How did the universe come into existence?

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

(may I call you Rob?)

---

Please do. :robothappy:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Stop trying to bully me out of this discussion.  I have as much right to participate as you.

[...]

Stop trying to bully me into silence. I've as much right to participate as anyone else.

---

Which part of "So don't you think it would be better if you joined in the actual discussion instead of going off at people?" don't you understand? You quoted me saying that. It's an encouragement to join in with the thread's discussion and stop going off at people. It's a pity you chose to ignore it.

Nobody is trying to bully you out of the thread's discussion, and you have every right to join in with it. In fact you have every right to continue posting as you're doing, but it's silly. So, as I also said in the post you quoted, please join in with the discussion if you have anything to say and stop the silliness.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Phil, I have to say I was getting the same things out of what you were saying as Anaiya was, that you were speaking of an intelligent creator. The reason I thought this is because you used the words creator and intelligent. When Anaiya pointed that out to you, you said that you were assigning different meanings to your words, which I guess is fine, but that is why we thought what you were saying is what you were saying and not because anyone wanted to be argumentative.

So, I think if you look at it from that perspective, you will see and understand why Anaiya is justifiably upset, because she wasn't trying to claim you said something you didn't, it was just that what you said sounded an awful like like what we read.

So, in summary, it did sound like you were saying intelligent creator. When that was pointed out to you you appeared to become defensive and in the process either inadvertently or not upset Anaiya. It is inevitable that in a discussion of this nature that persons are going to become offended, but lets not let it be because of the misuse or mistranslation of words, ok?

---

I already said that I can understand how she got the wrong end of the stick - and it was the wrong end of the stick. My first post could easily have been understood as me having the assumption that she claims I have, and, in all my other posts, I didn't exclude an intelligent creator, but I always included a non-intelligent means of creation - as I did in the first post, albeit in an imperfect way.

She didn't get wrong because of her understandable misunderstanding - anyone could have misunderstood, as you say you did. She got wrong by insisting that I "assume a creator" (of the intelligent variety) in spite of me saying several times that I have not assumed any such thing. She thinks she knows what my assumptions are (what I think) better than I do. What she should have done, when I told her that I don't assume it, is say something like, "Oh, ok. I sounded as though you assumed it", and moved on. That's what most people would have done. But no, she kept on insisting that she knows what my assumption is and that I don't, which comes across as arguing the point just for the sake of arguing it, which it is. It's like, 'It looked like that to me (Anaiya), so it must be true'.

So we end up with a load of posts in the thread, that have nothing to do with the topic, just because she thinks she knows what I think better than I do, and refuses to accept what I think from 'the horses mouth'. It's a pity. I've tried to stop it by explaining it to her, but she won't give it up. I'm certainly not going to adopt an assumption just because she says I have it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Helium Loon wrote:

Fascinating.  I had not kept up with that particular track since the early 90s, so I was unaware of this.  However, it actually provides a more compelling element to the proof, since acceleration requires energy to be applied.....and where would the energy come from?  Thermodynamics still says that energy has to come from somewhere else, either in the system, or from outside it.  And if it is coming from inside it, we've got another violation (creation of energy from nothingness.) 

---

It's a pity that the universe's expansion isn't slowing down because it occured to me that, if the universe is a closed system, the expansion energy could be being transfered as heat to the 'fabric of space' (possibly the Higgs), which was also accidentally discovered by the team that accidentally discovered that the universe is still in inflationary expansion.

The vacuum energy that Celestiall mentioned may be the answer if it's a closed system, or the answer may be something else. Either way, I don't see that inflationary expansion necessarily means that the energy to power it is coming from outside this universe. It may be, but inflationary expansion can't be taken as proof. It can be taken as an indication of a possibility, but I think that's all.

