Creation of the Universe, the whole world explained?

[Miserabilia]

Anyone want to post their explanation for the creation or excistence of the universe here?
I'll start:
-----------------
I think it will always be a mystery, but the theory I like the most, is that our universe is rolled up in a 4d ball, the same way the earth seems flat, but is actually round. But in 3d. And this 4d bubble used to be empty, untill it touched another one of those 4d balls, causing the energy in the other one going in our universe, causing a big bang. Ofcourse, this doesn't explain where those bubbles came from etc, but i just think that theory is awesome.

[Fanta_Lover44]

Hmm i believe that the big bang is the creation of the universe, it does seem a mystery of how it happened of course and how the rocks came together, how they where formed, how they made planets, how those plantes have different atmospheres, i think that our universe is amazing and there will alwalys be slightly different theorys.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I believe in the Big Bang theory.

[Miserabilia]

I believe in the Big Bang theory.

yes but what do you think caused it.

[comical]

As a Christian, I somewhat believe the Big Bang Theory. The scripture says that: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". It did not say HOW it was created. It also said the world was dark, which in a sense correlates with the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory explains that this process took years and years to happen, and in the Bible it happened in a matter of days.

See 2 Peter 3:8 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-8.htm) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

I'm a very open-minded person unlike a lot of Christians, and I do understand that science explains a lot. I'll be a Christian forever, there's no changing in that, but I do understand that we honestly don't know what lies post-death and what happened before we got here.

[Miserabilia]

As a Christian, I somewhat believe the Big Bang Theory. The scripture says that: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". It did not say HOW it was created. It also said the world was dark, which in a since correlates with the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory explains that this process took years and years to happen, and in the Bible it happened in a matter of days.

See 2 Peter 3:8 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-8.htm) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

I'm a very open-minded person unlike a lot of Christians, and I do understand that science explains a lot. I'll be a Christian forever, there's no changing in that, but I do understand that we honestly don't know what post-death and what happened before we got here.
good to see some one so open minded :)

[Origami]

Despite being a Christian I don't believe in Creationism as simply put as the Bible makes it out to be. If a religious deity took part in the creation of the universe it would have only been to put the necessary factors in motion.

That being said, I'm not particularly fond of any theory revolving around the creation of the universe simply because they all fall back on "where did these factors come from to begin with."

[Cygnus]

I believe time (past and future) at a certain point become parallel, that point is the big bang. The big bang created the universe, as it threw all kinds of matter that created other matter at the right circumstances.

[Human]

I believe in the Big Bang Theory... the theory doesn't attempt to explain why the Big Bang happened, or what before.
I think it's most likely and with all the scientific evidence I don't know why someone wouldn't agree with it.

[comical]

I think it's most likely and with all the scientific evidence I don't know why someone wouldn't agree with it.

I agree with that. Although science has failed us in the past, and it is still merely a theory, I completely understand why someone would deny it.

[Stronk Serb]

Big Bang theory. It seems logical since our universe is still expanding.

[Jess]

Big bang theory; makes the most sense.

[LuciferSam]

According to multiverse theory, there is a vast expanse of energy, and each time this energy sparks, it creates a new universe. Thus the "Big Bang" is not exactly a unique event. Given the logical consistency of string physics, I believe it is reasonable. A deity may or may not be responsible for this, I'm really not sure, but if the conventionally accepted God is as vast, all-powerful and inconceivable as he/she/it is claimed to be, why wouldn't they have multiple universes? In fact, it only seems natural!

[Taryn98]

M theory tying together the 5 different string theories and the utilization p-branes in 10 or 11 dimensions seems to account for a lot of uncertainties in the theory of quantum gravity and it's relationship to the other know fields. But that's just a work in progress and has been shown in recent years to have a lot of holes in it. Gotta love Stephen Hawking!
And Garrett Lisi has an interesting theory that ties together all the known particles and fields.
Of course none of this is proven yet.

[Harry Smith]

God woke up one morning and decided to create a new dominion, in just seven wonderful days he had created the air, land and the sea. Along with the animals two beautiful humans were created and they served under him...

I have no idea how anyone believed in this, I honestly think that it was the Big bang theory and in turn this was caused by some far reaching thing like a black hole. My scientific knowledge is very limited, I'm more into chemistry than physics but I'm just certain that Genesis is wrong

[comical]

I have no idea how anyone believed in this, I honestly think that it was the Big bang theory and in turn this was caused by some far reaching thing like a black hole. My scientific knowledge is very limited, I'm more into chemistry than physics but I'm just certain that Genesis is wrong

Why would they not believe in it? It sounds a lot better than us just believing that evolution made sure every single one of our organs work in a superb manner. Yes, I know evolution is will and happens every single day, creationism and evolutionism can work hand and hand in my opinion.

Also, you can't be certain that Genesis is wrong. We can't actually be certain that it's wrong until we meet a creator or we somehow miraculously time travel millions of years back to the point of the bang.

[Gigablue]

yes but what do you think caused it.

Nothing really caused the Big Bang. It was a spontaneous event. Since the net energy of the universe is zero (positive energy in mass is balanced by negative energy in the firm of gravity), the Big Bang could have occurred spontaneously as the result of a quantum fluctuation.

As a Christian, I somewhat believe the Big Bang Theory. The scripture says that: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". It did not say HOW it was created. It also said the world was dark, which in a sense correlates with the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory explains that this process took years and years to happen, and in the Bible it happened in a matter of days.

See 2 Peter 3:8 (http://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-8.htm) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

I'm a very open-minded person unlike a lot of Christians, and I do understand that science explains a lot. I'll be a Christian forever, there's no changing in that, but I do understand that we honestly don't know what lies post-death and what happened before we got here.

I see god as unnecessary in explaining natural phenomena. Positing a supernatural being doesn't add any explanatory power to a hypothesis, and it isn't a testable claim. Believe what you like, but I prefer to stick with science, since it is the only means of acquiring knowledge that works.

I agree with that. Although science has failed us in the past, and it is still merely a theory, I completely understand why someone would deny it.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word theory in the context of science. In colloquial use, a theory means an educated guess, but in science, it refers to a hypothesis that has withstood every attempt at falsification and provides a rigorous explanation for a phenomenon. In short, very few hypotheses reach the level of theory, and those that do aren't likely to be overturned.

Why would they not believe in it? It sounds a lot better than us just believing that evolution made sure every single one of our organs work in a superb manner. Yes, I know evolution is will and happens every single day, creationism and evolutionism can work hand and hand in my opinion.

Evolution doesn't really have much to with the origin of the universe, but I will address it anyway. Your argument rests on the fact that it would be nicer if we were created than if we evolved. This says nothing about the truth of evolution or creationism. What would be nice and what is true are different things.

Evolution is remarkably good at making things work. It's not perfect, but given billions of years, it can produce the complexity of a human being. It seems hard to believe, but we have a huge amount to fossil evidence that shows the steps from basic single cell organisms to the complex life we have today. By working in small increments, basic changes produce extraordinary complexity.

I agree that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible, but I don't see creationism as necessary. Evolution can explain how life grew to have all its present complexity. Additionally, we have many good hypotheses about how abiogenesis occurred. Simply put, it all could have happened without supernatural intervention.

Also, you can't be certain that Genesis is wrong. We can't actually be certain that it's wrong until we meet a creator or we somehow miraculously time travel millions of years back to the point of the bang.

Genesis is wrong. It is internally contradictory, and thus must be false.

Genesis 1:27 (NIV)
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:22 (NIV)
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

In the first verse, god creates man and woman at the same time, while in the second, he makes woman after man. The two are mutually exclusive, therefore the genesis story is false.

[Stronk Serb]

Why would they not believe in it? It sounds a lot better than us just believing that evolution made sure every single one of our organs work in a superb manner. Yes, I know evolution is will and happens every single day, creationism and evolutionism can work hand and hand in my opinion.

Also, you can't be certain that Genesis is wrong. We can't actually be certain that it's wrong until we meet a creator or we somehow miraculously time travel millions of years back to the point of the bang.

One theory I heard about evolution is that God is still shaping us, so we are evolving under his influence. Being agnostic, I do not believe this theory without any solid proof. Big Bang might have happened, if it's true, we will never know who/what caused it for a long time. Science is just in the dark when it comes to how our universe was created.

[Gigablue]

One theory I heard about evolution is that God is still shaping us, so we are evolving under his influence. Being agnostic, I do not believe this theory without any solid proof. Big Bang might have happened, if it's true, we will never know who/what caused it for a long time. Science is just in the dark when it comes to how our universe was created.

Evolution doesn't need divine guidance. It can happen on its own. As long as there is some sort of natural selection and reproduction, evolution will happen.

Also, the Big Bang likely wasn't caused. It happened spontaneously.

[Stronk Serb]

Evolution doesn't need divine guidance. It can happen on its own. As long as there is some sort of natural selection and reproduction, evolution will happen.

Also, the Big Bang likely wasn't caused. It happened spontaneously.

I did not state that I believe we had any divine interventions in my previous post, being agnostic I will only believe it if it is scientificaly proven.
About the underlined part, thank you for clearing that out for me.

[kenoloor]

Also, you can't be certain that Genesis is wrong. We can't actually be certain that it's wrong until we meet a creator or we somehow miraculously time travel millions of years back to the point of the bang.

Firstly, you have this backwards. You cannot be certain that the Bible (in this case Genesis) is correct until it is proven, which it has yet to be.

Secondly, as user Gigablue already correctly stated, Genesis--the whole Bible for that matter--is horribly contradictory.

Thirdly, just to reinforce a wise point:

What would be nice and what is true are different things.

