The second law of thermodynamic

[Bread_of_Life]

However you want to desribe the reason heat flows from hot to cold its still a phenomenon that we call entropy. Your "correction on my quote is a matter of semantics.

I disagree that it is a semantic argument - entropy is a quantity that was not discovered but defined to describe heat flow from hot to cold. Therefore it cannot prove that heat flows from hot to cold - rather it is based on the assumption that it always does. Anyway.

Note that I did not say reach absolute zero, but that it would approach absolute zero.

This is also incorrect, the energy curve is not asymtotic to absolute zero either. Rather, the average energy difference curve is asymtotic to zero. Things will have heat energy, there will just be no difference in heat energy to generate useful work.

This quote shows your lack of knowledge of the current literature in astronomy and cosmology. Try a few for a good read.

I did mention that current scientific opinion lent to an open universe - but I do not believe these studies are conclusive - especially given all the new mass that is being found in the universe (such as dark matter and dark energy).

A couple of comments on this. You think we understand the formation of black holes, but that we can't easily measure the speed at which galaxies are moving apart to determine the end function of this universe?

Our knowledge of black holes is almost entirely theoretical - we have only rarely ever observed an actual live black hole. However, given that the theory (general relativity) is sound, then it should not take infinite energy to create a singularity.

Hubble showed how to determine if the universe would keep expanding or eventually contract in the early half of the 20th century.

Agreed, and theoretically Hubble was right - however it is determining the value of the constants to plug into Hubble equation that has cuased the problem given limited observed data. Majority opinion has changed already on this one, and more is being found out every day about the contents of our universe.

However, I'm not sure whether a big crunch or open universe is central to our discussion is it?

Black holes are indeed singularities that appear in regions of space. Theorized to occur from the collapse of a star of huge proportions. These stars exhibit a finite gravitational "energy" or amount and therefore a finite mass. Now, take all the mass and energy and put it in a black hole. Let's see you get it out again!

you don't get it out again (not on this side anyway!). On the other hand, I was no arguing that you did get it out, I was arguing that an infinite ammount of energy was not needed to create one - which is what you claimed.

You now seem to admit this point, although only implicitely from what you say.

There are ways in which a black hole emits energy. They emit high energy x-rays, not a soup of sub atomic particles in a spectacular explosion. Please note that this is why the big bang singularity is MUCH different than a black hole. If it were similar, then we would see black holes in the universe explode into many new little universes. Doesn't happen and so comparing black holes to the big bang is not scientifically sound.

Firstly, since you don't really know where singularities "exist", or what happens to them in the future, you cannot really tell if they don't explode to create new universes, although I personally doubt it.

Secondly, I was not comparing the initial big bang singularity to a black hole - I was merely pointing out that when you claimed that to create a singularity would take infinite energy you were wrong. I would thank you to admit this and stop changing the subject.

Your second comment about the doubtful process of all the universe being laid out and then brought back together as likely false reveals something. First, anything you say about time before the big bang is conjecture. Your decision on this being "likely false" reveals your bias and lack of an open mind.

Not so.

As you rightly point out just after:

You see I could say that the universe before the big bang was all chicken soup and it would be just as likely any other state before the big bang.

Given this fact, that previous to the big bang could have been anything at all, any one of an almost endless list of scenarios, then the chances of any one scenario being correct, namely yours, is fairly low. Unless you can present actual evidence for your scenario, I will not believe it, because it is one of so many, and as such unlikely.

Given that you now admit that you cannot present evidence for this scenario, I take it you therefore admit your assessment of the probability of the universe being created this way was incorrect. This is now the second premise of your argument, the other being the infinite energy premise, that you have now implicitely admitted was wrong.

What are the chances that all this matter and energy was compacted at a singularity and then suddenly exploded on chance. That's the probability that I'm calling zero and that's why I believe that there was some force other than chance that brought this into being and that force I choose to call God.

Firstly, you tried to prove that this probability was zero fallaciously, which is what I was pointing out.

Secondly, I personally see no reason to believe that this initial singularity was caused at all - that it was not the original first cause - uncaused in of itself.

Thirdly, if you accounted for the big bang using a deity, then you would be forced to either account of the deity, or withdraw the argument that the big bang singularity required accounting for. One cannot start with the premise that something needs an account and then account for it with a complex object that in of itself cannot be accounted for.

[Trinity]

What I am about to tell you is from my own knowledge, not from any article, I'm not going to go into all the facts because it would take to long, so ill give you a little. I don't believe you are dumb, I believe you are vary smart. It is the data you received that was wrong.

Evolution is not science, its a Theory and proven to be a Fallacy.

It goes against "The First Law Of Thermodynamics" which is everything goes from order to disorder. This is a Law not a Theory.

The cell theory is

1. Cells are the units that make up all living things

2. Cells are the units that carry out the functions of all living thins

3. Cells come from preexisting cells

According to the cell theory, matter just doesn't become cells.

Dating fossils is proven to be vary inaccurate. On example. We found a dinosaur in a rock, before they found the dinosaur, they dated the layers with LOTS of different dating methods, when they found something, it turned out to be a dinosaur, with its tail thousands of years older then its head, why because dating fossils vary inaccurate, this happens a lot, like with a tree.

[Trinity]

Creation is not even theory it is dogma. Dogma can not be proven nor disproven because it is basically opinion, faith and belief.

And that is true

But what else is true is Evolution is a Fallacy.

[Trinity]

Fog and ScientificAtheist

A man spends his life trying to prove Dogs can talk, he gathered so much of what he calls information, so many people started to stand by and actually believing him. The man later dies, but before he dies he renounces his belief, even saying he made it all up, but it doesn't faze his followers. Who is the bigger fool, The leader or the followers?

