remember, there will always be atheists in this world

[Adam]

Tony1

What natural physical law leads to the existence of a universe where one didn't exist before?

You're assuming the universe did not exist before some point in time.

Oh, a beginning is plenty necessary.
Even scientists are aware of the existence of a concept called "infinity" and another one called "entropy."

1) Entropy has been observed to reverse in some situations.

2) What has infinity got to do with the need, or lack of need, for a beginning to the universe? Please explain.

If the universe had always been here, then entropy increasing over an infinity of time would have already turned the universe into a homogeneous lump at a uniform temperature.

The idea is that the universe reaches a certain point, as energy friom the Big Bang decreases, then gravity pulls it all back together, a Big Crunch, which is actually a new Big Bang, one big cycle.

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by Adam
You're assuming the universe did not exist before some point in time.*

Actually, I'm assuming that entropy is real, since I can observe it.

*1) Entropy has been observed to reverse in some situations.*

Where life exists.

*2) What has infinity got to do with the need, or lack of need, for a beginning to the universe? Please explain.*

Infinitely increased entropy leads to a uniform, homogeneous blob of a universe.
Since that isn't the case, either an infinity of time has not passed (which means the universe had a beginning), or entropy isn't a valid concept, all evidence to the contrary.

*The idea is that the universe reaches a certain point, as energy friom the Big Bang decreases, then gravity pulls it all back together, a Big Crunch, which is actually a new Big Bang, one big cycle. *

That's an idea, all right.
What you're proposing is a perpetual motion machine on a large scale.
Even tho there are people theorizing (speculating) that the second law of thermodynamics has been suspended, the point of "homogeneous blob" is that gravity is evenly distributed, thus there is no more pull of gravity on any one particle than another.

The concept is just as difficult to understand as infinity, so just concentrate.

 

[Miguelio]

Aren't the phisical laws a consequence of the "big-bang". If all things have had an origine, the same is true for the phisical laws. Or we can believe that the universe exists forever. This belief is as easy to prove as the belief in an old creator.

 

[Adam]

Tony1

Where life exists.

Entropy is inherent in all living systems.

Infinitely increased entropy leads to a uniform, homogeneous blob of a universe.
Since that isn't the case, either an infinity of time has not passed (which means the universe had a beginning), or entropy isn't a valid concept, all evidence to the contrary.

Not a homogenous glob. The heat death thing would leave immobile molecules and dead planets, motionless. This isone possibility. Another is that there is a repulsive force which will prevent such stagnation. Another is that the universe is cyclical.

What you're proposing is a perpetual motion machine on a large scale.

Indeed.

Even tho there are people theorizing (speculating) that the second law of thermodynamics has been suspended, the point of "homogeneous blob" is that gravity is evenly distributed, thus there is no more pull of gravity on any one particle than another.

The point of it is that all motion has ceased. Ie: the heat death of the universe. This includes all the energy produced from the Big bang.

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by Miguello
Aren't the phisical laws a consequence of the "big-bang".*

Maybe, if one could identify what a "physical law" is.

*If all things have had an origine, the same is true for the phisical laws.*

Again, assuming there are such things as "physical laws."

*Or we can believe that the universe exists forever.*

Choosing beliefs arbitrarily is pointless.
Here's what happens...

Either you are right, in which case you believed the truth.
Or, you are wrong, in which case you were deluded.

There is no "believing" in something false.

*Originally posted by Adam
Not a homogenous glob. The heat death thing would leave immobile molecules and dead planets, motionless. This isone possibility. Another is that there is a repulsive force which will prevent such stagnation. Another is that the universe is cyclical.*

IOW, you're just guessing.

*The point of it is that all motion has ceased. Ie: the heat death of the universe. This includes all the energy produced from the Big bang. *

Yes.
IOW, since we are not in that state, the universe didn't always exist.

BTW, your big bang/big crunch speculation is the opposite of what you just said.

 

[Adam]

Tony1

IOW, you're just guessing.

Call it an educated guess, yes.

Yes.
IOW, since we are not in that state, the universe didn't always exist.

No. Since we are not in that state, we can say: 1) we have not reached that sate yet, but we still may in future; or 2) we will never reach that state because the universe is cyclical.

BTW, your big bang/big crunch speculation is the opposite of what you just said.

I presented some likely possibilities.

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by Adam
Call it an educated guess, yes.*

I'll call it an indoctrinated guess.

*No. Since we are not in that state, we can say: 1) we have not reached that sate yet, but we still may in future; or 2) we will never reach that state because the universe is cyclical.*

I see the concept of infinity still escapes you.
The probability of being somewhere near the "beginning" of infinity, i.e. in some finite time, is zero, if one assumes that the universe has been here forever.

*I presented some likely possibilities. *

Just shots in the dark.
As above, they are not likely at all.

 

[notme2000]

You dont think the bible is lying do you?

Yes. I'd jump in here but I'm sure Adam and Cris got it covered!

 

[James R]

<i>If the universe had always been here, then entropy increasing over an infinity of time would have already turned the universe into a homogeneous lump at a uniform temperature.</i>

Yes, but it hasn't always been here, has it. It's only 10-15 billion years old.

 

[Adam]

If the universe had always been here, then entropy increasing over an infinity of time would have already turned the universe into a homogeneous lump at a uniform temperature.

