How Did We Get Here?

[Heather]

I know this question has probably been run into the ground, but I wanted to ask again.

I am fairly well versed with the Bible and other religions, etc. I'm definately no Theist (too well read for that). The one part of my education that I seem to be sorely lacking is an explanation as to how matter, atoms, etc. came to be in the first place. I guess what I am worried about is that a Christian will ask the obvious - how did matter get here if god didn't create it? I don't have a definite answer for this. I think many atheists and agnostics tend to avoid the "fact" (if it is a fact) that the universe had a beginning, because it implies that something created the universe.

I'm not familiar with anything on this subject, so if this is a silly and obvious question please tell me. I just don't want to be at a loss if someone asks this. Please tell me whatever you think about it. I want to pick your brains a little. :)

Heather

[FiberglassDolphin]

There is always the possibility that matter has always existed. Yes?

[Heather]

How could something have always existed? Doesn't that in itself defy logic? Isn't logic what the atheist/agnostic bases his belief on?

[FiberglassDolphin]

If there were a time when nothing existed, there would be nothing around to make something come into existence. That's what I mean.

I'm not answering any questions, am I?

[FiberglassDolphin]

I guess it doesn't have to be matter that has always existed, just something. For example, many religious people believe that atoms and everything was created by spiritual energy, I guess.

[whoneedscience]

It's definitely not a silly question. The worst part is, it's something that science can't really be sure of, but theists think they licked a long time ago. By that I mean that there is really no evidence to make conclisions about what the conditions were that lead up to the Big Bang (General Relativity breaks down at a singularity), as by definition it was wiped out afterwards. Everything after that, conventional cosmology can explain almost perfectly through. That means many people can make a somwhat valid claim that God is the one that put everything in motion, but that is a very limited "watchmaker" kind of God. The basis of the argument is that it's incredibly unlikely that the universe created itself randomly in the kind of configuration that could create life. If the conditions immediately after the Big Bang were differerent by an incredibly small amount, matter wouldn't form, or stars and planets wouldn't form, etc. I know I've recommended this book several times, but A Breif History of Time by Stephen Hawking does a very good job of explaining all this.

That's enough for the boring stuff. If you can buy into the idea of string theory (see Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe), or specifically the overarching M-theory, it can actually explain how it is possible for many parallel universes to exist that eliminate the possibility that our own is somehow taylored to life. This is probably the most exciting stuff in science, because if it can be supported adequately, we can say with confidence that there is no need for God to exist (whereas now we can really only say with hard evidence that he doesn't meddle in current affairs). The problem is, strings are so small we could never prove their existence, and while string theory has made a lot of amazing predictions (for instance it explains gravity whereas the standard model has yet to find the basis of gravity, the graviton), they are really postdictions. There is still a lot of work to do to see if it is even possible to find experimental evidence to support what is really a very radical, if amazing theory. The new updates to the facilities in CERN (due i think in 2009) though, could at least find evidence contradictory to the standard model.

This may be over your head, or even under it for that matter, and I appologize for the lack of specifics, but I think I might have answered your question. Thank you for at least feeding my insomnia.

[Heather]

I agree with you. But according to the Christian logic, there was a time when nothing existed but God. Then God created the universe. When you (as the atheist) argue that if that is true (that the universe had to have been created by something) then God must also have a creator and therefore there are an infinite number of creators, then Christians argue that their God is the uncaused cause. How do you refute that?

Another thing:

Atheists say that the universe has always been. Christians say that God has always been and he created the universe.

In other words, Atheists say that the universe has always been and Christians say that it was created. Regardless of how a god plays into this, how can it possibly be proved one way or the other? Aren't both situations logical? (If you disregard God).

Heather

[Heather]

Sorry whoneedscience - I posted before I saw your post.

I love the string theory. But I usually find that when I'm arguing wth Christians, I don't have my computer with me to help me remember things and explain theories to them. Basically they seem to be able to win just because their theory (God created everything) is MUCH easier to explain than my logic based on scientific evidence/theories. I can't explain the string theory to them adequately off the top of my head in one sitting.

I guess this is a problem I'll learn to deal with over time and with more experience. I'm still new at this and am learning all the time.

Thanks!
Heather

[whoneedscience]

It is very hard to explain, but then so is the accepted stuff. Really, the only acceptable reasoning about God as far as I can see is that he's a completely apathetic bastard who created the universe and alowed us to develop all on our own. The problem is, most theists are completely unwilling to believe in the scientific community, or take the time to understand it for themselves.

[GodlessHeathen]

I love the string theory. But I usually find that when I'm arguing wth Christians, I don't have my computer with me to help me remember things and explain theories to them. Basically they seem to be able to win just because their theory (God created everything) is MUCH easier to explain than my logic based on scientific evidence/theories. I can't explain the string theory to them adequately off the top of my head in one sitting.
That's a disadvantage most atheists and non-creationists have when debating this with christians and creationists. There are so many different and advanced scientific disciplines involved in explaining the creation of the universe, life on Earth, evolution, etc.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I agree with you. But according to the Christian logic, there was a time when nothing existed but God. Then God created the universe. When you (as the atheist) argue that if that is true (that the universe had to have been created by something) then God must also have a creator and therefore there are an infinite number of creators, then Christians argue that their God is the uncaused cause. How do you refute that?
Try asking "What was God doing before He created the universe?". Not really a refutation, but it always raises a few hackles.

On a further note, I don't see what's so special about God and why he gets to be the uncaused cause. Sure, you can argue that an infinity of gods would mean an impossible infinite past, but why can't Super God (God's creator) be the uncaused cause?

"What's that up there?!?"

"It's a bird!"

"It's a plane!"

"No, it's Super God!"

Bow down before Super God!

[Little Earth Stamper]

This is one of those things I've said so much that I know it by heart:

There are three possible scenarios for the beginning of existence:

A. Everything has a cause; If you ask, "Why A?" then it can be answered, "Because B". If you ask, "Why B?" then it can be answered, "Because C", and so on and so forth into infinity.

