questions of origin for the Atheist

jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
questions of origin for the Atheist

Forgive my ignorance, but I am curious about Atheists' beliefs about the universe. What is a singularity? Compressed matter of infinite density, a mass of infinite gravity? Two problems with the BB that have been bothering me are 1) Gravity existed after the BB; and 2) Gravity is a measure of force (attractive) between matter, meaning particles had to have existed before the BB - albeit packed together in infinite density. Is this correct?

 

Do Atheists believe in BB thoery, String theory or 11 Dimensional theory (sometimes called 26D theory I think)? I know most Atheists believe in evolution, but what about the origins of the universe?

 

Sorry if these have already been answered btw.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Ah well Jumbo, welcome.

Ah well Jumbo, welcome. I get the impression by the way that you write, that you don't really have some of the more basic ideas down. Even so, let me see if I can help.

 

First off, atheists don't believe in anything really. At least as far as god is concerned, that is. There are atheists in every segment of the political world. I hope that you can see that much of a difference. As far as your physics questions, there we are also talking about not believing stuff either. Here is how that works:

 

Let's say just for grins that you stupidly drop a ten pound hammer on your big toe. Sucker is gonna hurt regardless of any belief that you held prior to dropping the hammer. I could give you many other examples but the one should make my point. Atheists simply do not “believe in” stuff that is well understood as real things. If something is real, then there is no reason to hold that it is real.

 

Regarding the more advanced stuff, there again, we do not believe in it in the same sense of believing in stuff like the virgin Mary appearing in a cave in France or whether the space aliens are watching us and waiting until we are ready to accept their technology that will solve all of our problems.

 

That type of stuff is pretty out there. Those examples are things that we require some solid evidence on before we are going to accept them. When the aliens land in Central Park and start handing out free energy machines, then they will be accepted as real. At that point, prior beliefs from some small number of people who really wanted that to happen will be about as important as they were the day before, which is to say that they were the same bullshit yesterday (when there was no proof of aliens) as they are after the aliens have landed.

 

Getting back to your original questions, the best answer is that we do not believe in any of that stuff. Sure, you may hear people talking like we do but the questions that you are asking are right at the edge of what we are currently trying to figure out.

 

Take the big bang as the example here. What went bang? Nobody knows. The fact is that nobody even knows if that is a sensible question just yet. String theory suggests some really interesting ideas. However, it is simply a fact that nobody believes in string theory. BTW, I don't know where you got all of those names for string theory but the most current name (and the one that scientists use amongst themselves) is M-theory.

 

Does that help?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm kind of hesitant to

I'm kind of hesitant to reply, just in case I don't confuse you further, but for the atheist, really the only explanation that doesn't fly is one where gods are involved. Otherwise, there are atheists who believe in all kinds of stuff.

If you're asking the scientific question, then you may want to check out some scientific websites for the latest information. It's true that many atheists are scientifically inclined, but that doesn't hold true for all atheists.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Forgive my

jumbo1410 wrote:

Forgive my ignorance, but I am curious about Atheists' beliefs about the universe. What is a singularity? Compressed matter of infinite density, a mass of infinite gravity? Two problems with the BB that have been bothering me are 1) Gravity existed after the BB; and 2) Gravity is a measure of force (attractive) between matter, meaning particles had to have existed before the BB - albeit packed together in infinite density. Is this correct?

Do Atheists believe in BB thoery, String theory or 11 Dimensional theory (sometimes called 26D theory I think)? I know most Atheists believe in evolution, but what about the origins of the universe?

 

Sorry if these have already been answered btw.

First, BB Theory, String Theory, etc, have nothing specifically to do with Atheism. They are scientific theories and/or hypotheses about the emergence of our observable Universe, ie based on observation, measurement, testing, etc.

Gravity is not a 'measure' of the force between particles, it is how we refer to that force.

It doesn't require particles to exist first, it simply appears as soon as separated masses appear, as a fundamental aspect of space-time.

In themselves, theories such as the Big Bang do not exclude some form of 'God' to set it all up, define the physical 'laws' etc.

The BB Theory is just the best current explanation for a whole lot of observations of the Universe which in themselves disprove any literal interpretation of the Creation story in the Old Testament, but many people who certainly consider themselves Christian don't take Genesis literally. It it is those actual observations of the size and age of the Universe, the apparent expansion of the cosmos, etc, which contradict Biblical literalism, regardless of what theory is proposed to explain them.

Logically, a conscious entity, no matter how powerful, cannot explain the ultimate origin of existence, since it doesn't explain its own existence.

We have plenty of observational evidence that complex structures and processes can and do arise out of collections of many simpler entities, so there is no need to propose that complex and subtle processes such as intelligent life require some more 'powerful' and presumably even more intelligent 'creator'. That would lead to the major problem of an infinite regress of ever more powerful entities required to create less powerful beings.

So a creator 'God' is neither logical nor necessary. But we can't disprove the existence of some form of vastly more powerful and intelligent being, it just doesn't seem to fit the facts as we see them, and in fact raises more questions than it answers.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Hi, Jumbo, welcome to the

Hi, Jumbo, welcome to the forum.

jumbo1410 wrote:
1) Gravity existed after the BB; and 2) Gravity is a measure of force (attractive) between matter, meaning particles had to have existed before the BB - albeit packed together in infinite density. Is this correct?

To my knowledge, scientists freely admit that they don't really know what existed before the Big Bang. The theory that the universe expanded from a single point simply adheres to what we currently know about cosmology. 

Also, a small nitpick, as BobSpence noted, gravity is not a unit by which we measure this force, but our name for this force.

Quote:
Do Atheists believe in BB thoery, String theory or 11 Dimensional theory (sometimes called 26D theory I think)? I know most Atheists believe in evolution, but what about the origins of the universe?

Probably.

Of course, atheism just means that you don't believe in God; it doesn't necessitate a belief in any of these scientific claims. Personally, I accept BB and evolution, but hold more reservations for String theory and multi universe/dimensions concept.  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Ok, fair enough. That helped

Ok, fair enough. That helped a lot actually.

 

I am a Theist, as in i believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all-good being - the christian one for now. Though I do admit that there are contradictions in the Bible (perhaps even certain characteristics of God for example), I do not know enough or really care to look at them thoroughly at this stage in my life. I study Philosophy, and find that the belief in a God presents no major issue, at least philosophically.

 

I will say that it is good to be a part of an atheist discussion - to quote someone I can't remember the name of, "To make a really good chair, don't study chairs, look at chairs or even sit in a chair... sit on the floor." Eye-wink


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:I study

jumbo1410 wrote:
I study Philosophy, and find that the belief in a God presents no major issue, at least philosophically.

Really? You're okay with the fact that either gods can't be adequately described, or the description fails to be in any way reasonable? Where do you study philosphy?

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
I am so long as you are fine

I am so long as you are fine with not being able to explain your beliefs either. More specifically, so long as the beginning remains a hypothesis on both sides (for science and for theism), then yes. Of course, if you take the science route, I would like to see your evidence for whatever particular belief you believe in aforementioned (BB theory, string theory or 11D theory). I think the nature of the "beginning of everything" requires abductive arguments, variations of inductive arguments. If science was a deductive art, I would probably still not change my persuasion, because I'm just like that Smiling

 

1. God created everything

2. I cant explain why

------

3. I believe in god

 

1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

2. You cant explain why

------

3. You believe your theory

 

Sounds fair to me. I'm probably missing something obvious, but im sure you will point it out.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:1. God

jumbo1410 wrote:
1. God created everything

2. I cant explain why

------

3. I believe in god

 

1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

2. You cant explain why

------

3. You believe your theory

 

Sounds fair to me. I'm probably missing something obvious, but im sure you will point it out.

You are. Big bang theory has something called evidence going for it. God does not.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
jumbo1410 wrote: 1. (your

jumbo1410 wrote:
 

1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

.........

Sounds fair to me. I'm probably missing something obvious, but im sure you will point it out.

