The Starting Point

GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The Starting Point

The universe. Where did it come from? Why do we exist? What happened? Let us start in the beginning. Let us start with one, big, bang!

 

The big bang theory has an inevitable setback, and if you follow me now, I will show you how. First, scientists say that the big bang theory is when everything was reduced to a singularity. However, this is where the law of physics breakdown, and if the law of physics break down, then this starting point is also not natural. Point two, the law of energy. The big bang caused over a series of energy. However, according to Sir Isaac Newton, energy cannot be brought into existence. Energy cannot cease to exists. You must question where the energy came from. Point three, and here's the punch line. No physical, finite entity explains its own existence. If we were to cut an orange and take it under microscopic study we would end up with the same result; the orange does not explain its own existence. The orange doesn't tell us why it exists; it must find the reason for its existence outside of itself. But we see that the orange came from an orange tree. However, the actuality is, neither does the tree explain its own existence. You end up having to posit a series of causes. Any finite, physical entity needs a cause and is either, caused, self-caused, or caused by another. Caused still questions the reason and self-caused is self-defeating. Hence, we must go back to a state of affairs to explain the existence of every physical entity in this universe. However, even if you were to reduce everything to a singularity, say an atom, you must then question where did the atom came from. Say the "Cosmic Atom" is the entity that went bang and started the rapid expansion of the universe. However, where the cosmic atom come from? Scientist have figured it out! With empirical evidence "A" was before the cosmic atom. Ok, what caused "A" to come into existence? Scientists have figured it out! With empirical, verifiable evidence, "B" was before "A." Ok, what caused "B" to come into existence? And this is the setback that many scientists fail to see. Some scientists will say that "Ah, we don't have the answer yet." But even if they had the answers and the reasons for the cause of every single entity, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes, but you cannot have an infinite series of causes, because, follow me now, if you were to have an infinite series of causes you would never be able to arrive to the present. If you had a domino called "X," and it took an infinite number of dominoes to fall before "X" can fall, you would never have "X" fall. So there must be a starting point alright. Well, what do physicist have to say what was before the big bang? Scientists have went so far as to say that nothing was before the big bang.

“It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.”
- Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Aston University, England [1]

“Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.”
- Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer.” [2]

“Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing.”
- Scienceline.org [3]

“Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.”
- Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University [4]

“Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.”
- Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist [5]

“Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things—perhaps even the entire universe—can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.”
- Creation ex nihilo—Without God
(1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic [6]

<

[1] http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid
=news&type=anews
[2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364
[3] http://scienceline.org/2006/08/21/ask-snyder-bang/
[4] http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
[5] http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Godless/Origin.pdf
[6] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/
vacuum.html

>

Now wait a minute. Surely this doesn't make any sense. From nothing, nothing comes. Listen to Daniel Dennett in his book "Breaking the Spell." He says that the universe brought itself into existence, also known as the "boot-strapping of the universe." However, surely this suggestions fails as well, because the presupposition of the assertion suggests that there was a time that the universe didn't exists. So the universe would have had to exist prior to its own existence. Surely this doesn't make any sense either. It's a contrariety in terms. Scientists and physicists have realized that the universe cannot be eternal, because again you would have to posit an infinite series of causes for every finite, physical entity. Hence, "nothing" is the only plausible suggestion that can be asserted in any preposition apart from God. Why? Because nothing is eternal, it has no beginning it has no end. And... to add to it. You must posit a being with infinite worth from the moral issues and social issues we see today. The uncaused caused for everything that began to exist must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal. Also known as - God.

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Genesis

 

Would you argue it's possible for us to say anything useful about anything that went on before the big bang? And why would contention over exactly what existed before the big bang necessarily allow you to posit a hijacked jewish god, inherited from Babylon or Egypt? A god who exists outside the universe in a place we can't usefully discuss but supposedly also knows everything about everything going on inside the universe simultaneously? How does this make sense?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
First point. You did not

First point. You did not address the setback I have suggested in the big bang theory, if you indeed claim that there is no supernatural being and propose natural creation.  Second. You are positioning your question with a false assumption. You are limiting your reasons with things that are only natural. Of course it doesn't make sense to try to fathom God being omniscient in a universe, when He is at the same time outside the realm of time. You are viewing the issue in a naturalistic framework of thinking. It's as if you were to say, "Ah, God doesn't exists, because how can a being be infinite?" Hence, essentially the preposition of your questions assert - "God is supernatural. Therefore, God doesn't exist." I suggest you revise your argument.

