Creation and Origin

[Sum1sgruj]

The beginning.

In the beginning there was the quantum. Before the beginning, there was nothing.

'Nothing' does not exist in physics, because even space is something. 'Zero' is the correct term for being void of mass.
Vaccuua

Theoretically, we are in, and literally part of, a singularity.
If this is the case, then the universe is sentient, and we are the eyes and ears.

But what of sentience? Is there a difference between will, cause, and effect in the entirety of reality?
If we are made of the same material and are of this singularity, then the entire universe is acting in unison.

Spinova's God, the metaphorical god (nature), was a fine idea when we thought reality was static, having no beginning and infinite.
Since we know now that there was in fact a beginning, where did the universe come from?

Let's be logical- whatever created it was not a 'magic bean' or something stupid that is commonly thrown in defense. Here are some things that such a thing would need:
-It must be infinite, having no beginning (because it could not have been created from anything else)
-It must have will (as it would have no cause to produce an effect)
-It must be more complex then the reality we live in (as it must have very complex properties to be able to establish reality)

 

[coffeecup]

Well this is assuming you believe that the universe came from nothing (and I'm assuming you mean absolute nothing where there is nothing at all, no time, no matter, no energy, nothing...something that is very difficult to perceive to be honest). Actually this was the prevalent belief by many physicists a decade or so ago.

However, today there are many theoretical physicists who disagree with this idea of "nothing" before the big bang. Actually many believe that there was in fact something before the big bang, or pre-big bang so to speak. To think that something came from "nothing" is fundamentally flawed because, as you've noticed, it's ridiculous according to physics. But instead of thinking that there was a creator, I think a more reasonable conclusion would be that the underlying theory or our understanding of the universe itself is defective in some respect. That our current view is fundamentally flawed in some manner or another.

In other words, there are theories, alternative to yours, that attempt to demonstrate that something did exist prior to the big bang. Now as to what these theories are I'm not entirely sure (I'm not a theoretical physicist and never really concerned myself with this pre-big bang issue), but if you have access to any academic database (probably can't find in depth papers on Google or some public database) you'll see that these types of theories are quite abundant. But to give you some names, I do believe inflation theory is quite popular. Then there are other ones like cyclical big bangs, string theory, the colliding "brane" theory, and etc....

So to put it shortly, "Before the beginning, there was nothing" is itself a controversial statement. And I'm going to stop here and let you know that I can't really debate anything about this particular issue because I don't have the mathematical grounding in the relative field necessary to even begin an intelligent discussion. It would just be me reading the abstract of certain papers and regurgitating it back to you over the net (at best). I'm going to leave it up to the theoretical physicists to quarrel over this topic.

But one thing does remain. The idea of a "creator" being the initial spark to everything is still as unfavorable as before (well to theoretical physicists that is). Actually to believe in a "creator" would be the ultimate capitulation of the physicist in sticking in some super factor to explain away the unknown. And this is a move that many physicists are not willing to take.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

A 'maker' is the only logical explanation, ironically. You either have to accept that as explaining contradictions, or embrace contradiction by saying reality is infinite (because infinite makes everything contradictory). That is what is at the bottom of all those theories.

This is a big reason for theorists being stuck. Physics has denounced an infinite universe and is now trying to make an infinite complex work 'behind the curtains'. It ends up becoming more unlikely then that of a god, in my opinion.

 

[coffeecup]

Well I said I didn't know enough for an intelligble discussion, but I do know enough to realize that your use of the term "universe" is a bit too flexible to really understand what you're talking about (also what does "reality being infinite" even mean? This can mean quite a number of things depending on how you define "reality."). If you're using the term "universe" like the layperson, then the universe itself can be finite, yet a non-nothing pre-big bang existence isn't out of the question. Since you're familiar with the alternative theories, why don't you read them again to get a better explanation. At least that's what I got out of the (very) few that I actually read.

Why are you so stuck on there being a "creator?" Too many speculative assumptions in your initial inquiry to make this the "only logical explanation." I'm going to have to side with the physicists against you on this one.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

The universe is the only thing we know to be reality. The big bang is generally accepted, but does not go without contrary argument either.

Theoretical physics has introduced new properties of reality, stretching from parallel universes, higher dimensions, and so on in an attempt to make sense of the phenomena in ours.
In string/M-theory, the big bang is a result of a 10 dimensional singularity expanding. That is, we loop through the dimensions below while the ones above loop around us, thus making them unobservable.
For example, in the 4th spatial dimension you could see all sides of a three dimensional object at once. But down here in the lower dimension, we have to loop through the dimensions below to view all sides of the object.

