Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[PruePhillip]

Can you demonstrate these models are real, or exist? No? Then it's just a guess. I went into detail in my immediately previous post to this one.



Could you have life in a molecule free universe? I don't know-- show me that such a universe is even possible, and we can talk. Moreover? What sort of life? Certainly not based on carbon molecules, sure. But what about a life form based on pure energy? Or quarks? Or some other phenomena we are as yet unfamiliar.

If people can presume a Magical God? Why not magical, non-molecule life as well?

But first, you have to demonstrate that such a universe is even possible, given what we know about Universes so far (which isn't that much, really... we only have the one (1) sample... )

As for your last example? It's utter nonsense-- you wrote as if time was somehow external to the universe in question, when we now know that it isn't. So "lasts a second" has no referential meaning.

Here, let me help: From the perspective of a photon? OUR UNIVERSE HAS NOT LASTED EVEN ONE SECOND. Because the photon travels at the speed of light, and it is "time stopped" (a silly phrase, but English isn't equipped for such concepts). By traveling that fast, time--from the perspective of the photon, does not move forward. So, our present universe is only going to last "a second".....

Credit to Dr Tyson for explaining how a photon "perceives" time.

Without looking it up (just got up, can't open my eyes properly!)
The BB creates Hydrogen and Helium, I think all other elements
are created in stars. Can't remember at what stage molecules
like water are created.
But most BB's, assuming they create variables different to our
own, wouldn't get to the star stage, ie the constant of gravity has
to be precisely our own value.
Yeah, that speed of light thing. Some posit that the universe would
have just one electron, buzzing happily everywhere.
It's weird, super weird. And it starting getting weird with Young's
double slit experiment where the photon or electron behaves
different if it is being "watched."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are kidding, right ? The universe created itself is a reasonable proposition, but God created it is not.

Not at all, because I never said that. You are attempting to put words in my mouth.

My take is this: it is no more of a stretch to say that the universe has always existed, in some form or another, and has always been undergoing change, than to say that God has always existed, and in all of the eternity of that existence, only at some point which can only be seen as an instant ago from that eternal perspective, decided that what He really needed was a universe and a bunch of unruly humans.

In fact, according to Occam's Razor, mine is in fact the simpler, and therefore the more reasonable, approach -- even though it does not provide what you seem to crave...a definitive answer that you can hang your hat on. Well, from the point of view of this skeptic, that's the way it goes, sometimes. Sometimes, the answer is, and remains, "I don't know."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know that at no time in the future will you be able to breathe underwater without mechanical support. If it happens, please tell us about it in this forum.

I did not say that there was nothing that could happen in the future that we could not know about (although never with 100% certainty, because poop happens.)

And I think that there are certainly things that one can "know" with reasonable certainty, if one has enough observations and either a good theory or a good working model. One hears so often the tiresome catchphrase, "correlation is not causation," and yet in many cases, you can establish a pretty good case for accepting that it is. For example, falls from thousands of feet up without a parachute do seem to result in death on a rather consistent basis, while falls from the same heights with a working parachute often do not. I put it to you, it would be hard to set up a "controlled experiment" to test this, as finding the volunteers to be randomly selected to jump with and without parachutes while observes carefully measured the results. It would probably be considered slightly immoral, too. But by the same token, since we have pretty good working models of how gravity works, how parachutes work, and the frailties of the human body in impacts at high speed, we have a pretty good basis for accepting the truth that lack of a parachute not only correlates extremely positively with death in high altitude plummets, but that same lack is also a cause.

 

[ChristineM]

Now for the serious stuff

Many races believe that the creation of the Universe involved some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure.
Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy

Now you know where the universe came from

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now for the serious stuff

Many races believe that the creation of the Universe involved some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure.
Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy

Now you know where the universe came from

I can live with that...

 

[shmogie]

I did not say that there was nothing that could happen in the future that we could not know about (although never with 100% certainty, because poop happens.)

And I think that there are certainly things that one can "know" with reasonable certainty, if one has enough observations and either a good theory or a good working model. One hears so often the tiresome catchphrase, "correlation is not causation," and yet in many cases, you can establish a pretty good case for accepting that it is. For example, falls from thousands of feet up without a parachute do seem to result in death on a rather consistent basis, while falls from the same heights with a working parachute often do not. I put it to you, it would be hard to set up a "controlled experiment" to test this, as finding the volunteers to be randomly selected to jump with and without parachutes while observes carefully measured the results. It would probably be considered slightly immoral, too. But by the same token, since we have pretty good working models of how gravity works, how parachutes work, and the frailties of the human body in impacts at high speed, we have a pretty good basis for accepting the truth that lack of a parachute not only correlates extremely positively with death in high altitude plummets, but that same lack is also a cause.

