how can we best explain our existence ?

Ah, my apologies. I took your user name to mean something along the lines of "Science Freak". Obviously I was wrong. You're not a "science fan", nor, apparently, particularly bothered about it.

You're wrong.
Any where you are in the universe can be regarded as the "centre", inasmuch as everything is expanding away from everything else. We aren't in any particularly privileged position with regard to that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if the explosion is here . u E a

u should be moving away from e slower than e is moving away from a

i do love science but when it comes to the universe its simply to big for me to comprehend

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok well if its accelerating how so? a object that is in motion will stay in motion "at the same speed" unless a force is applied if its accelerating what force is accelerating it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Scientists suspect the repulsive effects come from dark matter.

 

As Spidergoat has already said: it wasn't an "explosion" :the Big Bang was a uniform expansion of space, not an explosion in space.

You claim to love science yet decide it must be wrong (on certain aspects at least) because you can't understand it. You'd rather stick with your opinion. That's hardly, um, scientific.

 

have i think we have created anti matter but whenever it comes into contact with matter i just explodes.. why dont we ever detect these explosions

 

ok if it was a uniform expansion where did all of that matter comefrom? and where did all of the anti matter come from? and where is it all now?

so i cant have my own opinion even if it doesnt go along with science? since i have my own ideas and opinions i cant love science? that makes sence.. no i cant understand it neither can anyone really we know everything is moving away from itself which means ther has to be an end to the universe or a leading edge of it

 

Anti matter is not dark matter.

Well that's the 64 million dollar question - how did it start?
And see above for anti-matter.

You miss the point.
If you prefer your unsupported opinion - one that contradicts the science that does have evidence then THAT is the unscientific bit.
You're ignoring the science you claim to love in favour of a personal, unsupported viewpoint.

 

i dont believe we have evidence of dark matter so whos to say it does exsist at all? we have pictures of what they think is dark matter but no evidence of it to my knowledge

I never once said i was right. i stated my opinion and i said i dont necessarily believe the big bang theory i never said i flat out didnt. the reason i dont necessarily believe it is what you stated and i stated before where did all the matter come from in the first place and if this was that first ball of matter ( ) what is here -> o

so please dont twist what i say i never said i didnt i said i dont necessarily believe it.

and thats my opinion i never once said or tried to proclaim that i was right at this point im open to everything expecially the unknown thats why i love science we explore the unknown trying to figure it out and because i establish my own opinion on it does not mean i dont love science its looking at it with a "what if" point of view

 

Matter need not have come from anywhere because it's a balance of matter/energy and gravitational potential energy. They add up to zero (not exactly, but for all practical purposes so).

 

so matter can just appear? if so why havent we sceen any since the time of the big bang? that is all beyond me i would have to research it

 

We have.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void." According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence..​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

 

Another example of you putting your opinion over the science.

It doesn't matter that you "didn't claim your opinion was right": you have summarily dismissed the science by having an opinion that runs counter to the science and ignores the evidence for that science.

 

I'm not sure you understand the analogy. If (and yes, it is a big "if") we had an eternal fire (ie a fire that has always existed) at what point in time would you expect smoke, heat and light to c0ome on the scene?

this is just a fancy way of saying that nothing can be eternal because it would, by necessity, defy our common understandings of the role of cause and effect in the universe

so if something doesn't have a starting point (ie, something that is eternal) at what point would you expect the qualities, characteristics and potencies of it to manifest?

This also doesn't explain the paradox of a said object being eternal and its qualities coming on the scene sometime down the track

By your logic the universe cannot be eternal since whatever characteristics it has that enables it to retain a constant quality are not eternal
:shrug:

In short there is a oneness and difference between an object and potency (call acintya bedabeda tattva in sanskrit). IOW the very moment you have fire is the same moment that you have heat, light and smoke, even though heat, light and smoke are not technically fire.

 

Not exactly. The universe was smaller than a proton. Since there wan't anywhere else for energy-matter to be, it condensed to a very small space.

No. To retell an old example, think of a raisin bread dough in the oven.
At first, all the raisin will be very near each other. Then as the dough rises and expands, the raisins move farther apart. Each raisin might see all other raisins moving away from each other; however, no raisin is the center because all raisins are moving.

You're treating science as if it is one entity. Rather, it is many distinct subjects about the natural world.

The universe is expanding, not the amount of energy-matter in it.

 

lg,

In the usual order if they are the same entity, but in your analogy you are making them seperate, i.e. eternal fire with eternal smoke being contingent on the fire. What I am saying is that is impossible. Rather, the smoke is merely a product of the fire, contingent yes, but not a separate eternal entity.