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Phil, I have to say I was getting the same things out of what you were saying as Anaiya was, that you were speaking of an intelligent creator. The reason I thought this is because you used the words creator and intelligent. When Anaiya pointed that out to you, you said that you were assigning different meanings to your words, which I guess is fine, but that is why we thought what you were saying is what you were saying and not because anyone wanted to be argumentative.

So, I think if you look at it from that perspective, you will see and understand why Anaiya is justifiably upset, because she wasn't trying to claim you said something you didn't, it was just that what you said sounded an awful like like what we read.

So, in summary, it did sound like you were saying intelligent creator. When that was pointed out to you you appeared to become defensive and in the process either inadvertently or not upset Anaiya. It is inevitable that in a discussion of this nature that persons are going to become offended, but lets not let it be because of the misuse or mistranslation of words, ok?

---

I already said that I can understand how she got the wrong end of the stick - and it was the wrong end of the stick. My first post could easily have been understood as me having the assumption that she claims I have, and, in all my other posts, I didn't exclude an intelligent creator, but I always included a non-intelligent means of creation - as I did in the first post, albeit in an imperfect way.

She didn't get wrong because of her understandable misunderstanding - anyone could have misunderstood, as you say you did. She got wrong by insisting that I "assume a creator" (of the intelligent variety) in spite of me saying several times that I have not assumed any such thing. She thinks she knows what my assumptions are (what I think) better than I do. What she should have done, when I told her that I don't assume it, is say something like, "Oh, ok. I sounded as though you assumed it", and moved on. That's what most people would have done. But no, she kept on insisting that she knows what my assumption is and that I don't, which comes across as arguing the point just for the sake of arguing it, which it is. It's like, 'It looked like that to me (Anaiya), so it must be true'.

So we end up with a load of posts in the thread, that have nothing to do with the topic, just because she thinks she knows what I think better than I do, and refuses to accept what I think from 'the horses mouth'. It's a pity. I've tried to stop it by explaining it to her, but she won't give it up. I'm certainly not going to adopt an assumption just because she says I have it.

---

Ok, fair enough. I think all that has been cleared now and we can move on. Thank you for understanding me.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Ok, fair enough. I think all that has been cleared now and we can move on. Thank you for understanding me.

---

I hope we can move on

And there's no need to thank me for understanding you. Your very nice nature comes across in all you posts, and I couldn't read one as being anything other than non-confrontational and genuinely meant.

[Porky Gorky]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It's a pity that the universe's expansion isn't slowing....

---

The universe's expansion may not necessarily be speeding up, in fact it may not be expanding at all. There are a couple of theories out there that suggest that it is time that is slowing down and that the acceleration we see is just an illusion. So the appearance of acceleration is caused by time itself gradually slowing down. 

Astronomers currently discern the expansion speed of the universe using the "red shift" technique. This technique relies on the understanding that stars moving away appear redder in colour than ones moving towards us. Scientists look for supernovae of certain types that provide a sort of benchmark. However, the accuracy of these measurements depends on time remaining invariable throughout the universe. If time is slowing down, according to this new theory, our solitary time dimension is slowly turning into a new space dimension. Therefore the far-distant, ancient stars seen by cosmologists would from our perspective, look as though they were accelerating.

It is theorized that time was created during the big and just like everything else in our visible universe it can degrade and disappear all together. This could be distorting our view and leading us to wrongly assume that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

 

 

 

[ROB34466IIIa]

If I' m correct you are describing this ?

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

or the answer may be something else.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Implications_for_the_fate_of_the_universe

" There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario, dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems, and eventually overcome the electricaland nuclear forces to tear apart atoms themselves, ending the universe in aBig Rip. On the other hand, dark energy might dissipate with time, or even become attractive. Such uncertainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on itself in a Big Crunch. Some scenarios, such as the cyclic model suggest this could be the case. It is also possible the universe may never have an end and continue in its present state forever (see Ludwig Boltzmann#The Second Law as a law of disorder). While these ideas are not supported by observations, they are not ruled out."