B. There was a first cause, which itself was uncaused. In other words, the answer to "Why B?" just ends up being, "Because".

C. The first cause was its own cause. This one is common in time travel paradoxes. For example, if you go back in time and become your own grandfather, then you only exist because you exist. You're your own cause.

Anyway, these are the only three scenarios I could think of for the start of existence. They are not satisfying, but they are, as far as I can tell, the only possibilities. One of them has to be correct, whether god exists or not.

So, obviously, we must ask if one of these solutions becomes more plausible with the addition of a personified god.

As far as I can tell, the answer is no; Each of these scenarios is equally logical whether they apply to an intelligent god or an unintelligent cosmos.

So, that's how I approach your question.

[Heather]

I like that explanation - the fact that there are explanations regardless of whether god exists or not. Let me ask this - in B, if the uncaused cause is not god, what could it be?

Heather

[Heather]

BTW Evil Mage - When I was younger (like 5 or 6) and was just starting to be forcefed all this religious BS, I would aways wonder what god was doing before he created the universe. And you must remember - God is special because the Bible says he is!

Heather

[Little Earth Stamper]

I like that explanation - the fact that there are explanations regardless of whether god exists are not. Let me ask this - in B, if the uncaused cause is not god, what could it be?

Heather
The uncaused cause could be anything, really. It could be the big bang. It could be some kind of multiverse in which our universe is embedded. It could be the laws of physics.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of most people, the primary difference between a god and the big bang singularity is that the singularity is not sentient. In other words, the only addition you would need to make the singularity a creator god is intelligence. Without that, it's not so much a creator god as it is a creator object.

So the question is, does intelligence make its uncausedness more likely? And I've come to the conclusion that it does not.

[Heather]

This makes sense. Basically the uncaused cause could be the original source of energy that started things "moving". This energy source does not have to be a diety. I think I am understanding more.

Thanks,
Heather

[ocmpoma]

I'd like to add that there is no logical reason why matter/energy can not be eternal.

However, what I want to point out is that the theists' argument only appears 'simple' and easy to explain. In fact, its simplicity is merely superficial and it doesn't explain anything.
Next time you're in a discussion about the origin of life, the universe, and everything (and you've tried the 'what was it doing before line), try this one: let the theists explain to their hearts content how their deity created the universe, etc. Then ask, "Why?"

[Lurker]

This makes sense. Basically the uncaused cause could be the original source of energy that started things "moving". This energy source does not have to be a diety. I think I am understanding more.
Accepting the uncaused cause theory, which violates known phyical laws, seems to be no different than accepting the impersonal force/energy theory that some call god.

Shifting gears...some have asked what a personal god was doing before time began. The same question could be asked about your uncaused cause. Since there are no conditions that need to be met, why didn't this uncaused cause act sooner? In my mind both questions are silly because there is no "sooner" outside time.

[Metman07]

I like that explanation - the fact that there are explanations regardless of whether god exists are not. Let me ask this - in B, if the uncaused cause is not god, what could it be?

Heather
The uncaused cause could be anything, really. It could be the big bang. It could be some kind of multiverse in which our universe is embedded. It could be the laws of physics.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of most people, the primary difference between a god and the big bang singularity is that the singularity is not sentient. In other words, the only addition you would need to make the singularity a creator god is intelligence. Without that, it's not so much a creator god as it is a creator object.

So the question is, does intelligence make its uncausedness more likely? And I've come to the conclusion that it does not.
Very well put. Theists tend to assume that because atheists don't have all the answers, then the answers that they have must be true.

I doubt that there is an infinite regression of causes, and I believe that there must be something that is its own cause. But what reasons are there to believe that this something is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient?

[GodlessHeathen]

Shifting gears...some have asked what a personal god was doing before time began. The same question could be asked about your uncaused cause. Since there are no conditions that need to be met, why didn't this uncaused cause act sooner? In my mind both questions are silly because there is no "sooner" outside time.
If the uncaused cause was a mass of matter and energy, it could be argued that it was just there. Matter and energy are not sentient beings. However, god is a sentient being. So, was god just sitting around contemplating his navel for eons before he got bored and decided to create a universe?

[Philboid Studge]

So, was god just sitting around contemplating his navel for eons before he got bored and decided to create a universe?
He couldn't have had a navel.

[GodlessHeathen]

So, was god just sitting around contemplating his navel for eons before he got bored and decided to create a universe?
He couldn't have had a navel.
Hmm. . .good point. . .

[Lurker]

If the uncaused cause was a mass of matter and energy, it could be argued that it was just there. Matter and energy are not sentient beings. However, god is a sentient being. So, was god just sitting around contemplating his navel for eons before he got bored and decided to create a universe?
Some people view god as nonsentient so both of you would be referring to the same thing I guess.

I'll repeat my earlier question -- since there are no conditions that need to be met, why didn't this uncaused cause act sooner? If you can't answer my question then how do you expect me to answer yours? At least sentience gives you the ability to choose acting now or later. Your uncaused cause has no choice but to act.

[PanAtheist]

Is an uncaused cause a contradiction?
an absurdity?
which can have as much existence as a (fully-illuminated and in-sight) invisible dayglo pink unicorn?

Is talk about such things has as meaningful as wind?!!!!!!

If uncaused causes ARE possible, then they have to be exactly RANDOM.
And their effect on pre-existing reality has to be 100% purely RANDOM.

Then reality itself has to be a mixture of 100% random newness, and that which already happens to pre-exist! (and which, perhaps, started earlier)

:-) [God is a person who happens to exist, and comes magically equipped with imagination and intelligence with which he informs his magic commands of "Let there be Light", "Let there be this and that"] :-)

Now *THAT BEING* springing into existence is an outrageously outrageously infinite *INFINITE IMPROBABILITY DRIVE*!!!!

