Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, well what I meant was that your comment seemed to be saying I was out of my league, either by responding to Harry Diogenes or by offering an objection to what Transponder said, and that if so I think that's just posturing on your part until someone corrects me
Yes, well what I meant was that your comment seemed to be saying I was out of my league, either by responding to Harry Diogenes or by offering an objection to what Transponder said, and that if so I think that's just posturing on your part until someone corrects me
Ok. You are, of course, entitled to think what you wish.
That atheists ask for evidence of god, yet there is a long list of things they believe for which no evidence exist. Like I said the big bang, by definition, is based on the belief that law and matter originated out of nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
-On the other side you have a series of theories which are supposed to prove that the universe was created out ofnothing; known as the big bang.
Quote:
You don't see the irony? God created the universe is considered myth, but the universe created out of nothing is considered scientific fact.
No. It is not considered 'scientific fact'. It is only you theist that claim that things come from nothing (Cue the Genesis story of creation) There is a mass of verifiable evidence that the universe that we can observe was created by some kind of explosion which we call the 'Big Bang' but science does not say that there was 'nothing' there before; that there were no components there before that may have caused it...and nor do atheists say that. We have no idea of what was going on before BB. It is possible that there was another 'universe' there before this one, that in fact, the universe has ALWAYS existed in some form or other. So before you start claiming that science or indeed atheists say that the universe was created from nothing, go and read the creation story in Genesis and you will find that the only people that have EVER claimed that the universe was created from NOTHING are gathered in your camp.
It is only you theist that claim that things come from nothing (Cue the Genesis story of creation) There is a mass of verifiable evidence that the universe that we can observe was created by some kind of explosion which we call the 'Big Bang' but science does not say that there was 'nothing' there before; that there were no components there before that may have caused it...
That's not entirely true. From the traditional Big Bang model to the post-BGV nucleated closed universe model, physicists have meant that contiguous spacetime had a beginning. As Barrow and Tipler (each of them eminent cosmologists as well as physicists) emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 442.
Stephen Hawking agreed in a lecture available online: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”
Vilenkin (2015) “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”
And yes, Vilenkin means all of contiguous spacetime. From his article, "A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time." He even throws in the question "What causes the universe to pop out of nothing?" to make it explicit that we're talking about creation ex nihilo.
No. It is not considered 'scientific fact'. It is only you theist that claim that things come from nothing (Cue the Genesis story of creation) There is a mass of verifiable evidence that the universe that we can observe was created by some kind of explosion which we call the 'Big Bang' but science does not say that there was 'nothing' there before; that there were no components there before that may have caused it...and nor do atheists say that. We have no idea of what was going on before BB. It is possible that there was another 'universe' there before this one, that in fact, the universe has ALWAYS existed in some form or other. So before you start claiming that science or indeed atheists say that the universe was created from nothing, go and read the creation story in Genesis and you will find that the only people that have EVER claimed that the universe was created from NOTHING are gathered in your camp.
How disingenuous! 'The universe began from a big explosion that originated who knows how.' This is where my discussion ends. As Vic just showed scientists do believe law and matter was created out of nothing in the so called big bang. As for my camp, I don't know who you're talking about. I don't go to Church and I don't interpret the Bible literally. You shouldn't even be mentioning Genesis as you have no idea what the author was referring to and for what purpose.
How disingenuous! 'The universe began from a big explosion that originated who knows how.' This is where my discussion ends. As Vic just showed scientists do believe law and matter was created out of nothing in the so called big bang.
Yes. Now, that's not to say we have proven the universe had a beginning with certainty. But then, science isn't about proving things with certainty. These things are always provisional; we could in theory uncover evidence of a past-eternal universe tomorrow, and we'd have to be willing to acknowledge it and even change our minds should the evidence be so compelling. But as of now, the evidence (some are saying all of the evidence) points to a beginning of space and time, if not in the Big Bang then sometime before it.
The arguments you present relate to "our" universe, the only one we're are familiar with. That does not preclude the existence of something more.You used a statement mentioning a 'single point'. Even a single point is not 'nothing'.
The arguments you present relate to "our" universe, the only one we're are familiar with. That does not preclude the existence of something more.You used a statement mentioning a 'single point'. Even a single point is not 'nothing'.
I take it (in light of the last two sentences) this wasn't directed at me. But I do want to clarify that no one's saying the science suggests there's nothing more than our universe. There could be "disconnected spaces of other closed universes" as Alexander Vilenkin put it in the article I quoted from. Nevermind that there's no evidence for such a thing. But even assuming they existed they wouldn't be part of this contiguous spacetime, which plenty of physicists (including Vilenkin) argue probably had a beginning. And when these physicists say that there was literally nothing before it, that's specifically referring to material causation. Creation ex nihilo. IOW, no physical reality to create "our" universe. No space for it to exist in.
Maybe somebody would say that. For most people that lived 2000 years ago if somebody told them stories about airplanes and smartphones, they will call them 'myths' in the same sense the word is used today. Myth for people thousands of years ago was reality. You have as much right to say they are untrue as, they have to say that airplanes and smartphones cannot exist.
And I do believe in the resurrection, but not as churches explain it, which is probably the only version you have heard.
This is ok so far.
In fact, I think you are getting yourself stuck in the "lower tier" stuff.
do you want to look at why i say the resurrection didn't happen and compare that to why you say it did?
I ask because you have said some things things that do not represent how most atheist think. yes, we have some atheist that are not in this discussion to figure out what the best explanations are. But that isn't most of us. Just like we atheist feel that some theist are not out to discuss the best storyline.
The Big bang and evolution are classic examples of people that just do not understand how to form a belief. evolution and the big bang do not prove or disprove "god". they are only are best guess of "how "it" was done. They tell us ...If your god is real he did "it" through the Big Bang.
do you understand that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
