RE: i need some debate help..
August 8, 2010 at 3:06 am
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2010 at 3:07 am by ABierman1986.)
[quote='solja247' pid='85203' dateline='1281184827']
[quote]
This assumes the universe has a cause. There is no evidence it did. The Big Bang is the expansion of space and time; not the creation of the universe as a lot of people seem to think. As Darwinian said, our current understanding of reality falls apart once we reach the Big Bang. There are theories that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, hence the universe would have existed for all time; there are theories that quantum fluctuations were the cause.
The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption. [/quote]
[quote]
Very true. but as humans are used to big assumptions in out belief system, I dont have any empirical evidence to say that God exisits or doesnt just assume He does, like you assume He doesnt.
I wouldnt say 'feel good' makes the most sense to people, not because they are stupid, but how they see the world.[/quote]
To say that we have no evidence of a cause or an explanation of the big bang is utter nonsense. There is much evidence that points to a few competing, but strongly empirically supported theories. One of these is the vacuum energy hypothesis which models the big bang as a conditional explosion of matter from a quantum vacuum with large amounts of energy (the quantum fluctuations which you briefly mention, these are not hackneyed theories with no basis, they are directly observable phenomena that have been proven to exist naturally in quantum scales). The universe will spend its life using up this energy and then return to a quantum vacuum state until the conditions for another big bang arise. Again, this is not proven empirically, but the constraints upon which the model is built are. This is just one example of a logically consistent and rational explanation for the past, present, and future existence of the universe with no need to invoke any kind of supernatural entity, albeit the argument is as yet incomplete and needs more evidence to be fully supported by logical consistency. Given the widespread knowledge of the intermingling of space and time and the effects on matter it should not be surprising to anyone that the conditions under which time acts in a quantum vacuum is currently not understood at all, but the fundamental understanding that a connection does exist should suggest that there is a solution that is nontrivial to this problem.
[quote]
This assumes the universe has a cause. There is no evidence it did. The Big Bang is the expansion of space and time; not the creation of the universe as a lot of people seem to think. As Darwinian said, our current understanding of reality falls apart once we reach the Big Bang. There are theories that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, hence the universe would have existed for all time; there are theories that quantum fluctuations were the cause.
The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption. [/quote]
[quote]
Very true. but as humans are used to big assumptions in out belief system, I dont have any empirical evidence to say that God exisits or doesnt just assume He does, like you assume He doesnt.
I wouldnt say 'feel good' makes the most sense to people, not because they are stupid, but how they see the world.[/quote]
To say that we have no evidence of a cause or an explanation of the big bang is utter nonsense. There is much evidence that points to a few competing, but strongly empirically supported theories. One of these is the vacuum energy hypothesis which models the big bang as a conditional explosion of matter from a quantum vacuum with large amounts of energy (the quantum fluctuations which you briefly mention, these are not hackneyed theories with no basis, they are directly observable phenomena that have been proven to exist naturally in quantum scales). The universe will spend its life using up this energy and then return to a quantum vacuum state until the conditions for another big bang arise. Again, this is not proven empirically, but the constraints upon which the model is built are. This is just one example of a logically consistent and rational explanation for the past, present, and future existence of the universe with no need to invoke any kind of supernatural entity, albeit the argument is as yet incomplete and needs more evidence to be fully supported by logical consistency. Given the widespread knowledge of the intermingling of space and time and the effects on matter it should not be surprising to anyone that the conditions under which time acts in a quantum vacuum is currently not understood at all, but the fundamental understanding that a connection does exist should suggest that there is a solution that is nontrivial to this problem.
My religion is the understanding of my world. My god is the energy that underlies it all. My worship is my constant endeavor to unravel the mysteries of my religion.