[JLW001]

This is also incorrect, the energy curve is not asymtotic to absolute zero either. Rather, the average energy difference curve is asymtotic to zero. Things will have heat energy, there will just be no difference in heat energy to generate useful work.

Suppose you have a volume V that is infinite. Now suppose you have a quantity of energy, G, that you blast into this volume. Now , knowing the principle we call entropy, the energy would start to spread throughout the infinite volume, V. So, at some time, t=infinity, the average volume concentration of energy would be G/V where V is infinity. Now because the average volumetric energy , G'=G/V or 0, the average volumetric temperature would be absolute zero! Because we never get to infinity in our understanding then the average volumetric energy would asymptotically approach absolute zero. Therefore the temperature would approach zero or absolute zero. I'm not certain how you can dispute this simple arithmatic exercise.(This, of course, assumes the universe is a closed system)

Given this fact, that previous to the big bang could have been anything at all, any one of an almost endless list of scenarios, then the chances of any one scenario being correct, namely yours, is fairly low. Unless you can present actual evidence for your scenario, I will not believe it, because it is one of so many, and as such unlikely.

Given that you now admit that you cannot present evidence for this scenario, I take it you therefore admit your assessment of the probability of the universe being created this way was incorrect. This is now the second premise of your argument, the other being the infinite energy premise, that you have now implicitely admitted was wrong.

First, if I have infinitely many states before the big bang and I have no probability distribution for those states then each state is equally probable. Your assertion that any given state is less likely than another is wrong! This shows your unwillingness to address the real issue. That issue is that science only gives us light so far back and after that any given assertion is equally probable from a scientific point of view. Science is completely useless when trying to find a preferred state before the big bang. So, we must rely on something else. I choose to rely upon Jesus Christ and the Bible. What God or doctrine do you rely upon to find a preferred state before the big bang?

What is the escape velocity for a black hole? It certainly is larger than the speed of light. The only thing that escapes the black hole is gravity! Now, my assertion is that to create a singularity from nothing, pack it full of our universe and then to explode that matter/energy from the singularity requires something of incredible infinite power. I would submit to you that the escape velocity from a singularity is infinite. In fact we see that gravity is quite a conudrum, but it provides some insight into the escape velocity for a black hole. As you know gravity is a property of matter. However, gravity is transmitted at infinite speed. If you look at the sun you can see the light that left the sun 8 minutes before. However, you body experiences the gravitation pull from the sun at exactly the position of the sun. There is no 8 minute delay. You see the sun where it was 8 minutes ago, but you feel its gravity coming from its current position. I know that people have tried to measure the speed of gravity, but our instruments won't be able to find that speed because it is not finite, but infinite. Estimations of the speed of gravity have come up with incredibly large values. I submit to you that as our instruments become better that we will see that the speed we measure for gravity ever increasing and approaching infinity. This is where the infinite energy comes in. Because gravity is the only thing that escapes a black hole and its speed is infinite, then an infinite amount of energy would be required to explode the universe from a singularity.

States before the big bang are equally probable, given the fact that we have no probability distribution or we have no preferred state from a scientific point of view. We must then leave our beloved science and look to other things to find the preferred state.

The Bible provides a lot of evidence for its veracity. For example, while the Egyptian physicians we prescribing dung (sometime human) for the cure of certain ailments, God provide laws of cleanliness and protection from germs. They were told to wash in running water, to isolate the sick and to be extremely careful around dead bodies. Did Moses himself figure out how germs were present and how to avoid them? Remember, the greatest civilization on the earth, the Egyptians, at that time had no clue as to how to avoid germs and such. There is much more in the bible, such as the building of siege type engines for protection of a city (2 Chronicles). The bible says God gave men the mechanical knowledge to do this. This was well before any of this technology was used by other states.

This is just some of the evidence that comes to mind for proving the veracity of the Bible. There are other archeological finds that support the Bible.

Now on what do you base your faith in nothing? If I am correct, you believe that the universe just came from nothing without any cause. The evidence for such a pre-big bang state is nothing. From a scientific point of view my faith and your faith are equally probable. We must use things that go beyond our scientific knowledge to justify our faith.

Firstly, you tried to prove that this probability was zero fallaciously, which is what I was pointing out.

Secondly, I personally see no reason to believe that this initial singularity was caused at all - that it was not the original first cause - uncaused in of itself.

Thirdly, if you accounted for the big bang using a deity, then you would be forced to either account of the deity, or withdraw the argument that the big bang singularity required accounting for. One cannot start with the premise that something needs an account and then account for it with a complex object that in of itself cannot be accounted for.

Note my improved explanation above on why I think infinite energy was required for the big bang. I mis-spoke when I ascertained that it took infinite energy to stuff the universe into the big bang singularity. I was not completely explaining the whole process of the big bang and I apologize for any confusion. However, I have now explained why infinite energy was required for the big bang. I have also shown that all states before the big bang are equally probable from a scientific point of view. I have shown that you must go beyond science to formulate you belief. If you believe in nothing then it is the nothing state that you believe in.

You see no reason that there was a cause of the big bang? You have completely left logic and gone into some realm of which I am not acquainted. Why do you so strongly believe in nothing? Nothing created the big bang? It came from nothing? That's very similar to the belief that some scientists had when they observed flies coming from spoiled meat. I believe the called it "spontaneous life" generation or something like that. They believed that life just sprang from nothing. They then discovered that flies were laying eggs and maggots were then growing and becoming flies within the carrion. Our universe is filled with cause and effect, yet you believe that the beginning of it had no cause? Come on now. Why are you resisting the truth to the extent of being foolish.