Intent is prior to Content.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Hence,

GENESIS wrote:
Hence, essentially the preposition of your questions assert - "God is supernatural. Therefore, God doesn't exist." I suggest you revise your argument.

Actually it is more like: The term supernatural is incoherent. Beings placed in an incoherent category do not exist. You might be interested in this essay:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/039supernatural039_and_039immaterial039_are_broken_concepts


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't see a setback in the big bang

GENESIS wrote:

First point. You did not address the setback I have suggested in the big bang theory, if you indeed claim that there is no supernatural being and propose natural creation.  Second. You are positioning your question with a false assumption. You are limiting your reasons with things that are only natural. Of course it doesn't make sense to try to fathom God being omniscient in a universe, when He is at the same time outside the realm of time. You are viewing the issue in a naturalistic framework of thinking. It's as if you were to say, "Ah, God doesn't exists, because how can a being be infinite?" Hence, essentially the preposition of your questions assert - "God is supernatural. Therefore, God doesn't exist." I suggest you revise your argument.

 

theory - I just don't think we're in a position to talk about anything before the bang with certainty. I never can understand why theists have so much trouble with abiogenesis in this universe that they have to create yet another universe that we can't rationally fathom in order to 'explain' it.

I know I'm diving off to one side a bit here Genesis but that's my nature so don't be troubled - other more structured minds will follow. Moving sideways, I can never get how this cosmological argument goes from the fact we don't know how the universe was formed to some jewish dude on a cross sacrificing himself to save us from a father who is also himself.

Dear lord - just forgive me already and have done with it. You're exhausting me with all this needless complexity.

Anyway, Genesis after about 500 posts the end game will be that we are both guessing about anything pre-bang. You install magic sky daddy in the gap if you like.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So then why is there God

So then why is there God rather than nothing?

 

 

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Genesis.  Big fan.

Hey Genesis.  Big fan.  Used to really like Revenge of Shinobi and Gunstar Heroes, especially.  

GENESIS wrote:
  outside the realm of time.  

Could you show us how you know there's a realm outside of time?   Maybe some research that supports this claim?

 

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: then this starting

Quote:

 

then this starting point is also not natural

 

 

I am of the opinion that our universe, being natural, can only have natural properties.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think this actually puts it rather well

GENESIS wrote:

Hence, essentially the preposition of your questions assert - "God is supernatural. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

 

I'm ok with believing in the supernatural if it exists...in the natural...

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Hence, essentially the preposition of your questions assert - "God is supernatural. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

 

I'm ok with believing in the supernatural if it exists...in the natural...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it just me, or is there a problem with calling something supernatural?  If a supernatural thing causes events to occur in our universe, then those events, by definition, are natural.  Therefore, isn't it impossible to derive any useful information about the supernatural?


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah that's what I meant

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Hence, essentially the preposition of your questions assert - "God is supernatural. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

 

I'm ok with believing in the supernatural if it exists...in the natural...

 

 

Is it just me, or is there a problem with calling something supernatural?  If a supernatural thing causes events to occur in our universe, then those events, by definition, are natural.  Therefore, isn't it impossible to derive any useful information about the supernatural?

 

And it's an idea I borrowed from you...don't think Genesis will agree with us though...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Probably not.  But at least

Probably not.  But at least he accepts the big bang.  That's a good

 

wait for it

 

starting point.

 

(couldn't resist)


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I wonder why some people

I wonder why some people say, there was nothing before Big Bang. In my opinion, in the universe, there is no such thing as nothing. Something is a basic state of everything. Not even vacuum is empty, far from it.
In my opinion, the universe undergoes cyclic periods of activity and inactivity, and what we call Big Bang was a beginning of the activity phase. So there is definitely something before BB, I'd say an essence of everything that was achieved in the previous universe.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That's a good theory

Luminon wrote:

I wonder why some people say, there was nothing before Big Bang. In my opinion, in the universe, there is no such thing as nothing. Something is a basic state of everything. Not even vacuum is empty, far from it.
In my opinion, the universe undergoes cyclic periods of activity and inactivity, and what we call Big Bang was a beginning of the activity phase. So there is definitely something before BB, I'd say an essence of everything that was achieved in the previous universe.

