If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

[Suspicious_Mind]

Yeah, because sarcasm is a great way of signifying you are part of the more intelligent, respectful group.

And besides, contrary to what your ego might believe, I didn’t make up this argument as I went along. I’ve been thinking about how the need for a beginning of the universe necessitates a creator and, after some thought, realized the answer was right under my nose, in the proposition I read almost every time I’m on this forum! “Only Nothing can come from Nothing”.

Unfortunately I haven’t been here in a number of weeks, and would like to have answered you several pages earlier.

Sarcasm is often merited especially when someone comes along and believes to have the solution to a question plaguing thousands of people for millenia, and this person claims to have done it in a few paragraphs. I’m sorry that went well beyond your head.

Well, nothing comes from nothing, aside from being common logic, is proved by mathematics; in a positive-exclusive system (as our universe is) you cannot get anything from zero without adding something to it (something + nothing). But aside from that, I think it is simply the burden of the skeptic to demonstrate that something can come out of true nothingness.

This is rubbish, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re muddling up definitions, and these kinds of statements are what will make people stop wasting their time arguing with you in seriousness and start using sarcasm.

Mathematics does not prove “nothing comes from nothing”, in fact, “zero” has a value, and is not the same thing as the philosophical idea of “nothing”

Consider the number 107, if zero was “nothing”, then 107 would be equal to 17. In mathematics, zero does not equal nothing. You get another value from adding another non-zero number to zero.

The idea of adding something to nothing, in the philosophical sense is not something that is covered by mathematics, and you would do well to avoid an are of discussion which you clearly have no understanding of, it’s all well to try your best to present a cogent argument, but charading around trying to bluff your way through a discussion will lead to your downfall as it just has.

Please excuse me if I continue to respond sarcastically to you and not take you seriously, OK?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

You brought up the Big Bounce. That is the biggest ‘if’ scenario constructed by the wildest imaginations I can imagine. That goes against all that we know about the universe and postulates we are just part of some eternal oscillation.

The Big Bounce maybe a wild scenario for you, but for the last few years and in more recent times, it’s considered more and more probable by theoretical physicists to the point that it’s being validated by mathematical reasoning.

Just because it’s a wild theory for you has no bearing on the scientific consensus around it, just like it wouldn’t matter if you still subscribed to a heliocentric view and every other theory was wild.

Any discussion of the universe at the initial point is based on imagination and speculation because none of us was there. I wasn’t and you weren’t. The idea that mathematical models can tell us exactly what occurred is incredible. Assuming that they can there is absolutely no way to truly verify that they say happened did in fact happen. Let me be more clear I laugh at scientists, who reject religion, on pop TV shows talking about what happened in the early universe. The pride that drives such beliefs is incredible. I dont mind discussing the ideas but the notion that they can reject religion when they are talking about something they believe was 13 billion years ago and involves and explains all that is is sad.

Perhaps your rant would be justified if I claimed that the ideas I brought up were the only possibly scenario and nothing else is possible, I don’t see where all this talk of “pride” is coming up besides you having misinterpreted my tone.

Discussion of the universe at the initial point maybe imagination to an extent, but once people start to quantify their analysis with a scientific backing it starts having merit, like I said before, just because you don’t engage the idea or have any reason to believe it still has no bearing on whether it’s true or not. I’m not too sure what these scientists you see on pop T.V shows have to do with what I said. Maybe if you took the time to stop constructing your own wild irrelevant scenarios of what you saw on T.V and started doing a web-search for the progressive scientific ideas, it would do more justice than arguing with me after misinterpreting my statements.

You can’t seem to stick to one point either, I don’t think anyone is trying to dismiss religion based on any of that, in fact, I don’t think religion is even the correct word for what you’re trying to imply. You’ve jumped across 3 unrelated points giving a sob story of some inner hatred you have for scientists on pop T.V shows (which I must say I don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about, because I haven’t seen it)

If time is eternal than it exists uncaused.

Ok?

The point is if time is eternal in the Big Bounce then there are an actual infinite number of seconds in the past.

Look, without you conjecturing over misinterpretations of what I’ve said, or even quite possibly any inaccurate statements I’ve made over current and progressing scientific theories, why not go engage with the actual theory presented by experts, O.K? If anything, accuse me of misrepresenting the actual theory.

I don’t think anyone actually cares for whether you find a theory absurd or not, special relativity was also a rather absurd theory when it was first presented.