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

Stop trying to bully me out of this discussion.  I have as much right to participate as you.

[...]

Stop trying to bully me into silence. I've as much right to participate as anyone else.

---

Which part of "

So don't you think it would be better if you joined in the actual discussion instead of going off at people?

" don't you understand? You quoted me saying that. It's an encouragement to join in with the thread's discussion and stop going off at people. It's a pity you chose to ignore it.

Nobody is trying to bully you out of the thread's discussion, and you have every right to join in with it. In fact you have every right to continue posting as you're doing, but it's silly. So, as I also said in the post you quoted, please join in with the discussion if you have anything to say and stop the silliness.

---

Do you really think these antics are more face saving than just accepting you made a boo-boo and moving on from that?

[Phil Deakins]

They aren't antics, and there is nothing for me to save face about. I already said (twice) that I can see how you could easily have got the wrong impression. At the beginning of this dialogue I did tell you that I haven't assumed what you say I assume, and it's not my fault that you won't take my word for what I think, and leave it be. I've been inviting you to drop it and move on for a while. So why don't you just do it?

I wrote my first post in such a way that it could give the wrong impression. I already said that though, but it doesn't seem to have been good enough for you. You did get the wrong impression and, no matter how many times I told you that I don't assume what you kept saying I assume, it didn't make any difference to you. You still kept on.

So just drop it, eh?

[ROB34466IIIa]

Phil Deakins wrote on page 6 : " The

only conclusion

that can be drawn is that something created existance (space, matter and time) - your

intelligent designer

. So, to answer your question,

an intelligent designer created the universe

."

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

So, in summary, it did sound like you were saying intelligent creator. When that was pointed out to you you appeared to become defensive and in the process either inadvertently or not upset Anaiya. It is inevitable that in a discussion of this nature that persons are going to become offended, but lets not let it be because of the misuse or mistranslation of words, ok?

---

I didn't exclude an intelligent creator, but

I always included a non-intelligent means of creation - as I did in the first post

,

albeit in an imperfect way.

I'm certainly not going to adopt an assumption just because she says I have it.

---

Just a few things in one post (hopefully). But you already called me kinda fickle, didn' t you ? :robottongue:

I promise I will not continue this sideline of the debate, but I do understand the 'commotion' . By intelligent designer you explicitely refer to more than a non-intelligent something. By ' only conclusion'  you invite others only to debate wether this conclusion is true and turns the discussion into a subject of philosophy instead of science. ( Not saying this thread should be merely scientifically justified, but it' s not  about who or what was responsible for the universe. )

Perhaps that' s why it' s said teleological arguing in a scientifical debate is not a good measure or should be expressed differently (by scientific arguements).

I do find the discussion about who or what instead of how should cease in this thread.

 

[161488303349]

in the bolded part i was showing the counter example to Something <- Something. Your argument seems to conclude that it can't be Something <- Null by the rule of substitution. a conclusion i tend to agree with

i actual did mean Time in using <- and not Space

in the context of this thread "How did the universe come into existence?" the supposition is that there was a Beginning. if so then that is a reference to a point in time. If we discount time then there was no beginning

+

so what would happen if we could travel back in time to the beginning of this universe as we know and understand it? a universe made of matter (possibly anti-matter as well) in which there are sentient beings with conciousness

to make it easier to visualise suppose that as we travelled back the universe got smaller and smaller, compressing in on itself. suppose further that we stopped at an arbitrary point and travelled forward and observed it getting bigger - expanding. just to check that compression is occurring. so we then reverse and go way back to the seconds before the beginning

what would we see? a tiny speck of densely compressed matter (possibly conciousness as well) in an emptiness. suppose further that the last pieces of matter to get compressed is our own matter. (we are assuming here for the moment that the whole thing doesn't explode under the pressure)

ok. is two possible outcomes: a) our conciousness gets sucked into it as well as the final act, or b) it does not