 

Lum - it works ok for me...and makes much more sense than magic people.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Lum -

Atheistextremist wrote:

Lum - it works ok for me...and makes much more sense than magic people.

Scientists are the real magicians - the older event, the more they know about it Smiling Just that present time, that's mysterious.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

GENESIS wrote:

The big bang theory has an inevitable setback, and if you follow me now, I will show you how. First, scientists say that the big bang theory is when everything was reduced to a singularity. However, this is where the law of physics breakdown, and if the law of physics break down, then this starting point is also not natural.

The laws of physics didn't break down, the theories did.  If a theory breaks down, it might need to be revised.       

 

 

GENESIS wrote:

Point two, the law of energy. The big bang caused over a series of energy. However, according to Sir Isaac Newton, energy cannot be brought into existence. Energy cannot cease to exists. You must question where the energy came from. Point three, and here's the punch line. No physical, finite entity explains its own existence. If we were to cut an orange and take it under microscopic study we would end up with the same result; the orange does not explain its own existence. The orange doesn't tell us why it exists; it must find the reason for its existence outside of itself. But we see that the orange came from an orange tree. However, the actuality is, neither does the tree explain its own existence. You end up having to posit a series of causes. Any finite, physical entity needs a cause and is either, caused, self-caused, or caused by another. Caused still questions the reason and self-caused is self-defeating. Hence, we must go back to a state of affairs to explain the existence of every physical entity in this universe. However, even if you were to reduce everything to a singularity, say an atom, you must then question where did the atom came from. Say the "Cosmic Atom" is the entity that went bang and started the rapid expansion of the universe. However, where the cosmic atom come from? Scientist have figured it out! With empirical evidence "A" was before the cosmic atom. Ok, what caused "A" to come into existence? Scientists have figured it out! With empirical, verifiable evidence, "B" was before "A." Ok, what caused "B" to come into existence? And this is the setback that many scientists fail to see. Some scientists will say that "Ah, we don't have the answer yet." But even if they had the answers and the reasons for the cause of every single entity, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes, but you cannot have an infinite series of causes, because, follow me now, if you were to have an infinite series of causes you would never be able to arrive to the present. If you had a domino called "X," and it took an infinite number of dominoes to fall before "X" can fall, you would never have "X" fall. So there must be a starting point alright. Well, what do physicist have to say what was before the big bang? Scientists have went so far as to say that nothing was before the big bang.

First of all, how does it follow that even if scientists had "the answers and the reasons for the cause of every single entity," that they would "end up positing an infinite series of causes"?  Secondly, you said that "No physical, finite entity explains its own existence."  How is a supernatural, infinite entity exempt from this principle?

 

 

GENESIS wrote:

Now wait a minute. Surely this doesn't make any sense. From nothing, nothing comes. Listen to Daniel Dennett in his book "Breaking the Spell." He says that the universe brought itself into existence, also known as the "boot-strapping of the universe." However, surely this suggestions fails as well, because the presupposition of the assertion suggests that there was a time that the universe didn't exists. So the universe would have had to exist prior to its own existence. Surely this doesn't make any sense either. It's a contrariety in terms. Scientists and physicists have realized that the universe cannot be eternal, because again you would have to posit an infinite series of causes for every finite, physical entity. Hence, "nothing" is the only plausible suggestion that can be asserted in any preposition apart from God. Why? Because nothing is eternal, it has no beginning it has no end. And... to add to it. You must posit a being with infinite worth from the moral issues and social issues we see today. The uncaused caused for everything that began to exist must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal. Also known as - God.

