I'd rather say that the current state of our universe is attributable to the Big Bang.
Makes sense.
I'd say the Universe before its Big Bang period was that which existed.
That's still very vague though. "The universe" in that case could be anything from God to nothing to Cigarette-Smoking Genie. (Don't know if you've been following another thread in Physical Sciences or not to get that reference )
__________________ Don't worry, I'm from the Church and I'm here to help!
There is no conspiracy. Come along. The helicopter's waiting.
That's still very vague though. "The universe" in that case could be anything from God to nothing to Cigarette-Smoking Genie.
In any case, I think the second premise is presuming too much.
(Don't know if you've been following another thread in Physical Sciences or not to get that reference )
Nope, I've been neglecting the Physical Sciences forum ever since I got tired of the evolution vs creationism debates.
Originally Posted by Chesterton
That's a religous idea with no basis in science. Science can't address what it can't observe. And I agree with you: "that which existed" is God.
*raises eyebrow*
I didn't say 'that which existed' was God. I said that the Universe was that which existed before the expansionary period, which was an almost (?) infinitely dense, hot singularity.
__________________ Every thirty seconds, a child dies of malaria. For just $5, you can buy an insecticide-treated net that covers an entire family. The insecticide lasts for 4-5 years. Somewhere in the world, a child is dying from a preventable disease. It doesn't have to be this way. Google 'Against Malaria'.
Last edited by Nooj; 5th November 2009 at 12:27 PM.
That's still very vague though. "The universe" in that case could be anything from God to nothing to Cigarette-Smoking Genie. (Don't know if you've been following another thread in Physical Sciences or not to get that reference )
Damn, that genie's following me everywhere...
Originally Posted by Chesterton
That's a religous idea with no basis in science. Science can't address what it can't observe. And I agree with you: "that which existed" is God.
That as may be, but that doesn't tell us anything about 'God': whether it's the personal, concious, intelligent, prayer-answering deity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; whether it's a quantum singularity with no conciousness, intent, or will; or even whether it actually exists.
It's tantamount to a religious idea, but I don't think it's religious in and of itself. It's definitely unscientific, though.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
But would you say the previous Universe (whatever it was) is the cause of the current universe?
Believe me when I say I have no idea, but I'd love to find out. I'm agnostic about the issue of the ultimate origin of the Universe.
Another cosmological argument that has been adapted from Aquinas' argument from contingency. I might post that up later as well.
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of its existence.
The cause of its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
A couple of definitions, as Aquinas understood it:
Contingent = a thing that has within itself the potential of generation and corruption. In other words, it enters the world by generation and leaves by destruction. Like a human or a dog.
Necessary = something that doesn't. Aquinas thinks there are many necessary beings, like God, angels and the human soul. Either made up of material that can't break down, or they're immaterial.
The argument from contigency doesn't necessitate a beginning to the Universe. The Universe could be eternal, and still be caused by something...its eternal existence is owed to an eternal being. That's why theists will say that if you take away God, the Universe goes with him. Aquinas in fact didn't think it was demonstrable that the Universe had a beginning, probably influenced by his BFF Aristotle who believed in an eternal universe. Aquinas thought that creation ex nihilo was an article of faith that the Church and the Bible taught, so one should believe it, end of question.
Here are my thoughts:
1) When theists use this argument of contingency as a cosmological argument, they assume the Universe is a contingent thing. But what if the Universe is a necessary being? Then the argument in its current form is useless for theistic purposes.
2) Premise 5 is interesting. What about an infinite chain of contingent beings one after the other?
The argument doesn't address the issue of where the necessary being/beings come from, and that's where Aquinas' comes in. Right after giving the argument from contingency and establishing at least one necessary being, he writes:
Therefore, not every being is something that can not‐exist, but there needs to be something necessary in reality.
But everything necessary either has or does not have the ground of its necessity from another source. There cannot, however, be an endless regress in the case of necessary things that have the ground of their necessity in another source, just as there cannot be an endless regress in the case of efficient causes, as I have shown. We need, therefore, to posit something that is intrinsically necessary, that does not have the ground of its necessity from another source, but which causes other things to be necessary, and all call this intrinsically necessary being God.
Well first of all, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that an infinite regress is false. But lets say it is. He states that there's an intrinsically necessary being. It seems rather ad hoc to me, but lets say there is. Couldn't we say that this intrinsically necessary 'being' or thing is the Universe?
