The big bang and before.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
I think the Universe and all its laws have existed infinitely, and will continue to forever.

Some people think the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. What substantiates such a belief?

This essentially turns you into a theist, because such laws existing without there being a universe would amount to supernaturalness. So your deities would be the magical laws.

I don't think many astrophysicists would agree with this belief, especially considering it is believed that the laws of our universe break down at a singularity. It makes much more sense to me that the laws governing our universe were created along with the universe at the instant of the Big Bang. So other universes could operate under completely different physical laws (such as mrmitchell's black hole universes). They could be such that no life is possible. Or they could be even more conducive to life than our own. They could have properties that make "magic" possible. Who knows? With perhaps an infinite number of such universes, the possibilities are also infinite.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

In that scenario as well the probablity for God is 100%...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
In that scenario as well the probablity for God is 100%...

Neither scenario presents any such probability. God isn't a factor in either.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Not a factor but a product

[Boris Godunov]

I suppose if you wish to define "god" was the laws that govern the universe, so be it.

But if you mean the traditional sense of god as a supernatural, omnipotent and/or omniscient being who created the universe, then I'd have to disagree and say that God isn't a part of either theory.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I suppose if you wish to define "god" was the laws that govern the universe, so be it.

But if you mean the traditional sense of god as a supernatural, omnipotent and/or omniscient being who created the universe, then I'd have to disagree and say that God isn't a part of either theory.

*will this thread descend into the god vs. no god discussion* -

but to cut the story short... Thinking in terms of a omni potent/ omni present/ etc being capable of creating the universe or more... reasoning behind is totally logical to me - and to put it shortly: There is only a set of laws in the universe, they are static... life or reason is dynamic - we exist, we learn, knowledge increases exponentially- and if what you proposed might be true (unlimited time or universes) - God must exist...

we are just matter in the Universe - and we learn about it, and we control what we know about in every detail - give us time, and we will be able to control the Universe itself, we will get to know all that there is to know about it... or even more - so here is your God in person - if unlimited time, or unlimited opportunities are given - that is a certainty. (even if we as a species fail - someone else will do it, if life is just a mattter of probabilities)

Might sound far fetched - but I don't see a logical problem here

[Boris Godunov]

The problem I see is that you say the laws of the universe are "static." I suppose you mean by this that they are immutable. Regardless, it does not follow that, sans intervention of a deity, that the material within our universe would be static.

The moment of the Big Bang was when space and matter was created and moved. Movement of matter through space created time. At this moment, the laws of the universe came into being, but matter was moving, so stasis was not possible. As was pointed out earlier, there had to have been an imbalance between matter and antimatter.

The movement of matter from the bang continues to this day and is what drives our universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the power of creation in our universe that we observe, not a supernatural deity.

I don't follow your second argument at all, except it seemed tangental.

[st_swithin]

See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his BACK he holds the earth!

But if you look DOWN you may find
that he holds us ALL within his MIND.

(I believe this is Stephen King, but please correct me if I am wrong.)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It is the same argument just in different words -

Lets use one of your sentences -

The movement of matter from the bang continues to this day and is what drives our universe. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the power of creation in our universe that we observe, not a supernatural deity.

assuming that this is the power of creation - it went so far to create us - accidentally, but it did.

We are just some matter in the univese - "matter" as atoms who are organised in the way to create even more, to learn about the universe itself (product of evolution) - I guess you agree on that.

At the moment we are the driving force for "creation", and we are already at a level to act reasonably, to observe the universe around us and to draw conclusions about it, the accumulation of knowledge happens constantly, which speeds up the " creative process" whatever you want to call it - evolution (as a process)...

evolution as a process was speeding up always, according to current theories - longest time period for creation of stars and galaxies, less for creation of first life on earth - less and less for more advanced forms of life - now we as humans can observe change on a daily basis almost - (quick explanation for exponential increase in "knowledge of universe about itself)...

So to have a God - you need - a Universe + a being who has the ability to control/create it -

What we have is a Universe - and we have us - humans -

WHat I am saying is if you give life enough time in a universe like our own, God will BE (ro humans will become God trough learing all that there is about the Universe itself).

