The Origin of the Universe

[ProHypster]

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

Why would a Big Bang happen though.

Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter.

This is the confusing part.

That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me.

I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason.

 

What do you think?

 

Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it?

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing.

Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway?

So how is atheism possible?

I want to hear some answers.

 

It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/

I want to ask you a question first. How exactly do you justify drawing a positive conclusion (a prime mover in your case) from a lack of data?

Why is "a god did it" a better position than simply saying "I don't know"

 

Actually most intelligent monotheists (sorry) say "I think god did it, but I don't know"....

 

Because it seems like life/world is something rather then nothing, therefore I assume there is something behind the universe rather then nothing.

 

But maybe the whole atheism movement is because there is a huge misunderstanding of what god is. I think god has been used in as many variations as communism has.

 

@Daniel, I don't believe life is perfect, life is a prison with limited freedom, and we are powerless to the laws of life.

[danielsangeo]

But, like the puddle analogy, there probably isn't a reason for the hole's existence, so, why must there be a reason for the universe's existence? Why can't it just be "there"? Again, this presupposes an intelligent force of some sort that is not in evidence.

 

I don't like to assume things that aren't in evidence and the atheists I've talked to (I've talked to a lot) aren't atheists because they misunderstand "god"...it's because they don't see any evidence of one.

 

If you want to go Biblical, Thomas, Jesus' apostle, refused to believe that Jesus has been resurrected until he had evidence for himself.

 

Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

 

It's not until later that Jesus gave him evidence:

 

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

That's what atheists want. That's what I want.

[WonSul]

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

 

The Big Bang is just a theory.

But considering the information we have to go on it's a reasonable idea.

What we know is that there is a uniform microwave background radiation throughout the known Universe that we can observe.

We also know that almost all galaxies are red shifted, indicating that the Universe is expanding.

 

Now play those two pieces of evidence backwards. As we go back in time, the Universe is compressing, and the radiation is increasing. What would the universe be if you keep playing this evidence backwards?

Whatever theory one goes with, it has to explain these two pieces of evidence, at least.

 

The overall picture is that the Universe plays backwards to an increasingly hotter point, The volume is decreasing and the pressure is increasing.

 

Here's the wiki for Background radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

And a source on Red shifted galaxies (doppler effect)

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/doppler.html

 

If anyone really wants to know what was before the first instant of time. All you really need to do is ask what came before whatever God you happen to prefer. And if you have an answer to that, then ask yourself what came before whatever created the God that you happen to prefer. Keep doing this process till you realize that the entire question is a waste of your time.

 

Proceed.

[ProHypster]

But, like the puddle analogy, there probably isn't a reason for the hole's existence, so, why must there be a reason for the universe's existence? Why can't it just be "there"? Again, this presupposes an intelligent force of some sort that is not in evidence.

 

I don't like to assume things that aren't in evidence and the atheists I've talked to (I've talked to a lot) aren't atheists because they misunderstand "god"...it's because they don't see any evidence of one.

 

If you want to go Biblical, Thomas, Jesus' apostle, refused to believe that Jesus has been resurrected until he had evidence for himself.

 

Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

 

It's not until later that Jesus gave him evidence:

 

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 

That's what atheists want. That's what I want.

Evidence of a force behind life?

What else could make life if not a force?

 

And to WonSul, why would there need to be eternal force behind eternal force? Eternal force always existed in the monotheist theory.

[danielsangeo]

Evidence of a force behind life?

What else could make life if not a force?

 

That's not evidence. That's a logical fallacy.

 

And to WonSul, why would there need to be eternal force behind eternal force? Eternal force always existed in the monotheist theory.

 

Why would there need to be an eternal force behind the universe?

[ProHypster]

That wasn't supposed to be evidence but a question daniel,

What is evolution, if not a force.

We are going somewhere with evolution, we came from something, that's the work of a force, do you understand me?

I mean force is all around us if you look, we age, energy transfers happen all the time because of a force, they don't Just happen

 

Or do you think otherwise?

[danielsangeo]

That wasn't supposed to be evidence but a question daniel,

What is evolution, if not a force.

We are going somewhere with evolution, we came from something, that's the work of a force, do you understand me?

I mean force is all around us if you look, we age, energy transfers happen all the time because of a force, they don't Just happen

 

Or do you think otherwise?

 

Force, yes. Is there an intelligence behind said "force", though?

[WonSul]

And to WonSul, why would there need to be eternal force behind eternal force? Eternal force always existed in the monotheist theory.

 

Eternal force?

I have no clue what you're trying to say with this. Is this trying to answer the "what came before god?" concept I mentioned?

[danielsangeo]

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time.

 

Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept.

 

You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again?

