The Myth of the Big Bang

[Cybele]

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.

Whether we humans "take well to it" is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

What does that even mean? If we dint exist the universe would, but if the The universe whether you like it or not, the math the empirical data etc show it could have very easily not existed, and to do so in its current state is tantamount to being miraculous and at optimal tuning for life to exist and everything else.

You're not getting what she was saying. You don't look at the logical consequence of some chain of events and deem it a miracle that the chain is the way it is, especially when trillions of other chains (universes) may seem "just right" for other forms of existence. That is an incredibly arrogant, and self-centered viewpoint. If we didn't exist the universe would be different. We are a logical consequence of the universe; it wasn't "made for us" and it will destroy us just as surely as it gave rise to us. We are really just a blink of the eye on a cosmic timescale--not significant at all.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Cybele

[Copasetic]

I don't need to explain why the sky is blue, we know why it's blue, we know about most of the things you asked! Now let's flip it, if you asked me why is the sky blue and I replied "it just is!", this is not a tangible response. Therefore as you know your basic science 101 why the sky is blue and that explanation suffices on basis logic, empirical evidence etc.

No you need to explain it. Its no different than the other question you are asking--Can you answer either of them? This is, in essence, you simply moving the goal posts. Or as you wanted to critique others for saying "a god of the gaps"--Your question is really no different. You are either missing it because you are blind or missing it on purpose.

So when I ask why does the universe exist at all? It's much more profound than asking why the sky is blue, because in essence I am asking why we exist all? Science, physics, etc show that it could have easily not existed. So your response is irrelevant!

Its no more profound than asking why the sky is blue, or why babies grow, or why cells divide, or any number of other scientific questions that you can and cannot answer. You've simply chosen this one question because you believe, no different than some ancients believed about the color of the sky, that the question is unanswerable to science--ergo supports your god. If you cannot step back and see that, then you are blinded by your faith.

I don't need to give you a science lesson nor anyone else, but you definitely need to ponder on why the universe exists at all? You may have to go beyond your comfort zone!

As for the second request I did touch on it in a reply Emma

Also when you ask 'why' questions you should state the conditions that would provide a satisfying answer.

You did not define, in your own words, biological complexity or information. All you said was;

Information is key, information is knowledge, it's immaterial and can't be quantified or measured. For example the DNA has four lettered code, the letters are concepts we have assigned to clear information present in the DNA, it's not a cell it's biological in nature although encapsulated within biological matter. When you refer to genetic code we assume it came about by accident, any other code, it must have been designed or at least has a cause. So where did the genetic code come from, how did this information come in to being. Not the physical biological matter that we called DNA, but the genetic code?

Which is gooblygook. It means nothing, except to highlight your ignorance on the subject. The "letters" of DNA are not concepts, they stand for specific bases--A for instance is simply short hand for the base adenine (a purine), which when in DNA is also bound to a (deoxy)ribose sugar.

You follow up the gooblygook with more creationist bravado and questions....."where did DNA come from", "how did this information come into being"--Yet never defining any of the relevant terms you wish to discuss. So please do so now--In your own words; what is biological information and complexity.

[CommunitarianKevin]

I'm well aware of the argument and that's why I said contemporary arguments are much stronger!

As a matter of interest what do you have to counter the above?

My point is that is the major contemporary argument. The contemporary arguements are the same as the old ones...

What I do I have to counter it? Just the fact the things claimed irreducibly complex have been proven not to be which shows that this complexity that appears designed can, and does occur naturally, without the need for a creator.

I guess another note is that the majority of people assume this intelligent designer is the Christian God. That logic is severly flawed...

Edited April 15, 2012 by HuttonEtAl

[Leonardo]

You know what from you Leo I expected the correct answer. Your right they are conceptualised descriptions, however where your wrong is the notion they come from observers and those experimenting and studying them. All they do is observe the natural phenomena and conceptualise it, the laws of physics or chemistry did not originate with them did they and their not real entities are they? Like legal laws are not but are conceptualised in order to control society and the individual. Laws of physics govern the interactions on physical planes and from one physical plane to another, laws of chemistry are much the same. So they are not real entities as you said. So where did they come from?

