Wednesday, October 28, 2009

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying, one might say ’supernatural’ plan.”

Nobel prize in physics, - Arno Penzias

22 comments:

Tristan Vick said...

I think Professor Penzias' comment was a reflection of Einstein's notion of Spinoza's deist god, a god of nature.

This is why he makes the metaphor... it's probably the only way to describe to non-physicists the pure majesty of such a revelation.

And more recent cosmologists theorize that the universe didn't form from nothingness. I suggest you look into some insightful books, starting with Stephen Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time" co-written with Leonard Mlodinow, "The Cosmic Landscape" by Leonard Susskind, and "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang" by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok.

Hugo said...

So Rod, you decided to write 3 blog posts instead of answering to my last comment... even this one which mentions the absurd idea of something created out of NOTHING... interesting!

I guess you keep your habit of writing as much as possible in the hope of seeing what does not fit your worldview go away... Let me copy/paste my comment here so that it's on a more recent post!!

Hugo said...

HUGO: It does not make sense, mathematically, to speak of something BEFORE a singularity point

MAK: That’s just a technical cop out. You and I both know that at one point there was nothing and then there was everything.

LoL, no it's not "just" a technical cop out, it's THE point on which we disagree.

I do NOT believe that there was nothing and then everything; that's what YOU believe and that's what you think Atheists believe.

Perhaps some Atheists believe that too, because after all I keep on insisting that Atheists only share their non-belief in a god so I don't know what others believe concerning the origin of our universe...

MAK quotes the "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle"

I asked you about a peer-reviewed article. You point to a sentence in a 1986 book. So what? That's the best you can get?
The sentence you quoted is meaningless anyway... i don't care if someone writes something about before the singularity, it's still impossible to describe and just a speculation.

Look, my point was that you won't find a peer-reviewed article that talks about something before the singularity; because mathematically, it does not make sense. You can't observe something before a singularity because if you get to a point like that, your equations break down...

There are theories that discuss what possibly caused the Big Bang however, theories that talk about before time 0; I thought you might bring that up... You'll see that something is very different with such theories (Hint: it concerns the singularity). I'll let you search and perhaps we'll discuss that later when you find out yourself!

MAK: I understand what you’re saying and I understand why you find BB cosmology profoundly disturbing. BB cosmology forces us to ask, "WHY did the universe come into being?"

Disturbing? LoL. No, I don't find Big Bang cosmology disturbing, it's highly fascinating and I always want to learn more about it; and I can't wait for scientists to expand the current theories and go farther and farther in time.

I don't care about the kind of "Why" question you talk about, I am looking forward to know more about the How, because How and Why are more or less the same in science...

MAK quoting Arthur Eddington: The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.

Wow, going back to a book written in the 30s now !? What the hell Rod! I thought we were discussing a highly complicated scientific issue. An issue that has been changing tremendously in the past 10 years! How can you go back to books written so long ago!? Anyway, the quote, again, is meaningless.

Basically what I understand from Eddington's quote is that, for HIM, the beginning of the universe was the current limit, where the mathematical models he was using were breaking down. Because of that, he felt like he had reached a certain maximum point where only speculation could be made, and when men get to speculations, what do they do... refer to the supernatural of course! Filling the gaps!

HUGO: When we talk of a singularity, we are already talking of something non-natural.
MAK: You’re right. Besides the resurrection of Jesus, the singularity that brought our universe into being is the best working definition of a miracle that humanity has ever experienced

Human experienced the Big Bang? lol, but whatever... now it becomes obvious that you don't understand what a singularity is. I always thought you were simply a bit confused with the models but now, after discussing a bit about it, reading that the singularity brought our universe into existence... wow... that's just too much nonsense. I don't even know what to say honestly...

Look at what you quoted from "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", they say that AT this singularity... then they also say "IF the Universe originated AT such singularity...". You don't even understand what you quote apparently...

Makarios said...

"I do NOT believe that there was nothing and then everything; that's what YOU believe and that's what you think Atheists believe."

I and the Standard Model believe. The difference between me and any atheists that agree with the science of BB is that:
. I believe that Everything came from nothing by Something.
. Atheists believe that Everything came from nothing by nothing

and you, well you believe a whole host of things that contradict known and knowable science, i.e.,
. matter can be eternal,

. the material infinite exists,

. there can be an infinite regress of cause.

