What was before the big bang?

[????????]

guys you're doing it again...... the big bang is a HOW not a WHY...

 

[maxfreakout]

"There is no such thing as sequential causation"

Could you explain why you think this in clearer terms please? Entropy seems to say otherwise.

i am saying that causation does not exist, it is a myth based on fallacious logic, there is no causal 'glue' that attaches causes to their effects, there are regularities in the flow of events, but they are merely contingent (ie not necessarily true in future instances)

What I think is really "inherently inexplicable" is why you think absolute certainty is required for scientific knowledge, but we've already gone over this in other threads...

i am not talking about certainty, it is true that the big bang is not known with certainty to have occured, but that isnt what i am arguing now. I am saying that the big bang couldnt possibly have been the first cause of the universe, logic forbids it.

"the big bang theory is based on the sequential causation model of time, the idea that every event is caused by a preceding event."

"that every event is caused by a preceding event."

That isn't entirely true: for now at least, there is room for probability: to demonstrate this, all I need is a box, a cat, a radioactive source, and a vial of hydrogen cyanide; anybody?
:twisted:

the model of the world that i am disputing, is the model (which i assume the poster of this thread is alluding to) that the big bang was the cause of existence, the beginning of time, the first event etc

Again, as I've said before, vacuum fluctuation and/or cyclic bang/crunch cycles are reasonable suggestions - they use observations to form ideas.

these suggestions do not answer the question: "where did the universe originally come from?"

The big bang is not necessarily a "first cause" , but even if it was, it can be explained with testable experiments and observation.

the big bang (as a first cause) cannot possibly be explained, because it is the ultimate explanation. Furthermore it is supposed to have occured long before there were any humans to witness it, so it is entirely inaccesible to experiments and observation

Who created god? did god create himself, or did another god create him etc. ad infinitum?

yes this is the same exact issue that arises when the big bang theory is held to answer the question of where the universe came from, the problem that a 'first cause' is logically impossible.

God can be imagined as a transcendent first cause, which can be imagined as an infinite regress of prior causes

To say that god created the universe, then say that its logically impossible for the universe to be caused by a big bang is contradictory - they use the same arguments, just with different names.

i wasnt saying that god created the universe, i was agreeing with restin that the very idea of god as creator is no different whatsoever from saying that the universe started with a big bang. In other words, both science AND religion ultimately rest upon logical impossibilities, the big bang theory, and the creator god, respectively

The understanding of God is more essentially flawed than that of the big bang - one is explained with evidence and observation, the other appeals to faith.

the big bang theory has no connection at all with evidence and observation (of course, since it is supposed to have occured billions of years before any human observers even existed), it must be taken on faith in exactly the same way as god's existence must be taken on faith

Assuming an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god is also logically impossible as I understand it:

if all powerful, and omniscient, he knows suffering occurs, has the power to stop it, but doesn't - which isn't benevolent.

i disagree with the last point here ^, if god had created a universe full of happy contented beings who were always completely happy and never had any problems, then happiness itself would have no meaning, and therefore god would arguably have in fact created pure hell, because you can only experience happiness as a contrast to experiencing suffering

perhaps he's benevolent, but doesn't have the power. Perhaps he's benevolent but doesn't know we exist. In all cases a pretty lousy god.

or perhaps god is benevolent and omnipotent, and this world that we live in is the best of all possible worlds. As i said, if there was no suffering, there wouldnt be any happiness either (because the meaning of 'happiness' can only exist in contrast to the meaning of 'suffering')

What is your understanding of what god is? and why is it anymore relevant than the big bang?

i am saying that both god AND the big bang theory are BOTH entirely equivalent, and both are equivalently redundant as explanations of where the universe came from

 

[maxfreakout]

guys you're doing it again...... the big bang is a HOW not a WHY...

no it is neither, in fact it completely avoids answering either "how?" or "why?", it makes it impossible to answer both questions, the big bang theory is more like a refusal to face up to reality

 

[Pariah]

Studying philosophy, you'll probably know that all theodicy's are defeated and mitigated: which includes what you've said:


One way to take it would be that the balance between good and evil is a bit skewed - all you need to know what sight is like, is to see for an instant, to know what evil is, you only need to experience one evil thing. I hope you'd agree, we all get a bit more than is required, a bit excessive for a benvolent god.


You can also know what evil is without experiencing it - you don't need to have your eye plucked out to know that it hurts (most of us have some level of empathy, so all a god would need to do is make us very empathetic);

if you did require evil to know good, then that logic would make evil good - the more evil I dish out, the more people can understand what good is. If that is the case, you should probably head down to your local orphanage with a shotgun and do gods work.


***

"the big bang theory has no connection at all with evidence and observation"

"long before there were any humans to witness it, so it is entirely inaccesible to experiments and observation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#O ... l_evidence

I hope that clears things up, if not, remember that scientific induction is a perfectly valid method of searching for truths.

