29 replies to this topic

[ShiaPoet]

Bismillah
Salam 'Alaykum

Just for mentioning a point of solidarity, unity, and understanding to my (Sunni-Shia) brothers and sisters in Islam

5 Questions to ask a so-called ‘Atheist’

<sub>1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. If matter was eternal, then according to the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, which states that all matter will soon be neutralized and uniform one day, shouldn’t the universe would have already been uniform and neutralized long ago?

3. Where did the first cell on earth get its genes from?

4. How can consciousness (us) emerge from non-consciousness (early matter)? If it did, then you are basically saying that matter is recently (3,500 million years ago) becoming self-aware? And therefore matter isn’t eternal, because of the word ‘recently’?

5. Since the Big Bang is considered the main cause of every effect, and no particle moves unless another force hits it (Newton's laws of motion) you are saying that the precise movement of every particle during the Big Bang determined whether I get an A+ or A- on my next test? But this depends on my free-will to study or not to study, so actually this is being caused by a will, which is not matter, because if matter had a will, then that would basically mean that matter is a self-aware god!</sub>



(Note: If someone wants to attempt to answer these, then answer all of them at once, because they are inter-related)



_{Wassalam; 13th of Rajab Mubarak!}

Edited by ShiaPoet, 02 June 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[shia4life669]

1. A tinier big bang
2. no. <---- this answer cannot be refuted
3 From an Arab
4. ??????
5.Matter desides if you should study or not.

[AlwaysChangingHisUserName]

As for your second question, the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable in a closed system.  Since the Earth is not a closed system (we get energy from the Sun and radiation from other parts of the universe as well as geothermic energy), it is not applicable.

[Pascal]

Rather disappointing my response was deleted..

[ShiaSoldier@2007]

kingpomba, on 03 June 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Rather disappointing my response was deleted..

Can you pm me the gist of it if you have it off the top of your head?

[Quisant]

ShiaPoet, on 02 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

(Note: If someone wants to attempt to answer these, then answer all of them at once, because they are inter-related)

If the so called "atheist" does not answer your questions ... will it prove to you that God exists?

If the so called "atheist" answers your questions... will it prove to you that God does not exist?

Just curious.

Wslm.
*

[ShiaPoet]

Ja, on 02 June 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

As for your second question, the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable in a closed system.  Since the Earth is not a closed system (we get energy from the Sun and radiation from other parts of the universe as well as geothermic energy), it is not applicable.

I'm talking about the whole Universe. The Universe does not get energy from anything outside.

Wassalam

Edited by ShiaPoet, 03 June 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Quisant]

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm talking about the whole Universe. The Universe does not get energy from anything outside.

Wassalam

This question has been answered and it is on the web.:

The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down.
The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere.
The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).

Disorder and entropy are not the same (Styer 2000). The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."

(Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Styer, Daniel F. 2000. Insight into entropy. American Journal of Physics.)


The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy.
When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero
(Tryon, Edward P., 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.
Guth, Alan H., 1997. The Inflationary Universe. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.)

Wslm.
*

Edited by Quisant, 03 June 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[ShiaPoet]

Quisant, on 03 June 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

This question has been answered and it is on the web.:

The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down.
The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere.
The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.

The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).

Disorder and entropy are not the same (Styer 2000). The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."

(Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Styer, Daniel F. 2000. Insight into entropy. American Journal of Physics.)


The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy.
When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero
(Tryon, Edward P., 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.
Guth, Alan H., 1997. The Inflationary Universe. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.)

Wslm.
*

The main question doesn't attack 'order from disorder', but rather, it attacks the idea that matter is eternal.

Quisant, on 03 June 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

There are no laws about things tending to "break down."

Yes there is. There are laws that show us things tending to "break down".

1) The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass, a star, will deform spacetime and collapse itself or "break down" into a black hole.
    So stars and galaxies tend to collapse, "break down" and die out over a certain period of time.
2) Thermodynamics: Boyle's Law: Increasing the volume of a substance proportionately decreases its temperature and pressure.
    Experimental observations show us that the Universe is expanding and according to the Big Bang theory, the universe has always continued to expand from infinity, and therefore, as it expands, it cools down. If matter was eternal, we would be frozen by now.


