Does the universe have a cause?

[Cypress]

Are we excepting the Big Bang as fact now?

Have we been able to duplicate it in miniature in a laboratory?

It may not be as bat shit crazy as Creation,
but it may very well have the same type of "pull it from our asses" origin.

Science is based on inductive logic, which means it only provides probabilistic knowledge of truth, not actual truth.

The likelihood of the Big Bang as an event is inferred and supported by multiple lines of evidence.

The initial big bang theory had problems, which are supposedly resolved by presuming a period of rapid inflation in the first fraction of a second of the initial state of the universe.

I agree that a moment of creation which the Big Bang implies, leads to more questions than it answers

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Science is based on inductive logic, which means it only provides probabilistic knowledge of truth, not actual truth.

The likelihood of the Big Bang as an event is inferred and supported by multiple lines of evidence.

The initial big bang theory had problems, which are supposedly resolved by presuming a period of rapid inflation in the first fraction of a second of the initial state of the universe.

OK. Tough break, though.
The thought of an infinite void is so peaceful and relaxing.

In the end, what is matter other than an infection on the perfect vacuum?

 

[BidenPresident]

There is no empirical evidence that the universe was caused by god or some other agency. This is an invention of Christian theology.

 

[Cypress]

OK. Tough break, though.
The thought of an infinite void is so peaceful and relaxing.

In the end, what is matter other than an infection on the perfect vacuum?

It is something of a curiosity that atomic matter exists at all, since it depends on a finely tuned set of properties associated with forces, fields, and the Higgs boson.

We cannot explain the logical necessity of why it turned out that way. It seems to me you could have a universe of pure energy or plasma, in principle.

 

[Yakuda]

I do not think so.

Christians say God caused the universe, but that is not satisfying. What caused God?

Why cannot the universe exist without a cause.

What currently exists without a cause?

 

[Yakuda]

There is no empirical evidence that the universe was caused by god or some other agency. This is an invention of Christian theology.

Show us something that currently exists that was uncaused.

 

[Cypress]

What currently exists without a cause?

Gravity, i e. the curvature of spacetime, quantum virtual particles, quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the Higgs boson, the Planck constant, the universal gravitational constant, etc.

These things exist without any discernable cause or reason. We cannot explain why they are logically neccessary. They just exist because they exist, from what we can currently tell.

 

[Yakuda]

Gravity, i e. the curvature of spacetime, quantum virtual particles, quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the Higgs boson, the Planck constant, the universal gravitational constant, etc.

These things exist without any discernable cause or reason. We cannot explain why they are logically neccessary. They just exist because they exist, from what we can currently tell.

And that constant is finely tuned. Since they exist they were caused. Nothing causes itself

 

[Cypress]

And that constant is finely tuned. Since they exist they were caused. Nothing causes itself

If you know how or what caused the Higgs field or the gravitational constant, please tell me.

 

[Kafka]

And that constant is finely tuned. Since they exist they were caused. Nothing causes itself

So what caused the first uncaused cause?

 

[Cypress]

And that constant is finely tuned. Since they exist they were caused. Nothing causes itself

The way our minds are trained to think about cause and effect requires time and space. There is neccesarily a spatial and temporal framework to cause and effect.

It's an open question whether there was an arrow of time or an evolving entropy when the initial state of the universe existed at or above Planck density prior to the hot big bang.

I don't think it's a good assumption to extrapolate our intuitions about conventional cause and effect properties
to an initial state of the universe that is currently beyond the reach of any science we have.

 

[IBDaMann]

I do not think so.

Yes, you do.

Why cannot the universe exist without a cause.

You don't observe quadrillions of other universes just springing into existence without any cause. All around us, on earth alone, are countless absences of causes to create a universe and yet at no time in earth's history was our planet ever destroyed by even one emerging big bang, much less quadrillions. If no cause is needed for universes to just spring into existence then it should be a virtual fireworks display of ongoing universe creations.

Also, every event/effect/occurrence that you have ever observed had a cause. You have no rational basis for believing that there exist any without any cause.

Ergo, you have every reason to reject the notion that the universe sprung into existence without any cause. Any belief that the universe had no cause would be profoundly religious in nature, and would run completely counter to science.

 

[IBDaMann]

The way our minds are trained to think about cause and effect requires time and space. There is neccesarily a spatial and temporal framework to cause and effect.

You were doing fine. You should have stopped here. But no ...

It's an open question whether there was an arrow of time or an evolving entropy when the initial state of the universe existed at or above Planck density prior to the hot big bang.

You just HAD to toss in a few servings of stupid. It's not an open question as to whether thermodynamics existed throughout the existence of nature; Occam's Razor has long since eliminated that option.

I don't think ...

Just what we all need, i.e. your opinion. At least we will know what the correct answer isn't.

... [that] it's a good assumption to extrapolate our intuitions about conventional cause and effect properties
to an initial state of the universe that is currently beyond the reach of any science we have.

You've got to be kidding me. Did you just say that scientists shouldn't speculate about nature and should not extrapolate models for testing under the scientific method? Did you just say that we shouldn't create science that is beyond the science that we have? Yes, after re-reading your post, that is what you expressed. My hope is that you want to rush to take it all back.

 

[IBDaMann]

Gravity, i e. the curvature of spacetime, quantum virtual particles, quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the Higgs boson, the Planck constant, the universal gravitational constant, etc.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are about to demonstrate just how unable you are to distinguish between an object and a mere model of that object. Please continue ...

These things exist without any discernable cause or reason.

Yep, I'm usually correct. All the things you mentioned exist only in models of nature. I think it's time for you to hang it up.

They just exist because they exist, from what we can currently tell.

We don't know that they exist. We surmise that they exist as we surmise them. Hence the science models.

 

[IBDaMann]

And that constant is finely tuned. Since they exist they were caused. Nothing causes itself

Your views are entirely religion-based and will not be found in any science model. Your view that anything in this random dust cloud of a universe is somehow "finely tuned" seems absolutely absurd; however, if you are going to religiously assume a "tuner of the universe" then I suppose that you can characterize the "tuner's" work any way you wish.

 

[IBDaMann]

So what caused the first uncaused cause?

The first uncaused cause was caused by the preceding effect-free effect.

 

[Cypress]

^^
Plagiarizer, bad faith poster, scientific illiterate.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

 

[Cypress]

^^^
Plagiarizer, bad-faith poster, scientific illiterate

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics!

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[ZenMode]

I do not think so.

Christians say God caused the universe, but that is not satisfying. What caused God?

Why cannot the universe exist without a cause.

We live in a universe of causes. How can something come into existence without something causing its existence?

 

[Kafka]

We live in a universe of causes. How can something come into existence without something causing its existence?

So what caused THAT cause?