Well...eh, the Big Bang isn't really an explanation of the origin of the universe, but a description of the development of it as far back as we can investigate. Based on various kinds of observational evidence that I don't really understand, cosmologists have determined that the universe expanded from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago. What happened before the Big Bang is unknown. So, technically, the Big Bang did NOT create everything. 

jumbo1410 wrote:
2. You cant explain why
 

I'm not sure what you mean. 

If you're trying to say that we don't know what caused the Big Bang, then you're correct. However, for the purpose of determining the validity of a hypothesis, this is not necessary. If all the evidence supports the Big Bang, then it is well-supported, regardless of whether we know its cause.

Also, if you believe that there is currently no hypothesis for the origin of the universe that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then your position should be "I don't know," one of ambiguity. You should accept whatever seems correct; I wouldn't reach a conclusion for any other reason.

Edit: Damn, I've been getting long-winded recently.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
How do you do those cool

How do you do those cool quote thingies? Anyway:

 

"You are. Big bang theory has something called evidence going for it. God does not."

In the words of Pauline Hanson, "Please explain."

And yes I am saying we don't know what caused the BB. There are infinite hypothesis about the beginning, Esmeralda and Keith the lobster might have set the BB off for all i care. If you believe the BB theory, I'm happy to talk about what banged, how, when, why, if it is the first bang, what it means if its not etc etc, since these are the smae questions levelled at theists about God and his properties - is there one, who, how, why etc. In the interest of being fair i thought I might query you guys with your own arguments. If you are undecided then that is up to you, but I will not be convinced by indecision to be undecided.

 

Furthermore, to say "We don't know what caused the BB...If all the evidence supports the BB..." does not address the beginning of the BB itself, only what happens after. Believe all the evidence you want - I do. If you believe there is no hypothesis for the origin of the universe that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then your position should be up to you. I dont think people should choose "nothing" by default, seems quite arbitrary to me. Sure, choose nothing. I choose something. If you want to argue about what poeple should and shouldn't choose based on infinite hypothesis, lets start alphabetically... Smiling


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:In the words

jumbo1410 wrote:

In the words of Pauline Hanson, "Please explain."

And yes I am saying we don't know what caused the BB. There are infinite hypothesis about the beginning, Esmeralda and Keith the lobster might have set the BB off for all i care. If you believe the BB theory, I'm happy to talk about what banged, how, when, why, if it is the first bang, what it means if its not etc etc, since these are the smae questions levelled at theists about God and his properties - is there one, who, how, why etc. In the interest of being fair i thought I might query you guys with your own arguments. If you are undecided then that is up to you, but I will not be convinced by indecision to be undecided.

That's the issue at this point no one knows what caused it, however all the evidence suggests that it happened. The following are the most common used evidence that supports the BBT.

The measured abundance of elements, the observed expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Now to really make sense of it, I recommend doing some research on these topics as it can get a bit long winded, however there is evidence that supports BBT. Adding god or any other "supernatural" deity doesn't help nor does it answer the question regarding the origins of the universe.

Quote:

Furthermore, to say "We don't know what caused the BB...If all the evidence supports the BB..." does not address the beginning of the BB itself, only what happens after. Believe all the evidence you want - I do. If you believe there is no hypothesis for the origin of the universe that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then your position should be up to you. I don't think people should choose "nothing" by default, seems quite arbitrary to me. Sure, choose nothing. I choose something. If you want to argue about what people should and shouldn't choose based on infinite hypothesis, lets start alphabetically... Smiling

Adding god to the answer still does not answer the question as your adding a untestable/unprovable deity, basically a supernatural element to a natural explanation. Why does it rain? Because evaporation causes the formation of clouds and once they get dense enough the water comes down from the sky back to the ground, causing the effect we call rain. Saying god wanted it to rain doesn't really answer the question does it. Doesn't really add anything but more questions to really a natural phenomena.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Proposing an entity for

Proposing an entity for which we have zero evidence, which is totally beyond anything we have actually observed, for which we have far less possible explanation than the sort of low-level physical processes which are the sort of thing that could conceivably lead to something like the Big Bang, is totally beyond logic and reason. A 'God' is fundamentally invalid as a cause of existence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:How do you

jumbo1410 wrote:

How do you do those cool quote thingies? Anyway:

 

"You are. Big bang theory has something called evidence going for it. God does not."

In the words of Pauline Hanson, "Please explain."

And yes I am saying we don't know what caused the BB. There are infinite hypothesis about the beginning, Esmeralda and Keith the lobster might have set the BB off for all i care. If you believe the BB theory, I'm happy to talk about what banged, how, when, why, if it is the first bang, what it means if its not etc etc, since these are the smae questions levelled at theists about God and his properties - is there one, who, how, why etc. In the interest of being fair i thought I might query you guys with your own arguments. If you are undecided then that is up to you, but I will not be convinced by indecision to be undecided.

 

Furthermore, to say "We don't know what caused the BB...If all the evidence supports the BB..." does not address the beginning of the BB itself, only what happens after. Believe all the evidence you want - I do. If you believe there is no hypothesis for the origin of the universe that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt, then your position should be up to you. I dont think people should choose "nothing" by default, seems quite arbitrary to me. Sure, choose nothing. I choose something. If you want to argue about what poeple should and shouldn't choose based on infinite hypothesis, lets start alphabetically... Smiling

Below each post are two links, one labeled "reply", the other labeled "quote".  Click on "quote" to do the quotebox, or use the tags: [ quote] copied text here [ /quote] (don't put spaces in the real tags).

As I understand it, the evidence for the Big Bang goes: Due to the wavelike nature of light, anything moving closer to the place of observation (our telescopes, for instance) appears more blue than it actually is, and anything moving away appears more red.  That's because the light waves are compressed if the light is being emitted by an approaching source, and decompressed if emitted by a retreating source (each peak or trough in the wave is emitted closer to or further from the observation point). This is known as the Doppler effect (yes, the same Doppler effect that the weatherdude uses).  

When we understood this, and we took a look at the galaxies around us, we discovered almost all of them were red-shifted, with some exceptions.  That means nearly everything we could see was moving away from us. The logical conclusion was that at some point in the past, everything was much closer together than it is now, before it all began expanding.  Now, if you put all the matter in the universe in close proximity you'd get a monster of a black hole: it would all collapse under gravitational attraction.  If that process were reversed, if you started with a singularity and wound up with an expanding universe, you'd expect it to release truly staggering amounts of energy in the doing.

In 1965, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was detected.  It's pretty uniformly present across the sky, meaning it's not coming from our galaxy.  We would expect it to be stronger in the parts of the sky facing the rest of the galaxy if it were from the Milky Way.  It's also not from any other individual, or even group, of other galaxies, for the same reason of uniformity. It's from the universe itself. CMBR is literally the light from the Big Bang, so badly red-shifted that it's not visible to humans.  It exists, as the brilliantly creative name suggests, in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

So you start with a gravitational singularity, have a bloody great flash of light, add rapid expansion and cooling of everything, and you wind up with the Big Bang model of the universe.  There's other evidence for the BB model here.

It's important to note that the BB doesn't necessarily imply the creation of matter/energy or space/time.  The Big Bang was simply the first event in our universe that we can gather information about.  It may be that matter and space are created all the time in sealed-off universes spawned in the decay of black holes (an idea I love.  Fractal universe FTW.), or it could be that matter and space are inherently uncreated, and simply exist always and forever, in whatever form is probable in a given universal epoch. The BBT simply describes how the universe has changed over time.

Edit to add the last line.  And this one.  And that sentence fragment.  Crap.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
"Proposing an entity for

"Proposing an entity for which we have zero evidence?" What evidence are we proposing when we talk about BB theory? A singularity? And what does physics tell us about a singularity? Keeping in mind that gravity, electrons and such happened after the BB. Can science tell us why an electron has a certain charge? Why that particular charge? Complete randomness is an answer on par with that of God because it would be "totally beyond anything we have actually observed." Sure, observe the charge, but why is it that particular charge?


