how can we best explain our existence ?

Tsid502 · #1 27th May 2010, 06:33 AM

how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

Sir Patrick Crocodile · #2 27th May 2010, 07:48 AM

I pick #3 - The universe had a beginning, and we cannot explain it. However there is the Big Bang theory, and what happened before then is not known at this stage.

Tsid502 · #3 27th May 2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I pick #3 - The universe had a beginning, and we cannot explain it. However there is the Big Bang theory, and what happened before then is not known at this stage.

#3 states, the universe had a beginning, and therefore a CAUSE. Do you agree with this statement ?

owheelj · #4 27th May 2010, 08:50 AM

I don't really understand the question.

The evidence for the big bang is pretty conclusive. On the other hand, what do you mean by cause? Are you implying some kind of conscious decision? Your last post seems to suggest this. On the other hand, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the big bang occurred as a consequence of the conditions before the big bang, and that although we don't have the ability to know what these were, I would call this a cause. Cause is also very broad. If we could analyse the events leading up to the big bang we could come up with many causes, none of which would be wrong. "This particular particle collided with that particle." "Quantum fluctuations caused an energy gradient" etc.

It's also important to note that the big bang isn't really considered the start of the universe, but the start of the known universe, which may sound predantic, but what it's really saying is that we don't, and probably can't, know what occurred before it because of its nature - it destroyed or pushed away from us any evidence we could have found. There is as much evidence that it was the start of the universe as there is that the universe had no start - and that amount of evdience is none.

Tsid502 · #5 27th May 2010, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by owheelj

I don't really understand the question.

The evidence for the big bang is pretty conclusive. On the other hand, what do you mean by cause? Are you implying some kind of conscious decision? Your last post seems to suggest this. On the other hand, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the big bang occurred as a consequence of the conditions before the big bang, and that although we don't have the ability to know what these were, I would call this a cause. Cause is also very broad. If we could analyse the events leading up to the big bang we could come up with many causes, none of which would be wrong. "This particular particle collided with that particle." "Quantum fluctuations caused an energy gradient" etc.

It's also important to note that the big bang isn't really considered the start of the universe, but the start of the known universe, which may sound predantic, but what it's really saying is that we don't, and probably can't, know what occurred before it because of its nature - it destroyed or pushed away from us any evidence we could have found. There is as much evidence that it was the start of the universe as there is that the universe had no start - and that amount of evdience is none.

The Big Bang theory states, there was no physical " before ", since there was no time. Time itself began with the Big Bang as well.

the assertion our universe had most likely a absolute beginning is not just a claim of theists, but from well respected scientists, like Vilenkin :

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Big Bang - Physics Planet .com

There are some disquieting issues with this theory, at least to the non-Physicists. First, the singularity did not appear in space. Space did not exist before the big Bang and in fact, had to begin inside the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. So, where did it come from and why? We don’t know. All we do know is that we exist within space and at one time it did not exist and neither did we.

The Big Questions - In the Beginning - ABC Science Online

Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...nning-t199.htm

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

WikiAnswers - If the Big Bang came from a singularity where did the singularity come from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

Can anything 'real' be infinite?

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

GodwinGrey · #6 27th May 2010, 09:47 AM

[quote=owheelj;87663]I don't really understand the question.

The evidence for the big bang is pretty conclusive. On the other hand, what do you mean by cause? Are you implying some kind of conscious decision? Your last post seems to suggest this. On the other hand, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the big bang occurred as a consequence of the conditions before the big bang, and that although we don't have the ability to know what these were, I would call this a cause. Cause is also very broad. If we could analyse the events leading up to the big bang we could come up with many causes, none of which would be wrong. "This particular particle collided with that particle." "Quantum fluctuations caused an energy gradient" etc.

It's also important to note that the big bang isn't really considered the start of the universe, but the start of the known universe, which may sound predantic, but what it's really saying is that we don't, and probably can't, know what occurred before it because of its nature - it destroyed or pushed away from us any evidence we could have found. There is as much evidence that it was the start of the universe as there is that the universe had no start - and that amount of evdience is none.[/quote]

I agree, I don't think you can have any bang without a cause.

owheelj · #7 27th May 2010, 09:58 AM

lol, time for a lesson on how to quote?

Tsid502 obviously either knows a lot more about it than I do, or is good at copy pastes. My only knowledge of this subject is from reading pop science a while ago so maybe I'm confused, but I thought Stephen Hawking said that space-time (and thus, time) is almost certainly circular, and Lawrence Krauss in his book Hiding In The Mirror, I think suggested the same thing that i said, but it's years since I've read either of those people.

Although I concede that it's silly in science, especially with these kinds of issues, to go with what seems intuitive, it does seem difficult to understand how literally nothing could turn into the universe we have today, without any kind of cause. I find that as convincing a story as "God did it."

atheist_angel · #8 27th May 2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsid502

how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

Exactly how does this question relate to 'general chit-chat about atheism', again?

Are you trying to (dis)prove atheism ...with THIS question?