Originally posted by Green Paladin Nothing meaningful can be said about what happened before the Big Bang because the laws of physics break down at this point.
That is incorrect. Nothing meaningful can be said about what happened before the Big Bang because we have no way to get any information of what, if anything, did happen before the Big Bang. "The laws of physics" can't break down by definition.
Originally posted by no1marauder That is incorrect. Nothing meaningful can be said about what happened before the Big Bang because we have no way to get any information of what, if anything, did happen before the Big Bang. "The laws of physics" can't break down by definition.
"At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."
Originally posted by knightmeister I agree that if God is the first cause then every causal chain must eminate from God. I also agree that this makes God ultimately responsible for all suffering in the end. God (in christ) does infact accept responsibility for suffering and enters into suffering itself in person. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is for me distinct from all ot ...[text shortened]... wn nature and open up possibilities (like free will) that a purely causal chain could not offer.
Well, well, now we're getting somewhere. Finally, a theist who recognizes that god is responsible for all the suffering in the world. But you say that he took responsibility for that suffering as well, through Christ's sacrifice. So in other words, he created the whole big problem so he could offer himself up as the solution to that very same problem. Why didn't he just do things right the first time? Oh, wait...is it because people wouldn't need his services then?
If people were naturally happy and well adjusted, they wouldn't have any need to be 'saved' and god would quickly be forgotten. But by introducing evil into the world and convincing everyone that they're sinful and headed to hell, god has made people dependent on the solution he has to offer. It's sort of like a crack dealer who gets his clients addicted so he can be there when they need a fix. With a god like that, who needs Satan?
Originally posted by Green Paladin "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what ...[text shortened]... Big Bang."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
If its good enough for Hawking...
From the same site:
Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
This refutes your original statement and supports mine.
It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.
Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
Originally posted by no1marauder From the same site:
Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
This refutes your original statement and supports mine.
If you're objecting to my use of "before the Big Bang," then fair enough. Knightmeister used it originally and I was responding to his post. I don't see how you can criticise my use of the phrase "break down" with reference to the laws of physics if Hawking does so three times in one paragraph.
Originally posted by knightmeister With reference to many past events you are roughly omniscient. You know pretty much exactly what is going to happen to JFK for example. How do you know this ? Because of your unique position in time.
So , now ask yourself "Does me knowing that JFK dies like this prove that who assinated him has/had no free will?"
Now , if you really think about i ...[text shortened]... get to heaven ( with some prayer lol) it will be as if you have always been there forever.
It is true that if god exists, and if he is omniscient, that he knew, in advance, what I would type in this post. I am typing it now because every causal chain that god set in motion at the very beginning has led inexorably to this moment. But the point is that being omnipotent, god could have implemented any number of different starting conditions, which in turn would have eventually led to me typing something completely different, or not even existing at all. He went with the starting input he did, and I am now typing what I am typing, because that is exactly what god wanted from the very beginning. If he wanted a different outcome, he could have altered the starting input. It is impossible for me to type a single word, or make a single punctuation error that he did not foresee and directly cause. The only possible conclusion is that god has foreseen every single thing that would happen and that it is exactly what he wanted to happen.
Originally posted by Green Paladin If you're objecting to my use of "before the Big Bang," then fair enough. Knightmeister used it originally and I was responding to his post. I don't see how you can criticise my use of the phrase "break down" with reference to the laws of physics if Hawking does so three times in one paragraph.
I am objecting to your claim that our inability to have any knowledge of what happened before the Big Bang is caused by a breakdown of the laws of physics. Interestingly, Davies seems to believe that quantum laws may still exist at the singularity and indeed explain the Big Bang itself. Perhaps my statement that the laws of physics can't break down is an overstatement or perhaps there is a disagreement here between Hawking and Davies.