Funnily enough, I gave you the "correct answer" - according to the philosophy of science. You even part-explained, in the next few sentences you wrote, why it is "the correct answer", without realising you were doing so. But you got it wrong when you said "the laws of physics and chemistry did not originate with them [the scientists who proposed them]". Those scientists are the originators of those Laws.

The laws of chemistry and the laws of physics do not exist as 'real things'. The phenomena those laws describe are certainly very real, however. In the case of chemistry, these phenomena are dependent on the properties of the atomic elements themselves, and so we can say "in one sense, the Laws of Chemistry arise from the atomic properties of the elements".

Edited April 15, 2012 by Leonardo

[eight bits]

why does the universe exist at all

The question as asked, using why, presupposess a purpose, and so presupposes an intention-holding being antecedent to the Universe. The existence of such a being is not in evidence. It follows that the question is not known to well-posed.

There can be no valid complaint that a question has no answer unless the question is well-posed. The burden of showing that the question is well-posed falls on the complainant. Nobody owes you an answer until you have shown that there is an answer. In this case, your burden includes showing that an intention-bearing antecedent exists.

Of course the lapse is worse than that, since the ultimate issue that divides the people in this discussion is just whether or not any such hypothetical intention-bearer does in fact exist. The question quoted, then, assumes the consequent of the argument offered by the party who is asking the question. It has no place in such an argument, nor a place anywhere else, either.

Why questions, even well-posed ones, have another feature which is pertinent to

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.

Perhaps we humans at the age of three don't take well to it. At that point in our development, we discover that why? is indefinitely recursable. If Q is a well-posed question, and R(Q) is a true and responsive answer to Q, then a further question may be formed syntactically according to the template "Why is R(Q) true?"

Three year-old: Why is the sky blue, Wise One?

Wise One: The sun shines on it.

TYO: Why does the sun shine on it?

WO: The sun radiates energy.

TYO: Why does the sun radiate energy?

... and so on, literally indefinitiely. Many of us have heard finite realizations of this conversation.

Religion provides no solution to the absence of a base case for a why-cascade. We know this because there is no solution. See the template above. Nevertheless, some religions give it a try.

TYO: Why do hydrogen atoms under some conditions fuse into helium, with energetic release?

WO: God intended it that way.

Presumably, the Wise One believes that he has now ended the conversation. The three year-old has a surer grasp of syntactical reasoning, however, and counters with

TYO: Why does God intend it that way?

TYO's question is not only well-posed, it is perfectly reasonable. WTF do you know about the intentions of the Creator of the Universe? She's talked it over with you, has she? Do tell.

But whatever answer WO gives (God loves us very much), TYO has the counter to that, too (Why does God love us very much?).

How does the conversation end? How must every such conversation end? WO chooses a synonym for "It just is." At the age of three, we may not take well to it.

Many of us, however, eventually accept that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them truthfully. An honest synonym for "It just is" is "I don't know." Scholars of many kinds, not just scientists, get over any emotional problem they might have with giving that answer. Generally, those scholars address audiences whose members are older than three, so it all works out swell.

-

Edited April 15, 2012 by eight bits

[Abramelin]

Wow. We are starting to agreed now and then.

Only I think that you are wrong that we dont know answer on why?

You cant aswered on some questions How too...

Science is self corecting. And religion too.

Of course science doesn't know about all the hows: that's what they are trying to find out.

"Why" has to do with a reason, a plan, and in that case always a god shows up to explain it. Except in more mundane affairs, of course.

Science is indeed self-correcting, religion never.

.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Abramelin

[Mr Walker]

The question as asked, using why, presupposess a purpose, and so presupposes an intention-holding being antecedent to the Universe. The existence of such a being is not in evidence. It follows that the question is not known to well-posed.

There can be no valid complaint that a question has no answer unless the question is well-posed. The burden of showing that the question is well-posed falls on the complainant. Nobody owes you an answer until you have shown that there is an answer. In this case, your burden includes showing that an intention-bearing antecedent exists.