Wassalam

[iDevonian]

ShiaPoet, on 02 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Bismillah
Salam 'Alaykum

Just for mentioning a point of solidarity, unity, and understanding to my (Sunni-Shia) brothers and sisters in Islam

5 Questions to ask a so-called ‘Atheist’

<sub>1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. If matter was eternal, then according to the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, which states that all matter will soon be neutralized and uniform one day, shouldn’t the universe would have already been uniform and neutralized long ago?

3. Where did the first cell on earth get its genes from?

4. How can consciousness (us) emerge from non-consciousness (early matter)? If it did, then you are basically saying that matter is recently (3,500 million years ago) becoming self-aware? And therefore matter isn’t eternal, because of the word ‘recently’?

5. Since the Big Bang is considered the main cause of every effect, and no particle moves unless another force hits it (Newton's laws of motion) you are saying that the precise movement of every particle during the Big Bang determined whether I get an A+ or A- on my next test? But this depends on my free-will to study or not to study, so actually this is being caused by a will, which is not matter, because if matter had a will, then that would basically mean that matter is a self-aware god!</sub>



(Note: If someone wants to attempt to answer these, then answer all of them at once, because they are inter-related)



_{Wassalam; 13th of Rajab Mubarak!}

1. Nobody really knows.
2. People in this discussion have answered this one. Quisants response #8 is fine.
3. There are theories that the first life actually utilized RNA, not DNA.  RNA can basically form on its own. I have made a post about that in SC, ill dig it up for you.
4. There, in my opinion, is a fine line between life and non life. When you have evolving systems that are unconscious, its hard to say whether they are life or non life in a physical sense.
5. Matter does have the ability to become self aware.

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

The main question doesn't attack 'order from disorder', but rather, it attacks the idea that matter is eternal.




Yes there is. There are laws that show us things tending to "break down".

1) The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass, a star, will deform spacetime and collapse itself or "break down" into a black hole.
So stars and galaxies tend to collapse, "break down" and die out over a certain period of time.
2) Thermodynamics: Boyle's Law: Increasing the volume of a substance proportionately decreases its temperature and pressure.
Experimental observations show us that the Universe is expanding and according to the Big Bang theory, the universe has always continued to expand from infinity, and therefore, as it expands, it cools down. If matter was eternal, we would be frozen by now.


Wassalam

And, matter can change states.  It is not necessarily eternal, in the sense of it being physical matter. The laws of thermodynamics are built and used on physical reactions

Your point number 2, also doesnt make sense.  The universe hasnt always expanded from infinity.  I guess, if you could explain that, I would appreciate it, but right now, to me that doesnt make sense.

Also, boyles law is fine and all, hey that rhymes , but its not...its not the end all be all.  There are many factors we must take into account that work beyond boyles law.

Edited by iDevonian, 03 June 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[ShiaPoet]

iDevonian, on 03 June 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

1. Nobody really knows.
2. People in this discussion have answered this one. Quisants response #8 is fine.
3. There are theories that the first life actually utilized RNA, not DNA.  RNA can basically form on its own. I have made a post about that in SC, ill dig it up for you.
4. There, in my opinion, is a fine line between life and non life. When you have evolving systems that are unconscious, its hard to say whether they are life or non life in a physical sense.
5. Matter does have the ability to become self aware.

1. Scientists say nothing caused the big bang, because matter, which is everything,  was created in the big bang.
2. Thermodynamics: Boyle's Law: Increasing volume decreases temperature and pressure. The Big Bang theory states that the universe has forever continued to expand and always will, so as the universe expands, it gets cooler. So if matter was eternal, we should be frozen right now.
3. RNA replicates. Science does not substantiate how RNA formed originally.
4-5. Matter having the ability to become self-aware: ???'s Law proposed in ???? C.E.
        What causes matter to become self-aware? So basically, over time, matter has a consciousness, and  therefore a will. Basically describing matter as a god.

[iDevonian]

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

1. Scientists say nothing caused the big bang, because matter, which is everything,  was created in the big bang.
2. Thermodynamics: Boyle's Law: Increasing volume decreases temperature and pressure. The Big Bang theory states that the universe has forever continued to expand and always will, so as the universe expands, it gets cooler. So if matter was eternal, we should be frozen right now.
3. RNA replicates. Science does not substantiate how RNA formed originally.
4-5. Matter having the ability to become self-aware: ???'s Law proposed in ???? C.E.
What causes matter to become self-aware? So basically, over time, matter has a consciousness, and  therefore a will. Basically describing matter as a god.

