"In the Beginning" How did the Universe form?

McCrispy

The world came out of a cosmic dinosaur egg.

MayCaesar

What do you mean by "form"? A bird can form from an egg. The Universe cannot form from anything, because everything is a part of the Universe.

It also might not make sense to talk about "the beginning", for something can only begin if there is a period of time preceding the beginning - but "time" outside of the scope of the Universe makes no sense.

I do not see much point exploring such abstract philosophical constructs as the "beginning of time": in addition to being self-contradictory, they do not intersect with science in any way, and science seems to be the only way humanity has found to get to the bottom of hard questions of physics.

just_sayin

You know what is not a good argument 'I don't like your question because it is hard to address, and therefore you shouldn't ask it.'  See above for an example of this kind of response.  

For now, the best guess from cosmologists is the universe began with the big bang.  The big bang brings space, time, and matter into being. There are dozens and dozens of theories about what was before from religious, philosophical, and cosmological models.  Examples would be Quantum fluctuation, cosmic inflation, multiverse theory, brane collision (string theory), oscillating universe, Hawking's No boundary proposal (debunked - but maybe the one @MayCaesar has in mind), Conformal Cyclic model (Penrose theory), reverse time model (Carroll), and there is even a theory were an atom goes into past and creates the universe and itself (like in Escape from the Planet of the Apes).  

Templar

@MayCaesar

An eternal universe cannot exist, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics.

MayCaesar

@Templar

I have said nothing about an eternal universe, so I am not sure how this addresses my argument.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@Templar

I have said nothing about an eternal universe, so I am not sure how this addresses my argument.

May, I'm not sure you have made an argument for any view.  If so, could you elaborate on it?

marke

@Templar

Marke:  The Bible says the present universe will wax old and be burned up to make way for a new heaven and earth.  Also, Lord Kelvin calculated that the sun has a life span of around 30 million years.

1. Kelvin calculated a maximum age for the Sun of 500 million years1. However, for today's Sun, the timescale is about 30 million years3.
   
   

   Isaiah 51:6

   Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

MayCaesar

@marke

Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale has nothing to do with the age of the Sun.

I am not sure why this thread attracts so many illiterate weirdos.

marke

@MayCaesar

Nobody knows how old the sun is and how long it will burn until it burns out or is removed by God, but rebels against God insist God was not involved in its creation or its continued burning.

MayCaesar

@marke

Has nothing to do with what I said. You provided a source and demonstrated inability to understand its content. You have shown to be illiterate on numerous occasions, so your "nobody knows" really translates as "marke does not know".

I have learned to expect American Christians in debate communities to be extremely dumb. I am not sure why that is the case, but it seems that American fundamentalist Christian groups prey on the lowest common denominator.

JulesKorngold

@marke

Ah, “God did it.” The ultimate mic drop of cosmic explanations! Why bother with centuries of scientific inquiry, mind-bending physics, or existential pondering when you can just slap a divine Post-it Note on the universe and call it a day?

Let’s be honest: if “God did it” were the answer to every big question, science textbooks would be about three pages long. Chapter One: “Why does the apple fall?” God did it. Chapter Two: “What causes lightning?” God did it. Chapter Three: “Why are Mondays so terrible?” You guessed it—God did it.

And let’s not forget the follow-up questions: Which god? How did they do it? Was it a snap of the fingers, a cosmic sneeze, or an intergalactic arts-and-crafts session? Did they read the instruction manual, or just wing it?

In the end, “God did it” is a bit like answering a math problem with, “Because I said so.” Sure, it’s quick, but it doesn’t exactly satisfy the curiosity that got us asking in the first place. So, while it’s a classic, maybe we should keep looking for answers that don’t involve a celestial “Because I felt like it.”

Templar

@marke

The Bible is written as a moral guide, not a scientific text. Using it as a scientific text will only confuse.


@JulesKorngold ;

Well, let's hear your theory on the cosmos

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

Ah, “God did it.” The ultimate mic drop of cosmic explanations! Why bother with centuries of scientific inquiry, mind-bending physics, or existential pondering when you can just slap a divine Post-it Note on the universe and call it a day?

Let’s be honest: if “God did it” were the answer to every big question, science textbooks would be about three pages long. Chapter One: “Why does the apple fall?” God did it. Chapter Two: “What causes lightning?” God did it. Chapter Three: “Why are Mondays so terrible?” You guessed it—God did it.

