|
lucid
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Sayby Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer Date: 24 June 2012 Time: 01:36 AM ET "The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes." Filippenko spoke here Saturday (June 23) at the SETICon 2 conference, during a panel discussion called "Did the Big Bang Require a Divine Spark?" [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang] Quantum fluctuations In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say. "Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it." "So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider." Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang — a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon — could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said. "I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said. The origin of the laws of physics If we're after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn't quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn't take us all the way, Filippenko said. "The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'" But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said. The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve. "The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
harvey1
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
The "laws of physics" are propositions. You can't have a proposition without a mind.
This is the problem with the anti-intellectual movement against philosophy that we're seeing in science. We're getting a lot of that nowadays (e.g., Lawrence Krauss referring to "nothing" as "something").
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
lucid
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1 The "laws of physics" are propositions.
Baseless assertion.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Arthur42
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
What are they if not propositions?
I can't find a definition of "laws of physics" that makes any sense to me. Many people just say they're descriptions of the way the universe works, but then that's not very helpful is it? The universe behaves the way it does due to the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are just descriptions of the behavior of the universe.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
lucid
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Arthur42 What are they if not propositions?
I can't find a definition of "laws of physics" that makes any sense to me. Many people just say they're descriptions of the way the universe works, but then that's not very helpful is it? The universe behaves the way it does due to the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are just descriptions of the behavior of the universe.
An appeal to ignorance doesn't make a baseless assertion any less baseless.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Arthur42
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
|
Anyone else want to help me with an actual answer?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Hi lucid, I saw this article the other day. Big Bang cosmology is hugely interesting, but the writing here, especially the title, exemplifies perfectly the ignorance of philosophy in popular scientific writing today. It is not the case that citing God as the explanation of the universe generates a regress problem (i.e. "kicking the can down the road"). This is because God, by definition, if he exists, exists uncaused. This is why the question, "What caused God?" is malformed.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
lucid
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Tim Hi lucid, I saw this article the other day. Big Bang cosmology is hugely interesting, but the writing here, especially the title, exemplifies perfectly the ignorance of philosophy in popular scientific writing today. It is not the case that citing God as the explanation of the universe generates a regress problem (i.e. "kicking the can down the road"). This is because God, by definition, if he exists, exists uncaused. This is why the question, "What caused God?" is malformed.
How convenient. I fail to see how this is any kind of an answer myself.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Noraaron
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."
How does one propose to "twist time and space in the right way to create a universe?"
If we could do that, what kind of tools could you use to acheive it? the tools obviously cant be material as it could not exist inside space and time of what you are twisting, it would need to be immaterial to twist it, and you would need to be out side of time and space for the tool to work as you are twising space and time....so that tool would need to be timeless and spaceless as well. Prety amazing tool if we can make it with in a universe.
I have no problem with the idea of space and time being twisted....but how and by what?
So we need to make a tool, that can twist space and time, that is immaterial. timeless, and space less. hmmm wonder what could do that!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by Tim Hi lucid, I saw this article the other day. Big Bang cosmology is hugely interesting, but the writing here, especially the title, exemplifies perfectly the ignorance of philosophy in popular scientific writing today. It is not the case that citing God as the explanation of the universe generates a regress problem (i.e. "kicking the can down the road"). This is because God, by definition, if he exists, exists uncaused. This is why the question, "What caused God?" is malformed. How convenient. I fail to see how this is any kind of an answer myself.
Indeed it is convenient. And it's an answer because it shows that there's no regress problem, and moreover, explains why there is no regress problem.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheTrueTheist
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
|
Explains why? You must be joking. Why not just say that the universe is uncaused itself, or an as-of-yet unknown first cause caused the universe? If you're willing to accept an uncaused cause (most intelligent people are not) then why is that cause God?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
lucid
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TimQuote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by Tim Hi lucid, I saw this article the other day. Big Bang cosmology is hugely interesting, but the writing here, especially the title, exemplifies perfectly the ignorance of philosophy in popular scientific writing today. It is not the case that citing God as the explanation of the universe generates a regress problem (i.e. "kicking the can down the road"). This is because God, by definition, if he exists, exists uncaused. This is why the question, "What caused God?" is malformed. How convenient. I fail to see how this is any kind of an answer myself. Indeed it is convenient. And it's an answer because it shows that there's no regress problem, and moreover, explains why there is no regress problem.
It doesn't show anything. It just asserts that your explanation requires no explanation because it's god. That's not good science, it's not even good philosophy, it's just a lazy way of avoiding further questions.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Arthur42
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
|
I think the insinuation that people who disagree with you are just not intelligent is uncalled for - it doesn't elevate the conversation here. You shouldn't just call people unintelligent, especially if you can't use an apostrophe correctly in your signature.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheTrueTheist Explains why? You must be joking. Why not just say that the universe is uncaused itself, or an as-of-yet unknown first cause caused the universe? If you're willing to accept an uncaused cause (most intelligent people are not) then why is that cause God?
You can say that the universe is uncaused itself. Some atheist thinkers have done that.
Save incredulity as a reply for the occasions where it calls for it, though, as it softens its rhetorical punch. You say definitional considerations fail to answer the regress charge, yet in the next sentence you reveal that you already grasp the notion of God (and the universe, etc.) as uncaused causes. Here's how it solves it: God's not the sort of thing capable of generating a causal regress problem, since, if he exists, he has no cause of his existence.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
Posted 07/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by TimQuote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by Tim Hi lucid, I saw this article the other day. Big Bang cosmology is hugely interesting, but the writing here, especially the title, exemplifies perfectly the ignorance of philosophy in popular scientific writing today. It is not the case that citing God as the explanation of the universe generates a regress problem (i.e. "kicking the can down the road"). This is because God, by definition, if he exists, exists uncaused. This is why the question, "What caused God?" is malformed. How convenient. I fail to see how this is any kind of an answer myself. Indeed it is convenient. And it's an answer because it shows that there's no regress problem, and moreover, explains why there is no regress problem. It doesn't show anything. It just asserts that your explanation requires no explanation because it's god. That's not good science, it's not even good philosophy, it's just a lazy way of avoiding further questions.
Not laziness. It does assert it. What's the problem?
|
|
Loading...
|
|