Of course the lapse is worse than that, since the ultimate issue that divides the people in this discussion is just whether or not any such hypothetical intention-bearer does in fact exist. The question quoted, then, assumes the consequent of the argument offered by the party who is asking the question. It has no place in such an argument, nor a place anywhere else, either.

Why questions, even well-posed ones, have another feature which is pertinent to

Perhaps we humans at the age of three don't take well to it. At that point in our development, we discover that why? is indefinitely recursable. If Q is a well-posed question, and R(Q) is a true and responsive answer to Q, then a further question may be formed syntactically according to the template "Why is R(Q) true?"

Three year-old: Why is the sky blue, Wise One?

Wise One: The sun shines on it.

TYO: Why does the sun shine on it?

WO: The sun radiates energy.

TYO: Why does the sun radiate energy?

... and so on, literally indefinitiely. Many of us have heard finite realizations of this conversation.

Religion provides no solution to the absence of a base case for a why-cascade. We know this because there is no solution. See the template above. Nevertheless, some religions give it a try.

TYO: Why do hydrogen atoms under some conditions fuse into helium, with energetic release?

WO: God intended it that way.

Presumably, the Wise One believes that he has now ended the conversation. The three year-old has a surer grasp of syntactical reasoning, however, and counters with

TYO: Why does God intend it that way?

TYO's question is not only well-posed, it is perfectly reasonable. WTF do you know about the intentions of the Creator of the Universe? She's talked it over with you, has she? Do tell.

But whatever answer WO gives (God loves us very much), TYO has the counter to that, too (Why does God love us very much?).

How does the conversation end? How must every such conversation end? WO chooses a synonym for "It just is." At the age of three, we may not take well to it.

Many of us, however, eventually accept that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them truthfully. An honest synonym for "It just is" is "I don't know." Scholars of many kinds, not just scientists, get over any emotional problem they might have with giving that answer. Generally, those scholars address audiences whose members are older than three, so it all works out swell.

-

Three year olds ask so many questions because their knowledge base is so small AND because humans seek answers to the unknown. Adults ask less questions because they know more, but they still are curious and ask questions about the unknown

I agre with you that there may be no answer to a queston like, Why does the earth exist?" or, "Why do I exist?" except in a deterministic/ materialistic sense of explanation. Or a metaphysical one of choice. ie "i determine my purpose for my existence."

On the other hand it might turn out that the universe as we know it was; designed, engineered, and "built" by an ancient race of sapient beings, for a very specific purpose. In that case the question would turn out to be "well posed."

Yet, in the absence of knowledge or evidence either way, humans insist on asking it. It is a core question related to our self awareness, and our need to understand our existence. And we dont take it well to be told there is no answer. We then create answers for ourselves which make us happy.

In a practical sense, none of the questions or answers matter, but it is what we do with/ in response to, the answers we find or create, that is exceptionally important to humanity. Those responses have shaped every individual, and also the species, since we became self aware sapient beings.

For example, one has to ask why suicide is the third highest cause of death in present day humans, after diseases and accidents. Why do over 90% of humans in the 21s century still profess, either a belief in a god, (about 50%) or in the existence of a spirituality beyond the material reality of the universe. (about another 40%)

Edited April 16, 2012 by Mr Walker

[ZaraKitty]

The mystery of existence deepens..

[Emma_Acid]

I see.. No way around the goggles then. Materialism is reality not philosophyt, everything is the way a narrow few say it is despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that experimentation prooves our universe is based on information processes instead of stuff dimply means the information intirpreatatiin is wrong because narrow minds must see stuff. Alright you win. I'll join your faith.

It's nothing to do with faith. It is to do with what the evidence presents us with, nothing more. There is no evidence for "spiritualism" in the way you want there to be. Discounting this area from science because of a lack of evidence is not being "materialistic". It is being sensible. Without it, science as a process would fall apart.

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.

It makes perfect tangible sense. If the universe was different, we would exist to ask questions about it. Why is the universe suited to life? It isn't. Life is suited to the universe.

No and that's irrelevant! My question was where did the laws of physics ie the laws the govern our universe existence come from? It's similar to asking why the universe exists at all? To say it just is, is not a tangible answer!