Some people are ever deciding to dismiss their knowledge of reason, and practise the insanity of pretending "God" "exists".

But isn't "God" REALLY a fracture in thinking and sanity?!
And don't these folk simply *love* the excitement of their recklessness?!

************************************************** ***********************

Shall there not always be a great and vast unknown?!!

And shall there not always be the random?!!!

[GodlessHeathen]

Some people view god as nonsentient so both of you would be referring to the same thing I guess.
Well, I view god as nonexistent, so I'm speaking in hypotheticals when I refer to god as "sentient". He chose to make the universe, so I would assume that (again, hypothetically speaking) your god is sentient.

I'll repeat my earlier question -- since there are no conditions that need to be met, why didn't this uncaused cause act sooner? If you can't answer my question then how do you expect me to answer yours? At least sentience gives you the ability to choose acting now or later. Your uncaused cause has no choice but to act.
Matter and energy can't "act". There is a water bottle on my desk right now. I've been watching it for the last hour, and it doesn't do anything. Also, matter and energy don't make "choices". They react to conditions and stimuli. Personally, I don't know what happened to cause the uncaused cause to react. I'm not sure anyone knows. But, that doesn't make the "invisible man in the sky" the answer.

One other thing as an aside: I admit I haven't been on this board very long, but your statement that "If you can't answer my question then how do you expect me to answer yours" confuses me. I've seen that a couple of times from the theists here. Why does my ability/inability to satisfactorily answer your question affect your ability to answer another question? Does your answer somehow depend on mine?

[Lurker]

Matter and energy can't "act". There is a water bottle on my desk right now. I've been watching it for the last hour, and it doesn't do anything. Also, matter and energy don't make "choices". They react to conditions and stimuli. Personally, I don't know what happened to cause the uncaused cause to react. I'm not sure anyone knows. But, that doesn't make the "invisible man in the sky" the answer.
You guys (not you in particular) brought up the natural uncaused cause theory so I'm just pointing out the problems with that theory, just as you like to point out problems with the uncaused god theory. I'm biased, but I think I have a stronger case considering (as PanAtheist said) naturally occuring uncaused causes would be random and thus the beginning of the universe should have occured long ago. Why the delay?

One other thing as an aside: I admit I haven't been on this board very long, but your statement that "If you can't answer my question then how do you expect me to answer yours" confuses me. I've seen that a couple of times from the theists here. Why does my ability/inability to satisfactorily answer your question affect your ability to answer another question? Does your answer somehow depend on mine?
My answer is not dependent on yours at all. I can take a guess at the answer, and so can you. Neither of us knows the answer so it's really pointless.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Some people view god as nonsentient so both of you would be referring to the same thing I guess.
I don't know if this is something you personally believe, so I'm not sure if you'd even know the answer, but how could a nonsentient god have a will, and how could he communicate his will with his creation?

[ocmpoma]

"...naturally occuring uncaused causes would be random and thus the beginning of the universe should have occured long ago. Why the delay?"

Not that I subscribe to existence as an uncaused cause, but since time as we know it began with the big bang, there couldn't have been a delay, since there wasn't any time beforehand.

[GodlessHeathen]

One other thing as an aside: I admit I haven't been on this board very long, but your statement that "If you can't answer my question then how do you expect me to answer yours" confuses me. I've seen that a couple of times from the theists here. Why does my ability/inability to satisfactorily answer your question affect your ability to answer another question? Does your answer somehow depend on mine?
My answer is not dependent on yours at all. I can take a guess at the answer, and so can you. Neither of us knows the answer so it's really pointless.
Fair enough.

[TsiehtA Yug]

"...naturally occuring uncaused causes would be random and thus the beginning of the universe should have occured long ago. Why the delay?"

Not that I subscribe to existence as an uncaused cause, but since time as we know it began with the big bang, there couldn't have been a delay, since there wasn't any time beforehand.
That's basically the theists argument. God is "outside of time".

At this point I think the argument is whether the first cause (if there was one) was sentient or nonsentient.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Lurker, you seem to have skipped over a few parts of my argument. Two points I want to reiterate:

1. None of these answers are particularly satisfying, and they all raise serious questions.

2. For the purposes of my argument, in order for something to be called a god, it must possess some degree of sentience. In the eastern religions, you can get into a gray area; is the Tao a god? What about Karma? Atman?

I think we could make a strong argument that none of these things are gods. Furthermore, if we remove sentience from the definition of god, then the word doesn't really mean much of anything.

My point is that the universe was created in one of these three ways, whether a god caused them or not. God theories do not solve these questions.

Morover, god theories are extremely complex, in violation of occam's razor. If you aren't a deist, your conception of the creator deity includes many facets that aren't really supported by any evidence (For example, the universal creator came to earth as Jesus).

If I wake up one day and I can't find my wallet, I can come to several conclusions; I could conclude that I lost it, I could conclude that it was stolen, or I could conclude that a midget pickpocket named carlos (carlos always spells his name with a small "c") stole it yesterday while I was waiting for the bus, because he needed money to hire a greyhound to go back to ohio to visit his sick sister.

Now, clearly, the carlos theory is very unlikely. The reason is that it has a high volume of conjectures that are unsupported by the evidence; Because there are so many possibilities for, say carlos' name, the odds that I will get it right without evidence are very small. And the odds are even smaller that I will get every single one of the details right.

That's the basis of Occam's Razor.

Since we know so little about the creative force, attributing things like intelligence to it is clearly premature.

Actually, after typing all that, I realised the question is moot; Heather's first post makes it clear that theists are proposing to her that their idea is more plausible then hers. I don't need to demonstrate that the atheistic creation idea is better then the theistic one, I have to demonstrate that the theistic one is not superior to the atheistic one, which I believe I have done.

[whoneedscience]

"...naturally occuring uncaused causes would be random and thus the beginning of the universe should have occured long ago. Why the delay?"

