Re: big bang ?
From: Mitchell Jones (mjones_at_21cenlogic.com)
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: John Sefton: "Re: Inertia and Aspect Experiments"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: The simplicity of relativity (for TomGee and others)"
- In reply to: Mitchell Jones: "Re: big bang ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Mar 2005 13:52:26 EST
> In article <mjones-30BEF4.15223909032005@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>,
> Mitchell Jones <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1110332093.597108.280630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dave P. wrote:
> > > > On 7 Mar 2005 23:04:27 -0800, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>Specifically, if you believe that everything must have a "creator,"
> > > > >>why doesn't that apply to God? And if it does, how do we avoid
> > > concluding
> > > > >>that Supergod must have existed, to create God? On the other hand,
> > > if
> > > > >>we give God a special dispensation and allow that he may have
> > > always
> > > > >>existed, then what need do we have for the God hypothesis, since in
> > > > >>that case the universe itself may have always existed?
> > > >
> > > The Uncreated Creator too hard for you?
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Mr. Jones. If one can accept that God exists without the
> > > > need of a creator, then it is just as easy to accept that the
> > > universe
> > > > can exist without the need of a creator... especially so, since there
> > > > is no evidence of any God, the creator.
> > > >
> > > > Dave P.
> > > The rationalization of the atheists.
> > >
> > > The universe came from somewhere.
> >
> > ***{If the universe had to "come from somewhere," then logical
> > consistency requires that God also had to "come from somewhere." Result:
> > Supergod. But you reject Supergod. And yet you call me a moron. Well,
> > hey, if all else fails... :-) --MJ}***
> >
> > That is what the Big Bang is about -
> > > a begining.
> >
> > ***{Not really. It is just as far back as those particular theoretical
> > extrapolations can be taken, based on the premises of those making them.
> > Indeed, they believe that no inferences about details are allowed prior
> > to 10^-43 seconds after the big bang (the so-called "Planck time"), due
> > to quantum mechanical uncertainties. That does not mean nothing existed
> > before the big bang. It just means most theorists are hesitant to
> > speculate about it.
> >
> > There have, however, been some such speculations along those lines. For
> > example, some have alleged that the universe oscillates, meaning that
> > prior to the big bang there was a "big crunch" in which a prior universe
> > collapsed to form the ultradense condition out of which developed the
> > big bang, which then produced the present universe. By that
> > interpretation the current expansion will itself coast to a halt,
> > reverse into contraction, and crash down into yet another big crunch,
> > yielding up yet another ultradense condition, followed by another big
> > bang, and so on forever and ever.
> >
> > My own view is that the "big bang" is one of those fairy castles in the
> > sky that academic "physicists" spend their time playing in, at public
> > expense. Just as the definition of "God" has been tweaked each time the
> > advancement of knowledge led to the falsification of the previous
> > definition, so too has the definition of the big bang, and I do not view
> > this state of affairs as coincidental. My attitude toward the big bang,
> > however, is not a matter that is relevant to our dispute. What matters
> > here is that nothing implicit in the big bang theory requires that the
> > universe had a beginning.
>
> Oh?
> I'll show you where you're wrong.
> We can trace space back to the begining of time
> - space as a single point.
>
> We see that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
***{Yes, but cosmic acceleration was never part of the big bang theory.
It came as an unpleasant surprise to big bang proponents because none of
them expected it, and nothing in the theory predicted it. They are all
running around right now, struggling to come up with an explanation for
acceleration, and hoping against hope that the theory will survive it.
Well, they are right to be concerned, because it isn't going to survive.
Instead, this particular government subsidized false consensus is going
to collapse, as more and more information flows in which is incompatible
with the pull theory of gravitation. Gravity is a push from above, not a
pull from below, and cosmic acceleration is just one more piece of
evidence, in a rapidly growing accumulation, supportive of that
conclusion.
I had intended to say a lot more on this topic, but after wrestling with
it for several days it is apparent that I would have to write a book in
order to make my position clear. Since I don't have time for that
approach, I will simply offer to respond, if anyone has any specific
objections to the above.
