On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:20:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:59:43 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <
joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> To argue that science must know everything before you will accept
> >> anything is a lazy way to avoid recognizing the better inferences.
> >> Inflation and the BB successfully predicted quite a few observations
> >> and refuted other possibilities. What does Goddidit predict?
> >
> >Perhaps it doesn't. It may just be easier in my little mortal mind to visualize a deity than it is to visualize infinity or absence of time and space. And since I personally know there's a God through non-scientific means already, why bother?
>
>
> If you're going to pout any time someone posts an objection to one of
> your expressed points of view, why bother?
I am guessing you are interested in debating this. Although I am not really qualified, I'll indulge your desire a bit more.
Here are the causes of the Big Bang as described in Wikipedia:
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[115] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles[116] has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.[117][118] Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[119][120] Some also argue that nothing cannot exist or that non-existence might never have been an option.[121][122][123][124] Quantum fluctuations, or other laws of physics that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang could then create the conditions for matter to occur.
This section refers to another section for more reading:
Problem of why there is anything at all
The question "Why is there anything at all?", or, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been raised or commented on by philosophers including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[4] Martin Heidegger − who called it the fundamental question of metaphysics[5][6][7] − and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[8]
The question is general, rather than concerning the existence of anything specific such as the universe/s, the Big Bang, mathematical laws, physical laws, time, consciousness or God. It can be seen as an open metaphysical question.[9][10][11][12]
The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or The Absolute.
Criticism of the question's adequacy[edit]
Some argue that the question may be inherently illogical; if the universe had no beginning point then its non-existence might never have been an option.[13] One study has suggested a model that eliminates the initial singularity and predicts that the Universe had no beginning but existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before 'collapsing' into the Big Bang's hot dense state.[14][15][16] In other research a possible consequence of "rainbow gravity" might be that the universe had no beginning with time stretching back infinitely without an initial singularity and Big Bang.[17] Similarly physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang, but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[18][19] A related view from Augustine of Hippo is that time is part of God's creation.
Philosopher Stephen Law has said the question may not need answering, as it is attempting to answer a question that is outside a spatio-temporal setting, from within a spatio-temporal setting. He compares the question to asking "what is north of the North Pole?"[20] Similarly Gödel's incompleteness theorems suggest that the question cannot be answered from inside our system, as it applies to our system and its superset. It may be that nothing cannot exist.[21][22][23][24][25] Nothing might be a human concept that is only a construct and inappropriate for a description of a possible alternative reality, state, or absence of state. Philosopher Bede Rundle[26] has also questioned whether nothing can exist.[27]
On cause[edit]
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the notion of an uncaused cause was non-sensical, and that the universe was eternal.[citation needed]
David Hume argued that, whilst we expect everything to have a cause because of our experience of the necessity of causes, that a cause may not be necessary in the case of the formation of the universe, which is outside our experience.[28]
Bertrand Russell said "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all",[29] a "brute fact" position also taken by physicist Sean Carroll.[30]
Philosopher Brian Leftow has argued that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause) or a contingent explanation (as the factors giving the contingency must pre-exist), and that if there is an answer it must be something that exists necessarily (i.e. something that just exists, rather than is caused).[31]
Explanations[edit]
Timeline of the (observable) universe from the Big Bang to the present: why does it exist?
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[32] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.[33][34] (Particles can emerge from nothing under the effects of quantum physics and possibly under other physical laws that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang.)
In popular culture[edit]
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a comic science fiction series created by Douglas Adams, hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional aliens request an answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. Deep Thought takes 7½ million years to compute the answer, which turns out to be "42".
Which of these do you feel are more scientific that the Unmoved or Prime Mover?
The Unmoved Mover entry is longer than either of the two entries above, so i will post the summary and a link:
The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ,[1] ho ou kinoúmenos kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[2] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek "Λ") of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the active intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Quinque viae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover