toldailytopic: How did the universe come into existence?

[alwight]

---Quote (Originally by
alwight)---
A material explanation is
unknown but that doesn't
mean a material cause can
therefore be put aside in
favour of a supernatural one.-------A material cause cannot be put aside but neither can a supernatural either. If a material cause is unknown, however, you cannot claim that a material origin for the universe is a far superior idea to a supernatural origin.

I'm only interested in what really happened, whatever it was, not something which some might have a prior doctrinal agenda to suppose could possibly have been the case. I'm not against the supernatural per se, but I am against its presupposition unless a supernatural can somehow be established to exist, else all we actually have is material and natural imo.

--- This is especially true when a plot can be put together that starts with specific creative events and show how they work scientifically and how that starting point better explains the evidence that we see today.

The task of a supernatural advocate imo is to perhaps demonstrate that something beyond the material even exists before any such presumptions can be offered for otherwise apparently natural material phenomena.
It is only the presumption or pre-conclusion, by some, of a supernatural else there would be nothing other than the material to be considered, even if sadly we are still ultimately none the wiser.

 

[rexlunae]

. . . I have an engineering degree . . . something I think OEJ . . . lacks.

Still, you gotta give him credit for trying to understand it. And the explanations for this other force are admittedly very, very weird. "Dark energy..."

 

[Silent Hunter]

Still, you gotta give him credit for trying to understand it.

Well . . . I'm not overly impressed. I would think that he would have a basic understanding of physic at least.

And the explanations for this other force are admittedly very, very weird. "Dark energy..."

Again . . . I'm not overly impressed. Dark Energy is hypothetical and somehow accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe :liberals:. What I'd like to see is the data from 5 mya when this so-called acceleration began so it can be compared to today :think: :thumb:.

 

[rexlunae]

Dark Energy is hypothetical and somehow accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe :liberals:.

It's one of a very small number of explanations we have for it. And it was largely invented to fill the explanatory void.

What I'd like to see it the data from 5 mya when this so-called acceleration began so it can be compared to today :think: :thumb:.

I don't know where you get this 5 mya. My understanding is that the expansion is thought to have been accelerating since the Big Bang.

 

[voltaire]

-----Alwight. So before i can propose any supernatural explanation, i must provide natural evidence for its existence? Do you realize how that sounds like sheer lunacy? How do you find evidence for the supernatural in a world where only natural phenomena can be detected? That is an impossible demand. And then to imagine that without such evidence, there is no validity to claims of supernatural causes to the origins of natural phenomena is ludicris. All it shows is a fascistic and closed mind.

 

[voltaire]

It is only the presumption
or pre-conclusion, by some,
of a supernatural else there
would be nothing other
than the material to be
considered, even if sadly we
are still ultimately none
the wiser.------ The creationist does not presume or conclude as fact the existence of the supernatural. It is taken on faith. He believes it. When discussing matters of origins with atheists, the creationist is merely showing how feasible a supernatural explanation can actually be as an alternative to a purely natural one. He believes he can also show it to be a superior explanation as well. The fact that the supernatural cannot be detected in the natural realm is not a valid reason to reject it as a possible explanation for origins.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's one of a very small number of explanations we have for it. And it was largely invented to fill the explanatory void.

Agreed.

I don't know where you get this 5 mya. My understanding is that the expansion is thought to have been accelerating since the Big Bang.

Implications for the fate of the universe

"Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that the expansion was decelerating due to the attractive influence of dark matter and baryons."

 

[Silent Hunter]

So before i can propose any supernatural explanation, i must provide natural evidence for its existence? Do you realize how that sounds like sheer lunacy? How do you find evidence for the supernatural in a world where only natural phenomena can be detected? That is an impossible demand. And then to imagine that without such evidence, there is no validity to claims of supernatural causes to the origins of natural phenomena is ludicris. All it shows is a fascistic and closed mind.

No . . . it doesn't.

It is only the presumption
or pre-conclusion, by some,
of a supernatural else there
would be nothing other
than the material to be
considered, even if sadly we
are still ultimately none
the wiser.------ The creationist does not presume or conclude as fact the existence of the supernatural. It is taken on faith. He believes it. When discussing matters of origins with atheists, the creationist is merely showing how feasible a supernatural explanation can actually be as an alternative to a purely natural one. He believes he can also show it to be a superior explanation as well. The fact that the supernatural cannot be detected in the natural realm is not a valid reason to reject it as a possible explanation for origins.