 

[restin]

I didn't expect you to get to the low theistic argumentation of evil This is really below your niveau. The fact of evil is a banal argumentation.

Studying philosophy, you'll probably know that all theodicy's are defeated and mitigated

no, they are not...

 

[Pariah]

"I didn't expect you to get to the low theistic argumentation of evil"

I know, its a bit of a "low blow" but, despite its brutal, shallow approach, I think the problem of evil brings up relevant points concerning peoples conceptions of what god is. I personally reject the idea that the problem of evil is enough to make some sort of god impossible, but my own opinion heads towards the idea of gods irrelevance, which is why I settle for a level of agnosticism: If coming to my own conclusion about morality isn't good enough for god, so be it, but I want to avoid being lead around by charlatans, and promises of rewards or punishment after death shouldn't affect belief, because they do not affect truths.

 

[Ebola_Sigma]

Cyclicle perspectives. Through different levels of intelligence and/or insight, people will inevitably cycle throught the same points of view. Take God (the deity. lol), for example. You may believe in God, start to question it as a lie, then not believe him, maybe also due to "logic". Then, further down the line, you figure, "why are the laws of the universe the way they are? Like gravity and different forms of energy? Why do they work the way they all do?" So you might believe in God, once more, until you continue that line of thinking further and realize that there is no reason for ANYTHING to exist, and you start to get crazy notions of existence, like mine.

(sorry to respond so much later than I should've lol)

Bad example above, admittedly, but you really start to listen to Tool, and and get great ideas, although in my opinion, music can't tell you EVERYTHING. btw I love Tool =]. You just start looking at the patterns, in the world, and you just give up. What's the point? I've looked through my own line of thinking, factoring the patterns of predictability, based on my own self-observations. My own cyclicle perspectives. And in doing that, I've realized that I and all of us, are burdened with either inevitabl limitations, or unlimited potential.

Yeah, I think I got off track, but looking at it that way, you really can't be sure that psychology and philosphy have nothing to do with "science". I'm at the point that science is based entirely in philosophy. The elegant universe, that physicists speak of, means that there is a "theory of everything" that is perfectally "symmetrical", in it's applications, and in that line of thinking, you have to believe in absolutes.

Of course, why does the universe have to work that way either? I mean really, you have to believe in a God (One 'higher up' than you'd believe, if that makes any sense. lol), since there is no reason for things to work the way they do. What the hell dictates that things must gravitate toward a larger object? Why do thing expend energy to live? It actually all doesn't make sense to me anymore.

[sigh]

MAN THAT WAS A RANT. Sorry guys, but that's really all I could think of for this particular topic, though I didn't mention the Big Bang. You could pretty much apply what I said though and get my point of view.

Of course, did I even make sense to anyone? lol

Oh, man, I got to smoke a cigarette.

 

[maxfreakout]

all theodicy's are defeated and mitigated: which includes what you've said:

Where did you get that idea? That is far from true, there is practically nothing in philosophy that has been 'defeated'. I was just saying my intuitive idea of why the problem of evil isnt really a problem at all, a world without suffering is also a world without happiness. But anyway why does a creator god have to be benevolent? And either way that isnt relevant to the main discussion, i wasnt saying that god created the universe, i was saying that the idea that god created the universe is no different whatsoever from the idea that a big bang created the universe

You can also know what evil is without experiencing it - you don't need to have your eye plucked out to know that it hurts (most of us have some level of empathy, so all a god would need to do is make us very empathetic);

Evil is not the same thing as pain

And you cannot know what pain is like until you have experienced it, you would be unable to empathise with someone in pain, unless you had experienced pain yourself

But either way i dont understand how this is relevant, i was never saying that a benevolent god created the universe!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#O ... l_evidence

I hope that clears things up, if not, remember that scientific induction is a perfectly valid method of searching for truths.

the big bang is an event that is supposed to have happened billions of years ago, and therefore as i said, it has no connection at all with evidence and observation. We can only observe what is happening in the present, and we can make all kinds of inferences from that. For example the observations listed in that wiki article do not in any way contradict the idea that god created the universe

And induction most certainly ISNT a valid form of reasoning, quite the contrary, it is entirely fallacious. Science is based on flawed logic and flawed assumptions

 

[IJesusChrist]

"God is just expressing himself"
To who? Himself? All arguements cease when you apply human characteristics to a god, and if you actually think about this, you find it quite silly, you're silly.

It's a bit baby-ish to apply any kind of emotions to god, or characteristics.

