can we really ever know true origin?

[mamamia88]

Right now I know of 2 theories for origin of the universe, the big bang, and creationism. Both of which seem like an unending train of what came before. For example if someone created the universe then who created the creator and who created the creator's creator and so on. If the universe came from the big bang then what created the original energy that sparked it? and if you found that out you would have to find out the cause of the cause. So is it even possible to know 100% the origin of the universe? or will there always be one more mystery to solve? Or did the universe always exist? My human mind says that there has to be a origin of something and the idea of something always existing is foreign to me, but it is possible. I buy into the big bang more because scientists would at least be able to give me a logical explanation rather than criticizing me.

[Chuck]

I suspect no meaningful answer can be given to the question of did the universe always exist until we develop and disseminate a more sophisticated understanding of time like many in Physics seems to be trying to do. I suspect the very concept of sequential-causal relationship that prompted the question of whether there was a creator at the beginning of time may be rendered moot when we improve our understand of time.

[Justtristo]

(21st December 2010 20:40)mamamia88 Wrote:  Right now I know of 2 theories for origin of the universe, the big bang, and creationism. Both of which seem like an unending train of what came before. For example if someone created the universe then who created the creator and who created the creator's creator and so on. If the universe came from the big bang then what created the original energy that sparked it? and if you found that out you would have to find out the cause of the cause. So is it even possible to know 100% the origin of the universe? or will there always be one more mystery to solve? Or did the universe always exist? My human mind says that there has to be a origin of something and the idea of something always existing is foreign to me, but it is possible. I buy into the big bang more because scientists would at least be able to give me a logical explanation rather than criticizing me.

An scientific explanation for the cause of the big bang, I believe will come when we have a unified theory of physics, string theory is one of the candidates for the unified theory of physics. I would recommend the most excellent book and television series, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene as a good introduction to String Theory.

There are other theories out there for a totally naturalistic explanation for the formation of the universe. For example Victor J Stenger proposed a model in his article "A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe" which you can download here http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3137

[Chuck]

Although some flavor of string theory may yet prove to be the path to the grand, falsifiable and experimentally verifiable theory that unifies all known aspects of physics, I suggest a reading of some dissenting opinions such as that by Lee Somlin, outlined in his book "the trouble with physics". The dissension goes deeper than merely the questioning the technical merit of string theory. It attacks the very philosophical approach that pushed string theory to the fore, and argues string theory as having been developed hitherto is intrinsically incapable of making unique, falsifiable predictions of the type that could ultimately establish it's validity, as opposed to it's mathematical elegance.

A close relative of mine who is a Nobel laureate in physics concurs with this opinion, and suggests working on string theory is a sure way to both get a tenure now and be consigned to oblivion by history.

[Welsh cake]

(21st December 2010 20:40)mamamia88 Wrote:  Right now I know of 2 theories for origin of the universe, the big bang, and creationism. Both of which seem like an unending train of what came before.

Creationism is a non-scientific religious argument that is politically motivated. It lacks explanatory power and empirical evidence and therefore is not a theory. It is a pseudoscience that rejects actual scientific findings from multiple fields of research.

The Big bang model is the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development, which is scientific since there is evidence to support it. It is not to be confused with a cosmogonical theory. The big bang tells you nothing about what came before said event, the origin of the universe's existence, or how reality came to be.

Quote:For example if someone created the universe then who created the creator and who created the creator's creator and so on. If the universe came from the big bang then what created the original energy that sparked it? and if you found that out you would have to find out the cause of the cause.

You may want to look up Zeno's paradoxes and such to get a better understanding of logical regression. Its usually best when arguing from philosophies of naturalism and science for us to place epistemological restrictions onto cosmogeny theories, though these can't prohibit infinite regress arguments and causality problems altogether especially when applied by theistic explanations for the origins of the universe, whose obvious shortcoming here is the argument from ignorance.

Quote:Or did the universe always exist? My human mind says that there has to be a origin of something and the idea of something always existing is foreign to me, but it is possible.

We don't know. It is still a major unsolved problem in physics.

You see, the laws of physics start to brake down when you look at observing space-time before the big bang event; we lose all experimental support, Planck time ceases to have any useful meaning, quantum gravity theories start contradicting each other, and we have nothing but theoretical physics (abstraction of physics) to work with in an attempt to rationalise the phenomena in question.

[theVOID]

Nothing is impossible.

That's the best i've got. As for the rest, not a fucking clue.

And all we "know" about the big bang is that it was the start of spacetime. Without spacetime there are no frames of reference thus no relativity.
If you want an interesting take on the beginning of the universe, see http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/vilenkin...index.html

[Minimalist]

Quote:Right now I know of 2 theories for origin of the universe, the big bang, and creationism.

Only one of those deserves the styling "theory." The other needs to be called "superstition."

I'll let you work out which is which.

[Shell B]

Unless we can trace everything backward that far, than no, we will never know true origin, if there is any. I'm sure we can rule out creation, though.

[MisterSuperstar]

I think that in time as science and humanity evolves, more answers will become evident.
Just because we don't know an answer to a question doesn't mean that we have to substitute it with "god".
It is a classic example of Gap theory.
Substituting a deity into the equation creates so many more questions than it answers and completely defies science and in my opinion rationality.

[HalcyonicTrust]

Yes, and questioning this is very important.

Questions are most useful when they lead us to realize that we DON'T know the answers.