# Proof of the Origin of Universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Woody, Mar 30, 2005.

1. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419
Hello to all,

I have a philosophy proof that I want to bounce off the cosmology Forum.

There are four laws involved in the proof that the universe was created by an external force:

[a] Law of exclusive Middles [*2]
Law of Cause and Effect [*1]
[c] First law of thermodynamics (a subset of )
[d] Law of entropy (a subset of )

I can prove the universe was created using logic. The argument boils down to this:

1) Either there is an eternal force or there is not an external force to create the universe. - [a] is satisfied
2) Either the universe was created or it was not created. [a] & are satisfied
3) If the universe was not created by an external force then an external force is not needed for the universe to exist. is satisfied
4) If the universe was not created by an external force then it (the universe)must be eternal. is satisfied
5) If the universe created itself then it disobeys [c] and hence disobeys as well. It also disobeys [a]. A universe is not able to "exist" and "not exist" at the same time because of [a]. You don't get something from nothing according to and [c]. Hence this solution violates three laws.
6) If the universe is eternal then it disobeys the law of entropy [d] even with antimatter considered. Hence this solution violates one law that governs it. (This is where the bang and crunch theory fails, as well as other theories like it such as steady state theory). If the universe resets its own entropy then the law of entropy is violated -- this would be a 2nd order perpetual motion machine by definition, and PMMs are impossible according to the laws of physics.
7)Therefore the universe is not eternal and it did not create itself.
8) Hence the universe was created by some external force, because the other two solutions are disproved using the known laws of logic and science.
9) This force would have to be eternal to satisfy law [a]
10) This force would have to put all the laws of physics in place -- this satisfies
11) This force would have to be greater then its creation -- this satisfies law
12) Hence there is a creator force.

Any comments, critiques, opposing views, opposing theories?

Thanks

*edited to remove 'god' Q

Footnotes:

[*1]The law of cause and effect says:

- Nothing can not cause something, it can only cause nothing.
- A cause can not come after the effect and an effect can not come before the cause.
- The effect can not be greater than the cause.

[*2]The law of excluded middles says a proposition can not be both true and false at the same time.

Last edited: Mar 27, 2006

3. ### LucasRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
447
4)this is not a valid premise. Big Bang theory assures that the Universe is not eternal, but do not postulates that the Universe was created by an external force

5. ### blobranaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,214
Hum,
>>I can prove the universe was created

Cool.
i hadnt realised that there were ppl who thought that it hadnt been created.

er,

7. ### spidergoatLiddle' Dick TaterValued Senior Member

Messages:
53,966
If there is something external to the universe, then your concept of the universe is incomplete.

Also, the so-called laws of physics don't apply to the big bang, they emerged with the universe itself.

8. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419
SGsaid : Also, the so-called laws of physics don't apply to the big bang, they emerged with the universe itself.

Lucas: 4)this is not a valid premise. Big Bang theory assures that the Universe is not eternal, but do not postulates that the Universe was created by an external force.

OK let's clarify the laws of logic and of physics:

The law of cause and effect says:

- Nothing can not cause something, it can only cause nothing.
- A cause can not come after the effect and an effect can not come before the cause.
- The effect can not be greater than the cause.

The law of excluded middles says a proposition can not be both true and false at the same time.

With regard to the big bang, it sounds like a "something from nothing" argument. It could not come from a black hole. A black hole is a state of maximum entropy.

Wikepedia Black Hole

What was the universe before the big bang?

9. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
by Woody:

"What was the universe before the big bang?"
==============================================================

Smaller? You do realize that the current favored theory of the big bang is not the old
'infinitely small point' concept, but more of a 'everywhere at once' concept, but still
much smaller that the universe's current size. The theory is derived from many observations in astronomy, cosmology and very complicated mathematics, not just an off the top of the head guess.

10. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419
2inquisitive said: Smaller? You do realize that the current favored theory of the big bang is not the old'infinitely small point' concept, but more of a 'everywhere at once' concept, but stillmuch smaller that the universe's current size. The theory is derived from many observations in astronomy, cosmology and very complicated mathematics, not just an off the top of the head guess.

Woody:
--What differentiates the small state from a black hole?
--Nobody denies that the universe is expanding. Does it go through a "crunch" cycle?
--How does it "reset" its entropy -- and violate the law of entropy?
--Has anyone proven that the process of making and then anihilating antimatter defies the law of entropy or the first law of energy?

11. ### blobranaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,214
Hum,
I think you are in error.
The four laws you propose,
<i>
[a] Law of exclusive Middles
Law of Cause and Effect
[c] First law of thermodynamics (a subset of )
[d] Law of entropy (a subset of )</i>

can only have meaning upto a certain time. (Say, 10<sup>-42</sup> seconds after the Big bang). <b>Before</b> that, time and space becomes smeared together. There is a breakdown of cause and effect, and our physical constants and laws probably do not apply or hold in such exotic conditions.

12. ### glaucontending tangentiallyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502

Well said.
Furthermore, there are problems with Woody's logic.

The law of Excluded Middle was proven to be valid only for bi-functional propositional logic and not valid within modal logic, which would be much more likely to obtain herin. (To say nothing of the fact that formal logic has no real bearing upon the material world)

There is no such thing as a 'Law of Cause and Effect', as beautifully explained by Hume in 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'. Such an idea has no place within a logical analysis. As we all know, causality is nothing beyond the expectation of continuity of successive empirical observation, which will be forever open to future refutation.

