1. Ohara Library Banner Contest

    The Beasts Pirates demand your services.
    Join the OL Banner Contest!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Winter is coming one last time...

    Dismiss Notice
  4. Come enter in the KCC Cooking Contest!

    Dismiss Notice
  5. The Anime Awards of 2018 have started! Click here to see the post!

    Dismiss Notice

Universe created

Discussion in 'Philosophical Forum' started by Superb Herb, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. Superb Herb Follower Of Jesus Christ

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    I took this off another sight, this is an explanation of why the universe had to be created.

    ==========================================================

    Here are some quotes from Jonathan Sarfati explaining why the universe had to be created:

    1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
    2. The universe has a beginning.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

    It?s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below...In addition, Einstein?s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

    There is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

    1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
    2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

    If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy ? the ?heat death? of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

    Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause ? no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn?t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused ? nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

    IN SUMMARY
    The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

    It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

    The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

    1) Does the universe have a beginning?
    Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

    Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ?open?. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an ?open? universe comes from the number of light-bending ?gravitational lenses? in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe?s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe.5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ?big crunch?. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ?inflationary? version of the ?big bang? theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse ? a ?flat? universe.

    Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ?big crunch?.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ?There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that?s the end.8

    2) Denial of cause and effect
    Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

    ? spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. ? Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation ? Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

    But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ?should not be taken too seriously.?

    Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate ? their ?quantum vacuum? is a lot of matter-antimatter potential ? not ?nothing?. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

    Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.


    Here are some good sources.



     
    Tags:
  2. Yasha Procreate

    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    1,478
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    The universe has a beginning. Agree.

    Something happened that triggered off the beginning (most probably Big Bang). Agree.

    God is the "something". Disagree.
     
  3. Superb Herb Follower Of Jesus Christ

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    The big bang theory says that the universe did not exist but there was infinte heat energy. Well where did this energy come from?

    And please don't post on here if you don't read the whold post.
     
  4. Amaretti No strong feelings whatsoever

    Messages:
    6,869
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    ^ Shit, do I have to go into Quantum physics again? We already did this in the Science or Genesis thread.
     
  5. Firedraconian Lather, rinse, repeat

    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Well, first, you're assuming the universe has a beginning. I'd like to point out that the Big Bang was NOT the beginning of the universe. The universe clearly existed during and before it. In fact, there's no evidence that the universe itself had a beginning.

    Further, I assume you're using this as a proof that the gods exist. Except, if the gods do exist, then they must have a beginning, and therefore must have been created. So the gods must have their own gods, who created them. But then those gods must have even HIGHER gods who created THEM.

    And so on, and so forth, into infinity. It's either the universe was created and so were the gods, or the gods have always existed and so the universe might have always existed instead.
     
  6. EvilMoogle Well-Known Member Supporting Staff

    Messages:
    22,296
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    1,333
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    What created the creator then? And if the creator is allowed to be infinite why can't the universe just remove this step?

    A cyclic universe would work, science just doesn't know the mechanic for "sparking" things back. And to be fair, there's not much observable evidence for scientists to study.
     
  7. syrin Member

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    I am going to agree with the last few posters and say, maybe a bit stronger than them that i hate that "where did this come from" or "but how did it begin" crap . How can you even ask that question without expecting "where did god come from?" to be asked back? Of course someone who believes in god will say "he has always been". So why could god have just been there, and not heat or not the universe in another form?

    Im not making an attack at people who believe in God, but im saying that your argument is so hypocritical is pisses me off.
     
  8. wiggely Ninja in training

    Messages:
    3,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    wow i was going to ignore this thread but the posts bring up some good points.

    first and most obvious is why does god have to be the cause:
    there just has to exist a force that created the beginning it doesn't have to be god.

    more complex into the actual nature of the universe:
    and then the philosphical (metaphysics) aspect of the question:
    basically if the universe has a beginning and a cause then so does god have a begining and a cause. if you say that god doesn't have a begining then th same can be said of the universe.

    either both are infinite and have no begining or both are not infinite and both have beginings. it cant be one has no beginning and the other does.
     
Loading...