Originally posted by no1marauder I am objecting to your claim that our inability to have any knowledge of what happened before the Big Bang is caused by a breakdown of the laws of physics. Interestingly, Davies seems to believe that quantum laws may still exist at the singularity and indeed explain the Big Bang itself. Perhaps my statement that the laws of physics can't break down is an overstatement or perhaps there is a disagreement here between Hawking and Davies.
Depends what is meant by "break down." I think it is generally conceded that the theory of relativity cannot tell us anything about what happened during (or before, if such a concept is valid) the singularity. The mathematical equations "break down." Quantum theory may give us some insights into the Big Bang that classical physics hasn't been able to.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
01 Feb '08 23:121 edit
Originally posted by rwingett Causality is an area where theists are keen to posit the necessity of their god as being the first cause. If every effect needs a cause, you are, it seems, left in an endless causal chain. God is supposedly the only way out of that infinite regress, as he would be the original cause.
So the theists tell us that if we accept that every effect has a cause unnecessary and ineffectual god whom we need take no further note of. Not an enviable choice.
How is this argument any different to that against theodicy? Evil and suffering occur; God could have prevented them; ergo, God tolerates evil. The only distinction your argument recognises is that God is also the first cause which enabled evil and suffering to occur. The conclusion is still the same, God tolerates evil.
There is, however, the possibility that God was the unintentional cause of evil. Analogously, I might want to save a woman's life as she is attacked, but this necessarily entails that I kill her assailant. To achieve one good results in an evil. Similarly, the conditions for God to make and sustain mankind might also give rise to tsunamis and other catastrophes. I am not prepared to argue that through. I am not a theist, and my empathy extends only so far.
Originally posted by Green Paladin Depends what is meant by "break down." I think it is generally conceded that the theory of relativity cannot tell us anything about what happened during (or before, if such a concept is valid) the singularity. The mathematical equations "break down." Quantum theory may give us some insights into the Big Bang that classical physics hasn't been able to.
Originally posted by Conrau K How is this argument any different to that against theodicy? Evil and suffering occur, God could have prevented them, ergo, God tolerates evil. The only distinction your argument recognises is that God is also the first cause which enabled evil and suffering to occur. The conclusion is still the same, God tolerates evil.
There is, however, the possibili ...[text shortened]... I am not prepared to argue that through. I am not a theist, and my empathy extends only so far.
It is the same argument. I just approached it from what I thought was a slightly different angle.
You are not omnipotent. If you were then you'd be able to save the woman without harming her attacker. Likewise, if god is omnipotent then he can sustain mankind without requiring tsunamis. Nothing unintended can occur with an omniscient and omnipotent being. Eve didn't eat the apple without god knowing. He knew when she ate it. He intended for her to eat it. And he caused her to eat it.
Originally posted by rwingett Well, well, now we're getting somewhere. Finally, a theist who recognizes that god is responsible for all the suffering in the world. But you say that he took responsibility for that suffering as well, through Christ's sacrifice. So in other words, he created the whole big problem so he could offer himself up as the solution to that very same problem. Why d ...[text shortened]... ddicted so he can be there when they need a fix. With a god like that, who needs Satan?
Your conclusions are flawed because your understanding of the text is in error. It is not possible to accept some of what the Bible says and ignore the rest without missing the point entirely.
You claim to hear the revelation and yet pick and choose which parts you will honor and hold and which parts you will reject--- based on half-baked logic. By anyone's view, such an approach will yield nonsense: exactly the position you find yourself in today.
Originally posted by rwingett It is the same argument. I just approached it from what I thought was a slightly different angle.
You are not omnipotent. If you were then you'd be able to save the woman without harming her attacker. Likewise, if god is omnipotent then he can sustain mankind without requiring tsunamis. Nothing unintended can occur with an omniscient and omnipotent bein ...[text shortened]... knowing. He knew when she ate it. He intended for her to eat it. And he caused her to eat it.
You may as well say He caused you to come to the conclusions you currently hold; He caused you to post the words you just posted; He caused you to think the thoughts you just thought.
01 Feb '08 22:24
First cause
Back to Top