Not that I subscribe to existence as an uncaused cause, but since time as we know it began with the big bang, there couldn't have been a delay, since there wasn't any time beforehand.
Furthermore, our perception of it would be the same regardless of whether time existed previously, by the anthropic principle. Even if there was infinite time beforehand in which to act, a randomly generated Big Bang would still have caused the universe we see today. The very concept of delaying creation is completely meaningless, no matter how you look at it.

At least sentience gives you the ability to choose acting now or later. Your uncaused cause has no choice but to act.
:o And how is that an advantage? How does that even make any sense? Of course random, nonsentient events don't have a choice, they're random. If you see that as evindence for a sentient cause, you must have already made the assumption that it was sentient and cared about a choice of acting.

[Lurker]

Little E,
There may be a few more problems with your theory.

1) We’ve assumed that time does not exist outside this universe.

2) From 1, your uncaused cause can not be comprised of physical matter/energy because these move at the atomic level and movement means time is ticking away. Occam’s Razor says your current theory must have more assumptions to account for this.

3) If you reject 1 then time does exist outside our universe and so does physical matter/energy. According to current scientific theory, we know that conscious beings developed in this universe (unassisted) over billions of years.

From this we can conclude that it’s likely conscious beings were formed outside our universe via the same process. It's also likely that these beings are far more knowledgeable/powerful/advanced than us, because the process has been going on for a longer period of time. Considering what we know from this universe, it’s more reasonable to conclude that a conscious, sentient being caused our Big Bang than non-living (non-sentient) matter/energy.

[Raiden936]

nobody knows how we got here....simple as that

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

nobody knows how we got here....simple as that
I took the bus. :D

[Lurker]

At least sentience gives you the ability to choose acting now or later. Your uncaused cause has no choice but to act.
:o And how is that an advantage? How does that even make any sense? Of course random, nonsentient events don't have a choice, they're random. If you see that as evindence for a sentient cause, you must have already made the assumption that it was sentient and cared about a choice of acting.
Read post #33 above in response to post #31 then come back and try again.

[whoneedscience]

As I said before, modern cosmology can't tell us anything about before or even during the Big Bang. Not only has any information about it been destroyed, but you'd have to combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity in order to even describe the Big Bang itself as a singularity (something both incredibly massive and small). But, since spacetime exists as a single entity that seems to have been caused by the Big Bang, any talk of what happened before is completely beyond either theory. That leaves the one important question of why does the universe exist the way we see it. It seems incredibly unlikely that we happen to exist in a single universe that happens to have all the conditions necessary for life to develop all on its own, but per the anthropic principle, this doesn't really matter, because the only reason we see this problem is because we exist to see it: if the initial conditions were different, we wouldn't know about it.

If we're going to go beyond those theories into the highly theoretical world of M-theory, then maybe there was time before the Big Bang, and all of our dimensions (space and time), matter and energy are just one of an infinite, or very large number of universes. That solves any problem that might exist in the initial conditions and fundamental laws of physics, as each universe would have its own laws, only a few of which would be capable of bearing the stars, planets, liquid water, etc. necessary for life. It is possible by this theory for new universes to spring up randomly, somewhat like how matter-antimatter pairs are known to spring randomly into existence in empty space, and it may even be possible to create them in the lab. The problem is, none of this has much in the way of hard, observable predictions.

Either way, there is really no need to create a theoretical uncaused cause, although there is still a lot of science that has yet to be done. The very idea, as one achieved through reason completely devoid of evidence or science, is really more confusing than anything. What is this uncaused cause, and why does it even need to exist as sentient or nonsentient?

In that light, Lurker, your "problems" are really more like inane statements, and I can't see where they help the argument of a sentient cause. If you mean to suggest that our universe was created in a lab as mentioned above, it actually does just as good a job as any of eliminating the need for a Biblical God

[Lurker]

What is this uncaused cause, and why does it even need to exist as sentient or nonsentient? In that light, Lurker, your "problems" are really more like inane statements, and I can't see where they help the argument of a sentient cause.
Tell that to Little E and all the other atheists who adhere to their naturally occuring uncaused cause theory. I'm simply pointing out the problems with their theory.

[abortionman]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

good article to explain the beginnings of the universe

basically...grossly simplified
spacetime is freakey...and something can come from nothing...ish but for a short and insignifigant time.

right...it's impossible to right this without sounding confusing
just try to think back to basic chemistry/physics in college when reading the article (specifcally the whole "the energy of the universe adds up to zero" thing)

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
From this we can conclude that it’s likely conscious beings were formed outside our universe via the same process. It's also likely that these beings are far more knowledgeable/powerful/advanced than us, because the process has been going on for a longer period of time. Considering what we know from this universe, it’s more reasonable to conclude that a conscious, sentient being caused our Big Bang than non-living (non-sentient) matter/energy.
So, becuase sentient beings exist outside of the uiverse, it follows that they created ours? Who created theirs?

Even if this argument makes sense, it's pretty far from orthodox Christian thinking, isn't it?

[nvxplorer]

Hi all. First post.

Something has always bothered me in attempting to explain first cause. As humans, we assume we're capable of tackling such a question. Is it not possible that our brains are not "wired" properly to assign reason to this enigma? Indeed, I'm having difficulty in expressing my question. Let me try to elaborate.

I'm not necessarily referring to intelligence, though I'm not discounting it either. For example, my cat does not nor will ever have the capacity to understand algebra. This is a result of my cat's limited capacity for understanding and learning. I am not saying humans don't have the capacity to learn. I am questioning whether our sense of logic, dictated by our brain structure, is all-encompassing. In other words, is there another form/level of logic - completely foreign (or seemingly illogical) to us - which could explain things we do not or cannot understand?

I am probably being quite unclear, but if anyone catches the gist of my statements, I'd appreciate discussion.

[Philboid Studge]

Hey, nvxplorer. Welcome, and abandon all hope.