[saea97]

It's so wrong to even place science and religion on the same footing with regard to explaining how the Universe came to be, or to imply that one or the other may be right. The only way to answer such a question is through science. I have very strong confidence that we'll know more and more about the origins of the Universe as scientists work more and more at the problem, but I have even more confidence that religion will never ever provide an answer that isn't a baseless fairy tale.

[comical]

I see god as unnecessary in explaining natural phenomena. Positing a supernatural being doesn't add any explanatory power to a hypothesis, and it isn't a testable claim. Believe what you like, but I prefer to stick with science, since it is the only means of acquiring knowledge that works.


No, adding a supernatural being won't explain one hypothesis any further, it proposes a new one. The topic proposed in the original post said explain what you think. That's how I think it happened. I'm glad that you believe in science. I also truly understand where you're coming from. But you can have your science, and I can have my faith.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word theory in the context of science. In colloquial use, a theory means an educated guess, but in science, it refers to a hypothesis that has withstood every attempt at falsification and provides a rigorous explanation for a phenomenon. In short, very few hypotheses reach the level of theory, and those that do aren't likely to be overturned.


This theory still has not and cannot be tested unless the natural requirements all add up again. Somewhere out in space it may be happening again, but we don't know. So until this theory has actually been proven, there will be those that propose their own hypothesis on why and how the universe was created. There will be constant conflict between religion and science. The Big Bang Theory does propose many great points, but like I said, a creator could of been involved in this. It could've been one God or many gods. We just don't know.

Evolution doesn't really have much to with the origin of the universe, but I will address it anyway. Your argument rests on the fact that it would be nicer if we were created than if we evolved. This says nothing about the truth of evolution or creationism. What would be nice and what is true are different things.

Evolution is remarkably good at making things work. It's not perfect, but given billions of years, it can produce the complexity of a human being. It seems hard to believe, but we have a huge amount to fossil evidence that shows the steps from basic single cell organisms to the complex life we have today. By working in small increments, basic changes produce extraordinary complexity.

I agree that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible, but I don't see creationism as necessary. Evolution can explain how life grew to have all its present complexity. Additionally, we have many good hypotheses about how abiogenesis occurred. Simply put, it all could have happened without supernatural intervention.


Yeah sorry for drifting off-topic in evolution, but I got into creationism and it kind of just slipped right on in, lol.

Yes, what I posted may have sounded like I was saying "it would be nicer if.." but I was saying it in a sense of "Me believing in creationism sounds better than evolution".

I agree with how you said "What would be nicer and what is true are two different things", but this is what I think is true and then that is what you think is true.

Although I am a Christian, like I said above, I still believe in the fact that although I may have seen what I call a "miracle" on earth and the Bible may propose some good "miracles" itself, there could be another God or multiple ones. Heck, it could possibly not be one at all. We just don't know. This world and it's many things could have all happened with a creator, and they could've without one. We just don't know.

Genesis is wrong. It is internally contradictory, and thus must be false.


I've actually noticed those contradictions myself and did some thinking on them a while ago. I think Genesis 1 is maybe just giving us an overview or short description of the whole creation, while Genesis 2 is more of a detailed and precise account of the origin of man. That's my personal take on it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention once again.

Firstly, you have this backwards. You cannot be certain that the Bible (in this case Genesis) is correct until it is proven, which it has yet to be.

Secondly, as user Gigablue already correctly stated, Genesis--the whole Bible for that matter--is horribly contradictory.

Thirdly, just to reinforce a wise point:


Firstly, I never said it was correct. We don't know and may never know if it's right or wrong. It's kind of dumb arguing over something that the answer can't be found to, but it's also great to see different propositions on the matter.

Secondly, read my response to that.

I've actually noticed those contradictions myself and did some thinking on them a while ago. I think Genesis 1 is maybe just giving us an overview or short description of the whole creation, while Genesis 2 is more of a detailed and precise account of the origin of man. That's my personal take on it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention once again.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Miserabilia]

Let's keep discussions on the bible out of this and stay on subject, preferably scientific

[comical]

Sorry for elaborating so much on the bible, cheesee.

[Gigablue]

No, adding a supernatural being won't explain one hypothesis any further, it proposes a new one. The topic proposed in the original post said explain what you think. That's how I think it happened. I'm glad that you believe in science. I also truly understand where you're coming from. But you can have your science, and I can have my faith.

My point was that a supernatural hypothesis has no more explanatory power than the scientific model, and it has far less predictive power. Furthermore, it makes an unnecessary assumption with no evidence, which is reason enough to discount it.

Also, I don't think science and faith are equal. Science is the process of learning things by gathering data and then fairly and consistently analyzing it to draw conclusions. Anything contradicted by the evidence is discarded, and science looks for a better explanation.

Faith, on the other hand, is believing without any evidence. There isn't really any argument that can be made for its efficacy.

Science demonstrably works. It has given us all of modern technology, extended out lifespans, and made life much easier, just to name a few of its accomplishments. Faith hasn't done anything close.

This theory still has not and cannot be tested unless the natural requirements all add up again. Somewhere out in space it may be happening again, but we don't know. So until this theory has actually been proven, there will be those that propose their own hypothesis on why and how the universe was created. There will be constant conflict between religion and science. The Big Bang Theory does propose many great points, but like I said, a creator could of been involved in this. It could've been one God or many gods. We just don't know.

A creates could be involved. I'm not saying one wasn't. I'm just saying that in the absence of any evidence for a creator, the rational thing to do is not believe in one.

If we don't take the aforementioned approach, you can simply posit anything, no matter how ridiculous, and there would be no way to tell fact from fiction.

Saying the Big Bang happened spontaneously through natural processes, and saying a creator caused the Big Bang both have equal explanatory power, but the former requires fewer assumptions than the latter, and is thus a better hypothesis.

[TheBigUnit]

I believe time (past and future) at a certain point become parallel, that point is the big bang.
In all honesty do you even know what your re saying?


All I have to say there was a great release of energy and we re still riding on the shock waves

[Cygnus]

In all honesty do you even know what your re saying?

I do know what I am saying, I am just not good at explaining it.

[TheBigUnit]

I do know what I am saying, I am just not good at explaining it.

where did u get the idea from im just wondering cuz there so many theories out there, most of the people here get their ideas online or tv, mine from nova

[Cygnus]

where did u get the idea from im just wondering cuz there so many theories out there, most of the people here get their ideas online or tv, mine from nova

I got thinking one day in the shower and realized time could actually be parallel just like universes are. Weird, but it could happen. If I could just explain it right...

[Miserabilia]

I got thinking one day in the shower and realized time could actually be parallel just like universes are. Weird, but it could happen. If I could just explain it right...

I guess I know what you mean.

[Korashk]

and it is still merely a theory
Don't say this. In scientific terms "theory" is the highest classification a concept can reach. It's like saying "he's just the pope" or "she's merely the queen of England".

[Daracon]

My theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJBPFCtOJsU

[Mirage]

I believe in the single point theory (not sure of the actual name). It states that all matter consisted as one singular point the size of an atom, and at that size it was under immense pressure. It then exploded causing the universe to form, then the big bang happened shortly after.

[Miserabilia]

I believe in the single point theory (not sure of the actual name). It states that all matter consisted as one singular point the size of an atom, and at that size it was under immense pressure. It then exploded causing the universe to form, then the big bang happened shortly after.

Don't you mean that IS the big bang?

[WickedWeekend]

I don't want to keep it "scientific" if that's fine. I believe in what the Bible tells me. God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. A big bang just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how much you explain it. Though what I can wrap my head around is the fact that the universe was created with a purpose by God.

I'm not being close-minded, if you think about it. Just present to me an idea that makes sense, that's all. The big bang is an outrageous idea in my eyes so I choose not to listen to it.

[Harry Smith]

I don't want to keep it "scientific" if that's fine. I believe in what the Bible tells me. God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. A big bang just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how much you explain it. Though what I can wrap my head around is the fact that the universe was created with a purpose by God.

I'm not being close-minded, if you think about it. Just present to me an idea that makes sense, that's all. The big bang is an outrageous idea in my eyes so I choose not to listen to it.

How could create the world in seven days when he hadn't even created the sun? Night and day is a human invention of measuring the time.

An outrageous idea is that a man in the sky made this world, you have no evidence for it at all apart from a book written by humans. Evolution disproves the whole idea of creationism and evolution is fact

[Sasha M]

How about, "God created the Big Bang." Makes sence? Probley not... LOL

[Gigablue]

I don't want to keep it "scientific" if that's fine.

Why? Science has given us everything good that we have today. It is so far the only method to acquire knowledge that is consistent with the outside world. Without science, we can't reliably know anything.

I believe in what the Bible tells me.

Why, the bible is internally inconsistent, and therefore impossible. It simply cannot be true. Some parts of it might be, but the all parts of the bible cannot be simultaneously true.

Also, there is little evidence for anything in the bible. If it were true, wouldn't you expect to see other sources that support it. Much of the bible is contrary to observable fact.

God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh.

Any evidence for that? You can't just make claims and expect people to take you seriously.

A big bang just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how much you explain it. Though what I can wrap my head around is the fact that the universe was created with a purpose by God.

This video (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=G_MFhAoUUmQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DG_MFhAoUUmQ) gives a good explanation of the Big Bang.

If you have time, you should watch This video (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo) which describes the evidence for and implications of the Big Bang, as well as how the universe could have come from nothing, without needing a creator.

I'm not being close-minded, if you think about it. Just present to me an idea that makes sense, that's all. The big bang is an outrageous idea in my eyes so I choose not to listen to it.

What about the Big Bang is outrageous? You may not like it, but that doesn't make it false. You may not be able to understand it, but the evidence stands on its own. If you don't believe the Big Bang, you should either be able to refute all the evidence provided for it, or have an equal amount of evidence for another hypothesis.

