Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
In The Beginning ........
107 Answers
If you are a materialistic secular atheist, then by definition, you believe that everything, that is all matter, energy, space, time and physical laws are contained within the universe.
Therefore, the cause of the universes existence must also be included somewhere in that list.
So, based on the latest from science and your own experiences and opinions, given that you preclude any outside agency, that is, God, as a cause, are you happy to shrug off the question of origin, and simply say, "don't know," or do you have a sensible theory you would be willing to defend?
Therefore, the cause of the universes existence must also be included somewhere in that list.
So, based on the latest from science and your own experiences and opinions, given that you preclude any outside agency, that is, God, as a cause, are you happy to shrug off the question of origin, and simply say, "don't know," or do you have a sensible theory you would be willing to defend?
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.
Sure the 10^500 number is somewhat speculative but the notion of vast number of universes with different constants makes a lot of sense. With numbers that big you might as well talk of infinity so the number itself isn't so important.
There are no known reasons why the fundamental constants of our universe happen to be a combination that "works" other than our universe being just a random one of a plethora. The godists claim that these fortuitous constants are evidence for an intelligent creator.
There are tantalising observational suggestions of gravitational influences acting upon our own universe from beyond.
There are no known reasons why the fundamental constants of our universe happen to be a combination that "works" other than our universe being just a random one of a plethora. The godists claim that these fortuitous constants are evidence for an intelligent creator.
There are tantalising observational suggestions of gravitational influences acting upon our own universe from beyond.
Theland //You are at odds with me of course, but also with scientists who understand the language and subject and would ridicule your views.//
So that is supposed to be a reply? An admission that you don't know dot about the subject and a claim that unspecified scientists would ridicule unspecified parts of my views. That is lame by any standard.
Real scientist don't generally ridicule. They prefer to rely on the fact that observational data speaks for itself and they keep returning to it. It underpins science. If the observable facts don't fit the model then the model is not correct.
Those who proceed to ridicule (such as yourself and the dullards in the videos you keep linking to) are attempting to move away from discussing the facts because they know their position will not withstand scrutiny.
The question of the origin and cause of the Universe remains open and no reasonable attempt to explain it is ridiculed because basically it is in the realm of the unobservable. We do have a highly consistent model of the full history of the Universe subsequent to it reaching a diameter equal to the Planck Length from where we know that it precisely follows the well established Laws of Physics that describe everything we see today. But we don't know what the Universe came from because everything we can observe went though a tiny dot of pure formless energy we know as "The Big Bang" and we cannot see out the other side.
The ultimate question, which is essentially, "Why is there not nothing", is even less testable. There is very little than can be said and all propositions reduce to variations of my proposition, "nothing is not a stable state".
Although I came to the realisation that an infinite void would require the impossibility of infinite order through my own contemplation, I have no doubt that many others have come to the same conclusion. The notion that an infinite, eternal nothing is unsustainable almost seems an axiom.
So that is supposed to be a reply? An admission that you don't know dot about the subject and a claim that unspecified scientists would ridicule unspecified parts of my views. That is lame by any standard.
Real scientist don't generally ridicule. They prefer to rely on the fact that observational data speaks for itself and they keep returning to it. It underpins science. If the observable facts don't fit the model then the model is not correct.
Those who proceed to ridicule (such as yourself and the dullards in the videos you keep linking to) are attempting to move away from discussing the facts because they know their position will not withstand scrutiny.
The question of the origin and cause of the Universe remains open and no reasonable attempt to explain it is ridiculed because basically it is in the realm of the unobservable. We do have a highly consistent model of the full history of the Universe subsequent to it reaching a diameter equal to the Planck Length from where we know that it precisely follows the well established Laws of Physics that describe everything we see today. But we don't know what the Universe came from because everything we can observe went though a tiny dot of pure formless energy we know as "The Big Bang" and we cannot see out the other side.
The ultimate question, which is essentially, "Why is there not nothing", is even less testable. There is very little than can be said and all propositions reduce to variations of my proposition, "nothing is not a stable state".
Although I came to the realisation that an infinite void would require the impossibility of infinite order through my own contemplation, I have no doubt that many others have come to the same conclusion. The notion that an infinite, eternal nothing is unsustainable almost seems an axiom.
Theland, //God is not created. He simply IS. //
Given that you do not require a cause for your God, why is it that you insist the secular atheists need to include a cause for the Universe?
Why can't we have, "The Universe simply IS."?
In fact science can provide observational evidence that this Universe began as as a dot of pure formless energy and describes the process by which it became what we see today with immaculate precision using a few simple Laws.
