There was no "before" before the Big Bang

[Yoder777]

Hugh Ross' Scriptural interpretations have no relevance to science, though they are less insane than six day creationism.

 

[Strathos]

That's not science.

I never said it was

 

[Aman777]

Hugh Ross' Scriptural interpretations have no relevance to science, though they are less insane than six day creationism.

Just because Hugh Ross is an Old Earther does NOT mean that his view is correct. I am the youngest of the YEC since I believe God began His work of the Creation less that 6 Days ago. Amen?

 

[Yoder777]

Just because Hugh Ross is an Old Earther does NOT mean that his view is correct. I am the youngest of the YEC since I believe God began His work of the Creation less that 6 Days ago. Amen?

What the heck?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does that apply to atheists who try to explain the origin of the universe in terms of a vacuum fluctuation? Because the laws of quantum mechanics more surely belong to a universe which already exists than the notion of causality does.

I don't think so.
Space-time IS the universe.
No universe, no space-time.

I don't think it's equally clear that "no universe, no quantum fluctuations".

Having said that, if however it is true that quantum stuff is an integral part of the universe, then yes.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't think so.
Space-time IS the universe.
No universe, no space-time.

That time as we experience it came into existence with the universe is close to a tautology. That, however, entitles you to make no sweeping assertions about what lies beyond the universe - especially if you are going to start speculating about a multiverse for basically philosophical reasons.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That time as we experience it came into existence with the universe is close to a tautology.

Time as we understand it, came into existence with the universe.

That, however, entitles you to make no sweeping assertions about what lies beyond the universe

That is to say, if the words "beyond the universe" even make sense.

- especially if you are going to start speculating about a multiverse for basically philosophical reasons.

I'm not speculating about anything.
I'm merely addressing the nonsense that is known as "the cosmological argument".

 

[lesliedellow]

That is to say, if the words "beyond the universe" even make sense.

Whether the universe has just three spatial dimensions, or all the dimensions the string theorists imagine, it is mathematically very easy to erect yet another dimension which is orthogonal to all of them. There is plenty in modern physics which is crazier than that.

 

[Aman777]

Whether the universe has just three spatial dimensions, or all the dimensions the string theorists imagine, it is mathematically very easy to erect yet another dimension which is orthogonal to all of them. There is plenty in modern physics which is crazier than that.

The Multiverse has 3 physical worlds, not dimensions. Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6 Our world will be burned. ll Peter 3:10 The Third Heaven is the world to come. It's where Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. The Third Heaven is perfect as are it's inhabitants, immortal Christians who live forever with Jesus.

Since Adam's world was made in the middle of water Gen 1:6-8 and when the windows on high were opened, perished, it is possible that the first Earth, in the solid firmament, was in the water beyond our view. Our Cosmos could be the middle of the ground of the Third Heaven and will remain buried forever.

What we see shining beyond the COMB could be the Third Heaven because here is what it looks like.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Could the Third Heaven, with it's overwhelming brightness, be what has recently been described in this article?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-could-be-first-glimpse-of-another-universe/

Of course it could. Amen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Whether the universe has just three spatial dimensions, or all the dimensions the string theorists imagine, it is mathematically very easy to erect yet another dimension which is orthogonal to all of them. There is plenty in modern physics which is crazier than that.

Yes. It is very easy to simply imagine things without evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes. It is very easy to simply imagine things without evidence.

Some folks imagine a flatworm turned into a human through a willy-nilly process.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes. It is very easy to simply imagine things without evidence.

Well, if Dirac could imagine a Positron on the basis that its existence would fit neatly into his equation, imagining a spatial dimension orthogonal to the other three is small town stuff.

 

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Whether the universe has just three spatial dimensions, or all the dimensions the string theorists imagine, it is mathematically very easy to erect yet another dimension which is orthogonal to all of them. There is plenty in modern physics which is crazier than that.

Such a dimension would, however, be a physical dimension. As such, even if it were to exist, it would already be included in what philosophers mean by the phrase "the universe."

 

[lesliedellow]

Such a dimension would, however, be a physical dimension. As such, even if it were to exist, it would already be included in what philosophers mean by the phrase "the universe."

No it wouldn't. Not if physical laws were such that they operated entirely within three spatial dimensions; making of that space a self contained system.

 

[Aman777]

Such a dimension would, however, be a physical dimension. As such, even if it were to exist, it would already be included in what philosophers mean by the phrase "the universe."

Not really, as this old video from Michio Kaku shows:

http://www.wimp.com/bigtheory/

 

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No it wouldn't. Not if physical laws were such that they operated entirely within three spatial dimensions; making of that space a self contained system.

Orthogonality is a physical property. A dimension which is orthogonal to physical dimensions is, itself, a physical dimension.

Further, you seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of the concept of "physical laws." That which we refer to as "physical law" is a description of the properties of the universe. "Physical law" does not stand independent from the universe, nor does "physical law" inform the universe. Quite the reverse, in fact. Even if there existed a dimension orthogonal to the four common to human experience, and even if that dimension was not described by any physical law applicable to the common four, that dimension would still have properties-- and thereby, physical laws-- of its own.

Not really, as this old video from Michio Kaku shows:

http://www.wimp.com/bigtheory/

I explicitly noted that I was referring to the philosophical concept of "the universe." I did so because I am fully aware that physicists utilize the phrase in a different manner than do philosophers. For example, when William Lane Craig defines what he means by use of the phrase, "the universe," he tells us that he is referring to the whole of material reality. When physicists talk about a "universe," especially in the context of multiverse discussions, they are talking about a particular spatio-temporal dimensional manifold-- for example, a 4-dimensional anti-deSitter space might be under discussion. If there exists a panoply of such spatio-temporal manifolds (ie, a multiverse) then that panoply is still a part of material reality, and is therefore included by what is meant when philosophers use the phrase "the universe."

 

[lesliedellow]

Orthogonality is a physical property. A dimension which is orthogonal to physical dimensions is, itself, a physical dimension.

You can take it from a mathematician that orthogonality is a mathematical concept, which found its way into physics because of the extensive use physicists make of mathematics. Another mathematical concept which found its way into physics is that of a singularity.

Physical laws are human constructs, which seek to describe the regularities observable in nature.

 

[Doveaman]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe

In the beginning nothing went *BANG* and then there was something.

Yes, that's very plausible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just because Hugh Ross is an Old Earther does NOT mean that his view is correct. I am the youngest of the YEC since I believe God began His work of the Creation less that 6 Days ago. Amen?

XD when you interpret each day as spanning billions of years of actual time, do you really get to call yourself YEC?

 

[Jahrooshshalom]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:



Furthermore, it's special pleading to claim that the universe required a cause that was itself uncaused.

That's what I find so amusing about atheist cosmology. It's unintelligent and yet claims itself superior to those who ascribe to intelligent design.

Something went bang! But there was no thing that created some thing to go bang. Bang just happened and came from nothing that as a consequence made everything.