I'm with you on this. And it makes perfect sense that this is a difficult discussion to have because we are attempting to describe the ineffable. I think (!) the cat analogy helps. There are a number of concepts of that we seem to be able to understand, like first cause, but in fact we're incapable of truly handling paradoxes. (See time travel.)

In other words, is there another form/level of logic - completely foreign (or seemingly illogical) to us - which could explain things we do not or cannot understand?
Some might point to Einstein to say that other forms/levels of logic are at least possible. I'm dubious. I tend to think the Taoists had it about right: the moment you attempt to describe absolute reality is the moment you lose whatever grip you think you had on it.

[nvxplorer]

Hey, nvxplorer. Welcome, and abandon all hope.

I'm with you on this. And it makes perfect sense that this is a difficult discussion to have because we are attempting to describe the ineffable. I think (!) the cat analogy helps. There are a number of concepts of that we seem to be able to understand, like first cause, but in fact we're incapable of truly handling paradoxes. (See time travel.)

In other words, is there another form/level of logic - completely foreign (or seemingly illogical) to us - which could explain things we do not or cannot understand?
Some might point to Einstein to say that other forms/levels of logic are at least possible. I'm dubious. I tend to think the Taoists had it about right: the moment you attempt to describe absolute reality is the moment you lose whatever grip you think you had on it.
Thanks for the reply. Abandon all hope? I'd laugh if I had any hope to abandon. (I hope you get a laugh out of that ;) )

Yes, the paradox is perfect example. There are all the classics (arrows which never reach their targets, etc.) We seem to think linearly, but everything is also based on segmentation, which contradicts the constant flow of time. Noon never occurs because as it approaches, time can be divided into infinitesimally smaller segments, continuously. (I heard a blurb that some have theorized that time cannot be divided into ever smaller segments; that it has components which at their base cannot be divided further. I heard it in passing, and I know nothing else, but such an idea is "illogical" to how I think, anyway.) I also remember something said to me by my high school trig teacher. He was describing the creation of perfect spheres in zero gravity. His argument was theoretical, stating that a sphere could be perfect only to certain specifications - the millionth of an inch, the billionth of an inch, etc. I guess the question is whether a distance exists which is so small, that it cannot be measured between two points. This would be the only way a perfect sphere could exist. Not being knowlegeable in this area, perhaps such a distance does exist, but it is something the normal human mind finds illogical. Trying to describe first cause may entail the same type of "logic," and I think it's quite possible that if the answer were in front of us, and we knew it was in front of us, we may still be unable to wrap our brains around it.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm not necessarily referring to intelligence, though I'm not discounting it either. For example, my cat does not nor will ever have the capacity to understand algebra. This is a result of my cat's limited capacity for understanding and learning. I am not saying humans don't have the capacity to learn. I am questioning whether our sense of logic, dictated by our brain structure, is all-encompassing. In other words, is there another form/level of logic - completely foreign (or seemingly illogical) to us - which could explain things we do not or cannot understand?

I am probably being quite unclear, but if anyone catches the gist of my statements, I'd appreciate discussion.
W.V.O. Quine (a philosopher in the 20th century) touched on this in his paper Ontological Relativity, which is basically the theory that if there is any complete description of reality that is true, then necessarily there is more than one (my head is all ready starting to ache recalling this paper). This would include other forms of logic that we are unaware of. So there might be ways of thinking about existence that would be completely alien to us, and non-translatable into something we could understand. There could be even types of intelligence that we wouldn't even be able to recognize as intelligence. Who knows? Who is the muffin man?

As for smallest distance/time, it's called the Planck Scale. The Planck Second is 10^-43 sec., and the Planck Length is 10^-33 cm. (the PS is the time it takes light to cross the Planck length, and the PL is the point where general relativity breaks down and becomes chaotic. I think. Any physics nuts feel free to correct me).

Rhinoq

[ocmpoma]

Planck Units from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

[HeWhoAsks]

Some might point to Einstein to say that other forms/levels of logic are at least possible. I'm dubious. I tend to think the Taoists had it about right: the moment you attempt to describe absolute reality is the moment you lose whatever grip you think you had on it.
Surely the logic of 4 spatial dimensions is totally outside the ability of humans to understand.

I don't get that Taoist thing. Absolute reality is a straw man. We should abandon the attempt to understand absolute reality, whatever that is. All we can do is to observe and make as much sense as possible.

[MrsMoe]

Atheists say that the universe has always been. Christians say that God has always been and he created the universe.
How do you create matter out of nothing? You don't. It's not possible. The Big Bang does say that matter exploded and spread out creating the Universe over the next 20 billion years give or take. I have to confess, this confuses the hell out of me. Where did the matter come from? It was always there? To me, that screams "bullshit." It's the one thing about Evolution that doesn't make sense to me.

I wish I could understand, but my IQ isn't high enough. :P Any good books any of you suggest that make it seem more logical? I am going back to college after I give birth to the cute little parasite that has taken up shop in my tummy, maybe I should take physics instead of human resources. heh

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Atheists say that the universe has always been. Christians say that God has always been and he created the universe.
How do you create matter out of nothing? You don't. It's not possible. The Big Bang does say that matter exploded and spread out creating the Universe over the next 20 billion years give or take. I have to confess, this confuses the hell out of me. Where did the matter come from? It was always there? To me, that screams "bullshit." It's the one thing about Evolution that doesn't make sense to me.

I wish I could understand, but my IQ isn't high enough. :P Any good books any of you suggest that make it seem more logical? I am going back to college after I give birth to the cute little parasite that has taken up shop in my tummy, maybe I should take physics instead of human resources. heh
"The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg is a short (~150 pages), accurate, and extremely readable popular introduction to Big Bang cosmology. That'd be a good start.

In the meantime, here's a fairly comprehensive astronomy FAQ that covers the Big Bang and cosmology, among other things: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/qanda.html

[Rhinoqulous]

I wish I could understand, but my IQ isn't high enough. :P Any good books any of you suggest that make it seem more logical? I am going back to college after I give birth to the cute little parasite that has taken up shop in my tummy, maybe I should take physics instead of human resources. heh
"Fabric of the Cosmos" and "The Elegant Universe" are both good books about contemporary physics, and both by Brian Greene. "Universe" deals more with string theory than "Cosmos", and is a bit denser of a book.