And let’s not forget the follow-up questions: Which god? How did they do it? Was it a snap of the fingers, a cosmic sneeze, or an intergalactic arts-and-crafts session? Did they read the instruction manual, or just wing it?

In the end, “God did it” is a bit like answering a math problem with, “Because I said so.” Sure, it’s quick, but it doesn’t exactly satisfy the curiosity that got us asking in the first place. So, while it’s a classic, maybe we should keep looking for answers that don’t involve a celestial “Because I felt like it.”

Jules, I think you are misrepresenting the argument of people of faith about why they believe God created the universe.  It's not just a 'God did it' argument.  It is a positive cumulative argument.

1) The universe began, and anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2)  Assuming the big bang, big bang cosmology says that space, time, and matter began to exist with the Big Bang.  That means that the cause of the universe must be transcendent to the universe, and be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful enough to create universes, and intelligent - because naturalistic reactions occur when the presence of the reacting things are in proximity of each other - sense there is no space to move around - then the stuff of the universe should have reacted and formed an eternity ago, but because it didn't and only has at a limited point in the past - then the creation of the universe is the product of intentionality - and that requires a mind.  Who do we know that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, transcendent, powerful, and intelligent that was around before the big bang?  I'll give you a hint if you can't think of anyone. 
3)  The fine tuning of the universe strongly suggests that someone tuned the fundamental forces in such a way to allow life.  There is no logical reason the fundamental forces are tuned as they are and nothing requires that they be so tuned.  Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose said that the low entropy of the universe was needed for forming the universe but the odds of it being so were 1 in 10 to the 123rd power.  That's a ridiculously improbable number.  For comparison, there are an estimated 1 in 10 to the 80th power of particles in the universe - not atoms, but the stuff that make up atoms.  10 to the 123rd power is massively larger.  You have better odds of winning the lottery every day for a 100,000 years than for that one fundamental force to be such.  
4)  Even the simplest life form has complex DNA code - scientists refer to this as specified complexity.  The only known source from which we see this is from an intelligence.  Abiogenesis (chemical evolution), is the theory of life coming from non-life.  Scientists can't figure out how this happened.  However, the basic steps that must happen are astronomically improbable to happen naturalistically.  There are issues with the environment, with one reaction, then destroying other reactions, with improbability of certain reactions happening at all, and one reaction needs one kind of environment to happen and another needs the exact opposite kind of environment to happen.  There are at least 10 miracle level (meaning less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power of happening randomly) that need to happen and they need to happen in a relatively short period of time, because the prior reactions will break down.  The odds are astronomical for all of these to happen.  It just seems like if you need 10 miracles to happen, then you need a God.  just sayin.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Jules, I think you are misrepresenting the argument of people of faith about why they believe God created the universe.  It's not just a 'God did it' argument.  It is a positive cumulative argument.

LOL It's a "cumulative" "god did it" argument   

MayCaesar

I see that no one has attempted to address my point that it might not make sense to talk about the "beginning" of something that embeds time itself. That is unfortunate... I was hoping for a good discussion with people smart enough to prove the entire cosmological community wrong.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Sorry. I had it on the tip of my tongue but when I called Scientific American to tell them about it I lost it when they put me on hold!

Factfinder

@Templar

The Bible is written as a moral guide, not a scientific text. Using it as a scientific text will only confuse.

As does confusing it's subjective nature with some sort of fantasy objective source of morals.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Reminds me of an old Soviet joke...

A student is taking an oral exam on physics and failing miserably. The professor asks, "Young man... Do you, at least, know what an electron is?" The student says, "Professor, I apologize. I used to know it, but forgot". "Ah!", exclaims the professor, "What a tragedy! You were the only person in the entire world who actually knew what an electron was; how dare you forget it?"

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

I see that no one has attempted to address my point that it might not make sense to talk about the "beginning" of something that embeds time itself. That is unfortunate... I was hoping for a good discussion with people smart enough to prove the entire cosmological community wrong.

There are lots of models that either incorporate the idea that time only exists within our universe, or address the problem other ways:

1) The No boundary proposal (Hartle-Hawkings) . The 'shuttle ' theory posits that the universe was self-contained, like an egg, with no singularity - it just always existed like that, until some fluctuation triggered the big bang and then spatial time began.  The theory has been rejected because any such 'fluctuations' would have logically resulted in such a universe appearing an eternity before now.  The theory requires Euclidean (imaginary) time near the "beginning" to smooth the singularity,  It literally only works mathematically with imaginary numbers, but not real ones.  

