I have a question for those who believe that the universe started from nothing, with no god or divine intervention:
There is nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, no universe, no galaxies, no nothing.
Now what? What's step 1 for life to come out of nothing?
Last edited by HalfBloodPrince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I have a question for evolution theorists.
There is nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, no universe, no galaxies, no nothing.
Now what? What's step 1 for life to come out of nothing? |
No evolutionary theorist can answer this question, because it has nothing to do with evolution. Why would you ask a baker how computer programs work? It makes no sense to do that. So why would you ask evolutionary theorists about where matter comes from? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I have a question for evolution theorists.
There is nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, no universe, no galaxies, no nothing.
Now what? What's step 1 for life to come out of nothing? |
Evolution through natural selection is a theory which deals with how organisms mutate and adapt on terrestrial (or even gas) planets. In layman's terms: It only applies to how life started, and started to change after Earth was formed.
As Carl Sagan put it: "In order to bake a cake, you must first invent the universe."
What you are searching for is someone who is either a Quantum Physicist, or an Astronomer, or both. As I understand it the "Big Bang" theory was actually initially hypothosized to allow for a creator while creating a picture of the universe which fit Einstein's equations (In fact, it was first hypothesised by a Catholic priest). It beat out "Steady State" as a static universe did not make sense anymore, and over the years the standard model (Big Bang theory) adapted, while Steady State evolved into the currenth theory on the synthesis of elements larger than hydrogen.
We do not clearly know what happened before the universe really existed as I understand it.I get it; I'll change the name of the thread.
So let me get this straight. The question is :
If we don't accept the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being which exists outside time and space, and was never itself created, and which, in a moment of inspiration (can an omniscient being be inspired I wonder?), created the universe out of nothing....
if we don't accept this then how do we explain the beginning of the universe?
Hmm...tricky....so on the one hand we can simply accept that God exists and did not need creating, or on the other we can say - well there was the Big Bang which created space and time so, for us, there was no 'before'. *
*There again there are some hypothesese (M-theory springs to mind) which might explain the Big Bang so that there was a 'before' (of a very loose kind)...
I think, all things being considered, I will stick with the latter explanation for the moment and see what develops...
Well some thoughts: first of all if there is no God that doesn't mean that the universe came from nothing. The universe could have always existed, the products of change, chance, and evolution. The big bang theory is still being questioned.
| TBSC wrote: |
| Well some thoughts: first of all if there is no God that doesn't mean that the universe came from nothing. The universe could have always existed, the products of change, chance, and evolution. The big bang theory is still being questioned. |
All theories are and should be being questioned. The Big Bang theory has no serious competitors however. Steady State theories have great difficulty accounting for physical evidence such as CMB. Most scientists discount steady state theory (and the later incarnation of that theory - QSS) and proponents of the theory (Fred Hoyle et al) never countered the criticisms in a satisfactory manner...Does it make a difference if we know (which no one really does)? I mean, it's not like people would all the sudden stop believing in God(s). They would simply say [insert cause] was because God(s) wanted it to happen, just as some have said that God(s) created everything including the process of evolution. I think this argument/discussion has been done many times in recent threads. Everything that's been said will simply be repeated.
| Indi wrote: |
Why would you ask a baker how computer programs work? It makes no sense to do that. So why would you ask evolutionary theorists about where matter comes from? |
Well the observation is very shortsighted
The observation also if I may say without being harsh is just short of being myopic with a distinct lack of
lack of common sense
Actually you can ask anyone anything and the one who has answers wins the race!
In years to come you have to use a lot of computer programs to get better baking
I guess a baker without the knowledge of computer programs will fall out on the race
check this out ( http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=16699&t=2)
that goes to say that the future is not for the ignorant!
| Indi wrote: |
| So why would you ask evolutionary theorists about where matter comes from? |
Yes the question is why?
to say that evolutionary theorists need not know where matter comes from is not shortsightedness but near to absurd ie ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous and having no rational or orderly relationship
In fact the evolutionary theorist has nothing to say about evolution ( life) if he cannot try and find an answer to the question where matter comes from as life it self is one form of matter
remember that we are talking about theorists
I find it funny that an evolutionary theorist would say I don't know about matter all I know is about evolution. If that is the case then he/she is one hell of a theorist-.- Evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet. Evolution, in simple terms, is how life has changed over time since it came to be. It does not deal with how the planet came to be, it does not deal with how the first forms of life came to be. Why would someone speaking on evolution need to go back to quantum physics and all that other good stuff...there's no need. There's a connection (as there always is in science), but if you're speaking on evolution as an evolutionary theorist, you're speaking on the changes of life over time on Earth...nothing more, nothing less.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| -.- Evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet. Evolution, in simple terms, is how life has changed over time since it came to be. It does not deal with how the planet came to be, it does not deal with how the first forms of life came to be. Why would someone speaking on evolution need to go back to quantum physics and all that other good stuff...there's no need. There's a connection (as there always is in science), but if you're speaking on evolution as an evolutionary theorist, you're speaking on the changes of life over time on Earth...nothing more, nothing less. |
The argument is not sound
In fact it cannot be said that anything ( here evolution) in science has nothing to do with any other thing (origins ) everything is related we just ignore the relationship to avoid complication and that is when the theory fails!
evolution is not just change
it also involves origins
Are origin and evolution linked in a tight manner
we have to theorize on the origins before theorizing on the change
because answers to the origin of life will have a great bearing on the further change of life forms
the theorist who has no knowledge of origins cannot answer simple questions in the evolution lile
Just how extinct is an extinct species?
How could evolution be proven false?
Is the theory of evolution is not just a "theory"?
The crux lies in separating creation from evolution
Evolution does not try to explain how life came but ignoring the theories of origin and goiing about theorizing evolution will not make a sound attempt
The law of law of biogenesis itself has to have a platter of evolutionary thinking
The Human Genome Project has proved a lot Also, in recent discoveries, scientist have figured out we don't get "New Mutated Genes" that cause us to evolve. We actually revert back to our primal genes
so only the origins are important to the evolutionist
Simply ask an evolutionary theorist if an extinct species can re originate ?
what does the evolutionary theorist believe in
biogenesis or abiogenesis
if it is biogenesis
then life came from life that is almost evolution which means creation itself is evolution
if tis abiogensis
then what is the probability of it to happen again there by interfere with evolutionWell, if the universe has to be created by someone, then the one created it has to be created by someone as well. Who created god? And who created the one that created god? And who...
