The Idea of Existence

[ArtDrake]

Gəck: [T]he only way for existence to.. exist is for it to have always been there.

Duck: ... or for it to have started. The logical process involved, against the idea of creation of the world as we see it, goes as follows:

P₁: All perception of light is subjective to the Doppler Effect.
C₁: If and only if an emitter of light is moving in a direction opposite to its emission of light, the light will be percieved as redshifted.
C₂: For any given viewing point, if emitted light is percieved as redshifted, the emitter is moving away from the viewing point.
C₃: If and only if an emitter of light is moving in a direction aligned with its emission of light, the light will be percieved as blueshifted.
C₄: For any given viewing point, if emitted light is percieved as blueshifted, the emitter is moving towards the viewing point.
C₅: If and only if a viewer is in an expanding universe, most emitted light will be percieved as redshifted.
C₆: If most emitted light is percieved as redshifted, the viewer is in an expanding universe.
C₇: If and only if a viewer is in a contracting universe, most emitted light will be percieved as blueshifted.
P₂: Near emitters of light can be used as references points for highly accurate estimation of average light wavelength from a given emitter.
P₃: Such estimations have established that emitted light from far away is, on average, redshifted.
C₈: We are in an expanding universe.
P₄: If the universe is expanding as time goes forwards, it contracts as time goes backwards.
C₉: As time goes backwards, the universe contracts.
P₅: We are in an entropic universe.
P₆: If entropy increases as time goes forwards, it decreases as time goes backwards.
C₁₀: As time goes backwards, the entropy decreases.
C₁₁: At the beginning of the universe, the universe existed as a single point.

The logical process explaining why science doesn't indulge your curiosities in the regard any further is as follows here:

P₇: Any scientific theory that includes information that has not been established as factual cannot be plausible.
P₈: We have little to no information established as factual pertaining to the beginning of the universe.
C₁₂: Any scientific theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe includes little to no factual information.
C₁₃: Any scientific theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe including more than little information cannot be plausible.

We simply don't have enough data. However, that doesn't mean science resorts to fantasy to fill in the blanks. When we've done that in the past, it's always turned out wrong.

And yes, I did say that if God was around before the Big Bang, He was most likely killed in the explosion and incinerated.

[Xemadus Echina]

Rained suggested a bad TV show is right, but thats besides the point.

hey SG-1 is a very well written show.  If you like sci-fi then you have to like SG-1

[ArtDrake]

Nope. That's simply not true.

[bugfartboy]

Alright Ducky. Just wondering. If God were outside of the singular point to instigate the Big Bang, how would he be destroyed?

[Deagonx]

SG-1 was fine. The 182343459734095 spinoffs I kept seeing all sucked.


But that is besides the point.


From all the knowledge gathered in the world. The big bang theory is no more plausible than the existence of a higher being.

[ArtDrake]

False, Game Crazy Kid. I showed the logical process that arrives at the conclusion of the Big Bang. This is a very plausible theory. However, science is unable to extrapolate further theory from the data we have in a plausible way. But just about any of that would be more realistic than posing the existence of an omnipotent being from outer space suddenly zapping life into everything. The Big Bang, in fact, is 100% believable to most non-Christians. It would explain a lot, in a way that conforms with observed qualities of the universe, and in a way that

theistic religion does not.

Oh, and would you please punctuate properly, so I don't think as little of you as I might were you to continue?

[bugfartboy]

You didn't answer my question, Ducky.

[ArtDrake]

Sorry -- I didn't see it.

The universe grew very quickly. It probably would have destroyed anything within 50 miles in mere nanoseconds; mostly, that was a joke. I don't actually think that it's likely that God caused the Big Bang.

[Deagonx]

False, Game Crazy Kid. I showed the logical process that arrives at the conclusion of the Big Bang. This is a very plausible theory. However, science is unable to extrapolate further theory from the data we have in a plausible way. But just about any of that would be more realistic than posing the existence of an omnipotent being from outer space suddenly zapping life into everything. The Big Bang, in fact, is 100% believable to most non-Christians. It would explain a lot, in a way that conforms with observed qualities of the universe, and in a way that

theistic religion does not.

Oh, and would you please punctuate properly, so I don't think as little of you as I might were you to continue?

Every theory on the beginning of the universe ranges from speculation to just plain silly. I don't find your explanation logical at all, not to mention most of them break the law of conversation of matter.

[ArtDrake]

"Every theory on the beginning of the universe ranges from speculation to just plain silly."

That's absurd. Each individual theory pertaining to the beginning of the universe is either speculation, silly, or some of both; they do not range. Collectively, they range.

Granted; I didn't pose an explanation. I simply explained an existing theory that pertains to the beginning of the universe.

Next, I'd like to say that you really shouldn't use an object pronoun that doesn't refer to the last object used in a sentence. Finally, I'd like to add, speculatively, that perhaps the conservation of matter doesn't apply when universes begin. My point is that we know very little on the matter. What we do know, however, we can use as premises to form conclusions about the beginning. I'm not quite sure that you understand this, but when I refer to the Big Bang theory, I'm referring to its most basic form:

"At the beginning of the universe, all matter existed as a singularity, or a point mass. Then, the matter expanded in all directions, forming the galaxies and deep space astronomic formations we see today.

[Deagonx]

"At the beginning of the universe, all matter existed as a singularity, or a point mass. Then, the matter expanded in all directions, forming the galaxies and deep space astronomic formations we see today.

Til that much can be proven, it is a contraceptive argument. Irrelevant to the larger scheme of things.

[ArtDrake]

Look, if you're going to use the contraction "'til," just use the apostrophe that goes in front of it.

Can you prove that gravity is what is pulling us downwards? Or should we just assume that the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are pushing us down towards the Earth? Theories don't have to be proven for them to be extremely plausible theories, and they certainly don't have to be proven to be relevant. The Big Bang theory is very likely, judging from the data we have. But then again, you being one of those Christians that chooses to ignore empirical evidence and insist that evolution is "just a theory," you might just completely disregard all the evidence pointing to this conclusion as well.

[bugfartboy]

Ducky, might I ask how the passing on of genes works? I know, but would you explain for me? Just the genes though. No need to break PG.

[ArtDrake]

Yes, you might. Which part? Meiosis? And might I suggest that we bring a discussion of reproduction to a more appropriate topic, unless, of course, this directly pertains to the argument, be there, in fact, an argument.

[Deagonx]

But then again, you being one of those Christians that chooses to ignore empirical evidence and insist that evolution is "just a theory,"

Ahh, so my religion defutes my points by themselves?