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Ha ha ha, I'm computer

Ha ha ha, I'm computer illiterate. Here goes a quote:

Quote:
Now, if you put all the matter in the universe in close proximity you'd get a monster of a black hole: it would all collapse under gravitational attraction.  If that process were reversed, if you started with a singularity and wound up with an expanding universe, you'd expect it to release truly staggering amounts of energy in the doing.

So a singularity is compressed matter resulting in a black hole? Then the singularity that "started" the universe expanding had compressed matter in it already? Then it is not really the beginning then, is it? The matter that was compressed already existed. If it didn't where did it come from? Another BB before it? Then what is the BB if not a singularity of infinitely dense material?

 

"It's important to note that the BB doesn't necessarily imply the creation of matter/energy or space/time.  The Big Bang was simply the first event in our universe that we can gather information about.  It may be that matter and space are created all the time in sealed-off universes spawned in the decay of black holes "

Then how does this theory explain the creation of the universe? If it does not, then how is any other competing theory more or less plausible, including the invention of a God to start it all?

[mod edit -- attempt to fix formatting]


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:"Proposing

jumbo1410 wrote:

"Proposing an entity for which we have zero evidence?" What evidence are we proposing when we talk about BB theory? A singularity? And what does physics tell us about a singularity? Keeping in mind that gravity, electrons and such happened after the BB. Can science tell us why an electron has a certain charge? Why that particular charge? Complete randomness is an answer on par with that of God because it would be "totally beyond anything we have actually observed." Sure, observe the charge, but why is it that particular charge?

Umm saying I don't know is far different than saying god did it. Second if you want evidence for BBT it has been given to you. If you want to discredit and give god, please provide the evidence for god.

As for the answer, well it's not randomness, it's actually just the properties of an electron, any other way would it be an electron. It's kinda like asking why does gravity attract and not repel? Heck science can answer how electrons formed as well. But from what I can see, you really don't want answers to your question regarding BBT.

Here is a link for the BBT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

there are tons of sites for the BBT just look it up.

you can also read up on a bunch of scientific journals and books regarding the BBT if you are really interesting you can actually do research on this topic.

As for the singularity again, research is important when talking about science here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Gravitational_singularity

and here http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gr/gravitational_singularity.htm

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:"Proposing

damn it double post


 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:"Proposing

jumbo1410 wrote:

"Proposing an entity for which we have zero evidence?" What evidence are we proposing when we talk about BB theory? A singularity? And what does physics tell us about a singularity? Keeping in mind that gravity, electrons and such happened after the BB. Can science tell us why an electron has a certain charge? Why that particular charge? Complete randomness is an answer on par with that of God because it would be "totally beyond anything we have actually observed." Sure, observe the charge, but why is it that particular charge?

We have evidence for the existence of electrons and gravity, and have been able to produce plausible models based on actual current theories and research to suggest how particles condensed out of the raw energy of the very early universe. The potential for gravity and electrons was within the primeval energy 'ball'.

There is simply nothing, zero, zilch, nada that makes a 'God' remotely plausible. It is the purest baseless speculation, which provides no framework for where it itself originated, whereas theories of what preceded the Big Bang are based on mathematically framed extrapolation from evidence such as the observations of the results of particle colliders creating very intense concentrations of energy.

Compared to ideas derived from primitive myths, which don't fit into any framework of rigorous observation, and are associated with clearly mythical writings such as Genesis...

Come on dude, you have to be joking.

God is a joke.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:So a

jumbo1410 wrote:

So a singularity is compressed matter resulting in a black hole? Then the singularity that "started" the universe expanding had compressed matter in it already? Then it is not really the beginning then, is it? The matter that was compressed already existed. If it didn't where did it come from? Another BB before it? Then what is the BB if not a singularity of infinitely dense material?

 

"It's important to note that the BB doesn't necessarily imply the creation of matter/energy or space/time.  The Big Bang was simply the first event in our universe that we can gather information about.  It may be that matter and space are created all the time in sealed-off universes spawned in the decay of black holes "

Then how does this theory explain the creation of the universe? If it does not, then how is any other competing theory more or less plausible, including the invention of a God to start it all?

 

Kinda, but reversed for the singularity/black hole thing.  Singularities are infinitely dense clumps of matter that make up the heart of the black hole, that create the event horizon beyond which nothing can escape.  I don't actually know enough about cosmology and physics to say with any degree of certainty if black hole singularities are similar to the Big one.

It doesn't really mean anything to ask what came before the Big Bang expansion of space/time.  What do you mean by "before"? The singularity was infinitely dense, it warped space/time infinitely. What does our word "before", referring to relatively flat space/time, mean in infinitely curved space/time? That's what I meant by the Big Bang being the first event we can know about.  What happened before, whatever that might mean, doesn't matter.  It all went away when everything was infinitely compressed.

The BBT isn't "competing" with the God hypothesis as you seem to want it to, as a creation myth. It's a description of what happened, what is continuing to happen, and what will happen long after our star has incinerated us and the Milky Way eats Andromeda.

In the BB model, God is slain by Occam's razor.  We are exhorted not to multiply entities beyond necessity.  As complex and improbable as our universe and its existence may be, the addition of an infinite God only makes it infinitely more complex and improbable.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Now, if you

jumbo1410 wrote:

Now, if you put all the matter in the universe in close proximity you'd get a monster of a black hole: it would all collapse under gravitational attraction.  If that process were reversed, if you started with a singularity and wound up with an expanding universe, you'd expect it to release truly staggering amounts of energy in the doing.

So a singularity is compressed matter resulting in a black hole? Then the singularity that "started" the universe expanding had compressed matter in it already? Then it is not really the beginning then, is it? The matter that was compressed already existed. If it didn't where did it come from? Another BB before it? Then what is the BB if not a singularity of infinitely dense material?

"It's important to note that the BB doesn't necessarily imply the creation of matter/energy or space/time.  The Big Bang was simply the first event in our universe that we can gather information about.  It may be that matter and space are created all the time in sealed-off universes spawned in the decay of black holes "

Then how does this theory explain the creation of the universe? If it does not, then how is any other competing theory more or less plausible, including the invention of a God to start it all?

At this point how does god answer anything? What created god? etc, etc, etc. It opens up the doors for more quetions than answers. As far as science states energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's always existed. As for the singularity we don't know, the singularity could have been just there the entire time until it became unstable and released or expanded outwards per se. With that said the big bang doesn't say much in regards to the singularity as the big bang explains the event that occurs, which was the expansion of that singularity, but not much in regards to the singularity itself. For that you need to read up on gravitational singularities not BB. Kinda saying how does evolution explain the origins of life? it doesn't it explains the origins of life, it explains a natural process after life began.

All the BBT explains is the start of THIS universe and only this universe, nothing before the BB, nothing about the singularity, nothing about how the singularity formed.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Why do you think that gods

Why do you think that gods are a good explanation for the origin of the universe?  It seems that a pattern has emerged which would suggest intervention from gods may not be a very sensible explanation at all. By that I mean all previously unexplained phenomena, upon explanation, turn out to be governed by simple physical rules rather than intelligent direction. Given that pattern it's reasonable to assume (pending evidence to the contrary) the universe was not created by an infinitely powerful intelligent entity and is simply the outcome of undirected physical processes like everything else that has been examined so far.

Welcome to the forum btw.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:"Proposing

jumbo1410 wrote:
"Proposing an entity for which we have zero evidence?" What evidence are we proposing when we talk about BB theory? A singularity? And what does physics tell us about a singularity? Keeping in mind that gravity, electrons and such happened after the BB. Can science tell us why an electron has a certain charge? Why that particular charge? Complete randomness is an answer on par with that of God because it would be "totally beyond anything we have actually observed." Sure, observe the charge, but why is it that particular charge?

Dude, before you go off on rants about the Big Bang theory and other things which you have little or no understanding of, do yourself a favor and read up a little bit first. This link has already been given. If you read it, you might actually learn what evidence there really is.

Cosmology is one thing. The 'god' hypothesis and its utter uselessness is something completely different. Please refrain from thinking that they are somehow on the same playing field.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
jumbo1410 wrote:I dont think

jumbo1410 wrote:
I dont think people should choose "nothing" by default, seems quite arbitrary to me. Sure, choose nothing. I choose something.