You are stubbornly refusing to understand the difference in causally prior and time. It might be that no one advocating that has sufficiently explained that. I could do what would be a rather poor job of covering the topic, but again there are great resources available that explain the thinking. William Lane Craig does a great job explaining this issue. If you are truly interested I suggest going to his website and investigating. He has both Questions and Answers and podcasts that deal with this issue. Even if you come away not believing in anything prior to the physical universe you’ll understand how philosophers think about something existing prior to time itself.

Yes, great idea:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American Evangelical Christian apologist in the evidentialist tradition.

What a completely unbiased and neutral way to go about accepting your philosophical ideas

I think you might want to modify your statements to imply how some philosophers understand the notion of time, let’s not make a grand general sweeping statement and make it seem like every philosopher holds the same opinion as you do. I’m well aware of this conundrum of “causally prior” in relation to physical creation of time, and I’m sure you’re also aware that William Craig is not the first to address the idea, nor the last, and as such I don’t really need to look into his meandering on the topic.

I could likewise suggest you’re being stubborn for wasting your time with this idea of the Big Bounce on here without looking it up. It’s funny that you were grandly expressing your skepticism for scientists but then have the audacity to link me to some author who is a preacher for a line of Christianity well noted for new-age twisting and shouting hokey-pokey. Let’s not forget the seeming contradiction for claiming that it’s ridiculous to try and imagine and develop a scientific idea for what happened 13 billion years ago, but it’s perfectly OK to philosophize it and subscribe to an ideal which can never be formally validated by empirical evidence, but only by a logical deduction which someone would first have to agree to the premises to accept the conclusion.

Great double standard.

 

[You]

The Big Bounce maybe a wild scenario for you, but for the last few years and in more recent times, it’s considered more and more probable by theoretical physicists to the point that it’s being validated by mathematical reasoning.

.

Hi, I thought science says that the Universes’ Galaxies have expanded too far apart already for their individual gravity fields to be strong enough to pull them back, neither is their gravitational fields strong enough to slow down their rate of acceleration from each other. (if fact science says the galaxies expansion away from each other is exponentially accelerating).
So if their gravity fields are too weak already; and they are still accelerating at a rate which is exponential; what force of attraction pulls them back together in the Big Bounce Theory?
And why would it bounce anyway? Energy is neither created nor destroyed but in the big bounce all of the energy of the universe must be ‘created’ in the Big Bang and then all of the energy must be returned to an ‘uncreated’ state, and then ‘created’ again. I feel that to collapse and expand so much energy must require a new type of force, a reality, outside of this reality which can compress all the energy of the universe - but then again once the energy compresses it must expand again, so this ‘new force’ would need to go away temporarily to let the universe expand again in another Big Bang. It sounds like it needs to be an intelligent force to switch itself on and off like that.
Of course there may be no other force outside this reality to act on it at some future point to compress all the energy of the universe back together, in which case, without this other force our universe will probably just keep on expanding forever - at an exponential rate.

 

[Pieman333272]

Sarcasm is often merited especially when someone comes along and believes to have the solution to a question plaguing thousands of people for millenia, and this person claims to have done it in a few paragraphs. I’m sorry that went well beyond your head.

It didn’t go “well above my head”. I understand sarcasm. IN MY OPINION, it made you look like a jerk. That’s all. Just my opinion. It’s not a measure of intelligence how you treat sarcasm.

This is rubbish, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re muddling up definitions, and these kinds of statements are what will make people stop wasting their time arguing with you in seriousness and start using sarcasm.

How about instead of just attacking me ad homenim you just cut to the chase? I’m fine with insults when they’re surrounded by rational argumentation but just putting down a paragraph of personal attacks doesn’t help us get anywhere. I am welcome to criticism, I just haven’t seen any good criticism.

Mathematics does not prove “nothing comes from nothing”, in fact, “zero” has a value, and is not the same thing as the philosophical idea of “nothing”

Consider the number 107, if zero was “nothing”, then 107 would be equal to 17. In mathematics, zero does not equal nothing. You get another value from adding another non-zero number to zero.

I was referring to the VALUE zero. Not the digit. As in, one less than one. The “zero” in 107 means there aren’t any numbers in the tens place, not that “nothing” is between them. Perhaps I am not phrasing my thoughts correctly, but I can see how this all works. If you don’t understand (or get it wrong again) I’ll try again.

