The rules of logic did and don’t exist outside of the universe there for the universe(s) can pop out of no where.
If logic existed out side then there would also be no place to expale how God came into being. Please tell me if I am mistaken CB.
History is on our side we will bury you -Nikita Kruschev
Cool. I don’t need it for this.
Give about 30-40 minutes.
I would appreciate a sincere response when I’m done. This won’t be easy.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Not so, at least in my case. Avoid unwarranted generalizations …
I accept abiogenesis as possible. My somewhat limited investigations lead me to hold the opinion that abiogenesis is more likely than creation by a Supreme Being or IPU or whatever.
I have not seen anyone asserting that our existence is proof of abiogenesis. Reference, please?
jrf
threll:
Your post is unintelligible to me. Please re-state.
You’re welcome. Unfortunately, the point I was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, was that:
Within the SDMB community, and the scientific community at large, special creation is the “outsider theory.” It is not up to the scientists to defend the big bang, and they are (unfortuante as it may be) allowed to “assert abiogenisis as a fact”. Attacking their position is not the same as strengthening creationism. That commits the fallacy of negation.
JdeMobray:
Fully agreed. Nor does an unsupported assertion of abiogenisis as fact weaken creationism.
::
CalifBoomer said:
Please back up this claim, showing who here has done this. Specifics.
So you want to completely redefine something to suit your own misunderstanding? How many times do you have to be told that the Big Bang and abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolution? What will it take to get it through your head? You want to discuss the Big Bang? Fine. You want to discuss abiogenesis? Fine. You want to discuss evolution? Fine. They are all separate things. The only thing about them that is related is that creationists don’t like any of 'em. But that’s their problem, not science’s.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine
You fully agree that "Within the SDMB . . . special creation is the “outsider theory”. You also fully agree that “they are allowed to assert abiogenisis as a fact.”
Now, offer some positive evidence, not another denial of abiogenisis.
For the record, abiogenisis does weaken special creation by it’s very nature.
(Great, now I’m quoting myself. . . .) 
I agree this universe did have a creator. An amazingly compact object like a black hole can punch through the
fabric of space. It is now thought that they may be other universes and that when a black hole becomes massive
enough it will “pop out” of its parent universe and start expanding like greater air pressure in an object, making
that object expand. As for the rules in this multiverse, logic would be like using the planetary gravity model to
predict quantum physics. There for it is quite a posibity that our universe created itself and that everything was
created by itself(remember that time is a rule in our universe, not “out there”).
History is on our side we will bury you -Nikita Kruschev
CB:
Here goes:
The Standard Model of Quantum physics gives us six quarks and six leptons, and their antiparticles. It also gives us eloctromagnetism, the strong force, the weka force, twelve force carrying particles and gravity.
We are about 99% sure that we live in what is called a “flat universe.” What does this mean?
Well, the Big-Bang gives us 3 possibilities.
THe universe keeps expanding forever.
The mass of the universe slows down the expansion. Eventually gravity contracts it back to the Big Crunch, and the whole thing starts over again. Big bang, Big Crunch. Big bang, Big crunch. Ad infinitum. This is an example in which the universe needs no Causer. It just always was. Hard to imagine, but no harder to imagine than a God that "just always was and had no cause. Agreed?
We have a “flat universe.” This means it has just enough mass that it expands and cools. The expansion slows down and eventually stops but doesn’t contract. The mass is just the perfect amount to balance it between Infinite expansion, and Big Crunch.
Why is #3 the preferred explanation?
William Guth discovered the influence of a non scalar field during the inflationary phase of the Big bang. This is when the universe went from the size of 10 to the negative 15 meters (much less than a proton)to the size of a golf ball. THis took about 10 to the negative 33 seconds or so. This is today called the Higgs field. The action of the Higgs field would constrain a type 1 or 2 universe to immediate anhiliation (oversimplification here.) We are left with type 3.
So what is this Higgs field that makes the universe what it is?
Well, it existed before the Big Bang.
How could it do that if nothing existed before the Big bang?
Like this:
Say you carry a rock to the top of the Eiffel tower. You have imparted the rock with kinetic energy. If you drop it off, it will give back that energy when it falls and hits the ground.
Before you carry the rock up the tower there is only potential for energy.
The Higgs field is the same way. It is a potential for energy, a possible channel for it to follow.
We know this field exists and always has because of the existence of mass. If things were massless they could travel at the speed of light like photons. The basic force carrier of mass, the Biggs-Bosun imparts this mass, like you, lugging a rock to the top of the Eiffel tower.
Use another simile. The Higgs field is like a piece of wood. It has pathways like the grain of wood along which particles can travel. Higgs Bosuns provide “drag” for lack of a better word against particles travelling along these planes. Drag slows you down. Decelleration produces mass. You have weight because the particles of your body are being constantly decellerated from travelling at the speed of light.
In the timeless time before the Big Bang these potentialities still existed within the Higgs field. We even had virtual particles creating and anhiliating themselves spontaneously along the pathways of the Higgs Field. What we didn’t have were any Plank Mass or particles (really really super high energy.)