It's not arbitrary. Logically, the default position on any issue is lack of knowledge. This is very simple philosophy. If you don't know the answer to a question, your position should be 'I don't know,' not 'jump to the conclusion that feels good.' It's not even a matter of choice. I don't choose to not know the origin of universe; I simply don't know. Adherence to positive claims shouldn't be based on choice either. Either something seems correct or it doesn't or you don't know. So, this is something that I've never been able to comprehend, when people say that they choose to believe in something, as if they are admitting to cognitive dissonance.

Anyways, if you want to quote something, enclose the word "quote" in square brackets at the beginning and the end of the section of text you want to quote. Type a backlash before the "quote" at the end of the section of text. Like this:

[quote ]Hello[ /quote]

Except, without the spaces.

Quote:
Hello

If you want to refer to the a specific person, type a "=" and the username you want to quote after the "quote" at the beginning of the section of text. Like this:

[ quote = butterbattle ]Hello[ /quote ]

Only, without the spaces.

butterbattle wrote:
Hello

Quote Function

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:I am so long

jumbo1410 wrote:
I am so long as you are fine with not being able to explain your beliefs either.

Except my beliefs are easy to explain. I believe that the natural world has yet to be completely discovered, so there's plenty of room for mystery and ignorance, and whatever we pretend to know about things we don't know is simply that: pretending.

jumbo1410 wrote:
More specifically, so long as the beginning remains a hypothesis on both sides (for science and for theism), then yes. Of course, if you take the science route, I would like to see your evidence for whatever particular belief you believe in aforementioned (BB theory, string theory or 11D theory).

Uh, what? On the side of science, there are hypotheses, and on the theistic side, there's one, unclear idea that doesn't even count as a hypothesis.

See, for a hypothesis, you'd need a clear statement that could be tested. "God did it" isn't clear, nor is it testable. So it's not a hypothesis.

jumbo1410 wrote:
1. God created everything

2. I cant explain why

------

3. I believe in god

Non sequitur.

jumbo1410 wrote:

1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

2. You cant explain why

------

3. You believe your theory

Ah, no. The Big Bang theory is a description of what we have evidence of actually happening thus far. It's just a description of available evidence, and the pattern behind that. "Why" doesn't really enter into it. If you want to know why, then you'll have to admit ignorance, here. None of us have any idea as to the why.

Your 1, 2, 3 for my side missed a few steps.

What I believe is the evidence and the math. What you have is a non sequitur. How are those equivalent?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
HisWillness wrote:jumbo1410

HisWillness wrote:

jumbo1410 wrote:
1. God created everything

2. I cant explain why

------

3. I believe in god

Non sequitur.

Hmmm, I don't think it's an argument or line of reasoning. 

Maybe he's saying he can't prove that God exists, but he has faith.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
So, what I am gathering so

So, what I am gathering so far (please be patient):

- Atheists trust in evidence, reason and logic

- Nobody claims to know the reason or logic for the BB's occurance

- Nobody can offer evidence that our BB is the beginning of matter (it may be collapsed matter from infinite other BB's, and may yet collapse again)

- Nobody can say why they exist other than the BB farted out properties convenient for life "allova suddin'"

- Singularities seem to be the cause of themselves (singularity exploded, produced universe, produced other singularities in the centre of black holes..producing..more..worl...)

- You can tell me what an electron is, but I want to know the "why." Why are they here?

 

I like the answer usually given to the last one, "Wtf? Why? Why does a dog bark? It came from the BB man, get over it already." Read, "Wtf? I have no idea, and I 've taken their existence a priori from the start."

 

EDIT: The reason behind this enquiry is to prove that the BB is not the beginning of the universe. Given KSBM's link, it supports exactly what I've been driving at. Curious though that some maintain it is, even though there is evidence to the contrary, (under the title "common misconceptions about BB theory&quotEye-wink.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:So, what I

jumbo1410 wrote:

So, what I am gathering so far (please be patient):

- Atheists trust in evidence, reason and logic

- Nobody claims to know the reason or logic for the BB's occurance

- Nobody can offer evidence that our BB is the beginning of matter (it may be collapsed matter from infinite other BB's, and may yet collapse again)

- Nobody can say why they exist other than the BB farted out properties convenient for life "allova suddin'"

- Singularities seem to be the cause of themselves (singularity exploded, produced universe, produced other singularities in the centre of black holes..producing..more..worl...)

- You can tell me what an electron is, but I want to know the "why." Why are they here?

I like the answer usually given to the last one, "Wtf? Why? Why does a dog bark? It came from the BB man, get over it already." Read, "Wtf? I have no idea, and I 've taken their existence a priori from the start."

Logic  evidence and reason are by their very nature the only ways to establish something that at least approaches something one could call knowledge and understanding of the nature of reality. Without such methods of analyzing our experiences, one is left with pure speculation, ie, guesswork.

We do have evidence which at least allows us to make partially informed speculations about the nature of the processes surrounding the Big Bang - obviously not conclusive, but lack of conclusive proof of something does not put it on the same basis as something for which there is little or nothing to base any speculation on.

Something ultimately leading to another similar event or object is very definitely NOT the same as something 'causing itself',  that is really stupid, like a singular God creating himself.

"Why?", in terms of a purpose, as distinct from the question of what sequence of events lead to the existence of something, does not necessarily have an answer, does not have to have an answer.

Shit happens, dude, get used to it.

Conditions throughout the Universe cover an enormous range of states. It is really really big. So the fact that among all this enormity, most of which is violently hostile to life, there is at least one infinitesimal corner, namely this planet, which happened to allow a form of 'intelligent' life to emerge, is not necessarily remarkable. If the possibility of any one planet being suitable for life is one in a trillion, then it is likely there will be at least one somewhere in the universe, and here we are...

Trying to show how this mostly chaotic Universe is carefully designed by a loving, all-knowing God is a really really stupid and perverse idea.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:So, what I

jumbo1410 wrote:

So, what I am gathering so far (please be patient):

- Atheists trust in evidence, reason and logic

- Nobody claims to know the reason or logic for the BB's occurance

- Nobody can offer evidence that our BB is the beginning of matter (it may be collapsed matter from infinite other BB's, and may yet collapse again)

- Nobody can say why they exist other than the BB farted out properties convenient for life "allova suddin'"

- Singularities seem to be the cause of themselves (singularity exploded, produced universe, produced other singularities in the centre of black holes..producing..more..worl...)

- You can tell me what an electron is, but I want to know the "why." Why are they here?

 

I like the answer usually given to the last one, "Wtf? Why? Why does a dog bark? It came from the BB man, get over it already." Read, "Wtf? I have no idea, and I 've taken their existence a priori from the start."

1. SOME atheists aknowledge evidence, reason and logic as (indeed, the only) valid approaches to actually knowing anything about the universe.  Trust is too strong a word. There is ALWAYS an error bar.

2. We know how black holes can decay and eventually evaporate, and this may or may not shed light on what made the pre-BB singularity unstable.  I'm not an expert in quantum, string- or M-theory, so I won't hypothesize beyond that.

3. Again, that's not really what the BBT is about. It has little to say on where matter/energy and space/time came from.  That's like complaining that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the existence of Pluto.  It's technically true, but also irrelevant.

4. The teleological argument is NOT a good argument for the existence of God or against the validity of scientific theories like the BB or evolution.  Just because you keep saying that there has to be a "why", that there must be some intent, doesn't mean there actually has to be.  Particles have certain properties because those properties are stable enough to accumulate and produce larger particles, which in turn must be stable enough to produce atoms that are stable enough to produce stable molecules in order for us to notice their existence.  Sometimes we see extremely unstable particles with properties unlike those we know, typically when we slam protons or electrons together at nearly the speed of light. Note that it matters not at all to the particles themselves if their properties are stable or not.

For example, electrons must have certain levels of energy as they orbit the nucleus of an atom.  Why? Because only those certain levels produce stable standing waves.  If it has some other amount of energy, it isn't an electron, or isn't for very long.