Religion doesn't answer this question at all.
EDIT: Who said there was nothing?
EDIT2: And if there was nothing, what did god create the universe of?
To understand a theory about the creation of a universe, one has to open his mind. Im keen on physics, maybe not a great physicist but I think I grasp some of the theories and models and what not.
So, correct me if Im wrong, this is how it goes:
The great Nothing outside of the our universe, thats the place were countless other universes exist and sometimes even collide with eachother (creating space-time anomalies like monopoles, wormholes, whiteholes and some others). I cant say what this Nothing is made of, maybe just mathematics and energy? Dunno...
But back to the story... lets say that Nothing has produced out universe, in the beginning it was very dense, alot of matter in a small area, that means temperatures hotter than the core of our sun many times over. And yeah.. it was eleven-dimensional back then. A millionth of a second later, BAM! a dimension dissapears, creating a channel for energy transmit called gravity. Another millionth of a second and BAM, another channel is created, its called Strong and has gulped down like three dimensions. The story repeats itself and BAM BAM! We have electromagnetism and Weak, which take some more dimensions, leaving us only 3 or 4 (dont remeber this part well, but Im guessing its four, space and time).
Now, the whole thing started decompressing, loosing matter and temperature. And yes, you grab some bunch of energy, squeeze it real hard and there you have it, a proton! And also, it bends the space-time around itself a wee bit.
Now, take that the energy-matter change took place uncountable times, and uncountable collisions happened, creating almost uncountable stars, giving birth to galaxies.. And yes, by sheer chance of luck, some atoms created very primitive life, which then evolved.
What are the chances of that? What are the chances that such a thing could happen twice in the same universe? Very small... but we know that they are only chances, and nothing was in their way to roll a d20 a hit a 20. Just plain luck and coincidence.
And add to that the fact that Nothing has shat out countless other universes like this, in almost an infinate amount of time, so the chance of hitting jackpot and accidentally creating life aint that small.
(anyone correct me if Im wrong somewhere, Im writing this from memory). But this is just a theory that relies on our current understanding and models.
| c'tair wrote: |
| But back to the story... lets say that Nothing has produced out universe, in the beginning it was very dense, alot of matter in a small area, that means temperatures hotter than the core of our sun many times over. And yeah.. it was eleven-dimensional back then. A millionth of a second later, BAM! a dimension dissapears, creating a channel for energy transmit called gravity. Another millionth of a second and BAM, another channel is created, its called Strong and has gulped down like three dimensions. The story repeats itself and BAM BAM! We have electromagnetism and Weak, which take some more dimensions, leaving us only 3 or 4 (dont remeber this part well, but Im guessing its four, space and time). |
Not quite. Forget the notion of 11 dimensions for the moment (that is a separate theory called superstring theory). Concentrate on the forces. The theory is that initially (at the moment of the BB) there was a single force - a symmetric 'super' force. As the universe expanded and cooled, this force became 'fractured' - the symmetries 'broke' - and it 'crystallised' into the separate forces we see today - the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity.
(Obviously I am using terms in a metaphoric sense since it is difficult to describe these concepts in anything other than math).
Basically it can be shown that as temperatures increase the 3 non-gravitational forces merge into one. The problem has always been to merge gravity with the other 3 forces. In traditional 'point particle' physics gravity does not quite merge - it's a bit out. When superstring theory is applied to the problem, however, all 4 forces merge into a single force. This is seen as strong evidence, by many, that superstring theory may be correct. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I have a question for those who believe that the universe started from nothing, with no god or divine intervention:
There is nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, no universe, no galaxies, no nothing.
Now what? What's step 1 for life to come out of nothing? |
Yet another trick question. ^_^
Why does there have to be nothing? This is one of the many misunderstandings religious people have about the Big Bang theory.
Let's see if i can clear some of this up.
First, current theory - the Big Bang theory (supplemented by GR and QM, the Standard Model, with super-symmetry) - does not say the universe came out of nothing. Religious opponents always try to paint the Big Bang model as an all-or-nothing model - either the universe always existed, or it came from nothing. Neither has anything to do with the actual Big Bang model.
The trick they use is being clever about the word "universe". Now, that has a very precise meaning in the context of the Big Bang theory (not so precise in science in general, but still far more precise than how the opponents use it). The Big Bang theory says that the universe did not always exist, that it was created by the Big Bang. NOT OUT OF NOTHING. That "out of nothing" bit is the way the religious opponents weasel in confusion, in the hopes of undermining science.
The Big Bang created the universe out of a singular point of "something"... i'm not sure what to call it in simple English: energy, maybe, is as close as you can get without getting too technical. Besides, our science is still too young to say exactly what it is, although there are some good ideas. But the point is that the universe is not eternal, it was created, but it was not created out of nothing.
-----------------------
So where did that original singular point of energy come from? Who says it has to come from anywhere? Why couldn't it have always existed? Why couldn't it be eternal? The universe is not eternal... but why can't the thing it came out of be eternal, no beginning no end?
Or, maybe not - maybe it had a beginning, too. We don't know, because that's still outside of the reach of science. For now.
The point is that saying that the universe came out of nothing is flawed, and not supported by science. The best we can say - scientifically - is that the universe came out of a point of "energy". Where that point came from - if it came from anywhere at all - is currently unknown. But there is no reason it can't simply simply be eternal, always existing.
------------------------
The real question - the one you're trying to get at, but misrepresenting because of bad understanding of science, is... what caused the universe. Or in other words, let's suppose that the ball of "energy" was eternal - it had always existed, for eternity, and had no beginning and no creator/creation. It just is. But if that's so, then why did it suddenly "explode" into the Big Bang? Even if it's always existed, something changed, something that caused it to go boom - which resulted in the universe. What you're asking is what was that something - what changed?
Believe it or not, science can answer that question.
We know now that at the subatomic level, the universe has spontaneous, uncaused... "hiccups". It just... jerks... without any cause for the jerk. No one and nothing made it jerk, and there is no way to predict, when, where and how it will jerk. These things just happen, all the time, indeterministically.
What we now believe is that this ball of "energy" was sitting in the cosmos, just as it had always been - probably surrounded by an infinite number of similar balls - when the universe went "hiccup" at exactly the right spot, with exactly the right strength, to provoke the Big Bang.