Your world is small but I imagine it’s cosy.
=============
“You point to a sentence in a 1986 book.”

A statement of awe and wonder is as relevant today as it is a thousand years ago.
=========
“it's still . . . just a speculation.”

Yes and your eternal matter, and material infinite, infinite regress of cause is, um, what exactly?
=============
“if you get to a point like that, your equations break down...”

Because, regarding the natural and the material, there is no such thing as before the singularity. Nothing material existed, no space, not time, no energy, no laws of physics. Just the Eternal Spirit and Cause / Creator of everything that is seen and unseen.
===============
“what do they do... refer to the supernatural of course!”

I thought Eddington was an atheist?
===============
Humans experienced the Big Bang? > We’re still experiencing it!

Hugo said...

What are you Rod? Ignorant or stupid?

I simply cannot tell anymore.

Press ctrl-f, write nothing, click on the links and have fun...


Straw man on september 29th

(he repeated the straw man in the comments up to October 5th...)


Strikes again with a Dawkins "quote" on October 1st

(he repeated the straw man in the comment on October 4th)


Made-up character do the straw man on October 2nd!!

(he repeated the straw man in the comment on October 2nd and 4th)


False dichotomy expressing the same misconception, and other comments in the same blog, on October 2nd... again. Wow, what a day.

(he repeated the straw man in the comment on October 3rd and 4th)


Misquoting Gorth on October 10th! He did not even use the word nothing, lol.

(He DID NOT repeat the straw man in the comments! Wow!)


Only in the comments this time! but twice On October 5th. Gorth corrects him with UNKNOWN instead of NOTHING.



Only in the comments on October 6th. naturalists demand that NOTHING can be believed this time.



A REAL QUOTE, YES!! But the man did say "may", dam it... cannot even disagree with him because he used "may", lol



Only in the comments on October 19th. He now talks of the atheists current favourite explanation after misunderstanding SmartLX



Help from a friend, LEO, in the comments, on October 21st


And that brings us to October 29th 2009. TODAY.

"Atheists believe that Everything came from nothing by nothing"

With all due respect Rod, Fuck You. My point is that I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. How can you start a blog post with such a straw man? What kind of moron are you seriously? Do you do it on purpose or are you truly dumb enough to think that what you wrote is an actual Atheistic claim? Do I need to quote myself or what? How can you ignore a main point?

Adam L Clardy said...

I'm not even going to discuss the comments except to say that it's slightly bizarre to attack someone that believes differently while at the same time trying to apparently 'convert' them to atheism.
Onto the topic of the post, IF science ever finds a way to close the infinite loophole that exists concerning the creation of the universe, I'll stop believing there is a god. There is ALWAYS a hole in the theory. Big Bang - what caused it? Well... there was um... a big crunch! And then it expanded again! Or the multiverse theory. Or any of the dozens. It keeps coming back to this: why? Something started it. What? All matter and energy tries to come to a state of neutrality. Whether it's positive-negative cancelling, or atoms breaking down to their fundamental parts, or the universal temperature cooling to absolute zero and electrons coming to rest, matter and antimatter obliterating each other... Begs the question, why is there anything at all? We get another theory that still leaves that eternal loophole. The latest is that our universe is one of many. Imagined side by side and undulating like flags, when they happen to touch, BANG! A new universe! Loophole is still there. Who and/or where did those first universes come from and/or created by?

Chris Mackey said...

I'm not even going to discuss the comments except to say that it's slightly bizarre to attack someone that believes differently while at the same time trying to apparently 'convert' them to atheism.

I think the issue is that Makarios/Rod builds straw men.

Imagine if Person X said "Adam L Clardy believes god is a pineapple!" and then after you corrected him, he kept saying it.

Hugo said...

@Adam and Chris

I think the issue is that Makarios/Rod builds straw men.

Imagine if Person X said "Adam L Clardy believes god is a pineapple!" and then after you corrected him, he kept saying it.


Exactly, Chris is correct. Insults are deserved when you realize that a man uses the same straw man argument several times.