Why? There is only X amount of knowledge stored in our universe - beings like us (in a process like evolution)- acquiring knowledge on an exponential basis, will eventually come to know all that there is about the Universe (static laws and their products) allowing them to control it to full extent, or even to recreate it effectively becoming - God.

But for that formula you need either infinite (or nearly infinite time) or alternatively infinite number of universes, and a process of evolution that science currently supports, as the end product you get God.

Fairly clear to me.

[St Leo]

No cause is necessary for the Big Bang just like no actual intercept with the y-axis is necessary for the curve of f(x) = 1/x

The Universe, until experimental results show otherwise, just is.

[Soul Survivor]

all these theories just try to explain what we percieve, we can't even hope to guess at the true nature of the universe (turtle or otherwise)

all we can see is the observable universe, from what we can see in our tiny (perhaps infinitely small) corner of the universe is that our tiny corner of the universe is expanding. for all we know there could be billions of other universes out there, which we cannot see, which we may never see, that have radically different "immutable laws"

if the universe is infinite in size, it means that everything that can happen will happen, which means that it will no longer be a question of 'if' God exists, but 'where' God exists

modern physics is becoming more and more like metaphysics, all we can really do now is speculate - your guess is as good as anyone elses

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

But keep in mind that the laws of the universe were created at the Big Bang, so without it, they aren't necessarily applicable. That's why the notion of "before" the Big Bang is meaningless, because without the universal laws governing time and space, there is no such thing as "before" or "after.".

Whilst not necessarily true, that doesn't mean it is not true.

The event of the Big Bang is often believed to be a creation event for everything - natural laws, matter, energy etc. . There is still no reason to believe that the Big Bang is not part of a larger whole or longer series of events.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The event of the Big Bang is often believed to be a creation event for everything - natural laws, matter, energy etc. . There is still no reason to believe that the Big Bang is not part of a larger whole or longer series of events.

The BB could be one of countless BBs spawning universes all the time, certainly. But it would seem that we would be unable to ever see, interact with or even know of those other universes (i.e. our universe is a closed system). So the "larger whole" is irrelevant.

Likewise, should the BB that spawned our current universe be just one of countless BBs that have exploded and then imploded and then exploded, etc., it's also irrelevant to consider the "longer series of events," as events "before" the singularity of the BB have no bearing on what happens "after" the BB. The singularity from which the universe sprang rendered everything that might have preceeded it moot.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The BB could be one of countless BBs spawning universes all the time, certainly. But it would seem that we would be unable to ever see, interact with or even know of those other universes (i.e. our universe is a closed system). So the "larger whole" is irrelevant.

There are currently no scientific laws that states our particular universe is a closed system. It may be irrelevant to our lives if we have an untestable hypothesis, but it is not going to be irrelevant to scientists who may develop the means to determine the validity of such a hypothesis.

Likewise, should the BB that spawned our current universe be just one of countless BBs that have exploded and then imploded and then exploded, etc., it's also irrelevant to consider the "longer series of events," as events "before" the singularity of the BB have no bearing on what happens "after" the BB. The singularity from which the universe sprang rendered everything that might have preceeded it moot.

If we are part of a cyclical universe our eventual future is very different to a linear universe. The former places us on a track to eventual collapse and rebirth with the beginning of the next cycle. The latter gives a myriad of possible outcomes. I don't consider these points as moot.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
There are currently no scientific laws that states our particular universe is a closed system. It may be irrelevant to our lives if we have an untestable hypothesis, but it is not going to be irrelevant to scientists who may develop the means to determine the validity of such a hypothesis.

There's nothing within the laws of the universe as we know them, however, to indicate we could have interaction with a universe wherein the laws were totally different. Just think of how we could possibly even know about such a universe. It would exist in an entirely different dimension.

If we are part of a cyclical universe our eventual future is very different to a linear universe. The former places us on a track to eventual collapse and rebirth with the beginning of the next cycle. The latter gives a myriad of possible outcomes. I don't consider these points as moot.

You're going to have to explain this to me, because, as I said, the singularity of the BB is akin to wiping out the hard drive. It doesn't matter if the BB that spawned us is part of a nonstop cycle of BBs, because each collapse into singularity erases what "preceeded" it and starts everything a new, with perhaps completely different sets of universal laws. We can't effect the next cycle, and the previous one did not effect us.