Yes . . . it is.

 

[alwight]

-----Alwight. So before i can propose any supernatural explanation, i must provide natural evidence for its existence? Do you realize how that sounds like sheer lunacy? How do you find evidence for the supernatural in a world where only natural phenomena can be detected? That is an impossible demand. And then to imagine that without such evidence, there is no validity to claims of supernatural causes to the origins of natural phenomena is ludicris. All it shows is a fascistic and closed mind.

You can of course suppose anything (supernatural) you want, but unless it conforms to some material rules and physics in some way it will never be testable, reproducible or falsifiable. Those who don't find bald assertion convincing will not be swayed I suggest.
It seems to me that if a supposed supernatural exists but has no physical imprint at all on material reality then it simply may as well not exist as far as we can know. How can anyone then rationally advocate or conclude any such supernatural?
In lieu of any supernaturally derived real evidential material there seems to me anyway, little point in such claims beyond maybe having something comforting (possibly) to believe in.

It is only the presumption
or pre-conclusion, by some,
of a supernatural else there
would be nothing other
than the material to be
considered, even if sadly we
are still ultimately none
the wiser.------ The creationist does not presume or conclude as fact the existence of the supernatural. It is taken on faith. He believes it. When discussing matters of origins with atheists, the creationist is merely showing how feasible a supernatural explanation can actually be as an alternative to a purely natural one. He believes he can also show it to be a superior explanation as well. The fact that the supernatural cannot be detected in the natural realm is not a valid reason to reject it as a possible explanation for origins.

Then all you can ever hope to do however is to assert, not demonstrate, your version of a particular supernatural since real material facts do not tend to support creationism. I contend that there is no basis to suppose any particular non-natural aspect to the origin of the universe, even if, yes, supernaturally was how it actually did happen.
Without any demonstrable material physical elements of your particular version of a supernatural then imo it has no more validity or value to it than anyone else’s claimed albeit possibly deeply held convictions of a quite different supernatural.
Occam’s razor imo should therefore be applied to all such claims which does rather leave only the natural, falsifiable and material, at least when we are talking about what seems to have only a natural physical reality to it, as far as anyone can show.

 

[mighty_duck]

-----Alwight. So before i can propose any supernatural explanation, i must provide natural evidence for its existence? Do you realize how that sounds like sheer lunacy? How do you find evidence for the supernatural in a world where only natural phenomena can be detected? That is an impossible demand. And then to imagine that without such evidence, there is no validity to claims of supernatural causes to the origins of natural phenomena is ludicris. All it shows is a fascistic and closed mind.

At the very least, you need some testable way to predict how the "supernatural" effects the natural, or describe the mechanisms involved. Otherwise, you don't really have an explanation, do you?

 

[agnostic_gnostic]

Of course anything I say will be pure speculation as it is with any hominid's theories about the ultimate answer. Anyway, now that we are thru with the obligatory humility...

God is not an explanation of how something can come from nothing. God is an explanation of how something can come from something ( God).
---------------
I wrote the below at another site.
Life, the universe and everything
I realize that all encompassing philosophies are frowned upon. However, I see nothing wrong with speculating. Anyway, here goes;
1.Laws of nature do not exist in a Platonic realm, if anything they are descriptions of how things are rather than laws from some transcendental realm that move our reality to and fro.
2. As such if we postulate a creation ( in other words we do not believe in an infinite past) then there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, including the laws of nature.
3. If there are no laws of nature than everything is allowed
4. This explains how something can come from nothing.
5. Since this creation is not restricted by any law of nature almost everything actually happens.
6. This coincides with the many worlds hypothesis.
7. Most "universes" will be chaotic ( even their laws of nature will be chaotic, IE;not logical).
8. Only those " universes" that are capable of creating life will have life and the laws of nature of those universes must not be chaotic, they must be logical. Because in a universe that isn't logical , life ( on a biological mechanical level) is impossible.
9. That is why we are amazed at the stunning "coincidences" that our universe seems to be made just for us.*