If you want to believe in a god of the gaps Adam, it's your choice, just don't pretend that it explains anything... you don't answer your "How" or "Why" question by putting God in the hole... you just say "God did it" ?

Adam L Clardy said...

A. Maybe god is a pineapple. I wouldn't know, I'm not god. Or, he could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

B. Insults and straw man arguments dumb down the discourse.

C. I'm not getting into my beliefs. Let's just say that no religion can have a monopoly on god. As far as a 'god of the gaps'... Believers fill the holes with god, atheists with theory. They're the same thing. I'm neither. I want definitive answers. Both sides always fall back to their respective positions on this topic. The atheist falls back to "we haven't figured it all out yet", the religious fall back to "god did it". I'm firmly in the "we just don't know for sure" camp. I find enormous problems with both sides of this issue. I have problems with those who believe in what cannot be proved (which actually can cover both sides, but in this instance I'm referring to god), and I have a problem with materialists, which appears to be what some commentors are in their leanings. That particular problem stems from the materialist inability to explain the brain/mind and consciousness questions. Both sides of the debate choose to fail mankinds quest to understand by deliberately looking only in one direction.

Like being in a grocery store with unmarked aisles, looking down one aisle and proclaiming "no pineapples here", or perhaps "aha! Pineapples! The answer is pineapples!"

Adam L Clardy said...

A. Maybe god is a pineapple. I wouldn't know, I'm not god. Or, he could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

B. Insults and straw man arguments dumb down the discourse.

C. I'm not getting into my beliefs. Let's just say that no religion can have a monopoly on god. As far as a 'god of the gaps'... Believers fill the holes with god, atheists with theory. They're the same thing. I'm neither. I want definitive answers. Both sides always fall back to their respective positions on this topic. The atheist falls back to "we haven't figured it all out yet", the religious fall back to "god did it". I'm firmly in the "we just don't know for sure" camp. I find enormous problems with both sides of this issue. I have problems with those who believe in what cannot be proved (which actually can cover both sides, but in this instance I'm referring to god), and I have a problem with materialists, which appears to be what some commentors are in their leanings. That particular problem stems from the materialist inability to explain the brain/mind and consciousness questions. Both sides of the debate choose to fail mankinds quest to understand by deliberately looking only in one direction.

Like being in a grocery store with unmarked aisles, looking down one aisle and proclaiming "no pineapples here", or perhaps "aha! Pineapples! The answer is pineapples!"

Makarios said...

whole host of things that contradict known and knowable
"When men get to speculations they fill in the gaps with:

. matter can be eternal,

. the material infinite exists,

. there can be an infinite regress of cause.

Gorth Satana said...

What's wrong with just "unknown at this time"?

Makarios said...

What's wrong with just "unknown at this time"?"

Humans don't really like not knowing. We're driven to explore and to know and to explain.

I think that it shows the powerful metaphysical implications of the BB for atheists to even suggest, "Why can't we just say we don't know how the universe came to be?"

In the face of denying the supernatural and because of the fact that nothing natural existed, atheists are left with either,

"Nothing caused the BB," OR

"Let's just not ask that question, ok?"

Hugo said...

@Adam

I agree, insults and straw man arguments dumb down the discourse. Makarios has been dumbing down the discourse with his straw man arguments since I first started to post here, only a month agao. Therefore, insults are now at same level of the discussion concerning the Big Bang that we "had". I put quotes there was never really a discussion as Makarios does not understand the point of view of the "other side".

I don't agree with your "Believers fill the holes with god, atheists with theory" concept. Believers BELIEVE in a god who created the universe, etc... as an atheists I do not believe that, and only believe that I have evidence for. I do not believe in the Big Bang per se, it's only a theoretical representation of what probably happened, and the theory evolves as new findings arrive. I heard for example the idea of how the universe could have sprung from nothing if you get to a time frame smaller than Plank time, well I certainly do not believe that, because this means something coming out of nothing. However, if the "nothing" they talk about is the same "nothing" as when we see electron popping in and out, well now it's completely different, because that "nothing" is not nothing at all; it means that there is a place we cannot detect but might exist. But again, not my belief, just probably scenarios that are yet to be proven. Compared to "god dit it" however, I already find it much more attractive...