Its perfectly relevant. Coming from the point of view that there are no coincidences, and that human dominance is somehow planned or designed, is like saying that ice floats because one day it will help humans to exist. Its the same argument, but you're blind to just how silly it is.

If the laws don't have to come from somewhere and are ingrained in the universe, then how so? When the universe began, did it decide it's parameters and boundaries? Did you know there is no evolutionary equivalent in physics. Laws of physics are labels we have given to naturally observed phenomena ie gravity etc. The universe could have easily not existed the fact it is, is against all odds.

Modern physics is answering the question of why the universe and its laws are the way they are. It has nothing to do with design or god or whatever. These are mysteries that are being answered if only you'd look at the science being done.

And I'd like to know how you worked out the odds of the universe existing. Care to share your workings?

[karmakazi]

Three year olds ask so many questions because their knowledge base is so small AND because humans seek answers to the unknown. Adults ask less questions because they know more, but they still are curious and ask questions about the unknown

I think adults get wrapped up in the daily routine of having responsibilities and just don't have time to ask the questions anymore. They have "bigger" concerns so they accept the way things are. Not that this includes anyone here, since being on this forum likely indicates we're still asking the questions

[FurthurBB]

Cool....RNA and DNA assemble naturally without any humans creating conditions for this or gene splicing? an example would be great.

So what if we create conditions. Does that mean that the conditions cannot exist without our interference? Where do you think we got the idea for the conditions in the first place?

[Ben Masada]

Ha ha poor Ben...Someone points out straight facts for one of his multi forum posts on the SAME subject and he flips the lid ...Ben .Anger and silly remarks will not make your case look good... Out of the multi forums you belong to, you'd think you'd know what an avatar was by now?

Obviously you have NO clear idea what the term scientific theory means do you Ben? ...You are completely confusing hypothesis with theory, this is a typical mistake done by many religious... Please research their meanings BEFORE you try and counter my posts... Otherwise you will fail to convince anyone else reading......

Ben........Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word - MYTH ...I have already explained to you what the word means... and you ignore it... So it seems you do not believe me... Maybe I am feeding you a tall tale aka a Myth lol... So get a dictionary and look it up...

I did not put him down... I just know and understand what the definitions for the words - THEORY - HYPOTHESIS and MYTH

Now It is called thinking for oneself... Get a dictionary and look all three of these words up BEFORE you ever try and reply to my post I am saying this because you do not seem to beleive in the definitions I gave you previously .

Give you a break? Ben that is something you have not taken.. You do belong to multi forums posting up the exact same threads auguring with everyone .... That is not taking a break, it is obsession...Many call it forum trolling. Now take a break and get the dictionary and look up the relevant words you seem to be confused on... I see no point in trying to ague about MYTH and THEORY when you blatantly ignore their true meanings...

Are you trying to tell me that Carl Sagan did not know the difference between myth and theory? I went to the dictionary about your suggestion that I should. Now, it is your turn to go to Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos" and see in page 258 where he says that the big bang is "our modern scientific myth."

Ben

[Ben Masada]

but there are indications- For example expanding universe can be indication of big bang.

Albert Einstein was talking about the expansion of the universe when he was asked if he believed in God. His answer was that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. Astrophysicists have come to the conclusion that the universe does expand, but none knows how. Could it be that Einstein did have in mind the expansion of the universe as a possibility that God has never ceased creating? We never know everything for sure.

Ben

Edited April 16, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

No, Ben, Carl Sagan didn't call it a myth. You did.

End of story.

Not that fast! First, read "Cosmos" page 258. Carl Sagan was the one who called the big bang "our modern scientific myth" not me. If you don't have the book, google it.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Well I know how to quote people properly and not quote mine...I do not know how it came about or what was there before it and I do not think it is possible for us to know...that is why I am agnostic.

Oh!!! I see! But it is possible to, absolutely, discard the idea of a possible Creator for the universe, isn't that right? That's where I see no difference between a common theist who affirms by faith that Jesus was born of God with an earthly woman and the atheist who affirms that there is

no possibility for the existence of God. Both are believers by faith. Both affirm what they do not know.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

I take it he's probably familiar wtih Daniel Dennet's statements concerning evolution, either.