5. Singularities are not self-causal, any more than a child is self-causal. That a phenomenon might result in similar future phenomena isn't unusual or at all strange.  Our stars wouldn't exist without earlier stars that seeded the cosmos with dust and gas, that wouldn't have existed without, etc. Also, I should note that the fractal universe idea is just one that I happen to like.  I have no idea if it's supported by the science, I just think it's cool the same way I like Tolkien's worldbuilding without necessarily believing it's true.

Again, don't rely on teleological arguments.  We are a species that is built to seek patterns and assume agency.  It helped us when we had to figure out if that lion was looking for dinner, but it doesn't when we're building a society built on quantum tunneling (Yes, we have.  Without quantum tunneling, all our electronic doodads fail to work.).

 Edit in response to edit: You specifically asked about the Big Bang and why those of us who are of a scientific bent accepted it as our "origin myth" did so.  I specificially responded to that. The Big Bang does not answer questions about where the universe came from or why (what does that even mean? Where means what, exactly, divorced from the spacial references of our self-contained universe? What does "why?" mean when you're talking about natural processes without any kind of agency?) but it serves as the origin of this universe because of the informational barrier of the singularity.  It doesn't really matter what the singularity was up to before it expanded because none of that information can cross the event horizon of the singularity.  Nothing that happened "before" survived the trip in.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
So which part of... 1. You

So which part of...

 

1. You believe your theory

2. You cant explain why

---

3. You believe your theory

 

... in a post entitled "Questions of origin for the atheist"... did you not understand?

 

If you are getting creamed, that is no reason to chalk it up to "shit happens"


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:So which

jumbo1410 wrote:

So which part of...

 

1. You believe your theory

2. You cant explain why

---

3. You believe your theory

 

... in a post entitled "Questions of origin for the atheist"... did you not understand?

 

If you are getting creamed, that is no reason to chalk it up to "shit happens"

Except that's not what's going on.  I believe the BB to be an acurrate representation of the history of the universe so far as we know.  It may not be, but the odds are pretty slim.  There is evidence for the Big Bang, unlike God. We have presented quite a bit of that evidence.  The fact that you bring up questions that are irrelevant to that evidence and claim that your questions invalidate that evidence does NOT place the Big Bang on the same footing as God.

Also, what does it say about YOUR beliefs that you seem to think lowering scientific theories to their level makes those theories shaky?

 

1) I believe the Big Bang theory.

2) EVIDENCE: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

3) Any actual questions that could actually undermine the validity of that mountain of evidence, or are you intent on simply placing your flag atop it and declaring it conquered?

4) ???

5) Profit!

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:So which

jumbo1410 wrote:

So which part of...

 

1. You believe your theory

2. You cant explain why

---

3. You believe your theory

 

... in a post entitled "Questions of origin for the atheist"... did you not understand?

 

If you are getting creamed, that is no reason to chalk it up to "shit happens"

We have explained why we accept the theory as the best so far developed and fits the observations pretty well. It is not really a matter of "belief" in the theory itself, except that we believe it is a reasonable, plausible theory.

Honestly not sure exactly what you mean by the last statement - who is actually being 'creamed'? Apart from the victims of disease and natural disasters, etc., in this very imperfectly 'designed' world, which is the sort of thing I was referring to when I used the phrase.

Unless you mean in the argument, in which case it is clearly the person trying to justify God belief.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:- You can

jumbo1410 wrote:
- You can tell me what an electron is, but I want to know the "why." Why are they here?

 

I like the answer usually given to the last one, "Wtf? Why? Why does a dog bark? It came from the BB man, get over it already." Read, "Wtf? I have no idea, and I 've taken their existence a priori from the start."

Why are theists so concerned with the question of why? Why do they seem to think that because they can phrase a question, the question makes sense? I can ask "What color is Tuesday?" or "What's north of the north pole?", but that doesn't mean they make sense.

 

jumbo1410 wrote:
EDIT: The reason behind this enquiry is to prove that the BB is not the beginning of the universe. Given KSBM's link, it supports exactly what I've been driving at. Curious though that some maintain it is, even though there is evidence to the contrary, (under the title "common misconceptions about BB theory&quotEye-wink.

It wasn't my link, Kavis posted it first. I just reposted it because I thought it was a nice summary. If you don't like the BB theory, you are of course free to construct your own scientific model about how the universe formed. I am sure you can come up with something that takes into account all current observations, and in fact does so better than the current state of the BB theory. Don't forget to make a scientific prediction so the model can be falsified. I am already looking forward to reading about your model in the scientific journals.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:So which

jumbo1410 wrote:

So which part of...

 

1. You believe your theory

2. You cant explain why

---

3. You believe your theory

 

... in a post entitled "Questions of origin for the atheist"... did you not understand?

 

If you are getting creamed, that is no reason to chalk it up to "shit happens"

No here is how it goes, sheesh simply thing as understanding what is being stated here is hard for you.

1: Evidence for BBT is presented

2: Evidence is tested by various scientists of different fields (mathematics, cosmologists, astronomers, physicists)

3: Evidence is presented to all to critique

4: ALL Evidence points towards the BBT being a fact

5: Evidence to the contrary of the BBT has not been shown to be true of factual

6: Therefore I believe the BBT to be factual because ALL EVIDENCE points towards it.

The BBT only explains how THIS UNIVERSE came to be, it does not matter how the singularity came to be, it doesn't care WHY it's there was a singularity as this would be a different topic. It has nothing to do with BBT.

Which now is COMPLETELY different from how your viewing it, which frankly either you are being ignorant and just ignoring what everyone is saying or just being a jackass.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Honestly not sure

Quote:
Honestly not sure exactly what you mean by the last statement - who is actually being 'creamed'? Apart from the victims of disease and natural disasters, etc., in this very imperfectly 'designed' world, which is the sort of thing I was referring to when I used the phrase.

Unless you mean in the argument, in which case it is clearly the person trying to justify God belief.

i apologise, bobspence1. statement about getting creamed retracted.

Quote:
Why are theists so concerned with the question of why? Why do they seem to think that because they can phrase a question, the question makes sense? I can ask "What color is Tuesday?" or "What's north of the north pole?", but that doesn't mean they make sense.

Notice how the "why" turned into "what" in your examples. You may want to work on that.

 

Quote:
If you don't like the BB theory, you are of course free to construct your own scientific model about how the universe formed...

In the opening few paragraphs of your own link on BBT is:

  • The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
  • BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
  • The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
  • You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began
  • There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space
  • Now lets see what I have posted:

    - "yes I am saying we don't know what caused the BB. There are infinite hypothesis about the beginning, Esmeralda and Keith the lobster might have set the BB off for all i care. If you believe the BB theory, I'm happy to talk about what banged, how, when, why, if it is the first bang, what it means if its not"

    - "Furthermore, to say "We don't know what caused the BB...If all the evidence supports the BB..." does not address the beginning of the BB itself, only what happens after"

    - "What evidence are we proposing when we talk about BB theory? A singularity? And what does physics tell us about a singularity? Keeping in mind that gravity, electrons and such happened after the BB. Can science tell us why an electron has a certain charge? Why {electrons have} that particular charge?"

    - "So a singularity is compressed matter resulting in a black hole? Then the singularity that "started" the universe expanding had compressed matter in it already? Then it is not really the beginning then, is it? The matter that was compressed already existed. If it didn't where did it come from? Another BB before it? Then what is the BB if not a singularity of infinitely dense material?"

     

    I could go on, but I feel I have said enough. I may very well believe the BB happened, and explain all sorts of stuff about it. What I wont do is pass that stuff off as an explanation for why it occured, or even how it coccured. Many examples have been given about the evidence that a BB occured, but (if you read my posts) that is not my concern1. From the beginning, I made my intentions clear:

    1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

    2. You cant explain why

    ------

    3. You believe your theory


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is onlineOnline
    Quote:- You can tell me what

    Quote:
    - You can tell me what an electron is, but I want to know the "why." Why are they here?