How about, "God created the Big Bang." Makes sence? Probley not... LOL

Not technically impossible, but a god isn't necessary to explain the universe. I know it sounds hard to believe, but the total energy of the universe is actually zero, therefore the universe could have easily arisen spontaneously from a larger multiverse as a result of natural processes explained by quantum mechanics.

[WickedWeekend]

How could create the world in seven days when he hadn't even created the sun? Night and day is a human invention of measuring the time.

An outrageous idea is that a man in the sky made this world, you have no evidence for it at all apart from a book written by humans. Evolution disproves the whole idea of creationism and evolution is fact

Evolution is fact? Hahahahahaha. Please, at best, it's just an idea. It's recognized in the scientific community as a theory, and apparently a good one at that.

By the way, does it tell you anything that after Darwin brought the idea of evolution, he converted to Christianity? They don't tell you that in schools, do they?

Why? Science has given us everything good that we have today. It is so far the only method to acquire knowledge that is consistent with the outside world. Without science, we can't reliably know anything.

I'm aware of that and I agree with you. The user cheesee wanted to keep God out of the picture, but I reject his request because I believe the universe to have a purpose with a Creator. There's no science involved there, though i particularly have nothing against science. I love it.

Why, the bible is internally inconsistent, and therefore impossible. It simply cannot be true. Some parts of it might be, but the all parts of the bible cannot be simultaneously true.I strongly suggest you read this article, just scroll down to get to the list of supposed "inconsistencies." I remember when I started doubting the existence of a Creator, but this slapped me in the face. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

Also, there is little evidence for anything in the bible. If it were true, wouldn't you expect to see other sources that support it. Much of the bible is contrary to observable fact.Again, much of the inconsistencies were already explained, but as for evidence it is exists, Christians rely on faith. There's nothing wrong with that. I know God exists because I talked to Him personally and He has worked in my life. I don't need God coming down from Heaven and taking a photo with me to show He's real. It's all about that faith.

Any evidence for that? You can't just make claims and expect people to take you seriously.Nope, no evidence. Just faith. :)

This video (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=G_MFhAoUUmQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DG_MFhAoUUmQ) gives a good explanation of the Big Bang.

If you have time, you should watch This video (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo) which describes the evidence for and implications of the Big Bang, as well as how the universe could have come from nothing, without needing a creator.I seriously don't have the time to watch those videos, and I'm sorry for that. I'm good with a ten minute video that maybe minutephysics or vsauce made, thank you. :) Yeah, sorry. I just can't watch those right now.

What about the Big Bang is outrageous? You may not like it, but that doesn't make it false. You may not be able to understand it, but the evidence stands on its own. If you don't believe the Big Bang, you should either be able to refute all the evidence provided for it, or have an equal amount of evidence for another hypothesis.I just don't believe it. I've always believed in God and I can't find a reason to start believing in something else. I can't tell you why a Creator is real, because, again, you have to have faith to believe in Him. Just a quick question, have you read the Bible? I'm just curious.

Not technically impossible, but a god isn't necessary to explain the universe. I know it sounds hard to believe, but the total energy of the universe is actually zero, therefore the universe could have easily arisen spontaneously from a larger multiverse as a result of natural processes explained by quantum mechanics.Because we live in the Matrix?

[Harry Smith]

Evolution is fact? Hahahahahaha. Please, at best, it's just an idea. It's recognized in the scientific community as a theory, and apparently a good one at that.

By the way, does it tell you anything that after Darwin brought the idea of evolution, he converted to Christianity? They don't tell you that in schools, do they?

Evolution is 100 percent fact, why would would a whale have a hip bone if god created it to swim in water?

[Miserabilia]

Evolution is fact? Hahahahahaha. Please, at best, it's just an idea. It's recognized in the scientific community as a theory, and apparently a good one at that.

By the way, does it tell you anything that after Darwin brought the idea of evolution, he converted to Christianity? They don't tell you that in schools, do they?

Are you even serious? Are you saying that because he was a christian, he just threw away his wild "theory" of evolution? You can be christian and "beleive" in the "theory" of evolution.

If you are saying there is no real proof just open your eyes and stop being in so much super hard denial, because you are choosing to ignore the obvious.

I mean, you can definetly proof evolution.
If you have a bunch of bacteria, they all carry different sets of genes.
Genes mutate and differ among each family of those bacteria.

If you try to kill the bacteria with a certain substance, out of the milions, some of them will have a gene that is more reilient to that substance.

The bacteria with that gene has more chance to survive, and the others have more chance of getting killed.

Thus, the resilient ones live on, and pass on their genes. After this has continues for a long long time, there will be only bacteria with those genes, and it will be standard for them, thus there is a new type of bacteria.

This is rea, and happens all the time in hospitals.
Though reading what you just said, I doubt you even understand simple facts like that?

Genes mutate all the time.
Why do you think people have different hair and eye and skin colours?
People in places with more sun, why do you think they have darker skin?

Do you beleive god threw some dirt over them or something?
Obsiouly, the people with genes that cause a darker skin , thus more resilient against the burn of the sun, will survive longer and have more offspring.
Thus, even humans
are adapting to the envirement, all the time.

Your own skin hair and eye colour is a proof of that.
I mean, for real people
open your eyes.
With all the knowledge and technology and medicine science gives you,
why is it so hard to beleive something as simple as this?

Sorry for the long rant, but yea.

[WickedWeekend]

Evolution is 100 percent fact, why would would a whale have a hip bone if god created it to swim in water?

It's a THEORY. Say it with me. "Theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution The third paragraph on Wikipedia proposes correctly that Evolution is just a theory. As much as I hate to say it, Creationism is probably a theory too. It hasn't been proved true yet, similar to Evolution. There's evidence for both, if you can believe it. And I'd be happy to dig some up for Creationism, if you'd like.

tl;dr?: Evolution is a theory.

Are you even serious? Are you saying that because he was a christian, he just threw away his wild "theory" of evolution? You can be christian and "beleive" in the "theory" of evolution.

If you are saying there is no real proof just open your eyes and stop being in so much super hard denial, because you are choosing to ignore the obvious.

I believe that Evolution cannot coexist with Creationism because of one simple fact: The idea of Evolution completely throws out the idea of God, simply put. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

Also, there's no real proof for Evolution either, as it's still a theory. Open your eyes, dude. You're in "super hard denial" of God existing so stop being a hypocrite. I'm not ignoring the obvious, because i believe the obvious is that we have a Creator.

[Miserabilia]

It's a THEORY. Say it with me. "Theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution The third paragraph on Wikipedia proposes correctly that Evolution is just a theory. As much as I hate to say it, Creationism is probably a theory too. It hasn't been proved true yet, similar to Evolution. There's evidence for both, if you can believe it. And I'd be happy to dig some up for Creationism, if you'd like.

tl;dr?: Evolution is a theory.



I believe that Evolution cannot coexist with Creationism because of one simple fact: The idea of Evolution completely throws out the idea of God, simply put. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

Also, there's no real proof for Evolution either, as it's still a theory. Open your eyes, dude. You're in "super hard denial" of God existing so stop being a hypocrite. I'm not ignoring the obvious, because i believe the obvious is that we have a Creator.

Are you even using your eyes to read what I just posted?
Go to a hospital, bacterias are evolving all the time. Use to many antibiotics, they adapt and they become immume.
WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT HAIR/SKIN/EYE COLOUR?
ORGANISMS ADAPT.

This is more proof then the bible which is just a collection of some old books, from which the base is created by ancient priests who just wanted it to rain so they sacrificed a cow.

I mean, you want to be a christian, fine. but don't start like that. you just sound moronic.

[WickedWeekend]

Are you even using your eyes to read what I just posted?
Go to a hospital, bacterias are evolving all the time. Use to many antibiotics, they adapt and they become immume.
WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT HAIR/SKIN/EYE COLOUR?
ORGANISMS ADAPT.

This is more proof then the bible which is just a collection of some old books, from which the base is created by ancient priests who just wanted it to rain so they sacrificed a cow.

I mean, you want to be a christian, fine. but don't start like that. you just sound moronic.

I read your little "rant" and I disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, so stop being a douche. And it's funny how you bring up the idea of priests sacrificing a cow and writing the Bible. They didn't do it to make it rain, if you'd read the Bible. They wanted to gain God's favor, that's all.

Who cares if I sound moronic? For in my heart, I know that I'm saying something that will save your life. You talking about Evolution and the Big Bang sounds moronic, but you don't see me complaining.

[Miserabilia]

I read your little "rant" and I disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, so stop being a douche. And it's funny how you bring up the idea of priests sacrificing a cow and writing the Bible. They didn't do it to make it rain, if you'd read the Bible. They wanted to gain God's favor, that's all.

Who cares if I sound moronic? For in my heart, I know that I'm saying something that will save your life. You talking about Evolution and the Big Bang sounds moronic, but you don't see me complaining.

I disagree you can't the adaptation of organisms is literaly a fact.

and writing the Bible nobody has written the bible, its a combination of the old testament which is from jewism and originaly came from the primal religions in africa,
which really were people sacrificing animals to make it rain. (the only facour they wanted from god at that time)
and the new testament, which is a bunch off different newer books put together in the middle ages.

[Zarakly]

What I believe get ridiculed all the time, its just what I find the most sense in.
I am Christian as well so that affects some of the view of how I see it was created. But anyhow how I see it is this

At first there was nothing, or darkness, and then there was the whole "Let there be light" thing. That is what I believe the Big Bang was. I believe that is when God decided to have creation in this universe. After that he formed stars and dust to create the planets. When Earth was made I think that is when he decided to let life be born and created an organism (like a single celled organism, not a human to start). From there it goes onto evolution from one tiny cell into creatures made of billions of cells. I am a Christian, however, I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I just think it was his intent and his control to start these events.

