Miracles are proof of SOMETHING!

[Blues Man]

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang

Which is not what you said.

You said there were fewer antimatter particles and called that a "miracle"

 

[ding]

Which is not what you said.

You said there were fewer antimatter particles and called that a "miracle"

That's an incorrect understanding of what I wrote. There should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter due to symmetry leaving a universe filled with radiation. But there wasn't. Which is why I called it a miracle that there wasn't. But the most reasonable expectation was that there should have been because of symmetry.

But to YOUR point that it is reasonable to assume larger particles would decay more than the particle that comprise them... It's not reasonable to assume that. Sub atomic particles are decidedly less stable than the particles they form. So it is unreasonable to assume that larger - more stable - particles would decay more than the smaller - less stable - particles that the larger particles are comprised of.

 

[Blues Man]

That's an incorrect understanding of what I wrote. There should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter due to symmetry leaving a universe filled with radiation. But there wasn't. Which is why I called it a miracle that there wasn't. But the most reasonable expectation was that there should have been because of symmetry.

There was we just don't yet understand the mechanism of the asymmetry.

Just like we don't understand 95% of the matter and energy in the universe.

You are assigning processes we don't understand to the actions of some divine being.

 

[Blues Man]

Out lack of understanding or our inability to understand is not proof or a supreme being it is merely proof that we don't know something.

 

[ding]

There was we just don't yet understand the mechanism of the asymmetry.

Just like we don't understand 95% of the matter and energy in the universe.

You are assigning processes we don't understand to the actions of some divine being.

We understand quite a lot. When the universe is 100 seconds old the only paired production are electrons, neutrinos, and other light particles. Within the first few minutes of creation protons and neutrons fuse into nuclei. By the time the universe is about 15 minutes old, much of the hydrogen and helium had been formed.

Quarks are transitory. Creation of protons and neutrons continued for about 10-4 seconds. The radiation era lasted for 50,000 years. Which is why in the link you are basing your hypothesis upon they said the different decay rates could not have been responsible for a universe being filled with matter instead of radiation.

So if the matter and anti-matter were annihilating each other for 50,000 years and quarks only lasted for 10-4 seconds, then the different decay rates that led to a universe being filled with matter instead of radiation would have had to have occurred with protons and neutrons.

The Early Universe

pages.uoregon.edu

 

[ding]

Out lack of understanding or our inability to understand is not proof or a supreme being it is merely proof that we don't know something.

It's not our lack of understanding. It's our understanding of what we know that leads to the conclusion that there is a creator.

 

[Blues Man]

We understand quite a lot. When the universe is 100 seconds old the only paired production are electrons, neutrinos, and other light particles. Within the first few minutes of creation protons and neutrons fuse into nuclei. By the time the universe is about 15 minutes old, much of the hydrogen and helium had been formed.

Quarks are transitory. Creation of protons and neutrons continued for about 10-4 seconds. The radiation era lasted for 50,000 years. Which is why in the link you are basing your hypothesis upon they said the different decay rates could not have been responsible for a universe being filled with matter instead of radiation.

So if the matter and anti-matter were annihilating each other for 50,000 years and quarks only lasted for 10-4 seconds, then the different decay rates that led to a universe being filled with matter instead of radiation would have had to have occurred with protons and neutrons.

The Early Universe

pages.uoregon.edu

I don't call 5% quite a lot.

 

[Blues Man]

It's not our lack of understanding. It's our understanding of what we know that leads to the conclusion that there is a creator.

No it's the desire to explain what we can't or are unable to explain that leads people to claim some divine all powerful being did it.

God is the ultimate fudge factor.

Can't explain something? God did it.

 

[ding]

I don't call 5% quite a lot.

That's a red herring. When you are getting your ass beat you change subjects.

Let me say again... YOUR point that it is reasonable to assume larger particles would decay more than the particle that comprise them... It's not reasonable to assume that. Sub atomic particles are decidedly less stable than the particles they form. So it is unreasonable to assume that larger - more stable - particles would decay more than the smaller - less stable - particles that the larger particles are comprised of.

 

[Blues Man]

That's a red herring. When you are getting your ass beat you change subjects.

Let me say again... YOUR point that it is reasonable to assume larger particles would decay more than the particle that comprise them... It's not reasonable to assume that. Sub atomic particles are decidedly less stable than the particles they form. So it is unreasonable to assume that larger - more stable - particles would decay more than the smaller - less stable - particles that the larger particles are comprised of.

So it is your claim that we understand more than 5% of the matter and energy in the entire universe? Some of the best minds in the sciences know this and you know more than they do?

 

[ding]

No it's the desire to explain what we can't or are unable to explain that leads people to claim some divine all powerful being did it.

God is the ultimate fudge factor.

Can't explain something? God did it.

Actually it is the recognition that an intentional "mistake" was made. The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation. But we didn't.

 

[Blues Man]

That's a red herring. When you are getting your ass beat you change subjects.

Let me say again... YOUR point that it is reasonable to assume larger particles would decay more than the particle that comprise them... It's not reasonable to assume that. Sub atomic particles are decidedly less stable than the particles they form. So it is unreasonable to assume that larger - more stable - particles would decay more than the smaller - less stable - particles that the larger particles are comprised of.

We don't know the entirety of the quantum realm.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually it is the recognition that an intentional "mistake" was made. The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation. But we didn't.

We know no such thing because we still don't know all the processes that may have occurred.

 

[ding]

So it is your claim that we understand more than 5% of the matter and energy in the entire universe? Some of the best minds in the sciences know this and you know more than they do?

It is my claim that we understand how the universe was created from nothing and that everything we observe confirms this.

The Early Universe

pages.uoregon.edu

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[Blues Man]

It is my claim that we understand how the universe was created from nothing and that everything we observe confirms this.

The Early Universe

pages.uoregon.edu

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

Yeah a god did it.

That's your explanation

 

[ding]

We don't know the entirety of the quantum realm.

Again... we understand how the universe was created from nothing and that everything we observe confirms this.

The Early Universe

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

 

[Blues Man]

Again... we understand how the universe was created from nothing and that everything we observe confirms this.

The Early Universe

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

No we only know what happened immediately AFTER the universe came to be. We know nothing of the time immediately before.

 

[ding]

We know no such thing because we still don't know all the processes that may have occurred.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

 

[Blues Man]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

OK so what happened in the 10 seconds before the big bang

 

[ding]

Yeah a god did it.

That's your explanation

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.