• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Big Bang religion is impossible.

Konig said:
Think of it like this: every region of the universe is being stretched.
Click to expand...

My problem is not the "stretch" its the realm containing the stretch.

If the Universe in finite, and expanding to a limit, what is the final destination of mater...clustered against an outer shell? Would that cause a [second] big bang? [ second = X number of big bang explosions]


If the Universe is inifinite... "expansion" seems counterintuitive to me.
 
Last edited:
tecoyah said:
Nope, I am saying that philosophy is "based upon" fact based reality which implies it is not in opposition to, but instead uses it to forward itself. The only individual stating that scientific knowledge is the only form would be you, please refrain from placing your words into my mouth. I am chanting nothing...instead clearly stating the underlying basis of scientific principle and the differences between this and religious faith.

As seems par for the course...when religion is debated, anyone pointing out reality is accused of attacking.


We call this a persecution complex, and it is not in any way attractive or helpful.
Click to expand...

You wrote this:

The use of terms such as "Intuition", "Philosophy", and "Faith" imply direct opposition to scientific principle and are thus incompatible with a fact based reality.

You seem to include philosophy here as a term in direct opposition to scientific principle and therefore facted based reality.

As for the claim you think scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, well, I admit I took this as what you were implying, and you didn't explicitly state it. However, I think the inference is valid. You seemed to say philosophy was not an acceptable form of knowledge (though now you are saying you don't believe that) and you made linked scientific principles with fact based reality as such, whilst only referring to science as a valid form of knowledge.
 
1750Texan said:
If the Universe is inifinite... "expansion" seems counterintuitive to me.
Click to expand...

The universe is not infinite. Infinity has no limits, but the universe is made up of determined entities - entities with determined - specific and particular - qualities and attributes. Determination means limits. I exist not with an indefinite breadth and length and height, but with a determined measurements - a determined location in space and time, meaning a limited one; I occupy a limited and specific time and place. The universe may be indefinite but it is not infinite.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
You wrote this:

The use of terms such as "Intuition", "Philosophy", and "Faith" imply direct opposition to scientific principle and are thus incompatible with a fact based reality.

You seem to include philosophy here as a term in direct opposition to scientific principle and therefore facted based reality.

As for the claim you think scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, well, I admit I took this as what you were implying, and you didn't explicitly state it. However, I think the inference is valid. You seemed to say philosophy was not an acceptable form of knowledge (though now you are saying you don't believe that) and you made linked scientific principles with fact based reality as such, whilst only referring to science as a valid form of knowledge.
Click to expand...

im·pli·ca·tion

/ˌimpliˈkāSHən/
noun
noun: implication; plural noun: implications
1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.
"the implication is that no one person at the bank is responsible"
synonyms: suggestion, insinuation, innuendo, hint, intimation, imputation More
"he was smarting at their implication"
•a likely consequence of something.
"a victory that had important political implications"
synonyms: consequence, result, ramification, repercussion, reverberation, effect, significance More
"important political implications"
2.
the action or state of being involved in something.


im·ply

/imˈplī/
verb
verb: imply; 3rd person present: implies; past tense: implied; past participle: implied; gerund or present participle: implying
1.
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

What you consider valid is opinion and incorrect.
 
tecoyah said:

im·pli·ca·tion

/ˌimpliˈkāSHən/
noun
noun: implication; plural noun: implications
1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.
"the implication is that no one person at the bank is responsible"
synonyms: suggestion, insinuation, innuendo, hint, intimation, imputation More
"he was smarting at their implication"
•a likely consequence of something.
"a victory that had important political implications"
synonyms: consequence, result, ramification, repercussion, reverberation, effect, significance More
"important political implications"
2.
the action or state of being involved in something.


im·ply

/imˈplī/
verb
verb: imply; 3rd person present: implies; past tense: implied; past participle: implied; gerund or present participle: implying
1.
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

What you consider valid is opinion and incorrect.
Click to expand...
Your comment on philosophy was explicit. You do not give any serious counter to my claims here.

Otherwise, you make no serious attempt at rebutal by analysing and referencing what I wrote, so it is hard to take your response seriously.
 
joko104 said:
No, that does not dispose of it. The premise of something from nothing isn't just lacking a theory. It is impossible under all known scientific and natural properties. It is not just lack of a theory, but an impossibility other than having "faith" in the impossible - not just the unproven. It is as accurate for "lacking a theory" as is the existence of a God merely lacks a theory of existence.
Click to expand...

And the something from nothing is something you are just making up from nothing. At the time the laws of the universe came into being, there was something, so it is in fact something from something.
 
Kobie said:
Wrong.

Big Bang for beginners-14: Does the Big Bang theory violate the second law of thermodynamics? | Machines Like Us
Click to expand...

