Yuku free message boards

In other words, science will never reach zero. It is therefore logical that there must have been an entity with no beginning with the power to create something from absolute nothingness.

1. We have reason to believe all events have a cause
2. The big bang is an event
3. Therefore we have reason to believe the big bang had a cause.

Without the creation of time the rest of creation could not proceed.

That is not my argument. The singularity was not an event, but it existed, therefore it was created.

If it was not created, in other words had no beginning, then the singularity is science's name for God whether they meant it to be or not.

> This merely goes back to my previous argument. In saying that "it existed, therefore it was created"

Only in the sense that it is made up of something even if it is only energy.

> But according to this line of reasoning, if God exists he also needs a creator.

Only if God is corporeal in some way, but God is not.

One of the descriptions of God that comes down to us from Greek philosophy is that God is pure thought, pure spirit.

> if one thing does not need a creator why does anything need one?

Logic.

> Also, I'm getting the impression that you are defining the word "god" to mean anything that is not created.

No, only God was not created.

science tells us that before the Big Bang time did not exist, therefore time had a beginning, it was created.

In a sense science views the universe like magic except in its case the magic is math.

Most of our view of the universe is based on mathematical equations.

> How do you conclude that only one thing need not be created and why should this thing be God?

Logic.

> I linked you to a paper that showed in detail why our current level of science indicates that spacetime does not need to be caused (created).

Please refresh my memory.

I will reread the paper, but are you asserting that this paper is the definitive answer to the question of space/time?

The problem here is that you chide me for accepting the theological research of prominent theologians as speculation, but you accept the findings of a scientific paper as the definitive answer to the problem of space/time because it happens to fit your world view.

The question that comes to mind is this, can space/time, in and of itself, cause matter to be created? If so, how?

Well, we examine God with reason and logic.

> Here is the link again.

Thanks. I am afraid that he makes my point. The universe is finite and if it entails a singularity, a singularity is made up of matter, matter must be created.

An argument of this sort avoids the problems in Newton-Smith's argument, for it does not argue from macroscopic events to something that is neither macroscopic nor an event, but argues from events in general to another event or set of events, the Big Bang. Furthermore, it does not violate the singularity theorems in supposing that the space-time manifold is extended beyond a singularity.

His argument in no way precludes a divine creator.

I believe you need to define "caused " here. Would you not say that the pressure within the singularity "caused" the explosion that created the universe? please clarify your meaning.

I will recheck that, but if memory serves the sub-atomic particles appear within the context of dark energy ( I think I am close). Two problems that I see: first, energy is something and thus must be created; second, who is to say that the sub-atomic particles that appear for a nano-second and then disappear are not the combining of two micro-atomic particles that are so unstable that they part as soon as they join together?

As the article explains the basis of Heisenberg's uncertainty relation is:-

delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi) (13)

where E [is equivalent to] energy, t [is equivalent to] time and h [is equivalent to] Planck's constant. This relation implies that if the energy of a particle is measured precisely, so that delta-E is made very small, the time at which the particle possesses this energy can be known only imprecisely, so that delta-t is very large. Now if delta-t is small enough, delta-E becomes so large that it becomes impossible in principle to determine if the law of energy conservation is violated. During the interval of time

delta-t [is congruent to] (h/(4*pi)*delta-E (14)

this law is inapplicable and consequently an amount of energy delta-E can spontaneously come into existence and then (before the interval has elapsed) cease to exist. There is observational evidence, albeit indirect, that this uncaused emergence of energy or particles (notably virtual particles) frequently occurs. It appears, then, that the argument (11)-(12) is unsuccessful and that the crucial step in the argument to a supernatural cause of the Big Bang, or more exactly, of the Big Bang₁, is faulty.

Hi Bob,

There are mysteries within many disciplines including science.

The difference between religious mysteries and scientific mysteries is that "religious mysteries" are invoked to cover up irrationalities in the belief system. They are premised on the fact that there is a supernatural force that transcends logic and rationality. They do not merely signify a lack of knowledge, but a lack of rationality. To say that theologians try to unravel religious mysteries is a bit ingenuous. What they are really trying to do is manufacture arguments that make the irrational sound rational.

The belief in the omni-properties of god despite the existence of suffering and evil is a case in point - these properties are maintained to be true despite the fact that they are intrinsically illogical. This is irrational.

Science, when confronted with a contradiction of this sort, readily admits that something is wrong with our understanding, our perception of scientific fundamentals, or perhaps our observations. In resolving the problem it is not limited by dogma - any solution that matches the facts qualifies as a solution.

The term "scientific mystery" is not generally used by scientists and certainly is never resorted to as an explanation of anything, nor as a means of covering up irrationality. Rather it is a term that signifies a lack of knowledge or understanding and an invitation to more exploration. Historically such mysteries have lead to the overturning of what was thought at the time to be fundamental scientific principals - the fact that time moves differently depending on our relative speeds, that gravity is "merely" warping of space and that all life evolved from a common ancestor are but a few of instances where there has been a fundamental shift in our understanding - where the old models have been thrown out to make way for the new.

With all due respect, Gary, I understood it perfectly. ... Free falling particles, paths of tachyons are all elements that must somehow be created from something.

you forget that Heisenberg was a practicing Evangelical Christian,

> "uncaused" minimally means "in principle unpredictable".

Why does it have to be predictable to be "caused"? When I shoot the puck at the net in ice hockey and score I have caused a goal, but that I would score is not perdictable as the chances are I will not. To posit posit that the goal was uncaused is illogical.

theologians strive to uncover the mysteries of faith.

Their disciplines are different, but their goal is the same.

My position is this: everything that has a beginning must be created; God had no beginning, thus God was not created.

If you wish to argue that there could be an infinite number of gods knock yourself out, but there is one God whether you wish to acknowledge him as the God of Abraham or the rainbow serpent.

> Einstein was a Jew (and probably atheist) - does that mean that before you can personally accept the theory of general relativity you must deny that Jesus was the Messiah?

????? Where in the world did that come from?

The point is that despite his research and perhaps because of his research, he remained a committed Christian. In other words, he saw no conflict between his uncertainty principle and his belief in God. One must, at the very least, take pause and ponder that fact, not just chalk it up to irrationality.

When I hit the puck it always moves at random.

Seriously, what you are suggesting is that the laws of physics do not always apply.

Although their disciplines are different the theologian and scientist use similiar methods in the work.

If a theologian should decide that Jesus is not God he would have to deny many of the underlying principles of Christian faith such as the divine inspiration of bible, the infallibility of the ecumenical councils, the Trinity, et al.

But it has been posited by many, including Hawking, that time did not exist before the Big Bang.

> I'll accept any number from zero to infinity. I just want to know why 'one' is the only answer.

Logic. Any other answer leads immedately to polytheism something the Greeks rejected 2,500 years ago. More than one entity without a beginning and with infinite power is illogical.

I was merely pointing out that Heisenberg, despite his extreme intellect and his pursuit of the scientific answer to the origins of the universe, was still a believing Christian

Theologians and scientists do not usually set out to falsify established truths.

Catholic theologians take non-Catholic and non-Christian theologians very seriously.

Here is a link to one of Hawking's public lectures. This is what I was trying to cut and paste on the fly.

> I also note the Pope's injunction to scientists not to inquire into the moment of the Big Bang because it was the work of God. Hardly supportive of an open search for truth.

If Hawking is right it is a mute point.

> What is infinite power and why is more than one entity with infinite power more or less logical than a single one?

If there were more than one the ordered universe as we know it would not exist. With infinite power you would have infinite egos. Sorry, only one is logical.

Ah, so only Atheists can search for the origins of the universe.