[Magus]

tl;dr?: Evolution is a theory.

Do you know what a theory is? There are several meaning to it. And there is one that specifically applies to scientific theories.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Did you guessed which one it is? If you guess the first one, then congratulations. If not, then try harder the next time. It seems that you have a knack on using the meaning number 4 mostly, when it comes to Scientific theory.


Also, there's no real proof for Evolution either.

Transitional fossils? Vestigial Organs? Genes? Microevolution? No? Okay. QQ

How did this shit became about evolution, when it is about the origin of the universe, to begin with?

I think it will always be a mystery, but the theory I like the most, is that our universe is rolled up in a 4d ball, the same way the earth seems flat, but is actually round. But in 3d. And this 4d bubble used to be empty, untill it touched another one of those 4d balls, causing the energy in the other one going in our universe, causing a big bang. Ofcourse, this doesn't explain where those bubbles came from etc, but i just think that theory is awesome.


What the hell is a 4D ball?

[Miserabilia]

What the hell is a 4D ball?
well... you know how there are 3 dimensions of space... i lik eto beleive there is a 4th one, in which our universe is rolled up in, forming a ball

[Miserabilia]

What I believe get ridiculed all the time, its just what I find the most sense in.
I am Christian as well so that affects some of the view of how I see it was created. But anyhow how I see it is this

At first there was nothing, or darkness, and then there was the whole "Let there be light" thing. That is what I believe the Big Bang was. I believe that is when God decided to have creation in this universe. After that he formed stars and dust to create the planets. When Earth was made I think that is when he decided to let life be born and created an organism (like a single celled organism, not a human to start). From there it goes onto evolution from one tiny cell into creatures made of billions of cells. I am a Christian, however, I believe in Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I just think it was his intent and his control to start these events.

atleast you are a little open minded, thank you for that :)

[Magus]

well... you know how there are 3 dimensions of space... i lik eto beleive there is a 4th one, in which our universe is rolled up in, forming a ball

Again, what do you mean by dimension? Give me a cut clear definition.

[Zarakly]

atleast you are a little open minded, thank you for that :)

It's the only thing that makes sense to me. I mean, I am Christian, but I am also a man of science. I just think if you put the two together, not relying directly on one, it makes more sense to me..

[Miserabilia]

Again, what do you mean by dimension? Give me a cut clear definition.

Well, we are 3 dimensional. we can move up and down (1) front and back (2) and sideways (3).
To us, ouruniverse appears that way too, 3d,, just like a really flat ant (almost 2d) would experience a flat surface when walking around a globe.
so if there is a 4th spacial dimension we are moving across, our universe may actually be round, just like our earth

[Human]

It's the only thing that makes sense to me. I mean, I am Christian, but I am also a man of science. I just think if you put the two together, not relying directly on one, it makes more sense to me..

Personally I think that relying on the two doesn't work.
Why would a god create a big bang? Why wouldn't he just create everything as it is now?

[Magus]

Well, we are 3 dimensional. we can move up and down (1) front and back (2) and sideways (3).
To us, ouruniverse appears that way too, 3d,, just like a really flat ant (almost 2d) would experience a flat surface when walking around a globe.
so if there is a 4th spacial dimension we are moving across, our universe may actually be round, just like our earth

Well, the universe found to be ovoidal, and is spreading towards the outer rim in that direction. But it is still not 4 dimension. It is still just up, down and sideways.

Want to know something scary? The universe is splitting apart really quickly, each galaxy is distancing itself so fast that after sometimes, the distance between will be immeasurable. And further the galaxies are from each other, the faster it spreads out.

There will be a time where this galaxy will be the only one in the immediate existence.

It's called Hubble law, I think.

Also, there is a place called the Eridanus Super-Void (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/the-eridanus-void-does-a-megamassive-black-hole-onebillion-light-years-across-exist-a-galaxy-most-po.html). Some speculate that it might be a gateway to another parallel universe.

[Miserabilia]

Personally I think that relying on the two doesn't work.
Why would a god create a big bang? Why wouldn't he just create everything as it is now?

then you might as well ask why god would exist in the first place

[Harry Smith]

It's a THEORY. Say it with me. "Theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution The third paragraph on Wikipedia proposes correctly that Evolution is just a theory. As much as I hate to say it, Creationism is probably a theory too. It hasn't been proved true yet, similar to Evolution. There's evidence for both, if you can believe it. And I'd be happy to dig some up for Creationism, if you'd like.

tl;dr?: Evolution is a theory.



I believe that Evolution cannot coexist with Creationism because of one simple fact: The idea of Evolution completely throws out the idea of God, simply put. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

Also, there's no real proof for Evolution either, as it's still a theory. Open your eyes, dude. You're in "super hard denial" of God existing so stop being a hypocrite. I'm not ignoring the obvious, because i believe the obvious is that we have a Creator.

You ignored my point about vestigal limbs completely, there is no evidence at all for creationism apart from a book written by by man.

Evoultion has
1) Fossil records
2) carbon dating
3) Vestigial limbs
4) Resistant to disease
5) Evidence within animals

All you have is a book

[Miserabilia]

Well, the universe found to be ovoidal, and is spreading towards the outer rim in that direction. But it is still not 4 dimension. It is still just up, down and sideways.

Want to know something scary? The universe is splitting apart really quickly, each galaxy is distancing itself so fast that after sometimes, the distance between will be immeasurable. And further the galaxies are from each other, the faster it spreads out.

There will be a time where this galaxy will be the only one in the immediate existence.

It's called Hubble law, I think.

Also, there is a place called the Eridanus Super-Void (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/the-eridanus-void-does-a-megamassive-black-hole-onebillion-light-years-across-exist-a-galaxy-most-po.html). Some speculate that it might be a gateway to another parallel universe.
yes I knew all that.

It is still just up, down and sideways.
yes, from our point of view.
If you would put 2 dimensional people on a 3d globe, they would say the same. also a paralel universe can basicly only exists if there are 4 dimensions.
Im not saying it can EVER be proven, just think thats some interesting food for though :)

[Miserabilia]

You ignored my point about vestigal limbs completely, there is no evidence at all for creationism apart from a book written by by man.

Evoultion has
1) Fossil records
2) carbon dating
3) Vestigial limbs
4) Resistant to disease
5) Evidence within animals

All you have is a book

this^
is
sparta!
sorry got distracted there.
totally aggree though.
People saying there isnt evidence are just denying it

[Zarakly]

Personally I think that relying on the two doesn't work.
Why would a god create a big bang? Why wouldn't he just create everything as it is now?

Ah, never thought of it that way, perhaps it was to see how we would evolve and become different form the others. I don't actually know now that I think of it. The only reason I could think of would be to just let us have free will and evolve on our own, but then that doesn't really make much sense anyhow because he would know how it ends up in the end no matter what.

I have come to a new conclusion!
There were many gods, they all had their own planet to use as a base and they were allowed to put on 1 organism. From there they controlled the elements to watch as their species evolved. Whoever was the first to colonize another planet shall win!( I'm just kidding at this, I really don't know how to answer your question I guess).

[Miserabilia]

Ah, never thought of it that way, perhaps it was to see how we would evolve and become different form the others. I don't actually know now that I think of it. The only reason I could think of would be to just let us have free will and evolve on our own, but then that doesn't really make much sense anyhow because he would know how it ends up in the end no matter what.

I have come to a new conclusion!
There were many gods, they all had their own planet to use as a base and they were allowed to put on 1 organism. From there they controlled the elements to watch as their species evolved. Whoever was the first to colonize another planet shall win!( I'm just kidding at this, I really don't know how to answer your question I guess).

LOL that actualy sounds lke some ancient mayan religion or something :)

[Gigablue]

Evolution is fact? Hahahahahaha. Please, at best, it's just an idea. It's recognized in the scientific community as a theory, and apparently a good one at that.

Do you know what a theory is. It's the highest level you can reach in science. It means that it can predict and explain a phenomenon, and has not been disproven by anything. It you want to call it "just a theory", I will remind you that gravity, germ theory, relativity and plate tectonics are also "just theories".

Also, evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon, natural selection is the theory.

The following are the criteria for a theory.

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)

It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.

It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

By the way, does it tell you anything that after Darwin brought the idea of evolution, he converted to Christianity? They don't tell you that in schools, do they?

They don't teach it because its not relevant. Natural selection stands on the evidence, not Darwin. Darwin could have been a serial killer and it wouldn't make any difference. Attack the ideas, not the person.

I'm aware of that and I agree with you. The user cheesee wanted to keep God out of the picture, but I reject his request because I believe the universe to have a purpose with a Creator. There's no science involved there, though i particularly have nothing against science. I love it.

Why do you believe the universe has a creator? That isn't consistent with any of the evidence. There is simply no reason to believe that.

Also, if you have nothing against science, why are you trying so hard to ignore it? If you really loved science, you'd let the evidence lead the way, instead to clinging to dogma.

I strongly suggest you read this article, just scroll down to get to the list of supposed "inconsistencies." I remember when I started doubting the existence of a Creator, but this slapped me in the face. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

I don't have the time to read and address every one of those right now, but I'll read them a bit later. The few I read were obvious examples of special pleading.

Also, if the bible is really divinely inspired, god is a terrible author. I couldn't write a more contradictory book if I tried.

Again, much of the inconsistencies were already explained, but as for evidence it is exists, Christians rely on faith. There's nothing wrong with that. I know God exists because I talked to Him personally and He has worked in my life. I don't need God coming down from Heaven and taking a photo with me to show He's real. It's all about that faith.

Nope, no evidence. Just faith. :)

I really hate how people treat science and faith as equals. Science is clearly superior. Look at everything science has given us: electricity, the Internet and modern medicine to name a few. Now look at what faith has given us: dogma, outdated ideas, and holy wars.