Your "thirdly" comment seems a bit strange to me. You are placing constraints on something when you have no evidence for those constraints.

This can all be simplified in a few statements.

1. The big bang occurred.

2. We have no science that can reach to or beyond the big bang.

3. The preferred state before the big bang can not be described by science.

4. All states before the big bang have the same probability as a consequence of 3.

5. You must go beyond science to find a preferred sate before the big bang.

Those points show the limit of science and the beginning of faith. We must have faith in something before the big bang. I believe in a creator God, while you believe in nothing before the big bang. You have said there was no cause and that is what you have faith in. You have no justification for that faith, while I have the Bible and Jesus Christ upon which to place my faith.

I would ask you personally why you resist God? Don't answer me, but think about this and try to come to some logical conclusion regarding your belief in nothing. I wish you and those others who don't believe in God the best and that God will reveal himself to you. I promise that you will have peace in your heart no matter what is happening around you, if you receive God. Its true that God has made laws and that humans sin against them, but God is love and he gave Jesus as a sacrifice so that we do not have to pay the penalty of death that comes with sin. No matter what you are doing or what you have done, God will forgive you and bring you to him. I implore you to look into God and see the logic and love in his will for us.

[JLW001]

I wanted to add some clarification on my discission of gravity. The theory of relativity assumes that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe and that gravity propagates at that speed. However, it describes gravity as a warp in space time that causes the apparent attration. However, that warpage can only take place if there is some property that causes matter to a pull toward the warped space time. This means there is an incorrect assumption for the theory of relativity. However, that only affects the gravity components of the equations. The rest describes the universe well.

A better expplanation is that if I have a rubber surface and I place heavy and light balls on it, then the heavy balls will warp the surface more than the light balls. Good so far...However, the explanation assumes that there is a force that pulls a ball that passes a ball to be attracted to that ball. On earth its gravity, what is that force in space/time? Do you see the failure of this part of the theory?

[Bread_of_Life]

Now because the average volumetric energy , G'=G/V or 0, the average volumetric temperature would be absolute zero!

Right, I get what you're saying, average energy per unit volume, in an ever expanding universe, will tend to zero. This is correct.

However. it has nothing to do with entropy, it has to do with continuing expansion. An infinite volume containing a finite ammount of energy, whether the heat can move from cold to hot or not will have an average energy per unit volume of zero.

First, if I have infinitely many states before the big bang and I have no probability distribution for those states then each state is equally probable. Your assertion that any given state is less likely than another is wrong!

If I had asserted this it would be wrong. I did not assert this. I asserted that each of these states would have a very very small chance of being the actual state, given the almost infinite number of possibilities.

Let me explain, if I have a bag with infinite balls, numbered from 1 upwards, what is the chance that I pull out a 46? Well, equal to all the other balls of course, but very very low.

Therefore your assumption that the universe was in one state and not any other prior to the big bang is very likely untrue.

Secondly, whilst we cannot gather empirical evidence on the state of things prior to the big bang, we can apply occams razor to assess the antecendant improbability of each state. While this can only give us a comparative index of one state against another, it may still be useful philosophically - but that's a side argument.

What God or doctrine do you rely upon to find a preferred state before the big bang?

I don't rely on any God or doctrine to find a preferred state before the big bang, I simply admit that I don't know what came before.

What is the escape velocity for a black hole? It certainly is larger than the speed of light.

Correct.

Now, my assertion is that to create a singularity from nothing, pack it full of our universe and then to explode that matter/energy from the singularity requires something of incredible infinite power.

This was not your assertion, in fact, you made it clear that the big bang singularity was different from black holes, only a couple of posts ago.

You said that bringing everything together into a singularity would take infinite energy. This was your original assertion, and it was incorrect. If you want, I can look up your first post, and post up your original assertion for you to examine, to make sure I am tell the truth.

You are correct in saying that to get anything out of a black hole on OUR end of the black hole would take infinite energy, because it would imply moving objects of infinite mass (at light speed).

I would submit to you that the escape velocity from a singularity is infinite.

Indeed, according to general relativity, and this is exactly why scientists are trying very hard to make big bang equations avoid a singularity - because as an explanation it is more than problematic.

This though, was not your original assertion, or else I would have agreed with it.

Did Moses himself figure out how germs were present and how to avoid them?

This is unlikely, and he never mentioned germs or microorganisms. Rather it is likelier that from empirical observations (and common sense reasoning) the semitic tribes found that isolating the sick prevented diseases spreading, and washing to prevent smelling.

If I am correct, you believe that the universe just came from nothing without any cause.

I think that, by occam's razor, this is the likeliest possible conclusion, because it eliminates the need for extraneous entities that we do not already know exist - it prevents the multiplication of objects, in other words.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's true, there are many different possibilities, but this one (and many others) are far more likely according to occam's razor than a divine scenario.

I mis-spoke when I ascertained that it took infinite energy to stuff the universe into the big bang singularity. I was not completely explaining the whole process of the big bang and I apologize for any confusion.

No problem, you can therefore ignore what is said about this above.

However, I have now explained why infinite energy was required for the big bang.

From a singularity yes - that theory is almost certainly wrong therefore.

have also shown that all states before the big bang are equally probable from a scientific point of view.

But not from a philosophical point of view, which is why presumably you went on to say:

I have shown that you must go beyond science to formulate you belief.

Come on now. Why are you resisting the truth to the extent of being foolish.

I have concluded that there must be a first cause that we cannot account for. We cannot account for this first cause because it is uncaused - and only causes account for objects. Therefore any object that is uncaused is unaccounted for.

Since there must have been a first cause, and whatever it is will be unaccounted for - I have concluded that, by Occam's Razor, I should choose a first cause that does not unnecessarily multiply objects - a scenario that involves as little as possible that we do not already know exists, that we do not already know is true.