Scientists, do not say that nothing started the big bang. And matter is not everything.

See, please do not make claims if you...im trying to be nice here.  Dont say things unless you know what you are talking about.

Just to focus on this point.  Where did you hear that scientists said nothing caused the big bang? Before we go any further.

And with the big bang, it has expanded since its beginning, but that doesnt mean it has expanded for eternity. Its beginning didnt occur an infinite amount of time ago in the past, it occurred, 13 billion years ago or so. So it hasnt been expanding for any time more than its beginning, and therefore hasnt been expanding from infinity.

for your third part, RNA molecules have created themselves in labs on their own.

And for your last part, whatever you want to call it, I would not call matter God, just because it, collectively can form consciousness.

Edited by iDevonian, 03 June 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[ShiaPoet]

iDevonian, on 03 June 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Scientists, do not say that nothing started the big bang. And matter is not everything.

See, please do not make claims if you...im trying to be nice here.  Dont say things unless you know what you are talking about.

Just to focus on this point.  Where did you hear that scientists said nothing caused the big bang? Before we go any further.

And with the big bang, it has expanded since its beginning, but that doesnt mean it has expanded for eternity. Its beginning didnt occur an infinite amount of time ago in the past, it occurred, 13 billion years ago or so. So it hasnt been expanding for any time more than its beginning, and therefore hasnt been expanding from infinity.

for your third part, RNA molecules have created themselves in labs on their own.

And for your last part, whatever you want to call it, I would not call matter God, just because it, collectively can form consciousness.

Stephen Hawking, famous scientist, says that time was formed in the big bang, and he says there was nothing before the big bang, therefore nothing caused it.He said that the big bang has no cause because it needs no cause.

Never mind about expanding from infinity. You got to the point anyways: the universe has a beginning.

Let me make this all clear.

Everybody here agrees that matter isn't eternal and that matter has a beginning.

So, matter cannot be itself its own cause because there was no matter (cause) before matter (effect) to cause it.

Therefore, we believe there must be an external First Cause.

Edited by ShiaPoet, 03 June 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[iDevonian]

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Stephen Hawking, famous scientist, says that time was formed in the big bang, and he says there was nothing before the big bang, therefore nothing caused it.He said that the big bang has no cause because it needs no cause.

Never mind about expanding from infinity. You got to the point anyways: the universe has a beginning.

Let me make this all clear.

Everybody here agrees that matter isn't eternal and that matter has a beginning.

So, matter cannot be itself its own cause because there was no matter (cause) before matter (effect) to cause it.

Therefore, we believe there must be an external First Cause.

Where did Steven Hawking ever say that the big bang didnt have a cause?

I would like a quote.

Also, nobody, not even atheists would ever say that matter has always existed as it does now, working under the laws of thermodynamics.

You have made these arguments with a false understanding of not only the science, but also of naturalistic beliefs that people formulate from these concepts within it.

This is what we call a strawman argument.

Edited by iDevonian, 03 June 2012 - 04:54 PM.

[ShiaPoet]

iDevonian, on 03 June 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Where did Steven Hawking ever say that the big bang didnt have a cause?

I would like a quote.

Also, nobody, not even atheists would ever say that matter has always existed as it does now, working under the laws of thermodynamics.

You have made these arguments with a false understanding of not only the science, but also of naturalistic beliefs that people formulate from these concepts within it.

This is what we call a strawman argument.

Stephen Hawking says that the big bang doesn't have any cause because there cannot be a cause before it.

Hear Stephen Hawking yourself:
Just delete the first 'h' in the following link:  hhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU



Matter isn't eternal. Agreed.
No one thinks matter is eternal. Agreed.

So, matter cannot be itself its own cause because there was no matter (cause) before matter (effect) to cause it.

Therefore, we believe there must be an external First Cause.

Edited by ShiaPoet, 03 June 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[iDevonian]

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Quote? Hear him yourself: ''

Ok. Matter isn't eternal. Agreed.

No one thinks matter is eternal. Agreed.