While I hesitate to give him more... well, actually it'd just be a load of blanks instead of ammunition, but still.

I believe it's in Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous idea, where he speaks about the value of evolution as a creation myth, replacing older myths of construction and providing a narrative for mankind's origin, much like other creation myths.

However, he goes on to explicitly state that his point is not that evolution is itself mythical, but the story it tells has in it's own way elements of a grand mythical story.

The Genesis account of creation is an allegory. Only fools believe it was literal.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

You actually both want me to do your research for you?

We are simply discussing the issue. I tell you what I think or know, and you are supposed to give me evidences of what you have to refute me.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Who Knows? I'm not going to speculate what Einstein really thought. You can find other quotes that appear to show he did not think there was any need for a creator.

The only thing he said about God is that he could not conceive of the idea of a personal God. That's all. And I am of the same opinion. However, he

did not discard the possibility for the existence of God. That would be foolish to affirm something we do not know.

Ben

[Stellar]

Are you trying to tell me that Carl Sagan did not know the difference between myth and theory? I went to the dictionary about your suggestion that I should. Now, it is your turn to go to Carl Sagan's book "Cosmos" and see in page 258 where he says that the big bang is "our modern scientific myth."

Ben

What leads you to believe that Carl Sagan was speaking literally and not figuratively?

[Beckys_Mom]

Are you trying to tell me that Carl Sagan did not know the difference between myth and theory? I

No, I am telling you that you don't know from what you previously posted... But if Carl Sagan really did say it was myth .. then he has trouble understanding these words too ...But something tells me he did not literately call it a myth..I think this is down to your own personal interpretations..and not Carl Sagan

Now I may not have his book but it seems from reviews of that same book, not many were happy with how he undderstands certain words

Like for example this review....

(The Cosmic Connection, 257-258). He asserts that "evolution is a fact, not a theory" (Cosmos, 27). The mechanism of evolution, natural selection, is a "great discovery" made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. "We are," he writes, presumably not in tending to speak only of himself and his co-author, "the products of a long series of biological accidents....

Assertions such as these are not true; they are not even good science. They are the stuff that legends and myths are made of, and one cannot understand the importance of Sagan's work unless one realizes its function as a new scientific mythology.

You can read more on this review of Carl Sagan if you so wish - http://www.trinityfo...urnal.php?id=90

Conclusion.. I do not see anything where he is meant to have called the big bang a myth..........

Not that fast! First, read "Cosmos" page 258. Carl Sagan was the one who called the big bang "our modern scientific myth" not me. If you don't have the book, google it.

Ben

When I Google it......I see nothing but ....Well I will show you what I find when I try to google it -http://www.google.co...iw=1040&bih=644

A complete flood of you on multi sites telling everyone to do the same thing - Go look at page 258 ....I cannot find the actual quote itself from Sagan

It seems you have just put in your own interpretation ...and not what Carl Sagan has said literately at all

Edited April 16, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Ben Masada]

Why do you think the big bang required a cause ? Is it because you believe all things are causally linked, and that nothing happens without prior cause? Why do you believe that? Might that belief be incorrect?

IMHO, matter to exist it must have been caused. Nothing could have come out of nowhere; just out of the hat of the majician. Aristotle said that something cannot come out of nothing. The big bang could very well have been a huge explosion of a giagantic Super Nova.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Point of clarification. In one post you said; being jewish was not a matter of birth but of belief. (or very similar) In another post you say you are jewish. Now you say you are not religious. How do you reconcile those three statements?

Do you consider yourself jewish? Do you consider yourself religious? Or do you consider yourself a non religious jew? Given, both prior statements and the content/tone of all your posts, is that possible?

It is relevant to comprehending your world view, and hence your understandings of/opinions on, the matters being discussed.

To begin with, I do not consider Judaism a religion but a way of life. Hence, I am not a religious Jew. I don't believe in anything by faith. I consider a foolishness to do so. I believe on the basis of the concept of probability. What do I know after all? To affirm or discard something as if one is an expert at it is simply foolishness.