 

Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again?

 

Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles?

 

Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

[WonSul]

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time.

 

Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept.

 

You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again?

 

Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again?

 

Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles?

 

Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

 

 

I like the way you put it, my professor simply related it to a logical impossibility, like the color of a number. But that generally just leaves people raising their eyebrows as it doesn't really allow for visualization.

[ProHypster]

That wasn't supposed to be evidence but a question daniel,

What is evolution, if not a force.

We are going somewhere with evolution, we came from something, that's the work of a force, do you understand me?

I mean force is all around us if you look, we age, energy transfers happen all the time because of a force, they don't Just happen

 

Or do you think otherwise?

 

Force, yes. Is there an intelligence behind said "force", though?

Depends on if they are somehow connected....

Force could be god for all I know.

[ProHypster]

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time.

 

Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept.

 

You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again?

 

Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again?

 

Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles?

 

Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

And another thing I don't understand is why all scientists try to put a geometrical shape to everything, for example you are talking of earth (A sphere) as if it is the same as time.

Why is time a sphere???? Could it not be just an entity that stretches forever, maybe a line if you need geometrical terms.

[ProHypster]

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time.

 

Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept.

 

You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again?

 

Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again?

 

Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles?

 

Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

 

 

I like the way you put it, my professor simply related it to a logical impossibility, like the color of a number. But that generally just leaves people raising their eyebrows as it doesn't really allow for visualization.

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang came from a logical impossibility?

[WonSul]

I think that "eternal force" or something similar posits a "before the Big Bang". The word "before" is meaningless at this extremity of time.

 

Think of it this way, for those that can't grasp the concept.

 

You are on some place on planet Earth, right? You can move "south" from where you are, right? So, move south. Now, can you move south from that point? Sure. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the South Pole. Can you move south again?

 

Inversely, move north from where you are now. Keep at it. Eventually, you'll reach the North Pole. Can you move north again?

 

Why can you move "south" or "north" from where you are but not at the poles?

 

Because, "north from the North Pole"/"south from the South Pole" is as meaningless as "before the Big Bang".

 

 

I like the way you put it, my professor simply related it to a logical impossibility, like the color of a number. But that generally just leaves people raising their eyebrows as it doesn't really allow for visualization.

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang came from a logical impossibility?

What?

No, I was talking about how my professor related the question of "what came before the big bang" to a logical impossibility. That since time starts with the big bang, there cannot be anything before. As that would be asking what comes before time.

[ProHypster]

So the cause of Big Bang is a logical impossibility though. (As the cause is before the event)

 

May I ask who your professor is? (What department)

[WonSul]

So the cause of Big Bang is a logical impossibility though. (As the cause is before the event)

 

I wasn't talking about the cause.

Actually I don't think I even mentioned a cause at all yet.

 

 

What department that professor was in? Geo science. Or Earth science if you prefer.

 

I don't know what the Big Bang theory states as the cause. I'm not an expert on the theory. Nor do I know it in detail. What I do know is the red shifts and the background radiation.

If you playback the expanding universe and the background radiation to the start. The starting state of the universe is not stable. It's under a lot of pressure, at very high temperature and is compressed to a small volume. There is no need for a spark or anything of that nature, as the conditions themselves are a cause. The universe cannot stay under those conditions and since the pressure and temperature cannot decrease, the volume must increase.

 

That's what the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume suggests.

[ProHypster]

The starting state of the universe is not stable. It's under a lot of pressure, at very high temperature and is compressed to a small volume. There is no need for a spark or anything of that nature, as the conditions themselves are a cause. The universe cannot stay under those conditions and since the pressure and temperature cannot decrease, the volume must increase.

But in the theory there is no time, nor general relation in the compressed universe.

And if the universe can't stay under those conditions then why did it?

[danielsangeo]

The theory, as I understand it, states that spacetime began with quantum fluctuations which destabilized the "point" and caused the "Bang".

 

What caused these quantum fluctuations?

 

We don't know. There's no evidence TO know....yet.

 

Some hypothesize that the universe undergoes a series of "bangs" and "crunches". That the cause of the "Big Bang" is the "Big Crunch".

Edited May 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

What do you mean there is no evidence.

 

It happened, didn't it?

You are alive aren't you? Or are you not, maybe.

 

EDIT: So the hypothesis would then make the universe never ending matter and energy that lives a circular life? So then life is reborn every universal cycle....

It's a neat hypothesis

Edited May 28, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[danielsangeo]

What do you mean there is no evidence.

 

It happened, didn't it?

You are alive aren't you? Or are you not, maybe.

 

We don't have evidence of what started these quantum fluctuations, silly. The evidence is probably out there for us to find, but we haven't found it.....yet.