__________________ Every thirty seconds, a child dies of malaria. For just $5, you can buy an insecticide-treated net that covers an entire family. The insecticide lasts for 4-5 years. Somewhere in the world, a child is dying from a preventable disease. It doesn't have to be this way. Google 'Against Malaria'.
Last edited by Nooj; 7th November 2009 at 10:56 AM.
The Laws of Thermodynamics have been described comprehensively in the last 125 years and is the strongest evidence for a finite universe.
First Law: Energy cannot be create nor destroyed by natural circumstances.
Second Law: In effect states that as time moves on energy systems (like the universe) progress from a state of order to a greater state of disorder AND that the energy available to perform work decreases with the advance of time. This is called entropy.
When applied to the universe this law predicts that the orderliness of the universe is steadily decreasig and is cooling off.
When the universe reaches this point of maximum disorder (entropy) and no energy is left to perform any work, the universe would be in a state of heat death. This process is structured within a finite amount of time.
If the universe had no beginning, then an infinite amount of time would have passed before this very moment. Meaning the universe would have infinitely already been in heat death. Since we know for a fact that the universe still has useable energy, then we can know for a fact the universe had a beginning.
__________________ The Jig is up!
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
The Laws of Thermodynamicshave been described comprehensively in the last 125 years and is the strongest evidence for a finite universe.
First Law: Energy cannot be create nor destroyed by natural circumstances.
It says that the internal energy of a closed system is constant. It makes no distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' circumstances.
Originally Posted by Jig
Second Law: In effect states that as time moves on energy systems (like the universe) progresses from a state of order to a greater state of disorder AND that the energy available to perform work decreases with the advance of time. This is called entropy.
It states the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum. It says nothing about order and disorder (e.g., a disordered medium of liquid water will freeze and become the ordered medium of crystal ice, all the while increasing its entropy as it reaches thermal equilibrium with its rather cold surroundings).
The 'closed' part is rather important.
Originally Posted by Jig
When applied to the universe this law predicts that the orderliness of the universe is steadily decreasig and is cooling off.
When the universe reaches this point of maximum disorder (entropy) and no energy is left to perform any work, the universe would be in a state of heat death. This process is structured within a finite amount of time.
It predicts the 'orderliness' of a closed universe of constant internal energy will actually increase. At the heat death, it will be perfectly ordered.
Originally Posted by Jig
If the universe had no beginning, then an infinite amount of time would have passed before this very moment. Meaning the universe would have been infinitely already been in heat death. Since we know for a fact that the universe still has useable energy, then we can know for a fact the universe had a beginning.
Only if:
1) The First Law of Thermodynamics is true. It is not known whether it's a universally true hard-and-fast rule, or just a good approximation at our scales.
2) The universe is closed. Any energy exchange with our universe and some external resevoir (or suchlike) would negate the argument entirely.
3) The Second Law is a mathematical result of a very general mathematical model, which is why we know it is true. However, the universe may be so peculiar that it doesn't quite fit with the mathematical model: as general as the model is, the universe is just too queer for even that to approximate it to the required accuracy.
I also have objections to your use of infinity, but the above three are my major sticking points.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Only if:
1) The First Law of Thermodynamics is true. It is not known whether it's a universally true hard-and-fast rule, or just a good approximation at our scales.
2) The universe is closed. Any energy exchange with our universe and some external resevoir (or suchlike) would negate the argument entirely.
3) The Second Law is a mathematical result of a very general mathematical model, which is why we know it is true. However, the universe may be so peculiar that it doesn't quite fit with the mathematical model: as general as the model is, the universe is just too queer for even that to approximate it to the required accuracy.
I also have objections to your use of infinity, but the above three are my major sticking points.
Thanks for the reply.
My response to your second objection:
If the universe is infinitely vast then it would be a closed system because nothing could possibly be adding energy from the outside. There would be no outside.
But then to suggest that it is finite would mean it could not be eternal and thus necessitates a beginning.
__________________ The Jig is up!
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
If the universe is infinitely vast then it would be a closed system because nothing could possibly be adding energy from the outside. There would be no outside.
That depends on the topology of spacetime. The universe could be infinite and closed, but still have an 'outside': think of a bubble. Or think of an infinitely large plane in 3D space.
Just because the universe is infinitely large in three dimensions, doesn't mean there isn't something in the fourth. Moreover, being infinitely large does not necessarily mean it's closed: there could still be a non-zero energy flux.
Originally Posted by Jig
But then to suggest that it is finite would mean it could not be eternal and thus necessitates a beginning.
Why couldn't it be eternal if it was finite? Eternal means it had no beginning (or no end, or both).
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
) 
Linear Mode