We know from observation that "In the beginning there was a simple dot of formless energy that embodied the whole Universe and everything it would become."
You claim that everything started with the most complex thing that can ever exist in the Universe yet provide no explanation for the origins of that complexity. The religious speak of "the watch needing a watchmaker" yet propose no origin for the watchmaker.
Digging deeper, science even has a reasonable suggestion for how it all started with a Void (no not space, a NOTHING).
The BIlbe tells us, "In the begining there was God and there was the void." This notion fails on the starting grid. The presence of God means there was no void.
BTW. Don't forget to explain the nature of the Biblical Void as I asked you to do earlier.
Given that you do not require a cause for your God, why is it that you insist the secular atheists need to include a cause for the Universe?
Why can't we have, "The Universe simply IS."?
In fact science can provide observational evidence that this Universe began as as a dot of pure formless energy and describes the process by which it became what we see today with immaculate precision using a few simple Laws.
We know from observation that "In the beginning there was a simple dot of formless energy that embodied the whole Universe and everything it would become."
You claim that everything started with the most complex thing that can ever exist in the Universe yet provide no explanation for the origins of that complexity. The religious speak of "the watch needing a watchmaker" yet propose no origin for the watchmaker.
Digging deeper, science even has a reasonable suggestion for how it all started with a Void (no not space, a NOTHING).
The BIlbe tells us, "In the begining there was God and there was the void." This notion fails on the starting grid. The presence of God means there was no void.
BTW. Don't forget to explain the nature of the Biblical Void as I asked you to do earlier.
As we know by experience, Theland will not address any of the questions put to him in this thread. Soon he will quietly slink away and lay low for a while, only to return in a few weeks with the same demands that secular atheists show evidence for our position.
The whole thing will go around another circle. We will explain it, Theland will ignore it until it is shoved in his face again and he will slink off.
Theland, I suggest you go away and actually study General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology so you have a working comprehension like Jim and I do. Then come back and ask your questions from a position where you might be able to engage in a sensible discussion.
The whole thing will go around another circle. We will explain it, Theland will ignore it until it is shoved in his face again and he will slink off.
Theland, I suggest you go away and actually study General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology so you have a working comprehension like Jim and I do. Then come back and ask your questions from a position where you might be able to engage in a sensible discussion.
Theland //Jim, don't doubt you. Still you come up with more assumptions than are comfortable.//
That is laughable. Theland's entire position is one huge assumption.
An assumption that the musings of ancient, ignorant men who presumed that their every thought was given to them by a supernatural deity, were perfectly correct.
That is laughable. Theland's entire position is one huge assumption.
An assumption that the musings of ancient, ignorant men who presumed that their every thought was given to them by a supernatural deity, were perfectly correct.
jim360 //Just out of interest, what do you mean by describing the Universe, at the point of the Big Bang, as a "tiny dot"?//
It is the standard model of cosmology. Until the Universe reached the diameter of the Planck Length it is impossible to describe any structure using the known Laws of Physics. Hence my use of the word "dot".
Personally I doubt that it was ever that small and consider Inflation and Dark Energy as the equivalent of Cosmological Phlostogen, despite the mounting observational support that has grown since Alan Guth proposed Inflation.
But then Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics. We are all products of our time. Like most most of the innovators in physics, Einstein was quite young when he did his significant work.
I'm fast approaching 60. I can't think of a physicist who came up with anything important at that stage of their life. Moreover I am only a passionate amateur and never had the maths skills required for proper theoretical physics.
It is the standard model of cosmology. Until the Universe reached the diameter of the Planck Length it is impossible to describe any structure using the known Laws of Physics. Hence my use of the word "dot".
Personally I doubt that it was ever that small and consider Inflation and Dark Energy as the equivalent of Cosmological Phlostogen, despite the mounting observational support that has grown since Alan Guth proposed Inflation.
But then Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics. We are all products of our time. Like most most of the innovators in physics, Einstein was quite young when he did his significant work.
I'm fast approaching 60. I can't think of a physicist who came up with anything important at that stage of their life. Moreover I am only a passionate amateur and never had the maths skills required for proper theoretical physics.
Reason I mentioned is because I would have thought that the Universe was never actually that small, merely almost infinitely dense -- which is a slightly different statement. The Universe is usually held to be spatially infinite, which is impossible to attain in finite time if it started off as a literal, infinitesimally small dot.
These are subtle points, though, and hardly serve to undermine the gist of what either of us is saying. In the end, TheLand, you have plenty more fundamental research to do.
These are subtle points, though, and hardly serve to undermine the gist of what either of us is saying. In the end, TheLand, you have plenty more fundamental research to do.
