Where do moral laws come from?

[task0778]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

My point is right now science has proven that space and time had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Do you have anything which disproves this because there is quite a lot of science which does prove this.

Science has proven no such thing at all. You're the one making claims about time and space and the laws of nature, where are you getting the idea that anything has been proven?

 

[there4eyeM]

What is transcendent to the physical universe?

 

[Mudda]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Here's a question science can't answer. Time and space are part of the physical universe. They both came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. So my question is, since there was no WHERE or WHEN for it to happen in, WHERE and WHEN did the Big Bang happened?

It would all depend on what existed before the BB, if anything.

 

[ding]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

My point is right now science has proven that space and time had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Do you have anything which disproves this because there is quite a lot of science which does prove this.

Science has proven no such thing at all. You're the one making claims about time and space and the laws of nature, where are you getting the idea that anything has been proven?

Has science proved that the physical laws of nature exist? Because Stephen Hawking says the the universe has not existed forever that it had a beginning. Stephen Hawking says the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics. It is kind of hard to do that if the laws of physics did not exist or were not in place.

The Beginning of TIme

 

[ding]

That the universe did not have a beginning? That the laws of nature were not in place before space and time were created?

I said that there's no proof that there was nothing before the BB, and in fact, science doesn't currently claim to know what's before the BB.
And you've shown nothing to prove that the laws of nature were in place before time and space were created. I'd say they possibly were, but I've seen no real proof of that yet.

Science does claim to know what came before the big bang, that is exactly what inflation theory is about.

" In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself." Professor Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Ok, now you're starting to get it... Although you can lose the videos, they're useless.

So from your quote, "So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created", this suggests multiple universes, of which ours would not have been the first. In other words, how does this prove that there was nothing before the BB?

Except if you read THEIR work, they all agree that there was a beginning; a point where there were none. This is because if you follow any object back in time you will reach a singularity. This holds true as long as there is expansion.

It is not possible for space and time to be created through quantum mechanics which honor conservation laws without the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws existing first. We KNOW that the universe had a beginning because of the red shift and solutions to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. We KNOW that the laws of nature were in place before space and time because space and time were created honoring those laws.

We KNOW no such thing. You must prove that the laws of nature were in place before our universe came into being. Nobody has ever proven what may have existed before the BB. Our current science is not there yet.

So when did the laws of nature come into existence?

 

[ding]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Here's a question science can't answer. Time and space are part of the physical universe. They both came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. So my question is, since there was no WHERE or WHEN for it to happen in, WHERE and WHEN did the Big Bang happened?

It would all depend on what existed before the BB, if anything.

A vacuum existed before space and time. A void. Nothingness.

 

[there4eyeM]

Not even that.

 

[task0778]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

My point is right now science has proven that space and time had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Do you have anything which disproves this because there is quite a lot of science which does prove this.

Science has proven no such thing at all. You're the one making claims about time and space and the laws of nature, where are you getting the idea that anything has been proven?

Has science proved that the physical laws of nature exist?

Sure but when those laws began is unproven. Nor has it been proven when time and space were created either, it's all theory at this point. Scientists have done calculations but it's based on theories that may or may not be totally true.

 

[task0778]

I said that there's no proof that there was nothing before the BB, and in fact, science doesn't currently claim to know what's before the BB.
And you've shown nothing to prove that the laws of nature were in place before time and space were created. I'd say they possibly were, but I've seen no real proof of that yet.

Science does claim to know what came before the big bang, that is exactly what inflation theory is about.

" In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself." Professor Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Ok, now you're starting to get it... Although you can lose the videos, they're useless.

So from your quote, "So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created", this suggests multiple universes, of which ours would not have been the first. In other words, how does this prove that there was nothing before the BB?

Except if you read THEIR work, they all agree that there was a beginning; a point where there were none. This is because if you follow any object back in time you will reach a singularity. This holds true as long as there is expansion.

It is not possible for space and time to be created through quantum mechanics which honor conservation laws without the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws existing first. We KNOW that the universe had a beginning because of the red shift and solutions to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. We KNOW that the laws of nature were in place before space and time because space and time were created honoring those laws.

We KNOW no such thing. You must prove that the laws of nature were in place before our universe came into being. Nobody has ever proven what may have existed before the BB. Our current science is not there yet.

So when did the laws of nature come into existence?

That is as yet unknown.

 

[ding]

Science does claim to know what came before the big bang, that is exactly what inflation theory is about.

" In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself." Professor Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Ok, now you're starting to get it... Although you can lose the videos, they're useless.