Putting it all together, we have some "thing" sitting there, just doing nothing. Maybe it had always been there, we don't know yet. And then there was an "uncaused quantum fluctuation" - which we see all the time today - which provoked this "thing" to become unstable and "explode", creating space-time, and the universe as we know it.
And that would be - in extremely simplistic terms - how our universe came to be.
So to answer your question, to the best of our current scientific knowledge: Step 1 is an uncaused quantum fluctuation.
---------------------------------
Now obviously we don't have the whole story, and to complete the picture we need next-generation scientific theories that are still in their infancy. i bet on string theory, others are betting on LQG, still others are going for other possibilities (one of the posters here, newolder, is a proponent of the brand new Lisi theory with the silly name). None of us may live long enough to see the final answer, though. But, that's how it goes.
The thing is, that what we have now is - since around the middle of the 20th - enough that for the first time in human history we don't need a god to explain the origin of the universe. If you choose to presume one, you are free to. There are still enough holes in what we know that it's not crazy to believe that. But it is not necessary to presume that, which means that it is also not crazy to believe that there was no god involved.
Neither side of the argument has anywhere near enough evidence to be conclusive, and both have some serious holes in their arguments that need plugging.
However!
The last century has seen the "no god" case grow stronger and stronger and stronger, while the "god" argument gets weaker and weaker, and all indications are that the momentum is going to continue unabated for a long, long time to come. In the last hundred years the "no god" argument has gone from having no clue about the origin of the universe to beginning to speculate about how to get to and/or create other universes (according to cutting edge string theory)! And as a side effect, its discoveries and predictions have been remarkably well corroborated by other discoveries and observations. Meanwhile, there hasn't been an advance in the "god" argument for at least 200 years (some would argue closer to 400, since the time of Descartes). To me, it seems a pretty safe bet to go with the "no god" argument.
Of course, your mileage may vary.This is a good thread!
Suppose: Time does not exist!
Then the evolutionist can actually take a grasp - but still the constructor is needed but once!
On the other hand - probably there is an infinite of big bangs! The breathe of a god?
And in that case does god alter the universe time after time? This can be version 345b of the universe... Ah so there is a starting point in that case! hehe, there is a something called a miracle after all!
So in wich version did God create laughter???? Or was it the first one? Can God make mistakes ? I suppose laughter will survive the next version of the universe!
Do god alter the universe - in a relative universe even God alters!
It's possible that before the universe came to be, there was no such thing as time. Theoretically, with an infinite amount of anything, anything can happen. There's also the possibility that we're a collection of highly condensed energy with an awareness that was derived from a spontaneous burst of ingenuity on the part of the way the same said energy collects and forms.
| thinkfacility wrote: |
| It's possible that before the universe came to be, there was no such thing as time. |
According to modern science, it's not only possible, it's almost certain.
| thinkfacility wrote: |
| Theoretically, with an infinite amount of anything, anything can happen. |
Well... careful there. Any time you start messing around with infinities, wacky things happen. You have to be very, very careful about how you frame things, or you end up going around in circles.
If you had an infinite amount of time, it is not necessarily true that anything can happen. When you're dealing with infinities, the key "numbers" are 0, 1 and infinity. Just about anything that you talk about when you're dealing with infinities will deal with 0, 1 and/or infinity. In this case, if you're dealing with an infinite amount of time, everything will happen 0, 1 or an infinite number of times. Some things will never happen (0 times), some things will happen normally (which means they will happen an infinite number of times), and some things may happen that change the nature of everything (so they only happen 1 time - for example, something that destroys a universe that has infinite time).
Also, it is possible to have an infinite amount of time where nothing happens. Imagine a universe where everything in it is stationary. Because everything is stationary, nothing will ever move, because nothing is moving to cause something else to move.That is a good question, but if there is god, where did he come from?
These questions of origin and infiniteness are hardly to be understood by humans' brains.
It's funny to see that there is still this tendency that if we cannot explain something then it is an act of God.
There are plenty of things that we cannot explain now and that we may find a scientific explanation in one century.
I always like to remember the old times when people knew much less than now.
For instance people couldn't explain wind, storm, thunder... then everything was because of god(s).
Nowaday the "action fields" for God have been dramatically reduced by science, but still some people try desperately to find something.
| Indi wrote: |
| thinkfacility wrote: | | It's possible that before the universe came to be, there was no such thing as time. |
According to modern science, it's not only possible, it's almost certain. |
I have a hard time grasping/accepting this. Anytime you have objects in motion, time exists. So is it currently accepted that when time first appeared is when the things outside the universes which create universes first appeared?
It seems to me that time must have always existed. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I have a question for those who believe that the universe started from nothing, with no god or divine intervention:
There is nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, no universe, no galaxies, no nothing.
Now what? What's step 1 for life to come out of nothing? |
Wel this is not fair, you pose that there is nothing before the start of the universe. As it's possible that there was always something. As for that it's the best to put a small reference to:
the source of all knowledge, otherwise known as WIKIPEDIA. xD | miacps wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | thinkfacility wrote: | | It's possible that before the universe came to be, there was no such thing as time. |
According to modern science, it's not only possible, it's almost certain. |
I have a hard time grasping/accepting this. Anytime you have objects in motion, time exists. So is it currently accepted that when time first appeared is when the things outside the universes which create universes first appeared?
It seems to me that time must have always existed. |
The universe that we know consists of space and time - spacetime. When the universe came into being then space and time came into being. 'Before' that is not really a concept that works - there was no space for things to be in motion and no time for causality to apply. This is the current understanding of the physical universe.
There are other hypothesese - M-Theory for example, but they are highly mathematical and there is no 'language' which could apply that I can think of. If the BB was indeed the result of a collision between two 'branes' (as is possible under M-theory) then we need a different vocabulary to talk about that, because, essentially, time and space (as we know it) would still have originated at the BB but there would be 'different' causalities in other aspects of the multiverse. I honestly do not have the imagination to 'picture' it and I certainly don't have the language to convey it...
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:42 pm; edited 2 times in totalHow come science needs to explain it from the perspective that there was absolutely nothing but religion doesn't have to?
Answering that question is very hard as I don't have the knowlegde to answer it. I, however, can ask you the same question. Who created god as everything must have a creator? All I know is that I think the universe started with the big bang. Several other people have posted links and more information about it.
| miacps wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | thinkfacility wrote: | | It's possible that before the universe came to be, there was no such thing as time. |
According to modern science, it's not only possible, it's almost certain. |
I have a hard time grasping/accepting this. Anytime you have objects in motion, time exists. So is it currently accepted that when time first appeared is when the things outside the universes which create universes first appeared?