Reasonable

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's an interesting point. But clearly, this God does interact..

Really? Do you have any objective proof? Let's see:

Genesis says... .

So. No proof then. Merely wishful myth-stories.

that God commanded the seas to bring forth life - it's stating that God
himself didn't create life, he called up the creation to create..

Who cares what the book of myth says? I can quote myth stories from the Navajos that contain creation stories that are a darn sight more interesting, and nobody has to get nailed to anything...

... rather beats your immoral bible myth.

Similarly in the book of Daniel .

Again... who cares what a book of myth claims? It's not objective proof of anything-- apart from the fact that humans write clever stories to "explain" stuff for which they are utterly, completely clueless about.

it speaks of God ending Israel and the
temple. .

So? Nothing in actual reality to support such a myth.

But it wasn't God who ended Israel, it was Rome (who, it was
written, would "cut off" the Messiah himself)
So did God do these things? Some say he didn't because of a natural
agency, but the bible says this as well.

Who cares? The bible is your claim ... you cannot use your claim as "evidence" to prove your claim.

That is a Logical Fallacy: Bootstrapping. Or circular argument.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Without looking it up (just got up, can't open my eyes properly!)
The BB creates Hydrogen and Helium, I think all other elements
are created in stars. Can't remember at what stage molecules
like water are created.
But most BB's, assuming they create variables different to our
own, wouldn't get to the star stage, ie the constant of gravity has
to be precisely our own value.
Yeah, that speed of light thing. Some posit that the universe would
have just one electron, buzzing happily everywhere.
It's weird, super weird. And it starting getting weird with Young's
double slit experiment where the photon or electron behaves
different if it is being "watched."

If a universe never had mass? It never had space, either-- because current models show that in order to have space, mass has to be present, which "forces" space to come into being.

Thus, in an all hydrogen universe? It would remain very tiny, dense with energy, and hot.

If you can have Helium? You can get all the remaining atoms, so we are back to our universe-- or one identical to it. (likely there are, in fact, an infinite number of universes just like ours)

If there is one universe? The odds are much greater, there are an infinity of them-- because looking around? We see nothing ever comes in ones. It's always lots of examples. Lots and lots...

Just so-- if there is a Magical Wish-Granting Super-being? Odds are there are an infinite number of them...

... which may explain why they never-EVER manage to grant any wishes! (prayers, for the theologically bent: what is a prayer, but asking god for a WISH of some kind?)

If there is an infinity of gods, perhaps they are all fighting one another, and too busy to actually answer any wishes(prayers)...!

 

[PruePhillip]

Really? Do you have any objective proof? Let's see:



So. No proof then. Merely wishful myth-stories.



Who cares what the book of myth says? I can quote myth stories from the Navajos that contain creation stories that are a darn sight more interesting, and nobody has to get nailed to anything...

... rather beats your immoral bible myth.


Again... who cares what a book of myth claims? It's not objective proof of anything-- apart from the fact that humans write clever stories to "explain" stuff for which they are utterly, completely clueless about.


So? Nothing in actual reality to support such a myth.


Who cares? The bible is your claim ... you cannot use your claim as "evidence" to prove your claim.

That is a Logical Fallacy: Bootstrapping. Or circular argument.

Hang on, hang on. You asked for objectivity and proof and then said 'who cares'
when I give it.

If Jacob, a Hebrew in Egypt in the Bronze Age, could speak of a future Jewish
nation that would end with the coming of the Messiah - I take that as being pretty
darn close to an objective truth that Jacob foresaw the future. And if he did see
the future I put it to you that the bible isn't just another legend.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hang on, hang on. You asked for objectivity and proof and then said 'who cares'
when I give it..

No-- I dismissed your use of your claim as "proof". You can't do that, logically.

The bible is neither proof, or objective by any stretch of one's imagination. That is why I said "so what". I dismissed it, because you failed to verify the bible's claims.

If Jacob, a Hebrew in Egypt in the Bronze Age, could speak of a future Jewish
nation that would end with the coming of the Messiah - I take that as being pretty
darn close to an objective truth that Jacob foresaw the future. And if he did see
the future I put it to you that the bible isn't just another legend.

Again? Claims without a single shred of accuracy. Your example? Is not supported by actual historical fact. The only place it appears? Is in the book making the claim.

You may as well exclaim that Hogwarts is real, because Harry Potter describes it in detail.

 

[PruePhillip]

No-- I dismissed your use of your claim as "proof". You can't do that, logically.

The bible is neither proof, or objective by any stretch of one's imagination. That is why I said "so what". I dismissed it, because you failed to verify the bible's claims.



