The Universe Is a Miracle

[dgiharris]

Fact: No scientist has explained how the universe came into being.

There are only two options.

1. It came from nothing.
2. It always existed.

There are several flaws each dealing with human limitations.

I submit that we as a species aren't quite smart enough to truly understand the concept of "always" and "nothing".

In order to understand those concepts we'd have to know-- fully and completely know--
what the following are: time, energy, space, matter, etc.

I remember when I was a teenager and with agile mind I attempted to meditate and to picture in my mind the concept of nothing.

I imagined a white empty room... but a room has walls
So then I imagined a white empty space... but white is color, white is "something"
So then I tried to imagine an invisible color like air... but then I pictured a gray nothingness and gray is a color...
So then I tried to imagine the blackness and void of space... but black is a color and space is a something...

My point isn't to use my personal anecdote as proof, not my intent. My intent is simply that as a human being, I have built in limitations so I imagine my other fellow human beings have similar limitations.

We are trying though, and making progress, but IMHO, certain things are just beyond us. And I submit that the concept of "always" and "nothing" are two such concepts. Sure, we may think we know... I kinda feel like we humans are like bacteria on a piece of gum stuck to the bottom of a higher being's shoe-- and we go about our days thinking we've got the universe figured out when in reality we aren't even close.

 

[Jon Osterman]

No, not all. Only than those that don't agree with him.

I don't think anyone who would agree that time is not a dimension would ever be allowed a job where they can describe themselves as a physicist.

 

[tas8831]

Do you think you are smarter than all the physicists in all the world?

Why not? He thinks he is smarter than all the geneticists in the world, and this is proven true based on how for years he thought that "allele" was "allie." I mean, what geneticist WOULDN'T think that?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Fact: No scientist has explained how the universe came into being.

That post is not right, fudgetusk.
Scientists are not ignorant about cosmology. They know that we can describe the universe back to a time that does not include t = 0. That is because the laws of physics break down at t = 0. There are infinite densities and temperatures. There are speculative cosmologies that include what happened at and before t = 0.

So your post should be:
Fact: Some scientists have explained how the universe came into being, e.g. brane cosmology.

 

[Skreeper]

That may be true, but if it is then it must be some sort of psychosis or mental illness. So again, it is probably best not to humour him.

You're right, and I hope that people stop replying to him so that he leaves on his own when eventually everyone ignores him.

 

[durangodawood]

What does it even mean "the universe is a miracle"?

 

[fudgetusk]

OBVIOUSLY there are 3 options...
I mean, come on, you're on a Christian forum for crying out loud...3. GOD created it (it came from GOD who by definition always exists / existed / will exist).
Of course it solves the problem. It's the best explanation to boot.
But the "peers" won't have that, of course, and that's why you won't consider it either...
It seems "freethinkers" are not free to think this..No.
I'll give you another angle of approach:
Original / First Cause(r)
The original cause can by definition not be caused, or it would not be the original / first cause.

So why does anything exist at all?

Staight away with the web rage! Who said I did not consider the idea of God making the universe? I'm just saying it doesn't explain anything. As I said(and which you responded to so you DID see it) saying God made the universe does not explain anything. Because then we have to ask where did God come from.

 

[fudgetusk]

OBVIOUSLY there are 3 options...
I mean, come on, you're on a Christian forum for crying out loud...3. GOD created it (it came from GOD who by definition always exists / existed / will exist).
Of course it solves the problem. It's the best explanation to boot.
But the "peers" won't have that, of course, and that's why you won't consider it either...
It seems "freethinkers" are not free to think this..No.
I'll give you another angle of approach:
Original / First Cause(r)
The original cause can by definition not be caused, or it would not be the original / first cause.

So why does anything exist at all?

If God always existed then how did he get to now? He would have had to cross an infinity of time to get to NOW. That is impossible.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm saying he is finite years old. He came from nothing. Hence he is a miracle.

 

[fudgetusk]

This is true. But to be fair scientists do not attempt to answer this question. The Big Bang Model is not a model of creation itsel. The BB model just says that a very long time ago the universe is very hot and dense and then expanded and cooled. There is no mechanism in it to explain (or attempt to explain) how the universe came to be in such a state. The logical expectation is to think that going back further and further the universe gets hotter and denser, but then we move into physical realms that we have no experimental data for and cannot say anything about. As we build higher and higher enedy colliders we get a little more understanding and a little further back, but still not the the actual creation event itself (if there is one).