2) Quantum fluctuation models- Time begins with the big bang, but within quantum geometry, quantum processes occur in a 'foam' .These occur in a vacuum so some physical properties must exist - this is an issue with it.  It doesn't explain how the quantum field came into existence.   

3) Cyclic or bounce models - Like Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (expansion - and crunch (or just dissolving into nothingness) )  Ekpyrotic models have the universe forming between 2 multidimensional branes  - in this scenario another 'time' attribute exists within that higher dimensional state.  That dimension has its own 'time' attribute.  

4) Eternal Inflation models - inflation keeps on making universes eternally - it too would theorize a 'time' attributer as something that is part of the multiverse making machine/dimension, with bubble universes creating their own 'time' attributes.  

5) Emergent time theories (Sean Caroll)  Suggests time is not part of our universe so much as it is created from quantum processes,  Carroll would argue, quantum mechanics could give rise to the appearance of time’s passage at macroscopic scales, even if time does not exist in the underlying quantum scale.  In his view, time could be viewed either forwards or backwards. .Carroll would say his model doesn't have an initial point, just a low entropy region - but critics say it is a initial point and its problematic.  

These are just a few models and how they address 'time'.  

May, are you going to continue being a hole, and attacking people, or are you going to make an argument?  just asking

Templar

@MayCaesar

Well, yes, since time is only true in the universe, but still, that would mean either at one point there was no universe, or it has always been. Even though time does not exist outside the universe as we think of it, the universe is here now, and how did it get here. Has time always been or did it start.

This is hard to talk about and is hard to get a point across, if you don't understand I will try to explain it better.

Templar

@Factfinder

yet I have not heard your favorite theory on how the universe came to be.

Factfinder

@Templar

yet I have not heard your favorite theory on how the universe came to be.

That's because I don't have one nor do I claim to have the expertise to judge them in that way. I find different aspects of various theories interesting from a laymen's perspective. At the end of the day though nobody knows the answer ultimately which devalues favoritism some what in this circumstance. 

Also my position has nothing to do with you thinking you know how the universe came to be. And have yet to lay out in detail beyond "god did it".

MayCaesar

@Templar

No, quite the contrary. Since time is a property of the Universe and only the Universe, there can be no "point there was no Universe". There does not have to be the point at which the Universe "began", for the Universe to have existed for a finite period of time.

In mathematics such intervals are called "open". The open interval (0,1) is the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1, but not including either 0 or 1. Where does the interval "begin"? Nowhere: no matter what point on it you take, there will always be another point preceding it. Yet no points lay to the left of 0.

Imagine backtracking back 14.2 billion years ago or whatever the best estimate at the moment is. As the Universe becomes younger and younger, it becomes hotter and denser - but it will never become the age of 0, for it is impossible to reach a point outside of time by moving within time. It is possible to approach it arbitrarily close, but, according to modern cosmology, if you get very close - on the order of 10^(-42) seconds - then the most fundamental forces of physics start breaking down. At some point, even if you were able to somehow magically teleport there and survive the unbelievably high density and temperature of the environment, your brain would likely not be able to make any sense of your surroundings.

It is just impossible to rely on intuition humans have developed living in the world now to make sense of everything that happened early in the Universe. Cosmologists managed to make some sense of that crazy environment, but at some point even the best of them have to throw up hands.

marke

@Templar

Marke:  Natural science cannot explain how matter came into existence from nothing without God.

polytheistwitch

@marke Even if that were true it doesn't mean that your god was the one that did it. I don't think you understand exactly how big the universe is. I mean your God creates the whole entire Universe, then creates the Earth, then creates people that are just his on the Earth and everybody else just what pops up like flowers? Every religion has a creation god that at some point intervened and brought them forward it doesn't mean any one of them are right, it's just a story to explain what people come from.

marke

@polytheistwitch

Marke:  The elephant in the room is the fact that matter had a beginning and only God could have created original matter from nothing.

Factfinder

@marke

The elephant in the room is the fact that matter had a beginning and only God could have created original matter from nothing.

The problem with infinite regression is it never solves the mystery, it just pushes it back further in time. If all things have a primary cause that would include your god. Even if you believe you can just invoke special magical powers to attribute to your god instead of elaborating as an adult, you've still solved no mystery, have no answers and are left with a blinding useless faith that's irrelevant in the 21st century. In a god you can't produce. 

MayCaesar

The alleged god created the entire Universe out of nothing, but could not create a human woman without ripping out a man's rib. Very funny, but everyone should eventually grow out of pre-kindergarten and start taking things more seriously.

