QUENTIN DIGGS, my (limited) understanding of spacetime relativity is that, if there is no matter and no space, there is no time. What existed “before” the Big Bang is a meaningless question if all the “energy” (or whatever) was compressed into a literal singularity (i.e. no spatial dimension). Is “nothing” large or small? Is “never” a short time or a long time? Our brains aren’t really equipped to grasp these things.
Even if it’s NOT a meaningless question, I suspect it will be forever unanswerable (at least definitively). From observable phenomena using available technology, we can extrapolate to some statements about what happened immediately AFTER the Big Bang, but we have nothing that allows us to see the state of “before.”
The ultimate question may well boil down to “Why does the universe exist rather than not exist?” A theologian and a theoretical physicist might speculate differently, but ultimately neither can say for sure.
What we intuitively understand as “The Way Things Work” is based on observable, mid-range phenomena. It’s a broad band of existence, but we know that as we approach the threshholds of the very large and the very small, things get weird. That doesn’t mean they don’t follow SOME sort of laws, but they may follow DIFFERENT laws, the natures of which we’re only beginning to understand.
Since one of the fundamental rules of the universe is the Conservation of Energy, i.e. “you can’t make something from nothing”, what made the Big Bang? Oh I don’t know, could it be…. GOD?? (Dum, dum, duuuum!) /ducking & covering now ; )
It’s the same issue, Kydex. If God exists, how and why? If the universe exists, how and why? Besides, to the extent that the word “created” implies a “creator” or an “act of creation”, I deny that the universe was “created.” It exists in time. It seems to have a measurable age. But to say that there was “time” “before” the existence of the universe may be entirely untrue. We don’t know, and maybe we’ll NEVER know.
“The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:1. Everything that exists must have a cause.2. The universe must therefore have a cause.3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.4. Therefore the universe cannot be the cause of itself.5.Something outside the universe must have caused the universe.6. God is the only thing that is outside the universe.7. God therefore caused the universe.8. God exists.
“Flaw 1 can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem about God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to his first premise – and say that, though God exists, he doesn’t have a cause – or else a contradiction to his third premise – and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without cause, or else can be self-caused. Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
“Flaw 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it.
“Comment: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang and the Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, is an expression of our cosmic befuddlement at the question, why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sidney Morgenbresser had a classic response to this question: ‘And if there were nothing? You’d still be complaining!’" — 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
OW! my head hurts and my stomach is not doing to welleither. i just wanted to read over the hedge, have a chuckle oreven a snort. If i want quantum physics i will watch the science channel.
trouble with both sides of the argument is that neither side really knows the truth, it’s all just guess work based on how when and where you were raised.
Your argument is circular, RCMinor. God exists outside of the Natural Order which allows God to exist outside of the Natural Order which is how we know God exists outside of the Natural Order. It’s true that my understanding is limited by the capacity of the human brain, and it’s also true that our understanding of the phenomena involved in the origins of the universe is in its infancy. But we know a hell of a lot more now than we did 100 years ago, and I have no doubt we’ll know a hell of a lot more in another 100 years, even though I won’t be around to see it. Someone else on another thread referred to so-called scientific or rationalistic “proofs” of the existence of God as “the God of the Gaps.” “Science can’t explain this, therefore science will NEVER be able to explaint this, therefore the only explanation is God.” Luckily for the theists, every door that science opens seems to reveal other doors we hadn’t even known existed before. Answering a question raises more questions, which gives the God of the Gaps plenty of room for retreat, so this argument will probably never be resolved. But it’s strange that the “proofs” of God’s existence seem to rely upon the lack of answers to questions nobody even knew to ask 100 years or so ago.
The text I posted isn’t intended to disprove the existence of God, it points out the fallacy of that supposed “proof” of the existence of God. Many others have been put forth over the years (at least 35 are identified in the book), and they all fall flat.
“Call me when you observe a comet behaving courageously, or some planet jumping in front of its moon to protect it from a sun gone nova.”
If I ever DID see something like that, I’d seriously reevaluate my position. The behavior of inanimate objects is a question of physical laws. The behavior of human beings is a question of psychology. I don’t doubt that human beings are capable of self-sacrifice, and love, and moral choice, but I see no reason to believe that these things are attributable to any sort of God. I see no evidence that the universe is operating according to any “plan”, divine or otherwise.
I didn’t start it, Lewis. My conception is pretty much in line with that of the Tree that Knows Things. “Before” the Big Bang, there was nothing, in any sense of which we can have any conception.
FYI, this is the most comments a Hedge strip has ever gotten online. Either here or on comics.com. Food for thought. Like donuts or mac and cheese. – M. Fry
tonyd1942 over 12 years ago
There had to be something there to create the big bang.
KeithB078 over 12 years ago
Hammy may have been the cause
Dragoncat over 12 years ago
It would appear as though nothing is above Hammy.
Digital Frog over 12 years ago
It all began with Hammy popping an empty lunch sack.