It seems to me that time must have always existed. |
Bikerman gave a good scientific answer, so let me give the philosophical answer.
You are basing your supposition on your common sense, which seems like a good idea on the surface, until you dig too deeply. You see, human common sense has evolved - by nature and by nurture - to handle only a very tiny spectrum of reality. Human common sense works for the realm of human experience - say, 250-400 K, 0-2000 N, 20-200 kPa... a pretty small range of values, all things considered. But, very quickly, common sense breaks down. i love to tease kids' minds with things that sound unbelievable - like that even though space is very cold astronauts get very hot in their spacesuits, or that if you touch two pieces of freshly cut metal together in space they will fuse into one, and so on. Almost always, they right away rebuff the claim with "aw, you're just trying to trick me", because the claims violate their intuitive sense... their "common sense".
We're talking about the formation of spacetime... we're way out of human experience here, so what "feels" right... probably isn't. i hate saying "just trust me, it's true", because it seems like a cop out, but the alternative is having to teach you two or three years of university level physics and math (to start!!!). You don't have to trust me - you could go out and research this on your own if you doubt me (in fact, that would be awesome, if you could). But i promise that you'll find exactly what i'm telling you at the end of the line. ^_^;
| catscratches wrote: |
| How come science needs to explain it from the perspective that there was absolutely nothing but religion doesn't have to? |
The short answer is: they're cheating. ^_^;
The long answer is: because they think they have gone one step further, they're challenging science as to why it can't make that same step. But in reality, no matter where science stops (temporarily) they tack "God" onto the end and say "see, we can get here with God, why can't you with science?"
If science says "the universe began with a compressed ball of matter",
they say "the universe began with a compressed ball of matter... created by God... so how does science explain where the ball came from?"
If science says "the universe began with a compressed ball of matter that came from a point of energy",
they say "the universe began with a compressed ball of matter that came from a point of energy... created by God, so how does science explain where the point of energy came from?"
If science says "the universe began with a compressed ball of matter that came from a point of energy originating with a spontaneous fluctuation of two branes",
they say "the universe began with a compressed ball of matter that came from a point of energy originating with a spontaneous fluctuation of two branes... created by God, so how does science explain where the branes came from?"
As long as they keep it up, they will always appear to be one step ahead of the game, while all the while going nowhere. They have no answer, but by pretending to be one answer ahead of science, they can play the high road and demand science explain, while smugly refusing to offer any explanation of their own. | Coen wrote: |
| Answering that question is very hard as I don't have the knowlegde to answer it. I, however, can ask you the same question. Who created god as everything must have a creator? All I know is that I think the universe started with the big bang. Several other people have posted links and more information about it. |
What I meant was not that I support religious beliefs in this qurstion (nor any other question). What I meant is that I think it's silly that religion can explain it from the perspective that there was something before creation (god) but a scientist can't cause well... I don't know why but if a scientist tries to do the same thing then "it has to be wrong". Doesn't that tell one something about religion...
EDIT: I'm from Sweden and don't know english very well so you have to excuse me if it's all a bit unclear what I mean. | catscratches wrote: |
| EDIT: I'm from Sweden and don't know english very well so you have to excuse me if it's all a bit unclear what I mean. |
I think your meaning is perfectly clear and your English is pretty good 
No matter which theory you adhere to, you have to accept that something out there has been there forever, and never had any real beginning. God? The universe? There has to be something there that begins it all.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| No matter which theory you adhere to, you have to accept that something out there has been there forever, and never had any real beginning. God? The universe? There has to be something there that begins it all. |
Well, only in the sense that you (and I) understand causality. That could just be a limit on our understanding rather than any deep statement of philosophical truth. The fact that we cannot imagine 'no time and no space' and have to ascribe a 'cause' does not mean that there has to be one...Here's my little blurb about God/Creation, since I do believe in God.
Since God created time and space, God exists outside of time and space. Therefore, God did not have to be created, nor will He end, and He is not subject to the laws of His creation, as we as mankind are.
We also must assume that the universe had a beginning, and we can do that by using the first two laws of thermodynamics:
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the energy available for work is running out, then we must assume that the universe itself has not existed forever, because it would have exhausted it's supply of energy ... everything would be the same temperature, and thus, no more work could be done.
The same argument also holds for an end to the universe. A so called "heat death".
I don't think it follows from 1st and 2nd law that the universe must have had a beginning. If you make the assumption that the entropy law is symmetrical (ie entropy must have been lower in the past) then the only thing that tells you is that some point the universe must have been in a state of minimum entropy, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had to have a beginning.
Not to mention that the laws of thermodynamics were derived for the universe as it is now, and we already know that at the Big Bang and the Big Crunch/Heat Death/whatever the laws we know break down. Who's to say that the conservation of energy, or anything else, even applies at the Big Bang?
Incidentally, and this is for miacps: | Soulfire wrote: |
| Since God created time and space, God exists outside of time and space. Therefore, God did not have to be created, nor will He end, and He is not subject to the laws of His creation, as we as mankind are. |
But by the exact same logic, since whatever caused the Big Bang - be it a spontaneous vacuum fluctuation or God - created spacetime, it must exist outside of spacetime, and so did not have to be created, does not have to end, and is not subject to any of the laws and logic of the universe.
You can assume that "whatever" is God, or you can assume it's something simple - like a vacuum fluctuation. The thing is, we know that vacuum fluctuations exist. And even if we didn't it's not such a big deal to assume that they do. Assuming an intelligence... that's a big deal.
Or to put it another way: using that logic, you arrive at the fact that "something" exists (or existed) that caused the Big Bang. Simple logic (not the best logic, but it will do for now) will take you there. That's as far as science needs to go (for now). If you want to go to the next step - God - then you need to explain how you went from a simple, mindless "something" - that could be as simple as a twitch of the cosmos - to an intelligence being. Which means that - in reality - it is the God-believing folk that have to do more explaining than the science folk.
By wording it the other way around - as was done in this thread - they cheat, and make it look like they have explained more than the science folk... but they haven't. They've just taken what science has explained and tacked God onto it with no explanation. Wording it the way it's done in the paragraph above shows why that fails. Perhaps existence is perpetual. Suppose there never was a begining of existence: it always will be and always was. So even if our universe had a beginning, then something existed before that and before that ad infinitum.
