The origin of the universe - short exercise

[AdB]

That's a fine hypothesis, but it won't be a scientific hypothesis until you can suggest some way of testing it empirically.

It's not a hypothesis, it's a definition

 

[BCP1928]

It's not a hypothesis, it's a definition View attachment 356667

That's a definition. Your hypothesis was, that you expect the "universe" to at least have all the properties that all the components collectively own.

 

[AdB]

That's a definition. Your hypothesis was, that you expect the "universe" to at least have all the properties that all the components collectively own.

If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science

 

[BCP1928]

If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science

No, it's not rocket science, but it is beginning to sound like Russell's Paradox. Can you prove that God is cause of the universe without simultaneously proving that the universe doesn't exist?

 

[Shemjaza]

If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science

Yes, and things like time and causality don't appear to be universal... so applying that to the universe as a whole is completely illogical.

 

[AdB]

time and causality don't appear to be universal

Can you give an example?

 

[AdB]

No, it's not rocket science, but it is beginning to sound like Russell's Paradox. Can you prove that God is cause of the universe without simultaneously proving that the universe doesn't exist?

It's quite obvious that the universe does exist

 

[Kylie]

Why wouldn't the properties that generally apply to all components of the universe also apply for the universe as a whole?

Because when one of those properties is "exists inside the universe" it literally can't apply to the universe itself.

The universe can't be inside itself. I can't put an envelope inside itself. I can't put a car into it's own back seat. A thing can not be inside itself.

The "universe" isn't some kind of an envelope that contains the components of the universe, rather it is the collection of all these components.

Can you demonstrate this?

 

[BCP1928]

If the universe is the collection of all its components, than it will have the collective properties of all these components, that's not rocket science

How are you going to test your hypothesis?

 

[AdB]

Because when one of those properties is "exists inside the universe" it literally can't apply to the universe itself.

The universe can't be inside itself. I can't put an envelope inside itself. I can't put a car into it's own back seat. A thing can not be inside itself.

Yeah unlogical or contradicting things are not the applicable, just like "the universe had no cause" is unlogical.
We're talking about the "collective of general properties of the physical universe", so properties that apply to all objects in the universe logically would also apply to the universe as a whole, simply because the universe is the collective of all, so also their properties.

Can you demonstrate this?

it's the definition...

 

[AdB]

How are you going to test your hypothesis?

You know very well that some things can't be tested emperically, but only can be derived by analyzing historical evidence or only by shere logic, you know, comon sense, for example how are you going to test what was before the universe?

 

[Larniavc]

comon sense

Common sense only works for things that are already known.

 

[Shemjaza]

Can you give an example?

Relativity is a demonstrable effect that alters the relative flow of time depending on gravity wells or relative velocity,

In extreme cases such as approaching the speed of light or the edge of a black holes event horizon time could effectively stop.


Also, the behavior of the most extreme quantum events are not deterministic and causal... merely probable or improbable.

 

[Bradskii]

One may also argue against the expanding universe argument that the proposed singularity was merely the result of a previous universe that collapsed into itself and that the current universe will also collapse into itself in a distant future, this is called the Oscillating Model.

But this concept would only lead to an infinite loop of subsequent universes, which would again be confronted by the mathematical argument.

No, it wouldn't. Because everything essentially resets. The clock starts again. This statement does not apply to an oscillating universe: 'If the universe never began to exist, then the number of events will be infinite'.

The universe does effectively begin to exist again. And not after a big crunch, but after an effective heat death.

So although there is no conclusive proof of the universe not being eternal, there are very strong arguments that show it has to be finite.

Yes, each oscillation is a finite universe. It's the process that is eternal.

This means the cause of the universe needs to be:

• Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
• Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
• Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.

None of this applies to an oscillating universe. The universe causes itself. If we go with just this universe and a Big Bang then you could suggest that something outside of the universe created it (the statement makes no sense to me, but we'll skip that). So as we have time and three dimensions and matter in the universe, you might argue that what was outside the universe wouldn't have those. But you're assuming that whatever it was that existed to start the universe still exists outside of the universe.