I numbered my points so that I will not get general criticisms, but specific objections that can actually be helpful.
-------------
* I have found that many educated people have a misunderstanding of the anthropic principle.The anthropic principle is often misunderstood as saying that the universe was designed for us. However, it does not.If we have an infinite amount of universes, only those that are logical will support life ( since life is mechanical), therefore from our perspective ( sense we do not see the other chaotic universes) our universe will seem miraculously logical, as if it was fine tuned just for us. However, we are not a miracle. Its just that we do not see all the chaotic universes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"
Hawking
Note that I am taking the bold route and saying that nothing breathes fire into them. That literally nothing ( including no laws of nature) created the universe.
Laws of nature are descriptions , universals and abstractions they cannot cause anything.
Also, postulating a God is not an explanation ( note that I am not at this point in time pro or con God's existence) . All I am saying is that God cannot be an explanation of how something can come from nothing. Not only is a ultimately meaningless infinite regress created, the fact is, is that God is an explanation of how something can come from something ( God) and not a ultimate explanation, how something can come from nothing.

 

[agnostic_gnostic]

At the quantum level, the laws of logic are violated.* This implies that logic is not intrinsic to reality. And why should it be? Our logic evolved for the mundane purpose of helping us survive. Not to answer, how something can come from nothing. Note that I am not saying that there is an explanation for why things exist and we are just too stupid to understand it. I am making the bolder claim that there is no explanation! Explanations are rooted in biology not physics!
* That is why paraconsistent logic was developed. The logical contradictions at the Quantum level cannot be allowed to engulf our normal reality. For example, if at the quantum level A does not = A then logic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion ) proves that the queen of England eats unicorns!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

 

[agnostic_gnostic]

In post 211 I mentioned the Many-worlds interpretation of QM ( point 6 )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he4s1twmn7E

 

[Samstarrett]

Agnostic_gnostic, did you just use logic to prove the non-existence of logic?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, that's not it. In order for the Universe to be accelerating against gravity, some other force has to be acting on it.

I don't think you're gonna get more force than the Big Bang. That's supposed to be what got this whole thing started.

If gravity were braking without some other force being applied, we'd be decelerating.

Something seems to be making the expansion accelerate. I'm just thinking that as things move away from each other, their gravitational attraction towards one another will decrease. That's gotta have some kind of an effect.

Anyway, it was just a guess.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

At the quantum level, the laws of logic are violated.*

Doesn't that depend on which model you're talking about? The Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds hypothesis aren't the only ones.

 

[rexlunae]

I don't think you're gonna get more force than the Big Bang. That's supposed to be what got this whole thing started.

Right, but that can't be the cause of present acceleration.

Something seems to be making the expansion accelerate. I'm just thinking that as things move away from each other, their gravitational attraction towards one another will decrease. That's gotta have some kind of an effect.

That's true. The gravitational attraction diminishes with distance, therefore the braking is less. But that can't account for acceleration. All that it could account for is decreasing deceleration. That's why we're stuck with weird hacks like dark energy.

Anyway, it was just a guess.

:thumb:

 

[John Mortimer]

That's true. The gravitational attraction diminishes with distance, therefore the braking is less. But that can't account for acceleration. All that it could account for is decreasing deceleration.

That's right - and it is important to be clear that decreasing deceleration is not the same as acceleration.

This fact of the expansion of the universe actually accelerating demonstrates that there is something beyond the material universe.
For the expansion to accelerate there must be energy flowing into the material universe.
So not only is the material universe not all there is - the material universe is not a thermodynamically closed system either.

 

[voltaire]

The accelerating expansion of the universe is caused by what mainstream science calls dark energy. It is a property of space time itself. The creationist believes this dark energy is the power of God himself and is mentioned in the bible where it speaks of God keeping the universe intact through his power. The atheist or naturalist is uncertain as to its nature or origin but say it may come from the vacuum energy.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That's right - and it is important to be clear that decreasing deceleration is not the same as acceleration.

In physics "deceleration" is negative acceleration.

This fact of the expansion of the universe actually accelerating demonstrates that there is something beyond the material universe.

:think:

:rotfl:

. . . that something (as yet unknown) in the "material" universe is the "cause" is more probable.

For the expansion to accelerate there must be energy flowing into the material universe.

. . . the energy state of the universe is decreasing due to expansion . . . the amount of energy per unit volume changes as the "size" of the universe increases.

So not only is the material universe not all there is - the material universe is not a thermodynamically closed system either.

. . . ah . . . ok . . . ?