However an infinity of timelessness breeds certainty for even the most infinitly improbable event to occur.
During the infinity of timelessness while protons and anti-protons and such spontaneously spawned and anhiliated each other, a particle and antiparticle of Planck mass (almost infinite) formed along the pathways of the Higgs field (as it eventually must), decayed, and began mutual anhiliation.
Now symmetry HAS been disproven. That means that these particles did not have identical mass. One massed a mere fraction of a tenth of a billionth of a percent more than the other. After anhiliation, this is what was left over (and what our universe is formed of. This mass then poroceeded through inflation (which I’ve already described)and the rest of the Big Bang ending up with you and me typing on message boards.
Now I’ve done some gross oversimplification, and attempted to describe events best described through math (which I’m still struggling with.) but that’s essentially what happened. Some of the details may be wrong, but the essential overview is on the nut.
Now, it is entirely possible that God got tired of waiting, and pushed the particles of Planck Mass along the lines of the Higgs field and into existence, but it is not needed for it to have occured, and there is absolutely no valid reason to suppose that She has done so.
Perhaps she did do it. If God herself didn’t, then it still would have happened by itself anyway.
No cause or causer necessary. It’s all in the potentialities of the Higgs field.
For more info, consult Einstein, Rutherford, Bjorken, Friedman, Gellmann, Glashow, Kendall, Planck, Ting, Lederman, and thousands of others upon whose intellect I stand, and badly describe the fruit of their labors.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Scylla:
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post that. I am not sure I follow the entire process, however. It is my understanding that the big bang concept is based on on Einstein’s general theory of relativity, one of the main features of which is that the affairs of matter cannot be separated from the affairs of space and time - at some finite instant in the past (the BB) the universe of space, time and matter all came into being -singularity. This is very different than an explosion of a concentrated lump of matter located at some particular place in a pre-existing void. If I am understanding correctly, you are saying that some kind of mass pre-existed the big bang? Where was this mass if there was no ‘space’? And, of course we have the problem of explaining ‘pre-existed’, because there was no “before”, no time.
In any event, it seems we are still at the same impasse - that ‘everything’ came from ‘nothing.’ - nothing cannot create everything.
::
JdeMobray:
Anyone can assert anything they want, but that does not scientific validity make. If abiogenisis was a reality, it could be replicated at will anywhere, anytime. Such is not the case. It is, in fact, only wishful thinking on the part of those who prefer to exclude God from the equation.
::
CB:
No. No mass or anything had to preexist the Big bang, just potentiality in the Higgs field.
The timelessness concept of the pre BB period is founded on the absence of phenomenom. Time is defined by the phenomena it mentions, just as a void is necessarily dimensionless. That doesn’t mean that time COULDN’T exist, it just doesn’t.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
Also, please realize that by describing these events in words we place a time frame on them , which really doesn’t actually exist.
For the record, the Big Bang is not an Einsteinian concept until we get well past the realm of inflation. Before that it’s Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics and Planck Space.
David B:
They may very well be separate fields of study requiring separate skills and disciplines, but they are very much inter-related.
Are you saying that you have absolutely no curiosity about the origins of everything?
Or are you saying that your theory of evolution must be discussed in a vacuum because any widening of such a discussion may lead to the possibility of gasp! intelligent design?
::
This stuff goes a little bit beyond singularities. I’ve also heard the term used various ways, to describe everything from Black holes, to the holes in space time that they might create, as well as matter collapsed to a point. I think only the latter is the correct meaning, but I’m not sure.
Scylla:
OK. I will learn what I can about the Higgs field before commenting further.
Thank you.
::
CB:
Remember, you did grant me Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics without argument.
My explanation is consistent within the confines of the Standard Model of Quantum Physics, and in fact I distilled it from a text on that subject.
My explanation provides for the Creation of the universe without the intervention of a deity figure, and fits demonstrable data from the categories you granted me as givens prior to the discussion.
You would have to challenge Quantum and Particle physics theory to refute my argument, and since you’ve already granted them as givens, you can’t do so.
Thank you for the appreciation of my efforts.
Sincerely.
Please note that my argument does not proclude the intervention of a deity, it merely doesn’t require it to stand on it’s own. It in no way can be misconstrued as evidence against the existence of God.
Unless you have further objections, I would appreciate it if you were willing to concede that I have in fact successfully accomplished this little challenge.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
“If a self-sustaining nuclear reaction was a reality, we could recreate it at will anywhere, anytime. Such is not the case. It is, in fact, only wishful thinking on the part of those who prefer to exclude Apollo from the equation.”
C’mon, Boomer, I know (or I thought I did) that you’re smarter than this. Why do you insist on making inflammatory, poorly reasoned comments? Your arguments will be stronger if you do not stoop to such grandstanding.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.
Even if you only do so provisionally conditional to your researches on the Higgs field.
I would recommend “The God Particle” by Leon Lederman as a good start, not too much math, but a little out of date.
If you require further discussion, JonR seems to be more adept at this than I am. Doubtless he will show up to clarify some of my more egregious misstatements.