Factfinder

@marke

Natural science cannot explain how matter came into existence from nothing without God.

Nor can you explain it realistically with a god. Nothing beyond "god did it" while presenting no evidence of this god or it's method of creating beyond the bible says. Which says gods words were magic and created everything. 

marke

@Factfinder

Marke:  Christians see nothing mysterious about God creating original matter in the universe, but Christians do see the silliness or unsupportability of the notion that matter has always existed without beginning.

marke

@MayCaesar
Marke:  Atheists have no scientifically acceptable clue how original matter was first created in the universe if God did not do it.

polytheistwitch

Eve technically wasn't the first woman. The whole reason for the rib having to be ripped out of the man was because she wouldn't listen or submit to Adam. Or even the God of Abraham for that matter.

Factfinder

@marke

Christians see nothing mysterious about God creating original matter in the universe, but Christians do see the silliness or unsupportability of the notion that matter has always existed without beginning.

That is what makes them silly.

MayCaesar

marke said:

@MayCaesar
Marke:  Atheists have no scientifically acceptable clue how original matter was first created in the universe if God did not do it.

Atheists are honest about not knowing everything there is to know. Theists pretend to know something they do not know by invoking the magic "god" thing.

I am okay with being openly ignorant. Far better than being a fool who thinks himself a savant. Reading the latest scientific papers, I see equations and experiments: people are trying to learn something. Reading the latest theological papers, I see ravings of lunatics.

marke

@MayCaesar

Marke:  The problem is not that atheists do not know how matter came into existence but the fact that they claim God could not possibly have created matter in the beginning, as if anyone can know that for a fact.

MayCaesar

@marke

Atheism implies no such claim.

Factfinder

marke said:

@MayCaesar

Marke:  The problem is not that atheists do not know how matter came into existence but the fact that they claim God could not possibly have created matter in the beginning, as if anyone can know that for a fact.

So the point of your post is one must lie to themselves and misrepresent what entire demographics "claim" in order to believe in fairytales as an adult in the 21st century?

Factfinder

polytheistwitch said:

Eve technically wasn't the first woman. The whole reason for the rib having to be ripped out of the man was because she wouldn't listen or submit to Adam. Or even the God of Abraham for that matter.

Where did you read that, or who taught you that? As it doesn't say that in the bible. It says it wasn't good for Adam to be alone so god made him pass out and took the rib from him and fastened a play mate for him.

Genesis 2:18: " And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:21-22: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man"

polytheistwitch

@Factfinder Well unlike you Evangelical atheist and Christians the Bible isn't the only source of religious information for the Jewish people so shove it up your f#cking @ss.

Factfinder

@polytheistwitch


Well unlike you Evangelical atheist and Christians the Bible isn't the only source of religious information for the Jewish people so shove it up your f#cking 

"Evangelical atheist" catchy, I like it, thanks. Might change my username to that.

But the Christian bible is THE primary source for Christianity. Which debunked you thoroughly.  All else either explains the bible or is pulled out of peoples *sses where you seem to rely on for most of your thoughts.

MayCaesar

If people want to mean by atheism belief that there cannot be god, then, by all means, feel free to use this term this way. But then there are no atheists on this website, so I am not sure who exactly you are trying to convince of something.

marke

@Factfinder

Which is the fairy tale?
1.  God had no beginning and created the universe.
       or
2.  Some unknown blob of a lifeless mass had no beginning and somehow banged the universe into existence by brainless accident with no help.

Factfinder

@marke

Which is the fairy tale?
1.  God had no beginning and created the universe.
       or
2.  Some unknown blob of a lifeless mass had no beginning and somehow banged the universe into existence by brainless accident with no help.

Both. Which means you don't know anything.

MayCaesar

@marke

A fairy tale is whatever is not supported by hard evidence. You do not know what cosmology has found about the distant past of the Universe, but that it was once extremely hot and dense is supported by findings of millions of galaxies billions of light years away, the cosmic microwave background, the distance profile of the Universe and countless other things.

One has yet to find a single piece of evidence that, for instance, the Earth was created by something intelligent. Which makes your Christian tale a fairy tale. Sorry.

Reality does not need to align with your primitive intuition, and what you think of as wild claims are understandable by anyone who did not sleep through middle school. Your claims, on the other hand, do not map onto anything hard scientific inquiry has found. There are no equations with a variable corresponding to god. Just old folklore stories for kids.