For any belief regarding existence, the best starting point is zero.  When a claim is backed up by science and rational principles, then it's reasonable to accept the claim.  The opposite of this method would be to believe in everything that could possibly exist, and then to whittle your beliefs down when they're disproven by science or shown to be unreasonable.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
We will probably never

We will probably never understand everything about how nature works even here on our own planet, much less how things are out in deep space. What we can do, however, is speculate and investigate. This is a good thing to do, because it engages the mind to reach towards the impossible... and, in doing so, wondrous and highly useful byproducts of this struggle will be created. To bow down before a mental symbol instead of taking on the burden of not knowing, though, is just intellectual cowardice of the most despicable kind. You can keep your God. It works for you like a pacifyer works for a cranky toddler.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
You say that the theories

You say that the theories need to be revised. Well, are you angry with the law of gravity? When you jump, what do you think is going to happen? They don't call it the Gravity Theory. These are addressed positions in which anything under the position cannot violate or defy what the position asserts, hence laws.

Now, for the scientists positing an infinite series of causes. You're missing the point obviously. I am saying that you cannot come down to one physical entity the created everything in the finite time, because if there were true you would then have to question where that physical entity came from the created everything. Understand? And even if you found out what that was that created the entity that created everything then you must question where THAT came from. And  it'll go on and on and on and on. Until you end up having to come to the conclusion that the universe is infinite, which is clearly not that case. And for your second rebuttal. You say that how is a supernatural, infinite being exempt from this principle. You missed the point. Ok, only things physical and finite needs a cause and thus must have a explanation for its existence. However, God by definition is spiritual and infinite; He is the logical, necessary, uncaused caused that still yields as the best explanation of this universe.

And for the unlimited belief system, believing in everything that could possibly exist. Granted, you must find yourself believing in the supernatural, such as God. However, I have clearly shown that science and natural processes cannot be the case. Here's my suggestion summed up. Everything physical and finite needs a cause in terms of natural processes. However, if you draw down to what caused what, you'll never arrive to an entity that is both physical and self-caused. And end up positing an infinite series of causes, which is not the case (take the domino illustration for example). Hence, there must be a starting point... agreed? However, physicists have came down to the conclusion the nothing created something, that before the big bang, nothing existed. But this clearly doesn't make sense. The only logical and coherent explanation for the universe is a being (that is, like nothing, an infinite being) that is all powerful, immaterial, spaceless, and personal, and omniscient (regarding the argument to design, not from design).

Intent is prior to Content.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:I have clearly

GENESIS wrote:
I have clearly shown

 

The only thing you have clearly shown is that you shouldn't give up your day job to become a deep thinker.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:You say that

GENESIS wrote:
You say that the theories need to be revised. Well, are you angry with the law of gravity? When you jump, what do you think is going to happen? They don't call it the Gravity Theory. These are addressed positions in which anything under the position cannot violate or defy what the position asserts, hence laws.
Why does it always have to be the Christian god when Christian's are talking about the origins of the universe?  I much prefer the creation myth of Hinduism.

The theory of gravity (gravity theory, gravity, gravitation) is the explanation of observed phenomena, such as the interaction between massive bodies in Einstein space as currently explained within the general theory of relativity.  The law of gravity is expressed in mathematical terms and is a particular prediction of how massive bodies will behave in certain conditions.  The theory of gravity has been revised since it was first put forth.  This is what happens to theories as more evidence is inducted into the explanation.  They are explanations of phenomena with massive amounts of supporting evidence.  Hence, the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity.  You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes what a theory or law is in science and clearly don't appreciate that these two things constitute something proved with the same scientific rigour.

Quote:
Now, for the scientists positing an infinite series of causes. You're missing the point obviously. I am saying that you cannot come down to one physical entity the created everything in the finite time, because if there were true you would then have to question where that physical entity came from the created everything. Understand? And even if you found out what that was that created the entity that created everything then you must question where THAT came from. And  it'll go on and on and on and on. Until you end up having to come to the conclusion that the universe is infinite, which is clearly not that case. And for your second rebuttal. You say that how is a supernatural, infinite being exempt from this principle. You missed the point. Ok, only things physical and finite needs a cause and thus must have a explanation for its existence. However, God by definition is spiritual and infinite; He is the logical, necessary, uncaused caused that still yields as the best explanation of this universe.
That's special pleading.  There is no evidence that god exists.  In the face of a lack of evidence or your unwillingness to accept the evidence that the universe had a natural cause you are inputting a creature which necessarily cannot be tested for as the 'creator'.  Never mind that you are conflating 'cause' with 'create' or that you are incapable of imagining or understanding the overwhelming evidence that seems to conclude that the universe had a natural cause quite a part from the untestable hypothesis based solely on faith that a logically inconsistent creature created the universe.  You can keep your god, if you like, but please don't argue against naturalistic explanations and expect to sway people by suggesting an explanation that requires faith.  It's completely insulting and it makes you look like an idiot.  If you want to argue that your god created the universe, make some testable hypothesis and go out there and take the evidence available and show that your god did it.

Quote:
And for the unlimited belief system, believing in everything that could possibly exist. Granted, you must find yourself believing in the supernatural, such as God. However, I have clearly shown that science and natural processes cannot be the case. Here's my suggestion summed up. Everything physical and finite needs a cause in terms of natural processes. However, if you draw down to what caused what, you'll never arrive to an entity that is both physical and self-caused. And end up positing an infinite series of causes, which is not the case (take the domino illustration for example). Hence, there must be a starting point... agreed? However, physicists have came down to the conclusion the nothing created something, that before the big bang, nothing existed. But this clearly doesn't make sense. The only logical and coherent explanation for the universe is a being (that is, like nothing, an infinite being) that is all powerful, immaterial, spaceless, and personal, and omniscient (regarding the argument to design, not from design).
You're arguing against a position to which no one adheres.  The big bang theory does not propose that the universe came from nothing.  It does not propose an infinite series of causes (though it hasn't been shown that there couldn't be an infinite series of causes in a place before the existence of this universe with its specific laws).  It hasn't been shown that there necessarily has to be a starting point, either, since such a concept is dependant on this universe with its specific laws, which didn't exist before it existed, which is necessarily as far back as we can go in our investigation of its inception.  What you've done is construct a straw man of the big bang theory based in your ignorance in order to have something against which you can argue.  You've arbitrarily decided that some unjustified creature taken on faith must be the 'uncaused cause' and must ave the arbitrary (and logically inconsistent) attributes of being omnipotent, immaterial, spaceless (whatever that is, if it's not a redundant way of saying immaterial, which would necessarily be something that didn't take up space -if that's what spaceless means), personal and omniscient.  It's completely ridiculous that you expect anyone to believe that that somehow constitutes an explanation for the origin of the universe, especially since it necessarily requires faith, which is the exact anathema to scientific investigation.  What you're proposing has no place being put in comparison to even the straw man of the big bang that you've created.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Aw geez, you're going to get

Aw geez, you're going to get snagged this early by the word theory?  Well it was fun, thanks for playing!

GENESIS wrote:
They don't call it the Gravity Theory. These are addressed positions in which anything under the position cannot violate or defy what the position asserts, hence laws.

 

You CAN find gravitation theory.  You can study the theory of general relativity which also deals with planetary movement. (Einstein's model)  I'd provide some links, but I've learned theists don't read them anyway.

 


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Until you end

GENESIS wrote:

Until you end up having to come to the conclusion that the universe is infinite, which is clearly not that case.

 

Please justify this conclusion with some peer reviewed evidence because from everything I've ever read, this is still not a solid conclusion made by any scientist with any certainty. Not only that infinity in itself is a tricky concept, you'd have to explain a very precise contextual framework for what you mean by it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:GENESIS

stuntgibbon wrote:

GENESIS wrote:
They don't call it the Gravity Theory.
 

You CAN find gravitation theory.

 

Citing Newton as an authority on gravity is like citing Kepler as an authority on astrophysics.

But it's still (marginally) better than believing that the Laws of Physics were given to man on engraved stone tablets.

In relation to the OP, I would suggest checking out the relation between "the big bang" and M-theory.

I am personally quite fond of the idea that the BB came about because of a minor interference between 11-dimensional membranes.

I always liked better to irreverently speak of "the little fart".

Human beings are such drama queens with all their violent fantasies.

