Existence that preceded the big bang can never be empirically observed or tested. Therefore we leave the field of physics and enter into philosophical discourse when addressing such existence. I would like to apply philosophical principles, with your help, and engage in a flowing discourse about the cause of the big bang. Starting, by addressing some fundamental information in regards to the big bang, data that has been collected and accepted in the physics community that have studied this event. 1. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago 2. Space and Time were products of the big bang, they did not exist before it. *This makes the infinite regression fallacy conclusion a lot easier to comprehend. While deducing about a cause that exists outside of the space-time paradigm, it is irrational to prescribe the nature of time or even analyse it from the frame of reference based in space-time.* 3. I suggest reading up on the big bang to know the data surrounding the conclusions, before engaging in this discourse, as any decent philosopher would :) Lets begin: Firstly, in thermodynamics: The First Law teaches that matter/energy cannot spring forth from nothing without cause, nor can it simply vanish. This is very simple, nothing cant cause something(from nothing, comes nothing), therefore we can assert that there was a cause for the big bang.. this is obvious. Secondly, if we apply the infinite regression fallacy to the cause of the big bang we find that all causes, must be able to be traced back in causality to a first cause, that is itself un-caused (never came into being, always was). The antithesis to this would result in an infinite regress. Analogous to this is to see a falling chain of dominos, one can assume there was something there to tip over the first domino, and would similarly assume that the dominoes hadnt been falling forever backwards to infinity, otherwise no of them could actually have been hit to set off the next one, that they had to have a beginning, it is necessary. So as we further deduce critically about the nature of this initial un-caused cause, we can apply the philosophical tool Ochams razor, simply stating that one should not multiply a cause beyond necessity. So we can say it is ONE. This cause, is like nothing we can know. It caused the universe to spring from nothing. That is to say, there was no re-arranging of previous substance, (like one would take different materials and arrange them to build a house, or a car etc..) to create the initial singularity, it sprang from nothing. This may on the surface seem self-contradictory to my previous assertion that from nothing comes nothing, but the cause is something. Therefore the cause, which created the universe, is a creative force that can create from nothing. This leads me to a famous quote by Fred Hoyle, a notable atheist but free thinker for intelligent design. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I would much appreciate you critical analysis of this view, to add to and also criticize any and everything I have just put forth. I would also like to add that the is no randomness in life occurring in universe. The statistical proof derived from the pin-point accuracy of more than 20 universal constants and factors, shed light to the fact that life on earth was statistically inevitable, from the early stages of the universe. I can elaborate on this, but It should be on another thread. Peace be upon you
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:13:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015