So from your quote, "So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created", this suggests multiple universes, of which ours would not have been the first. In other words, how does this prove that there was nothing before the BB?

Except if you read THEIR work, they all agree that there was a beginning; a point where there were none. This is because if you follow any object back in time you will reach a singularity. This holds true as long as there is expansion.

It is not possible for space and time to be created through quantum mechanics which honor conservation laws without the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws existing first. We KNOW that the universe had a beginning because of the red shift and solutions to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. We KNOW that the laws of nature were in place before space and time because space and time were created honoring those laws.

I don't think we KNOW that for sure, it's all speculation that cannot be proven. It could be that space and time were created somehow before the laws of nature came into being, even if it was a billionth of a second prior. How can we possibly know with any certainty what was possible, Einstein's Theory may not be totally accurate or complete.

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

The solution to Einstein's equations can only take us back to a billion of a trillionth of a second before space and time were created. At that point the equations yield infinities. That's where inflation theory comes in. Inflation theory postulates what happened before that. We know from Einsteins equations and from the Hubble and Slipher that all matter in the universe occupied the space of a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and then expanded and cooled.

We know that an infinite acting universe is not possible because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As time approaches infinity usable energy will approach zero. This is known as thermal equilibrium and is the reason for why there cannot be an infinite acting universe which is eternal into the past. We don't see that, so we know that there was a beginning. Furthermore, we know that as long as expansion occurred that if we follow any object back in time that it will reach a singularity.

So I have just listed five reasons which tell us that the universe had a beginning; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the red shift which observes all galaxies moving away from us, background radiation which shows the remnants of the big bang, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which precludes an infinte acting universe and expansion which when reversed takes us back to a singularity.

Yes we cannot know what happened before the universe reached the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second, but just like there are five reasons why we believe the universe had a beginning, there are five reasons why we believe that inflation theory explains the creation of time and space.

So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science?

That this universe had a beginning, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What we're trying to get at is what may have existed before this universe came into being, which nobody has proven yet.

The question ultimately boils down to if you believe the the beginning of the universe was a natural event or not. Given that you are an atheist I will assume you believe it was a natural event and not a creative act of God. There is no reason based on physics to doubt that the beginning of the universe was a natural event. To say that an event is natural, is to say that it happens in accordance with the laws of nature. So you have been literally arguing that the creation of time and space were a creative act of God.

 

[ding]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

My point is right now science has proven that space and time had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Do you have anything which disproves this because there is quite a lot of science which does prove this.

Science has proven no such thing at all. You're the one making claims about time and space and the laws of nature, where are you getting the idea that anything has been proven?

Has science proved that the physical laws of nature exist?

Sure but when those laws began is unproven. Nor has it been proven when time and space were created either, it's all theory at this point. Scientists have done calculations but it's based on theories that may or may not be totally true.

No. I want you to show me the proof for the laws of nature. I don't believe that science has proven them. Because based on your logic we cannot know the laws of nature exist at all.

 

[ding]

Science does claim to know what came before the big bang, that is exactly what inflation theory is about.

" In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself." Professor Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Ok, now you're starting to get it... Although you can lose the videos, they're useless.

So from your quote, "So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created", this suggests multiple universes, of which ours would not have been the first. In other words, how does this prove that there was nothing before the BB?

Except if you read THEIR work, they all agree that there was a beginning; a point where there were none. This is because if you follow any object back in time you will reach a singularity. This holds true as long as there is expansion.

It is not possible for space and time to be created through quantum mechanics which honor conservation laws without the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws existing first. We KNOW that the universe had a beginning because of the red shift and solutions to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. We KNOW that the laws of nature were in place before space and time because space and time were created honoring those laws.

We KNOW no such thing. You must prove that the laws of nature were in place before our universe came into being. Nobody has ever proven what may have existed before the BB. Our current science is not there yet.

So when did the laws of nature come into existence?

That is as yet unknown.

Then how do you know they exist at all? Can you prove they exist beyond a shadow of doubt?

 

[Mudda]

I said that there's no proof that there was nothing before the BB, and in fact, science doesn't currently claim to know what's before the BB.
And you've shown nothing to prove that the laws of nature were in place before time and space were created. I'd say they possibly were, but I've seen no real proof of that yet.

Science does claim to know what came before the big bang, that is exactly what inflation theory is about.

" In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself." Professor Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин,Ukrainian: Олександр Віленкін; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers. Soon after Paul Steinhardt presented the first example of eternal inflation, Vilenkin showed that eternal inflation is generic.[2] Working with Arvin Borde and Alan Guth, In 2003, he showed that a period of inflation has to have a beginning and there has to be a period that precedes it.[3] This is a problem because, without a theory to explain the conditions before inflation, it is not possible to determine how likely it is for inflation ever to occur. Some considerations suggest that the probability is very small, resulting the "initial conditions problem.”