The idea of adding something to nothing, in the philosophical sense is not something that is covered by mathematics, and you would do well to avoid an are of discussion which you clearly have no understanding of, it’s all well to try your best to present a cogent argument, but charading around trying to bluff your way through a discussion will lead to your downfall as it just has.

I admit I’m not well-versed in mathematics, but I was at absence of any other ways of illustrating it. I also mentioned regardless of my allegory the burden of proof is on the one asserting something can come from nothing (which is NOT a cop-out but just common sense), which you just ignored. You also ignored my definition of universe, which I pulled right from big-name astronomers (some of them atheists), as well as my defense of the universe having a beginning, so not ALL my definitions are moot. Heck, based on your post, at worst, only one is.

Please excuse me if I continue to respond sarcastically to you and not take you seriously, OK?

I’m fine if you don’t take me seriously, but for goodness sake quit being a jerk. At least TRY to actually use rational argument when you critique my arguments.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

How about instead of just attacking me ad homenim you just cut to the chase? I’m fine with insults when they’re surrounded by rational argumentation but just putting down a paragraph of personal attacks doesn’t help us get anywhere. I am welcome to criticism, I just haven’t seen any good criticism.

Firstly, it wasn’t an ad-hominem as you assert it was. Secondly, I did cut to the chase and explained it, which you responded to eventually as well.

I was referring to the VALUE zero. Not the digit. As in, one less than one. The “zero” in 107 means there aren’t any numbers in the tens place, not that “nothing” is between them. Perhaps I am not phrasing my thoughts correctly, but I can see how this all works. If you don’t understand (or get it wrong again) I’ll try again.

You are phrasing things just fine, you just don’t get the concept of what you’re actually alluding to.

The value of zero is actually represented by the digit ‘0’. So if you’re referring to the value zero, that is what the digit ‘0’ represents. One less than one (1 -1) equals zero, the value. That however does not mean “nothing”, 1 minus 1 is not nothing! If you picture the number line, you have negative numbers too. So does this mean that -5 is nothing minus 5?

I know that 107 doesn’t mean “nothing” is between them, that’s what I actually stated to you!

Sure, if you believe that I’m not understanding your point go ahead and explain it further, but I’m pretty sure from what you’ve said thus far that you’ve got two different concepts mixed up. The value of zero does not mean it’s nothing.

I admit I’m not well-versed in mathematics, but I was at absence of any other ways of illustrating it. I also mentioned regardless of my allegory the burden of proof is on the one asserting something can come from nothing (which is NOT a cop-out but just common sense), which you just ignored.

I ignored it because I did not state that something can come from nothing, if something I said has implied it somehow without me knowing it, then I can grant that, but I did not state such a thing so explicitly as you make it to be, and hence cannot even remember it. So I’m afraid you’re not going to get any proof from me about something coming from nothing, because I don’t believe in that either, or at least not so casually as you have stated it.

You also ignored my definition of universe, which I pulled right from big-name astronomers (some of them atheists), as well as my defense of the universe having a beginning, so not ALL my definitions are moot. Heck, based on your post, at worst, only one is.

What is this, looking for brownie points? Me ignoring a point of yours doesn’t mean I disagree with it, I largely ignored it because I didn’t find any point of contention with it, and I was largely interested in your earlier statements. I’m not too sure why you’re pulling out the atheist card here either.

I’m fine if you don’t take me seriously, but for goodness sake quit being a jerk. At least TRY to actually use rational argument when you critique my arguments.

Sure, show me which of my arguments haven’t been rational, and why they haven’t been rational according to you.

Me being a jerk has no bearing on the rationality of my arguments, don’t mistake the two things. Not that I intended on being a jerk, was I a bit sarcastic, yes.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Hi, I thought science says that the Universes’ Galaxies have expanded too far apart already for their individual gravity fields to be strong enough to pull them back, neither is their gravitational fields strong enough to slow down their rate of acceleration from each other. (if fact science says the galaxies expansion away from each other is exponentially accelerating).
So if their gravity fields are too weak already; and they are still accelerating at a rate which is exponential; what force of attraction pulls them back together in the Big Bounce Theory?

Good question, I think your best bet to have that answered is to look it up

And why would it bounce anyway?