 

[????????]

the big bang theory is more like a refusal to face up to reality

ah come on

 

[restin]

I know, its a bit of a "low blow" but, despite its brutal, shallow approach, I think the problem of evil brings up relevant points concerning peoples conceptions of what god is. I personally reject the idea that the problem of evil is enough to make some sort of god impossible, but my own opinion heads towards the idea of gods irrelevance, which is why I settle for a level of agnosticism: If coming to my own conclusion about morality isn't good enough for god, so be it, but I want to avoid being lead around by charlatans, and promises of rewards or punishment after death shouldn't affect belief, because they do not affect truths.

I hope you know that the bible originally doesn't promise anything after death But that's something completely different. We're not here to prove if God exists or not and I am still d'accord with maxfreakout about the connection of God and the big bang.

 

[maxfreakout]

the big bang theory is more like a refusal to face up to reality

ah come on

what do you mean? If you disagree with what im saying i would very much like to hear why


the big bang seems to me like a refusal to face up to reality because it is logically impossible (it is an uncaused cause), and also totally absurd, to suggest that the universe exploded into existence for no particular reason

 

[maxfreakout]

it is as if you have the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 if you think it is n+1 but you find out that the next number is 345 your whole theory is broken down.

this kind of argument illustrates perfectly why inductive logic is fallacious, i used this exact same argument recently on a thread at ephilosopher forum about induction

it is impossible to predict the future progression of a series of numbers based on previous trends, the only way to predict the future progression with certainty, is if you know the actual formula of the series, but previous trends do not give you the formula, anything you guess as to how the series will progress is just as likely to be incorrect as it is to be correct

 

[GOD]

God as a he ? As a being ? Thats your personal idea .


God made man in his image = gods a real bastard to .

" Furthermore it is supposed to have occured long before there were any humans to witness it, so it is entirely inaccesible to experiments and observation "

We can measure the energy from it , if i remember rightly as far back as 400ths of a second after the event that took place .

There was an event that is called the big bang . It was a release of energy that can be traced back to a small area that expanded to form our universe . That area gets traced back in time more and more as time goes by . So what are you denying ? Please explain what you think is ment by the big bang and why you think its wrong .

"the problem that a 'first cause' is logically impossible. "

First cause only aplys to linear time . If the big bang took place in an area that wasnt dominated by linear time it doesnt need a start or a finish .

" In other words, both science AND religion ultimately rest upon logical impossibilities, the big bang theory, and the creator god, respectively "

That depends on your personal definition of god . If as you say religeon and science rest upon logical imposibilitys please explain whats going on . Something is going on so it just means that your "logic" is flawed .

"the big bang theory is more like a refusal to face up to reality"

You mean you cant understand very much with your personal "logic" , "philosophy" and "reality" . You argue yourself in circles . Thats the redundancy of a lot of philosophy , it keeps argueing itself in circles , denying "proofs" . In end effect you are denying that "we" are here just because you cant prove it with your version of "logic" , "philosophy" and "reality" . Something is happening and if you deny that you deny everything . Stop being childish , just because you cant prove anything with the way you "think" doesnt mean that there isnt something happening .

 

[misfit]

What was before you were born?

 

[GOD]

The day before .

 

[misfit]

:idea:

 

[Pariah]

" the bible originally doesn't promise anything after death"

plagerised from wiki:

Examples of the different terminology referencing the concept of "heaven", in the Christian Bible are:

the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3), the kingdom of the Father (Matthew 13:43), life (Matthew 7:14), life everlasting (Matthew 19:16), the joy of the Lord (Matthew 25:21), great reward (Matthew 5:12), the kingdom of God (Mark 9:45), the kingdom of Christ (Luke 22:30), the house of the Father (John 14:2), city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebr., xii), the holy place (Hebrews 9:12; D. V. holies), paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4), incorruptible crown (1 Corinthians 9:25), crown of life (James 1:12), crown of justice (II Timothy iv, 8), crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)

***

"it is impossible to predict the future progression of a series of numbers based on previous trends"

"Impossible"

Thats quite a claim...

But lets run with it: you have your series of numbers, and we use 2 volunteers: Bob uses inductive logic to make a prediction, Jim channels the pink psychic cabbages of Sirius B to come up with his, who would you put your money on?

It may be fallacy to say that bob will always be right just because he used inductive logic, but to say its "impossible" to predict future events using inductive logic is absurd: if he *can* be right, it isn't impossible - the same goes for Jim by the way, its not impossible... but a very visible difference is in reliability: If Jim is more reliable, I'd think about taking cabbageomancy seriously. If Bob was reliable in his predictions, then I'd settle for his induction.

As it happens, this example applies on a wider scale: listen to various pieces of dogma about the nature of reality, eg. "the sun goes round the earth" then the scientist "the earth goes round the sun". Some people still haven't realised that god is dead.

"the only way to predict the future progression with certainty, is if you know the actual formula of the series,"

"certainty"

There's that word again: you've already said "i am not talking about certainty" yet you've used it specifically. How do you suppose people come up with formulas... I'll give you a clue; it doesn't involve psychic cabbages.

