrating. Scientifically explaining God is impossible and a disservice to both God and science.

I'm growing exceptionally tired of answering this question.

First: Time, as we understand it, is only tracked to the start of the universe. Asking "What happened before" ONLY makes sense if you conceive of time as an infinite line. It's not. It's a ray with a specific start point. Asking "what came before" is a question without meaning because as far as our universe is concerned, nothing came before. There was no "before" for something to have happened in.

Secondly: We cannot see beyond the event horizon of the Universe. All singularities create an area, inside of which, we cannot see. The reason for this is that light--and therefore--information cannot escape from that area. The more massive the singularity, the larger the event horizon. We cannot see back in time beyond the event horizon.

Thirdly, the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't mean anything in this context. Within the singularity, the ENTIRE universe was bound up in a 0-dimensional point. The forces of the universe had not yet crystallized out independently. There was no 1st law of thermodynamics--the energies were so high that all the forces were combined into one animal--in other words, the physical laws of the universe as we understand them hadn't yet even come about.

To recap--we can't answer the question of what came before the event horizon and cosmologists don't even try. They recognize that limitation. You may put whatever you like beyond that event horizion. If you want it to be God, that's fine--but "beyond the event horizon" is different than "what came before," there IS no past as far as our universe is concerned beyond that point.

Finally, I'd just like to point out a couple of logical inconsistencies, because they really irk me.

1. If the universe "always" existed, then you are contradicting Creation. According to creation, God decided to make the heavens and the earth, and it was so. God created the Universe--it has not "always" been here.

2. You are setting up a straw man of infinite causation. The cause of the cause of the cause of the cause.... The problem with this is two fold:

a. There is nothing that prevents me from claiming the same thing about God--ie, what created God? And what created what created God? And....

b. The only solution to infinite causation--Concluding that God is the ultimate cause, requires that we start from the assumption that God is the ultimate cause. It's circular reasoning.

Here's a tip--get some books on cosmology and read them. You'll start to understand how the whole subject is approached. I'm done writing primers on the issue for the intellectually lazy.

"I see it as rather science assuming only material things exist, science is aware of its limitations"

Well, that´s a better attitude imo. Not all Science-guys has that humble attitude though.

"Furthermore, science will always be unfit to explain things like God."

I don´t agree, because my view of what Science "should" be is different probably. I think Science should be able to explain our *whole* reality, including the existential aspects, like Free will and Love etc. Not *only* the material aspects.


I believe in the existence of a spiritual Science.

I was the one that said that I believed the Universe to always have existed, so perhaps you are adressing me Merryprankster, I dunno?

Well, I´ll reply anyway..


"1. If the universe "always" existed, then you are contradicting Creation. According to creation, God decided to make the heavens and the earth, and it was so. God created the Universe--it has not "always" been here."

I don´t believe that God created the Universe in a temporal sense, with other words -I´m no Creationist, so that doesn´t apply to my view.


"b. The only solution to infinite causation--Concluding that God is the ultimate cause, requires that we start from the assumption that God is the ultimate cause. It's circular reasoning."

You are right about that. I have to assume that God is the ultimate cause. In the same way, you will argue in a circle if you want to try to argue for the existence of material objects and for casuation. We all make meta-physical assumptions, wether we admit it or not.

The interesting choice (a thing that you as a materialist doesn´t have, but anyway ;), is imo to choose the metaphysics that makes you most happy, and that is least destructive from a existential perspective.

That is supposed to be the attitude of all scientists. To think otherwise isn't scientific.


Well, I think love can be explained materialistically, chemical reactions n' all. So can other things. But the supernatural, like God or spirits or the existance of a soul, Don't think it will happen. The "super" in supernatural already disqualifies the application of science. Although a lot of the other I think will set yourself up for a fall. A lot of that would fall into the realm of Philosophy of Science and personally I don't have a lot of use for that. It gets too close to psuedo-science for my tastes.