Therefore I would say that, by occam's razor, the most likely first cause is the first cause we already know about, which was the start of the universe. If we go beyond this, we must hypothesise objects that we do not already know exist, thereby multiplying objects.

Now, is this intellectually satisfying? No. But it was never going to be, from the first paragraph I already knew that whatever the first cause was, I was never going to be able to account for it - I will never be intellectually satisfied with having accounted for everything. Bummer, I know, but the way life is I guess.

Those points show the limit of science and the beginning of faith.

No, they do not. Faith is not all there is beyond science and empirical reasoning. Science is only one branch of philosophy - and we can use the others before just making stuff up, which is effectively what faith is.

We must have faith in something before the big bang. I believe in a creator God, while you believe in nothing before the big bang.

There comments are internally inconsistant. The first, that we must believe in something prior to the big bang contradicts the last, that I believe in nothing prior to the big bang. Nothing is different from something.

A better expplanation is that if I have a rubber surface and I place heavy and light balls on it, then the heavy balls will warp the surface more than the light balls. Good so far...However, the explanation assumes that there is a force that pulls a ball that passes a ball to be attracted to that ball. On earth its gravity, what is that force in space/time? Do you see the failure of this part of the theory?

This is only an analogy of course, which is why it fails. Essentially I believe it has to do with the calculus of variations - which is a mathematical discipline which has to do with finding the shortest path across curved surfaces.

Light takes the shortest path in space-time (why, we don't know). That means that if space time is curved, it follows the shortest path according to calculus of variations - this shortest path is called a "geodesic". This is why we get gravitational lensing. Why is happens is between God and his angels, we don't really know, Einsteins equations are just a way of modelling it and describing it, not really explaining it.

The answer is similar for matter (stuff with mass), although I'm afraid I didn't take the General Relativity course at Uni - I was too busy doing biophysics of nerve cells and networks in my fourth year - so my knowledge of the area is sketchy. But what I've said above is true - once you get to a certain level, science is no longer explanatory but descriptive. That applies to all areas of science.

For example, why is an electron attracted to a proton? And the answer is not "because one is negative and one positive", those are just the names we assign to particles that attract each other in this way. Chances are, both particles have some sort of fundamental "property" that somehow makes them repel, that we call "charge", but what is this property really, how does it operate, why is it sometimes attractive and sometimes repellant?

The deeper we dig on these questions, the more causes we find, but the more questions we get at the same time. As we get more and more fundamental, our models become more and more descriptive of behaviour, and less and less explanatory of it. Eventually I suppose, we'll get to a level of fundamentalness that will allow us no further with our "why" questions, we will have reached the rules written directly into the fabric of the universe somehow, for which there are no deeper or more fundamental cause. At this point, our science will simply describe these rules, it will not account for them.

[JLW001]

If I had asserted this it would be wrong. I did not assert this. I asserted that each of these states would have a very very small chance of being the actual state, given the almost infinite number of possibilities.

First, I disagree with you about your assertion. You said that the state I described would be highly unlikely, without qualifying it with the notion that you considered all states having this same "highly unlikely" probability.

So, you are admitting that a creator God is just as likely as nothing as a "cause" for the big bang. Think just a moment about what this means. This line of reasoning says that unless you have some other information then a creator God is just as likely to be true when compared to your belief in nothing.

I submit to you that there are not infinitely many states for things before the big bang. I also submit that there is in fact a probability distribution that favors only one occurrence at a probability of one and the others zero. I say this because of my faith in God and the Bible. You on the other hand believe in nothing before the big bang.. On what do you base your belief. Your argument about your belief in nothing not being a belief is utterly a play on words. Your belief in nothing is indeed a belief.

I think that, by occam's razor, this is the likeliest possible conclusion, because it eliminates the need for extraneous entities that we do not already know exist - it prevents the multiplication of objects, in other words.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's true, there are many different possibilities, but this one (and many others) are far more likely according to occam's razor than a divine scenario.

Now your assertion about occam's razor is not quite right. We have no evidence that the pre-big bang universe or existence followed any of the physical laws or empirical observations that we have today. Nothing says the simplest state is favored before the big bang. You do realize that your argument about there being nothing before the big bang means that you believe that our universe came from nothing. That certainly is not the simplest explanation. I daresay that nowhere in our universe have we ever observed or have ever had a reason to suggest that something ever comes from nothing. Your supposition in mathematical form would be that zero is equal to one! Which we know that it certainly isn't the case. So, if you wish to apply any rule, law or empirical observation to things before the big bang then you must admit that your hypothesis is absurd.

Did Moses himself figure out how germs were present and how to avoid them?

This is unlikely, and he never mentioned germs or microorganisms. Rather it is likelier that from empirical observations (and common sense reasoning) the semitic tribes found that isolating the sick prevented diseases spreading, and washing to prevent smelling.

So, you are saying that the Israelites had more common sense or better powers of observation that the Egyptians. What evidence do you have that would suggest this is the case? By the way, the washing rituals were more involved with cleaning yourself when around the dead, sick or animals. I submit to you that the Egyptians were the better scientists. The had great technology in building and fabricating and were doing experiments in medical technology. The Israelites were not doing these things.

However, I have now explained why infinite energy was required for the big bang.

From a singularity yes - that theory is almost certainly wrong therefore.

This statement is quite arrogant of you. Most every astronomer and cosmologist today ascribe to the big bang theory. In fact it is the basis of all the work being done in cosmology today. Yet, you state that the theory must be wrong because it does not fit within your way of thinking? I would suggest that unless you have degrees in astronomy and cosmology that you have told us about that you are most probably wrong.