The universe is thought to be 10 to 15 billion years old, give or take a few billion. Or it may be better to say that the Big ang is thought to have occured that long ago. And yesm entropy happens over time. However, if a Big Crunch does indeed occur, then that gradual cooling of the universe ceases, and we have a massive new surge of energy. The universe may indeed be infinite while entropy remains true. Universe expands and cools, entropy is happening, then it contracts and boom, starts all over again.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
Yes, but it hasn't always been here, has it. It's only 10-15 billion years old. *

Aside from the fact that the response was to someone arguing for an infinitely old universe, it hasn't been here 10-15 billion years, either.

That assumption is based on another assumption, namely that the speed of light has remained constant since the "big bang."
Surely you aren't going to argue that someone actually observed the speed of light on day one?

*Originally posted by Adam
However, if a Big Crunch does indeed occur, then that gradual cooling of the universe ceases, and we have a massive new surge of energy.*

Sounds great, but where does this massive new surge of energy originate from?

 

[Cris]

Tony,

Infinitely increased entropy leads to a uniform, homogeneous blob of a universe.
Since that isn't the case, either an infinity of time has not passed (which means the universe had a beginning), or entropy isn't a valid concept, all evidence to the contrary.

No, I believe you are incorrect.

The ultimate result of entropy only makes sense in a closed system, i.e. a homogenous blob can only occur within a closed system. In an infinite universe there are no boundaries and cannot therefore be considered a closed system. In this case entropy would continue to increase infinitely indicating there would always be order somewhere to allow entropy to increase.

In this light an infinite universe can exist, (no need for a creator), and entropy remains a valid concept since it can operate equally well in an open system but will never cease.

 

[Adam]

Tony1

Originally posted by tony1

Sounds great, but where does this massive new surge of energy originate from?

Ya see, there's this thing called "gravity"...

Watch closely:
1) BOOM!
2) Universe expands, heat gradually dissipates, less and less energy.
3) Force of BOOM reduces over time.
4) Gravity becomes more powerful than the force of BOOM.
5) Universe contracts, constantly increasing in speed, more and more energy.
6) All that matter and energy comes together in another BOOM.
7) Go to 1.

 

[tony1]

Sounds great, looks even better, but you must have missed my question.
Where does this massive surge of energy come from, since the gravity is there all the time?

BTW, I like the humor in your point 1.
Boom! (Nothing exploded)

Usually, when nothing explodes, nothing happens, but in the scientific bizarro world, when nothing explodes, it actually means that something explodes.

Point 5 sounds rather quaint, too, seeing as no one has observed that.
What people have observed is the universe currently expanding.

 

[Cris]

Adam, tony,

Evidence shows that what we observe is indeed expanding but we also know that black holes in some galaxies are also merging together and hence increasing their combined field of influence. As more black holes merge the effect would be a braking effect on the expansion leading inevitably to a contraction. The cyclic nature ensures no energy is lost or gained in perfect symmetry.

Another idea currently being offered by MIT is that our big bang is just one of an infinite number of potential big bangs concurrently occurring in a much larger than imagined universe where our big bang universe is just a mere bubble. In this scenario each bubble could continue to expand.

 

[Adam]

Cris

Another idea currently being offered by MIT is that our big bang is just one of an infinite number of potential big bangs concurrently occurring in a much larger than imagined universe where our big bang universe is just a mere bubble. In this scenario each bubble could continue to expand.

It's an astounding universe of possibilities we live in, eh? And if that larger universe is, in turn, a mere bubble amongst many in an even larger universe? And that one, again? Perhaps one day we may know for sure. Perhaps not. But trying to find out is certainly interesting.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
Adam, tony,

Evidence shows...*

Of course, while evidence collected over a paucity of years may show any number of things, the fact remains that "scientists" are attempting to extrapolate 15 billion years from about 100 years worth of "data."

Furthermore, those same scientists are attempting to extrapolate other universes without even having examined this one in any detail at all.

AND, they're attempting to do this while rejecting a written record of what did happen.
Additionally, even if the written record is rejected due to questions about historicity, the fact is that the cosmological record in it is rejected essentially because it is personally stressful to some "scientists."

As a result of this, how can we be sure these same "scientists" aren't rejecting data that they find personally distasteful, especially since they tell us, in more candid moments, that they do exactly that?

 

[Xelios]

tony1

Of course, while evidence collected over a paucity of years may show any number of things, the fact remains that "scientists" are attempting to extrapolate 15 billion years from about 100 years worth of "data."....

At least they are trying to back their claims with evidence. They could just as easily take the route theists take, insisting the universe was formed naturally and leave it at that, without providing any kind of evidence. As for the extrapolation, you are trying to extrapolate an infinite amount of time and a being that exists outside this universe with a single book written 2000 years ago.

As a result of this, how can we be sure these same "scientists" aren't rejecting data that they find personally distasteful, especially since they tell us, in more candid moments, that they do exactly that?

Of course, humans are not infallible. But I can assure you this rarely happens, and it happens much more often with creation 'scientists'. Can you give me a quote of a scientist admitting to reject data they didn't find 'tasteful'? Records of data being withheld by scientists with the intention of decieving the public? I can give you such evidences for my claim about creation scientists, what have you got?

 

[whatsupyall]

Adam and Seesaw is an example of those who eyes but cant see, have ears but cant hear...poor guys......like I was saying, there will always be good and evil, atheists and theists, heaven and hell, stupid and obedient......THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ATHEISTS IN THIS WORLD..............You can have so many reasons and so many excuses, I dont care, but are you one of them?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by tony1
How did they get there?

Hm, you can't argue with a theist if you are atheist and vice versa. The notion of a god seems to be an assumption, not a conclusion.

So stop randomly claiming there is a god. Or that there isn't.

It seems to boil down to the ultimate, fundamental difference. Of whether the universe was purposely designed or not.