Science is the only way we can actually learn about the world around us. When faith can make a prediction about the world, and it is reliably demonstrable, then I'll consider it useful, until then, I reject the claim that faith lets you know anything about the world.

I seriously don't have the time to watch those videos, and I'm sorry for that. I'm good with a ten minute video that maybe minutephysics or vsauce made, thank you. :) Yeah, sorry. I just can't watch those right now.

I didn't mean for you to watch them now, but if you want to know some details about the Big Bang, you should watch them. They explain it fairly clearly.

I just don't believe it. I've always believed in God and I can't find a reason to start believing in something else. I can't tell you why a Creator is real, because, again, you have to have faith to believe in Him. Just a quick question, have you read the Bible? I'm just curious.

Why do you believe? Believing just for the sake of it makes no sense.

Also, I have read parts of the bible. It is the most morally repugnant book I've ever read. God is basically a bloodthirsty monster who kills people without reason. Many sections are also just stupid. For example, listing genealogies or specific details on how to build something.

As much as I hate to say it, Creationism is probably a theory too. It hasn't been proved true yet, similar to Evolution. There's evidence for both, if you can believe it. And I'd be happy to dig some up for Creationism, if you'd like.

Creationism isn't a theory. I'll be generous and call it a hypothesis, but even then, it can't really be tested. It also doesn't make any predictions about the world. Basically, it has no predictive or explanatory power, and is thus useless.

I believe that Evolution cannot coexist with Creationism because of one simple fact: The idea of Evolution completely throws out the idea of God, simply put. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.

I agree, but seeing as evolution is proven, and can even be shown in a lab, shouldn't you reject creationism.

Also, there's no real proof for Evolution either, as it's still a theory. Open your eyes, dude. You're in "super hard denial" of God existing so stop being a hypocrite. I'm not ignoring the obvious, because i believe the obvious is that we have a Creator.

Here (http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution) are five good proofs for evolution. The only other way to explain these would be a deity intentionally messing with us to make it look like we evolved. I think evolution is a much more likely explanation.

How is it obvious that we have a creator? We could have easily have gotten here without one.

[Miserabilia]

Also, if the bible is really divinely inspired, god is a terrible author. I couldn't write a more contradictory book if I tried.
exactly! Like I said before, this is because its just a collection of different books and ancient stories, all put together in the middle ages.

I also can't beleive how people refuse to beleive science and for no reason keep hanging on to the existence of a god....

Open your eyes folks :)

[rogoshtalmour]

and yet from Nothing, nothing comes. So there had to be something there first and the big bang theory does not explain what that something was. Considering the basic laws of physics end with "unless acted upon by an outside force." this would seem to imply that there must have been something outside of our universe to create the universe. To say it another way every effect must have a cause.

[Miserabilia]

Actually, no. quantum mechanics man, quantum mechanics. not everything has cause and effectr as we know it

[Delete123]

The creation of the earth is explained but the universe? that will be hard to explain.
Some say that the creation of our current universe was due to the black hole taking in matter from other universes but if that was true then what created the other universes? The very fabric of reality itself was weaved out of something but most importantly, what weaved it out?
if there was a god, no offence implied to any religion, he might have weaved it out himself but science cant explain every thing and religion is used as a mean of enlightenment some may say.
or the theory of time, the black hole made from the end of the sun caused a rift of time and the destroyed universe of the future traveled through the rift and hence reforming from scratch the very universe, once again the cycle shall repeat.
Who knows you can believe your own theory or what ever you wish to believe.

[Silicate Wielder]

I think that before the Big Bang the universe was nothing and had no physics or limitations on what could happen and that the circumstances that something happens under were always changing. Eventually the circumstances correlated correctly to cause the spontanious creation of an atom that was so incredibly unstable it exploded with the force and energy needed to create matter and expansion of space. Time began and the laws of physics were set in place, later the circumstances on how things worked changed and got stuck where they are now. Thus, the birth of the universe. However the universe is still held in the place it was born, therefore there could be any number of alternate universes. Outswide of our universe is the place it was born. If one were to leave the safety of our universe without instantaniously entering another, who knows what could happen as the space between universes has constantly randomizing physics and laws on how things happen. If you're lucky enough to return to a universe you could be anything, wether it be a rock, tsome fucked up peice of matter, maybe a lightbeam, even a car, or have some awesome or unimaginably horrible mutation.

I watch too much Fringe XD

OMG I have an epic idea for a manga :D

[Chelsea716]

Here's my opinion: the universe was created from a different universe compacting down into a single atom. It then exploded and so on. Using the multi-universe theory, we have lots more possibility. I am thinking if this is what's true then there must be something with another universe to create ours. I am thinking that we are in a 4D ball, but then the universe is in a endless 5D area. I am agnostic to a point so I think that maybe some "force" appeared from nowhere and create this. Not a traditional god but rather a freak event that we shall call "God".

[Gigablue]

if there was a god, no offence implied to any religion, he might have weaved it out himself but science cant explain every thing and religion is used as a mean of enlightenment some may say.

Science can't explain everything yet, but it has progressed so much, and there isn't really a reason why science can't someday explain everything. Religion doesn't really explain anything though. All the explanations offered by religion are gradually displaced by science.

Who knows you can believe your own theory or what ever you wish to believe.

You can't believe whatever you want. There is an objective right answer to how the universe formed. We are getting close to explaining it with science. The Big Bang provides a good model for it. While there are a few details to work out, we have a pretty good idea. If someone doesn't believe what the evidence shows, they are simply wrong.

and yet from Nothing, nothing comes. So there had to be something there first and the big bang theory does not explain what that something was. Considering the basic laws of physics end with "unless acted upon by an outside force." this would seem to imply that there must have been something outside of our universe to create the universe. To say it another way every effect must have a cause.

The universe could have, and very likely did happen spontaneously. Since we live in a universe with net energy zero, the Big Bang could have been the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation in a larger multiverse. As a result, the universe can be an effect without a cause.

[randomnessqueen]

i think the prevelance of the big bang theory is abit silly, cause it doesnt have a very strong concept of the 'beginning'.
i believe that time is a perception, and that the universe has always existed

[Miserabilia]

i think the prevelance of the big bang theory is abit silly, cause it doesnt have a very strong concept of the 'beginning'.
i believe that time is a perception, and that the universe has always existed

that doesn't make much sense, depending on what you mean with "the universe"there is definete evidence that the universe is expanding outwards all the time, and used to be much much smaller, even before there was mass. that means at one point it was probably nothing and then it exploded basicly, and what we experience is still part of that explosion, creating the universe as we know it.
its a spontaneous event

[rogoshtalmour]

The universe could have, and very likely did happen spontaneously. Since we live in a universe with net energy zero, the Big Bang could have been the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation in a larger multiverse. As a result, the universe can be an effect without a cause.[/QUOTE]

Your premise just admits that there must be something outside of the universe. So you can argue it was something spontaneous and I can argue there was intelligent design behind it and neither of us can say the other is wrong then. If you are admitting there is something outside of our universe, as you said the multiverse then you have to admit the possibility of a God outside of our universe as well.


And my original point was still sound from nothing, nothing comes. So you have to admit there was something before our universe. What that something is I suppose no one can prove but still.

[rogoshtalmour]

I would also like to point out that you guys keep saying it is a spontaneous event. How many spontaneous explosions do you see today? In our world or even in the Universe? I mean sure we see stars explode and such but was it spontaneous or was it due to forces acting upon the star? You will be hard pressed to find any truly spontaneous events now or in the past. What you generally see is cause and effect.

Also we have order in our universe. The universe is infinitely more complex than a car right? So try this take all the parts you need for a car put them in a room with a bomb and blow them up see if a working car comes out of that. Frankly I find the idea that a spontaneous explosion created all matter and energy to just be silly.

[Miserabilia]

The universe could have, and very likely did happen spontaneously. Since we live in a universe with net energy zero, the Big Bang could have been the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation in a larger multiverse. As a result, the universe can be an effect without a cause.

Your premise just admits that there must be something outside of the universe. So you can argue it was something spontaneous and I can argue there was intelligent design behind it and neither of us can say the other is wrong then. If you are admitting there is something outside of our universe, as you said the multiverse then you have to admit the possibility of a God outside of our universe as well.


And my original point was still sound from nothing, nothing comes. So you have to admit there was something before our universe. What that something is I suppose no one can prove but still.

Okay so here is what I don't understand about your thinking:
There are three things you can beleive,
1. the universe is spontanious. There may be something out there, but it has no cause and effect and origin as we know it.

2.The universe is created by god. Well that just leaves the question where god came from, don't it? If you say god does not have time as we know it, why not just say the same about the universe? no cause and effect needed. If you make god the "cause" of the universe, you need a "cause" for god too.

3. The universe is spontanious, but set in motion/created by god
same thing as 2.

[rogoshtalmour]

Okay so here is what I don't understand about your thinking:
There are three things you can beleive,
1. the universe is spontanious. There may be something out there, but it has no cause and effect and origin as we know it.

2.The universe is created by god. Well that just leaves the question where god came from, don't it? If you say god does not have time as we know it, why not just say the same about the universe? no cause and effect needed. If you make god the "cause" of the universe, you need a "cause" for god too.

3. The universe is spontanious, but set in motion/created by god
same thing as 2.

I am mainly going to talk to you about 2 and 3. Logic dictates every EFFECT must have a CAUSE. Not every CAUSE needs an EFFECT. Since the Universe cannot create itself because that would mean the universe was before it was.....then something or someone must have created it. On the other hand if God exists then by definition He is eternal thus He is the first Cause and does not need a Cause before Him. The universe is not eternal. How do we know this well for one based on your premise it is not eternal because it was created by the big bang. For two though we do live in a zero net energy universe we know heat energy is being lost every year so eventually this universe will die. Or it might as well die because all the stars will go out. Billions and maybe even trillions of years from now but still we know it is not eternal. Because if it was eternal then the heat energy would sustain itself. As the definition of eternal is well everlasting.

