Ham, To your argument and my not being compelled by that argument:
Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows: Every finite and contingent being has a cause. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect. ... "Several objections to the cosmological argument have been raised. One very simple objection is that, in the formulation above, the conclusion (4) There must be a first cause (which itself does not have a cause) leaves open the question of why the First Cause should not require a cause. Though this is not an intrinsic self-contradiction with the assumption (1) that every effect should have a cause, since not everything is necessarily an effect, it may be argued, not without controversy, that an infinite regression of causes is in fact possible." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument Marsha At 02:18 PM 12/5/2007, Ham wrote: >Krimel, Marsha, DMB -- > > >Apparently you folks get your science education from Wikipedia. > >Following is part of an article by William C. Mitchell which was published >in Physics Essays, Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997. It's a non-technical >summary of the problems cosmologists face when theorizing the Big Bang as >the primary, uncaused 'singular' event. I think you might find the entire >essay enlightening. > >"The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of the >singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its >density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to >mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a >breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics >as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions >about it. In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and >energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to >represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy. > >"According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not >exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, >this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to >others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant >problem. > >"If there were a Big Bang, it would seem that events during the first >instant of time would involve the instantaneous acceleration of the enormous >number of particles (the entire mass) of the universe to relativistic >velocity; and some variations of Big Bang Theory postulate velocities well >above the speed of light. Because the acceleration of even a minute >particle to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, the >Big Bang might have required on the order of an infinity times and infinity >of ergs; not to mention the additional energy that would be required to >overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe. > >"It has been suggested that this singularity problem can be solved by >postulating a universe of zero net energy; a universe wherein the positive >kinetic energy, the potential energy, and the Einsteinian equivalent energy >of the mass of the universe is equal and opposite to the negative energy of >gravity. Somehow, if the universe is to collapse in the future as some >believe, all the energy that was expended in the birth and expansion of the >Big Bang universe was only borrowed; someday to be paid back. However, that >doesn't provide an adequate explanation for the source of the energy >requirement described above. > >"It should be noted that this zero net energy explanation couldn't >reasonably be postulated for other than a recollapsing universe. However, >as will be discussed further on, observational evidence has all but ruled >out the possibility of the collapsing Big Bang universe case, thus adding to >the incredibility of zero net energy; and certainly it would seem that the >positive energy of the potential, kinetic and the enormous mass equivalent >energy of the of the universe must be far greater than the negative energy >of its gravity. For any Big Bang universe case the postulated zero net >energy idea appears to be unrealistic. > >"Inflation theory ...has claimed to solve the singularity problem (and other >Big Bang problems as well) but it requires an enormous quantum theory vacuum >fluctuation and, according to some, an enormous cosmic repulsive force to >provide for a Big Bang. These are purely speculative ideas that have no >known means of experimental verification." > > --The Big Bang Theory Under Fire, >http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/ > >Enjoy, >Ham > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