Gee, I cannot understand how you repeatedly twist everything I say into something entirely different. I have not said anything like that at all. It is given that something eternal must exist otherwise we could not be here. If something is the effect of a cause then the cause must precede the effect. In our discussion the contingent entity is the effect. We agreed that something eternal cannot have a cause/beginning and in this example clearly cannot be an effect.

Following from that we can see that a contingent entity cannot be eternal.

I really don't care and it is not relevant to the issue. The issue is the relationship between two eternal entities and my assertion that one of them cannot be contingent on the other.

Not surprising since that isn't the issue in hand.

You are way off the point again. The properties and characteristics of the entity are what comprise the entity, and the entity we are discussing is eternal, a black box concept. I am not discussing the inside of the black box. Seperate to this black box we can consider other enternal black boxes.

In your analogy eternal fire is an eternal black box and smoke is another eternal black box. My entire point is to show that that is incorrect. The smoke is merely a characteristic/property of the fire black box and not a seperate entity, and in this case the smoke is contingent on the fire.

No most definitely NOT. There is very clearly a cause and effect relationship between the effects, i.e. there is dictinct moments between cause and effects ensuring that the effects cannot be considered eternal, they are merely resultant attributes of the phenomenon.

Returning to your original statement:

Here the smoke cannot be eternal since it is an effect of the fire or a characteristc of the fire, it is clearly contingent but not seperate.

If the universe is eternal, and we have nothing to indicate it is not since we are here, then it cannot be the effect of another eternal entity or contingent upon it since an effect cannot be eternal.

But what is the "other eternal element" that you have not described and why is it necessary if the universe is already eternal?

 

Cris, this all reasonable. I am just not comfortable with either option.

Are you?

It is hard not to think of cause and effect and to use Occam's Razor to draw out what is reasonable.

It's almost as if we need to just take this on faith for now because it is a reasonable argument that the universe always existed. Just doesn't give that warm fuzzy feeling.
So, are we left with having faith in a reasonable argument or faith in an unreasonable created universe? Does anyone have a reasonable argument of creation?

 

huh?
feel free to indicate anything that doesn't possess a relationship of oneness and difference with its potencies/characteristics ...
(of course you can't since the very act of identifying anything is the act of attributing significance to its potencies/characteristics)

Its quite simple
If you are saying that the possession of (any) characteristics/potencies disqualifies a given thing from being eternal, you are effectively saying that nothing can be eternal since all things possess characteristics/potencies.

IOW if an eternal thing didn't have some sort of potency, it could not even be identified ... much less assume a role at the top of a chain of cause and effect (after all, in the absence of potencies, what could possibly cause an effect?)

Following this, you are stating that an eternal thing cannot have any constant contingent potencies ... which makes it a non-object

Its completely relevant to the topic. I am genuinely surprised that you can't comprehend that the identification of any object/entity requires that there be some contingent potency ..... what to speak of your claiming that such a relationship of contingency is impossible, it is integral to the act of any object/entity being identified. The fact that an object is given or claimed to be eternal doesn't change this absolute requirement of identification/existence.

its precisely what you are trying to clarify a few posts down

Or put another way any dependent/contingent condition requires at least a moment of time to propagate, i.e. there is a start point which excludes the classification of eternal.
:shrug:

fine
let's talk of an eternal black box
would you expect blackness and being box shaped to be eternal contingent qualities of it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you had a fire that didn't emanate smoke heat and light you wouldn't have a fire to begin with (Maybe it would be an eternal fire like visualization or something) ... much like if you had an eternal black box that was yellow and circular shaped, you would have something other than an eternal black box.

No most definitely NOT. There is very clearly a cause and effect relationship between the effects, i.e. there is dictinct moments between cause and effects ensuring that the effects cannot be considered eternal, they are merely resultant attributes of the phenomenon.

the very act of labeling something "contingent" means it doesn't enjoy a relationship of separation

this paragraph doesn't even begin to make sense.
Its not clear how calling upon the yard stick of our own existence (at least from the reductionist school that you no doubt champion the cause for) is sufficient to indicate that there is nothing to indicate that the universe is not eternal ..... and even less how this rules out the universe being contingent on any greater cause

In the same way that an analysis of smoke is not sufficient to draw all the parralells met by the existence of fire (IOW an analysis of smoke indicates that it is contingent on a greater cause .... even though both the smoke and the greater cause participate in an identical temporal sphere - ie where one exists, you find the other)

 

*************
M*W: We best can explain our existence, because we are here.

 

oh really?
So when you say hello to someone, what are you actually addressing?
Their eyebrows?
Their big toe?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!