Thread: Why Atheism?
View Single Post
Old 12-29-2006, 07:52 AM   #282
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloseTheBlastDo
As far as I'm aware, this is incorrect, at least the part I have bolded. What we 'know' wasn't present before the 'big bang' was:

* Time (as we know it)
* The laws of physics (as we know it)
This asumption is flawed,
Ermm, there was no assumption made - so your statement is not so much incorrect as incoherent.
My reply was to the statement:

Quote:
Most physicists agree that time and matter were created at the 'Big Bang'
But most physicists do NOT agree that matter was nessesarily created at the Big Bang - that idea forms no part of the big bang theory. Hence why the statement I was replying to was in error, and hence why I commented on it. Apparently, you seem to have taken my statement to mean that multiple universes - in any sense of that term - do not exist. (An extremely funny conclusion, when below I actually use the words "at least in our 'universe'").
You couldn't be more wrong. I actually find the idea of multiple universes (whether multiple dimensions, or multiple sequencial big bangs / big crunches or universes created from within another one .via black holes, or some other method not now known...) quite a logical one - for many reasons:

1. General relativity gives us reason to expect them
2. QM gives us reason to expect them
3. They would allow the anthropic principle to explain why this current universe seems ideal for the creation of the correct elements for life. (Or at least life as we know it).

The Big Bang theory makes no statement nor optinion about whether matter was created at the point of the big bang, or alternately it always existed - in some form or another - and only at the big bang did it all start flying out from a 'central' point. That was the point of my reply. THe fact that you've assumed a whole bunch of other stuff that wasn't present in my reply says more about you than it does about me.

Quote:
there are infinite universes; the assumption is obvious,
COnsidering how wrong you were in simply reading a reply on a forum, I find it hard to beleive that the true ultimate origins of the universe are 'obvious' to you... You may have 'an answer' that seems obvious to you (like a caveman might assume that all he needs to reach the moon is a tall enough tree to climb), but finding an answer you find 'obvious' doesn't make it true. That goes without saying.

Quote:
if existence is infinite
Existence is infinite?

Quote:
we can't explain only time beginning in our universe alone. The whole argument of a beginning to all of existence is preposterous, you have to always explaining one creator after the previous creator in infinite regressions as I see you already agree with that assertion.
Exactly. So most of this first section of your reply either involves misunderstanding of the reply, or simply parrotting what I've already said...
...hmm - let's hope that the next section has more to offer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Matter may or may not have existed before the big bang - I don't know of many / any respectable physicists who claim to 'know' either way...
But what is known is that time and our physical laws didn't exist until after the big bang. If matter didn't exist before the big bang (possible I suppose, at least in our 'universe'), then the reason why time nor physics didn't exist is obvious - there was nothing to 'operate' on.
...however, even if matter did exist before the instant of the 'big bang', it was all scrunched up in the beginning singularity - which meant infininately curved space-time, and hence, no time or physical laws (as we know them).
They can't keep on assuming that our universe is the only one
Hmm - nope. More of the same nonsense. Where in the above did I assume that ours is the only universe?!
...the theory of the big bang only concerns our universe, and therefore that's all I'm referencing when I talk about the 'big bang'. Rather than keep banging on about all these things that I'm assuming that I have never stated (?!), I would humbly sugggest that it is you who should stop assuming. Specifically, you should stop assuming I beleive things that I have not stated I beleive, nor think. Thanks.

Quote:
This reasoning is flawed
Again, I humbly ask you read and understand what I post before declaring my reasoning flawed. Thanks.

Quote:
also because, we or our whole society can't keep assuming; like some still in our society keep on assuming we are the only intelligent life in the Milky Way or our universe.
Which is also absurd.
They can't keep on assuming that our universe is the only one, that theory of the big bang only looks to explain our perspective universe, you can't ignore infinity;
Well, since I assume neither, perhaps you can direct your rant at someone else please..?!
And note that the bit in bold is more parrotting. I already know that the big bang only relates to our universe. If you already know this, I wonder how you took my reply so incorrectly?!

Quote:
the concept of a infinite regression will already(base on our basic postulates of logic) have what we know as matter & energy or whatever else there is, already apparently have been existing forever.
Your happy to assume what you can't possibly know. Your life.

Quote:
I see you also believe that there maybe are or guaranteed to be other universes.
So after all your talk of You can't assume there is only one universe!, you now acknowledge that I made it clear that I do not assume - at all - that there is one universe?! Huh?
Would you be offended if I say that you seem a bit - ermm - inconsistent?!

Quote:
I just keep open-mind on that idea, until further notice.
Also, as I see you already suspect, that our laws of physics will maybe have to be alter for explaining the rest of existence.
In a way that we probably can't even begin to imagine.
This why I say, reality is horsesh*t, bullsh*t, prepostrous, absurd and whatever else I come to called it in time.
I can only guess as to what the above is supposed to mean. But considering what I've had to read thus far, I'm not convinced that I'd be missing much :/

Quote:
I'm starting to believe in a theory of universal consciousness; our universe at least, maybe acts like a living entity because the quantum entanglement of matter(electrons and protons) and the entangle consciousness of all the life in our universe.
Because our consciousness functions base off the physics of quantum mechanics.
I will keep a open-mind on this idea too.
It is a very fascinating idea to me.
I'm sure this idea seems perfectly sensible to you. And I'm glad that you've found an interesting, mystical idea to help the universe make sense 'to you'. Of course since I haven't heard under what logic reasoning you've constructed this thouroughly entertaining theory, any evidence you may think you have for this interesting idea is inconsequensial. But as long as you don't mind this minor detail - well - whatever turns your crank...

Quote:
Then you probably should join the, "reality is horsesh*t ban wagon".
Ermm - thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I don't need to invoke the idea of a 'cosmic intelligence', or a 'universal consciousness' to comfort my ignorance. Thanks.
As far as 'reality is horsesh*t' - ermm - a universal consiousness made of 'horse sh*t'? Well, this woudl certainly explain some of God's more dubious desisions. According to this theory, he / she / it didn't exactly have much to work with...!

And I'm pretty sure you mean 'band wagon'...
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,