Was the BB created

[xris]

Was the BB created? If nothing is found to be before the BB could we be right in assuming it was created.Something from nothing implies that we must consider this for science sake surely?Not conclude but consider..

[Krumple]

Well there are a lot of possibilities.

It is possible that the big bang is just a cycle when everything re-collapses back to a single point then explodes again.

Calling it created by god just because we can't determine it yet is just as absurd as saying a flying pink elephant caused it to happen. We might never be able to answer the question but it is still early in the science of cosmology.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by xris

If nothing is found to be before the BB could we be right in assuming it was created.

Well obviously we could, we can assume absolutely anything, but we are also just as likely to be wrong. Given the numerous myriad of assumptions it is probable that any one assumption is incorrect unless evidence exists to back it up. Most people do make assumptions in regard to first cause, but such assumptions are not scientific ones, they are just assumptions along the line of "well there is no explanation that I have any reason to prefer, so I'll believe this in the meantime".

It is safer on an intellectual level, I believe, not to assume anything that the jury is still out on.

Something from nothing implies that we must consider this for science sake surely?

It's not within science's ambit (as the subject is defined in modern terms) to deal with matters for which there is no data, no apparent way of obtaining data, and no apparent way of testing the manner in which the data was obtained. Until someone hypothesises a method by which first cause could be tested, runs those tests and publishes the results of those tests for peer review the question of whether or not first cause is a matter which science is even capable of examining isn't something scientists should be expected to broach professionally.

Until first cause can be subjected to the scientific method then it is something that isn't worthy of discussion within that forum, it remains a matter for theologians and philosophers until then (and obviously scientists are able to give their personal opinions within those forums, as we all can - but they would be the opinions of scientists, rather than scientific opinions).

Once someone does provide a plausable method for judging whether or not the Big Bang was created - then it becomes worth considering for the "sake of science".

It may be good advice to those who think that science can explain everything that they do not rule out any possibilities - and most do not - but in regard to first cause it is completely scientific to refuse to seriously consider something for which there is no evidence.

Also, as a point of order, I do not know of any scientist who would baldly state that the Big Bang was "something from nothing". An expansion in space-time indicates that there was not simply nothing prior to the expansion.

[xris]

The point is science is telling us there is no evidence of a before are we to ignore that philosophically till we never find out? I cant envisage a point where we might find out ,shall we ignore the question forever.Do we walk away from the closed door and never speculate?
If i find the missing link do i look for another one? I think with our knowledge we have enough of the begining why not ask pertinent questions, do they scare us? If i find a flying pink elephant then it means Ive been looking.

[Bones-O!]

There's pertinence in modelling different causes of the big bang, if only to rule them out. Modelling is the usual highest aim in areas of physics where there's no direct observation.

[Krumple]

Do we walk away from the closed door and never speculate?

Perhaps we can make the door, remodel the model. It's so hard to tell. Maybe one day while running an experiment on the hydron we might create a universe. It's easy to imagine and speculate but reality can dish out a lot of accidents. Need I remind anyone on the discovery of penicillin?

[Aphoric]

Originally Posted by Krumple

Well there are a lot of possibilities.

It is possible that the big bang is just a cycle when everything re-collapses back to a single point then explodes again.

Calling it created by god just because we can't determine it yet is just as absurd as saying a flying pink elephant caused it to happen. We might never be able to answer the question but it is still early in the science of cosmology.

Lol, dude, the oscillating model has been outdated for at least 10 years. We know the rate at which the universe is expanding is not only not slowing down (which would be necessary for the universe to eventually recollapse on itself), but it's speeding up.

What else ya got?

I'd say that given the mathematical impossibility of the existence of infinite past events, and everything we know about cosmology, we can determine that the universe must have begun to exist, and therefore it must have a cause. Is that really so absurd?

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

Originally Posted by xris

Something from nothing implies that we must consider this for science sake surely?Not conclude but consider..