if a) then what would we see after the final act? most likely the end of a universe. another universe, or maybe even the same ( a copy) universe if we then went back in time to that beginning and we observed exactly the same things in the same order as previously

if b) is the more interesting i think in this part of the discussion. our conciousness does not get sucked in and the speck just keeps on getting smaller and smaller as we progress backwards in time towards infinity

suppose we stopped. there is this tiny speck of matter and our conciousness. is not a Null state because we are in it and so is the speck. if we stay stationary then nothing observable happens. by our observation the universe doesn't begin until we move foward in time

in this scenario, does the act of moving make us God? or at least lead us to believe that we are God? the answer is No because of the speck. we could however come to believe that we are God when in the vast backward infinity of Time we came to believe that the speck was our own creation

+

Suppose however, it did blow up in some backward point in Time and our conciousness survived. would we think then we are God? as we were there before that beginning, and knowing that if we move forward then by our observation, it didn't blow up and won't blow up until we move backward again

well No again because of the speck. but if we did this for a seemingly infinite number of times then can see how we might come to believe it

+

as others have said in this thread,  these kinds of thought exercises can do your head in. and if we really want to do our heads in then consider: "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. the earth was without form. the Spirit of God moved ..."  (: 

[ROB34466IIIa]

Congrats ! You have discovered the Eon(s).

Here' s your prize. Enjoy.

ETA : This calendar might be .. aherm.. scientifically debatable, but is biblically correct.

[Phil Deakins]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote on page 6 : " The

only conclusion

that can be drawn is that something created existance (space, matter and time) - your

intelligent designer

. So, to answer your question,

an intelligent designer created the universe

."

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

So, in summary, it did sound like you were saying intelligent creator. When that was pointed out to you you appeared to become defensive and in the process either inadvertently or not upset Anaiya. It is inevitable that in a discussion of this nature that persons are going to become offended, but lets not let it be because of the misuse or mistranslation of words, ok?

---

I didn't exclude an intelligent creator, but

I always included a non-intelligent means of creation - as I did in the first post

,

albeit in an imperfect way.

I'm certainly not going to adopt an assumption just because she says I have it.

---

Just a few things in one post (hopefully). But you already called me kinda fickle, didn' t you ? :robottongue:

I promise I will not continue this sideline of the debate, but I do understand the 'commotion' . By intelligent designer you explicitely refer to more than a non-intelligent something. By ' only conclusion'  you invite others only to debate wether this conclusion is true and turns the discussion into a subject of philosophy instead of science. ( Not saying this thread should be merely scientifically justified, but it' s not  about who or what was responsible for the universe. )

Perhaps that' s why it' s said teleological arguing in a scientifical debate is not a good measure or should be expressed differently (by scientific arguements).

I do find the discussion about who or what instead of how should cease in this thread.

 

---

Then it's a pity that you chose to carry the stupidity on!

We've been through it all before, and I've agreed on more than one occasion that what I wrote in my first post (which you quoted) can easily give rise to a wrong impression of what I actually assume and think, and that certainly happened. However, it does not mean that I assume an intelligent creator, especially when I've stated several times since then that I don't assume an intelligent creator, and the more that you carry this silliness on, the sillier it gets. And, to be honest, it's not me who looks silly.

Of course, if you prefer to think that you know better than me about what I think and assume, then feel free to continue the stupidy. Or if you think that there's a possibility that I might actually know what I think and assume better than anyone else does, then you might like to keep quiet on the matter. You're not doing anybody any favours by carrying it on, especially since you bring nothing new to the party, so do everyone a favour and knock it on the head. Alright?

Somebody (understandably) got hold of the wrong end the stick. When I showed her the right end of the stick, that person ought to have accepted that it was a misunderstanding, and none of this silly stuff should ever have happened.



[ROB34466IIIa]

Just for my information and as a final : ARE you religious ?