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Tomathy. You're missing

Ok, Tomathy. You're missing the point of my argument. Granted. My first and second point can be refuted, regarding the law of physics and the law of energy. However, my third point still stands. And it's this. Try to listen. Everything needs a starting point. The universe is not infinite, agreed? The universe is on a finite time scale, agreed? Hence, you ask the question where did the universe come from? The planets, the stars, the gas, the spacious space. Everything physical in this universe needs a cause. Now, here's the winner. Follow me now. Even you if you were to have infinite knowledge know what caused what, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes. Wouldn't you. Say you found out that the big bang theory stands. And then you find out that gas and atoms are what caused the big bang. Well, where did the gas and atoms come from? You say "A" caused the gas and atoms to come into existence. What about "A?" What caused "A?" "B" caused "A." What about "B?" "C" caused "B." Well, where did "C" come from? "D" is what caused "C." What about "D?" What brought that into existence? "E" brought "D" into existence. And you'll go on and on and on. Why do you think physicist came down to the suggestion that nothing was before the big bang theory. I'll tell you why. Because "nothing" is infinite. Nothing can't be brought into existence. Nothing has no beginning and has no end. Sound a lot like God, except God actually has the power to create the universe. Where on the other hand, from nothing, surely nothing comes.

Intent is prior to Content.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Ok, Tomathy.

GENESIS wrote:

Ok, Tomathy. You're missing the point of my argument. Granted. My first and second point can be refuted, regarding the law of physics and the law of energy. However, my third point still stands. And it's this. Try to listen. Everything needs a starting point. The universe is not infinite, agreed? The universe is on a finite time scale, agreed? Hence, you ask the question where did the universe come from? The planets, the stars, the gas, the spacious space. Everything physical in this universe needs a cause. Now, here's the winner. Follow me now. Even you if you were to have infinite knowledge know what caused what, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes. Wouldn't you. Say you found out that the big bang theory stands. And then you find out that gas and atoms are what caused the big bang. Well, where did the gas and atoms come from? You say "A" caused the gas and atoms to come into existence. What about "A?" What caused "A?" "B" caused "A." What about "B?" "C" caused "B." Well, where did "C" come from? "D" is what caused "C." What about "D?" What brought that into existence? "E" brought "D" into existence. And you'll go on and on and on. Why do you think physicist came down to the suggestion that nothing was before the big bang theory. I'll tell you why. Because "nothing" is infinite. Nothing can't be brought into existence. Nothing has no beginning and has no end. Sound a lot like God, except God actually has the power to create the universe. Where on the other hand, from nothing, surely nothing comes.

The short form of this - I have a gap in my understanding so I'll fill it with something I borrowed from another culture that  I like and they call "God".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Clearly you missed the

Clearly you missed the point. Read what I said again. And this time, listen.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The only thing you have

The only thing you have clearly shown is that you shouldn't give up your day job to become a deep thinker.

 

This statement is rather an ad hominem. You have yet to suggest a rebuttal for my argument. Perhaps you sir, should not give up your day job to become a deep thinker.

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
You are an embarrassment on

You are an embarrassment on the behalf of atheists. You just insult me. But when it comes to intellectual logic and cogent suggestions, I am met with silence.

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
It's called infinity.

It's called infinity.

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines it: unlimited extent time, space, and quantity.

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Why nothing rather than God?

Why nothing rather than God? First of all, the presupposition of the question already assumes that there is a God. You just bought into my worldview. And why is there a God? Good question. I honestly do not know why God exists. However, your question does not address my argument in any way.

Intent is prior to Content.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:suggest a

GENESIS wrote:
suggest a rebuttal

 

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote: Where on the

GENESIS wrote:
 Where on the other hand, from nothing, surely nothing comes.

If nothing comes from nothing, then a god cannot spawn from nothing.  Unless you're just admitting that god IS nothing. (then we'd agree)

Also, who's been insisting there's "nothing" before the big bang?  "Unknown" isn't the same as "nothing."

However... if you claim the universe just appearing from "nothing" is unlikely or even impossible, then it must even be more unlikely (or more impossible) for a being to spring out from "nothing" with the power, tools and materials to BUILD a universe.  (or that magic powers predate the universe, when there's never been a shred of evidence for magic, yet)

 

 


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Again, an embarrassment.

Again, an embarrassment.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Relax, Genesis.

GENESIS wrote:

You are an embarrassment on the behalf of atheists. You just insult me. But when it comes to intellectual logic and cogent suggestions, I am met with silence.