I also disagree with your general idea that both "sides" look only in one direction. I think intelligent people on both sides look in all direction. They simple interpret the evidence differently. There are also people who do ignore parts of the evidence, but I would not pretend that it's one side more than the others, well actually I would I am biased so... Recently I wrote a blog post that contradicts what you wrote, I was explaining how I really really like to be proven wrong. That's obviously not looking in one direction...

Makarios said...

“I do not believe that, and only believe that I have evidence for.”

Was that you Hugo or someone else who told me that energy has always existed?

Was that you Hugo or someone else who told me that there can be an infinite regress of cause, and that material infinite can and does exist?

If it wasn’t you that’s fine because I can’t remember who it was. On the other hand if it was you, would you give me the evidence upon which you base these beliefs.

Hugo said...

"Was that you Hugo or someone else who told me that energy has always existed?

Was that you Hugo or someone else who told me that there can be an infinite regress of cause, and that material infinite can and does exist?


Short version: No.

I would not say it this way, but I could have said something like that, but that would not be a belief, because I do not believe in anything that "always existed", or in anything that's "infinite".

When I use such terms, it's to describe models, hypothesis, what observations tends to, but not actual observations. We cannot detect infinite "things", therefore I do not believe in any such "things", whatever it may be...

If it wasn’t you that’s fine because I can’t remember who it was. On the other hand if it was you, would you give me the evidence upon which you base these beliefs."

I appreciate that you asked instead of assuming it was the case.

Gorth Satana said...

What's wrong with just "unknown at this time"?"

Humans don't really like not knowing. We're driven to explore and to know and to explain.

The problem is some people come up with explanations before the exploring part.

In the face of denying the supernatural and because of the fact that nothing natural existed, atheists are left with either,

Unknown does not mean "nothing natural existed"

Natural: having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious.

If something caused the Big Bang and has a real existence then it IS natural.

"Let's just not ask that question, ok?"

I don't think anyone here is in favour of stopping inquiry.

Gorth Satana said...

I just noticed the dictionary contrasts "real" with "spiritual". :-)

Makarios said...

“Unknown does not mean "nothing natural existed"

No but the Standard Big Bang Model does say that there was nothing natural. So what atheists are really saying is, "We don't know what existed or what caused the Singularity. We just know what it wasn't anything supernatural."

Is that correct?
=========================
"If something caused the Big Bang and has a real existence then it IS natural."

Well, only if you a priori reject the supernatural.

As is the case with the universe, since it was the Cause of nature, the Cause was super natural or outside of or above or transcendent to nature.

Hugo said...

the Standard Big Bang Model does say that there was nothing natural.

Energy is not natural?

Hugo said...

the Cause was super natural or outside of or above or transcendent to nature

Ok, so you DO know what the first cause was after all.

So what atheists are really saying is, "We don't know what existed or what caused the Singularity. We just know what it wasn't anything supernatural."

STRAW MAN

I don't know. Period. Since when do you equal : "I don't know" with "I just know"...

YOU add the "it was anything supernatural" because YOU think it was supernatural.

What evidence do you have that is was supernatural?

Why must it not be natural?

Why do you say that there was nothing natural when the model point to a singular point described as infinite energy?
0 = infinity?

In other words, is that what you agree with? =>

"X" has an unknown cause, therefore
"X" has a supernatural cause
"Y" is supernatural
"Y" must be the cause of "X"

Makarios said...

"Energy is not natural?"

I don't know what you mean by asking that. Have I suggested that energy is not natural/material?
================
"Ok, so you DO know what the first cause was after all."

Well, I know that the evidence suggests that if it was not natural then it was something other than natural, if not material then it was something other than material.
==================

Why do you say that there was nothing natural when the model point to a singular point described as infinite energy?
0 = infinity?

What model says that?
============

In other words, is that what you agree with? =>

"X" has an unknown cause, therefore
"X" has a supernatural cause
"Y" is supernatural
"Y" must be the cause of "X"

No

"X" has an non natural cause because nothing natural existed therefore

"X" has a supernatural cause, an outside of, and transcendent to nature cause because nothing natural existed.

"Y" is supernatural

"Y" is a better candidate for a Cause than 'Nothing'.