Fudo,

I was addressing this: then the universe would have ALREADY existed.

This implies there was a "before." There was no before.

Secondly, I'm not a materialist. I simply recognize that Science is a Logical Positivist endeavor, and attempting to either shoehorn science into a realm it can't handle---like using topology to write novels---or trying to pass something that ISN'T Logical Positivist as science is piss-poor.

kaliridah,

You wrote:


"If you cant tell me where this "singularity" that supposedly happened before the universe was created, then we need not go further. You see, if no one created the singularity, then the universe would have ALREADY existed."

Speaking about what happened before the singularity is like talking about what is 30 miles north of the North Pole. If you are asking about what transpired before the big bang you just don't understand the concept. Time itself began at the big bang... There was no before!

You also wrote:

"We all know that matter is neither created or destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics). This law governs everything in this universe because no one as ever created matter, nor destroyed it."

This statement is absolutly false! Physisists create matter all the time. They use particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. When you collide these particles you wind up with the electrons and positrons you started with and a host of other subatomic particles that were created from some of the kinetic energy in the collision. The equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has used to produced matter. This isn't to say that themodynamics isn't being preserved. It is interchangable with energy.


In the words of Stephen F. Roberts:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The laws of physics don't even apply to the Big Bang! If you plug in the equations when the universe is smaller than a melon, you get gibberish answers.

"Well, I think love can be explained materialistically, chemical reactions n' all. So can other things."

This reminds of when I read popular-Scientific articles or hear Radioshows where the reporter, journalist or the article says they think they have found the hormone or whatever that explains Love. I´m always very astonished by the amount of enthusiasm and joy that distinguishes the reporter or the article.

Thus it would be very interesting to listen or read the report that says that they have now found the hormone that explains these Scientists or journalists entusiasm and joy over when they think they have found such a Love-hormone. I wonder if that report would express the same kind of enthusiasm?


"It gets too close to psuedo-science for my tastes. "


"Pseudo" means not real, so I think this sentence shows pretty clearly that you have taken a stance on what is real and what is not in our world.

I'm growing exceptionally tired of answering this question.
"First: Time, as we understand it, is only tracked to the start of the universe. Asking "What happened before" ONLY makes sense if you conceive of time as an infinite line. It's not. It's a ray with a specific start point. Asking "what came before" is a question without meaning because as far as our universe is concerned, nothing came before. There was no "before" for something to have happened in."

Why dont you give me an example in our physical world that has no "before" or "cause" for something to have happen. There must be something else besides the big bang, or else how would you prove it.


"Secondly: We cannot see beyond the event horizon of the Universe. All singularities create an area, inside of which, we cannot see. The reason for this is that light--and therefore--information cannot escape from that area. The more massive the singularity, the larger the event horizon. We cannot see back in time beyond the event horizon."

In other words, you cant explain what happened and you choose not to believe in the supernatural.


"Thirdly, the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't mean anything in this context. Within the singularity, the ENTIRE universe was bound up in a 0-dimensional point. The forces of the universe had not yet crystallized out independently. There was no 1st law of thermodynamics--the energies were so high that all the forces were combined into one animal--in other words, the physical laws of the universe as we understand them hadn't yet even come about."

If you dont know what really happened in the beginning, how how do you know the laws of thermo dont apply? Has this been proven? Did some scientist try to sqeeze in a bunch of matter into a tiny spec?

" there IS no past as far as our universe is concerned beyond that point."

In other words, matter came from nowhere.


"1. If the universe "always" existed, then you are contradicting Creation. According to creation, God decided to make the heavens and the earth, and it was so. God created the Universe--it has not "always" been here."

Always existed was the criteria for the singularity view IMO. I never said the universe always existed.

"Here's a tip--get some books on cosmology and read them. You'll start to understand how the whole subject is approached. I'm done writing primers on the issue for the intellectually lazy."

Here's a tip for you. Get some books on GOd and read them. I too am done writing on this issue for the intellectually lazy.