Both of these show a misunderstanding of the concept of time. You are using the word "always" because you have the reasonable belief that time is a backdrop to the creation process. (This is reasonable because it is true for everything you have ever experienced.) But in circumstances where there is very high energy density (like the Big Bang) time is affected by the energy density too. This is in the theory of General Relativity already but will become even weirder (and less understood) further and further back as we will then need Quantum Gravity.

If you are going to explain the creation of the universe, you also have to explain the creation of time itself. And in that context you can probably see yourself why your two options doen't make a lot of sense.



This is not true. In fact, this is brobably the majority belief among cosmologists. Notice that I say "belief" because it is only a belief since we have no evidence that it "came from nothing", but it is certainly possible for there to be a finite boundary to time, beyond which (going back) there is no more time coordinate.



This is also wrong. There is absolutely no issue with an infinite time in the past or an infinite time in the future. I presume you have no problem with an infinite spatial universe, and since time is another dimension, there is mathematically little difference between infinite space and infinite time.

I think the issue you are having here is your human causal requirement for an "arrow of time". By that I mean that sceintists still don't really understand why humans (and other animals) percieve time as flowing and sequential. We appear to be moving through a four dimensional manifold, always in (roughtly) the same direction. (I say roughly because Special Relativity tells us that the time direction shifts very slightly when we move relative to one another.) If we understood why the arrow of time is as it is, then we might agree that an infinite universe is impossible, but we are certainly not at the point of making that claim with current understanding.



But despite all that, you come to the correct conclusion. The universe is indeed a miracle! I think most sceintists would agree.

>>If you are going to explain the creation of the universe, you also have to explain the creation of time itself. And in that context you can probably see yourself why your two options doen't make a lot of sense.

Nope. I think what you are saying is garbled. Time is linear. There is no evidence to the contrary.


>>This is also wrong. There is absolutely no issue with an infinite time in the past or an infinite time in the future. I presume you have no problem with an infinite spatial universe, and since time is another dimension, there is mathematically little difference between infinite space and infinite time.

Then explain how the universe could cross an infinite amount of time. There clearly is an issue and I've explained it. And no there is no infinite spatiality. Space time is finite.

>>(I say roughly because Special Relativity tells us that the time direction shifts very slightly when we move relative to one another.)

Wrong. It does not. Just because I see a light turn on before you do because I'm nearer the light does not mean the event happens at different times. It boggles my mind why people misunderstand this concept.

 

[fudgetusk]

Before I can agree or disagree, or remain on the fence, I need your definitions of "nothing" and "always". I need rigorous definitions, not colloquial expressions, or a referral to "a dictionary".

If you understand why I am asking then you will understand, on reflection, why your logic is flawed. If not, I probably can't make further contribution to your thread.

I always get this when I bring up this issue. What do you mean by nothing? NO THING. No reality. No possibility of anything happening or being.

Why do I have to tell you a definition of always?

No beginning and no end.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Nope. I think what you are saying is garbled. Time is linear. There is no evidence to the contrary.

The space-time distance between two events is quantified by the metric, and the form of that metric determines the space-time geometry. Just as space need not be flat, time need not be either. This is simple General Relativity.

Then explain how the universe could cross an infinite amount of time. There clearly is an issue and I've explained it. And no there is no infinite spatiality. Space time is finite.

It doesn’t need to “cross an infinite amount of time”. Why would it? And if space is finite, as you claim, what happens at the boundary? Furthermore, if you claim space is finite, why can’t time be finite too? Do you see that you are being inconsistent?

Wrong. It does not. Just because I see a light turn on before you do because I'm nearer the light does not mean the event happens at different times. It boggles my mind why people misunderstand this concept.

You are fundamentally missing the point. The time coordinate of events are dependent on your frame of reference. This time it is simple Special Relativity. I think you would be well served by doing some background reading before debating this.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unlike yourself, I think scientifically when discussing Cosmology ..
This yet another concept you're obviously oblivious to .. Which is, testably, why you keep propagating lies.

Testability? They had to add 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust that has failed every single test for the last 89 plus years.....