    What do you mean, 'why are they here?' It seems you're not asking about causality anymore, but putting forth one of those millennia-old imponderables. (What's the meaning of life?). 

    If you mean, 'what caused the Big Bang?" Well, we don't know. If, like most of the people on this planet, that doesn't satisfy your emotional cravings, then go ahead, pick your religion. 

    Quote:
    Read, "Wtf? I have no idea, and I 've taken their existence a priori from the start."

    A priori knowledge is knowledge independent from experience. You can't possess a priori knowledge of dogs or the Big Bang. 

    Quote:
    EDIT: The reason behind this enquiry is to prove that the BB is not the beginning of the universe. Given KSBM's link, it supports exactly what I've been driving at.

    Really? What you've been driving at?

    I was under the impression that you didn't enter this thread with the intention of proving this. In fact, when you first got here, you held this very misconception. We explained it to you. 

    jumbo1410 - "Do Atheists believe in BB thoery, String theory or 11 Dimensional theory (sometimes called 26D theory I think)? I know most Atheists believe in evolution, but what about the origins of the universe?" 

    me - Well...eh, the Big Bang isn't really an explanation of the origin of the universe, but a description of the development of it as far back as we can investigate. 

    BobSpence1 - ...for which we have far less possible explanation than the sort of low-level physical processes which are the sort of thing that could conceivably lead to something like the Big Bang, is totally beyond logic and reason.

    latincanuck - That's the issue at this point no one knows what caused it, however all the evidence suggests that it happened.

    Kavis - It's important to note that the BB doesn't necessarily imply the creation of matter/energy or space/time.  The Big Bang was simply the first event in our universe that we can gather information about.

    HisWillness - Ah, no. The Big Bang theory is a description of what we have evidence of actually happening thus far. It's just a description of available evidence, and the pattern behind that.

    See?

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is onlineOnline
    jumbo1410 wrote:1. (your

    jumbo1410 wrote:

    1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

    2. You cant explain why

    ------

    3. You believe your theory

    Ah, okay, so I was wrong too. It's just three separate assertions. Except, of course, the Big Bang didn't create everything. 

     

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    Kavis
    atheist
    Kavis's picture
    Posts: 191
    Joined: 2008-04-17
    User is offlineOffline
    Once again, jumbo, you seem

    Once again, jumbo, you seem to be ignoring answers to your questions, and questions posed in turn.  The reason for the charge of an electron, if only in a general sense, has been given to you.  Again, quantum particles have certain properties, including charge, spin, mass, etc because those properties are stable.  Particles with unstable values for those properties do not last long enough for us to notice outside laboratory conditions.

    It is possible for very high-energy collisions between gamma rays and matter to produce particles with those unstable properties.  It happens all the time in our upper atmosphere, and we can artificially create those particles with the help of colliders.

    Once again, what do you mean by "before", separated from time? When you ask what happened "before" the Big Bang, which was an expansion of space/time as well as matter/energy, you're asking what happened "before" time began.  It's a nonsense question, and if you're going to feel all superior about asking it, please at least define your terms. "Before", "already", and "existed" all need to be defined, since you're clearly referring to some kind of pre-time time-line.  Once again, space/time is infinitely curved in the vicinity of a singularity, and without some wicked scary math your ideas about spatial and temporal relationships mean absolutely nothing.  I'll be waiting for your equations.

    You know Einstein's famous equation, right? Energy is matter equal to the speed of light, squared.  In the awesomely extreme conditions of the early Big Bang, and those in the vicinity of singularities, the difference between matter and energy gets blurry.  Matter did not become distinct from electromagnetic radiation until the universe cooled enough to allow it - about BB +3 minutes. Your categorization of matter being within the singularity isn't true, in addition to being temporally confused.

    Lastly, you seem all fired up about disproving the BB as some kind of origin myth.  I haven't seen much defense of it as origin myth going on here.  I don't understand why you seem to think this is some kind of coup for your argument.  That bizarre little three-step argument, in which you try to shoot down a position no one has actually taken here with a non-sequitor just seems to indicate further confusion on your part.

    Religion is a virus.
    Fight the infection.


    jumbo1410
    Theist
    Posts: 166
    Joined: 2009-07-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:me - Well...eh, the

    Quote:
    me - Well...eh, the Big Bang isn't really an explanation of the origin of the universe, but a description of the development of it as far back as we can investigate. 

    BobSpence1 - ...for which we have far less possible explanation than the sort of low-level physical processes which are the sort of thing that could conceivably lead to something like the Big Bang, is totally beyond logic and reason.

    latincanuck - That's the issue at this point no one knows what caused it, however all the evidence suggests that it happened.

    Kavis - It's important to note that the BB doesn't necessarily imply the creation of matter/energy or space/time.  The Big Bang was simply the first event in our universe that we can gather information about.

    HisWillness - Ah, no. The Big Bang theory is a description of what we have evidence of actually happening thus far. It's just a description of available evidence, and the pattern behind that.

    If nobody holds that the BB created the universe, then what did?

     

    I am confused. Smiling

     

    Are you saying that nothing created the universe?

     

    My three statement/arguments are invalid, this was on purpose. I was trying to say that I cant prove "God(s)" created the universe. The second one was about those who hold that the BB created the universe, which is also invalid, because BB theory can't be proven as the beginning either.

     

    Is that more clear, or have I got something wrong again?

     


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5809
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
     Whatever 'caused' the

     Whatever 'caused' the Universe to come into existence, whether everything, including time itself, effectively started with the Big Bang, which was, AFAWK, expansion of an extremely small, incredibly intense concentration of energy, including all of space itself, or whether it was a 'true' singularity, whether it was in turn triggered by some event in a greater Universe, these are all speculation at the moment, but not completely without some mathematical framework.

    The issue of 'proven' which you keep raising, is irrelevant in any absolute sense. All we can do in investigating anything as fundamental as this is assess possibilities based on some degree of consistency with currently well-established theories, such as relativity, quantum theory, field theory, etc.

    You have to come up with a theory of what created God, whereas we only have to come up with something that could plausibly trigger a bigger than 'normal' quantum fluctuation, which only requires there exist some base level of raw random energy, rather than some super intelligent God thing. You figure what is easier to have just exist or come into being, a 'God' or some low-level random energy field...

    There is no logical or empirical requirement that the 'ultimate cause' be a conscious being, let alone an infinitely powerful one....

    The 'God' hypothesis explains nothing, just proposes something even more difficult to understand and explain that an existence without such an entity.

    The point is, whatever problems you raise for explaining how the BB originate, they apply even more to the origin of God...

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    jumbo1410
    Theist
    Posts: 166
    Joined: 2009-07-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Quote:Whatever 'caused' the

    Quote:
    Whatever 'caused' the Universe to come into existence, whether everything, including time itself, effectively started with the Big Bang, which was, AFAWK, expansion of an extremely small, incredibly intense concentration of energy, including all of space itself, or whether it was a 'true' singularity, whether it was in turn triggered by some event in a greater Universe, these are all speculation at the moment The point is, whatever problems you raise for explaining how the BB originate, they apply even more to the origin of God...

    Almost precisely right. "AFAWK" may need some debating, but hey. It has taken this long to get to the point that I raised earlier:

    Quote:
    ...so long as the beginning remains a hypothesis on both sides (for science and for theism), then yes. Of course, if you take the science route, I would like to see your evidence for {BB theory}. I think the nature of the "beginning of everything" requires abductive arguments, variations of inductive arguments.

    So I think i have answered the first part of the question that was posted by HissWillness:

    Quote:
    You're okay with the fact that...gods can't be adequately described...

    If by described, you meant understood logically or scientifically, then yes, since no one has described to me (about origin!!) scientifically or logically how a "singularity" that does not appear in your own BB theory (as in "not based on evidence&quotEye-wink - as according to the link provided, under "Common misconceptions"; produced any of the energy/mass/electrons/etc that you claim it did.

    That leaves the second half of what Hiswillingness, bobspence1 and several others have said - namely "the description {of God} fails to be in any way reasonable." I did not want to get to this question prematurely, as I wanted the distinction between fact (evidence) and hypothesis ("to suppose&quotEye-wink to be very clear.