Rhinoq

[MrsMoe]

Thanks, I will check them out. :)

[Kamikaze189]

Eventually, if we don't nuke ourselves, humanity may have enough knowledge to answer this.

It essentially comes down to big bang or god.

If we are discussing the beginning of the universe, it's perfectly fair to say there could only be an effect. Here's why: Before the universe, what was there? Seeing as how the universe contains all matter in existence, only nothing could have been beforehand. This does seem illogical, but it is not. No universe and no matter allow this to be a logical idea.

god, as always, is on the side of the illogical. Look at our own outer space, you freeze instantly in it without a highly protective suit. Radiation and light from stars boils your skin ( that is, if you didn't freeze instantly yet :p ). And then I'm supposed to accept that there's a possibility of life outside our universe. Outside our universe, where nothing exists (all matter is in our universe) could somehow exist a god. No, this is not a possibility, to even consider it is insane.

Theists appear to like this "you didn't have a cause for your big bang! it just happened!"
Which is funny, because they seem to believe, on faith (practically without thought), that their god always existed. I'd like a Theist to tell me how their god came to be. Everything has a beginning, but not necessarily an end. (Time and the universe for example.)

I bet I know something they (say they) don't. :)

[psyadam]

Some might point to Einstein to say that other forms/levels of logic are at least possible. I'm dubious. I tend to think the Taoists had it about right: the moment you attempt to describe absolute reality is the moment you lose whatever grip you think you had on it.
Surely the logic of 4 spatial dimensions is totally outside the ability of humans to understand.
Surely you have not taken a class on quaternions.

[Tenspace]

Some might point to Einstein to say that other forms/levels of logic are at least possible. I'm dubious. I tend to think the Taoists had it about right: the moment you attempt to describe absolute reality is the moment you lose whatever grip you think you had on it.
Surely the logic of 4 spatial dimensions is totally outside the ability of humans to understand.
Surely you have not taken a class on quaternions.
At times I think I can visualize 4D (look at my avatar for Dali's visualization) - but any more than that is probably impossible for my human brain.

Tenspace

[HeWhoAsks]

Some might point to Einstein to say that other forms/levels of logic are at least possible. I'm dubious. I tend to think the Taoists had it about right: the moment you attempt to describe absolute reality is the moment you lose whatever grip you think you had on it.
Surely the logic of 4 spatial dimensions is totally outside the ability of humans to understand.
Surely you have not taken a class on quaternions.
I *so* did not say that. That's a misquote, just for the record.

[psyadam]

Surely the logic of 4 spatial dimensions is totally outside the ability of humans to understand.
Surely you have not taken a class on quaternions.
I *so* did not say that. That's a misquote, just for the record.
Actually, you did. For those who don't know what a quaternion is, it's a 4 diminsional vector. I haven't taken the class offered at my school called Quaternions, as it's a very tough class. But I know it exists and that higher diminsions are very useful in mathematics. Exactly how they are useful I'm not quite sure, but I know you can manipulate matrices with more than 3 rows or columns and when you do that that's like doing mathematical operations on a diminsion higher than 3.

[HeWhoAsks]

Surely you have not taken a class on quaternions.
I *so* did not say that. That's a misquote, just for the record.
Actually, you did.
Yeah, but I didn't mean it.:D

Sorry, I *did* say that.

Seriously, though, I meant "visualize" rather than understand.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I have a lot I would like to say about all this but I don't I think I can get into it all in one post.

I took several logic courses in college as a P&R major. The way most people use the word "logic" is not the same as what it really means. For example, you can apply representative symbols to any set of statements or arguments in symbolic logic and express them in the form of a syllogism that is either valid or invalid. It is basically a way to express any argument in mathematical form. What I'm getting at here is I think the same "logic" would be as likely to apply in different "universes" as mathematics would. I think 1 + 1 equals 2 wherever you go and the same logic would apply in as many universes as mathematics would.

In logic or in mathematics, you can't have true paradoxes. If you run into what seems to be a paradox (like; 1 equals 1 AND 1 does not equal 1 at the same time), then something is wrong with your reasoning and you have to go back and look at your assumptions (your premises) or how you made your deductions.

There are no true paradoxes in this universe or any other.

(By the way, while A Brief History of Time is interesting, it contains some errors and is outdated, which you should keep in mind, if you read it. Hawking speculations about remembering the future instead of the past if the universe were to collapse are BS AND there are some other things he got wrong about how black holes operate, both of these things he has now admitted were wrong. I don't personally put much faith in his speculations or think as much of him as most people do)

The argument that everything must have had a cause is what many theists think demonstrates that there must be a God. What they fail to see is that if they have the presumption that everything has to have a cause, then what created God? You could just as easily say that the "universe" has always been as say that "God" has always been since both defy the idea that everything has to have had a cause to come into existence, and using Occam’s Razor, you can see there is no reason to assume that there was something even more complex than the "universe" that was pre-existing. In other words, if it seems too amazing to conceive that all of this could have existed of its own accord, it is even more amazing to conceive that there was something even greater than this existing of its own accord before it.

Now that all that is out of the way, I might begin to address the main question of this thread. Please indulge me while I try to express my thoughts and speculations with these primitive thought experiments....

What everybody seems to be falling into here is time-bound thinking. Let me explain what I mean.

The zero dimension is a point in space, the first dimension is length, the second is length and width, the third is length, width, and depth (or height), and so on.

