size of the universe

[twinhardballers]

Originally Posted by mrbean_phillip

As I said in an earlier post, there is just to much structure and precision involved to put it all down to chance.

I would say that yes, we do not know what caused the big bang, and we don't have a description of any time earlier than 10–43 seconds after the big bang, but that is only because our current understanding of science doesn't have a unified theory of quantum gravity.

Just because there is 'structure' in the universe doesn't mean it was created, what do you consider 'structure'? Galaxies? they seem quite ordered because of Gravity and other forces that can easily be measured and experimented on.

I think it's fine to say "I don't know"; that's the basis for the quest for understanding and knowledge that is the drive behind science. BUT to say "I don't know and therefore I'm gunna just make up something" is a God of the gaps argument, which is a very backwards way of thinking.

All the evidence points to a big bang, and therefore it is our best explanation to the start of the universe, sure, it's not perfect, we still don't know EXACTLY what happened right at the start, but unless someone has a better idea, this is the idea that fits the evidence and can make predictions.

Originally Posted by mrbean_phillip

If you can believe that, then surely the idea of a Intelligent Designer" is not to far fetched? So, yes, I always enjoy reading on the different theories, but part of the problem is people simply takes as gospel/truth/proven, when indeed, they are mere theories - at least Relativity Theory have a fair bit of substance behind it, while the Big-Bang theory, well, if you can believe that, no reason I cannot believe in an "Intelligent Designer behind this all".

Evidence for the Big Bang Theory

While the scientific community now supports the Big Bang model over other cosmological models, it was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations. With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations

I'm just confused as to why people want to imagine something 'intelligent' or outside of our knowledge, just because we don't know about something.

[RobRoySyd]

Originally Posted by twinhardballers

I'm just confused as to why people want to imagine something 'intelligent' or outside of our knowledge, just because we don't know about something.

I would have thought that fairly self evident.

We had three possible scenarios for the universe:

1) Steady State
2) Big Bang > Big Crunch > Big Bang for eternity.
3) Big Bang > Heat Death

The first two fulfilled the "world without end" concept. The universe just was with no real beginning or end.

As the third now seems the truth one has to ponder some reason as to why the bang happened and then what came before that and before that etc.

A deity kind of plugs the whole hole nicely and we can still have all our science as well, bit of a win all round. Of course unless you simply accept faith then you still get an unanswered question of who created the deity and what kind of a sadist was he/it to create this universe anyway.

[Cpt.J.Sparrow]

Originally Posted by twinhardballers

I'm just confused as to why people want to imagine something 'intelligent' or outside of our knowledge, just because we don't know about something.

Answer: Ignorance.

Most ID supporters I came across weren't all that intelligent. Often, religious beliefs constituted their science. So many relied on argument to the best explanation, telling us in one way or another that the best account we could give of the world is that there is a God because of the inconclusiveness of our state of knowledge.

[Cpt.J.Sparrow]

Originally Posted by RobRoySyd

A deity kind of plugs the whole hole nicely and we can still have all our science as well, bit of a win all round. Of course unless you simply accept faith then you still get an unanswered question of who created the deity and what kind of a sadist was he/it to create this universe anyway.

Problems.

1. It's far from clear theism is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the world.

2. Even if the appeal to the existence of a God were the best explanation we could come up with, the fact is that what looks like the best explanation in any subject matter can be wrong.

[gcflora]

Originally Posted by RobRoySyd

We had three possible scenarios for the universe:

1) Steady State
2) Big Bang > Big Crunch > Big Bang for eternity.
3) Big Bang > Heat Death

What happened to the Cold Death scenario?

[RobRoySyd]

Originally Posted by Cpt.J.Sparrow

Problems.

1. It's far from clear theism is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the world.

2. Even if the appeal to the existence of a God were the best explanation we could come up with, the fact is that what looks like the best explanation in any subject matter can be wrong.

I agree, I was only answering the question of why people have beliefs.
As I said when subject to rational thought it leaves as the same problem, the same "gap" and the only thing that plugs the gap is faith and that is irrational but also human.

The position that I take is to never ever try to take away someone's belief and obviously as an atheist I'd never ask anyone to have faith. Instead I do point out that science can tell them a lot about their god's creation and they should use that knowledge to live with respect for his creation.

To put that another way, if the theist's beliefs were restricted to just the god of the gaps the world would be a much better place.

[SLIMaxPower]

so the universe started as a singularity in space.

did space expand at the same rate, or is it bigger again, or one and the same ?

[hsvguy]

Originally Posted by SLIMaxPower

so the universe started as a singularity in space.

did space expand at the same rate, or is it bigger again, or one and the same ?

A bit of trouble understanding the question? space and the universe are essentially the same thing. Even though we imagine space as a big empty sphere filled with galaxies and suns and matter, the space itself isn't just nothing. It has weight, and is being searched for in the form of Dark matter.

[twinhardballers]

Originally Posted by SLIMaxPower

so the universe started as a singularity in space.

did space expand at the same rate, or is it bigger again, or one and the same ?

It's very hard to visualise the universe, as said above, most people envision it as a finite entity with all of matter within it, however, actual space and time is the universe, threre may be something outside of that, but as far as we know, that doesn't contain space or time (which again, is basically impossible to imagine)

[aXis]

Originally Posted by SLIMaxPower

so the universe started as a singularity in space.

did space expand at the same rate, or is it bigger again, or one and the same ?

Before the Big Bang there was no space. The Big Bang was a singularity and as it expanded it created space inside it.

Imagine the universe is a bunch of objects placed on a rubber sheet, and the rubber sheet is expanding. The rubber sheet is "space" - i.e. it's the framework that everything sits on - including light, distance and time. Beyond that is nothing - not the empty space kind of nothing when you look up at the sky - truly nothing, no dimensions, no time, it just doesnt exist in any tangible way.

[power]

Originally Posted by aXis

Before the Big Bang there was no space. The Big Bang was a singularity and as it expanded it created space inside it.

Imagine the universe is a bunch of object placed on a rubber sheet, and the rubber sheet is expanding. The rubber sheet is "space" - i.e. it's the framework that everything sits on - including light, distance and time. Beyond that is nothing - not the empty space kind of nothing when you look up at the sky - truly nothing, no dimensions, no time, it just doesnt exist in any tangible way.

theoretically of course.

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by gcflora

What happened to the Cold Death scenario?

What do you mean by cold death?

[cvidler]

Originally Posted by Foliage

What do you mean by cold death?

heat death and cold death are similar outcomes.

Cold death defines a absolute zero end temperature throughout the universe. while heat death specifies a non-zero but equally distributed temeperature through the universe. Without temperature differences no 'work' can be done.

[Foliage]

That was my impression, I guess they are basically the same thing as far as we are concerned.

[gcflora]

Originally Posted by Foliage

That was my impression, I guess they are basically the same thing as far as we are concerned.

They might be the same thing. But if the universe for some reason compresses back on itself but not actually get back to the "crunch" stage then things will be hot (not sure if this can happen). If everything keeps expanding until stuff stops moving then and temps approach abs. zero, that's cold. Even if the "hot scenario" can't happen, I still prefer to refer to the freezing death of the universe due to lack of heat as a cold death, rather than a (lack of) heat death. *shrug*