Again? Claims without a single shred of accuracy. Your example? Is not supported by actual historical fact. The only place it appears? Is in the book making the claim.

You may as well exclaim that Hogwarts is real, because Harry Potter describes it in detail.

Okay. Jacob made this prediction of his son Judah while they were
ensconced in Egypt, ca 2000 BC.
Judah is symbolic - the one who offered himself for his brother.
From the tribe of Judah would spring a line of monarchs. The
last of this line would be the Messiah himself. And there will
be a nation of Jews, but that nation will end with the Messiah.

So later we see the Jews form the nation of Israel
and they had a monarchy (which God opposed)
and the monarchs were of the tribe of Judah
the Messiah arrived First Century AD.
Israel was finished as a nation First Century AD.

So did Jacob get this right? (others wrote similar)
Yes he did.
What are the chances of all that happening?
You work it out.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Okay. Jacob made this prediction of his son Judah while they were
ensconced in Egypt, ca 2000 BC.
Judah is symbolic - the one who offered himself for his brother.
From the tribe of Judah would spring a line of monarchs. The
last of this line would be the Messiah himself. And there will
be a nation of Jews, but that nation will end with the Messiah..

So later we see the Jews form the nation of Israel
and they had a monarchy (which God opposed)
and the monarchs were of the tribe of Judah
the Messiah arrived First Century AD.
Israel was finished as a nation First Century AD.

So did Jacob get this right? (others wrote similar)
Yes he did.
What are the chances of all that happening?
You work it out.

"predictions" that are written after the fact? Are not, in fact "predictions" are they?

As for the "messiah"? Nope-- ask the Jews. It's their book, after all-- not yours. If you listen to Jewish scholars on this subject? They rightfully point out quite a number of problems with your claim "messiah", starting with Jesus wasn't descended of David. Joseph wasn't his father, you see... Ooops!

Wrong city, wrong name, wrong-wrong-wrong. Ooops!

So, really, you have exactly zip, with respect to evidence.

Once again: you cannot use your claim to "prove" your claim. No matter what it says. The bible has been re-written 1000's of times by hundreds of different authors, over centuries and centuries. OF COURSE they re-write it to match what they claim happened...!

 

[JChnsc19]

The Big Bang for Dummies | The Theory of Everything

 

[Tiberius]

It must have had a starting point, no?

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay. Jacob made this prediction of his son Judah while they were
ensconced in Egypt, ca 2000 BC.
Judah is symbolic - the one who offered himself for his brother.
From the tribe of Judah would spring a line of monarchs. The
last of this line would be the Messiah himself. And there will
be a nation of Jews, but that nation will end with the Messiah.

So later we see the Jews form the nation of Israel
and they had a monarchy (which God opposed)
and the monarchs were of the tribe of Judah
the Messiah arrived First Century AD.
Israel was finished as a nation First Century AD.

So did Jacob get this right? (others wrote similar)
Yes he did.
What are the chances of all that happening?
You work it out.

Even if I would grant you that the events of Israel match Jacob's "prophecy" and that both are authentic, it's not impressive, because it's what one calls a self-fullfilling prophecy.

The people that strived for the nation of Israel, knew of this "prophecy" and worked hard towards fullfilling it - precisely because they wanted it to be true.

If I order a drink and the waiter then brings it to me, I didn't predict the future.
Instead, the waiter just did what I asked / said.

 

[PruePhillip]

"predictions" that are written after the fact? Are not, in fact "predictions" are they?

As for the "messiah"? Nope-- ask the Jews. It's their book, after all-- not yours. If you listen to Jewish scholars on this subject? They rightfully point out quite a number of problems with your claim "messiah", starting with Jesus wasn't descended of David. Joseph wasn't his father, you see... Ooops!

Wrong city, wrong name, wrong-wrong-wrong. Ooops!

So, really, you have exactly zip, with respect to evidence.

Once again: you cannot use your claim to "prove" your claim. No matter what it says. The bible has been re-written 1000's of times by hundreds of different authors, over centuries and centuries. OF COURSE they re-write it to match what they claim happened...!

When Jacob (in the Bronze Age) said the nation of Israel would last "until" the Messiah
he was in fact saying something important about how Israel would accept its Messiah.
David, Daniel, Isaiah and other writers of the Jewish bible stated that the Messiah would
be crushed and destroyed by the people he came to redeem. The Jews ignore or read-
away the book of Isaiah, the Psalms and Daniel. They sought a Kingly Messiah.
The books I mentioned were written well before Jesus and the destruction of Israel. In
the Jacob account it was part of the Hebrew bible when the Jews first came into Canaan.
None of these books were written after Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate how the
bible or Torah goes back, not from the Middle Ages,but at least a thousand years before that.