 

This thread is sure to have a long life. BTW, are really suggesting god can be proven using logic?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:GENESIS

stuntgibbon wrote:

GENESIS wrote:
 Where on the other hand, from nothing, surely nothing comes.

If nothing comes from nothing, then a god cannot spawn from nothing.  Unless you're just admitting that god IS nothing. (then we'd agree)

Also, who's been insisting there's "nothing" before the big bang?  "Unknown" isn't the same as "nothing."

However... if you claim the universe just appearing from "nothing" is unlikely or even impossible, then it must even be more unlikely (or more impossible) for a being to spring out from "nothing" with the power, tools and materials to BUILD a universe.  (or that magic powers predate the universe, when there's never been a shred of evidence for magic, yet)

 

 

 

It seems you are missing some points here. Did you even read my argument? I give plenty of examples of atheists and physicists suggesting that nothing was before the big bang. And for God coming from nothing is impossible. God by definition is infinite and spiritual. Only things that are finite and physical need a cause. When you say God came from nothing, you assume there was a time that God doesn't exist. So really you asking me  - "When did the being that have always existed, not exist?" You positioned your question with a false assumption of the definition of God.

Intent is prior to Content.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Again, an

GENESIS wrote:

Again, an embarrassment.

 

Then put your pants back on!


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Lol, "relax GENESIS."I'm

Lol, "relax GENESIS."

I'm sorry. But he started it. Anyways. But for the logic proving God's existence. No, God  cannot be proven with logic, neither can He be disproven. Hence, arguments logical, sound series of reasons for the substantiating of the suggestion asserted by an individual.

Intent is prior to Content.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:God by

GENESIS wrote:
God by definition is infinite and spiritual.

 

Gotcha gotcha, by that definition, you worship nonsense.   At least sun worshippers can point to something real. (not that it's listening)

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:You're missing

GENESIS wrote:

You're missing the point of my argument. Granted. My first and second point can be refuted, regarding the law of physics and the law of energy. However, my third point still stands. And it's this. Try to listen. Everything needs a starting point.

Where is the starting point for this god of yours?

Quote:

The universe is not infinite, agreed? The universe is on a finite time scale, agreed? Hence, you ask the question where did the universe come from? The planets, the stars, the gas, the spacious space. Everything physical in this universe needs a cause.

Yets somethings don't have a cause, especially on the quantum level, they have uncaused causes.

Quote:

Now, here's the winner. Follow me now. Even you if you were to have infinite knowledge know what caused what, you would end up positing an infinite series of causes. Wouldn't you. Say you found out that the big bang theory stands. And then you find out that gas and atoms are what caused the big bang. Well, where did the gas and atoms come from? You say "A" caused the gas and atoms to come into existence. What about "A?" What caused "A?" "B" caused "A." What about "B?" "C" caused "B." Well, where did "C" come from? "D" is what caused "C." What about "D?" What brought that into existence? "E" brought "D" into existence. And you'll go on and on and on. Why do you think physicist came down to the suggestion that nothing was before the big bang theory. I'll tell you why. Because "nothing" is infinite. Nothing can't be brought into existence. Nothing has no beginning and has no end. Sound a lot like God, except God actually has the power to create the universe. Where on the other hand, from nothing, surely nothing comes.

Except you said everything has a cause and a starting point, where did god start, what caused god to be made, since this univierse was created in your argument by god, what created god, if you decide to say that god was not created he always has been, this is called special pleading.

However what caused the big bang, we don't know but it is suspected that either a quantum fluxation or some other quantum event occurred, which again explained that quantum events can and do occur without any cause.

There is even another option called quantum gravity, that may be able to explain far more better the origins of the big bang..

As for Gravity Theory, here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation if you could understand the huge difference between theory and laws and facts and everything else regarding science you would not have posted what you have posted in your OP.

As for another point to address, what makes it your god the creator and not another deity from a different religion? You haven't provided the evidence that it is your god and only your god as the only possible creator. The reality the argument you have posted shows doesn't prove that your specific god created this universe. It doesn't prove that your god cares about humans, life, or anything, it doesn't provide any thing really.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:GENESIS

stuntgibbon wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Again, an embarrassment.

 

Then put your pants back on!

Again, an embarrassment. Is this really the best the atheists can do?

