Ask Knight (Archived)

[death2impiety]

In speaking of the origin of our universe:

I was reading the battle royal from way back in 2003 between Bob and Zakath and had a question...

Your next paragraph contradicts your point that “the universe could… have come into being without external agency or cause.” For then you quote Quentin Smith explaining Hawking’s theory that a pre-existing hypersphere less than “10^-33 centimeters in radius…
explodes in a Big Bang…” If the cosmos preexisted, even though “smaller than the nucleus of an atom,” it still pre-existed and did not “come into being.” Thus, you are trying to have it both ways, it popped into existence from nothing, and it was always here. Were you aware that both you and Quentin have adopted this doublespeak from Hawking himself? Let me quote his “Origin of the Universe:”

The atheistic held view of the big bang, where an infinitely existing "cosmic egg" exploded producing the known universe; since we are unable to observe said egg could it be possible that this egg not be restricted to the laws of thermodynamics (increasing entropy)? What if that atomic particle existed infinately for reasons, unexplainable by science as we know it because of the radical change associated with the birth of the universe?

simply put:
-Is it possible that entropy did not exist while this egg was still in a state of hibernation prior to the "big bang" that allegedly created the universe? If so it could have existed eternally without cause could it not?

-Could a cosmic egg, existing eternally outside the realm entropy, suddenly cause the universe to come into being?

Haha..that second question sound funny to me. I think the first question is more pertinant. Thanks!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In speaking of the origin of our universe:

I was reading the battle royal from way back in 2003 between Bob and Zakath and had a question...



The atheistic held view of the big bang, where an infinitely existing "cosmic egg" exploded producing the known universe; since we are unable to observe said egg could it be possible that this egg not be restricted to the laws of thermodynamics (increasing entropy)? What if that atomic particle existed infinately for reasons, unexplainable by science as we know it because of the radical change associated with the birth of the universe?

simply put:
-Is it possible that entropy did not exist while this egg was still in a state of hibernation prior to the "big bang" that allegedly created the universe? If so it could have existed eternally without cause could it not?

-Could a cosmic egg, existing eternally outside the realm entropy, suddenly cause the universe to come into being?

Haha..that second question sound funny to me. I think the first question is more pertinant. Thanks!

Are you asking from the perspective of an atheist?

Because if you are asking my actual opinion I think all of the big bang stuff is a bunch of mystical, hooey!

 

[allsmiles]

Knight, not to throw anyone off track, but I was wondering if you would be willing to check out my Everyone Here Is a Genius thread and let me know what you think.

Thank you!

 

[death2impiety]

Are you asking from the perspective of an atheist?

Because if you are asking my actual opinion I think all of the big bang stuff is a bunch of mystical, hooey!

I agree. I'm asking from an objective scientific perspective. I believe God created. I'm pretty strong in my faith, but often when I read all this rhetoric, questions come up. When I read, Bob's original post that they can't have it both ways I wondered "why not?" Thats why I asked the question. It seems like from the big bang view, that atomic particle could (and thats a really big hypothetical could) have existed eternally (perpetually) until exploded in the big bang (coming into existance out of an eternally existing "speck") Is there any scientific evidence to suggest either way, whether that hypothetical "egg" would be bound to our universe's laws of thermodynamics?

 

[death2impiety]

also, did you see Batman Begins? If so did you like it? I thought It was AWESOME :thumb:. I've seen it 4 times so far.

 

[The Berean]

also, did you see Batman Begins? If so did you like it? I thought It was AWESOME :thumb:. I've seen it 4 times so far.

Is the current Batman movie based on Frank Miller's Dark Knight series from the mid 1980s?

 

[Turbo]

Is the current Batman movie based on Frank Miller's Dark Knight series from the mid 1980s?

No, but it's loosely based on (or maybe inspired by) Miller's Batman: Year One. The overall concept is the same (Batman as he is beginning his career) and there are a couple of scenes that are lifted right from that series. Also the movie has a pre-commissioner Gordon and the crime boss Falcone.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Is there any scientific evidence to suggest either way, whether that hypothetical "egg" would be bound to our universe's laws of thermodynamics?

Our laws of thermodynics are natutal laws in that they are not supernatural laws.

If the cosmic egg wasn't bound to natural laws it would then be governed by supernatural laws something which I doubt unbelievers would care to fight for.

 

[The Berean]

Our laws of thermodynics are natutal laws in that they are not supernatural laws.

So are you saying they are the same, but different? :think:

If the cosmic egg wasn't bound to natural laws it would then be governed by supernatural laws something which I doubt unbelievers would care to fight for.