Lol, what? something from nothing? When did we go back to the dark ages where everyone believed in spontaneous generation? how about something from something?

[xris]

Something from nothing is what we are observing, its our duty to consider every avenue of cause.Creation must be considered just as any other cause, whatever it is its pretty damned amazing.It is the only event that we can look at an consider to be observably created and not be denied by known science.Im not saying it was but try convincing me it was not.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by xris

The point is science is telling us there is no evidence of a before are we to ignore that philosophically till we never find out?

I don't think so - a philosophical subject can be pretty much anything people like to debate, and people sure do like to debate first cause. However, as a scientific subject it's a non-starter until someone comes up with a way to test it, or finds firm evidence for it amongst what is currently understood.

If i find the missing link do i look for another one? I think with our knowledge we have enough of the begining why not ask pertinent questions, do they scare us? If i find a flying pink elephant then it means Ive been looking.

By all means look, but while ideas about first cause remain untested (and perhaps untestable) hypotheses they are not scientific. They may well be philosophical or theological - but you won't see any flying pink elephants in credible zoology textbooks until some proof of their existence has been demonstrated and verified.

I'm not in the least bit scared of your questions, but I fail to see how they can be described as pertinent in regards to science. Since science became a tangibly distinct subject from theology and philosophy, shortly after Gallileo's time, people who have had ideas about things like first cause have been demanding science account for it - but with no ideas as to how.

The claim that science is "scared" of these issues has been made since that time - but all it demonstrates is that the claimants have no regard for the stringent criteria that serious scientists apply to their work.

In philosophy you can just respect an idea based on whether or not you find it an interesting one - but in science you have to go at least some way toward proving how it could be feasable and then allowing a process of peer review to temper it within a critical crucible (so to speak).

Something from nothing is what we are observing, its our duty to consider every avenue of cause.

An expansion in space-time is what the majority of scientific experts on the subject believe we are observing - based on the most watertight of the theories on the subject. Moving back in cosmological history we find no point in which it is considered that matter just "winks out" of existence - it condenses into a dense speck.

It is the only event that we can look at an consider to be observably created and not be denied by known science.

Why would an expansion of space-time be "observably created"? It is a state of existence which led to another state of existence. It doesn't have to be anything more. If it is something more evidence for that something will have to be provided and tested before being accepted as scientific.

Im not saying it was but try convincing me it was not.

You're welcome to your beliefs - but they are matters of faith rather than science unless you provide evidence for them.

---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Aphoric

I'd say that given the mathematical impossibility of the existence of infinite past events, and everything we know about cosmology, we can determine that the universe must have begun to exist, and therefore it must have a cause. Is that really so absurd?

Well, if something must have had a cause in order to exist, then the cause must exist (or have existed at some juncture), therefore if we are to apply the same logic the cause must have a cause, which leads us to an infinite regress, which you claim is a mathmatical impossibility.

So - by your own logic - it does seem rather absurd.

If the cause does not need to begin to exist in order to exist then why does the universe have to play by rules which do not apparently apply to the cause?

The end result of this reasoning is that it is no more absurd to think of the universe as needing no particular cause than it is to presume that the cause requires no cause.

So why is the invention of a causeless cause of the universe required when a causeless universe is a simpler idea which obeys the same rationality?

[xris]

Science and philosophical science are not the same thing and to say we must only act or react on known science is blinkered view of science in general.A proposal needs an observable event for it to be suggested and by suggesting something does not infer a belief system or assume the proposal is true.It could just well be said that if you believe in an alternative cause of the BB you are acting out of faith in a science that can not give any possible reason for such an event.When you consider that all known science breaks down and becomes totally unrecognisable at this instance of appearance, who can say what science is saying about this event.
I propose that till we have evidence of a previous universe this universe had no known cause, so therefor it can be assumed to be created.It was the first event that caused every other event.It carried with it the information and the ability to cause galaxies , planetary systems and life.In that instant from NOTHING everything was created..Now prove me wrong???