Has anyone read the little book called Flatland? Flatland is a two-dimensional world filled with Flatlanders that can only perceive things in two dimensions. Imagine a piece of paper without any thickness. Now imagine a three dimensional object like a ball passing through the Flatlander's world. First, they would perceive a point invading their space. The point would grow into an ever expanding circle taking more and more of their space. Then it would begin to collapse until it was reduced into a point and then it would disappear. It would seem to have a beginning, a middle, and an end as far as they were concerned, yet the whole ball existed before and after it passed through their world.

Think about the film of a movie passing through a projector. You only see one frame of the film at a time, yet the whole film exists before and after you view it.

What I'm trying to get at here is that it is possible this is something like our situation. Past, present, and future exist simultaneously, yet we can only perceive the present because of our situation or limitations of existence in this dimension. We have the concept of cause and effect, but that is the only way we can understand the interrelationships between everything that IS. The true reality is that everything that IS transcends our perceptions of both space and time. It fully encompasses all of space and time, so it is not bound by the restrictions of either one. We are like the blind man trying to "see" the elephant using our hands.

What I'm saying here is not new. This is how Hindus think everything is and Vonnegut explores this idea in Slaughterhouse 5 as only two (non-serious) examples.

If every dimension is squared to get to the next, then each encompasses more time and space. If there is an ultimate dimension, then it encompasses all time and space. If all space is encompassed, then there is no place to move. If anyone existed in this dimension, there would be no time, since they would be occupying all space and time. They would have always been and they always would be, just like a "God." In fact, since no one can perceive dimensions higher than their own, this theoretical person existing in this space, would exist everywhere, but we wouldn't be able to perceive them. Again, just like a "God."

However....

In order to be self-aware in this "ultimate dimension" you would have to have "thought." To have "thought" requires the idea of time. If you are existing in all space, there is no place to move and there is no time. If there is no time, there is no thought or self-awareness. Therefore, there is no God.

What is IS, and what is is all there IS, and IT has always been and IT always will be because what IS encompasses all space and time.

Perhaps, the only place that what IS can be conceived (or thought about) is where we are -- in this dimension.

It is also possible that there is no "ultimate dimension" but that dimensions are squared infinitely instead. In that case, there is no God as well, since God requires the existence of an "ultimate dimension" to be the God he is supposed to be.

So, the idea of God is ruled out either way.

Finally, there are a number of theories going around about what caused the Big Bang. One is that if there is enough of nothing, something will come of it. This relies on some of the ideas coming out of quantum mechanics. There is the String Theory that tries to create new variables of probabilities to explain any difficult issues arising. There is the idea of "multiverses" where there are an infinite number of "universes," and anything might be true somewhere.

I find all these ideas lacking in some respect. I lean towards Einstein's outlook that the universe won't be explained with the probabilities of quantum mechanics, I think creating variables as you need them will just create a big mess, and the idea of multiverses creates paradoxes that rule them out based on logic.

(The reason I've been putting quotes around "universe" is because it used to mean "everything that is." Now, it seems to have taken on a different meaning of "everything that we can know about what we might be able to observe or test that surrounds us.")

The latest theory that I have read about can be summarized as follows....

The area that we know about exists like a sheet hanging on a clothes line in the backyard. There is a another sheet hanging on the next line over. The lack of time and space on either sheet drew the two together until they made contact. At the point of contact, they each had a Big Bang event that repelled them away from each other. Once the energy that was created from this contact is totally expended (the universe expands until all the stars and energy burns out), then they become attracted to each other again to make new contact. This is a variation of the oscillating universe model that appears to have been discredited as it was first formulated. If this is true, then who knows how long this has been happening over and over (from a time-bound view-point)?

I've always thought that you can draw parallels between different disciplines. There are similar ideas in art, physics, mythology, religion, and science for example. I won't go into all that here since I've probably said too much for one posting, but there are a lot of interesting things that relate that I haven't touched on.

Also, there are a lot of issues that I've brought up regarding determinism and why we should care if everything in the future already IS as it will BE from our perspective and why what I've said is a good thing instead of fatalistic thing, but I will save that for another day as well.

Please forgive my long-windedness where I think I have demonstrated extreme brevity and glossed over too many things or explained what I wanted to say inadequately. I don't happen to think life can be reduced to bumper-sticker slogans and I know I haven't shown as much proof as is needed. I just hope I've given something for everyone to think about.

[TroggleHumper]

I know this question has probably been run into the ground, but I wanted to ask again.

I am fairly well versed with the Bible and other religions, etc. I'm definately no Theist (too well read for that). The one part of my education that I seem to be sorely lacking is an explanation as to how matter, atoms, etc. came to be in the first place. I guess what I am worried about is that a Christian will ask the obvious - how did matter get here if god didn't create it? I don't have a definite answer for this. I think many atheists and agnostics tend to avoid the "fact" (if it is a fact) that the universe had a beginning, because it implies that something created the universe.

I'm not familiar with anything on this subject, so if this is a silly and obvious question please tell me. I just don't want to be at a loss if someone asks this. Please tell me whatever you think about it. I want to pick your brains a little. :)

Heather
The truth is that we dont know all the ansers as theist claim to, but the leap to a conclution of god made matter is not an ansir. people use to think that gods made earthquakes, but when we found out that its tectonic plates then they push the idea of god to other unexplainable events. When we do find how matter was made theist will ask "well where did that come from? It must have been Zeus."

[calpurnpiso]

I know this question has probably been run into the ground, but I wanted to ask again.

I am fairly well versed with the Bible and other religions, etc. I'm definately no Theist (too well read for that). The one part of my education that I seem to be sorely lacking is an explanation as to how matter, atoms, etc. came to be in the first place. I guess what I am worried about is that a Christian will ask the obvious - how did matter get here if god didn't create it? I don't have a definite answer for this. I think many atheists and agnostics tend to avoid the "fact" (if it is a fact) that the universe had a beginning, because it implies that something created the universe.