:first: Dashing display of logic, Knight! CleverDan

 

[death2impiety]

Our laws of thermodynics are natutal laws in that they are not supernatural laws.

If the cosmic egg wasn't bound to natural laws it would then be governed by supernatural laws something which I doubt unbelievers would care to fight for.

I agree with your logic, but how do we know that natural law would not be different in a pre-birthed universe? Not ceasing the existance of natural law but simply different...what if entropy is merely an element of this hypothetically "banged" world, and is not natural law of the pre-banged world :doh: I feel so stupid saying all this (pre-banged? that is the technical term is it not? :chuckle: ), because I don't believe it...its just my crazy imagination.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree with your logic, but how do we know that natural law would not be different in a pre-birthed universe? Not ceasing the existance of natural law but simply different...what if entropy is merely an element of this hypothetically "banged" world, and is not natural law of the pre-banged world I feel so stupid saying all this (pre-banged? that is the technical term is it not? ), because I don't believe it...its just my crazy imagination.

I think entropy is indeed an element of a "banged" universe. After all, God is not subject to entropy.

Yet from the naturalistic perspective, what would cause our cosmic egg to not be subject?

Why would our cosmic egg be afforded such a luxury?

What renewing force would keep it from the effects of entropy?

 

[death2impiety]

I think entropy is indeed an element of a "banged" universe. After all, God is not subject to entropy.

Yet from the naturalistic perspective, what would cause our cosmic egg to not be subject?

Why would our cosmic egg be afforded such a luxury?

What renewing force would keep it from the effects of entropy?

I don't think a renewing source is necessary. From the naturalistic perspective, this unbanged universe may not be subject to banged universe laws. If entropy only exists within the universe once it has been spun into motion, what if the pre-existing universe (unbanged egg) sits idly in a way that is not expending the energy to cause entropy? The use of energy is what causes entropy is it not? So if this hypothetical egg has existed eternally in the void of nothingness in a hibernated state couldn't it hypothetically exist outside entropy and be able to exist eternally until its eventual bangorificness?

 

[fool]

I don't think a renewing source is necessary. From the naturalistic perspective, this unbanged universe may not be subject to banged universe laws. If entropy only exists within the universe once it has been spun into motion, what if the pre-existing universe (unbanged egg) sits idly in a way that is not expending the energy to cause entropy? The use of energy is what causes entropy is it not? So if this hypothetical egg has existed eternally in the void of nothingness in a hibernated state couldn't it hypothetically exist outside entropy and be able to exist eternally until its eventual bangorificness?

Maybe it turns inside out like a sock

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't think a renewing source is necessary. From the naturalistic perspective, this unbanged universe may not be subject to banged universe laws.

If this cosmic egg is not subject to natural laws what laws govern it?

If entropy only exists within the universe once it has been spun into motion, what if the pre-existing universe (unbanged egg) sits idly in a way that is not expending the energy to cause entropy?

Your "If" is way too big.

That's like arguing . . . if elves live in the center of the earth why shouldn't they pay taxes?

The use of energy is what causes entropy is it not? So if this hypothetical egg has existed eternally in the void of nothingness in a hibernated state couldn't it hypothetically exist outside entropy and be able to exist eternally until its eventual bangorificness?

When you say the egg is "hibernated" I assume you to mean that there is literally NO movement in the molecules and atoms that make up the matter of the egg, correct? In essense the egg is frozen, just floating in nothingness (otherwise any energy left in the egg or movement in the egg would be subject to entropy). If that is the case . . . what energy caused the egg to change its condition? (condition from motionless to highly motivated).

 

[kmoney]

Knight,

What is your interpretation of the verses I posted earlier? Was Jesus talking to a specific group of people? Who will do even greater things than Him? And what things are/were they?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Maybe it turns inside out like a sock

How would that help the dilemma?

When your sock turns inside out it does so because you used energy to accomplish the task. Eventually your energy runs out (unless the smell kills you first )

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight,

What is your interpretation of the verses I posted earlier? Was Jesus talking to a specific group of people? Who will do even greater things than Him? And what things are/were they?

I will not answer. :shut:

 

[kmoney]

I will not answer. :shut:

Can I ask why?

 

[fool]

How would that help the dilemma?

When your sock turns inside out it does so because you used energy to accomplish the task. Eventually your energy runs out (unless the smell kills you first )

It just keeps going back and forth like a pedulem, or a sock that was focefully turned inside out and streched out until the elastic started pulling it back then it collapses and inverts itself. Since it operates in a vacum there is no friction, hence no energy lost.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Can I ask why?

Sure.