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:GENESIS

stuntgibbon wrote:

GENESIS wrote:
God by definition is infinite and spiritual.

 

Gotcha gotcha, by that definition, you worship nonsense.   At least sun worshippers can point to something real. (not that it's listening)

 

 

Again, an embarrassment.

Intent is prior to Content.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote: I'm sorry.

GENESIS wrote:

I'm sorry. But he started it.

 

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:stuntgibbon

GENESIS wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Again, an embarrassment.

 

Then put your pants back on!

Again, an embarrassment. Is this really the best the atheists can do?

 

How easy it must be to be a theist!  Just randomly claim everything is an embarrassment instead of having a real case for anything.  


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:Lol, "relax

GENESIS wrote:

Lol, "relax GENESIS."

I'm sorry. But he started it. Anyways. But for the logic proving God's existence. No, God  cannot be proven with logic, neither can He be disproven. Hence, arguments logical, sound series of reasons for the substantiating of the suggestion asserted by an individual.

Except that it is taken out of context, we don't know what was here before the big bang, as such it is treated as nothing really. However the singularity had an immense amount of energy, it was almost infinitely dense and of extreme temperature (energy) which was released upon the event we call the big bang (not an explosion but a release of massive amount of energy). However we simply do not know what was before the singularity, however science is trying to find out. Putting god into the equation doesn't answer anything, just opens more questions that can never be answered.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The starting point of God.

The starting point of God. God by definition is infinite, He cannot cease to exist. You're positioning your question with a false assumption. When you say who created God, you assume a time that he didn't exist, and therefor be brought into existence. So really you're asking me - "When did the being that has always existed, no exist?" Only things finite and physical need a cause. God by definition in infinite and spiritual.

Now, you ask me to prove why my God and no other. Your missing the point of the argument. If a supernatural being exists, that is spiritual and infinite, then the atheism breaks down. You are subconsciously buying into my worldview. Why my God and no other God? Why Christianity and not Hinduism? You are not remaining on topic; that's an entire different subject. You are digressing from the argument at hand.

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
I have given you an argument

I have given you an argument and you have ignored it. I was met with silence. Again, an embarrassment.

Intent is prior to Content.


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:GENESIS

latincanuck wrote:

GENESIS wrote:

Lol, "relax GENESIS."

I'm sorry. But he started it. Anyways. But for the logic proving God's existence. No, God  cannot be proven with logic, neither can He be disproven. Hence, arguments logical, sound series of reasons for the substantiating of the suggestion asserted by an individual.

Except that it is taken out of context, we don't know what was here before the big bang, as such it is treated as nothing really. However the singularity had an immense amount of energy, it was almost infinitely dense and of extreme temperature (energy) which was released upon the event we call the big bang (not an explosion but a release of massive amount of energy). However we simply do not know what was before the singularity, however science is trying to find out. Putting god into the equation doesn't answer anything, just opens more questions that can never be answered.

Clearly you have ignored my argument. Read what I wrote. Even if scientists had the answers the theory still fails, because you cannot posit an infinite series of physical, finite causes. Hence, they came to the conclusion (at least some) that nothing was before the big bang. Which is irrational.

Intent is prior to Content.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote:If a

GENESIS wrote:
If a supernatural being exists, that is spiritual and infinite, then the atheism breaks down.

 

Uh... okay.

If Bugs Bunny exists, then Elmer Fudd better watch out for them carrots!

 

You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


GENESIS
GENESIS's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:GENESIS

Marquis wrote:

GENESIS wrote:
If a supernatural being exists, that is spiritual and infinite, then the atheism breaks down.

 

Uh... okay.

If Bugs Bunny exists, then Elmer Fudd better watch out for them carrots!

 

You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

Who's "M-theory?"

Intent is prior to Content.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote: You never

Marquis wrote:
 You never commented on M-theory's interpretation of the Big Bang. Why not?

Ooh, I know this one.  Theists won't read.  Really, quite embarrassing for them. 

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
GENESIS wrote: Hence, they

GENESIS wrote:

 Hence, they came to the conclusion (at least some) that nothing was before the big bang. Which is irrational.

 

Please tell us more about these scientists (they).  Surely you can point to papers and/or studies that reached this conclusion that you speak of.