HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 It does need to be accounted for when you present a theory which claims quantum fluctuations created the universe when you're not able to explain why quantum fluctuations existed before the universe existed. You've entirely missed the point. Quantum fluctuations were not presented in order to account for the Universe existing. They were discovered in research. There is no need to present anything in order to account for the Universe existing. The notion that there is any such need immediately drops you into an infinite regressive loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 When all is said and done, you could also say- 'We just don't have the foggiest idea what created the universe, but whatever did, it certainly isn't governed by the universal laws of contemporary physics, it laughs in the face of elementary logic and rational reasoning, and if it isn't a creator, then it's something very similar". I think at this moment in time this is all we are left with. It was either a 'creator', or something we do not yet understand. As it happens, i cannot see any scientist accepting the whole 'creator' theory so, that just leaves the no idea theory. What about: Big bang - Universe expands - Gravity stops the expansion - Gravity then pulls everything together cause what is know as "the Big Crunch" - When all the mater is compressed to a single point in the universe a Big Bang occurs - Go back to the beginning. I used to believe that theory as well but wouldn't that mean every galaxy moving away from one point, instead of moving in all different directions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 You've entirely missed the point. Quantum fluctuations were not presented in order to account for the Universe existing. They were discovered in research.Yes, they clearly had to be discovered before they could be presented to account for the universe existing. Posted by HeadingNorth There is no need to present anything in order to account for the Universe existing. The notion that there is any such need immediately drops you into an infinite regressive loop. So does claiming there doesn't need to be a cause for the universe's existence if quantum fluctuations created it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think at this moment in time this is all we are left with. It was either a 'creator', or something we do not yet understand. As it happens, i cannot see any scientist accepting the whole 'creator' theory so, that just leaves the no idea theory. Agreed. Posted by 0742Sheff I used to believe that theory as well but wouldn't that mean every galaxy moving away from one point, instead of moving in all different directions? This is the common misconception with the big bang theory. Nothing went bang causing matter to be propelled outwards into space, the matter isn't being propelled outwards at all, it's the space in between the matter that is expanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 My bold: a) A vacuum can't be full of anything. b) Monkeys and typewriters? A perfect vacuum would be one with no particles in it at all, which is impossible to achieve in practice, so when referring to a vacuum we are usually talking about a partial vacuum. The vacuum in a vacuum flask isn’t entirely devoid of matter. One definition of vacuum is A space or container from which the air has been completely or partly removed. Monkeys and typewriters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Yes, they clearly had to be discovered before they could be presented to account for the universe existing. That is not true. Various explanations have been presented to account for the Universe existing, without any discovery ever having been made that even suggests their accuracy, let alone confirms it. This is the fundamental difference between scientists advancing quantum fluctuations as an explanation for the origin of the Universe, and creationists advancing some god or other. The scientists don't need an explanation, and have never insisted that one has to exist. The discovery of quantum fluctuations just happens to suggest that maybe one does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Yes, they clearly had to be discovered before they could be presented to account for the universe existing. So does claiming there doesn't need to be a cause for the universe's existence if quantum fluctuations created it. If quantum fluctuation created this universe then it also means that there must have first been a universe in a quantum state for that to happen, and that is a generally accepted idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 That is not true. Various explanations have been presented to account for the Universe existing, without any discovery ever having been made that even suggests their accuracy, let alone confirms it. This is the fundamental difference between scientists advancing quantum fluctuations as an explanation for the origin of the Universe, and creationists advancing some god or other. The scientists don't need an explanation, and have never insisted that one has to exist. The discovery of quantum fluctuations just happens to suggest that maybe one does. If quantum fluctuation created this universe then it also means that there must have first been a universe in a quantum state for that to happen, and that is a generally accepted idea. Do either of you have any idea why creationist theories are generally mocked, ridiculed then discredited by scientists who find the idea of a creator scientifically implausible, when scientific theories on what created creation are just as implausible and just as deserving of mockery and ridicule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Do either of you have any idea why creationist theories are generally mocked, ridiculed then discredited by scientists who find the idea of a creator scientifically implausible, when scientific theories on what created creation are just as implausible and just as deserving of mockery and ridicule? They aren't as implausible - they're based on the the culmination of thousands of years of observation and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 They aren't as implausible - they're based on the the culmination of thousands of years of observation and science.Yes they are as implausible. All scientific theories are constructed on the assumption that the universe doesn't need a cause for it's existence. Name one scientific theory that explains why the universe can exist without cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.