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

He also introduced the idea of quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

Vilenkin received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union (University of Kharkiv). He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Soviet Union, and Japan, and in many popular books.

Ok, now you're starting to get it... Although you can lose the videos, they're useless.

So from your quote, "So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created", this suggests multiple universes, of which ours would not have been the first. In other words, how does this prove that there was nothing before the BB?

Except if you read THEIR work, they all agree that there was a beginning; a point where there were none. This is because if you follow any object back in time you will reach a singularity. This holds true as long as there is expansion.

It is not possible for space and time to be created through quantum mechanics which honor conservation laws without the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws existing first. We KNOW that the universe had a beginning because of the red shift and solutions to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. We KNOW that the laws of nature were in place before space and time because space and time were created honoring those laws.

We KNOW no such thing. You must prove that the laws of nature were in place before our universe came into being. Nobody has ever proven what may have existed before the BB. Our current science is not there yet.

So when did the laws of nature come into existence?

It is currently unknown what may or may not have existed before the BB. Only theories exist. Personally, I'll just enjoy the theories and the search for answers, and wait for science to sort everything out.

 

[Mudda]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Here's a question science can't answer. Time and space are part of the physical universe. They both came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. So my question is, since there was no WHERE or WHEN for it to happen in, WHERE and WHEN did the Big Bang happened?

It would all depend on what existed before the BB, if anything.

A vacuum existed before space and time. A void. Nothingness.

Try proving that.

 

[ding]

But I have. I have provided expert testimony. I have provided lnks to expert testimony. I have provided video's of expert testimony. You are the one who has provided nothing to counter it. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Inflationary universe (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

http://cds.cern.ch/record/210142/files/199008384.pdf

http://cds.cern.ch/record/213347/files/199012105.pdf?version=1&origin=publication_detail

Ex: posting a link to an inflationary universe is not proof that the universe started with the BB.
And I'm not making any wild claims like you are, I'm on the exact same page as science, what's proven is proven, and what's not yet proven is a theory until proven otherwise. Pretty simple really.

It seems that there is no proof you will accept. You reject expert testimony, you reject written papers, you reject articles interviewing the experts who tell you exactly what I have stated and you reject video interviews of the experts who tell you exactly what I have stated. And you do all of this without having any proof of your own to counter what the experts tell you. Amazing. I'm sure with behaviors like that you won't have any problems in life.

Expert testimony isn't science.
You haven't provided any links to scientific papers in reputable publications or web sites.
Interviews aren't science.
You need to up your debating skills.

Yes, expert testimony of scientists who testify on what science reveals is science.

Given that I have explained the science and presented scientific testimony and you have presented nothing at all, I would say that you are the one who needs to improve her debating skills.

I never made any big claim that needs to be backed up, if I do, I'll back it up, don't worry. I'm no weenie.

Your interview testimony is so fucking great that you can't find a proper site to back it up with.

Because your claim is agnostic. As far as you know the universe was created through a special act of God, right?

 

[ding]

" So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science? "

No and Yes. Clearly I do not have a better explanation and I am sure the professor has based his theory on the available science we have today. But that science is incomplete, based on assumption after assumption so I think you need to back off the claims that Science KNOWS this or that. Time after time in field after field, what science thought it knew turned out to be wrong. What we have is ideas and theories, but to this point nothing more.

Here's a question science can't answer. Time and space are part of the physical universe. They both came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. So my question is, since there was no WHERE or WHEN for it to happen in, WHERE and WHEN did the Big Bang happened?

It would all depend on what existed before the BB, if anything.

A vacuum existed before space and time. A void. Nothingness.

Try proving that.

Try proving it wasn't.

 

[ding]

Everything I have posted shows we know that the universe had a beginning and that the laws of nature were in place before it began. What proof have posted that it did not?

You haven't posted any real proof of ANY of your claims, EVER!!

Sad part is is that you know it, and plow ahead anyways, lol.

But I have. I have provided expert testimony. I have provided lnks to expert testimony. I have provided video's of expert testimony. You are the one who has provided nothing to counter it. Nada, zip, zilch, zero.

Inflationary universe (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect

http://cds.cern.ch/record/210142/files/199008384.pdf

http://cds.cern.ch/record/213347/files/199012105.pdf?version=1&origin=publication_detail

Ex: posting a link to an inflationary universe is not proof that the universe started with the BB.
And I'm not making any wild claims like you are, I'm on the exact same page as science, what's proven is proven, and what's not yet proven is a theory until proven otherwise. Pretty simple really.