Ben

Edited April 16, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Ben are you being intentionally disingenuous or were you being lazy (to lazy to look up what a quote mine really is)?

FYI there are rules here about posting knowingly false information and quote mining and what not. I'd read over the rules if you want to enjoy your stay.

Like Eightbits pointed out, Sagan certainly wasn't referring to "myth" in how you are trying to apply it here. If you don't understand go back and read it again, then again, then again. If its still too much, read Eightbits post and spend some time trying to understand it--Rather than just accusing him of "over-complicating" the issue, because I assure he did no such thing and actually hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Edit: As an afterthought Ben, is English your primary language? Maybe the idiosyncrasies of Sagan is escaping you because it is not.

No, English is not my primary language. English is my third language. I speak four. Sorry, if you have a problem understanding my English. Regaridng

Carl Sagan and what he said about the big bang being a myth, all you have to do is to read "Cosmos" page 258. He did speak about the big bang as

"our modern scientific myth." I am sorry. My English is not that good, but I do understand what I am reading.

Ben

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Regardless of it being a forum where questions can be asked.. But in reality people have to be educated in these things, IF they are keen to learn... Emma Acid or anyone else is not here to do the work for you........ We all had to learn through reading books and other methods ... So why can't you?

Looking for quick answers will never teach you a thing.....My motto is - Never dispute any subject you have no clue about UNLESS you are willing to at least do a little research yourself.. Otherwise entering a debate like this to ague and ask for evidence is pointless ..And I mean that about any topic and aim it at everyone and anyone...So do not take any of that personal...

I would say this to anyone who was looking a quick and easy way out... The only time I ever ask questions is if the question is about the person posting.. OR they have posted info that I have read or heard about before and find it either strange OR more interesting ...Other than that I cannot see any logic in asking for evidence like this for example - The Big Bang.. That is a question that can make people feel they hay no idea what a scientific theory is..and they do not care..They just want to argue it regardless.. And lets face it, any Tom Dick Or harry can blast out random questions to jump into an argument...just to argue back..But what is the point in that if you show no evidence of understanding? <-- I mean that about any topic and anyone... I have seen so many do just that .

Ask yourself ...Where do you suppose people like Emma Acid.. Copa.. Or anyone else here got to learn? Turn on a forum? Books? schooling? you decide.................We can never learn much by the odd post we read...

Im dont need anyone to work for me. I just ask simple question which you simply ignored because you two are not eduacted or because you are lazy or both. Choose for it self. Im not looking for quick answers. In fact if you can wrote 3 posts with 10 sentences just to avoid my questions. YOu would give answer if you knew. If-crucial word. I dont take personal. You did. You changed subject. Talking how I need to educate myself.

And please can you explain me what is evidence of understanding? Maybe its language barrier or something beacuse English isnt my mother language or I missunderstood something.

Evidence of understanding.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Melo

[Cybele]

Not that fast! First, read "Cosmos" page 258. Carl Sagan was the one who called the big bang "our modern scientific myth" not me. If you don't have the book, google it.

Ben

After discussing various cultures' creation myths, here is the quote to which you are referring,

"...myths are tributes to human audacity. The chief difference between them and our modern scientific myth of the Big Bang is that science is self-questioning, and that we can perform experiments and observations to test our ideas. But those other creation stories are worthy of our deep respect."

Sagan, Carl (2011-07-06). Cosmos (Kindle Locations 4454-4457). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

I believe your OP was a misinterpretation of the quote. Respect for traditional creation myths does not mean holding them up as equally likely as scientific theories. It means respecting them as cultural beliefs, treasuring them as literature. The Big Bang Theory is only referred to as a myth in that it parallels traditional creation myths in attempting to explain the origin of the universe. The Big Bang Theory is not a myth in that it is a theory based on empirical observations, held up to logical and scientific scrutiny. Creation myths are based on nothing more than stories and are held as dogma.

Don't bother trying to Google the book if you don't want to buy it. None of the free previews in Google books and scribd go up to page 258. The kindle version on Amazon is pretty cheap, though.