"But by the exact same logic, since whatever caused the Big Bang - be it a spontaneous vacuum fluctuation or God - created spacetime, it must exist outside of spacetime, and so did not have to be created, does not have to end, and is not subject to any of the laws and logic of the universe.
You can assume that "whatever" is God, or you can assume it's something simple - like a vacuum fluctuation. The thing is, we know that vacuum fluctuations exist. And even if we didn't it's not such a big deal to assume that they do. Assuming an intelligence... that's a big deal.
Or to put it another way: using that logic, you arrive at the fact that "something" exists (or existed) that caused the Big Bang. Simple logic (not the best logic, but it will do for now) will take you there. That's as far as science needs to go (for now). If you want to go to the next step - God - then you need to explain how you went from a simple, mindless "something" - that could be as simple as a twitch of the cosmos - to an intelligence being. Which means that - in reality - it is the God-believing folk that have to do more explaining than the science folk.
By wording it the other way around - as was done in this thread - they cheat, and make it look like they have explained more than the science folk... but they haven't. They've just taken what science has explained and tacked God onto it with no explanation. Wording it the way it's done in the paragraph above shows why that fails."
yes, i see the failure now. there must be proof, furthermore, that the god that created this space time universe is YOUR GOD.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Does it make a difference if we know (which no one really does)? I mean, it's not like people would all the sudden stop believing in God(s). They would simply say [insert cause] was because God(s) wanted it to happen, just as some have said that God(s) created everything including the process of evolution. I think this argument/discussion has been done many times in recent threads. Everything that's been said will simply be repeated. |
It only makes a difference in the light of God belief. The universe arose not out of nothing but from other existence. Prior to that was existence.
The inquiry about the beginning of existence is only applicable to people who believe in God. It is not scientifically applicable to find a beginning of existence.
In reference to the universe however, it did not arise from nothing but from existence. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | No matter which theory you adhere to, you have to accept that something out there has been there forever, and never had any real beginning. God? The universe? There has to be something there that begins it all. |
Well, only in the sense that you (and I) understand causality. That could just be a limit on our understanding rather than any deep statement of philosophical truth. The fact that we cannot imagine 'no time and no space' and have to ascribe a 'cause' does not mean that there has to be one... |
Well, something cannot come from nothing, right? If there ever was a time when there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no energy, no God, then where did the universe we know come from? When, why, and how did it/He spontaneously spring into existence? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Well, something cannot come from nothing, right? If there ever was a time when there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no energy, no God, then where did the universe we know come from? When, why, and how did it/He spontaneously spring into existence? |
It depends what you mean by nothing. If you mean absolutely nothing - no time, no space - then we simply don't know is the best answer I can give. If you mean 'vacuum' then what we think of as nothing is in fact a seething mass of forces/particles popping in and out of existence. | Bikerman wrote: |
| It depends what you mean by nothing. If you mean absolutely nothing - no time, no space - then we simply don't know is the best answer I can give. If you mean 'vacuum' then what we think of as nothing is in fact a seething mass of forces/particles popping in and out of existence. |
Oh that's right! I forgot about vacuum fluctuations... I remember reading a theory that the entire universe is an elaborate and extremely unlikely vacuum fluctuation.
But if we go to a situation where not even time exists, then how can we talk about what was there before it? I don't think it would be possible for there to be a time before time, if you get the meaning of that. (Badly phrased, I know.) But given how time is an arbitrary measurement, how could it not exist? What happened 30 minutes before time began? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| But if we go to a situation where not even time exists, then how can we talk about what was there before it? I don't think it would be possible for there to be a time before time, if you get the meaning of that. (Badly phrased, I know.) But given how time is an arbitrary measurement, how could it not exist? What happened 30 minutes before time began? |
That's why I say we simply don't know. The standard answer is that there was no 'before' so the question is meaningless. I know that is not a very satisfactory answer but it's the best we can do in science at the moment.
PS - if you want some cutting-edge speculation from a genuine scientist on what came before the BB then I commend a lecture by Roger Penrose to you;
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/pg+ws/2005/gmr/gmrw04/1107/penrose/
(it's in audio format with slides).Really, if there is a God who thus created the Universe, we're still left with the question of how God came to be.
Instead of facing the impossibility of an infinite existance of time and space, we're faced with the impossiblity of the infinite existance of a God's time and space.
I don't see how either is more or less plausible.
What if God is energy?
Energy:
Never created
Never destroyed
Has no beginning
Has no end
etc.
Sure, but so what? If God is another word for energy, he wouldn't be any special, would he? Nor would he be "all-mighty". And sure, energy created the universe, but I don't really think that's what the major religions are trying to say...
EDIT: And why should we worship energy?
If God created the universe why did it take so long for the religions that worship him to be established? Why wouldn't they have started from the "beginning" instead of what..2000 years later or something?
| liljp617 wrote: |
| If God created the universe why did it take so long for the religions that worship him to be established? Why wouldn't they have started from the "beginning" instead of what..2000 years later or something? |
2000 years? Where does that figure come from? Which religion are we talking about anyway? There have probably been organised religions for 10,000 years or more - it's hard to know much after that time. Once you go beyond that then it is probable that very early humans had some sort of religious feelings - probably animistic (worshipping 'things' - the Sun, rocks etc).
Young Earth Creationists would, of course, not accept that there actually was a time 10,000 years ago, since they generally believe in a creation somewhere around 6,000 years ago. We can, however, dismiss YECs, since they are clearly nutcases. | Bikerman wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | If God created the universe why did it take so long for the religions that worship him to be established? Why wouldn't they have started from the "beginning" instead of what..2000 years later or something? |
2000 years? Where does that figure come from? Which religion are we talking about anyway? There have probably been organised religions for 10,000 years or more - it's hard to know much after that time. Once you go beyond that then it is probable that very early humans had some sort of religious feelings - probably animistic (worshipping 'things' - the Sun, rocks etc).
Young Earth Creationists would, of course, not accept that there actually was a time 10,000 years ago, since they generally believe in a creation somewhere around 6,000 years ago. We can, however, dismiss YECs, since they are clearly nutcases. |
Talking more so about Christianity since the majority of the thread is talking about (or seems like it is) the Christian god. I haven't seen many posts about polytheism and all, so I just assumed we're talking more about the monotheistic view of Christianity and the Bible.I thought we were talking about God(s) in general - as in the 'creator of the Universe'...