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system never decreases. Right?

And if there is entropy still going on then the universe (which taken as a whole is a 'closed system') is not infinitely old, or total entropy would have already occurred. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And the vast majority of physicists now accept the big bang as the likeliest explanation.
 
Wessexman said:
Your comment on philosophy was explicit. You do not give any serious counter to my claims here.

Otherwise, you make no serious attempt at rebutal by analysing and referencing what I wrote, so it is hard to take your response seriously.
Click to expand...

As for the claim you think scientific knowledge is the only valid form of knowledge, well, I admit I took this as what you were implying, and you didn't explicitly state it. However, I think the inference is valid. You seemed to say philosophy was not an acceptable form of knowledge (though now you are saying you don't believe that) and you made linked scientific principles with fact based reality as such, whilst only referring to science as a valid form of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Please note the bolded words....and recognize opinion.

By placing your opinion into my comments and ignoring clarification when provided....you corrupt the discussion and end it.

And so, it ends.
 
Logicman said:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system never decreases. Right?
Click to expand...

No. Entropy (chaos) will always increase. Energy is fixed, at zero... you have to measure potential energy due to gravity as zero at "no gravity" and becoming more negitive as the body falls down a gravity well.... it all gets very odd.

And if there is entropy still going on then the universe (which taken as a whole is a 'closed system') is not infinitely old, or total entropy would have already occurred. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And the vast majority of physicists now accept the big bang as the likeliest explanation.
Click to expand...

Yes the universe must had had a beginning. The further away you look the further back in time you are seeing. The light has taken longer to get to your eye.

Galaxies are closer together the further back you look. Further than 12.5(ish) billion years there is nothing to see, ish, at least no galaxies or anything like them..
 
tecoyah said:
A singularity is not "Nothing"...it is a Singularity.

A religion is inherently unsupported by science, as it lives on faith alone...it has no data to support it.
Click to expand...

There is as much data as there is to support the origins of the big bang. Religion is a different hypothetical and theory.
 
joko104 said:
There is as much data as there is to support the origins of the big bang. Religion is a different hypothetical and theory.
Click to expand...

No....there is not.

The big bang THEORY has Data from multiple scientific fields, peer reviewed for accuracy and supported by further data to support it...and is constantly being studied.

Religious HYPOTHESIS, ended the attempt at theory when it was clear no one could possibly review things that had nothing to study or examine beyond opinion.

It is fine to believe whatever you wish...but pretending it is science is rather silly when one understands the concept.
 
Wessexman said:
The philosopher seeks knowledge, rather than useful predictions in themselves. It is certainly possible to explore the nature of the material, and what it presupposes, in a philosophical way, rather than in a strictly scientific one. This is how one would surely seek more fundamental and universal knowledge on the subject than observations of particular, empirical phenomena.
Click to expand...

Of course. But I was discussing science and why the BBT is considered a more acceptable scientific theory than, say, God.

Wessexman said:
There are numerous venerable philosophical arguments the fact the material implies a non-material cause. Indeed, until the 1960s, when ignorance of the history of though and scientism took their toll, pure materialism was rarely countenanced, because it was presumsed to be incoherent.

This is not necessarily true. Cartesian Dualism and mechanism were very useful for simplifying the domain of early modern science and, more or less, have been inherited by contemporary natural science (although it has been argued that modern science has always smuggled in final causes), but I do not think these are common sense.

Famously, in physics the apple is not truly red in the sense we know red from everyday experience.
Click to expand...

Well, I was referring mostly to metaphysics. I don't see how an opinion on philosophy of the mind is a prerequisite for most scientific work (except for directly related fields like, obviously, neuroscience). For example, a physicist doesn't need to believe in dualism, or pure materialism, or even be aware of those concepts in order to study leptons. But he must be making certain assumptions about the nature of reality - like that the lepton his studying exists independently of his self.

And I don't think most scientists that hold these views hold these views because they've studied metaphysics and concluded that realism is the best choice. I would guess they haven't given a lot of thought to it at all, but rather just happen to be unconsciously making a bunch of default assumptions that happen to approximate what philosophers call metaphysical realism. That's what I meant by common sense.
 
1750Texan said:
Infinitesimal in realtion to the Universe? That is the concept my mind has not yet comprehended.
Click to expand...

Infinitesimal in the sense that the distance between any objects approaches zero.

1750Texan said:
What or where is the Universe expanding into or in? What is the larger realm in which the Universe exists?
Click to expand...

That's a common question and unfortunately there's no satisfying answer. It's a good example of the limits of our intuition. It's pretty much impossible for us to imagine something that isn't contained within something else. But that's precisely what the universe is. There's nothing outside of it. If there were something outside, that something would also be part of the universe. So, it's not expanding into anything. It's just expanding. Our intuitive sense that it must be expanding into something is a mistake.

