Taking into consideration the law of causality, where did the energy & matter for the big bang come from?

Question

Law of Causality - Non-being cannot cause being - or in laymens terms from nothing, nothing comes.

And please don't use Heisenberg's principle of iIndeterminacy to claim that quantum particles pop into existence out of nothing, entirely without cause because it breaks the backbone of your own scientific laws from which you establish your disbelief in God.

Do tell me where I butchered anything.

If quantum particles pop into existance without cause then it breaks the law of Causality which is a pillar of modern science. Again you guys want it both ways. Nothing can come from nothing, well unless we want it to.

So far my friends I've seen a lot of attacks and denial but no explination where matter and energy came from.
Your use of attack to dismiss my question is illogical and not very scientific at all. Shame on you, You hypocrites.

Tucking - So your saying that the universe I.E matter and energy has always existed and never had a point at which it never existed? Doesn't that break the second law of thermodynamics? (Thats energy deteriation for you atheists using attacks to dismiss my question instead of science.) If it has always existed wouldn't it have burned itself out ages ago since it has always existed?

Interesting, still no scientific reasonable explinations just dismissals of my intelligence or just outright attacks.

I really love the denial of one of your own scientific principles by the way. And you call us ignorant of science?

Shaz - Thanks for an honest answer.

I don't agree with the oscillating model however because there is no known principle of physics that would reversed the collapse of the universe and cause anothe big bang. Second, current scientific research has shown that the universe is not dense enough for gravity to pull it back together again.

Thanks again for you answer I really appreciate it.

Answer 1

Honestly...humanity has not progressed enough to be able to figure that out..let alone understand it.


Addition> So I have checked you out and you are not stupid. I don't agree with your ideas but hey whatever.

You do tend to get the rules of a logical argument a little wrong though. It is up to you to prove God exists....not up to scientists to prove it does not...that is logic+science 101.

Now there is no such scientific "law of causality" (there is a philosophical law of causality), there is an idea of Causality which is the basis for scientific fields like physics and quantum mechanics but there is no Scientific Law of Causality...so this question is kinda invalidated

There is a Causality Principle which basically says only that effect follows cause..such as Big Bang caused universe to come into being from a critical mass object.

This Causality Principle in no way negates the Big Bang Theory and would not cover the origin of the Big Bang critical mass object...just as Evolution doesn't actually explain origin of life..big bang doesn't explain origin of the object.

Using logical and scientific arguments and the causality principle the Big Bang created universe which is still expanding due to the momentum and it can be conjectured that gravity is exerting itself to lessen momentum and will eventually cause a collapse of universe back into a single object, such as a Big Crunch, which would be at critical mass and cause another universe to be created is a valid hypothesis


The argument that the energy+matter of the universe has always been in existance is just as valid as that of God always being in existance to create universe. If you want to say that the universe had to come from somewhere that's fine but it is equally valid that God had to come from somewhere.

PS the 1st law of thermodynamics says you cannot create or destroy energy which backs that up
PSS the 2nd law is about increase in entropy and that no conversion process is 100% efficient..not a deterioation of energy since energy can never be destroyed or used up..only converted...2nd law is based on 1st law

Answer 2

Why should anyone answer a question in which you are limiting the answers that can be given to an answer that pleases you?

I'm with J.P. on this one...... how can you say a law/principle of science is breaking the backbone of scientific laws?? That's like saying that belief in christ is breaking the backbone of christianity.

You need to get a new hobby.

Answer 3

I assure I have maybe half an idea what you're talking about, but that's why people go to school for years to have a grasp of physics.

Having said that why can't we use the "it's always been" answer too. Why does the energy that created the matter that we know as the universe need a beginning? Huh huh?

It's like saying what created God.....get it, I can use your answers against you mwhahaha.

Answer 4

You sound like you know just enough science to convince yourself that you know far more than you do. If you could understand, then this is not a complex question. If you are looking for a proof of god, then your argument is meaningless, and deserves no sincere attempt at a response. I suspect that you are the latter.

Answer 5

Please stop butchering physics and astronomy with your massive ignorance on the subjects. A high school level of knowledge is not sufficient for understanding these theories.

There is no "law of causality"; you do not understand either uncertainty or indeterminacy; and none of this leads to a belief in a deity.

Answer 6

Really?

Exactly how does Heisenburg's Indeterminancy Principle, itself a scientific law, violate science?

Does the old robot phrase, "DOES NOT COMPUTE" mean anything to you?

Answer 7

Is this The One that Everybody Agree : First Cause !

Why - then disagree on Consequenses ???
Is this world a mad house ?

Cheers

Answer 8

Sorry, I can't help you there. I'm not a cosmologist.

Answer 9

I know this one!
God did it!
Do I get an "A"?????