Jewish, Muslim, and Christian god is the same God.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Jewish, Muslim, and Christian god is the same God. |
Hmm, debatable. Jews and Muslims don't to my knowledge believe in the trinity..
Anyway, that's not the point - what about the Hindu Gods, or the Pagan 'gods'? There are more religions than the Abrahamic religions aren't there? What about the Great Green Arkleseizure?
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:56 am; edited 1 time in totalWell I don't believe in gods stealing fire from other gods and making mystical water bubbles that turn into planets so I'll stick to Abrahamic
And technically I guess Christians are polytheists...
Going to bed now..cya tomorrow | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Well I don't believe in gods stealing fire from other gods and making mystical water bubbles that turn into planets so I'll stick to Abrahamic |
Careful...is making water bubbles turn into planets any more or less believable than making a universe? Is the Abrahamic God any less ridiculous than other Gods? All Gods perform outrageous acts (miracles) according to their believers, so I think one (by which I mean the believer) has to be a bit careful about ridiculing other deities..... | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
What if God is energy?
Energy:
Never created
Never destroyed
Has no beginning
Has no end
etc. |
God cannot be energy. It can be made of energy, but it must be more than that.
At the very least, it must be energy with a specific pattern. While the energy may be eternal, the pattern still needs explaining. What made it, and what maintains it (why doesn't the pattern collapse back to its lowest base state, a homogeneous goo - ie, what holds back entropy) - these questions have to be answered. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Jewish, Muslim, and Christian god is the same God. |
Hmm, debatable. Jews and Muslims don't to my knowledge believe in the trinity..
Anyway, that's not the point - what about the Hindu Gods, or the Pagan 'gods'? There are more religions than the Abrahamic religions aren't there? What about the Great Green Arkleseizure? |
Yes. Just that from my observation of the thread and reading some of it, a lot people have posted in a way that makes it seem like they're talking solely about the Christian god and more so about the Bible version of the creation/beginning than any other. I haven't seen hardly any posts where people take the discussion into the field of polytheism or really any other god outside of the Abrahamic one. Most of the creation talk involving god consists of that same demeanor as "God said let there be light. And it was good" type thing 
I don't know..maybe none of this makes sense lol, but maybe it will explain my earlier post a bit.I think whatever (not necessarily saying it is or isn't a God) created the Universe is far too complex for us - in the present age - to wrap our minds around.
I'm not saying that we won't find out sooner or later, but I'm just saying we probably don't have the knowledge and tools as of yet.
The time will come though...
| roxys_art wrote: |
I think whatever (not necessarily saying it is or isn't a God) created the Universe is far too complex for us - in the present age - to wrap our minds around.
I'm not saying that we won't find out sooner or later, but I'm just saying we probably don't have the knowledge and tools as of yet.
The time will come though... |
i disagree.
Yes, the question is certainly complex - but the smartest members of humankind are already taking it on by the horns. It may be beyond you and me, but apparently not them.
They're stumbling around, yes, cautiously extending their feelers and being shown wrong more often than they're being shown right... but they are making progress, however slow - and, unlike any other time in history, they are beginning to see the path to the answer... not the answer, but they can see the way to it. It's still very early in the process, but it is clearly not beyond our capabilities as a species.
The only problem is that what they are finding is not what people want to hear. And their explanations are unsatisfying to the layperson because they don't yet understand it well enough themselves to put it into really simple terms.
But, in another fifty years or so, they will probably have it nailed down well enough that it's a real well-defined, "hard" science. And they will probably be able to present their findings to the rest of us in terms that we can all grasp.
So you may be right saying it's beyond us, but it's not out of the reach of humanity today. | Indi wrote: |
But by the exact same logic, since whatever caused the Big Bang - be it a spontaneous vacuum fluctuation or God - created spacetime, it must exist outside of spacetime, and so did not have to be created, does not have to end, and is not subject to any of the laws and logic of the universe.
You can assume that "whatever" is God, or you can assume it's something simple - like a vacuum fluctuation. The thing is, we know that vacuum fluctuations exist. And even if we didn't it's not such a big deal to assume that they do. Assuming an intelligence... that's a big deal.
|
True, but since there's no real proof for or against God (besides the "statistics" that both sides twist) ... I think I would prefer to err on the side of caution, so we'll go with God.I always find it odd when people put down as a reason for their faith in God that they're being cautious JUST IN CASE there is something after death. Like I would rather be safe than sorry...doesn't seem like a very strong faith system. I understand why it's said, it just doesn't seem to fit in with what Christianity preaches =O But who am I to say!?
| Soulfire wrote: |
| True, but since there's no real proof for or against God (besides the "statistics" that both sides twist) ... I think I would prefer to err on the side of caution, so we'll go with God. |
"The side of caution", eh? Well, let's look into that. ^_^
First, let's be clear about what we are talking about. The question under consideration is what caused the universe, and the two options we have here are something natural (a vacuum fluctuation or something similar), or a god.
In order for there to be a "side of caution", there has to be a risk in choosing one or the other option. Ok, so what are the risks in this choice?
Well, that depends on your perspective. If you are serious about this question, then one risk is that you will make the wrong choice - the one that's simply not true. Well, we have a tool to solve that problem, called Ockham's Razor. Ockham's Razor is designed for exactly this purpose - given two theories that both describe the same phenomenon, Ockham's Razor will give us the one that is more likely to be true most of the time. However, in this case, Ockham's Razor tells us to go with the vacuum fluctuations, not the god. So whatever risk it is you are trying to cautiously avoid, it obviously isn't the risk of being dead wrong.
So what is the risk you are trying to avoid by being cautious and choosing the god option? Isn't it essentially the risk that someone (in this case, God) will punish you if you don't choose the option they want you to pick, even though it is not the logical choice given the evidence available? | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
I have a question for those who believe that the universe started from nothing, with no god or divine intervention:
There is nothing. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all, no universe, no galaxies, no nothing.
Now what? What's step 1 for life to come out of nothing? |
Aren't there scientists that believe that all forms of matter are the alpha and omega, much like people believe God is?
If that's the case, how can nothingness even exist scientifically?
What is actually being discussed here is very confusing. | Soulfire wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | But by the exact same logic, since whatever caused the Big Bang - be it a spontaneous vacuum fluctuation or God - created spacetime, it must exist outside of spacetime, and so did not have to be created, does not have to end, and is not subject to any of the laws and logic of the universe.