[Gigablue]

i think the prevelance of the big bang theory is abit silly, cause it doesnt have a very strong concept of the 'beginning'.
i believe that time is a perception, and that the universe has always existed

The universe is expanding. If we look at galaxies, we see that the farther they are from us, the faster they are moving away from us. If the universe were eternal, ever galaxy would have already separated infinitely far away. The universe has to have had a beginning.

Your premise just admits that there must be something outside of the universe. So you can argue it was something spontaneous and I can argue there was intelligent design behind it and neither of us can say the other is wrong then. If you are admitting there is something outside of our universe, as you said the multiverse then you have to admit the possibility of a God outside of our universe as well.

I admit the possibility, but in the absence of evidence, belief in a god is absurd. I have shown that the universe could be spontaneous. Your explanation makes an extra assumption, i.e. that there is a god. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, we car reject it.

And my original point was still sound from nothing, nothing comes. So you have to admit there was something before our universe. What that something is I suppose no one can prove but still.

Things come from nothing all the time. On a very small scale, particle anti-particle pairs are constantly produced, and they then annihilate. The net energy is unchanged. The universe is the same thing, just on a bigger scale. As long as no energy is created or destroyed, things can and do come from nothing.

I would also like to point out that you guys keep saying it is a spontaneous event. How many spontaneous explosions do you see today? In our world or even in the Universe? I mean sure we see stars explode and such but was it spontaneous or was it due to forces acting upon the star? You will be hard pressed to find any truly spontaneous events now or in the past. What you generally see is cause and effect.

Stars exploding aren't spontaneous events, but there are many quantum events that are. The pair production that I mentioned before is one example. The decay of a radioactive particle is another. In a classical system, nothing can be spontaneous, but in a quantum one, many events are.

Also we have order in our universe. The universe is infinitely more complex than a car right? So try this take all the parts you need for a car put them in a room with a bomb and blow them up see if a working car comes out of that. Frankly I find the idea that a spontaneous explosion created all matter and energy to just be silly.

We have order, but much of it is self emergent. After the Big Bang, there was very little order, but over time things began to coalesce and form stars and galaxies. Once you have stars, which bombard planets with energy, it's easy for the entropy on a planet to decrease, creating the complexity you see of earth today.

In short, while the universe is complex, the complexity stems from physical processes and time. Also, the fact that you find it silly is irrelevant. There are plenty of things I find strange in science, but I don't just reject them. Looking at the evidence can often disprove initial impressions of plausibility. If the evidence is good, rejecting something because you find it silly is just stupid.

[rogoshtalmour]

The universe is expanding. If we look at galaxies, we see that the farther they are from us, the faster they are moving away from us. If the universe were eternal, ever galaxy would have already separated infinitely far away. The universe has to have had a beginning.



I admit the possibility, but in the absence of evidence, belief in a god is absurd. I have shown that the universe could be spontaneous. Your explanation makes an extra assumption, i.e. that there is a god. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, we car reject it.



Things come from nothing all the time. On a very small scale, particle anti-particle pairs are constantly produced, and they then annihilate. The net energy is unchanged. The universe is the same thing, just on a bigger scale. As long as no energy is created or destroyed, things can and do come from nothing.



Stars exploding aren't spontaneous events, but there are many quantum events that are. The pair production that I mentioned before is one example. The decay of a radioactive particle is another. In a classical system, nothing can be spontaneous, but in a quantum one, many events are.



We have order, but much of it is self emergent. After the Big Bang, there was very little order, but over time things began to coalesce and form stars and galaxies. Once you have stars, which bombard planets with energy, it's easy for the entropy on a planet to decrease, creating the complexity you see of earth today.

In short, while the universe is complex, the complexity stems from physical processes and time. Also, the fact that you find it silly is irrelevant. There are plenty of things I find strange in science, but I don't just reject them. Looking at the evidence can often disprove initial impressions of plausibility. If the evidence is good, rejecting something because you find it silly is just stupid.


First off if you are going to bring up ockham's razor then learn how to spell it. Secondly Ockham's razor states that the simplest explanation that COULD be true usually is true. What is simpler than believing in intelligent design? It seems far simpler to me than the idea that billions of years ago there was nothing then nothing exploded then over billions of years out of the randomness of complete chaos order magically appeared and has stayed orderly since. I mean even when you bring up how something comes from nothing all the time you admit that the instant it happens it almost instantly destroys itself too. Also the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence that is just flawed thinking.

It is interesting to me that so many people will disbelieve written accounts of 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years from three different continents and all kinds of different backgrounds including a physician, cupbearer, fishermen, general, prime minister and in 3 different languages including Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and they all tell a story of a personal encounter with a living God. You completely write them off and call them all liars or mistaken or crazy. And yet you are completely willing to believe all these scientists and the theories they postulate despite never having seen any of their experiments and such. How do you know they are not lying. Heck there was a news story a few years ago about a scientist who did just that and got caught so we know they are every bit as capable of lying as the ancient writers were. The truth is you DO NOT WANT to believe there is a God because you are afraid of being held accountable for your life. Plain and simple.

I would also like to point out that none of these authors had contemporaries who called them out on their lies which is also very interesting. You would think their critics of that time would have come out of the wood works and yet they didn't. No writings survive saying that all the miracles just didn't happen.

[Miserabilia]

I would also like to point out that you guys keep saying it is a spontaneous event. How many spontaneous explosions do you see today? In our world or even in the Universe? I mean sure we see stars explode and such but was it spontaneous or was it due to forces acting upon the star? You will be hard pressed to find any truly spontaneous events now or in the past. What you generally see is cause and effect.

Also we have order in our universe. The universe is infinitely more complex than a car right? So try this take all the parts you need for a car put them in a room with a bomb and blow them up see if a working car comes out of that. Frankly I find the idea that a spontaneous explosion created all matter and energy to just be silly.

Are you kidding me? Are you even capable of thinking logicaly?
In OUR UNIVERSE, every cause leads to an effect. Our universe coming into existence thus does not need to have this -_-
Do you even know what a spontanious event really is? I suggest you read some of the other posts here. And how can you find an explosion of matter and energy silly, but beleive in some bearded guy creating the world in 7 days?

I am mainly going to talk to you about 2 and 3. Logic dictates every EFFECT must have a CAUSE. Not every CAUSE needs an EFFECT. Since the Universe cannot create itself because that would mean the universe was before it was.....then something or someone must have created it. On the other hand if God exists then by definition He is eternal thus He is the first Cause and does not need a Cause before Him. The universe is not eternal. How do we know this well for one based on your premise it is not eternal because it was created by the big bang. For two though we do live in a zero net energy universe we know heat energy is being lost every year so eventually this universe will die. Or it might as well die because all the stars will go out. Billions and maybe even trillions of years from now but still we know it is not eternal. Because if it was eternal then the heat energy would sustain itself. As the definition of eternal is well everlasting.

First of all, I never said every cause needs an effect, though that is actually is true. -_-
Universe cannot create itself because that would mean the universe was before it was
are you addicted to the word "create'?
not everything has to be created

[Miserabilia]

First off if you are going to bring up ockham's razor then learn how to spell it. Secondly Ockham's razor states that the simplest explanation that COULD be true usually is true. What is simpler than believing in intelligent design? It seems far simpler to me than the idea that billions of years ago there was nothing then nothing exploded then over billions of years out of the randomness of complete chaos order magically appeared and has stayed orderly since. I mean even when you bring up how something comes from nothing all the time you admit that the instant it happens it almost instantly destroys itself too. Also the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence that is just flawed thinking.

It is interesting to me that so many people will disbelieve written accounts of 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years from three different continents and all kinds of different backgrounds including a physician, cupbearer, fishermen, general, prime minister and in 3 different languages including Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and they all tell a story of a personal encounter with a living God. You completely write them off and call them all liars or mistaken or crazy. And yet you are completely willing to believe all these scientists and the theories they postulate despite never having seen any of their experiments and such. How do you know they are not lying. Heck there was a news story a few years ago about a scientist who did just that and got caught so we know they are every bit as capable of lying as the ancient writers were. The truth is you DO NOT WANT to believe there is a God because you are afraid of being held accountable for your life. Plain and simple.

I would also like to point out that none of these authors had contemporaries who called them out on their lies which is also very interesting. You would think their critics of that time would have come out of the wood works and yet they didn't. No writings survive saying that all the miracles just didn't happen.

simpler than believing in intelligent design? beleiving in reality and facts, instead of some invisable guy making everything happen.

order magically appeared and has stayed orderly since.

we are still in the explosion, as you can see by the expanding universe. Order didnt just happen out of nowhere, order comes from the chaos due to simple laws like gravity.

I mean even when you bring up how something comes from noting all the time you admit that the instant it happens it almost instantly destroys itself too.
Almost instantly? For our perception of time yes. The amount of time it excists is irrelevant.

It is interesting to me that so many people will disbelieve written accounts of 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years from three different continents and all kinds of different backgrounds including a physician, cupbearer, fishermen, general, prime minister and in 3 different languages including Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and they all tell a story of a personal encounter with a living God.

That is because all people want to beleive, it is a answer by the human brain to that need to want to know a cause for everything. also, religions devolop the same way everywhere around the world.

And yet you are completely willing to believe all these scientists and the theories they postulate despite never having seen any of their experiments and such.

Experiments and such? The big bang theory and we are talking about are not experiments. You can't experiment from something like that. These are mainly from evidence found and simple calculations, like the speed galaxies are moving apart.