Siding with physicists is like siding with failure to understand. Because that is what it will always be. Physicists are not going to bring on an idea that a divine construct made the universe, because that would be giving up. Ironically

The theories are entirely based on infinite, meaning there simply is no beginning or end.
With that being the case, the theories are already complete without anything else except that idea. Infinite explains all phenomena because it labels everything a contradiction.
It makes one wonder what the real laziness of thought is.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

The big bang is generally accepted, but does not go without contrary argument either.

That's because Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and well-supported of the theories. We can seeexplicit evidence of an expansion of the universe.

Siding with physicists is like siding with failure to understand.

Understand what, exactly?

Physicists are not going to bring on an idea that a divine construct made the universe, because that would be giving up.

It would be giving up because it's completely contrary to the way the scientific method works. The proposition of a being creating the universe would only be proposed if there was evidence for it, and there isn't any.

Infinite explains all phenomena because it labels everything a contradiction.

How is infinity a contradiction?

It makes one wonder what the real laziness of thought is.

Believing something simply because it sounds good or is a simple solution is lazy thought. One should demand an explanation and evidence to support it.

As far as your topic starter goes:

-It must be infinite, having no beginning (because it could not have been created from anything else)

Couldn't whatever created the universe have been created by something else, and that by something else, and that by something else . . .

-It must have will (as it would have no cause to produce an effect)

Why must it have will? Couldn't it just be something that simply is and reacts to the absence of everything else by creating something? This fits the idea of dark energy pretty well, actually.

-It must be more complex then the reality we live in (as it must have very complex properties to be able to establish reality)

Plenty of simply reactions spiral into things much more complex than they were. Just look at DNA - a simple creation of a chemical reaction that became the building block for things of staggering complexity.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I'm not thinking for you. You can take that however you want or try to make my lack of explanation seem like incompetence, but it won't avail you anymore then your lack of thought.

One thing I will mention, however, is that infinite does carry many paradoxes and contradictions.

An infinitely large circle would be a straight line. Theorists tried to make this rational by proposing strings. If the universe came from infinite intrigue, then there can be beginnings and ends within an infinite reality.
String theory requires many dimensions for this to work. Instead of conventional geometry of space, and even time, string theory had to make up for the lacking symmetry between the scales, the four forces, virtual particles and mass, etc. etc.- pretty much every single phenomena there is.
But then M-theory came along and unified stings theory into a system of branes and such in an even higher dimension.

Even then, there are many things wrong with the theory and most conventional physicists do not find them remarkable.
I've only found them interesting to the degree that they are thought-provoking.
But that is all they are. There is no reason to think that it bars a creator, or to even think that a creator is not the case. I personally find the frustrating brick wall of physics to be a good sign that there is in fact a creator.

So before making warped comments on 'open-mindedness', be sure to do so correctly, because the way I see it, you are the one believing something far-fetched in comparison in order to deny something you simply do not want to be true. Physicists are paid for these things, you are not.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I'm not thinking for you.

Please don't. You can barely think for yourself.

You can take that however you want or try to make my lack of explanation seem like incompetence, but it won't avail you anymore then your lack of thought.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps what you are saying may have some credibility if you simply explained it, but you won't, so it will remain pointless. Baseless claims do not an argument make.

One thing I will mention, however, is that infinite does carry many paradoxes and contradictions.

Only when you don't understand the concept of infinity (as you clearly don't). Expressing it with finite illustrations will of course result in something flawed.

An infinitely large circle would be a straight line. Theorists tried to make this rational by proposing strings.

If the universe was infinite it wouldn't have a shape as that is finite. So what does an infinite circle have to do with anything?

Even then, there are many things wrong with the theory and most conventional physicists do not find them remarkable.

String Theory is only one of many theories competing to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. We do not have something that fits the bill and is adequately supported, so no theory is going to be universally accepted until one appears to do so.

There is no reason to think that it bars a creator, or to even think that a creator is not the case.

As I've said before, the definition of a deity is malleable. The specter of god will always exist in the margins because you can claim it is imperceptible even if we know everything observable in this universe. And if it is beyond our perception in every shape and form, then what use is it?

I personally find the frustrating brick wall of physics to be a good sign that there is in fact a creator.

I would have an easier time expressing the concept of infinity than expressing how stupid the statement you just made is. You are saying that because we don't understand something yet then supernatural forces must be at work. That is simply the modern-day version of saying lightning comes from Zeus.

you are the one believing something far-fetched in comparison in order to deny something you simply do not want to be true.

ಠ_ಠ
I don't know where you're conjuring all of this shit from.The only thing I've stated about my beliefs is that I don't believe in a higher power.

I will change this belief whenever someone presents actual evidence.

 

[Doc Holliday]

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'

You're making an extraordinary claim Sum1sgruj yet you give no real quantifiable evidence to back up what you're saying, you seem so dead set on your idea of a creator that you seem unwilling to consider any other explanations.
Enjoy your God of the gaps.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Please don't. You can barely think for yourself.

From the start, you have just been typically infuriating with brash, close-minded comments, so please don't betray yourself with the idea that you are thinking period.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps what you are saying may have some credibility if you simply explained it, but you won't, so it will remain pointless. Baseless claims do not an argument make.

Whatever, you thinking you are some kind of authority is why I laugh at these comments. I could care less what you believe, because what you believe is, to be honest, kind of stupid in my eyes.
I am not going to hand-feed everything to you.
My claims are not baseless, but you will continue to say so just so you can continue to straw man and be intentionally ignorant. I haven't even gotten to the deeper aspects of it lmao. You would probably pull out a library of philosophy to prove how the sky is not blue if I said it was, or try to refute that reality is infinite by saying the universe isn't, therefore strawmanning and hurting your own logic simultaneously. Oh wait, you already did that

Only when you don't understand the concept of infinity (as you clearly don't). Expressing it with finite illustrations will of course result in something flawed.

I clearly understand it, and you clearly don't. Here we go with this again. Grow up, please.

If the universe was infinite it wouldn't have a shape as that is finite. So what does an infinite circle have to do with anything?

If you cannot grasp the concept, please do not tell me how I am wrong. Don't make a fool of yourself.

String Theory is only one of many theories competing to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. We do not have something that fits the bill and is adequately supported, so no theory is going to be universally accepted until one appears to do so.

They all deal with infinite, they have to. They all also require a starting object or force for anything to be created.

As I've said before, the definition of a deity is malleable. The specter of god will always exist in the margins because you can claim it is imperceptible even if we know everything observable in this universe. And if it is beyond our perception in every shape and form, then what use is it?

Who said it had to have use?

I would have an easier time expressing the concept of infinity than expressing how stupid the statement you just made is. You are saying that because we don't understand something yet then supernatural forces must be at work. That is simply the modern-day version of saying lightning comes from Zeus.

I don't know where you're conjuring all of this shit from.The only thing I've stated about my beliefs is that I don't believe in a higher power.

I will change this belief whenever someone presents actual evidence.

There can be no evidence like the kind you want. you're looking for the 'fingerprints on the gun' type of evidence. There is a mountain of indirect evidence that points directly at a 'maker'.

Enjoy your God of the gaps.

Enjoy never knowing where reality came from. It's surely a sad day on Earth to know that people think even in a trillion years science is going to conjure up how reality began. It's kind of the ultimate irony of human logic.
I haven't even got around to explaining the deep rationale involved, so this really just shows the close-mindedness and stubborn ignorance of atheistic ideals.

 

[der Astronom]

Whatever, you thinking you are some kind of authority is why I laugh at these comments. I could care less what you believe, because what you believe is, to be honest, kind of stupid in my eyes.

Look, you are not obligated to provide a good counterargument for every rebuttal we post, and every fallacy we find and point out. You're not even required to post here. It's all up to you. However, pointing out that you made a fallacy does not mean we are policemen trying to arrest you for your thoughts or anything; it just means we aren't convinced that your arguments are valid because you aren't willing to explain them. And if you aren't, then please try not to muddy the waters by adding more ridiculous statements that don't help your argument, or slipping in fallacies hoping we won't notice, because as far as I can tell, for the entire time we've been debating you, you haven't managed to explain any of your arguments properly, and everytime you try to do it with a fallacy, you never fool us.

If you aren't willing to explain anything without resorting to fallacies and bad arguments, just please say so. I won't think any less of you for being honest.

I am not going to hand-feed everything to you.

It is your responsibility to back up your arguments, not ours. You can't make an argument and hope we'll understand your justification for it; you might as well prove a math theorem without doing anything at all. That would be intellectual laziness, and if that's all debating amounted to, then it would just degrade into a screaming contest, and it wouldn't be worth talking about.