Null result after null result after null result. So when are you actually going to accept the results of that testing?????

 

[Ophiolite]

I always get this when I bring up this issue. What do you mean by nothing? NO THING. No reality. No possibility of anything happening or being.

Why do I have to tell you a definition of always?

No beginning and no end.

Thank you for the attempt. You might benefit from spending some time reflecting upon why you "always get this when (you) bring up this issue". Of course, it could be that all those people who bring it up are wrong or misguided. Or it might be you. It might then occur to you that there may be something a amiss with the rigour of your definitions.

Again, thank you for the effort. It is appreciated. I'm sorry it fails to provide sufficient groundwork for me to offer anything useful in the way of comments or further questions. Cheers.

 

[SelfSim]

The space-time distance between two events is quantified by the metric, and the form of that metric determines the space-time geometry. Just as space need not be flat, time need not be either. This is simple General Relativity.
...
It doesn’t need to “cross an infinite amount of time”. Why would it? And if space is finite, as you claim, what happens at the boundary? Furthermore, if you claim space is finite, why can’t time be finite too? Do you see that you are being inconsistent?
...
You are fundamentally missing the point. The time coordinate of events are dependent on your frame of reference. This time it is simple Special Relativity. I think you would be well served by doing some background reading before debating this.

Yes .. and someday, it would also be nice to see the theory itself recognising the observer's role in producing the theory (or explanation).
We always seem to forget this part and yet, its inclusion nicely explains where/why the dimensions themselves come from. Eg: our minds require time to render any observation useful.
Cheers

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But the observer can't be trusted with his observations.

Look at the twins paradox.

The twin in motion according to his measurements believes he is stationary (he isn't). He believes his clocks didn't change (they did). He thinks the stationary twin is in motion (he isn't). And he thinks the stationary twins clocks are slowing (they didn't).

He is wrong about everything he believes to be true because of his motion. The observer's role is to get wrong everything he thinks he observes if he is in motion.

A true axiom that will hold true regardless of any situation is "no observer can correctly deduce time in another frame unless that frame was set in motion from his frame, and then only relative to the frame it was set in motion from."

 

[SelfSim]

Yes .. and someday, it would also be nice to see the theory itself recognising the observer's role in producing the theory (or explanation).
We always seem to forget this part and yet, its inclusion nicely explains where/why the dimensions themselves come from. Eg: our minds require time to render any observation useful.

Not that anyone explicitly expressed the commonly held view that the universe must exist in a form which matches our ability to make sense of it ... (even though it is implied in the discussion), we can readily demonstrate that theories such as QM, actually predict the complete opposite. Ie: it is contrary to our natural common sense.

If, on the other hand, we were to adopt the stance that our picture of the universe depends upon the way we are able to make sense of it, (Justatruthseeker's extremism excluded of course), and the choices we make in how to model such, this counterintuitiveness issue simply disappears. As a consequence however, the picture that remains is a very human dependent picture. This can be trivial, or not, depending on the particular topic under analysis.
There is no issue as far as science is concerned in this either, because science is (obviously) a very human endeavour (and process) anyway. And yet, I find, science (eg: Physics) is frequently portrayed as something that was just sort of hanging around for us humans to uncover .. (a view which of course, stands in the face of abundant historical objective evidence to the contrary).

This stance of science's picture of the universe is also quite distinct from religion, (as another very human endeavour), also I might add .. the distinction being, (generally), science's objective testing and consistently independently verifiable results.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not that anyone explicitly expressed the commonly held view that the universe must exist in a form which matches our ability to make sense of it ... (even though it is implied in the discussion), we can readily demonstrate that theories such as QM, actually predict the complete opposite. Ie: it is contrary to our natural common sense.

If, on the other hand, we were to adopt the stance that our picture of the universe depends upon the way we are able to make sense of it, (Justatruthseeker's extremism excluded of course), and the choices we make in how to model such, this counterintuitiveness issue simply disappears. As a consequence however, the picture that remains is a very human dependent picture. This can be trivial, or not, depending on the particular topic under analysis.
There is no issue as far as science is concerned in this either, because science is (obviously) a very human endeavour (and process) anyway. And yet, I find, science (eg: Physics) is frequently portrayed as something that was just sort of hanging around for us humans to uncover .. (a view which of course, stands in the face of abundant historical objective evidence to the contrary).