Looking at all this, I doubt I can even take you seirously, since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

[rogoshtalmour]

Are you kidding me? Are you even capable of thinking logicaly?
In OUR UNIVERSE, every cause leads to an effect. Our universe coming into existence thus does not need to have this -_-
Do you even know what a spontanious event really is? I suggest you read some of the other posts here. And how can you find an explosion of matter and energy silly, but beleive in some bearded guy creating the world in 7 days?



First of all, I never said every cause needs an effect, though that is actually is true. -_-

are you addicted to the word "create'?
not everything has to be created


The law of cause and effect states that every effect must have a cause this does not mean that every cause is caused by a previous cause. The universe is an effect because if it was a cause then it existed before it existed and this is bad logic. I refer you to my points on why the universe is not eternal and how we know that. So logic would dictate that the only thing that can exist and not need a cause itself so it would be the First cause as it were. For it to be the First cause it has to be eternal.

[Gigablue]

First off if you are going to bring up ockham's razor then learn how to spell it.

Both Occam and Ockham are acceptable spellings.

Secondly Ockham's razor states that the simplest explanation that COULD be true usually is true. What is simpler than believing in intelligent design?

Intelligent design assumes a creator, the Big Bang doesn't. Therefore the Big Bang is simpler.

It seems far simpler to me than the idea that billions of years ago there was nothing then nothing exploded then over billions of years out of the randomness of complete chaos order magically appeared and has stayed orderly since.

We can't really say if there was anything, seeing as time and space only came into existence at the Big Bang. Also, order didn't magically appear, it appeared as the result of explainable, testable natural processes. It hasn't stayed orderly ever since either. Right now, we are living in a brief pocket of order amidst a universe of chaos.

I don't claim that the Big Bang explains everything perfectly, but it fits with the evidence and makes predictions that can be tested. As out science progresses, the model becomes more and more refined. I'd like to see intelligent design make testable predictions.

I mean even when you bring up how something comes from nothing all the time you admit that the instant it happens it almost instantly destroys itself too.

There isn't a time limit for quantum vacuum fluctuations. In the case of pair production, it usually ends very quickly. The universe could easily be a longer lived quantum fluctuation.

Also the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence that is just flawed thinking.

I agree, but since we have no evidence of a creator, and since the Big Bang provides a good explanation without needing one, I don't see why I should take intelligent design seriously. Give me some evidence that supports the idea of a creator.

It is interesting to me that so many people will disbelieve written accounts of 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years from three different continents and all kinds of different backgrounds including a physician, cupbearer, fishermen, general, prime minister and in 3 different languages including Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and they all tell a story of a personal encounter with a living God. You completely write them off and call them all liars or mistaken or crazy. And yet you are completely willing to believe all these scientists and the theories they postulate despite never having seen any of their experiments and such. How do you know they are not lying. Heck there was a news story a few years ago about a scientist who did just that and got caught so we know they are every bit as capable of lying as the ancient writers were.

I don't believe human anecdotes to be particularly valuable, since we are all prone to cognitive biases and jumping to conclusions. Many people believe that they have had divine encounters, but these can be explained by neuroscience.

Scientists are capable of lying, but that's why we have peer review. Bad scientific studies usually get filtered out and don't get published. Every now and then, a bad one makes it through, but it is refuted by later, more rigorous studies.

The truth is you DO NOT WANT to believe there is a God because you are afraid of being held accountable for your life. Plain and simple.

I don't believe in a god because there's no evidence for one. It's that simple. I life my life in the best way that I can, regardless of divine reward or punishment because I want to. If the main reason you live a good life is because of your god, what does that say about your character. I treat others well even though I know I won't be rewarded for it.

[Miserabilia]

The law of cause and effect states that every effect must have a cause this does not mean that every cause is caused by a previous cause. The universe is an effect because if it was a cause then it existed before it existed and this is bad logic. I refer you to my points on why the universe is not eternal and how we know that. So logic would dictate that the only thing that can exist and not need a cause itself so it would be the First cause as it were. For it to be the First cause it has to be eternal.

he law of cause and effect states that every effect must have a cause this does not mean that every cause is caused by a previous cause.
Though you were talking about effect earlier, and not cause, so fail on that.

The universe is an effect because if it was a cause then it existed before it existed and this is bad logic.

Like said many times before, the universe coming into existence is not just a cause or effect, its a spontanious event

the rest of your post i could not even make sense of, sorry:what:

[rogoshtalmour]

Both Occam and Ockham are acceptable spellings.



Intelligent design assumes a creator, the Big Bang doesn't. Therefore the Big Bang is simpler.



We can't really say if there was anything, seeing as time and space only came into existence at the Big Bang. Also, order didn't magically appear, it appeared as the result of explainable, testable natural processes. It hasn't stayed orderly ever since either. Right now, we are living in a brief pocket of order amidst a universe of chaos.

I don't claim that the Big Bang explains everything perfectly, but it fits with the evidence and makes predictions that can be tested. As out science progresses, the model becomes more and more refined. I'd like to see intelligent design make testable predictions.



There isn't a time limit for quantum vacuum fluctuations. In the case of pair production, it usually ends very quickly. The universe could easily be a longer lived quantum fluctuation.



I agree, but since we have no evidence of a creator, and since the Big Bang provides a good explanation without needing one, I don't see why I should take intelligent design seriously. Give me some evidence that supports the idea of a creator.



I don't believe human anecdotes to be particularly valuable, since we are all prone to cognitive biases and jumping to conclusions. Many people believe that they have had divine encounters, but these can be explained by neuroscience.

Scientists are capable of lying, but that's why we have peer review. Bad scientific studies usually get filtered out and don't get published. Every now and then, a bad one makes it through, but it is refuted by later, more rigorous studies.



I don't believe in a god because there's no evidence for one. It's that simple. I life my life in the best way that I can, regardless of divine reward or punishment because I want to. If the main reason you live a good life is because of your god, what does that say about your character. I treat others well even though I know I won't be rewarded for it.

The Big Bang Theory assumes something that there was nothing, then nothing exploded the reason this doesn't fit for Ockham's razor is because in order for you to believe that then you have to back it up with Quantum mechanics and so many other things right? Which sounds way more complex to me than the belief in an intelligent designer. Again Ockham's razor says the simplest explanation that could be true usually is.

[rogoshtalmour]

You're right though apparently both versions of spelling are accepted which is weird considering the guy who coined it was named William Ockham.

[Miserabilia]

The Big Bang Theory assumes something that there was nothing, then nothing exploded the reason this doesn't fit for Ockham's razor is because in order for you to believe that then you have to back it up with Quantum mechanics and so many other things right? Which sounds way more complex to me than the belief in an intelligent designer. Again Ockham's razor says the simplest explanation that could be true usually is.

The Big Bang Theory assumes something that there was nothing, then nothing exploded the reason this doesn't fit for Ockham's razor is because in order for you to believe that then you have to back it up with Quantum mechanics and so many other things right?

Quantum mechanics actually have a great explanation for the big bang.

Which sounds way more complex to me than the belief in an intelligent designer.

intelligent design means you beleive all of the big bang, but that is was caused by god. This makes it more complicated, because you need an explanation for god ontop of that of the big bang.

[rogoshtalmour]

Oh as for quantum physics saying they have observed things coming from nothing. Well I mean how do they know it came from nothing? The very fact that it is there would seem to indicate it came from somewhere.

[rogoshtalmour]

And no Intelligent design does not mean i have to believe in the Big bang. Although I must admit that if it did happen that way it makes more sense to me. I mean the idea that God was there and he created all matter and energy in a single point in space and then Caused it to explode makes more sense than there was nothing and then nothing exploded and gave rise to matter and energy.

[Miserabilia]

Oh as for quantum physics saying they have observed things coming from nothing. Well I mean how do they know it came from nothing? The very fact that it is there would seem to indicate it came from somewhere.

Only in our world, our human brains can not conceive the fact of an event not having a cause (as we know it)

[rogoshtalmour]

Especially considering we have as of yet never observed true nothingness so the idea that they have seen something come from nothing is fallacious. The very air around you is something. No one in our universe has ever actually experienced NOTHINGNESS. It is hard to even conceive of it. I mean go ahead try right now to think of absolute nothingness. I am willing to bet most of you immediately just picture a dark void but even that dark void is SOMETHING.

[Miserabilia]

And no Intelligent design does not mean i have to believe in the Big bang. Although I must admit that if it did happen that way it makes more sense to me. I mean the idea that God was there and he created all matter and energy in a single point in space and then Caused it to explode makes more sense than there was nothing and then nothing exploded and gave rise to matter and energy.

Are you kidding me?
I mean the idea that God was there and he created all matter and energy in a single point in space and then Caused it to explode
so thats just the big bang+some invisable guy controlling everything
there was nothing and then nothing exploded and gave rise to matter and energy.
so thats just the big bang.

Now which ones seems more simple to you?

[Miserabilia]

Especially considering we have as of yet never observed true nothingness so the idea that they have seen something come from nothing is fallacious. The very air around you is something. No one in our universe has ever actually experienced NOTHINGNESS. It is hard to even conceive of it. I mean go ahead try right now to think of absolute nothingness. I am willing to bet most of you immediately just picture a dark void but even that dark void is SOMETHING.

simple human thinking yes, but basicly irrelevant to the discussion

[rogoshtalmour]

In fact I believe it to be impossible for us to observe nothingness. So the scientists have a very tough job in proving that something came from nothing. Since essentially their first step would have to be in proving the nothing. Which they cannot do since you cannot prove a negative. Their entire theory therefore rests on FALSE assumptions. And the big bang theory is based on the premise of nothingness by the way so don't even try "well maybe there was something there." And even if you did try that argument I would again refer you to the fact that we know matter and energy is not eternal so "SOMETHING" couldn't have just BEEN THERE unless it was Eternal. And if it was eternal it exists independent of this universe because again we know this Universe is not eternal.

