You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

Intentionality.
There are two possibilities. God created the universe through the mechanism of the Big Bang. Or, the Big Bang occurred as the result of a natural, though unknown process.

There is no proof or even evidence of intention in the big bang. It just happened to happen. There is good evidence to support its happening.

But as to cause.....there is none.
 
No, the stupid forum software did that. Just post your response in a new post.
Software isn't stupid, that's called anthropomorphism. I will do your work for you though, bear with me.
 
Conservation of Charge is the only one that a paper has been presented for, and they had to modify conventional physics to do it. That paper was published in a German Journal, I can't remember which one.
What is this "paper" you just started talking about? The conservation of mass is a law of physics, as is conservation of charge, there cannot be infinite mass or charge.
In all other cases physicists simply throw up their hands and declare that physics breaks down in a singularity. So there is nothing that rules out singularity.
Yes, in a sense they do. The reason is they know the equations they have are flawed and the premises underpinning those equations too are flawed. Consider ohms law, that predicts infinite electric current will flow in a superconductive material, but does an infinite current actually flow? No, because ohm's law is wrong, it is an approximation that's fine for everyday use though.

The theory or general relativity has deeply troublesome equations that describe the metric tensor of spacetime in the presence of energy, these are very hard to produce exact numerical solutions to. They are a class of what are called "nonlinear partial differential equations" go and look up what that means before going any further.
And yes, scientific enquiry is reductionist, it is based on observations and facts, not faith.
Good so you agree, a thing cannot serve as its own explanation (and be careful about words like "faith" or "trust" or "belief" these underpin science, you cannot eliminate them).
 
Last edited:
There are two possibilities. God created the universe through the mechanism of the Big Bang. Or, the Big Bang occurred as the result of a natural, though unknown process.

There is no proof or even evidence of intention in the big bang. It just happened to happen. There is good evidence to support its happening.

But as to cause.....there is none.
And yet according to paired particle production - which was the mechanism for creating the universe - the universe should have only been filled with radiation. So the universe was created in an implausible manner. And then there is the improbable structure of matter that is tuned for life. Not to mention life making the leap from inanimate matter and the predestined evolution of intelligence. It all adds up to so much improbability that it could only have been intentional.
 
And yet according to paired particle production - which was the mechanism for creating the universe ...

All experiments require 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy for every kilogram of mass produced this way ... using the formula E=mc^2 ...

Do you not believe energy is a part of this universe? ... the question is what created the energy ... creating mass afterward is easy well-worn science ...
 
All experiments require 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy for every kilogram of mass produced this way ... using the formula E=mc^2 ...

Do you not believe energy is a part of this universe? ... the question is what created the energy ... creating mass afterward is easy well-worn science ...
Do you understand what this website is saying?

 
Do you understand what this website is saying?


"pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs" then "Matter and anti-matter can be created in pairs from energy" ...

Where does "energy" come from? ... because pair production only produces matter and anti-matter ... it's not the "mechanism for creating the universe" as you've claimed ...

Do you understand what this website is saying?

 
What do you mean by the "mechanism of scientific explanation?"
I mean the belief in laws and the belief that the universe is rationally intelligible. One cannot explain (for example) the presence of laws without some recourse to other laws and in that sense the general question of why laws exist is not answerable through the scientific method.

We must seek a different kind of explanation.
 
Last edited:
And yet according to paired particle production - which was the mechanism for creating the universe - the universe should have only been filled with radiation.
Assuming laws exist as a means of explaining why laws exist, isn't really explaining why laws exist.
So the universe was created in an implausible manner. And then there is the improbable structure of matter that is tuned for life. Not to mention life making the leap from inanimate matter and the predestined evolution of intelligence. It all adds up to so much improbability that it could only have been intentional.
I'm not sure if we agree or disagree on this question of origins.
 
And yet according to paired particle production - which was the mechanism for creating the universe - the universe should have only been filled with radiation. So the universe was created in an implausible manner. And then there is the improbable structure of matter that is tuned for life. Not to mention life making the leap from inanimate matter and the predestined evolution of intelligence. It all adds up to so much improbability that it could only have been intentional.
How is matter "tuned for life?"
 
"pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs" then "Matter and anti-matter can be created in pairs from energy" ...

Where does "energy" come from? ... because pair production only produces matter and anti-matter ... it's not the "mechanism for creating the universe" as you've claimed ...

Do you understand what this website is saying?

I do understand what this website is saying. Paired particle production is literally the mechanism for the creation of matter and radiation in the universe.

As the matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, radiation is released which produces more paired particles which produce more radiation and so on and so on. For every remaining matter particle in the universe there is the equivalent radiation from the annihilation of 1 billion matter particles and 1 billion antimatter particles. The question isn't where did they come from? The question is why were there 1 billion and 1 matter particles for every 1 billion antimatter particles if they were truly produced in pairs.

But to answer your question, the best answer is that they only existed in a state of probability; neither existing or not eixisting.

Feel free to tell me your belief.
 
How is matter "tuned for life?"
Short answer:
If the charges, sizes and distances of the subatomic particles were even slightly different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way but would be devoid of life.

Long answer:
"There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 10^18 -- places that can support life.

So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere....

...I should like now to raise two problems to do with protons and electrons, one involving their masses, the other their electric charge.

Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

And now, electric charge: How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge? How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?

It may help to accept this as a legitimate scientific question to know that in 1959 two of our most distinguished astrophysicists, Lyttleton and Bondi, proposed that in fact the proton and electron differ in charge by the almost infinitesimal amount, 2 x 10 -18e -- two billion billionths e, in which e is the already tiny charge on either the proton or electron. The reason they made that proposal is that, given that nearly infinitesimal difference in charge, all the matter in the universe would be charged, and in the same sense, plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies -- and, worst of all, no physicists.

No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 e, and one with a charge of -1/3 e.

To summarize, if the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate. These are primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe..."

 
the universe is rationally intelligible
I never claimed that nor do I believe that. I do think we can look at the universe as if it were a single organism though. Sort of like how we have lots of different body parts that have different functions but are part of the same organism.
 
I mean the belief in laws and the belief that the universe is rationally intelligible. One cannot explain (for example) the presence of laws without some recourse to other laws and in that sense the general question of why laws exist is not answerable through the scientific method.

We must seek a different kind of explanation.
Here's one thing we do know... the universe was created according to the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics. The same laws that prescribe how the universe operates which means that the laws were in place before space and time itself.

Nothing before the big bang is answerable through the scientific method. That is the realm of logic and philosophy.
 
Assuming laws exist as a means of explaining why laws exist, isn't really explaining why laws exist.

I'm not sure if we agree or disagree on this question of origins.
There's no assuming the laws of nature exist. Paired particles popping into and out of existence is an empirical observation whose photon's energy conversion into mass is predicted by Einstein's E=mc² special relativity equation.

what is the evidence of paired particle production?
 
I'm not sure if we agree or disagree on this question of origins.
As near as I can tell, the universe is an alternate reality that exists in the mind of God. That everything is made up of mind stuff. That the constant presence of mind created a universe that evolves like a living organism such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create arise.
 
There are two possibilities. God created the universe through the mechanism of the Big Bang. Or, the Big Bang occurred as the result of a natural, though unknown process.

There is no proof or even evidence of intention in the big bang. It just happened to happen. There is good evidence to support its happening.

But as to cause.....there is none.
The latest science says that our big bang is one of many.
Christianity now needs to revise it's beliefs.

 
Back
Top Bottom