I have concluded that there must be a first cause that we cannot account for. We cannot account for this first cause because it is uncaused - and only causes account for objects. Therefore any object that is uncaused is unaccounted for.

This is a very hard to understand comment. I think you are using circular reasoning here to say that the big bang was "uncaused". Hmmm. ...only causes account for objects...

Your main idea here seems to be...we can not account for the first cause because its uncaused... I'm sorry, but that idea seems quite strange and presumptuous. What do you base this upon. Just because science can not account for the cause of the big bang does not mean that there was not a cause. Science can not account for the existence of gravity. We have no idea how it propagates or what its quanta are. We don't even know of anything that can travel at the speed of infinity. Does that simply mean that there is no reason for gravity or no quantum specie that propagates gravity. I submit to you that just because people thought that the universe revolved around the earth that the earth and the planets still went along their merry way around the sun.

Saying that because we can not scientifically account for the cause of the big bang that the cause does not exist is quite foolish.

Those points show the limit of science and the beginning of faith.

No, they do not. Faith is not all there is beyond science and empirical reasoning. Science is only one branch of philosophy - and we can use the others before just making stuff up, which is effectively what faith is.

Faith is not simply making things up. Where do you find a reason for that. You have faith that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow. You have faith in the writing of these philosophers. You can not prove their suppositions, so you have the kind of faith for philosophy that I have for the Bible. I think it was Voltaire that declared God is dead. Well that is a statement that can not be proven. I declare that Voltaire is dead. How can anyone know this? By looking at the grave, death certificate, dead body, etc.

We must have faith in something before the big bang. I believe in a creator God, while you believe in nothing before the big bang.

There comments are internally inconsistent. The first, that we must believe in something prior to the big bang contradicts the last, that I believe in nothing prior to the big bang. Nothing is different from something.

Your explanation is simply a play upon words. Even if you say the was nothing before the big bang, the your belief is that there was nothing. Do you see? Whether you saying there is a God or not a God, then you still have a belief about God.

A better expplanation is that if I have a rubber surface and I place heavy and light balls on it, then the heavy balls will warp the surface more than the light balls. Good so far...However, the explanation assumes that there is a force that pulls a ball that passes a ball to be attracted to that ball. On earth its gravity, what is that force in space/time? Do you see the failure of this part of the theory?

This is only an analogy of course, which is why it fails. Essentially I believe it has to do with the calculus of variations - which is a mathematical discipline which has to do with finding the shortest path across curved surfaces.

Light takes the shortest path in space-time (why, we don't know). That means that if space time is curved, it follows the shortest path according to calculus of variations - this shortest path is called a "geodesic". This is why we get gravitational lensing. Why is happens is between God and his angels, we don't really know, Einsteins equations are just a way of modelling it and describing it, not really explaining it.

The answer is similar for matter (stuff with mass), although I'm afraid I didn't take the General Relativity course at Uni - I was too busy doing biophysics of nerve cells and networks in my fourth year - so my knowledge of the area is sketchy. But what I've said above is true - once you get to a certain level, science is no longer explanatory but descriptive. That applies to all areas of science.

For example, why is an electron attracted to a proton? And the answer is not "because one is negative and one positive", those are just the names we assign to particles that attract each other in this way. Chances are, both particles have some sort of fundamental "property" that somehow makes them repel, that we call "charge", but what is this property really, how does it operate, why is it sometimes attractive and sometimes repellant?

The deeper we dig on these questions, the more causes we find, but the more questions we get at the same time. As we get more and more fundamental, our models become more and more descriptive of behaviour, and less and less explanatory of it. Eventually I suppose, we'll get to a level of fundamentalness that will allow us no further with our "why" questions, we will have reached the rules written directly into the fabric of the universe somehow, for which there are no deeper or more fundamental cause. At this point, our science will simply describe these rules, it will not account for them.

The Calculus of variations is simply a tool it is not a part of theory. It is tensor calculus that shows how surfaces or multi-dimensional objects change with a set of variables. Tensor calculus is simply the calculus of matrices.

The theory itself requires gravity to be described in terms of a warpage of space/time. Now just because you warp space/time what force is it that causes a mass to be attracted along the steep slope of the space/time surface. You see? In the absence of a force a mass would simply not be attracted down the slope.

You make a good point in that science is a descriptive discipline in some aspects. It simply describes the laws we observe without giving a fundamental understanding of why those laws exist. This is because man is limited in his ability to understand. I liked when you said that why these laws exist is between God and his Angels. I would have said just God , but I think that this reveals a fundamental idea. We can describe things, but we can't tell "why" things are as they are.

At this point you must believe in something, whether its believing in nothing, believing in a nebulous idea of a higher being, believing in philosophers, or believing in God. Why choose anything but God? God says we were made from the dust of the ground and made in his image. We are indeed composed of components you find in any dirt. We do indeed strive to create things. Just as babies try to imitate their parents, we imitate God's capacity for creation.

SA, there are so many reasons why you should investigate God for yourself. You seem to think logically, so read the Bible with that sense of logic. Try God and I promise you won't find him lacking. Read some of the descriptions of God by the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel. There are things in there that are quite astounding. Also, you will see that God's way is a way that leads to peace and love. Not just syrupy ideals, but real and practical love.

By the way, entropy comes into the picture of an ever-expanding universe in that at some point, t=infinity, a local average energy G" will be equal to the global average energy G' and both being equal to zero.

Edited January 26, 2005 by JLW001

[Bread_of_Life]

First, I disagree with you about your assertion. You said that the state I described would be highly unlikely, without qualifying it with the notion that you considered all states having this same "highly unlikely" probability.

