little bang

Originally posted by twhitehead
A strawman.
The big bang does not involve explosions, heating up or release of energy.

There is not one known event in the universe that bears a passing similarity to the universe. Full stop. The whole 'that does not have a cause' piece is should be left out as it becomes meaningless.

Your whole argument from the beginning of the thread is really t ...[text shortened]... en an event in the universe and treating the universe as an event in some larger time frame.

Your whole argument from the beginning of the thread is really this:
"Macro effects in the universe are caused - the big bang was macro therefore it was caused". --whitey------

I did not say this. I said that intuitively the big bang (if it were smaller and an occurence within the universe) would be highly suggestive of an effect for which some cause could be sought after. It just looks like and reminds me of things that happen in our universe like explosions , nuclear bombs , expanding gases , releases of energy etc. It just looks like something might well have triggered it off like an explosion is triggered by a fuse.

It's not a scientifically exact point , just what seems to me a logical observation based on the way things tend to work.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The big bang does not involve explosions, heating up or release of energy. ---whitey------

???? Enlighten me. It certainly expanded very rapidly and was very very hot. It think there was a lot of energy around as well as massive radiation (which can still be detected now)

The Big Bang is just a theory, and one of the most faulty done until now by science (on par with string theory).
We simply don't know what happened. It was a long time ago. Someguy made the theory, it fits somethings we see in the sky, and doesn't fit others. It's only a THEORY! Theory, I repeat. And it's so darn complicated... Yet everyone likes to discuss it because they think they understand it conceptually. Some even try to fit it in the Bible...

People don't have the capacity to visualize what happened. I make an analogy with an ant walking on the surface of an orange. The ant goes on and on, never knowing she's on the surface of a sphere. For her, it seems infinity, because she can't look up. We see it from a different dimension, look at the ant and think "poor ignorant animal".
Most likely the ant thinks some God created the orange and can't understand how something like that was created. We too are limited. Trying to understand the universe is possibly something too much for us. It doesn't mean it can't be understood. Saying "it was God" is the easy path.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The big bang does not involve explosions, heating up or release of energy. ---whitey------

???? Enlighten me. It certainly expanded very rapidly and was very very hot. It think there was a lot of energy around as well as massive radiation (which can still be detected now)

1. The expansion is the expansion of space -quite different from an explosion. The expansion of space is ongoing and is, in fact, accelerating. One could say that we are still exploding.
2. It was hot because all the energy of the universe was gathered in a smaller space. But from the very beginning it was actually cooling down not heating up.
3. Yes there was a lot of energy around. In fact, due to the law of conservation of energy, there was exactly the same amount of energy as there is now.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Originally posted by serigado
Someguy made the theory, it fits somethings we see in the sky, and doesn't fit others. It's only a THEORY! Theory, I repeat. And it's so darn complicated... Yet everyone likes to discuss it because they think they understand it conceptually. Some even try to fit it in the Bible...

If it was as shaky as you imply it would be called a hypothesis. In science, ideas don't often get called Theories until they are backed up by a lot of evidence. Having said that, I do agree that there is no guarantee that it is right, but the alternatives would be just as bizarre if not more so - and I don't think there are any alternative theories at present.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your whole argument from the beginning of the thread is really this:
"Macro effects in the universe are caused - the big bang was macro therefore it was caused". --whitey------

I did not say this.

I know you didn't, but you should have because it was the basis of your argument without all the dramatization which just serves to obscure.

I said that intuitively the big bang (if it were smaller and an occurence within the universe) would be highly suggestive of an effect for which some cause could be sought after.
But it could not be smaller and an occurrence within the universe, it simply is not a sub-universe phenomena. Also the key part of your argument did rest on the relative size (despite your denial), if a quark pops into existence with a little bang, nobody blinks an eyelid.

It just looks like and reminds me of things that happen in our universe like explosions , nuclear bombs , expanding gases , releases of energy etc.
Only because you don't really understand it at all and thus get mislead by the name.

It just looks like something might well have triggered it off like an explosion is triggered by a fuse.
It's not a scientifically exact point , just what seems to me a logical observation based on the way things tend to work.
But there is an obvious flaw in your logic as has been pointed out numerous times in numerous threads yet you keep on repeating the flawed logic over and over like a broken record. You cannot apply a subset rule to the whole set.

So - be honest now - do you simply not understand that point or do you have ulterior motives in promoting a falacy?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If it was as shaky as you imply it would be called a hypothesis. In science, ideas don't often get called Theories until they are backed up by a lot of evidence. Having said that, I do agree that there is no guarantee that it is right, but the alternatives would be just as bizarre if not more so - and I don't think there are any alternative theories at present.

