Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal1 min ago
Question for Atheists and Agnostics
45 Answers
Lonnie says the site seems to be dying, so here's another question that might generate some interesting discussion. Since we already know the answer the religionists would give, this one is specifically for atheists, agnostics, and anyone who doesn't believe that the universe was created by God.
I believe the universe has always existed in one form or another, but if I'm wrong, how did the substances that formed and created the 'Big Bang' come into being? What are your thoughts?
I believe the universe has always existed in one form or another, but if I'm wrong, how did the substances that formed and created the 'Big Bang' come into being? What are your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. 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.
No retread it's not just OPINION (even in capitals)
It's based on mathematics and experiment.
We know there are 4 fundamental forces - we know that in extreme conditions they become 3 - that's a fact we can show how they may well become two and are working on unification.
We can show the existance of virtual particles in the Casimir effect and we can show how extreme Gravity stops time.
We can show the expansion of the Universe and can "hear" it's echo and map out it's initial ripples.
My "bible" of scientific creationism is not like religious myth.
It doesn't have all the answers but it does have a wealth of hard fact that backs it up. Past that it has credible theories that, whilst not yet proved are based on known observation and are self consistant.
So don't try that "It's all just speculation" rubbish because too many people worked too hard to put the hard facts behind it.
It's based on mathematics and experiment.
We know there are 4 fundamental forces - we know that in extreme conditions they become 3 - that's a fact we can show how they may well become two and are working on unification.
We can show the existance of virtual particles in the Casimir effect and we can show how extreme Gravity stops time.
We can show the expansion of the Universe and can "hear" it's echo and map out it's initial ripples.
My "bible" of scientific creationism is not like religious myth.
It doesn't have all the answers but it does have a wealth of hard fact that backs it up. Past that it has credible theories that, whilst not yet proved are based on known observation and are self consistant.
So don't try that "It's all just speculation" rubbish because too many people worked too hard to put the hard facts behind it.
ludwig is right. Atheists have been known to taunt believers by asking what was there before creation; believers say that nothing was there, by definition. Scientists say much the same thing when you ask them what happened before big bang. This doesn't mean the two explanations of creation are of equal value, but it does mean we don't know yet. The 'steady state' theory naomi describes was comparatively easy to envisage, and was I think the donimant view until quite recently; but the phsics don't seem to add up. Pity.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that 123Everton.
The thing about the scientific model is that it holds itself up to scrutinisation. It says 'this is what we currently believe, based on such and such evidence, but anyone's welcome to present further evidence to disprove or expand on this knowledge', whereas religion allows no such questioning of its 'truths'. That's quite a significant difference.
That's the theory anyway, but it doesn't stop scientists wanting to burn people at the stake for heresy against science. I suppose when you've based your whole life's work on one set of knowldege, it's tough to have it questioned. The original opponents of the big bang theory got all worked up about it when it was first proposed, because it didn't match their scientific beliefs at the time.
The thing about the scientific model is that it holds itself up to scrutinisation. It says 'this is what we currently believe, based on such and such evidence, but anyone's welcome to present further evidence to disprove or expand on this knowledge', whereas religion allows no such questioning of its 'truths'. That's quite a significant difference.
That's the theory anyway, but it doesn't stop scientists wanting to burn people at the stake for heresy against science. I suppose when you've based your whole life's work on one set of knowldege, it's tough to have it questioned. The original opponents of the big bang theory got all worked up about it when it was first proposed, because it didn't match their scientific beliefs at the time.
All this faffle about being ejected out from an explosion of �nothing�, has anyone wondered where we are going? I mean, who is steering this darn thing? Are we spinning out of control as a result of some collision?
One wonders if God is a woman, what with the multi-tasking, driving skills and general �explosions from nothing�. And all because of some hedonistic binge-drinking wine session many many nights ago�
One wonders if God is a woman, what with the multi-tasking, driving skills and general �explosions from nothing�. And all because of some hedonistic binge-drinking wine session many many nights ago�
I think the simple and stunningly boring answer is that we don't know.
It may be that our descendents will know one day just as we know lots of things which would have been utterly incomprehensible to people a hundred, two hundred or a thousand years ago.
Or humanity may never know because its brain is incapable of discovering/understanding it.
Statistically more likely is that humanity will be extinct long before its brain has evolved to the necessary level to understand.
It may be that our descendents will know one day just as we know lots of things which would have been utterly incomprehensible to people a hundred, two hundred or a thousand years ago.
Or humanity may never know because its brain is incapable of discovering/understanding it.
Statistically more likely is that humanity will be extinct long before its brain has evolved to the necessary level to understand.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
That tells a lot. Only difference is that science depends mainly on what we can gather as human. To be honest there is not much we can do being human. Our abilities are limited believe it or not. Few never thought so and declared themselves gods, where are they today? Had they been around it might have helped people who want God to come and stand in front of them or else they would not believe in him. Even that shows how much we depend upon our given senses.
Jake is trying to tell people about 4 fundamental forces. Are there really 4 or is that how much we know so far?