My claims are not baseless, but you will continue to say so just so you can continue to straw man and be intentionally ignorant. I haven't even gotten to the deeper aspects of it lmao.

And there's no point in getting there if the basis of what you have already presented already has problems. You can't go from A to B to C if you already have problems at A.

You would probably pull out a library of philosophy to prove how the sky is not blue if I said it was, or try to refute that reality is infinite by saying the universe isn't, therefore strawmanning and hurting your own logic simultaneously. Oh wait, you already did that

So, you assume that we disagree with everything you say just because. Thanks a lot for strawmanning yourself.

I clearly understand it, and you clearly don't. Here we go with this again. Grow up, please.

You understand your concept of infinity, not the standard definition that is used by everyone else and understood in this debate, which by the way, was started off in a thread elsewhere. If your definition of infinity differs significantly from the standard definition of infinity, then you will have to state it, and state that you are using it. And if you're not sure, just post it anyways. A simple word like "good" might seem simple and easy to define, but it can have multiple connotations, implications and contexts, which is why even those words need to be properly defined in a debate concerning them.

If you cannot grasp the concept, please do not tell me how I am wrong. Don't make a fool of yourself.

The only thing we don't grasp is your version of all of this. And it's quite simply because you're not willing to explain it. In fact, you've just spent your entire post up until this point complaining about how unfair we're being, when in fact you're the one trying (intentionally or not) to confuse us.

They all deal with infinite, they have to. They all also require a starting object or force for anything to be created.

And even if that were true, they still don't have to be the exact same theories, or lead to the notion of a sentient creator.

Who said it had to have use?

If a god were a deist god, or a metaphorical god, then that god has no influence over us, save for wild imagination. If you managed to prove that a deist god existed (and a metaphorical god is not falsifiable, so that's completely out of the question if we are to approach this rationally), then so what? It has no bearing on my atheism, or my morality, and it shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on anyone else's morality anyways, or even on science, since that god cannot have any effect on the real world. If a deist god existed, he might as well not exist at all.

There can be no evidence like the kind you want. you're looking for the 'fingerprints on the gun' type of evidence. There is a mountain of indirect evidence that points directly at a 'maker'.

Which is apparently, I don't know, therefore, I'm going to fill in the gaps with stuff I like to believe is true, but don't know about anyways. I'm sorry, but supernatural events aren't evidence of anything, fallacies aren't evidence of anything, arguments you're not willing to explain aren't evidence of anything, and what we're asking for isn't all that unreasonable; it's observable and testable under conventional standards in science, and it's falsifiable. And to say that this kind of evidence doesn't exist when in fact science operates on the exact same kind of evidence (which does exist) is not only ignorance, but you've just once again demonstrated that you're close-minded about the possibility of there being evidence we haven't found yet.

As I probably said some time ago, unless you can logically prove that we can't ever scientifically obtain evidence to find out where the universe came from, you have no argument.

Enjoy never knowing where reality came from. It's surely a sad day on Earth to know that people think even in a trillion years science is going to conjure up how reality began. It's kind of the ultimate irony of human logic.
I haven't even got around to explaining the deep rationale involved, so this really just shows the close-mindedness and stubborn ignorance of atheistic ideals.

Last I checked, filling in gaps with bullshit doesn't necessarily get us any closer to reality. And I don't care if you think this bullshit is falsifiable, or if it makes sense to you; if you can't explain why it works to anyone, and why it's necessarily true in accordance with scientific standards, then it's not going to get us closer to reality. And presuming to know what we're going to do with science in a trillion years is...well, it's presumptuous at best, it's not even an argument, and you're not helping the rest of your arguments anyways. And if we never find out, then we're all just as ignorant. You're not any less ignorant for pretending you know what happened by filling in gaps with supernatural stuff that can't be verified.

And again, I ask. What's the point of your deep rationale if you've already made a fallacy at the start? We don't need to hear your "deep rationale" if it depends on what you've already given us. What you've already given us is already quite flawed, and like a stack of dominoes, your deep rationale will fail.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

you thinking you are some kind of authority

I never claimed I was an authority on anything.

My claims are not baseless

They appear to be. Explain them and they won't be.

strawmanning

If you cannot grasp the concept, please do not tell me how I am wrong. Don't make a fool of yourself.

Yes, as a circle approaches infinity its arc approaches that of a straight line. But I don't see how that's relevant to the shape of the universe, as I have never seen anyone suggest that the universe is a circle.

There is a mountain of indirect evidence that points directly at a 'maker'.