You can assume that "whatever" is God, or you can assume it's something simple - like a vacuum fluctuation. The thing is, we know that vacuum fluctuations exist. And even if we didn't it's not such a big deal to assume that they do. Assuming an intelligence... that's a big deal.
|
True, but since there's no real proof for or against God (besides the "statistics" that both sides twist) ... I think I would prefer to err on the side of caution, so we'll go with God. |
Sure, it can't be proven that there is no God. However, Occam's Razor, which is a reliable source of logic in interpreting reality, states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. It is not nessary to believe in God in order to accurately interpret reality. In fact, from Occam's Razor it is "safe" to say that this reality, which does not include a God, is all that there is. | TBSC wrote: |
| Sure, it can't be proven that there is no God. However, Occam's Razor, which is a reliable source of logic in interpreting reality, states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. It is not nessary to believe in God in order to accurately interpret reality. In fact, from Occam's Razor it is "safe" to say that this reality, which does not include a God, is all that there is. |
This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against a God or Gods. The concept of a God adds an infinitely complex entity to the problem of existence without actually providing any more information about the problem (since God is generally held to be ineffable). Occam's razor therefore should be applied...The present scientific theory is along these lines:
- The universe as it exists today.
- All energy forms besides gravity expiring. Due to the fact that energy does not itself expire it must therefore all become gravity.
- The universe is pulled back in on itself.
- The universe is condensed into a single point. The gravitational force on it is immeasurable.
- Big Bang.
- The universe explodes back out again, born anew.
- This process is a loop. The end of the old universe is the beginning of a new one.
- Therefore there is no beginning. No born out of nothing.
| achowles wrote: |
The present scientific theory is along these lines:
- The universe as it exists today.
- All energy forms besides gravity expiring. Due to the fact that energy does not itself expire it must therefore all become gravity.
- The universe is pulled back in on itself.
- The universe is condensed into a single point. The gravitational force on it is immeasurable.
- Big Bang.
- The universe explodes back out again, born anew.
- This process is a loop. The end of the old universe is the beginning of a new one.
- Therefore there is no beginning. No born out of nothing. |
Err...hmm...OK, let's deconstruct this.
1) The universe as it exists today...what does that mean? Given that it is expanding and changing constantly what is the point of positing an arbitrary snapshot?
2) All energy forms beside gravity expiring. The evidence for this is..?
3) Universe condensed to a single point...well, ok(ish)
4) Big Bang ...ok
5) Universe explodes back out again. This presupposes a big crunch which goes back to 2.
6) The process is a loop .. evidence for this? There is none, to put it shortly. | Bikerman wrote: |
| achowles wrote: | The present scientific theory is along these lines:
- The universe as it exists today.
- All energy forms besides gravity expiring. Due to the fact that energy does not itself expire it must therefore all become gravity.
- The universe is pulled back in on itself.
- The universe is condensed into a single point. The gravitational force on it is immeasurable.
- Big Bang.
- The universe explodes back out again, born anew.
- This process is a loop. The end of the old universe is the beginning of a new one.
- Therefore there is no beginning. No born out of nothing. |
Err...hmm...OK, let's deconstruct this.
1) The universe as it exists today...what does that mean? Given that it is expanding and changing constantly what is the point of positing an arbitrary snapshot?
2) All energy forms beside gravity expiring. The evidence for this is..?
3) Universe condensed to a single point...well, ok(ish)
4) Big Bang ...ok
5) Universe explodes back out again. This presupposes a big crunch which goes back to 2.
6) The process is a loop .. evidence for this? There is none, to put it shortly. |
Firstly, of course there is no evidence of this happening seeing as it's not. It's a hypothesis based upon what we've thus far been able to observe. The point of the post is that nobody (as far as I know) is trying to claim that the universe came from nothing.
I don't support the hypothesis as anything more than a best guess, but I will try and address some of your points.
1) Equally, what's the point in being so anal? I was providing 'now' as a starting point to describe the process. That's the point. Nothing more.
2) Suns will expire, novas have been observed and it's not like suns are a magical, limitless sources of heat and light. If all heat and light are to expire then what forms of energy will ultimately be left? Scientists say it will ultimately just be gravity.
6) No, no evidence. Hence why it's described as a hypothesis. But ultimately, if big bang results in big crunch, results in big bang - you can see why they think that. | achowles wrote: |
1) Equally, what's the point in being so anal? I was providing 'now' as a starting point to describe the process. That's the point. Nothing more. |
I'm not being anal. I appreciate that you are trying to give a scientific answer to the question. The problem is that a dodgy answer just gives the doubters more grounds for clinging to their own belief systems.
| Quote: |
| 2) Suns will expire, novas have been observed and it's not like suns are a magical, limitless sources of heat and light. If all heat and light are to expire then what forms of energy will ultimately be left? Scientists say it will ultimately just be gravity. |
No scientists don't say that. When a sun expires in a nova then energy is released in the form of em radiation. This is not, itself, gravity, since it is massless.
| Quote: |
| 6) No, no evidence. Hence why it's described as a hypothesis. But ultimately, if big bang results in big crunch, results in big bang - you can see why they think that. |
But the idea that a big crunch will occur is highly speculative - and in fact the most recent measurements of expansion and mass lead us to believe that no such thing will happen. The 'heat death' scenario is by far the most likely. For cyclic universe theories you have to go to the more speculative end of physics - m-theory, Lee Smolin's black hole theory and so on. The conventional picture is that the BB occurred and that the universe will end in a cold dark sea of matter/energy spread out over limitless space...
Not a very reassuring picture to be sure, but in science we should tell it like it is.... | Bikerman wrote: |
| TBSC wrote: | | Sure, it can't be proven that there is no God. However, Occam's Razor, which is a reliable source of logic in interpreting reality, states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. It is not nessary to believe in God in order to accurately interpret reality. In fact, from Occam's Razor it is "safe" to say that this reality, which does not include a God, is all that there is. |
This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against a God or Gods. The concept of a God adds an infinitely complex entity to the problem of existence without actually providing any more information about the problem (since God is generally held to be ineffable). Occam's razor therefore should be applied... |
Thanks. That is a great gift to mankind, Occam's Razor. | Bikerman wrote: |
| achowles wrote: |
1) Equally, what's the point in being so anal? I was providing 'now' as a starting point to describe the process. That's the point. Nothing more. |
I'm not being anal. I appreciate that you are trying to give a scientific answer to the question. The problem is that a dodgy answer just gives the doubters more grounds for clinging to their own belief systems.
| Quote: | | 2) Suns will expire, novas have been observed and it's not like suns are a magical, limitless sources of heat and light. If all heat and light are to expire then what forms of energy will ultimately be left? Scientists say it will ultimately just be gravity. |
No scientists don't say that. When a sun expires in a nova then energy is released in the form of em radiation. This is not, itself, gravity, since it is massless.
| Quote: | | 6) No, no evidence. Hence why it's described as a hypothesis. But ultimately, if big bang results in big crunch, results in big bang - you can see why they think that. |
But the idea that a big crunch will occur is highly speculative - and in fact the most recent measurements of expansion and mass lead us to believe that no such thing will happen. The 'heat death' scenario is by far the most likely. For cyclic universe theories you have to go to the more speculative end of physics - m-theory, Lee Smolin's black hole theory and so on. The conventional picture is that the BB occurred and that the universe will end in a cold dark sea of matter/energy spread out over limitless space...