There are few things God let people know through his messengers, few things were even kept hidden from messengers up to a degree (One thing comes to mind is knowledge about spirits). Science still has long way to go.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
That tells a lot. Only difference is that science depends mainly on what we can gather as human. To be honest there is not much we can do being human. Our abilities are limited believe it or not. Few never thought so and declared themselves gods, where are they today? Had they been around it might have helped people who want God to come and stand in front of them or else they would not believe in him. Even that shows how much we depend upon our given senses.
Jake is trying to tell people about 4 fundamental forces. Are there really 4 or is that how much we know so far?
There are few things God let people know through his messengers, few things were even kept hidden from messengers up to a degree (One thing comes to mind is knowledge about spirits). Science still has long way to go.
I am an atheist. I don't have any thoughts at all on how the universe was created as it is all beyond my powers of reasoning or anyone else's for that matter. So my answer would be that I simple don't know.
For me, to think that there must be a God because there seems no other explanation is very odd.
For me, to think that there must be a God because there seems no other explanation is very odd.
One must be cautious, in my opinion, when waxing philosophically about scientific facts. Having said that, I find it extremely interesting and in agreement with jakes's philosphically scientific observation about the strangeness of the Universe (big U) that the basis for all our undertanding about the universe and it's possible origin(s) rests on the basement complex of mathmatics. In addition, one must ask the question: "Why is the universe mathmatically based and why are the laws of physics and mathmatics the same every where in the vastness"? It doesn't bring anything to the table to simply shrug and say "It is what it is"... no?
Of course, everyone's view and pronouncements are based on their world-view. So, mine come from the view that the elegant arrangements shown by mathmatics (even those esoteric brands understood by only a handful) is one more in a cascade of planning and explainability provided by an infinite mind far beyond our comprehension.
Nothing in our mathmatical understanding precludes God. The model for a totally random universe does preclude its existence.
Scripture, when understood, explains a lot of why and some of how whereas Science only deals with the Ihow. But that same Scripture has encouragement for learning and testing all things and clearly indicates man was created with the "breath of life" totally different that all other creatures (which is self-evident, in my opinion) and as such we have the responsibility to investigate everything. Nothing deserves only a shrug of the shoulders...
Of course, everyone's view and pronouncements are based on their world-view. So, mine come from the view that the elegant arrangements shown by mathmatics (even those esoteric brands understood by only a handful) is one more in a cascade of planning and explainability provided by an infinite mind far beyond our comprehension.
Nothing in our mathmatical understanding precludes God. The model for a totally random universe does preclude its existence.
Scripture, when understood, explains a lot of why and some of how whereas Science only deals with the Ihow. But that same Scripture has encouragement for learning and testing all things and clearly indicates man was created with the "breath of life" totally different that all other creatures (which is self-evident, in my opinion) and as such we have the responsibility to investigate everything. Nothing deserves only a shrug of the shoulders...
Could you give us that C.S Lewis quote again?
I think it's a goodun.
There are lots of different variations in the truths espoused in religionnthat's why we have different sects, it is though a completely different question so I'm going give myself a slap on the wrists
Ouch!
For detracting from the point.
I think it's a goodun.
There are lots of different variations in the truths espoused in religionnthat's why we have different sects, it is though a completely different question so I'm going give myself a slap on the wrists
Ouch!
For detracting from the point.
From nothing, to nothing, Bill Bryson.
I read a couple of years ago, that Scientists had managed to determine the shape of the mass before the Big Bang, and, believe it or not, this mass was apparently the shape of an egg.
Not heard anything since.
Thing is, if there was nothing, and that would include God, because God would be something, but if there was/is a creator, where did he/she come from?, because if God was aways there, as is taught in religious circles, then there's always been something.
Thing is, assuming that before God, there was nothing, then what actually is nothing.
I tried to imagine nothing, and almost went mad, then again, thinking about it, I probably did, and am.
Cue Screaming Lord Sutch.
I read a couple of years ago, that Scientists had managed to determine the shape of the mass before the Big Bang, and, believe it or not, this mass was apparently the shape of an egg.
Not heard anything since.
Thing is, if there was nothing, and that would include God, because God would be something, but if there was/is a creator, where did he/she come from?, because if God was aways there, as is taught in religious circles, then there's always been something.
Thing is, assuming that before God, there was nothing, then what actually is nothing.
I tried to imagine nothing, and almost went mad, then again, thinking about it, I probably did, and am.
Cue Screaming Lord Sutch.
I admire C.S. Lewis and have several books of his quotes... 123Everton, I imagine you are recalling this:
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."
--The Abolition of Man
Another favorite is:
"Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it."
--The Case for Christianity
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."
--The Abolition of Man
Another favorite is:
"Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it."
--The Case for Christianity
Hi Naomi, wasn`t shirking, just lurking.
Lonnie, it was a couple of years ago and I was re-reading Carlos Castaneda when, coincidentally, WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistrophy Probe) revealed some data that suggested that the universe was egg-shaped. This backed up Kepler`s discovery that the planet orbits were ellipses and not circles.
I can feel your frustration, and the only thing I can say is that the part cannot know the whole.
Lonnie, it was a couple of years ago and I was re-reading Carlos Castaneda when, coincidentally, WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistrophy Probe) revealed some data that suggested that the universe was egg-shaped. This backed up Kepler`s discovery that the planet orbits were ellipses and not circles.
I can feel your frustration, and the only thing I can say is that the part cannot know the whole.