My original statement was nonetheless correct. The qualification, added in my last post, explains exactly why it is correct, but I can see how you might have gotten confused by the way I put it.

So, you are admitting that a creator God is just as likely as nothing as a "cause" for the big bang.

Again, this is not what I said. I said that scientifically we could not differentiate between theories of what happened prior to the big bang.

I also went out of my way to point out that this is because science is incapable of looking beyond on the big bang, and that therefore we must look to other areas of philosophy for an answer. In other words, we cannot use emprical reasoning to answer this question, because we have no empircal data - and science is based on empirical data.

That does not mean that I think that any state prior to the big bang actually is equally likely.

Your belief in nothing is indeed a belief.

I agree that it is a belief, but not in the solid sense you are thinking of it. I believe that this is the most likely scenario, and therefore that which we should tentatively believe in. Note the word tentative.

Now your assertion about occam's razor is not quite right. We have no evidence that the pre-big bang universe or existence followed any of the physical laws or empirical observations that we have today. Nothing says the simplest state is favored before the big bang.

Occam's Razor is not dependent on physical laws, or anything that we have found out empirically about the universe. That is why it is useful here - because it is a branch of essentially deductive philosophy.

Furthermore, your statement that occam's razor favours simplicity is, in of itself, over simplified. Occam's razor does usually favour the simplest theory, but does other things also.

You do realize that your argument about there being nothing before the big bang means that you believe that our universe came from nothing.

Yes, I do.

That certainly is not the simplest explanation.

I believe that it is the only explanation that does not unnecessarily multiply objects or entities. Your assertion that it is not is noted, but does not form a valid argument.

I daresay that nowhere in our universe have we ever observed or have ever had a reason to suggest that something ever comes from nothing.

My conclusion that at least one object at some time in the past had to be uncaused was not the result of empirical evidence that many things exist without cause - but rather the result of deductive reasoning.

Whatever the first cause is/was, it did not have a cause - it is conventionally impossible to account for. Whether this is the universe, or God, or Dandy Dan, it doesn't really matter - whatever we find the first cause to be we cannot account for it causally.

So, you are saying that the Israelites had more common sense or better powers of observation that the Egyptians.

No, I'm sure that the Eygptians were ahead in other areas. I have never studied this in detail - I do not know much about ancient Eygptian technology or science, or which fields they were particularly advanced in, and which they were not.

However, I do not count it as a miracle that a tribe somewhere worked out that they shouldn't really smear themselves in faeces, and that they should isolate the sick. I also do not count it as having knowledge of germs or bacteria.

This statement is quite arrogant of you. Most every astronomer and cosmologist today ascribe to the big bang theory. In fact it is the basis of all the work being done in cosmology today.

Almost every scientist ascribes to quantum theory, and similarly to general relativity. However, the two theories are mutually exclusive, one of them must be wrong, in some way or another.

Furthermore, given that as you said, an explosion from a singularity would essentially involve infinite energy, and yet there is only finite energy in the universe, then we must conclude that this is also incorrect. That doesn't mean we throw Big Bang theory out of the window, it means we see if we can find testable alternatives to this part of the theory.

Yet, you state that the theory must be wrong because it does not fit within your way of thinking?

This statement is inaccurate, as you can see I reject the idea of a singularity because it doesn't make scientific sense as a theory - and many top scientists (including Hawking) are trying to get round the idea of a singularity (using concepts like imaginary time for example, weird people these physicists).

Your main idea here seems to be...we can not account for the first cause because its uncaused... I'm sorry, but that idea seems quite strange and presumptuous. What do you base this upon. Just because science can not account for the cause of the big bang does not mean that there was not a cause.

I am not talking about the big bang, I am talking about the first cause, whatever that is. The first cause, whether the Big Bang, God, or Homer Simpson - cannot be accounted for by science or any other strand of philosophy. That is because objects are accounted for by their causes, and the first cause was/is causeless, and therefore impossible to account for. There is no explaining it - there is only a chance we may be able to describe it.

I submit to you that just because people thought that the universe revolved around the earth that the earth and the planets still went along their merry way around the sun.

I am not basing my discussion of the first cause on scientific principles, and therefore I have no fear that science will ever prove me wrong, no matter how far we advance.

Saying that because we can not scientifically account for the cause of the big bang that the cause does not exist is quite foolish.

If I had said this, it would have been foolish. Fortunately I did not.

Faith is not simply making things up. Where do you find a reason for that.

Faith is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as a belief lacking sufficient evidence or proof. That, in my book, is as good as saying "making stuff up that we want to believe for whatever reason".

You have faith that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow.

No, I have evidence of this, therefore my belief in this does not involve faith.

You have faith in the writing of these philosophers. You can not prove their suppositions, so you have the kind of faith for philosophy that I have for the Bible.

No, I do not - I check that the writings of philosophers make sense logically, are consistant with each other and within themselves, and are evidenced. If I had faith then I could believe any old philosopher - because I would not need evidence or proof that they were correct, only faith that they were. This is not the case, I reject the majority of philosophies not because I have faith in one and not the rest, but because I have good evidence that one is right and not the rest.

I think it was Voltaire that declared God is dead.

It was Neitzsche. I found a great piece of graffiti on the toilet wall at my old Uni, it said:

"God is dead", Neitzsche, 1880

"Neitzsche is dead", God, 1900.

I thought that was hilarious.

Even if you say the was nothing before the big bang, the your belief is that there was nothing. Do you see? Whether you saying there is a God or not a God, then you still have a belief about God.

I agree, I do have a belief about this, I do not argue that. Sorry if my words were confusing.

The Calculus of variations is simply a tool it is not a part of theory. It is tensor calculus that shows how surfaces or multi-dimensional objects change with a set of variables. Tensor calculus is simply the calculus of matrices.