Yes, it should. I'd rather call it the Big Bang Model. Evidence for Big Bang is circumstantial. Maybe something similar happened, I don't know. What I criticize is the details of nuclear synthesys and all the physic extrapolation done in the big bang model, not the conceptual idea per se.
But all I want to stress is: don't take (not you, i talk to the theist boys) Big Bang as something true. Scientists position is: We don't know for sure what happened because it's so hard to investigate, but we have this model that fits many things, but still has to be perfected.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know you didn't, but you should have because it was the basis of your argument without all the dramatization which just serves to obscure.

[b]I said that intuitively the big bang (if it were smaller and an occurence within the universe) would be highly suggestive of an effect for which some cause could be sought after.
But it could not be smalle ...[text shortened]... o you simply not understand that point or do you have ulterior motives in promoting a falacy?[/b]

My point is not a scientifically exact one and I have said so from the beginning. Therefore your attempts to put it through the scientific process are invalid. I am fully aware that it's not an exact comparison because the little bang would be a subset within the big bang , and I think you are aware that I am aware of this.

This is probably to do with thinking styles and your resistance to thinking more imaginatively.

Originally posted by knightmeister
My point is not a scientifically exact one and I have said so from the beginning. Therefore your attempts to put it through the scientific process are invalid. I am fully aware that it's not an exact comparison because the little bang would be a subset within the big bang , and I think you are aware that I am aware of this.

This is probably to do with thinking styles and your resistance to thinking more imaginatively.

I have no problem with imaginative thinking or even comparing the Big bang to an explosion and thinking about it. However, when you draw a conclusion or even hint at a possible similarity - and then someone points out that your conclusion is invalid or that there is actually no similarity in the way you thought, you should gracefully accept that you were wrong - and change your thinking accordingly.

Your post instead seems to say "I know I am talking nonsense but leave me be."

Your claim about your original point not being scientifically exact and therefore not subject to scientific scrutiny implies that your claim boils down to: If some people can see a pattern then we should consider it seriously even though it has been scientifically proven that no such pattern exists.
For example: A river looks like a snake. We all know this. Maybe rivers used to be snakes. I know it is not a scientifically exact point so please don't criticize it using science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have no problem with imaginative thinking or even comparing the Big bang to an explosion and thinking about it. However, when you draw a conclusion or even hint at a possible similarity - and then someone points out that your conclusion is invalid or that there is actually no similarity in the way you thought, you should gracefully accept that you were ...[text shortened]... es. I know it is not a scientifically exact point so please don't criticize it using science.

So could you draw out the main differences between the Big Bang and natural events in the universe so that I can understand why this event is so radically different in nature so as to think it's not likely to be caused by anything?

What's so special about it that makes it likely to be an uncaused event?

My position is that if such an event occured on a smaller scale within our universe somewhere in deep space our first thoughts would be "what caused that to happen?" . Now maybe the Big bang event is counter intuitive in this way but we don't know enough about it to know this. Until then , is it not a logical extrapolation to hypothesise a cause for it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So could you draw out the main differences between the Big Bang and natural events in the universe so that I can understand why this event is so radically different in nature so as to think it's not likely to be caused by anything?

What's so special about it that makes it likely to be an uncaused event?

My position is that if such an event occur to know this. Until then , is it not a logical extrapolation to hypothesise a cause for it?

We don't know enough about it/
Don't you mean, you don't know enough about it?
I would say you've hit it exactly on the head - the big bang is counter intuitive, and we do know a fair bit about it.
Everything?
Of course not.
Could there be a cause?
Of course.
Do we have guesses as to possible causes?
Yes.
Might it be uncaused?
Yes.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So could you draw out the main differences between the Big Bang and natural events in the universe so that I can understand why this event is so radically different in nature so as to think it's not likely to be caused by anything?

* There are no natural events in the universe that are even remotely similar.
* The Big bang is the beginning of time - I would call that a major difference.
* The vast majority of events in the universe are, as far as we know, uncaused. So why not go with that conclusion as the default?
* We are talking about the universe as a whole and not a subset - they are two vastly different things.

What's so special about it that makes it likely to be an uncaused event?
I never said it was 'likely' to be an uncaused event. I am not even convinced that 'event' is the right word. 'Event' tends to make one think of:
a) a time-line within which it takes place. (no time before the big bang)
b) a greater physical reality within which it takes place. (unknown or meaningless)
c) a start and end. (the big bang is ongoing)

My position is that if such an event occured on a smaller scale within our universe somewhere in deep space our first thoughts would be "what caused that to happen?".
No, your position was that if an event that you thought was similar - which I explained was not. The closest type of event that one can think about does actually occur in the universe (everywhere) and has no known cause.

Now maybe the Big bang event is counter intuitive in this way but we don't know enough about it to know this. Until then , is it not a logical extrapolation to hypothesise a cause for it?
No, not really.