[161488303349]

which part of "well No" did you not understand

ps. or is it that you are simply unable to reason in the fields of philosophy or theology

[ROB34466IIIa]

none ... :robotfrustrated:

PS Usually I' m unable to with people arguing like : " I have a suit. I have a suitcase. The suit fits in the suitcase.I fit in my suit, so I must fit in my suitcase.

[Phil Deakins]

Y'know, this silly side debate reminds me of a thread years ago - in RA. Probably most users of this forum won't remember it's RA ancestor. What happened there was that I posted on topic in a thread. What I wrote was that "many, perhaps most, SL females think that the guys want to have sex with them". That might not be the exact wording, but the "many, perhaps most" part is exact.

One or two of the female users took offense, presumably because it was true of them, or it didn't include them and they didn't want to be thought of in that way (not that it would matter anyway). Then loads of others joined in and they all came down on me like a ton of bricks. The only thing they thought they could come at me about was the "many, perhaps most" bit. Most of them were native english speakers but they abandoned their own language and insisted that "many, perhaps most" actually means "the majority" or "most" and nothing else. I pointed out that it actually means "a large number, maybe more than half" , and I told them that that was exactly what I meant. But it didn't matter how many times I told them that, they still insisted that it meant something that it didn't actually mean in their own native language. Their desire to stick the knife in made them stupid. It was a bandwagon effect. A few apologised in private afterwards.

The start of that was different to the start of this side issue, because the english only had one meaning, which they chose to ignore. In the case of this side issue here, my first post was worded in a way that caused something to be understood that isn't true. But it reminded me of the old RA thread because, it doesn't matter how many times I write that I don't hold a particular assumption, it isn't believed, because someone thinks they know better than me about what I think and assume - based on a poorly worded post. It really is a very stupid thing to keep on about.

[ROB34466IIIa]

I already told you WHY I thought your initial wording caused so much confusion. Not because you may have insulted others, but it was an open invitation  to turn the thread into a ' chicken/egg'  discussion instead of how the universe came to be. I know a thread like this will most likely turn into one, but I hoped on more perspectives than merely this one.

I only want my last question answered by you and considered the whole side issue gone already : ARE you religious ?

[Phil Deakins]

We already knew why my initial wording caused one person some confusion..

Why do you want to know if I'm religious or not? And what do you mean by religious?

[ROB34466IIIa]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

We already knew why my initial wording caused 

one

person some confusion..

Why do you want to know if I'm religious or not? And what do you mean by religious?

---

Do you believe in (a) God creating this universe and therefore being the first cause of everything ergo a deity that made the universe come to being ?

It implies to me that when you do you willl most likely always sort 'scientific evidence'  on this fact and if presented other facts or ideas simply revoke them.

Intelligent Design is, as you might be aware,  a hot debate elsewhere and often related to American Christian conservatism.

[Phil Deakins]

I don't practise any religion - and I'm not American.

ETA: I'll say this though. A couple of months ago, when I considered the Big Bang and the 'always there' idea, I came to the conclusion that the universe couldn't always have been there and must have had a beginning - solely because I find the eternally there idea to be wholly inconceivable - I had to ask "how come?".

So I concluded that the universe must have had a beginning, and that made me think of an intelligent creator, which is probably why I worded that part of my first post as I did. But that doesn't mean that I assume it. It only means that that's what my thinking led me to think of as a realistic possibility.

[ROB34466IIIa]

Come on, Phil.. I didn' t ask you wether you light up candles in church and I already know you' re British.

Wanna give me the real answer ? Please ?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ROB34466IIIa wrote:

none ... :robotfrustrated:

PS Usually I' m unable to with people arguing like : " I have a suit. I have a suitcase. The suit fits in the suitcase.I fit in my suit, so I must fit in my suitcase.

---

Rob, given enough time and a good serrated bread knife, I believe I could make that chain of reasoning work.

--||-