This stance of science's picture of the universe is also quite distinct from religion, (as another very human endeavour), also I might add .. the distinction being, (generally), science's objective testing and consistently independently verifiable results.

Actually it stands in support of all the evidence. The laws of physics have been around since the beginning and have always waited for us to discover them.

Romans 1:20

As for QM, its your inability to measure and the problems related with such that lead to your flawed conclusion and need to claim counter intuitiveness....

Measurement problem - Wikipedia

"The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer."

And none has except by pseudo-scientific interpretations......

"The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution."

Or his interpretation is just plain wrong and all systems are always in a definite state as per actual observations......

"To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?"

"The Copenhagen interpretation is the oldest and probably still the most widely held interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most generally it posits something in the act of observation which results in the collapse of the wave function. According to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation the causative agent in this collapse is consciousness. How this could happen is widely disputed."

In reality you have no logical answers because you have abandoned logic for illogic and counter-intuitiveness..... You are therefore stuck in a never ending loop of irrationality to try to interpret the rational.... by imposing 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust on the universe that in each and every instance has a very rational explanation......

 

[SelfSim]

Actually it stands in support of all the evidence. The laws of physics have been around since the beginning and have always waited for us to discover them.
...
As for QM, its your inability to measure and the problems related with such that lead to your flawed conclusion and need to claim counter intuitiveness....
...
"The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer."

And none has except by pseudo-scientific interpretations......

"The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution."

Or his interpretation is just plain wrong and all systems are always in a definite state as per actual observations......

"To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?"

"The Copenhagen interpretation is the oldest and probably still the most widely held interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most generally it posits something in the act of observation which results in the collapse of the wave function. According to the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation the causative agent in this collapse is consciousness. How this could happen is widely disputed."

In reality you have no logical answers because you have abandoned logic for illogic and counter-intuitiveness..... You are therefore stuck in a never ending loop of irrationality to try to interpret the rational.... by imposing 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust on the universe that in each and every instance has a very rational explanation......

Yet again you shoot down your own argument and demonstrate my original point .. that being that the counter-intuitiveness of the QM realm stands as objective evidence for countering the commonly held view that the universe must exist in a form which matches our ability to make sense of it ...

All I see in your above arguments are the scientific attempts to make sense of the counter-intuitiveness by developing models (pictures) of: the measurement problem, wave function collapse and its various interpretation preferences.

This is all evidence of humans creating models of the universe which are entirely dependent upon the way we are able to make sense of it.

Your final statement about abandoning logic for illogic/irrationality couldn't be further from what human scientists are attempting to produce.

You then conclude with:

In reality you have no logical answers because you have abandoned logic for illogic and counter-intuitiveness ..... You are therefore stuck in a never ending loop of irrationality to try to interpret the rational.... by imposing 95% ad-hoc Fairie Dust on the universe that in each and every instance has a very rational explanation......

Ok .. so you now imply that QM's subject matter was intuitive all along and that illogic has been embraced in production of QM theory. You therefore reject QM theory as being part of our explanation of the universe.

There has never been an objective test devised yet, which excludes the human mind's fingerprints all over it, which leads to the conclusion that the universe necessarily conforms to anything beyond human perceptions.

Your particular problem is that you see your mind as being outside of thousands of years of scientific thinking, whilst choosing to deliberately remain blind to it by demonstrating arrogant wilful ignorance.

 

[tas8831]

How did God come about? He's the only thing science admits never had a beginning and will never have an ending.

Documentation please. And who spoke for "science"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Funny.

In another thread, you are pounding your chest about how it was a catholic priest (and cosmologist, but you didn't feel like mentioning that) that came up with big bang theory and how this was in the bible all along.

Now, you're saying it is junk science?
I guess that means that, since you claimed that this idea is in the bible, that the bible then also is junk.


Funny how such dishonestly opportunistic "arguments" constantly backfire, isn't it?

You wont find me supporting the Big Bang in any post..... You will however find me correcting people who claimed it was Hubble that predicted expansion by showing it was a priest that did so, and also a priest that wrote your Big bang theory.

And yet despite this the Big Bang is a piece of trash.......