Not a very reassuring picture to be sure, but in science we should tell it like it is.... |
If no such thing will happen and the universe does not recycle itself, then what does that really leave?
Heat Death while providing a plausible end, does effectively mean that there was a beginning. That matter came to be from nothing. It might not have just popped into existence from nothing, but ultimately that's where its origins would lie.
I don't need to explain to you why I have a problem with that. Sure, we've observed sub-atomic particles disappearing and reappearing, and (as scientists have been so quick to speculate) that could indicate another dimension from which matter has leaked for billions of years. That would only leave us with another dimension to explain and doesn't really get us anywhere.
Another possibility might be Not So Big Bangs - black holes, having absorbed all the matter in their vicinity attract one another and BOOM. So rather than the universe sharing a common origin, it might have been born out of a more localised explosion. I don't really know how plausible that is though.Well, looking to physics to provide reassurance or to provide answers which we find intellectually meaningful or satisfying is always a mistake.
The truth is that at the moment the conventional answer in pysics does not address the 'cause' of the Big Bang, since cause and effect only come into effect with the creation of spacetime. We have to live with that. It may be that m-theory or another cosmological hypothesis will provide a different explanation whereby we can talk about 'before' the BB - time may tell (pun intended). For the moment, however, the question of what 'caused' the BB cannot be adressed in a scientific manner - it remains a philosophical question.
The problem is, no one can solve this, because no matter how far u go, there's allways a part where u need "SOMETHING"
I'll explain what i meant ^ : So the universe came together by energy colliding and forming stuff... ( antimatery theory - energy colliding at high speed ) But the problem is, how did that energy get there...
Especially if u know that Laws on Energy are : 1 Energy can't be created or destroyed
2 Energy can only change form
So you have energy that can't be created that somehow got there...
I came acros this:
It shows that scientists were able to figure out what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big bang:
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/images/9108002.jpeg
Before that we don't know we can speculate however, but that is mere speculation, this is what scientists have been able to establish, a bit more likely than some god making us 6000 years ago. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
I came acros this:
It shows that scientists were able to figure out what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big bang:
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/images/9108002.jpeg
Before that we don't know we can speculate however, but that is mere speculation, this is what scientists have been able to establish, a bit more likely than some god making us 6000 years ago. |
What about "some god" making us 15 billion years ago?
Last edited by HalfBloodPrince on Mon May 26, 2008 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | I came acros this:
It shows that scientists were able to figure out what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big bang:
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/images/9108002.jpeg
Before that we don't know we can speculate however, but that is mere speculation, this is what scientists have been able to establish, a bit more likely than some god making us 6000 years ago. |
What about "some god" making us 4 billion years ago? |
What about a god making us yesterday! =D
I'd like to know how god created the universe. The holy texts just state that he created it. How did he do?
EDIT: How did the universe come to be, if there is God?
Religion doesn't answer it, so why do science has to do it?
EDIT2: I don't say that I want to kill this topic. I think it's rather interesting (though I have not read the whole thing). All I wanted to say is that "How did the universe come to be, if there is no God?" is not an argument for religion, even though many use it as such. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | I came acros this:
It shows that scientists were able to figure out what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big bang:
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/images/9108002.jpeg
Before that we don't know we can speculate however, but that is mere speculation, this is what scientists have been able to establish, a bit more likely than some god making us 6000 years ago. |
What about "some god" making us 15 billion years ago? |
It is possible however there is no evidence for this. Besides he wouldn't have made us just a young universe with some rules(wich usually), and indeterministic property's. However not a single religion has claimed this as far as I know they were wrong boutthe age of the universe by a factor of a "few" million.
And saying that god created the big bang is useless for science, god cannot be studied by definition since it is supernatural, so when applying god to that is just creating a dead end for science. If everyone put stickers with "GOD" "Bible" on every question would mean that we were still living in the medieval times.
What cures cancer? GOD
How old is the universe? Read the BIBLE
Where do we come from? GOD
How do we stop SARS? Pray
However scientists who questioned god have brought our society to the current level. Aaying that the big-bang is caused by god and never research it again is stupid and foolish and a waste of human intelect.
| catscratches wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Klaw 2 wrote: | I came acros this:
It shows that scientists were able to figure out what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big bang:
http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/images/9108002.jpeg
Before that we don't know we can speculate however, but that is mere speculation, this is what scientists have been able to establish, a bit more likely than some god making us 6000 years ago. |
What about "some god" making us 4 billion years ago? |
What about a god making us yesterday! =D
I'd like to know how god created the universe. The holy texts just state that he created it. How did he do?
EDIT: How did the universe come to be, if there is God?
Religion doesn't answer it, so why do science has to do it?
EDIT2: I don't say that I want to kill this topic. I think it's rather interesting (though I have not read the whole thing). All I wanted to say is that "How did the universe come to be, if there is no God?" is not an argument for religion, even though many use it as such. |
I agree, if god really existed he could just as wel created everything yesterday and inplanted us with some memories. Both just as plausible.
Also a often false method of creationists of prooving that god exists is that when science can't explain something GOD did it.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:36 pm; edited 1 time in totaluuhhhh. what is this supposed to mean? This topic is about the universe being created by naturakistic means not about some god, post that somewhere else.
Edit: they are gone now..
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
I have to agree. The thread topic is "How did the universe come to be, if there is no God?". There are plenty of threads discussing the various religious creation myths - I understood this one to be a more philosophical attempt at considering the issue, apart from religious accounts.
PS - the postings in question seem to have disappeared (and in other threads as well)....ho hum...
