execmail
execmail77 said:
I'm not sure it's actual scientific "knowledge" rather than just "theory" that time had its first appearance in the Big Bang. There's a distinction between the two, I think. I know little about quantum physics, so would love to hear one of those cases where causality doesn't hold true. Might help me understand a bit more.
execmail, scientific knowledge usually emanates in a theory which explains all possible observations. That theory holds until a better theory is developed (usually basing on the previous one), or until new observations reveal something that can’t be explained by the current theory. That’s the distinction between knowledge and theory.
As you already know a bit about quantum physics, I’d like to mention the “Tunnel Effect”. To get two Hydrogen atoms to fusion to a Helium atom, you’d actually need an activation energy (=temperature) that is several times higher than our sun can provide. However, a very small portion of quantums are able to “tunnel” the required energy peak and thus instigate the fusion process. These quantums act that way for no physical reason, i.e. without cause. However, this tunnel effect is what keeps our sun burning the way it does. Without it, the sun would either remain cold, or it would burn all its energy in much shorter time, radiating much more heat.
Another example for a lack of causality comes from nuclear physics: Radioactivity. It’s just a statistical number of instable isotopes that decays into the stabile form, the decay rate is typical for each type of specific isotopes. But there is no actual cause for one particular isotope to decay at a specific time while huge amounts of identical isotopes remain stabile much longer. Only the total rate of decay (a statistical number) is constant. Causality?
But my logic tells me that if one thing is created by another, which was created before that by another, and so on all the way back to the very first creation (the big bang), isn't the next MOST logical question just continuing the same line of reasoning, "what then created that first creation? Why would it be more logical to ask the same question over and over, and then, with no reason to, or proof either way, abandon that question altogether? Unless you're already assuming the answer that things change at that pouint without any proof beyond your assumption.
Yes, perhaps, "The world can be explained without involving a new factor called 'creator'," but it strikes me as more of a stretch to do so.
Ah, logic is a wonderful thing. But some phenomenons escape human logic, at least if you only have “common sense” as a resource. Infinity is such a thing, for example. Entirely outside of our imagination’s grasp, yet very real in mathematics. Or take the so-called “irreal numbers”, the square root of a negative number. Which number, multiplied by itself, produces a negative result? Impossible, yet large parts of the computer industry actually work with such numbers. Take the “virtual particles” which appear out of nowhere at the event horizon of a black hole. Causality? Logic?
Another example from quantum physics, which clearly shows that some things escape our imagination and logic: The spin. It’s actually a measure for symmetry. So far, we know three different kinds of quantum symmetry, ½ , 1, and 2. Visualize a deck of poker cards. Almost all cards there equal a spin ½, as they only need a half turn (180°) to look exactly the same as before. Only the ace needs a full 360° turn to look identical, which equals spin 1. So far, everything is logical and imaginable. But to produce a spin 2 symmetry, you’d have to imagine a card that needs TWO full turns (720°) to look identical. Impossible? Obviously yes, but this is already common knowledge, proven scientifically and mathematically.
Therefore, we all should be very careful to use our common sense and our limited imagination near the borderline of science. Just because the concept of a beginning of time and space escapes our imagination, doesn’t mean it isn’t logical. Actually, it’s the only logical explanation that is available to us, but like most phenomenons in quantum theory, it’s outside our logical grasp and defies everything we experience everyday, on our scale of perspective.
And it also strikes me then that FAITH is needed in equal doses to believe or disbelieve in a Creator God, if neither of us can prove it, either way.
Maybe you’re right. But science and a creator don’t exclude each other. Science can only describe the world in scientific terms, there’s no need to BELIEVE anything. You can actually check and cross-check all scientific results.
Science does not try to answer the question “why”, or “to what purpose”, it only tries to answer “how does it happen”. There is enough room for everybody to BELIEVE in reasons, purposes, and intentions. That’s where FAITH enters the stage…
I realize that these ramblings are terribly off-topic, so maybe we should return to the original topic of gay marriages. Sorry for the excursion.