The bounce is in relation to it contracting back to a point of singularity (or nearly) and then exploding again, I guess they mean the cyclical nature of it.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed but in the big bounce all of the energy of the universe must be ‘created’ in the Big Bang and then all of the energy must be returned to an ‘uncreated’ state, and then ‘created’ again. I feel that to collapse and expand so much energy must require a new type of force, a reality, outside of this reality which can compress all the energy of the universe - but then again once the energy compresses it must expand again, so this ‘new force’ would need to go away temporarily to let the universe expand again in another Big Bang. It sounds like it needs to be an intelligent force to switch itself on and off like that.

You make some valid points and I certainly do not have the answer to it, but it’s something I didn’t consider and I presume such an answer would be given in the model for the Big Bounce because it seems like one of the basic concepts that should be explained.

Of course there may be no other force outside this reality to act on it at some future point to compress all the energy of the universe back together, in which case, without this other force our universe will probably just keep on expanding forever - at an exponential rate.

Actually from what I remember reading, the expansion is slowing down not increasing exponentially, did I read wrong?

 

[You]

Good question, I think your best bet to have that answered is to look it up

…

Actually from what I remember reading, the expansion is slowing down not increasing exponentially, did I read wrong?

so I did and I leave it to the experts to describe;

" …If the density of matter is less than the so-called critical density, the universe is open and infinite. If the density is greater than the critical density the universe is closed and finite. If the density just equals the critical density, the universe is flat, but still presumably infinite. The value of the critical density is very small: it corresponds to roughly 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, an astonishingly good vacuum by terrestrial standards! One of the key scientific questions in cosmology today is: what is the average density of matter in our universe? While the answer is not yet known for certain, it appears to be tantalizingly close to the critical density.
Note that in a closed universe you could start a journey off in one direction and, if allowed enough time, ultimately return to your starting point; in an infinite universe, you would never return.

the universe started from a very small volume, an event later dubbed the Big Bang, with an initial expansion rate. For the most part this rate of expansion has been slowing down (decelerating) ever since due to the gravitational pull of the matter on itself. A key question for the fate of the universe is whether or not the pull of gravity is strong enough to ultimately reverse the expansion and cause the universe to collapse back on itself. In fact, recent observations have raised the possibility that the expansion of the universe might in fact be speeding up (accelerating), raising the possibility that the evolution of the universe is now dominated by a bizarre form of matter which has a negative pressure. - NASA Official: Dr. Edward J. Wollack
Page Updated: Friday, 06-24-2011"

 

[Pieman333272]

Firstly, it wasn’t an ad-hominem as you assert it was. Secondly, I did cut to the chase and explained it, which you responded to eventually as well.

Whatever. The point is, I don’t appreciate personal attacks or sarcasm when I debate. That’s all. It’s my opinion. If you disagree, just disregard it. Let’s get back to the argument at hand.

The value of zero is actually represented by the digit ‘0’. So if you’re referring to the value zero, that is what the digit ‘0’ represents. One less than one (1 -1) equals zero, the value. That however does not mean “nothing”, 1 minus 1 is not nothing! If you picture the number line, you have negative numbers too. So does this mean that -5 is nothing minus 5?

Ah, this is a good objection. The way I always viewed it, and note I didn’t come up with this myself, was that while negative numbers exist theoretically, they do not exist * practically*, making zero truly the least possible, i.e. nothing.

I ignored it because I did not state that something can come from nothing, if something I said has implied it somehow without me knowing it, then I can grant that, but I did not state such a thing so explicitly as you make it to be, and hence cannot even remember it. So I’m afraid you’re not going to get any proof from me about something coming from nothing, because I don’t believe in that either, or at least not so casually as you have stated it.

If you don’t advocate that something can come from nothing, where is your objection? In one of the other premises? How they add up?

What is this, looking for brownie points? Me ignoring a point of yours doesn’t mean I disagree with it, I largely ignored it because I didn’t find any point of contention with it, and I was largely interested in your earlier statements.

My point is, if I’m “muddling up definitions” and “don’t know what * talking about” to the extent of which it both demolishes my argument and my credibility, then you should at least object to more than one term in one defense (out of two) of one premise (out of two) in my argument.

I’m not too sure why you’re pulling out the atheist card here either.

I assumed you’re an atheist simply because I am naturally pessimistic in my apologetics, and assumed based on your challenging of Christians’ arguments (besides my own) and absence of any sort of listed religious beliefs in your infobox that you were an atheist.*