I'm kind of curious here... What indirect evidence do you think there is? Maybe I'll change my mind.

I haven't even got around to explaining the deep rationale involved

Then explain your 'deep' rationale. Please.

so this really just shows the close-mindedness and stubborn ignorance of atheistic ideals.

You shouldn't lump people together based on a label and the actions of one person. I wouldn't do any theists the disservice of grouping you with them, so don't do the same with others.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I can generalize however I want, however that was not my aim. I have never met an atheist who doesn't get defensive at the slightest use of the word 'god', and I am not going to word smith every sentence in lieu of atheists being offended (which is ironic because atheists often have something to say about theism all the time.)

I am being jumped once again, which is as hilarious as it is prophetic, as I already knew this would be the case. Want hard proof? Tough. Nature doesn't allow it.

Cause, effect, will.

The entirety of reality moves in unison, and since we are part of it, there are only two options, both of which are interchangeable either way you look at them:
One, reality is sentient, and we are the eyes and ears.
Or two, nothing is sentient, and we are products of cause and effect.

The universe is not infinite, and therefore reality is not infinite. If it was, this reality would have already come and gone. We are here and not here. Nothing would be true, and yet nothing would be false.
Infinite is the ultimate contradiction.

The reason I brought up an infinitely large circle being a straight line is because in string theory, everything is reduced to single-dimensional strings. With this, reality conveniently makes sense in an infinite reality.
There can be endpoints and finite measurement when replacing quarks with strings and adding extra dimensions.
But the theory simply just doesn't work the way they want it to, even with M-theory unifying vast concepts and adding yet another dimension.

Anyways, cause/effect/will.

Will produces a cause, cause produces an effect.
Or, cause produces a cause, cause produces a cause.

See, the initial will is such because it must act on it's own accord. It produces an effect. The effect becomes a cause when it produces another effect, and then that effect becomes a cause and so on and so on.
At any given point in time after the cause, the object is moving until it becomes a cause and produces an effect. If it had will, it could deny it's determinable cause.

It really brings new meaning how we think of 'sentience'.

So, a creator must be infinite, having not been created by anything else. It must have will, being able to act on it's own accord, and it must be more complex then reality.

Why it must be more complex:

Nothing makes something more complex then itself. Billions of years of cause and effect, complex movements and drift is what allegedly made life, and so DNA is like a 20-piece jigsaw in comparison.


One more note: Infinite is infinite. I have no idea what the hell standard definition you go by, but just to clarify it:
Infinite backwards, infinite forwards. You can figure out the rest.

 

[Will Graham]

While I don't want to debate with someone who used the phrase 'Want hard proof? Tough. Nature doesn't allow it.', I'll furnish you with my personal opinions on creation and origin.

Personally I'm a man of science(or at the very least I'd like to think of myself as one) not religion, though I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I am confident that science will discover the origin of the universe considering the things that it has proven so far. Many things that were thought to be acts of a god, or the supernatural have been explained.

Our knowledge of the universe is constantly expanding, even compared to ten or twenty years ago, we know much more now. We used to think nothing was smaller than an atom, or that the earth was flat, nowadays we can not only observe things in our solar system, but ones galaxies away. Just because God has not been disproved does not count as proof of existence, I'll leave my thoughts on a 'creator' up to Mr. Russell,

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

 

[CassinoChips]

Let's not start the finger pointing game again. Either debate the information (or lack thereof) civilly, without resorting to name calling and becoming overly defensive, or get out of the sandbox.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

While I don't want to debate with someone who used the phrase 'Want hard proof? Tough. Nature doesn't allow it.', I'll furnish you with my personal opinions on creation and origin.

Personally I'm a man of science(or at the very least I'd like to think of myself as one) not religion, though I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I am confident that science will discover the origin of the universe considering the things that it has proven so far. Many things that were thought to be acts of a god, or the supernatural have been explained.

Our knowledge of the universe is constantly expanding, even compared to ten or twenty years ago, we know much more now. We used to think nothing was smaller than an atom, or that the earth was flat, nowadays we can not only observe things in our solar system, but ones galaxies away. Just because God has not been disproved does not count as proof of existence, I'll leave my thoughts on a 'creator' up to Mr. Russell,

But you see, none of that is neither here nor there. You can have all the knowledge of the universe, but you cannot know where it came from. Like I said, nature simply does not allow it.
String theory is barely, if even, a scientific theory and even with that extreme amount of leeway, it still has problems. This can go for most any idea of theoretical physics as well.