Agreed.

The theory itself requires gravity to be described in terms of a warpage of space/time. Now just because you warp space/time what force is it that causes a mass to be attracted along the steep slope of the space/time surface. You see? In the absence of a force a mass would simply not be attracted down the slope.

I agree, but this is not really how it works, it's just a way of envisioning it. And the maths isn't really how it works either, it's just a way or modelling and describing it.

You make a good point in that science is a descriptive discipline in some aspects. It simply describes the laws we observe without giving a fundamental understanding of why those laws exist. This is because man is limited in his ability to understand. I liked when you said that why these laws exist is between God and his Angels. I would have said just God , but I think that this reveals a fundamental idea. We can describe things, but we can't tell "why" things are as they are.

Right. We're like children constantly asking "why?"

Why does a fire burn? Because it is hot. Why is it hot? Because of the atomic reactions releasing heat. Why do they release heat? Because they are moving into a more energetically favourable state. Why do they do that?

You see, we'll explain a lot. We'll explain why a fire burns, and why it's hot, and why it releases heat. But if we keep on asking why, at one point we'll get to a stage so basic we can't explain any more. We'll just have to say "it just is that way". Usually when an adult says this to a child, it's just a grown up way of saying "i don't know" - usually someone knows the answer just not that particular adult.

But in the case of science, one day, we'll come to a "why" question that noone can answer inside this universe. A question so fundamental that the only answer we'll ever have is "because it just is that way". We'll have gotten so fundamental that we'll just be describing the fabric of the universe - there will be no more basic a cause or explanation to be had.

Why choose anything but God?

I'd just love to believe in God, I just don't think he exists.

By the way, entropy comes into the picture of an ever-expanding universe in that at some point, t=infinity, a local average energy G" will be equal to the global average energy G' and both being equal to zero.

What I was saying was that the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the universe getting to zero average energy, but rather to do with an open universe.

Let me explain, even if there was to be a big crunch, the universe wasn't going to go to infinite volume, entropy would still increase (because the expansion of the universe is not quasi-static, it's not reversible), the second law would still hold. BUT the universe's temparature would not asymtote to absolute zero. Only the average difference in temperature between one object and another would do this.

It is only because we currently believe that the universe will expand forever that we believe the average energy per unit volume will tend to zero - not because of the law of entropy.

[JLW001]

Again, this is not what I said. I said that scientifically we could not differentiate between theories of what happened prior to the big bang.

I also went out of my way to point out that this is because science is incapable of looking beyond on the big bang, and that therefore we must look to other areas of philosophy for an answer. In other words, we cannot use emprical reasoning to answer this question, because we have no empircal data - and science is based on empirical data

Occam's Razor is not dependent on physical laws, or anything that we have found out empirically about the universe. That is why it is useful here - because it is a branch of essentially deductive philosophy.

Occam's razor is simply an idea that says "if you have multiple explanations of an occurance, then the simplest of those explanations is the correct one". Its simply an idea that has come from the observation of the development of descriptions in our natural world. It makes sense in a logical way that is based on things we have seen before! (That is the definite description of logic and the test of logic as to wether it is correct or not) Any logic that comes from the mind of men is based upon our observations on the way things, ideas, and other logic fit with the world in which we live. If I observe that two apples and two more apples put together make four apples, then by the logic I have learned about objects in our physical realm I can say with good certainty that two oranges and two oranges will give me a total of four oranges. Then I can take this logic and apply it in an abstract way and say that 2 (of anything) and 2 must be 4. I have now taken an obersvation and transformed it by my initial logic into abstract logic. Any logic that we develop is based upon observation that we put together into an abstract "picture" of how things work. Occam's razor IS logic developed from our observation of the explanations of many physical descriptions!

Now the above applies to the logic of man. My belief is based upon God's logic revealed to man through the Holy Bible. The bible says that God's logic is above our logic as the heavens are above the earth. Now there are ideas in the Bible that seeem very strange when compared to our logic. Man's logic says that if someone is trying to steal your coat, then you should prevent this because you may not survive the cold without your coat. God's logic says that if a man tries to steal your coat, give it to him and also give him your shirt! That is completely against the survival logic that man has developed relative to weather conditions and self preservation. Man's logic says that you should hate your enemies and try to destroy them before they destroy you. In fact that is required logic with regard to survival of nations. God's logic is to love your enemies and pray for them.

Do you see how God's logic is striking in regard to how it disagrees with man's logic. Occam's razor is man's logic. It says if I have many ways of describing something then the simplest way is correct. What's the simplest way to describe what caused the big bang? The simplest is certainly not that it happened without a cause. That in fact, goes completely against any physical observations or logic that we humans have developed. So, I'm quite surprised by your choice of this. This is equivalent to the trivial solution. Some partial differential equations have zero as a solution. However, those solutions are trivial because they do not contain information. The trivial solution is always devoid of information and is not useful.

We need to have an explanation of the "cause" of the big bang that is useful. If the trivial solution is the relevant case, then its the same as saying there is no useful information in the universe. Information cannot come from no imformation!

God's logic says that he is the beginning of all things. Man's logic says there is no God and thus I'm free to develop my own set of morals. God's logic says this is right and that is wrong. Why? Because the one made lead to happiness and life to you and your neighbors, while the other may bring short term happiness to you and bring harm to you or your neighbor in the long term. God's logic is far above man's.

I believe that it is the only explanation that does not unnecessarily multiply objects or entities. Your assertion that it is not is noted, but does not form a valid argument.