So, matter cannot be itself its own cause because there was no matter (cause) before matter (effect) to cause it.

Therefore, we believe there must be an external First Cause.

this is a 43 minute long video, where within this video did he ever say the big bang had no cause? And if you want to make a philosophical argument, then do that.  Dont ask questions about thermodynamics that have no association to your actual argument.

I can almost gauruntee you, nowhere in this video did Hawking ever say the big bang had no cause.

Not only that but a youtube video isnt a published paper, and not only that, but steven hawking is one man, he does not represent "scientists", as you have earlier claimed.

You need to present your material clearly, otherwise, you get people like me, jumping through hoops trying to clear it up for everyone, just because you dont know how to present it.

ShiaPoet, on 02 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

<sub>1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. If matter was eternal, then according to the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, which states that all matter will soon be neutralized and uniform one day, shouldn’t the universe would have already been uniform and neutralized long ago?

3. Where did the first cell on earth get its genes from?

4. How can consciousness (us) emerge from non-consciousness (early matter)? If it did, then you are basically saying that matter is recently (3,500 million years ago) becoming self-aware? And therefore matter isn’t eternal, because of the word ‘recently’?

5. Since the Big Bang is considered the main cause of every effect, and no particle moves unless another force hits it (Newton's laws of motion) you are saying that the precise movement of every particle during the Big Bang determined whether I get an A+ or A- on my next test? But this depends on my free-will to study or not to study, so actually this is being caused by a will, which is not matter, because if matter had a will, then that would basically mean that matter is a self-aware god!</sub>



(Note: If someone wants to attempt to answer these, then answer all of them at once, because they are inter-related)



_{Wassalam; 13th of Rajab Mubarak!}

now, lets look at your original questions one more time, now that we know what you are getting at.

1. What caused the big bang?  Nowhone knows, nowhone claims to know, not even Steven Hawking.  Period.  Thats it.  Next question.

2.  This really has nothing to do with thermodynamics, lets cut to the chase.

"If, matter cannot be itself its own cause because there was no matter (cause) before matter (effect) to cause it.
Then why not believe there must be an external First Cause? "

Matter isnt all that exists.

See how I reformatted that to get to your actual question? It wasnt hard.

Question 3. Where did the first cell get its genes from.  This question I answered myself with the idea that life may have started out with RNA, not DNA.  And yes, RNA molecules have developed on their own in labs.  period.  next question.

_{4. How can consciousness (us) emerge from non-consciousness (early matter)?}

A fair question, and my response is, how do you even draw the line between life and non life? It is hard to say. In my opinion, consciousness is something that organic compounds, collectively can develop. It takes an advanced nervous system.


and for 5.  Your existence is dependent upon the big bang. I would not call matter God, just because matter can collectively form a consciousness.

Edited by iDevonian, 03 June 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[ShiaPoet]

iDevonian, on 03 June 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

I can almost gauruntee you, nowhere in this video did Hawking ever say the big bang had no cause.

Go to 4:24. In other words, play the video and skip to 4 minutes and 24 seconds to find the statement "we have finally found something that doesn't have a cause".

And the video says: "This program examines the creation of the universe through the commentary and opinions of Professor Stephen Hawking."

Just making my point clear, once again:

Matter isn't eternal. Matter cannot be itself its own cause to come into existence.

Is there any objection to this statement?

Edited by ShiaPoet, 03 June 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[iDevonian]

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Go to 4:24. In other words, play the video and skip to 4 minutes and 24 seconds to find the statement "we have finally found something that doesn't have a cause".

And the video says: "This program examines the creation of the universe through the commentary and opinions of Professor Stephen Hawking."

This is just to prove that one of the most famous scientists (which does not represent all scientists) believes the big bang has no cause.

At 4:24, no such thing has been said.

Also, Steven Hawking is not "scientists", he is one man.  Secondly, he isnt publishing this, he is saying it as an opinion in a youtube video. He knows that it is not within his knowledge that there is no cause for the universe.  He is still free to say what he likes, subjectively.

Lets look at how you had began, versus what you are saying now.

"Scientists say nothing caused the big bang"

Now you are saying

Steven Hawking, in a youtube video, said

"we have finally found something that doesn't have a cause".

There is a vast difference between the two.