Just like the acorn doesn't exist after the tree has grown and the parent eventually dies and the children live on, you are making an assumption that IF something started the universe then it would still exist.

So the cause of the universe needs to be a self-existing, eternal, sovereign and individual entity.

Why just one?

These are exactly the trades that are attributed to the God of the Bible…

I'll assume that you mean traits. But you have missed out a few others. All loving, good, just etc. There is no reason why your self existing, eternal entity isn't hateful, bad, unjust etc. And from certain sections of the OT I would suggest that it's not a difficult position to argue.

If there had been a glitch in the evolutionary process and primates became extinct and horses became the intelligent species, then guess what some of them would be saying right now? Exactly what you are saying. Which is, in fact, what members of every other religion has said. Their arguments carry just as much weight as yours.

You are starting with the conclusion and looking for questions that will lead to that answer.

 

[Bradskii]

...only by shere logic, you know, comon sense...

Two things that are not the same. I would caution in using the latter in matters like this. It often fails.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah unlogical or contradicting things are not the applicable, just like "the universe had no cause" is unlogical.
We're talking about the "collective of general properties of the physical universe", so properties that apply to all objects in the universe logically would also apply to the universe as a whole, simply because the universe is the collective of all, so also their properties.

it's the definition...
View attachment 356684

It still doesn't work.

You are attempting to go from "All the things in the universe needed to come from somewhere" to "the universe itself had to come from somewhere," and you are confusing the box with the things inside the box.

This is the Fallacy of Composition, and it does not work.

For example, Sodium is a highly reactive metal that will explode on contact with water, and Chlorine is a toxic gas that was used as a weapon in World War 1. Both of these will do a great deal of harm if you ingest them.

Yet I ingested them both last night with my dinner, and it caused me no ill effects.

Because when combined, they form table salt.

If we take your argument that the properties of the components are also properties of the whole, then the fact that sodium and chlorine are both toxic and harmful to Human life, it would follow that salt is also harmful to Human life. Yet this is not the case.

So, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument does not work. Please learn not to make such mistakes, and try to do better next time.

 

[Shemjaza]

You know very well that some things can't be tested emperically, but only can be derived by analyzing historical evidence or only by shere logic, you know, comon sense, for example how are you going to test what was before the universe?

The current testable universe couldn't be understood accurately with simply logic and common sense... why would it apply to things beyond that scale?

Take a look at the Flat Earth threads on this forum to see how poor a tool simple personal credulity and intuition is for finding the truth,

 

[AdB]

It still doesn't work.

You are attempting to go from "All the things in the universe needed to come from somewhere" to "the universe itself had to come from somewhere," and you are confusing the box with the things inside the box.

This is the Fallacy of Composition, and it does not work.

For example, Sodium is a highly reactive metal that will explode on contact with water, and Chlorine is a toxic gas that was used as a weapon in World War 1. Both of these will do a great deal of harm if you ingest them.

Yet I ingested them both last night with my dinner, and it caused me no ill effects.

Because when combined, they form table salt.

If we take your argument that the properties of the components are also properties of the whole, then the fact that sodium and chlorine are both toxic and harmful to Human life, it would follow that salt is also harmful to Human life. Yet this is not the case.

So, you are committing a logical fallacy, and your argument does not work. Please learn not to make such mistakes, and try to do better next time.

Because Sodium and Chlorine have properties that cancel each other out, I've been talking about properties that are applicable to all things in the universe equaly so these won't cancel each other out.

 

[AdB]

The current testable universe couldn't be understood accurately with simply logic and common sense... why would it apply to things beyond that scale?

Take a look at the Flat Earth threads on this forum to see how poor a tool simple personal credulity and intuition is for finding the truth,

Flat earth isn't really "common sense" I would say...

 

[Astrid]

Flat earth isn't really "common sense" I would say...

Oh but it exactly is common sense.

There is zero intuitive about round earth.

I defies common experience. (why don’t we fall off,
how can everyone have a different direction being down…)

Our maid, from rural Philippines was so confused by how
its day in Europe and night here. I think i made her dizzy
with this Chinese belief thst the earth is round, like an orange.

i bet well over half of all people think the earth is flat.