And the evidence that these Messianic prophecies predate Jesus? Overwhelming. No-
one even challenges it. Instead, people find other ways around what they see, in their
personal lives, as a problem.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When Jacob (in the Bronze Age) said the nation of Israel would last "until" the Messiah
he was in fact saying something important about how Israel would accept its Messiah.
David, Daniel, Isaiah and other writers of the Jewish bible stated that the Messiah would
be crushed and destroyed by the people he came to redeem. The Jews ignore or read-
away the book of Isaiah, the Psalms and Daniel. They sought a Kingly Messiah.
The books I mentioned were written well before Jesus and the destruction of Israel. In
the Jacob account it was part of the Hebrew bible when the Jews first came into Canaan.
None of these books were written after Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate how the
bible or Torah goes back, not from the Middle Ages,but at least a thousand years before that.

And the evidence that these Messianic prophecies predate Jesus? Overwhelming. No-
one even challenges it. Instead, people find other ways around what they see, in their
personal lives, as a problem.

So? The "prophecies" were all written after the fact, or were so nebulous that they can literately mean anything at all.

If I say "the sun will come up tomorrow" is that a prophecy? No.

If I predict "some days will be cloudy" is that a prophecy. No. Similar to your claims, above.

 

[PruePhillip]

So? The "prophecies" were all written after the fact, or were so nebulous that they can literately mean anything at all.

If I say "the sun will come up tomorrow" is that a prophecy? No.

If I predict "some days will be cloudy" is that a prophecy. No. Similar to your claims, above.

It's easy to "prophecy" that Jerusalem would be destroyed.
It happened about two dozen times I believe.
City built upon city. Kind of amazing.
But the temple is different. It was destroyed by Babylon, that's all.
The prophecy is that the Messiah would come "while the temple stood stands"
and that nation that would destroy the temple would "cut off" the Messiah too.
That's the second temple.
Strange to Jewish ears - how could the conquering king be "cut off" ?
But scripture speaks to TWO Messiahs - Redeemer and King. It says plainly
to be accepted by this King we must accept the lowly man of sorrows who
came to take our place and redeem us.
And also puzzling to the Jewish mind - in this Messiah would "the Gentiles
trust." This was a Jewish Messiah for the Gentiles. And the fate of the Jews?
Destruction and exile till the times of the Gentiles is finished. That is now, BTW.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's easy to "prophecy" that Jerusalem would be destroyed.
It happened about two dozen times I believe.
City built upon city. Kind of amazing.
But the temple is different. It was destroyed by Babylon, that's all.
The prophecy is that the Messiah would come "while the temple stood stands"
and that nation that would destroy the temple would "cut off" the Messiah too.
That's the second temple.
Strange to Jewish ears - how could the conquering king be "cut off" ?
But scripture speaks to TWO Messiahs - Redeemer and King. It says plainly
to be accepted by this King we must accept the lowly man of sorrows who
came to take our place and redeem us.
And also puzzling to the Jewish mind - in this Messiah would "the Gentiles
trust." This was a Jewish Messiah for the Gentiles. And the fate of the Jews?
Destruction and exile till the times of the Gentiles is finished. That is now, BTW.

All written after the events in question. What you have there? Is a kind of weird bass-ackwards pseudo-history.

As for Jesus being the Messiah? I'm so sorry: I will take the word of the OWNER of the book, long before I'd take the word of a Usurper/plagiarizer/thief.

The former describes the Jews. The latter describes Christianity. Who will you believe? I'm going to go with "Author's Notes, Alex, for $50"

 

[PruePhillip]

All written after the events in question. What you have there? Is a kind of weird bass-ackwards pseudo-history.

As for Jesus being the Messiah? I'm so sorry: I will take the word of the OWNER of the book, long before I'd take the word of a Usurper/plagiarizer/thief.

The former describes the Jews. The latter describes Christianity. Who will you believe? I'm going to go with "Author's Notes, Alex, for $50"

You confuse me. I quote material that goes back at least a thousand years
before Jesus.
God showed his blessing and anger towards his Chosen People through
land. The blessing was Canaan. When Israel sinned they were subjugated
or exiled, and when blessed their borders were enlarged.
Many Jews who believed in the Messiah ceased being Jews.
Those who were left were crushed, destroyed, exiled or enslaved for two
thousand years. THIS IS A SIGN, LIKE OLD TESTAMENT SIGNS, THAT THE
JEWS WERE NO LONGER GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.
The curse upon the wandering Jew is a sign of that. And people crushed by
God aren't necessarily experts in understanding God.