Lewisvz over 12 years ago
He’s right it’s almost like it didn’t even happen… oh yeah, I forgot it was fake…
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
QUENTIN DIGGS, my (limited) understanding of spacetime relativity is that, if there is no matter and no space, there is no time. What existed “before” the Big Bang is a meaningless question if all the “energy” (or whatever) was compressed into a literal singularity (i.e. no spatial dimension). Is “nothing” large or small? Is “never” a short time or a long time? Our brains aren’t really equipped to grasp these things.
Even if it’s NOT a meaningless question, I suspect it will be forever unanswerable (at least definitively). From observable phenomena using available technology, we can extrapolate to some statements about what happened immediately AFTER the Big Bang, but we have nothing that allows us to see the state of “before.”
The ultimate question may well boil down to “Why does the universe exist rather than not exist?” A theologian and a theoretical physicist might speculate differently, but ultimately neither can say for sure.
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
What we intuitively understand as “The Way Things Work” is based on observable, mid-range phenomena. It’s a broad band of existence, but we know that as we approach the threshholds of the very large and the very small, things get weird. That doesn’t mean they don’t follow SOME sort of laws, but they may follow DIFFERENT laws, the natures of which we’re only beginning to understand.
ProfessorKid over 12 years ago
Since one of the fundamental rules of the universe is the Conservation of Energy, i.e. “you can’t make something from nothing”, what made the Big Bang? Oh I don’t know, could it be…. GOD?? (Dum, dum, duuuum!) /ducking & covering now ; )
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
And what made God, ProfK?
Kydex29 over 12 years ago
Ah, but God was not made, fritzoid. There’s the rub. No-one claims that God was created, while everyone admits that the universe was. (c:
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
It’s the same issue, Kydex. If God exists, how and why? If the universe exists, how and why? Besides, to the extent that the word “created” implies a “creator” or an “act of creation”, I deny that the universe was “created.” It exists in time. It seems to have a measurable age. But to say that there was “time” “before” the existence of the universe may be entirely untrue. We don’t know, and maybe we’ll NEVER know.
“The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:1. Everything that exists must have a cause.2. The universe must therefore have a cause.3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.4. Therefore the universe cannot be the cause of itself.5.Something outside the universe must have caused the universe.6. God is the only thing that is outside the universe.7. God therefore caused the universe.8. God exists.
“Flaw 1 can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem about God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to his first premise – and say that, though God exists, he doesn’t have a cause – or else a contradiction to his third premise – and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without cause, or else can be self-caused. Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
“Flaw 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it.
“Comment: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang and the Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, is an expression of our cosmic befuddlement at the question, why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sidney Morgenbresser had a classic response to this question: ‘And if there were nothing? You’d still be complaining!’" — 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
Ed Brault Premium Member over 12 years ago
Could Hammy actually be The WINSLOW???
Lawrence Stetz Premium Member over 12 years ago
Hammy is kilroy.
tex4056 over 12 years ago
I am not. If I am not, I cannot know that I am not. Therefore I think I am.
lindagreyramert over 12 years ago
OW! my head hurts and my stomach is not doing to welleither. i just wanted to read over the hedge, have a chuckle oreven a snort. If i want quantum physics i will watch the science channel.
dssedvet over 12 years ago
trouble with both sides of the argument is that neither side really knows the truth, it’s all just guess work based on how when and where you were raised.
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
Your argument is circular, RCMinor. God exists outside of the Natural Order which allows God to exist outside of the Natural Order which is how we know God exists outside of the Natural Order. It’s true that my understanding is limited by the capacity of the human brain, and it’s also true that our understanding of the phenomena involved in the origins of the universe is in its infancy. But we know a hell of a lot more now than we did 100 years ago, and I have no doubt we’ll know a hell of a lot more in another 100 years, even though I won’t be around to see it. Someone else on another thread referred to so-called scientific or rationalistic “proofs” of the existence of God as “the God of the Gaps.” “Science can’t explain this, therefore science will NEVER be able to explaint this, therefore the only explanation is God.” Luckily for the theists, every door that science opens seems to reveal other doors we hadn’t even known existed before. Answering a question raises more questions, which gives the God of the Gaps plenty of room for retreat, so this argument will probably never be resolved. But it’s strange that the “proofs” of God’s existence seem to rely upon the lack of answers to questions nobody even knew to ask 100 years or so ago.
The text I posted isn’t intended to disprove the existence of God, it points out the fallacy of that supposed “proof” of the existence of God. Many others have been put forth over the years (at least 35 are identified in the book), and they all fall flat.
“Call me when you observe a comet behaving courageously, or some planet jumping in front of its moon to protect it from a sun gone nova.”
If I ever DID see something like that, I’d seriously reevaluate my position. The behavior of inanimate objects is a question of physical laws. The behavior of human beings is a question of psychology. I don’t doubt that human beings are capable of self-sacrifice, and love, and moral choice, but I see no reason to believe that these things are attributable to any sort of God. I see no evidence that the universe is operating according to any “plan”, divine or otherwise.
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
I didn’t start it, Lewis. My conception is pretty much in line with that of the Tree that Knows Things. “Before” the Big Bang, there was nothing, in any sense of which we can have any conception.
mfry1 over 12 years ago
FYI, this is the most comments a Hedge strip has ever gotten online. Either here or on comics.com. Food for thought. Like donuts or mac and cheese. – M. Fry