Og

You're making the assumption that causality applies. The question may not be valid. The question "did this come from something?" is a valid question (the one that drives cosmologists). Once answered, then you can speak to the validity of "where'd it come from?" (if the answer to the previous question is yes). Until then, "where'd it come from?" only seems valid because of our perspective on earth in the midst of causality.

My experience with deist/first cause folks is that they think that it has to come from somewhere and somewhen. I did not say that it disproves supernatural agency. Most of the deists I know say that they don't see any proof for existence of god now other than that the universe "must have come from something"...

General relativity says (with evidence to back it up) that the universe doesn't behave in a way that necessarily requires causation at the beginning. At small time/size scales, we don't know what's going on and need another theory. But the theory will be continuous with general relativity (it must since GR is experimentally verifiable).

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Jayhawker Soule

I am making no assumption whatsoever. Rather, I am stating:

1. The question of causality remains fully valid.
2. Quote:

   It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet. [source]

3. Belief that special relativity forecloses the debate demonstrates a remarkably naive and shallow appreciation of the current state of our scientific understanding.

You overreach.

Og

I am not saying that it forecloses the debate. I haven't even begun to say that. In fact, I'm addressing the ASSUMPTION that the debate is foreclosed in terms of causality applying. Furthermore, I'm demonstrating that the assumption is anthropocentric in nature and not based on an understanding of what we know about the cosmos.

There's no reason to make any assumption about causality at the big bang. I present this because I don't think that people normally wrap their heads around the notion of no time. People can't wrap their minds around what it means that "outside or before the universe/big bang" may be a gibberish phrase. Their assumption is from the world view of life on earth.

I'm not overreaching at all... I'm challenging an anthropocentric stance on a topic by demonstrating how that is NOT the proper intuition to have when addressing the notion of the "source" of all things.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

sisterX

I agree, it is a very valid question. So everyone should wait until we know more before they put all their eggs into the supernatural basket. It'll be a very long wait. Why is it wrong to assume that the universe has a cause since it has a beginning, that cause must exist outside of it. The cause of the universe cannot be bound by physical laws otherwise it too would have to have a cause. Are you saying the universe is uncaused? Please use simple language i am straining my brain enough as it is. Lol

__________________
"But as for me (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and I shall associate none as partner with my Lord." Surah Al-Kahf verse 38. Holy Quran

Og

This is what this whole thread is about......... The assumption is based on intuition that has to do with our place here on the surface of earth far from the galactic center. In fact, this is NOT something that you would intuitively arrive at if you understood some basics of general relativity and what we know about singularities (i.e. gravitational time dilation and the big bang). If you had the intuition of an astrophysicist you would NOT think that it was a valid assumption that the universe has a cause or that causality has any meaning at the big bang.

Gibberish. If it's not bound by physical laws then it makes no sense... It's not a thing or a cause. If it can be understood then it follows some structure.

I am saying that it appears that time slows down to nothing at singularities (it has no meaning at infinite density points). Now general relativity doesn't speak to the exact details of what is going on at high density and small volume areas, but it does give us an intuition for how the world works just like classical physics is enhanced by quantum physics.

We need something called "quantum gravity" or whatever to understand the exact details of the beginning event.

I am saying that the intuition you would get by looking at the current astrophysical understanding of the universe is that the universe is uncaused. There is nothing in our language that can express this concept because we live entirely in a causal chain of events with past and future.

Look at my link about gravitational time dilation in the first post.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

sisterX

So you are saying the universe in infinite because there was no 'time' when it did not exist. You cant get more anthropocentric than that?

__________________
"But as for me (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and I shall associate none as partner with my Lord." Surah Al-Kahf verse 38. Holy Quran

Og

huh? How is that infinite? Think a little more before you post please

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Jayhawker Soule

To quote my good friend Og: "huh?.

Jayhawker Soule

That "it makes no sense" to you is irrelevant. If you define "scientific law" as "a statement describing an observed regularity" [source], then the period prior to 1 Planck time is simply beyond the scope of "physical laws".

Og

I wasn't indicating that it made no sense "to me"

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are