What Existed Before the Big Bang

I hear what you write. A hostility to women and reality.
A kind of primitive weakness of character.

 

I did reply to this.
I don't think anyone replaced the word God with the word universe. I didn't and if you think God made the universe, then unless he made himself, the universe remains a thing apart.
Of course something can provide that which it consists of. Since the universe consists of almost infinite variables, the potential for newly created existence is also potentially infinite.

 

I have been trying to find a suitable metaphor for this idea.
The best I can think of is a symphony orchestra.
You have a finite number of instruments ...large, small, high range, lower range. They behave according to their inherent nature. Woodwind's sound is shaped partly by the fact that is made of wood for example. But also by size, passage of air and range.
So imagine a 60 piece orchestra and then think of the almost infinite combinations of sound and melody they can make. My metaphor includes the idea that arrangements are the forces that direct the composition but that the interplay between the potential arrangements and the 60 individual pieces is mind boggling huge.
Ans as one piece of music is produced, it generates the potential for another...change a tempo here, a chord structure there and the whole thing easily becomes a new piece.
Of course a violin cannot become a flute but they can work together to produce a staggering amount of combinations.
That is why I suspect (and I put it no higher than that) that there is a particular and limited type of elements in the universe including forces, the capacity to know emotion and things we have not yet found...quantum stuff and perhaps they will open up even more, but the COMBINATIONS within itself are for all intents and purposes, ALMOST limitless IF you follow the constraints inherent within itself. ie a bowling ball will never grow wings and fly.
And that is the best I can do to explain my view of How Things Work.

 

The Universe simply is, and always has been, in one form or another.

Probably.

Human minds need closure. It's why we like fiction so much. A computer AI prob wouldn't care, just another search tree..

That leads us to make all manner of mistakes, like bearded guys in the sky.

 

How do you know the Universe always existed? I know of no conclusive scientific data supporting an infinite universe. Although you say "probably" that's not going to save you.

Closure would be nice, but it's unnecessary for living.

 

You're only repeating your response while still avoiding the how. You don't have a clue as to whether the Universe is infinite, so you can't definitively say the variables are infinite.

 

That's the faith they claim is unnecessary when they have science. They haven't thought this through.

 

I'm always amused (?) that those holding firm to science answering the questions of origins fail to recognize they are operating on faith.

 

You're putting the cart before the horse.

In science, you're going to have to show us how the old bearded guy created the Universe..

 

Occam's Razor..

 

We don't have to show you that at all. You'll eventually accept it in the end when science fails.

 

That's one of the finest dodge of a question I've seen . . . today.

 

Nope. If that was your position you would accept that nothing is uncaused. Thus you end up with the Watchmaker argument being the best.

 

I can believe it as the most rational probability.
And I can say that music is ALMOST infinite in its variables.
And if I am repeating my answer, I did indeed answer you the first time.
If you remain so disagreeable in your tone I shall just ignore you. In subjects like this, everyone speculated. The interest is in sharing them, not being precisely correct.

 

It is logic, not faith, and so far science has provided the answers.

 

It isn't a dodge. It is the central question

 

My mistake was in thinking this was somewhat of a debate/discussion board. If having your speculations/musings challenged is too uncomfortable for you then by all means you should ignore me.

I asked "how" and you never answered that question.

 

Baloney!

 

Ah, OK...whatever let's you sleep at noght

 

The Watchmaker "problem" concerning cosmology is just plain ridiculous.

We have NO experience in universe making, unlike the fact that we have serious experience in watchmaking. We know there are designers of watches, because we've seen them designing and manufacturing watches.

Next, for an analogical argument to make sense, there have to be serious similarities. With watches and universes, there are no such similarities. For example, watches and universes are not made of similar material. A universe is closer to a vegetable than a watch in that they are both made of natural material - while seemingly a ridiculous comparison, so is comparing a watch to a universe. And, we know there is no designer of vegetables. Also, watches have been created by teams of designers coming up with gradually improving solutions - a characteristic that is not even slightly similar to the "god made the universe" idea.

Another point is that the designs of nature, through evolution, are phenomenal. Look at the designs of eyes, brains, and all sorts of stuff that nature has created through evolution. These do not lead to or support the idea that there must have been a designer of the universe.

It may also be pointed out that the author of the "watchmaker" argument did not argue that a god designed from scratch. He pointed out that god worked THROUGH nature - VERY different from the argument that today's Christians want to interpret the watchmaker "problem", and not applicable to the issues of cosmology and the origins of our universe.

In the end, the watchmaker analogy has nothing to offer. It's just a flat out failure as an analogical argument for the reasons above as well as others.

 

Simply put the watch consists of elements that exist in our universe. The analogy meets the Oscam razor argument. Science only complicates the question of origin with complex attempts at explaining the universe's origin.

 

Your simplistic restatement does not resolve EVEN ONE of the objections I enumerated.

And, again, I'd point out that science does not answer the question of where the singularity that was the first event in our universe's history came from.

Science DOES complicate the job of those manufacturing religious explanations, as humans have discovered the timeline of our universe back to just after that singularity.

 

All history has a beginning point. If the Universe has a history it has a beginning. That only suggests a cause for its beginning which of itself is not contingent on the existence of the Universe. I was responding to the Oscam Razor argument.

 

Say what?

You can't use a watchmaker argument, you'd assuming your conclusion.

Saying Occams Razor is shorthand. In science you need an idea that can be tested. The problem with a deity is finding a way to test for that in the real world. People been trying, and failing, for centuries.

Near as I can tell, it can't be done.

 

If irony was explosive, that would have made a big hole.