My assertion is based on the fact that a null cause argument is the trivial solution. See above. I'd be glad to point out some literature on null or trivial solutions for PDEs

My conclusion that at least one object at some time in the past had to be uncaused was not the result of empirical evidence that many things exist without cause - but rather the result of deductive reasoning.

Whatever the first cause is/was, it did not have a cause - it is conventionally impossible to account for. Whether this is the universe, or God, or Dandy Dan, it doesn't really matter - whatever we find the first cause to be we cannot account for it causally.

I have shown above how Occam's razor is indeed a logic based upon our observations. It can not be anything else or we would say that it is "illogical". Therefore, you can not claim that you have any deductive reason that accounts for your choice of null causality for the big bang. I have shown how that the argument is indeed a trivial solution and provides no information or benefit for us.

I can account for the big bang with God as the cause. This is not based upon man's widsom, but upon God's. I have shown you how the wisdom of God differs tremendously from that of man. I have given you real facts within the bible that demonstrate a knowledge that man did not possess at the time. I have shown how God's wisdom within the bible is in total disagreement with man's logic. However, you will experience the benefits of doing things God's way rather than your own. I am a living testament to the wisdom that can be given to you if you follow God's wisdom, rather than your own.

You say its not a miracle that a tribe in the middle east developed processes to keep themselve from germs and bacteria millenia before anyone else had any knowledge of it? Come now, you are fooling yourself.

Quantum theory and relativity are not mutually exclusive. They describe events on scales that differ by 10^23 at least. To date there have not been any ways to link the two that have met with large support. This is all part of the effort to form GUTs or grand unified theories. The theories either account for two or three of the forces we know about without accounting for the fourth. We can get a handle on the weak and strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force, but we can not come up with a theory that incorporates gravity in a way that most everyone can agree on. However, most scientists believe that the GUT is out there to be found.

Saying that because we can not scientifically account for the cause of the big bang that the cause does not exist is quite foolish.

If I had said this, it would have been foolish. Fortunately I did not.

So you saying that you have no reason to say that there was no cause of the big bang because you think there was no big bang? I'm quite confused here. My understanding is that you say that the big bang did not occur. Therefore whatever brought the universe into being was nothing? I'm sorry, but I can't quite get my hands around what you believe.

Are you essentially saying that the universe just "is" and that nothing caused its origin? If that is true, then I would have to say, that even by man's logic, this argument is faulty at best and perverse at worst.

With your permission I'm going to slip away from the scientific a moment and slip into another realm. If I have characterized your belief properly, then I have some guess as to why you believe this. Is it that you are in a lifestyle or situation that is condemned by God and so you would rather believe in nothing rather then feel the conviction of God upon you for your sin? I can not fathom anyone believing in nothing. What do you hope for? What makes you want to wake up tomorrow? Is it the enjoyment of your life in the "now"?

This life is like a whisp of vapor. Sooner than it seems now, you will be upon your death bed. All of your life will simply be a memory. You will face the "nothing" that you have put in the place of God. All of the love, the hate and the happiness that is contained within you will simply slip into nothing and will be gone.

Do you believe that you or anyone else are worth so little. You may have a legacy of good that you leave for others to enjoy, but you will never know. All the lessons you learned and all the skills you learned in life will simply be lost: Gone forever. All of your family that have gone on are just that, "gone". Never to teach or learn again. Such a sensless loss wouldn't you agree?

Throwing your hands up and saying I am from nothing is quite odd. If the first cause, as you say, was nothing, then I can not convince you otherwise, because you have focused on a belief that is counter to science and counter to the intuition of any person that I have ever met. I don't mean any of this in an offending manner at all, but I'm quite dumbfounded. I don't know what else to say beyond what I have already said. I hope and pray that God will open your eyes and reveal himself to you. I believe that your resistance is based upon feelings of conviction and as such I want to tell you that you can be freed from that by the blood of Jesus Christ. Simply put down these burdens and ask God to take them away by forgiving you of your sin? Repent and sin no more were words that Jesus used when he forgave the sins of those recorded in the Bible. Its that easy! Hard times will come, but God promises to be there with you and to never let more trouble come upon you than you can bear.

God will give you peace and will allow you to spread happiness, love and hope through your life and your contacts. If someone told you that they had a prescription for a drug that made you happy, at peace and love everyone you meet, would you take it? I'm telling you that the prescription is in the Bible. I'm sure that you have heard people saying that if you don't accept Jesus, then you're going to hell to suffer forever. Is that the "Good news" or gospel? Heaven forbid! The God news is that Jesus can free you from your bondage to sin, bring you joy, peace, and happiness. He can do this because he was God, became flesh, suffered physically and suffered spiritual separation from his father, so that he could free you from the bondage of sin. Some don't even know they are in bondage, but when they are freed the joy and happiness comes into their life like the rising of the sun!

I don't mean to preach, but I want you to hear the Good News and not the religous condemnation that some people preach to those who are not yet saved. Everyone likes to hear "Good News", but no one likes to be threatened.

Its not easy to be a Christian. In some parts of the world, being a Christian means certain death. Even in America, there are people who hate Christians and are trying to pass laws that limit the freedom of Christians. California has just passed a law saying that if you defame homosexuality, then it is considered a hate crime. That means if I read the scriptures about Sodom and Gomorra in church then I would be commiting a hate crime in California. If I read certain scriptures in Paul's writings in the New Testament then I would be commiting a hate crime in California. The Bible speaks of things becoming much worse for Christians in the time before Christ returns. But when he does return, then all those who believe will be transformed into spirit as the sons of God. There is even hope for those that do not believe in Christ before they die. They will be judged according to how they live in a judgement called the White Throne Judgement in Revelation 20 and 21.

There is so much more than nothing in store for us. I want you to believe but its something between you and God. I wish you the best in life and hope for your future.