One can even use your imagination to conjure up a dreamy depiction of reality beginning. Hell, make your own rules, and it will still fail under it's own pretenses.
you know what it is? A denial complex. I could sit back and watch everyone on here talk about how my logic is false or can't be proven, but there is literally nothing you or any could say in contrary that is more competent.

The irony of it is that I never said that this being has to have anything to do with us, or that it even knows we are here. I just laid out the base properties a thing would need to be the maker of reality.
But hey, let's just put our faith in the only other alternative which is infinite, and therefore more illogical then the latter
So much so that it makes one wonder how others who think such should even use the word logic. A maker fits very well in relevance, and logically so.

 

[coffeecup]

Oh I see...I thought this would be a scientific discussion about the creation and origin of the universe. Guess I misread the intention of the OP a bit, no need for complex mathematics or physics regarding his actual argument.

So OP is really just supporting a species of the first cause cosmological argument. More philosophical than scientific...especially when you introduce a notion of a "creator" which isn't based on much more than speculation.

Anyhow, this kind of argument has been around for quite a while. No need to delve into a discussion about the defects of it when they've already been talked about to death (this you could probably just Google). OP could have just said "first cause cosmological argument" or something. No need to try to make a simple idea appear complex.

 

[der Astronom]

Oh I see...I thought this would be a scientific discussion about the creation and origin of the universe. Guess I misread the intention of the OP a bit, no need for complex mathematics or physics regarding his actual argument.

So OP is really just supporting a species of the first cause cosmological argument. More philosophical than scientific...especially when you introduce a notion of a "creator" which isn't based on much more than speculation.

Anyhow, this kind of argument has been around for quite a while. No need to delve into a discussion about the defects of it when they've already been talked about to death (this you could probably just Google). OP could have just said "first cause cosmological argument" or something. No need to try to make a simple idea appear complex.

There's probably a good reason why it's necessary for them to do that. Anyone who is ignorant of the cosmological argument will not recognize it, and they're hoping to sucker in people who don't know it or why it fails. And maybe people who do know it, but can't recognize it if it's in disguise.

Now I have no idea if this thread was created to fool people, or because the poster was being sincere, but that's a possibility, and I don't want people being fooled over it regardless. I'm happy some of you aren't.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

And so like I said, you can't say anything in contrary to the statement.
It's the idea of hard evidence that makes the human scientific mind appear as stubborn and ignorant as it is. Don't make a fool out of yourselves trying to talk shit about me just because you have literally hit a a wall

Trying to give it a name and call it philosophy rather then science as if science is more credible and can actually answer such an idea. If you want a scientific discussion, here it is:

The universe came from nothing.

Voila! There you have it. Now grow up and have a discussion instead of talking shit, and maybe I will fell it necessary to continue posting. I'm sure a certain mod will magically com here with that biased tip of his spear and talk about not getting 'defensive' or what not even though you few have been much more so and started it to begin with. As usual.

Just calling it as I see it. I'm not wasting my time dealing with,. whatever you call it on these sections. Five on one mashing? No. lmao
Especially when it's based on *blank blank blankety blank*

 

[coffeecup]

From a scientific point of view "the universe came from nothing" is a controversial statement itself. "Nothing" can mean quite a number of different things depending on how you define the concept. Like I said before, you're probably refering to "absolute nothing" where nothing exists (including no time, no energy, no etc...). If this is true, then how you can adamntly say that the "universe came from nothing" is a bit beyond me...epecially if you took to the time to understand the alternative theories that are available.


As for philosophical vs scientific, you've got to realize that the "first cause" argument is more philosophical (if you want to label something) than scientific purley by reason of the argumentative style employed. Its use logos is wholly dependent on certain premises that you've put in place which have little scientific basis. And along with these numbered premises, there are many underlying assumptions within these premises which are just as questionable. This provides justifiable angles of attack against this argument...and it has been criticized heavily at this point. There is actually very little science involved at all in your argument, there is a reason why the "first cause" argument is dismissed by most scientists. And it's not because they are ignorant or arrogant (which you seem to believe). It's a highly speculative theory.


But to give a "first cause" type of argument and not expect severe criticism isn't really reasonable. It's not a favorable argument with those who are actually concerned about this issue. So the attacks here aren't really against you personally (well maybe a bit, but it's the internet :/), just the nature of the argument that you support. No need to get so riled up, but it would've been nice if you'd mentioned "first cause" at least to allow people to go online to research the issue themselves.