These are the scientific papers you have been crying to see. You are not on the same page of science.

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

You do know what CERN is, right?

The European Organization for Nuclear Research (French: Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire), known as CERN (/ˈsɜːrn/; French pronunciation: [sɛʁn]; derived from the name "Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire"; see History), is a European research organization that operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. Established in 1954, the organization is based in a northwest suburb of Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border, (46°14′3″N 6°3′19″E) and has 22 member states.[3] Israel is the only non-European country granted full membership.[4]

The term CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory, which in 2013 had 2,513 staff members, and hosted some 12,313 fellows, associates, apprentices as well as visiting scientists and engineers[5] representing 608 universities and research facilities.[6]

CERN's main function is to provide the particle accelerators and other infrastructure needed for high-energy physics research – as a result, numerous experiments have been constructed at CERN through international collaborations. The main site at Meyrin hosts a large computing facility, which is primarily used to store and analyse data from experiments, as well as simulate events. Researchers need remote access to these facilities, so the lab has historically been a major wide area network hub. CERN is also the birthplace of the World Wide Web.

CERN - Wikipedia

Nothing that you quoted from the CERN site posits that the BB was the absolute start of the universe and that they have science that says that there was nothing before it. So you need to quote that part of the site, i.e., the part that backs up your statement, then with the link under it, I can check it out further if I need to.

You mean like... "all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

 

[task0778]

Dammit Ding, you're the one who is saying that science has proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Your own words, and now you want me to show proof that the laws of nature exist? I believe I'm done here.

 

[ding]

Dammit Ding, you're the one who is saying that science has proven that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. Your own words, and now you want me to show proof that the laws of nature exist? I believe I'm done here.

But you are the one who says science can't prove anything.

 

[Mudda]

Ok, now you're starting to get it... Although you can lose the videos, they're useless.

So from your quote, "So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created", this suggests multiple universes, of which ours would not have been the first. In other words, how does this prove that there was nothing before the BB?

Except if you read THEIR work, they all agree that there was a beginning; a point where there were none. This is because if you follow any object back in time you will reach a singularity. This holds true as long as there is expansion.

It is not possible for space and time to be created through quantum mechanics which honor conservation laws without the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws existing first. We KNOW that the universe had a beginning because of the red shift and solutions to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. We KNOW that the laws of nature were in place before space and time because space and time were created honoring those laws.

I don't think we KNOW that for sure, it's all speculation that cannot be proven. It could be that space and time were created somehow before the laws of nature came into being, even if it was a billionth of a second prior. How can we possibly know with any certainty what was possible, Einstein's Theory may not be totally accurate or complete.

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

The solution to Einstein's equations can only take us back to a billion of a trillionth of a second before space and time were created. At that point the equations yield infinities. That's where inflation theory comes in. Inflation theory postulates what happened before that. We know from Einsteins equations and from the Hubble and Slipher that all matter in the universe occupied the space of a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and then expanded and cooled.

We know that an infinite acting universe is not possible because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As time approaches infinity usable energy will approach zero. This is known as thermal equilibrium and is the reason for why there cannot be an infinite acting universe which is eternal into the past. We don't see that, so we know that there was a beginning. Furthermore, we know that as long as expansion occurred that if we follow any object back in time that it will reach a singularity.

So I have just listed five reasons which tell us that the universe had a beginning; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the red shift which observes all galaxies moving away from us, background radiation which shows the remnants of the big bang, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which precludes an infinte acting universe and expansion which when reversed takes us back to a singularity.

Yes we cannot know what happened before the universe reached the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second, but just like there are five reasons why we believe the universe had a beginning, there are five reasons why we believe that inflation theory explains the creation of time and space.

So, I guess my question to you is do you have a better explanation for any of this and do you believe that these explanations are not based on science?

That this universe had a beginning, I don't think anyone is disputing that. What we're trying to get at is what may have existed before this universe came into being, which nobody has proven yet.

The question ultimately boils down to if you believe the the beginning of the universe was a natural event or not. Given that you are an atheist I will assume you believe it was a natural event and not a creative act of God. There is no reason based on physics to doubt that the beginning of the universe was a natural event. To say that an event is natural, is to say that it happens in accordance with the laws of nature. So you have been literally arguing that the creation of time and space were a creative act of God.

That's pretty convoluted, even for you.

There may be multiple universes, each with different laws that govern them, with maybe a general law that governs all the universes together. We don't know yet. But science has also theorized such things.