Ultimately, as blobrana pointed out, there is no need to point out that the Universe was created. To maintain otherwise would indeed be a logical contradiction.

13. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
One logical contradiction coming up. If the Universe is eternal - some variant, for exmaple, of a Steady State Universe - then there is no 'need' for it to have been created. Only the Big Bang introduces this possibibly spurious 'need' of creation, and, by implication, a creator.

14. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419
blobrana said:

And what laws overrule the current ones? Could you be a little more specific?

15. ### AngelOfDiseaseRegistered Member

Messages:
15
Big Bang theory and other "scientific" explanations have numerous holes and flaws. Big Bang holds no water with the new inclusion of an anti-gravity into the fold, and thus, we've neglected to answer the question of what came before it. A "smaller" universe? How about before that, even. We don't know and we cannot possibly understand what nothing entails, so how can we understand what came from nothing?

16. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419
AOD said :We don't know and we cannot possibly understand what nothing entails, so how can we understand what came from nothing?

If the universe came from nothing it violates all four of the laws.

17. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419
glaucon said: The law of Excluded Middle was proven to be valid only for bi-functional propositional logic and not valid within modal logic, which would be much more likely to obtain herin.

Woody: How do you have a bi-modal cause unless it is an effect of some other cause?

glaucon: (To say nothing of the fact that formal logic has no real bearing upon the material world).

Woody: BS: Geometry is formal logic, and it has bearing on the material world and space. The law of cause and effect fully encompasses both the first and second laws of energy.

glaucon said: Ultimately, as blobrana pointed out, there is no need to point out that the Universe was created. To maintain otherwise would indeed be a logical contradiction.

Woody: and how did you arrive at the same conclusion as myself?

18. ### AngelOfDiseaseRegistered Member

Messages:
15
What I was trying to say is we really can't understand where the universe came from. We'd have to get a rational idea of what "nothing" actually is and then try to figure out where the origins of nothing comes from. The Big Bang theory doesn't even try to touch that logic.

Messages:
251
Uh, maybe not. You are not dealing with the possibility that it was created by no force at all.

Uh, maybe not. You have not established that the universe needs to follow any laws, such as conservation or thermodynamics, in its creation.

Uh, maybe you do. If space and time are the opposite side of matter and energy, then you can create matter and energy without violating conservation if you also create an equal amount of space and time.

Uh, maybe not. The law of entropy is only a law for the amount of space and time that we have observed. Since we have not observed extremes in space and time, such as the creation of the universe and the end of the universe, then we do not know that entropy behaves the same in these extreme conditions. We only know that we observe it during non-extreme conditions. Therefore the law of entropy is only valid for these conditions, and not valid for the beginning and end of the universe.

Uh, maybe not. Since the definition of the universe is "everything there is", by definition there cannot be an external force because that force would exist and therefore be a part of the universe. Any force external to the universe would be internal to the universe.

Uh, maybe it can. We observe virtual particles being caused continuously from nothing.

Woody, you are valiantly defending this idea of yours. I'm still not sure just what it is, but you're hanging onto it like a pit bull on my leg. Since a hypothesis is valid only if you can disprove it, what would you accept, without reservation, as proof that your hypothesis was wrong? If you cannot provide this, then your idea is not a hypothesis, but rather philosphy.

20. ### WoodyMusical CreationistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,419

The argument is based on the observed laws, and on pure logic. You are telling me there is information I don't have, and this information disobeys the known laws. OK then produce the information -- I'd like to see:

---Proof that something actually comes from nothing. (Space, time, matter, and energy are all something.)
---Proof that a force is not needed to create laws that previously did not exist.
---Proof that time/space are convertible to mass/energy.
---Proof that something can violate the law of entropy so the law can be reformulated.
---Proof that a force or energy can not exist outside the confines of this universe of time, space, matter, and energy.
---Proof that virtual particles had absolutely no cause whatsoever.

21. ### YordaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,275
They say that time begins when the universe begins... But how could time begin "somewhere in time"? (ie. past) Time is eternal, isn't it.

And if time can't start somewhere in time, neither can the universe.

22. ### LucasRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
447
Yorda, there are people working in this problem, and they are developing Quantum gravity theories, that permit that time doesn't start at Big Bang.
There's for example Brane Cosmology
http://www.indexuslist.de/keyword/Brane_cosmology.php

or Loop quantum gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity#Quantum_cosmology

In Loop Quantum Gravity time doesn't start at Big Bang, but is postulated that the Universe has existed forever, but was contracting and then achieved a minimal size at Big Bang and started to expand

23. ### blobranaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,214
@Lucas

Hum,
I wonder if anyone has postulated a theory with two, or more, temporal dimensions before the big bang?

(As far as I’m aware no one has -but then again, I don’t see the need to have one special dimension that continues unchanged past the BB and continues forever….)

@Woody

>>Proof

The only real proof lies in the mathematics of the universe (something for future ppl to discover)

I.e. 0 = 1 + (-1) = 0

Unfortunately, modern-day cosmology, like philosophy relies on compelling evidence, when applying that mathematics to the real world.

I.e. the earth has orbited the sun for billions of years…sun will rise tomorrow etc…

“Logic just clouds the mind” – quote from a quantum physicist, who may or may not exist.