***

"i am saying that causation does not exist"

(I think) I realise *what* your saying (in this case), but I asked for an explanation of your position - some sort of justification for saying things are not caused.

***

"induction most certainly ISNT a valid form of reasoning, quite the contrary, it is entirely fallacious. Science is based on flawed logic and flawed assumptions"

Could you give examples please? what flawed logic, what flawed assumptions?

"the big bang seems to me like a refusal to face up to reality because it is logically impossible (it is an uncaused cause), and also totally absurd, to suggest that the universe exploded into existence for no particular reason"

"no particular reason"

Why should there be a reason? ...the existence of a reason sounds like a flawed assumption to me... Also Vacuum fluctuations, what you might call an "uncaused cause" (which is why I've been harping on about them), can be observed in a lab (look up virtual particles)... and are part of our established understanding of physical and chemical interactions.

***
"btw I love Tool =]"

me too

We try to spiral out, and just end up going in circles :lol:

 

[maxfreakout]

"Impossible"

Thats quite a claim...

it is a mathematical truth, it is completely impossible to predict the future progression of a series without knowing the formula of the series

But lets run with it: you have your series of numbers, and we use 2 volunteers: Bob uses inductive logic to make a prediction, Jim channels the pink psychic cabbages of Sirius B to come up with his, who would you put your money on?

i wouldnt put money on either of them, since neither one is any more likely to be right than the other

consider the following series:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5...........

what is the next number in this series? It could be ANY number, the only way to know which number comes next, is if you know the formula for the entire series, and it is impossible to determine the formula when all you are given is the first 5 times, the series COULD progress as follows:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc

OR it could progress as follows:

1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 etc

there is simply no way of knowing how it will contimue to progress after the 5th term in the series, UNLESS you know the formula. This is why inductive reasoning is fallacious

to say its "impossible" to predict future events using inductive logic is absurd

why? It IS impossible to predict future events using inductive logic, as i just demonstrated

if he *can* be right, it isn't impossible

he can only be right by accident, but being right by accident is not the same thing as predicting

but a very visible difference is in reliability: If Jim is more reliable, I'd think about taking cabbageomancy seriously. If Bob was reliable in his predictions, then I'd settle for his induction.

neither method is more reliable than the other, both methods are completely unreliable, and if they did turn out to be right, it could only be by accident

As it happens, this example applies on a wider scale: listen to various pieces of dogma about the nature of reality, eg. "the sun goes round the earth" then the scientist "the earth goes round the sun".

whether the sun goes round the earth, or the earth goes round the sun, just depends on where you put the fixed point, ie whether you fix the centre of the earth, or the centre of the sun. In absolute reality, nothing goes around anything, an object can only move with respect to another object

"the only way to predict the future progression with certainty, is if you know the actual formula of the series,"

"certainty"

There's that word again: you've already said "i am not talking about certainty" yet you've used it specifically. How do you suppose people come up with formulas... I'll give you a clue; it doesn't involve psychic cabbages.

I *wasn't* talking about certainty when the conversation was about what there was before the big bang, but then you brought up the subject f inductive validity, so i started talking about certainty, because it is relevant to the subject of inductive validity

"i am saying that causation does not exist"

(I think) I realise *what* your saying (in this case), but I asked for an explanation of your position - some sort of justification for saying things are not caused.

the idea that causation exists is purely an *assumption*, based on previous observation of conjunctions of events. This assumption is based on inductive logic which is fallacious, as i demonstrated with the example of the sequence of numbers 1,2,3,4,5.......

"induction most certainly ISNT a valid form of reasoning, quite the contrary, it is entirely fallacious. Science is based on flawed logic and flawed assumptions"

Could you give examples please? what flawed logic, what flawed assumptions?

the flawed assumption, is the assumption that inductive reasonng is logically valid. This is a false assumption, as i demonstrated with the example of the sequence of numbers 1,2,3,4,5.......

Why should there be a reason?

Because physics is supposed to be 'causally complete'. This brings us back to the question that GOD posed earlier in the thread, can you think of an example of when a big explosion happened that has no cause?

...the existence of a reason sounds like a flawed assumption to me... Also Vacuum fluctuations, what you might call an "uncaused cause" (which is why I've been harping on about them), can be observed in a lab (look up virtual particles)... and are part of our established understanding of physical and chemical interactions.

how is Vacuum fluctuation an 'uncaused cause'? Surely it is caused by the existence of the vacuum?

 

[Crimzen]

the big bang isnt an uncaused cause
it was caused by the compression of the universe the current universe once was
it fluctuates from large to small, expanding and contracting like breathing
its an ongoing cycle rather than a straight line with a beginning and end