    I'm pretty tired atm, but I have enjoyed the convo thus far.

    I said earlier, that I find no major philosophical issue with the belief in God; perhaps that needs some padding. I find no major philosophical issues with the belief in God that I don't find with any other hypothesis proposed about origin.

     

    I'll leave it there for now, but am interested in responses.

     

     


    nigelTheBold
    atheist
    nigelTheBold's picture
    Posts: 1868
    Joined: 2008-01-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Hey, Jumbo. Welcome, and

    Hey, Jumbo. Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

    jumbo1410 wrote:

    If science was a deductive art, I would probably still not change my persuasion, because I'm just like that Smiling

    Science is a deductive art. At least, there is a deductive component to science. The process of science (as opposed to the epistemology of science) includes inductive reasoning to arrive at hypotheses. After that, deduction is used to make predictions based on the nature of each hypothesis. An hypothesis becomes a theory only after deductive testing.

    Not that I expect it to change your persuasion. I appreciate your candor. But I thought I'd clarify that bit about science.

    The BBT was arrived at inductively, based on several observations, such as the red-shift of light from all cosmic objects, as if every galaxy was moving away from every other galaxy. One of the deductive conclusions of the BBT was the existence of a specific type of cosmic background radiation, which was subsequently discovered. It is this kind of deductive logic that provides credibility to a theory. It doesn't make it a fact; it just lends it credence.

    It's as if you were driving along the highway, and came across an upside-down vehicle. You may surmise the vehicle was in an accident, but you don't know. Perhaps it was constructed that way, or someone turned it over carefully and with a purpose. Which hypothesis is more likely? It should be easy to test. If there is a person injured inside the vehicle, the first hypothesis is more likely. So you look inside, and sure enough, there's someone there. This supports the first hypothesis, but doesn't completely rule out the second, and the third is slightly more likely than the second.

    In that way, you can give relative worth to each hypothesis. Things are rarely ever proven beyond a doubt. That doesn't mean you can't come up with the best, most-likely theory based on inductive and deductive reasoning, with a fair sprinkling of creativity and a hefty dose of mathematics.

    As for the rest: there is a correlation between science education and atheism, but one does not cause the other. Atheism is orthogonal to every single field of knowledge except the existence of god.

    Anyway, welcome. I hope you decide you stick around awhile with us godless atheists.

    "Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


    latincanuck
    atheist
    latincanuck's picture
    Posts: 2036
    Joined: 2007-06-01
    User is offlineOffline
    jumbo1410 wrote:If nobody

    jumbo1410 wrote:

    If nobody holds that the BB created the universe, then what did?

     

    I am confused. Smiling

     

    Are you saying that nothing created the universe?

     

    My three statement/arguments are invalid, this was on purpose. I was trying to say that I cant prove "God(s)" created the universe. The second one was about those who hold that the BB created the universe, which is also invalid, because BB theory can't be proven as the beginning either.

     

    Is that more clear, or have I got something wrong again?

    The BB is simplly an event, a cause from an effect of the singularity expanding, why did the singularity cause an expansion is up to debate, it could have been a quantum fluctuation, an unstable singulairty, maybe something farted, who knows, at this point I highly doubt humanity will even know the answer to that question. However many of us are find with it. Basically the BB effect or cause occured which basically is the start of this universe as we know it. Why was the singularity there? No clue, doesn't matter it was there. Why did it expand? No clue, but it did and we can see the effects and the evidence of it. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why not? Where did the singularity come from? Ready the answer? No idea at all, and no one could give you a proper answer. However saying god did it, doesn't actually answer the question. Because there is no evidence for god at all, in a universe that all seems to have a natural cause and effect. Why add a supernatural deity that cannot be explained in natural terms? I just don't get why god is necessary.


    GoDamn
    Posts: 1
    Joined: 2009-07-28
    User is offlineOffline
    Jumbo,You seem to be working

    Jumbo,

    You seem to be working along the lines of "The Argument from First Cause" and "God of the Gaps (Argument from Ignorance)"

    As an argument, the first is inherently self refuting. If the Universe has to have a first cause and that is god, then who created god? If god is uncreated, why not save a step and say the universe is uncreated?

    The argument from ignorance is so stupid its hard to believe people still use it. If we ascribe everything we don't understand to god, we have no reason to try to discover the real cause, as a result of which we would never learn anything!!!

    Finally, and this is very important, in the initial stages of the big bang, the conditions of temperature and pressure were so extreme that the laws of physics (as we know them today) breakdown and quantum laws come into effect. Scientists are trying to figure out the laws of quantum gravity which will explain more about the origins of the universe.

    Does everything need a cause? Not really. You may want to read up a little on quantum mechanics, specifically a phenomena called vaccum fluctuations. This process creates particle anti-particle pairs out of nothing randomly. So not everything must have a cause. Infact, quantum mechanics is a very counter intuitive field where common sense makes no sense. It is entirely statistical and yet it allows us to make the most accurate predictions about the properties of matter. It is an interesting field, if a little mind boggling.


    Brian37
    atheistSuperfan
    Brian37's picture
    Posts: 13490
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    jumbo1410 wrote:Forgive my

    jumbo1410 wrote:

    Forgive my ignorance, but I am curious about Atheists' beliefs about the universe. What is a singularity? Compressed matter of infinite density, a mass of infinite gravity? Two problems with the BB that have been bothering me are 1) Gravity existed after the BB; and 2) Gravity is a measure of force (attractive) between matter, meaning particles had to have existed before the BB - albeit packed together in infinite density. Is this correct?

     

    Do Atheists believe in BB thoery, String theory or 11 Dimensional theory (sometimes called 26D theory I think)? I know most Atheists believe in evolution, but what about the origins of the universe?

     

    Sorry if these have already been answered btw.

    I hope I don't chase you off with my bluntness. I do apreciate those who can hang in there when the words are tough to handle. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE FOLLOWING PERSONALLY. This being my first response to you, and not knowing you in person, keep in mind I am judging your words(questions and responses ONLY).

     

    Here goes.

     

    Magic does not exist. Whatever ingredience of the universe there were or that we may never know, should not constitute defaulting to ancient myth.

    You today, do not atribute lighting to Thor nor do you think the Sun is a real deity like the Ancient Egyptians litterally believed at one time. Whatever we don't know there are lots of things we do know.

    We know that it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, which negates the claims of virgin births. We do know that human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis, which negates dead flesh reconstituting itself as if nothing happened.

    We also know that humans have throughout history made stories up only later for those stories to be discarded.

    I think what most believers of ALL religions fail to realize is that a "WHAT" is what is going on and not a "WHO". The universe is an ongoing random process, an unthinking process. In laymen's terms you could look at the universe as an ongoing random fractile.

    And it is a mistake to equate the origins of the universe as being the same as the evolution of biological carbon based life forms. The two are unrelated. The universe is not a giant strand of DNA nor does it "replicate" like DNA.

    If you are unwilling to insert "Allah" in to fill the gap of how the universe started, why should any other claim of the super natural get a pass?

    Is it not more realistic that humans, because they don't know better, will attempt to comfort themselves with falsehoods because of the wishful thinking of desiring some sense of control?

    It IS TRUE that humans don't have all the answers. But it is stupid to cling to the past hoping that your man in the cape will swoop you off the train tracks merely because the idea is comforting to you.

     

    "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
    Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


    Brian37
    atheistSuperfan
    Brian37's picture
    Posts: 13490
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    Let me add this:Others here

    Let me add this:

    Others here will debate the history of holy books. I wont. I don't have the patience for it. I applaud people who do, but I don't.

    It is simple to me. One can go see a "Superman" movie and see him fly around New York City, a REAL place, but no sane person would litterally believe that a man can fly like that.

    We can prove that George Washington existed, but again, no sane person would claim that he farted a full sized Lamborginni out of his ass.

    Claims of 72 virgins, virgin births, rising from the dead, human adults popping out of dirt, are absurd claims and should be religated to the same catigory as Harry Potter. These are merely popular myths people refuse to accept as such.