It's a little bit like four spatial dimensions. It's impossible for us to visualize 4D. Our intuition tells there just can't be another spatial dimension - there's length, width, height, how could there possibly be another direction? And yet most of us accept that there's nothing truly impossible about 4D, we just happen to live in a world that only has 3. Trying to visualize the universe not expanding into something else is as futile as trying to visualize that extra spatial dimension.
 
tecoyah said:
Please note the bolded words....and recognize opinion.

By placing your opinion into my comments and ignoring clarification when provided....you corrupt the discussion and end it.

And so, it ends.
Click to expand...
By my opinion you seem to be referring to my conclusions about what you meant, which I backed up. Why these are illegitimate, as you haven't really given a rebuttal of any detail, is hard to see. It seems you are just labelling them opinion and then claiming all opinion can be dismissed.

And yes, you gave a clarification of sorts, but that doesn't change the facts of the best interpretation of your previous comments. To me your clarification was something in the order of a complete rewriting of the meaning of your original post. But I'm certainly willing to conceed you did really mean what your clarification claims. There seems little to gain from continuing to argue on this subject.
 
1750Texan said:
My problem is not the "stretch" its the realm containing the stretch.

If the Universe in finite, and expanding to a limit, what is the final destination of mater...clustered against an outer shell? Would that cause a [second] big bang? [ second = X number of big bang explosions]


If the Universe is inifinite... "expansion" seems counterintuitive to me.
Click to expand...

Our best guess right now is that the universe is infinite (not to be confused with the observable universe which is only the portion of the universe that we can see, which is finite). This guess is based on measurements of overall spatial curvature. Overall, our universe is very, very, "flat". It may be perfectly flat, we can't tell yet. But this leads us to believe that the universe is either infinite or at the very least many, many times larger than the observable universe.

As far as understanding how an infinite universe can expand, imagine the number line. It goes on forever from 0 in both directions. Suppose each number is, say, one inch away from each of its neighbors. Now imagine that that distance starts to expand, each number growing further apart from its neighbors. That's a 1d analogy of the expansion of our universe.
 
the_recruit said:
Well, I was referring mostly to metaphysics. I don't see how an opinion on philosophy of the mind is a prerequisite for most scientific work (except for directly related fields like, obviously, neuroscience). For example, a physicist doesn't need to believe in dualism, or pure materialism, or even be aware of those concepts in order to study leptons. But he must be making certain assumptions about the nature of reality - like that the lepton his studying exists independently of his self.

And I don't think most scientists that hold these views hold these views because they've studied metaphysics and concluded that realism is the best choice. I would guess they haven't given a lot of thought to it at all, but rather just happen to be unconsciously making a bunch of default assumptions that happen to approximate what philosophers call metaphysical realism. That's what I meant by common sense.
Click to expand...
I largely agree. However, Cartesian dualism is not just a philosophy of mind. It is refers to the split between Res Cogitans and Res Extensa Descartes made, which reduced all secondary qualities to the sphere of the mind. Modern science has largely inherited this perspective (because it makes science easier to only have to deal with the more quantifiable primary qualities). This dualism helped lay the foundations for mechanism, or the denial of formal and final causes, that I think is also a big part of modern science still.
 
Wessexman said:
I largely agree. However, Cartesian dualism is not just a philosophy of mind. It is refers to the split between Res Cogitans and Res Extensa Descartes made, which reduced all secondary qualities to the sphere of the mind. Modern science has largely inherited this perspective (because it makes science easier to only have to deal with the more quantifiable primary qualities). This dualism helped lay the foundations for mechanism, or the denial of formal and final causes, that I think is also a big part of modern science still.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. I'm not familiar with most of this. The extent of my exposure to philosophy is Phil 101 and a handful of further readings on selected topics in my free time.
 
From my limited knowledge and recollection of of astronomy and physics, I recall/believe it is considered possible that the "Big Bang" is just one event in an ongoing cycle of expansion and contraction.
 
the_recruit said:
Infinitesimal in the sense that the distance between any objects approaches zero.



That's a common question and unfortunately there's no satisfying answer. It's a good example of the limits of our intuition. It's pretty much impossible for us to imagine something that isn't contained within something else. But that's precisely what the universe is. There's nothing outside of it. If there were something outside, that something would also be part of the universe. So, it's not expanding into anything. It's just expanding. Our intuitive sense that it must be expanding into something is a mistake.