[Gigablue]

The Big Bang Theory assumes something that there was nothing, then nothing exploded the reason this doesn't fit for Ockham's razor is because in order for you to believe that then you have to back it up with Quantum mechanics and so many other things right? Which sounds way more complex to me than the belief in an intelligent designer. Again Ockham's razor says the simplest explanation that could be true usually is.

When you say intelligent design, do you believe that an intelligent designer caused the Big Bang? If so, you are adding an unnecessary layer of complexity, and therefore, by Occam's razor, intelligent design can be discounted. If not, then how did they create the universe? They would have to have created it in such a way so as to look like there was a Big Bang. This makes it all way more complex that the Big Bang, which is a completely natural phenomenon.

Oh as for quantum physics saying they have observed things coming from nothing. Well I mean how do they know it came from nothing? The very fact that it is there would seem to indicate it came from somewhere.

They know things come from nothing because when you look at empty space, you can see particles coming in and out of existence.

[rogoshtalmour]

The idea that there was nothing then nothing exploded is not more simple because it is based on bad logic. That is my entire point. You can only use ockham's razor to when one of the explanations could be true. The idea that there was nothing and then nothing exploded COULD NEVER BE TRUE. It is bad logic and bad science.

[rogoshtalmour]

When you look at empty space you can see particles coming in and out of existence? I am sorry more explanation is needed. So what they see little particles wink in and then wink out again?

[kenoloor]

Gigablue seems to be handling this particularly well; however, I would just like to address this particular point.

No writings survive saying that all the miracles just didn't happen.

The key word in this quote is "survive." Just because we don't know of any writings refuting Biblical (or other religious) teachings from that time does not mean there weren't any. In fact, considering the amount of threats and censorship campaigns issued by the church and other religious organizations (the Roman Catholic church is especially infamous for pulling this kind of shit), it really isn't at all surprising that such writings have not fared well throughout history.

Just as an example, take Arius (circa AD 250-336). He claimed that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a separate and lesser being to "God the Father." Well, the first Catholic king of Spain didn't really like that, and in 587 he decided that Aruis was a heretic and ordered that all Arian (not to be confused with "Aryan" which is Hitler's bullshit) writings be burned. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Historical_background)) (more info about Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian))
Keep in mind that is just one example. There have been thousands of years of religious regimes that could essentially do whatever the hell they wanted because they had power. And how did they obtain that power? By controlling the people with religion. It has a beautiful circularity to it, doesn't it?

The idea that there was nothing then nothing exploded is not more simple because it is based on bad logic. That is my entire point. You can only use ockham's razor to when one of the explanations could be true. The idea that there was nothing and then nothing exploded COULD NEVER BE TRUE. It is bad logic and bad science.

Yes, and the fact that some big dude in the sky waved a wand and POOF the fucking universe appeared isn't bad logic AT ALL.

[Miserabilia]

In fact I believe it to be impossible for us to observe nothingness. So the scientists have a very tough job in proving that something came from nothing. Since essentially their first step would have to be in proving the nothing. Which they cannot do since you cannot prove a negative. Their entire theory therefore rests on FALSE assumptions. And the big bang theory is based on the premise of nothingness by the way so don't even try "well maybe there was something there." And even if you did try that argument I would again refer you to the fact that we know matter and energy is not eternal so "SOMETHING" couldn't have just BEEN THERE unless it was Eternal. And if it was eternal it exists independent of this universe because again we know this Universe is not eternal.

Since essentially their first step would have to be in proving the nothing
No, the nothing is not the part to proove, since it is nothing.
The part to prove is what came to exist "out of the nothing".

Their entire theory therefore rests on FALSE assumptions.
So because as a human our brains cant imagine "nothingness" all scientific theories about the big bang and quantum mechanics are wrong. :what:


"well maybe there was something there."
that is actually what YOU are saying by saying there was a god creating everything.

You are so full of contradictions, please contradict yourself more its enjoyable for everyone to read

[rogoshtalmour]

Also how do they know they are coming in and out of existence? I mean they know they can't observe ALL of existence. They are assuming a lot there.

[Miserabilia]

Also how do they know they are coming in and out of existence? I mean they know they can't observe ALL of existence. They are assuming a lot there.

Its called research, observation, and calculation.
Three things completely not used when claiming there is a god who decided to make everything.

[rogoshtalmour]

Gigablue seems to be handling this particularly well; however, I would just like to address this particular point.



The key word in this quote is "survive." Just because we don't know of any writings refuting Biblical (or other religious) teachings from that time does not mean there weren't any. In fact, considering the amount of threats and censorship campaigns issued by the church and other religious organizations (the Roman Catholic church is especially infamous for pulling this kind of shit), it really isn't at all surprising that such writings have not fared well throughout history.

Just as an example, take Arius (circa AD 250-336). He claimed that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a separate and lesser being to "God the Father." Well, the first Catholic king of Spain didn't really like that, and in 587 he decided that Aruis was a heretic and ordered that all Arian (not to be confused with "Aryan" which is Hitler's bullshit) writings be burned. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning#Historical_background)) (more info about Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian))
Keep in mind that is just one example. There have been thousands of years of religious regimes that could essentially do whatever the hell they wanted because they had power. And how did they obtain that power? By controlling the people with religion. It has a beautiful circularity to it, doesn't it?

The Church did not have control over the whole world. Writings could have made it all the way to China or down into Africa. Or elsewhere. And you do remember Nero and others really tried to destroy the Christian's writings right? They didn't succeed so why do you think the Church could succeed where Nero and his like failed?

[Gigablue]

The idea that there was nothing then nothing exploded is not more simple because it is based on bad logic. That is my entire point. You can only use ockham's razor to when one of the explanations could be true. The idea that there was nothing and then nothing exploded COULD NEVER BE TRUE. It is bad logic and bad science.

Why is it impossible? All the math suggests that it's possible. Nothing in the laws of physics suggests that a large scale quantum fluctuation is impossible or even improbable.

When you look at empty space you can see particles coming in and out of existence? I am sorry more explanation is needed. So what they see little particles wink in and then wink out again?

Basically. They have instruments that are able to detect electrons and positrons, the most common pair, and they see them being created and then annihilating each other.

[rogoshtalmour]

No, the nothing is not the part to proove, since it is nothing.
The part to prove is what came to exist "out of the nothing".


So because as a human our brains cant imagine "nothingness" all scientific theories about the big bang and quantum mechanics are wrong. :what:



that is actually what YOU are saying by saying there was a god creating everything.

You are so full of contradictions, please contradict yourself more its enjoyable for everyone to read


Yes I am arguing that something was there and it is responsible for the universe's existence. You however are arguing that NOTHING was there and NOTHING was responsible for All matter and life and energy in the Universe.

Which one sounds more plausible?

[rogoshtalmour]

Why is it impossible? All the math suggests that it's possible. Nothing in the laws of physics suggests that a large scale quantum fluctuation is impossible or even improbable.



Basically. They have instruments that are able to detect electrons and positrons, the most common pair, and they see them being created and then annihilating each other.

But those electrons and positrons have energy right? And energy cannot be destroyed so that energy had to go somewhere? And the energy that was used to create them probably came from somewhere right? So I don't think they just popped into existence out of absolute nothingness.

[kenoloor]

The Church did not have control over the whole world. Writings could have made it all the way to China or down into Africa. Or elsewhere. And you do remember Nero and others really tried to destroy the Christian's writings right? They didn't succeed so why do you think the Church could succeed where Nero and his like failed?

Because the Church has more writings and a larger following than any other group on the planet. That equals power.

[Miserabilia]

Yes I am arguing that something was there and it is responsible for the universe's existence. You however are arguing that NOTHING was there and NOTHING was responsible for All matter and life and energy in the Universe.

Which one sounds more plausible?

You are contradicting yourself so much on every post... Im dying of laughter.
How can something be there before anything existed? That's right, it can't.
Also, its matter and energy, life is just a combination of the two and not a seperate thing,

[Miserabilia]

But those electrons and positrons have energy right? And energy cannot be destroyed so that energy had to go somewhere? And the energy that was used to create them probably came from somewhere right? So I don't think they just popped into existence out of absolute nothingness.

its called quantum mechanics

[saea97]

But those electrons and positrons have energy right? And energy cannot be destroyed so that energy had to go somewhere? And the energy that was used to create them probably came from somewhere right? So I don't think they just popped into existence out of absolute nothingness.

Why are you qualified to make this judgment? It's the prevailing opinion of most physicists that the Universe probably arose in this manner.

[Gigablue]

Yes I am arguing that something was there and it is responsible for the universe's existence. You however are arguing that NOTHING was there and NOTHING was responsible for All matter and life and energy in the Universe.

Which one sounds more plausible?

You're positing a force that had to exist outside of space and time, since they created space and time. There is no precedent for that. I'm saying that documented natural processes were responsible for the formation of the universe. I think the latter is more likely.

But those electrons and positrons have energy right? And energy cannot be destroyed so that energy had to go somewhere? And the energy that was used to create them probably came from somewhere right? So I don't think they just popped into existence out of absolute nothingness.

There is energy in a vacuum, that become the particles. The vacuum is essentially nothing, even with no matter at all, there is still energy.

[Miserabilia]

You're positing a force that had to exist outside of space and time, since they created space and time. There is no precedent for that. I'm saying that documented natural processes were responsible for the formation of the universe. I think the latter is more likely.



There is energy in a vacuum, that become the particles. The vacuum is essentially nothing, even with no matter at all, there is still energy.

I aggree exactly. This always makes more sense then this but caused by some invisable guy in the clouds. lol.