|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
lucid
Reply with quote  #1 

The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe, Researchers Say

Date: 24 June 2012 Time: 01:36 AM ET
FOLLOW US
SHARE
harvey1
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").
lucid
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey1
The "laws of physics" are propositions.


Baseless assertion. 
Arthur42
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.
lucid
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. 
Arthur42
Reply with quote  #6 
Anyone else want to help me with an actual answer?
Tim
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.
lucid
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. 
Noraaron
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!  

Tim
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
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. 


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.
TheTrueTheist
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? 
lucid
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
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. 


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. 
Arthur42
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.
Tim
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.
Tim
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid
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. 


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?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.