    "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
    Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


    Abu Lahab
    Superfan
    Abu Lahab's picture
    Posts: 628
    Joined: 2008-02-29
    User is offlineOffline
    Questions of origin for the Atheist

    I'm Anti-Theist and I like the Smolin Solution for the beginning of the Universe:

    www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html

     

    Supporting evidence of why I like his thinking:

     

    www.ted.com/index.php/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html

     

    How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is onlineOnline
    jumbo1410 wrote:Are you

    jumbo1410 wrote:

    Are you saying that nothing created the universe? 

    My three statement/arguments are invalid, this was on purpose. I was trying to say that I cant prove "God(s)" created the universe. The second one was about those who hold that the BB created the universe, which is also invalid, because BB theory can't be proven as the beginning either. 

    Is that more clear, or have I got something wrong again? 

    I think you got it right.

    I'm saying we don't really know what initially created everything. The Big Bang is not the beginning. It is what produced/lead up to the current state of our universe, but it requires further explanation i.e. what caused the Big Bang? Anyone who thinks that the Big Bang is the final explanation of our origins simply doesn't understand the theory. 

    On the other hand, the creator god is intentionally posited as the end of the causal chain. If we ask a Christian what created God, they'll almost certainly respond with the explanation that God is eternal and that causality is a characteristic of this universe, and thus, does not apply to God. Ergo, the Christian, in an ad hoc fashion, attempts to make God the only exception to the rule.

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5809
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    jumbo1410

    jumbo1410 wrote:

    Quote:
    Whatever 'caused' the Universe to come into existence, whether everything, including time itself, effectively started with the Big Bang, which was, AFAWK, expansion of an extremely small, incredibly intense concentration of energy, including all of space itself, or whether it was a 'true' singularity, whether it was in turn triggered by some event in a greater Universe, these are all speculation at the moment The point is, whatever problems you raise for explaining how the BB originate, they apply even more to the origin of God...

    Almost precisely right. "AFAWK" may need some debating, but hey. 

    AFAWK: "As far as we know" - in case you didn't get it.

    The speculation about the ultimate origins of the BB are still based on a ideas suggested by massive amount of observation and experiment and calculation which is fairly well-established. The same is not remotely true of the God hypothesis, even if it could be formulated in a way that made same kind of internal logical sense. It has all of the logical problems you raise or attempt to raise against cosmological theories, with nothing remotely approaching the amount of detailed knowledge and established theory that informs scientific speculation. 

    You still appear to be trying to put them on a comparable footing. Just because various ideas all lack 'proof', does not mean we are justified in treating them as equally possible or plausible. You don't seem willing or able to specifically acknowledge this very important point.

    Quote:

    It has taken this long to get to the point that I raised earlier:

    Quote:
    ...so long as the beginning remains a hypothesis on both sides (for science and for theism), then yes. Of course, if you take the science route, I would like to see your evidence for {BB theory}. I think the nature of the "beginning of everything" requires abductive arguments, variations of inductive arguments.

    So I think i have answered the first part of the question that was posted by HissWillness:

    Quote:
    You're okay with the fact that...gods can't be adequately described...

    If by described, you meant understood logically or scientifically, then yes, since no one has described to me (about origin!!) scientifically or logically how a "singularity" that does not appear in your own BB theory (as in "not based on evidence&quotEye-wink - as according to the link provided, under "Common misconceptions"; produced any of the energy/mass/electrons/etc that you claim it did.

    The "singularity" is the simplest extrapolation backwards from what has been reasonably well modelled so far, but Quantum Theory strongly suggests that it would not go all the way back to something really matching a mathematical 'singularity', but practically, something at the Planck scale of around 10-33 centimeters, with a density of 1095 gm/cc, with no internal structure, is close enough.

    No-one is saying the 'singularity' is the cause of the Big Bang, or IOW the 'cause' of our Universe - it is a state of energy that is presumed to have existed at a point in time, that acting according to the physical constraints and forces existing under such conditions, expanded and followed the sequence of developments we have found evidence for, leading to the Universe as we observe it today.

    There is nothing about the ideas of the Big Bang or the Singularity that 'logically' would prevent electrons etc arising as it expanded and cooled. 'Logical' does not imply 'evidence', just that one set of propositions are deductively derivable from a set of starting assumptions. Logic can only demonstrate if assumptions logically contradict each other, it cannot establish the empirical truth of a consistent set of assumptions.

    Quote:

    That leaves the second half of what Hiswillingness, bobspence1 and several others have said - namely "the description {of God} fails to be in any way reasonable." I did not want to get to this question prematurely, as I wanted the distinction between fact (evidence) and hypothesis ("to suppose&quotEye-wink to be very clear.

    I'm pretty tired atm, but I have enjoyed the convo thus far.

    I said earlier, that I find no major philosophical issue with the belief in God; perhaps that needs some padding. I find no major philosophical issues with the belief in God that I don't find with any other hypothesis proposed about origin.

     

    I'll leave it there for now, but am interested in responses.

    Well that's the problem with philosophy, it allows for all sorts of meaningless nonsense to be discussed as though it referred to something real...

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    ClockCat
    ClockCat's picture
    Posts: 2265
    Joined: 2009-03-26
    User is offlineOffline
    :3


    jumbo1410
    Theist
    Posts: 166
    Joined: 2009-07-25
    User is offlineOffline
    Awww. Lost post. My l337

    Awww. Lost post. My l337 posting skills are awesome. 

    Quote:
    Well that's the problem with philosophy, it allows for all sorts of meaningless nonsense to be discussed as though it referred to something real...
    Is that your professional opinion? I thought I said I find no phiolosophical issues with the belief in God, to which people posted objections? I also thought that logic and reason are a fundamental part of PHL. Why did you bother posting a reply based on your opinion, evidence man? Do you have any evidence that philosophy is babble, or are you just ignorant? Keep your opinions to yourself, it slows down debate. 
    Quote:
    AFAWK: "As far as we know" - in case you didn't get it.
    I get it. It's just that we dont know anything about the beginning, its all a hypothesis. Should I put more spaces between my words?      Would        that         be         easier? 
    Quote:
    The speculation about the ultimate origins of the BB are still based on a ideas suggested by massive amount of observation and experiment and calculation which is fairly well-established.
    Amost right again. Where did this energy you speak of come from? You know, the one that condenced into matter just like mouldy cheese condences into pure liquid happiness? Assuming the cheese already existed of course, in which case if it didn't then it also must condense out of the thumbs of an albino sloth named kevin. Can you get a scientist to condense me a new computer? The one I have is getting old. Sorry about the sarcasm. Some people like beating dead horses... A hypothesis is likely if the following four criteria are met:1. If H were true then O would be expected2. H fits with background knowledge3. If H were not true then O would not be expected4. H is simple (Occum's razor - more about this later) Where: H=hypothesis, O=observations This is out of Richard Swinburne's book, "Is there a God?" (or "Does God exist?", I can't remember) I agree with butterbattle, at least partially. Moving on. 
    Quote:
    You seem to be working along the lines of "The Argument from First Cause" and "God of the Gaps (Argument from Ignorance)"As an argument, the first is inherently self refuting. If the Universe has to have a first cause and that is god, then who created god? If god is uncreated, why not save a step and say the universe is uncreated?
    It does seem that way but I hope I'm not. I'm assuming you mean Aquina's 5 ways (his 3rd deals with FC specifically). I am well aware of the problems that plague that argument, hence why i have not used it. What I am trying to do is get people to admit that they just don't know the origins of the universe. When I'm satisfied that no-one is confusing this point with unecessary evidence, I'll move on to some competeing theories, including BBT, Esmeralda and Keith, polytheism (or henotheism, doesn't matter which) then finally theism. As I wrote in my last post that was lost to the WWW (an act of God perhaps... relax, its a joke), I take inspiration from Swinburne, Taylor, Mackie, Plantinga (he is rad) Hillary Bok and a few others (yeesss, the Bible too). Are poeple familiar with these works?