I'm not familiar with anything on this subject, so if this is a silly and obvious question please tell me. I just don't want to be at a loss if someone asks this. Please tell me whatever you think about it. I want to pick your brains a little. :)

Heather
The truth is that we dont know all the ansers as theist claim to, but the leap to a conclution of god made matter is not an ansir. people use to think that gods made earthquakes, but when we found out that its tectonic plates then they push the idea of god to other unexplainable events. When we do find how matter was made theist will ask "well where did that come from? It must have been Zeus."
I think a problem, we mutated insane primates have, is that our evolved brains seem unable to say I DON'T KNOW, they rather create an ethereal concept ( god) to explain it!

Science is the best tool we have to provide the answers, but the problem is the more answers it provides, also the more questions!. But as long as we are able to say, "I don't know"...and in many cases adding " and I don't care", as long as one's life and that of others is not at stake, this wise statement can bring us peace of mind, t hus happiness........:)

[ghoulslime]

I know this question has probably been run into the ground, but I wanted to ask again.

I am fairly well versed with the Bible and other religions, etc. I'm definately no Theist (too well read for that). The one part of my education that I seem to be sorely lacking is an explanation as to how matter, atoms, etc. came to be in the first place. I guess what I am worried about is that a Christian will ask the obvious - how did matter get here if god didn't create it? I don't have a definite answer for this. I think many atheists and agnostics tend to avoid the "fact" (if it is a fact) that the universe had a beginning, because it implies that something created the universe.

I'm not familiar with anything on this subject, so if this is a silly and obvious question please tell me. I just don't want to be at a loss if someone asks this. Please tell me whatever you think about it. I want to pick your brains a little. :)

Heather
The truth is that we dont know all the ansers as theist claim to, but the leap to a conclution of god made matter is not an ansir. people use to think that gods made earthquakes, but when we found out that its tectonic plates then they push the idea of god to other unexplainable events. When we do find how matter was made theist will ask "well where did that come from? It must have been Zeus."
I think a problem, we mutated insane primates have, is that our evolved brains seem unable to say I DON'T KNOW, they rather create an ethereal concept ( god) to explain it!

Science is the best tool we have to provide the answers, but the problem is the more answers it provides, also the more questions!. But as long as we are able to say, "I don't know"...and in many cases adding " and I don't care", as long as one's life and that of others is not at stake, this wise statement can bring us peace of mind, t hus happiness........:)
Amen!

[KingExamin]

Okay...

Earth was all lava, Earth formed water from the (forgot the chemicle, one of those days that you can't think.) in the gas from the lava. Molcules formed in the water. The grew. One day a fish like think walked out of water, that evoles like so, and with a couple millions years of evolution, we're here today. That's what I think, anyways.

[ChiefOfAss]

How do you create matter out of nothing? You don't. It's not possible.
You don't know that. In fact, It's entirely possible.... even without the fact that we don't know what nothing is since we can't find it.

I looks like there may be stuff everywhere. Even after science has declared a place an absolute void, it always seems like someone eventually comes along and finds something in nothing.

The Big Bang does say that matter exploded and spread out creating the Universe over the next 20 billion years give or take.{... omitted, see below...} It's the one thing about Evolution that doesn't make sense to me.
Once again, another presumably rational person confidently conflagrates two very separate theories into one and emerges astonished by all the smoke and confusion.

I think it happens so much because the same word ascribed to the observable effects of time and environment on living things on Earth also describes the general order of things, universally.

Civilization, invention, human thought, social conscience, and even the Earth evolve rather than spontaneously occur in disconnected singularity. So, maybe its because everything we perceive, including ourselves, seems to follow a pattern of stasis, disruption, response, and result - over and over - people like MrsMoe can't help themselves when talking about the Big Bang.

Does anyone else think that this apparent connection between all the systems of the known universe is behind this sort of - uh.... scientific dyslexia ?

MrsMoe, if happen upon this post, I'd love to know if I'm doing you a favor by this explanation or if you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I have to confess, this confuses the hell out of me. Where did the matter come from? It was always there? To me, that screams "bullshit."
Okay well this is one of the truly great questions, but what if it was energy, not matter, that began the universe in the Big Bang? Or, what if the universe we see now had a very different ratio of energy to matter before the Big Bang? Then again, energy and matter aren't the only things out there. So it's purely speculation that the Big Bang was a "bang" at all. Or, at least not a "bang" in the sense that we think of when we use the word.

But in the spirit of full disclosure to anyone who actually reads all this, the source of knowledge from which I speak is excerpted exclusively from my ass. A few of you might have already detected this. In any case, read some stuff by that disabled guy with the robot voice if you really want to peer into the depths of the unknown instead of simply "screaming 'bullshit'".

Finally, try to remember that the mental processes that made man invent God to explain his world ages ago, urge scientists and great thinkers to invent fictions today. We humans use our personal frame of reference to observe, define, and explain everything. Even though we now try to use a discipline we call logic to study and understand stuff, in the absence of evidence, we are compelled emotionally to speculate. We're just a little better at speculating now than we were back when we made up God.

[Tenspace]

Follow with me here for a minute, Moe...

Matter equals Energy. They are interchangeable, within set rules.
Pressure also embodies energy, and the ability to alter an object's mass.
You're familiar with the big problem in physics regarding the inability to combine quantum physics and relativity? The science of the tiny with that of the cosmic? Well, some scientists never thought it would be a problem - until the hypothesis of black holes. Now we have relativistic matter densities combined with submicroscopic, Planckian size scales.

It's the same with pondering the Big Bang. Huge densities, infinitesimal sizes, extreme pressures, in an environment just flat unimagineable.

Also, don't think of the Big Bang as an explosion - it's more of a Rapid Expansion Event. :) There are oddities to be examined, competing theories which attempt to solve inconsistencies in the primary models... if you haven't picked up the Brian Greene books yet, they're a good start on cosmology. Another couple of reads, though somewhat dry and plodding compared to Greene are, "The Great Attractor", by Alan Dressler (? have to verify)... and "The Inflationary Universe", by Alan Guth.

Have fun learning

Ten

[miata]

I would like to think sex got us here.
miata