Richard Dawkins can say there is no God, but thats not the same as saying "scientists believe there is no God", its not even the same as saying "Richard dawkins knows there is no God".

When you say things, be specific, or you just give people the run around.

I could give you a videos from all sorts of scientists who are atheists as well, who will say that its possible there were things before the universe.

So you cant broadly generalize something like this.  It is misleading.

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Go to 4:24. In other words, play the video and skip to 4 minutes and 24 seconds to find the statement "we have finally found something that doesn't have a cause".

And the video says: "This program examines the creation of the universe through the commentary and opinions of Professor Stephen Hawking."

Just making my point clear, once again:

Matter isn't eternal. Matter cannot be itself its own cause to come into existence.

Is there any objection to this statement?

And as for your green question, thats a totally different question than any that you have originally asked. I will leave that for others to answer.  But I will say that, nobody, not even atheists believe that matter is all that is in the universe, and is the only thing that could ever be the cause of its existence.  For example, there is also energy in the universe, which can become physical matter, but is originally not.

Oh, and look at that...

""This program examines the creation of the universe through the commentary and opinions of Professor Stephen Hawking.""

Edited by iDevonian, 03 June 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Quisant]

ShiaPoet, on 03 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Just making my point clear, once again:

Matter isn't eternal. Matter cannot be itself its own cause to come into existence.

Is there any objection to this statement?

The Big Bang Theory is not about the origin of the universe.  
The primary focus of the theory is the development of the universe over time.
Nobody knows what was there before the Big Bang.

What Stephen Hawking writes is that in his opinion the Big Bang was a natural event which could have happened without the help or involvement of God.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,”

But you need to understand that the word nothing is a human concept that has no real reference in nature.
It only exists as a word and a way to think. Science tell us that In reality there are always things going on at some level.

The Law of Conservation teaches us that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal.

Because energy exists, energy has always existed. This is the proof of First Thermodynamics.
Energy merely changes forms, and basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.
Every FORM of energy is created and destroyed, but energy itself is not created nor destroyed.
I.e. photons, electrons, protons, etc. can be created and destroyed, but the energy of those particles cannot be created nor destroyed.

People naturally get confused if they cannot comprehend the difference between FORM and substance.
But to clarify "energy" doesn't need an external force. Energy is energy. This change of form you seek is present in the energy itself. "Heat" is a form of energy. "Motion" is a form of energy. These do not require an external actor.

I agree with you that it seems this universe had a beginning. Now here is the part to pay some attention. The Big Bang is an event that occurred to 'presently ' existing energy/matter. That which became a universe, always existed.

The Big Bang is merely an arbitrary selected point in a line of changes; variations on existing energy and matter.
It is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where the universe began.  
The cause of the big bang in my view is that an imperfectly stable singularity that always existed suddenly evolved into a universe.

Wslm.
*

[.InshAllah.]

Quisant, on 04 June 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

The Law of Conservation teaches us that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal.


*

In general relativity there exists no meaningful local expression for gravitation stress-energy and thus there is no meaningful local energy conservation law which leads to a statement of energy conservation.

Physicist Robert Wald, General Relativity, page 70.

The resolution of this apparent paradox is that... there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory

Cosmologist P. J. Peebles.  Principles of Physical Cosmology, page 139.

Also take a look at these two papers by Philosophers of Physics.

Energy Conservation in GRT by Carl Hoefer (Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol 31, pg 187-199).  Quoting Einstein in 1916,

properly speaking there is no local law of energy momentum conservation in GTR

Modern Physics and the Energy Conservation objection to Mind-body Dualism by Robin Collins.  Reprinted in The Soul Hypothesis chapter 5.

http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2375006

[Quisant]

.InshAllah., on 07 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

In general relativity there exists no meaningful local expression for gravitation stress-energy and thus there is no meaningful local energy conservation law which leads to a statement of energy conservation.

Physicist Robert Wald, General Relativity, page 70.

The resolution of this apparent paradox is that... there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory

Cosmologist P. J. Peebles.  Principles of Physical Cosmology, page 139.

Also take a look at these two papers by Philosophers of Physics.

