Page 2 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

01 Nov 2014, 11:05 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
khaoz wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
The existence of a super-being seems self-evident to me. I find it strange that atheists think the universe came from nothing.

With regards to kids, "GOD" may make explaining why loved one, or pet died a lot easier. Do you object to 'Santa', 'Easter Bunny', 'Tooth Fairy' and 'Boogie Man'?


You are comparing onions to lug nuts. If you think Atheists think the universe came from nothing (what about scientists?) maybe you don't understand the Big Bang, if that is the term that must be used. Human beings are "nothing." There is nothing "fixed" or permanent about the components of the human body. When you say "self evident" I hear, "I have always been told, from first memories.."


Noted atheist physicists do think the universe came from nothing ...(i.e. matter itself "popped" into existence from nothing) . When they talk about the theory of a 'Big Bang' they say that matter already existed for that event to happen (e..g, hydrogen was needed to fuel the event). So, atheists try to argue around the Cosmological argument by explaining that the pre-Big-Bang matter came from nothing.

I wont't post slightly off-topic youtube videos, however, just type in 'physicists universe from nothing' into youtube ...


Matter can't exist before the Planck temperature as there can be no conservation of information. That makes any supposition that something else aside from the singularity existed, purely metaphysical. And the truth is that the jury isn't out at all on this issue, but the consensus is that inflationary models are the most likely, that because of entropy and the lack of an understood mechanism for re-expansion or even enough data supporting contraction in the first place, there can be no tenable theory of multiple inflation incidents, and lastly that parallel universes, although theoretically possible, are another purely metaphysical consideration.

By the way: try visiting an actual journal, or looking at studies tallying the consensus views of physicists, instead of typing "physicists universe from nothing" into youtube. Plus aside from the issue of consensus, the truth is that we don't have anything to support a vacuum (vacuum, in contrast to the popular definition, does involve matter when discussed by scientists) in which the big bang happened as opposed to no matter. The issue is outside our observation either directly or indirectly as is often necessary (via modal logic).

Try these journals, they're very interesting:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10 ... .90.151301
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096

Here's something easier to use for references that I'm sure you'd find more familiar, as youtube is run by google:

http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

01 Nov 2014, 11:27 pm

Lukecash12 wrote:
By the way: try visiting an actual journal, or looking at studies tallying the consensus views of physicists,[/b] instead of typing "physicists universe from nothing" into youtube.


Why is their speeches, and presentations lesser preferred than their written work ? I like when they present to a large audience or debate others, rather than trying to decipher written words.

Lukecash12 wrote:
Matter can't exist before the Planck temperature as there can be no conservation of information.


If the 'Big Bang' happened, then I believe it was most likely cause by hydrogen as hydrogen was the overwhelming result (universe is ~76% hydrogen). Thus, it seems like common sense to me that hydrogen existed before the 'Big Bang' event (i.e., I don't believe in 'hydrogen from nothing').