As for the creationism which you have been peddling, I have responded
below.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> That's evidence there is no oscillation ahead and therefor none before
> - No crunch ahead so no crunch behind.
> The universe has a begining.
> And God is the beginer.
***{That's just foolishness. You allege that "God" created the universe
out of nothing. But if things can come into existence out of nothing,
then our sensations might be doing that. That would mean the external
world, our bodies, our brains, our memories, our emotions, our habits,
our understandings--quite literally everything we believe exists--may
not exist at all. That would mean no proof of anything is possible,
including the sorts of proofs that demonstrate a probability.
Suppose, for example, that someone says, "The broom is in the closet."
In an attempt to either verify or falsify that statement, you open the
closet door and look inside. But if you see no broom, it proves nothing:
the sensations which seem to indicate that the closet is empty may be
simply leaping into existence out of nothing. (And the sensations
indicating the broom is there may be vanishing into nothing.) Thus any
sort of sense based empirical demonstration, including those attempted
by scientists, becomes impossible once it is allowed that things may
leap into existence out of nothing.
The futility of probabilistic reasoning under such circumstances is also
easily demonstrated. The probability that our sensations are leaping
into existence out of nothing would be the number of times that has
happened, divided by the number of times it has and has not happened.
But in order to count such instances, we would need a means to apprehend
whether the sources of sensations are present or not, without using
sensations. That, obviously, is impossible. In addition, the notion of
the number of times something has happened rests on the idea that the
count one remembers is a measure of the past. But, obviously, the
sensations one thinks are coming from "memory" may have merely leaped
into existence out of nothing, and may not be a measure of anything at
all.
Deductive proofs likewise fail: what would be the point of attempting to
verify or falsify a deductive proof if, after you had slogged your way
from premises to conclusion, you had to allow that the memories you
acquired when doing so might be false--that memories of a flaw in the
proof may have vanished into nothing or that your memory of being
satisfied with it at every stage may have appeared out of nothing?
Clearly, deduction proves nothing, if you can't trust your memories of
the results of deduction.
The implication: without the ability to prove anything, or even to
demonstrate that one thing is more probable than another, no knowledge
of anything would be possible, including knowledge of "God" or even of
one's own existence. That means the principle of continuity--i.e., that
no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing--
is the foundation of the entire structure of knowledge. To claim that it
is false, or even that it *may* be false, is to engage in
self-contradiction. You would be claiming knowledge while implying that
nothing can be known. Thus the principle of continuity is certain truth,
because the denial that it is certain truth would be a claim to
knowledge, and no knowledge is possible without it.
Bottom line: your "God" who supposedly created the universe out of
nothing cannot exist, because we have certain knowledge--the principle
of continuity--which says that no thing may come into existence out of
nothing or vanish into nothing.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Anybody else want to challenge me?
>
> Bye. Bye.
>
> Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
> Thus if you want to use it to claim scientific
> > support for your view, you are barking up the wrong tree. Many prominent
> > big bang proponents (e.g., Nobelist Steven Weinberg) are avowed
> > atheists. Here, for example, is a quote from Weinberg:
> >
> > "As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can
> > understand more and more without any reference to supernatural
> > intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists
> > I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves
> > atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science --
> > that it has made it possible for people not to be religious." --Steven
> > Weinberg
> >
> > See http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm for lots
> > more along the same lines.
> >
> > --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> > So you must think that a mindless lump is the creator
> > > then Dave? That's where the universe came from?
> > >
> > > ... Another moron.
> >
> > ***{All you prove by calling people names is that you are out of
> > intellectual ammunition, but lack the good manners and the good sense
> > that ought to motivate you, at that point, to shut your mouth. But, hey,
> > you're a "good Christian!" That means we can overlook your lapses and
> > applaud the fact that you managed to put forth a grammatical sentence or
> > two. (We applaud when we see a monkey riding a bicycle, right? :-)
> > --MJ}***
- Next message: John Sefton: "Re: Inertia and Aspect Experiments"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: The simplicity of relativity (for TomGee and others)"
- In reply to: Mitchell Jones: "Re: big bang ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