Energy Conservation in GRT by Carl Hoefer (Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol 31, pg 187-199).  Quoting Einstein in 1916,

properly speaking there is no local law of energy momentum conservation in GTR

Modern Physics and the Energy Conservation objection to Mind-body Dualism by Robin Collins.  Reprinted in The Soul Hypothesis chapter 5.

http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2375006

We have had this before..the reply was and is  
The First Law of Thermodynamics may be subject to amendments but the thrust of the Law remains unchanged: Energy/Matter cannot be created or destroyed, form can change. This Law remains unchallenged.
If you prove otherwise expect a Nobel Prize. ( A Rhyme ! )

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy.
The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero

Read:
Guth, Alan H., 1997. The Inflationary Universe. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tryon, Edward P., 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.

Here you go, a 'universe from nothing' with Lawrence Krauss introduced by your favourite scientist R. Dawkins.





wslm.
*

Edited by Quisant, 07 June 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[.InshAllah.]

1.  These ''amendments'' basically mean that the law is not universally applicable, making your argument flawed.

2.  Lawrence Krauss is an idiot on the level of Richard Dawkins.

http://www.firstthin...tanding-nothing
http://www.nytimes.c...rauss.html?_r=3

[iDevonian]

.InshAllah., on 08 June 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

1.  These ''amendments'' basically mean that the law is not universally applicable, making your argument flawed.

2.  Lawrence Krauss is an idiot on the level of Richard Dawkins.

http://www.firstthin...tanding-nothing
http://www.nytimes.c...rauss.html?_r=3

Conservation of energy is a law that is considered universal.  There is no published paper that demonstrates otherwise.  And all published papers in relation, demonstrate this.

[Quisant]

.InshAllah., on 08 June 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

1.  These ''amendments'' basically mean that the law is not universally applicable, making your argument flawed.

2.  Lawrence Krauss is an idiot on the level of Richard Dawkins.

1) As I pointed out before the Theory of Gravity has also undergone a number of 'amendments'
   but apples have always fallen 'down', never 'up'.

2) I take note of your opinion.

wslm.
*

Edited by Quisant, 09 June 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[Dante Alighieri]

Quote

_{1. What caused the Big Bang?}

If we assume that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, which is the most plausible model at the moment, the answer is nothing. The Big Bang had no cause and arguably, could not have, if it was indeed the beginning of the cosmos.

Quote

_{2. If matter was eternal, then according to the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, which states that all matter will soon be neutralized and uniform one day, shouldn’t the universe would have already been uniform and neutralized long ago?}

Matter (or physicality to be more precise, given mass-energy equivalence) is eternal in the sense there was no time at which matter did not exist, albeit of finite duration. Since I do not believe matter to have existed for a past infinitude of time, the question is moot here.

Quote

_{3. Where did the first cell on earth get its genes from?}

I don't know. The field of abiogenesis is still quite speculative.

Quote

_{4. How can consciousness (us) emerge from non-consciousness (early matter)? If it did, then you are basically saying that matter is recently (3,500 million years ago) becoming self-aware?}

In one aspect, this has an answer, in another it does not. We can track the evolution of nervous systems throughout relatively recent developments (on a geological scale anyway). However, the deeper question is how do to these physical substrates give rise to subjective, conscious experience is still a live question in the philosophy of mind. Most approaches in modern philosophy of mind center around physicalism of various stripes (type-type identity, token identity, supervenience, etc) or broadly property dualism, which are mostly epiphenomenal theories due to David Chalmers' work in this area. Substance dualism is by and large gone by the wayside due to its explanatory and physical untenability.

Quote

5. Since the Big Bang is considered the main cause of every effect, and no particle moves unless another force hits it (Newton's laws of motion) you are saying that the precise movement of every particle during the Big Bang determined whether I get an A+ or A- on my next test?

Whether or not determinism is true is unclear, particularly because it is not experimentally determinable yet as to what interpretation of quantum mechanics obtains. More to the point, the early development of the universe (pre-Planck epoch) still remains unsettled. What does seem clear to me however is that our actions by and large are determined, as can be seen on a neurological perspective i.e. given spatial and temporal summation, our actions have physical determinants. The question of free will must reconcile our concept of free will in the face of such events. Libertarian theories of freedom are a non-starter because they are physically untenable and because they are arguably incoherent on a level surpassing the prima facie incoherence of compatibilist views: if my actions literally have no prior causes, then my actions can hardly be said to be my actions since I can exert no causal influence over them.