Why Are Labour Trying To Shield The...
News1 min ago
The Created Universe.
150 Answers
We agree, I presume, that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago.
That being the case, there are, in my opinion, only two possible causes for the created universe.
First, what I believe, it was created by God.
Secondly, what atheists believe, no God was involved, but it was created by completely natural processes.
If you support the latter view, what would you suggest were these natural creative processes, and how would they work?
That being the case, there are, in my opinion, only two possible causes for the created universe.
First, what I believe, it was created by God.
Secondly, what atheists believe, no God was involved, but it was created by completely natural processes.
If you support the latter view, what would you suggest were these natural creative processes, and how would they work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The basis of creation would be found in understanding quantum physics and how much exists as possiblilities, including creation from nothing. Any possibility should (must) occur at some 'point'. Once kicked off (maybe infinite or as many as makes no reasonable difference) it all interacts and results in something. Here it resulted in ourselves and what we experience around us.
I've already explained the natural process on your threads before but you don't take any notice. It isn't even a complex notion.
An infinite void would require infinite order to make all points have the same zero energy. Any truly random sample of an infinite expanse will include all magnitudes of energy such that whole universes are occasionally included.
This energy manifests as a single pixel of pure amorphous energy which we know as The Big Bang. Everything, no matter how complex, that we had ever seen can be derived from this single point using well established universal laws for which no exceptions have ever been observed.
But once again, Theland hasn't read the first sentence, let alone attempt to understand the concept.
An infinite void would require infinite order to make all points have the same zero energy. Any truly random sample of an infinite expanse will include all magnitudes of energy such that whole universes are occasionally included.
This energy manifests as a single pixel of pure amorphous energy which we know as The Big Bang. Everything, no matter how complex, that we had ever seen can be derived from this single point using well established universal laws for which no exceptions have ever been observed.
But once again, Theland hasn't read the first sentence, let alone attempt to understand the concept.
-- answer removed --
I may have misunderstood what beso is getting at, but it doesn't seem like BS at all. It is, as a rule, extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to define a universe in which exactly nothing ever happens. Quantum fluctuations tend to forbid it.
It's not clear to me how this can be applied to the "Universe before the Universe", not least because "before" may not even exist as a concept, but still -- I'm going to go ahead and suggest that perhaps you ought to read more about Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and just science in general, before dismissing out-of-hand what beso is saying or implying.
It's not clear to me how this can be applied to the "Universe before the Universe", not least because "before" may not even exist as a concept, but still -- I'm going to go ahead and suggest that perhaps you ought to read more about Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, and just science in general, before dismissing out-of-hand what beso is saying or implying.
In scientific parlance, of course, a theory IS an explanation: it fits the available data, makes further predictions, and passes multiple over tests. The "just a theory" cliche is oft-repeated from the mouths of those who, to put it mildly, lack a proper appreciation of the subject.
Too, I think I will never truly appreciate the logic of someone who seems to think that there's no point learning about present understanding, because it will always be overridden by future discoveries.
Too, I think I will never truly appreciate the logic of someone who seems to think that there's no point learning about present understanding, because it will always be overridden by future discoveries.
Theland: 'Dark matter? Dark energy? Evidence? '
That was precisely the point. There is as much hard evidence for those things as there is for a god.
Yet there is good mathematics and good science that permits us to make predictions about what tests we might make to prove the existence of those elusive concepts.
For God, there is no such test whereby we can objectively show the existence or otherwise of this entity you propose as being all-powerful.
You might just as easily claim that the universe was created by 'Magic'. Then add that Magic is all-powerful and some people might claim to have experienced Magic, and cite this as evidence of the existence of Magic.
All the time insisting that Magic is too special to require objective scientific evidence of its existence.
Your claims that an all-powerful god created the universe amount merely to an assertion that the universe was created by 'Magic', and have as much credibility.
That was precisely the point. There is as much hard evidence for those things as there is for a god.
Yet there is good mathematics and good science that permits us to make predictions about what tests we might make to prove the existence of those elusive concepts.
For God, there is no such test whereby we can objectively show the existence or otherwise of this entity you propose as being all-powerful.
You might just as easily claim that the universe was created by 'Magic'. Then add that Magic is all-powerful and some people might claim to have experienced Magic, and cite this as evidence of the existence of Magic.
All the time insisting that Magic is too special to require objective scientific evidence of its existence.
Your claims that an all-powerful god created the universe amount merely to an assertion that the universe was created by 'Magic', and have as much credibility.
You can, in essence, see evidence for Dark Matter if you have an old CRT TV set. Then, when the set was out of tune, the weird blackm-and-white dotty patterns, the "static" were something like 50% due to the Cosmic Microwave Background.
A more accurate measurement (courtesy of the WMAP and PLANCK experiments) shows that the patterns in the CMB can be explained by a universe made of about 5% normal matter, 25% Dark Matter, and 70% Dark Energy.
So there.
A more accurate measurement (courtesy of the WMAP and PLANCK experiments) shows that the patterns in the CMB can be explained by a universe made of about 5% normal matter, 25% Dark Matter, and 70% Dark Energy.
So there.
From Kidas to Theland: //Your claims that an all-powerful god created the universe amount merely to an assertion//
I can get just about get my head around people believing that some almighty superpower was responsible …. that, I think results from an inability to honestly consider all possibilities …..but I simply cannot get my head around Theland’s conviction that he knows who and what that superpower was - especially bearing in mind that superpower's record of impotence.
I can get just about get my head around people believing that some almighty superpower was responsible …. that, I think results from an inability to honestly consider all possibilities …..but I simply cannot get my head around Theland’s conviction that he knows who and what that superpower was - especially bearing in mind that superpower's record of impotence.