It's a little bit like four spatial dimensions. It's impossible for us to visualize 4D. Our intuition tells there just can't be another spatial dimension - there's length, width, height, how could there possibly be another direction? And yet most of us accept that there's nothing truly impossible about 4D, we just happen to live in a world that only has 3. Trying to visualize the universe not expanding into something else is as futile as trying to visualize that extra spatial dimension.
Click to expand...
Time has a direction and could be that extra spatial dimension.
 
Moot said:
Time has a direction and could be that extra spatial dimension.
Click to expand...

:) I knew someone was going to bring this up, which is why I kept using the term "spatial". Time is often treated as a dimension, but it is not a spatial dimension. It's a temporal dimension and it's inherently different than the three spatial dimensions. I'm talking about another spatial dimension.
 
joko104 said:
There is a bizarre modern religion that credits the universe to a magical event they call "The Big Bang." Their belief is scientifically impossible.
Click to expand...
Belief isn't science.
It is impossible that energy can come from nothing - a direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Nor can matter come from absolute nothingness nor can properties such as gravity and magnetism.
Click to expand...
Second law of thermodynamic might not apply in a gravitional system.....

"In non-gravitational systems, objects always have positive heat capacity, meaning that the temperature rises with energy. Therefore, when energy flows from a high-temperature object to a low-temperature object, the source temperature is decreased while the sink temperature is increased; hence temperature differences tend to diminish over time.

However, this is not always the case for systems in which the gravitational force is important. The most striking examples are black holes, which - according to theory - have negative heat capacity. The larger the black hole, the more energy it contains, but the lower its temperature. Thus, the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way is supposed to have a temperature of 10−14 K, much lower than the cosmic microwave background temperature of 2.7K, but as it absorbs photons of the cosmic microwave background its mass is increasing so that its low temperature further decreases with time.

For this reason, gravitational systems tend towards non-even distribution of mass and energy. The universe in large scale is importantly a gravitational system, and the second law may therefore not apply to it.
Click to expand...
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


While they certainly can believe the universe just poofed into existence by MAGIC and then blew up in a "big bang" for which planets, stars and the rest are fallout from that explosion, it is a particularly odd modern religious belief that is scientifically impossible.
Click to expand...
It is theorized that the big bang was the explosion of an extremly hot dense single sub atomic particle (primevil atom theory) containing quark–gluon plasma which is the building block of all matter. Then a trillionth of a trillionth second later protons and nutrons were formed and then three minutes later light gases such as hydrogen, helium, lithium, etc were formed.....

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It would make more sense for me to explain to police that a gun just magically appeared in my hand the very instant after someone was shot by it. Not one jury would believe in that something-from-nothing magic. Yet those of the Big Bang religion insists such a magical event happened because they just know by faith that it did. Most bizarre is those of the religion claim they aren't religious. Rather, they just believe in magic and claim impossible magic is different from religion. :roll:
Click to expand...

Gravity seems to be the magic potion in our universe and it still can't be fully explained. But we know it exists because we can be observe its effects everywhere our observable universe and theorize that it may be responsible for the expansion of the universe. But even though the presense of gravity in our universe still can't be scientifically explained, religion accepts it as scientific fact.

Interstingly enough, it was a Belgian Catholic priest that came up with the primevil atom and Big Bang Theory.
 
the_recruit said:
:) I knew someone was going to bring this up, which is why I kept using the term "spatial". Time is often treated as a dimension, but it is not a spatial dimension. It's a temporal dimension and it's inherently different than the three spatial dimensions. I'm talking about another spatial dimension.
Click to expand...
I understand the difference, but it wouldn't be 'spacetime' without time in the equasion....nor would it be a four dimensional universe. In the most simplest terms...upward and downward, northward and southward, eastward and westard....and backward and futureward. Each set of directions is a dimension that makes up our observable four dimensional universe......aka spacetime.

BPR1-Coordinate-System-240.gif


But then, perhaps I missed your point in excluding time as one of the four dimensions.
 
the_recruit said:
Infinitesimal in the sense that the distance between any objects approaches zero.



That's a common question and unfortunately there's no satisfying answer. It's a good example of the limits of our intuition. It's pretty much impossible for us to imagine something that isn't contained within something else. But that's precisely what the universe is. There's nothing outside of it. If there were something outside, that something would also be part of the universe. So, it's not expanding into anything. It's just expanding. Our intuitive sense that it must be expanding into something is a mistake.

It's a little bit like four spatial dimensions. It's impossible for us to visualize 4D. Our intuition tells there just can't be another spatial dimension - there's length, width, height, how could there possibly be another direction? And yet most of us accept that there's nothing truly impossible about 4D, we just happen to live in a world that only has 3. Trying to visualize the universe not expanding into something else is as futile as trying to visualize that extra spatial dimension.
Click to expand...


Does "nothing" exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom