Forums → WEPR → The Primeval Atom
| 35 | 7564 |
I've noticed across various threads that it is a common argument against the Big Bang that something would have had to create the compressed mass that decompressed to form the Universe. So, now I ask this question: If God can have no beginning and no end, then why can't that original compressed mass have no beginning too? Just curious.
- 35 Replies
If God can have no beginning and no end, then why can't that original compressed mass have no beginning too? Just curious.
Something that does not have a beginning is not logical. God, however is above the normal laws that apply to the rest of the universe. The Big Bang theory however is based on logic, and therefore it must have had a beginning.
I heard an interesting theory, that the singularity is the back end of a black hole, from another dimension and funneled all the mass of our uniuverse into that single primeval atom.
[quote]I heard an interesting theory, that the singularity is the back end of a black hole, from another dimension and funneled all the mass That is very interesting. . . .
---------
@firefly: Thanks, just wasn't sure. . . .
Something that does not have a beginning is not logical.
I think you might have a hard time proving this claim. Even if you take that creation ex nihilo is anathema, I'm not seeing a good deduction from that claim to yours.
God, however is above the normal laws that apply to the rest of the universe.
This is simply ad hocery.
The Big Bang theory however is based on logic, and therefore it must have had a beginning.
The beginning of the Big Bang would correspond with the beginning of this universe. If you're saying it needs a cause, then any cause would have to exist outside of this universe. Now I've gotten to the point, though, where we can't even talk about these things. Even the phrase "exist outside of this universe" in nonsensical. Unfortunately, our definitions only work in this universe and close worlds - not for undefined relationships.
I think you might have a hard time proving this claim. Even if you take that creation ex nihilo is anathema, I'm not seeing a good deduction from that claim to yours.
If the primeval atom had always existed, this goes against the time frame of the big bang itself.
This is simply ad hocery.
Be that as it may, it's the only explanation theists give.
If you're saying it needs a cause, then any cause would have to exist outside of this universe. Now I've gotten to the point, though, where we can't even talk about these things. Even the phrase "exist outside of this universe" in nonsensical.
The theory that many physicists believe to be true is that the singularity was the back end of a black hole from another dimension. This subsequently funneled all of the mass in our universe into the primeval atom. This dimension technically exists outside our universe.
Firefly, I think that moe is trying to say that logic doesn't apply before our Universe began, because before the Universe began, it was all different. The very forces of the Universe were bound together. If the Theory of Relativity is true, then time was all flubbed up. It was nothing like the Universe is now.
The theory that many physicists believe to be true is that the singularity was the back end of a black hole from another dimension.
I don't think this view is held by any physicists today. In fact, the notion of a singularity has pretty much been put to rest. Also, the fanciful notions of black holes being somehow connected to other dimensions is not widely held by experts in this field (if at all). Many of the theories that we, the public, end up getting are watered-down and sometimes flat out wrong derivations of postulates held by the physics community. It's also important to note there are only a handful of people on the planet that are even capable of understanding the theories and having a discourse on the subject. For us to really have this discussion would take us all having a PhD specialized in this fringe area of astrophysics.
This subsequently funneled all of the mass in our universe into the primeval atom.
The primeval atom theory hasn't been held for... awhile now. The big bang was a conversion from energy into matter. Besides, we can't even talk about dimensions existing outside of our dimension because they are still undefined. And the interaction between these dimensions (if they do exist) is only incidental.
If the Theory of Relativity is true, then time was all flubbed up.
Exactly. Even our understanding of causation breaks down in the first few nanoseconds of the universe's existence. But also keep in mind that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has been abandoned for the more accurate model of quantum physics. Most of Einstein's equations still work out just fine, just not on a quantum level.
@Moe: The theory of the speed of light being the ultimate limitation of speed is false, too. (I know that this is part of the Theory of Relativity)Since the discovery of quantum entanglement, we have known that there are things that travel faster than light. Though, time and space do have some link together.
The primeval atom theory hasn't been held for... awhile now. The big bang was a conversion from energy into matter. Besides, we can't even talk about dimensions existing outside of our dimension because they are still undefined. And the interaction between these dimensions (if they do exist) is only incidental.
Ugh. . .don't even mention dimensions. I know of so many different theories of other dimensions. . .from there being parallel universes, to other universes beyond the bounds of our own, to each reality being flat and on different planes. . .it's mind-boggling. Sorry for the DP.
I think that moe is trying to say that logic doesn't apply before our Universe began
I've heard many say that God or a god is not logical. However, if logic doesn't apply outside our universe, might it be possible to say that a god does exist, but not within our universe? Maybe this god exists in another universe, bound by a different form of logic, or possilby not bound by logic at all. Just a thought.
@BigP: Possible. What I'm saying is that it is not necessary for something to have started or created the Big Bang, because there was no Universe, no space, no time. It was extremely different.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I just wanted to run a little theory (or hypothesis, I guess, theories have evidence) by everyone and see if that made some sense. Actually, a different sense of logic must exist outside our universe, because in ours matter can't create or destroy itself. It could be a god, or it may just be nothing at all. Unfortunately, this only opens the debate up even more. Now I'll be wasting even more time on debate forums.
Oh well, it's interesting, at least.
might it be possible to say that a god does exist, but not within our universe?
I like this move, as it at least deals with the problematic consequence of having something that always existed. Perhaps god's existence can only be defined within our own universe's existence. We still have a problem explaining the causal link between this god and the universe, since causation cannot definitionally exist apart from our universe.
But then again, it seems that god is postulated as this causal link to handle the creation ex nihilo problem. By having god exist outside our universe, it becomes unclear how god could interact with this universe. This could open up possible objections that are based around the "swamping problem". It's still a nice move, though
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
-Albert Einstein
And now, the problem unsolved by billions of humans, using logic and reason, and taking centuries to solve, will be solved by 13 year olds on a forum for flash games on the Internet.
And now, the problem unsolved by billions of humans, using logic and reason, and taking centuries to solve, will be solved by 13 year olds on a forum for flash games on the Internet.
lol.
---------
I doubt we'll solve the problem, but debates like this are fun and a good intellectual exercise.
I don't think this view is held by any physicists today. In fact, the notion of a singularity has pretty much been put to rest. Also, the fanciful notions of black holes being somehow connected to other dimensions is not widely held by experts in this field (if at all). Many of the theories that we, the public, end up getting are watered-down and sometimes flat out wrong derivations of postulates held by the physics community
I heard about the theory on a documentary focused on Stephen Hawking. The way the theory was presented definitely did not give the impression that it had been disregarded by the scientific community.
If the Theory of Relativity is true, then time was all flubbed up. It was nothing like the Universe is now.
However as Moegreche said here:
But also keep in mind that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has been abandoned for the more accurate model of quantum physics.
The theory of relativity has been disregarded, so where does that leave us with the state of time at the beginning of the universe?
The point I was trying to make was, that the primeval atom always having existed is not compatible with the big bang theory. The big bang supposedly happened around 14 billion years ago, correct me if I'm wrong. The atom reached critical mass and expanded. However if it had always existed, then why didn't it expand way before this? Why is the universe so young?
But also keep in mind that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has been abandoned for the more accurate model of quantum physics. Most of Einstein's equations still work out just fine, just not on a quantum level.
To go back to this statement, I remember from the Hawking documentary, that he said most physicists see the Theory of Relativity as the theory of the very large and Quantum theory, as the theory of the very small. He went on to say that the key to understanding the universe is to combine the two theories.
You must be logged in to post a reply!